1848년 漕糧 海運의 중단, 敎案, 그리고 河運에의 ‘집착’

Abstract

This paper analyzes the sea transport of tribute grain, which was enforced in 1848, but was interrupted a year later. This analysis includes its background and the process of interruption, which allows us to examine the various forces responsible for its interruption even as the necessity for the sea transport gradually emerged. The 19th century has been known as ‘the Grand Canal crisis’ due to its serious problems connected with the Yellow River. The canal-grain transport system that properly functioned during the 15th-18thcenturies began to face a serious crisis from the start of the 19th century. This crisis lead not only to the tribute grain transportation controversy but also to threats to the Qing's governing system in the 19th century. In 1848, the sea transport of tribute grain was required as a desperate alternative to overcome the crisis, but at the same time, it provided a way to seek potential utilization from the newly developing maritime world. Twenty-two years previously, the sea transport of tribute grain was enforced in 1826, but it was also interrupted a year later. In comparing this previous interruption with the one in 1848, a clear distinction becomes apparent, namely, the one-month delay in departure from Shanghai. This delay occurred due to the Qingpu incident in Qingpu county of Jiangsu Province, on March 8, 1848 (February 4 on the lunar calendar). Through analyzing the Qingpu incident – its background, process, and results- three facts can be attested. First, the Western missionary center was moving from Guangzhou to Shanghai with the desire to enter inner China. Second, the Western powers such as England were effectively using the interruption in sea grain transport to pressure the Qing to sit at the negotiation table which favored the Western powers. Lastly, the Qing was facing serious problems due to the unemployment of canal boatmen as the Qing switched its transportation system from canal-grain transport to sea-grain transport. Additionally, the process of handling the sea transport of tribute grain and the Qingpu incident revealed the Qing officials' particular psychological world that was deeply rooted in fear and resistance toward the instability or uncontrollability of the ocean world. As a result, until late 19th century, many Qing officials continued to insist on reverting to the canal-grain transport system, even though the Grand Canal essentially had lost its transportation function. Therefore, this argument for the canal-grain transport system represents the deeply embedded conservativism and an ‘obsession’ with the traditional 400-year-old transport system, the canal-grain transport system.