>I am kicking myself for not recording the book which mentions
>that a folk song was written and sung in praise (not by professionals
>but peasants) of the Protector of Kyoto.
The song appears in the film "Byakkotai," and goes like this:
"Aizu Higo-sama Kyoto Shugoshoku tsutomemasu. Dairi hanjou de kuge andou.
Tokoyononaka you ga ishou"
It was written shortly after Aizu kicked Choshu out of Kyoto, and it means
"Lord Aizu Higo (no Kami) is the Protector of Kyoto. The Palace is safe, the
nobles are unharmed. Peace and order have returned to the world."
---
(Commentary)
For the record, though I've only read part of "Samurai Sketches," I have
never trusted Romulus Hillsborough-- a man who, despite having never been
trained in critical historical analysis, has the pretense to write "history"
books which, like your review said, are essentially in support of his own
heroes. I have less of a problem with him than with Stephen Turnbull,
though-- a man who, though trained as an historian, writes books (including
a whole chapter in one of them about Aizu) with GAPING inaccuracies.
As I am currently working on a full-length (50 or so pages) paper about the
Aizu domain in teh Bakumatsu period (including Shinsengumi), I feel the need
to point out some things that I have noticed.
Hillsborough is essentially of the Marius Jansen school-- the school of
thought which says "Aizu=Tokugawa partisans to the end, end of story." The
fact of the matter is that Aizu was the only domain bound in writing to obey
the Shogunate to the last, but that even so, the internal dissent against
going to Kyoto was so extreme that Saigo Tanomo and Tanaka Tosa, two of the
senior councilors, went all the way to Edo to beg Katamori to reject it. But
men like Matsudaira Shungaku (this is mentioned in Conrad Totman's book
"Collapse of the Tokugawa Bakufu") basically gave Katamori a guilt trip,
saying that the Aizu founder Hoshina Masayuki would have taken the job in a
heartbeat. Katamori, being adopted, must have felt guilty, so knowing full
well the impact it would have on his domain's peasants, but also knowing
full well that he had his hands tied in every way imaginable, went to Kyoto.
In the Boshin War, Katamori had long since given up on Yoshinobu, and he and
Enomoto Takeaki, far from wanting to reinstate the Shogun, kept begging for
mercy and making proposals for peaceful settlements (this is mentioned in
the book "Young Japan"). Katsu Kaishu was also working hard for a peaceful,
generous settlement for the Tokugawa-- but as in Kyoto with the 'extreme'
Choshu faction that was attacked by Shinsengumi at Ikedaya-- in Edo, the
Shogitai-- the REAL "Tokugawa Partisans"-- who I would go so far as to
describe as "rabid" partisans-- attacked the forces of the new government
and thus dashed any hopes for peace.
The Northern Alliance (Oetsu Reppan Domei) is also seen by the Jansen school
as being "pro-Tokugawa," when in fact most of its members were "outer"
(tozama) lords, with only a handful of Tokugawa vassal (fudai) domains and a
couple of Tokugawa-branch domains, probably only Aizu and Moriyama or Miharu
(not sure which one). Their intentions? As stated in their statement to the
foreign powers, "We will destroy the offenders (Satsuma/Choshu). Those who
fly before us we shall not pursue; but we will reconquer Japan, that the
Emperor may indeed reign over it." (from "Young Japan") Thus, it wasn't a
matter of Shogun vs. Emperor, it was a matter of a grudge that Choshu had
against Aizu for sponsoring the anti-Choshu expeditions and fighting against
the Choshu "activists" in Kyoto. Hence the reason why Katamori begged for
mercy but was not heard-- he was operating under the assumption that what
was going on concerned the Emperor, when in fact it was simply between him
and Choshu, and with Choshu surrounding the Emperor (as Aizu had done
before),�@there would be no answer to his pleas.
Neither was Rinnoji no Miya, the Imperial prince who led the Northern
Alliance, a "second Emperor" like the Northern and Southern Courts
(Nanbokucho) era. Though the Northern Alliance adopted a new reign name
(Taisei instead of Meiji), Rinnoji no Miya was never referred to as
"tenno"-- "Emperor," though he did take the name of Tobu.
Yes, there was extortion and forcible appropriation on both sides. This too
deserves to be studied more closely in order for both sides to be studied
properly. The actions of the Shogitai are particularly unfortunate, in my
opinion.
However, what amazes me is that even when Enomoto was in Hokkaido he still
practically begged for mercy and a peaceful settlement, saying "We pray that
this portion of the Empire (Hokkaido) may be conferred upon our former
master, Tokugawa Kamenosuke (Yoshinobu's adopted son and successor), and in
that case, we shall repay your benificence by our faithful guardianship of
the northern gate." ("Young Japan," page 241) Naturally, however, having
endured the campaigns in Echigo, Aizu, and Mutsu/Dewa, and the unfortunate
episode of the Shogitai, the new government was in no disposition to listen
to such a request, and moved to attack Hokkaido.
The bottom line is, in the words of General William Tecumseh Sherman, that
"war is Hell."
-M.