Truong Dinh - Disrespect of The Mandate of Heaven?

Disrespect of The Mandate of Heaven?

In light of Dinh's disobedience of Tu Duc, his justification for his defiance is discussed against the backdrop of the Confucian expectation for him to defer to the emperor's "mandate of heaven". As Dinh left no explicit or definitive statement for his rationale for disobeying Tu Duc, scholars who have recognised or suspected Dinh's disobedience have been forced to speculate.

Lam assumes Dinh's disobedience and explains it by asserting that the insurgents drew a distinction between the reigning monarch and the monarchy as an idealised institution.

After the Huế court signed the Treaty of Saigon, a moral dilemma developed since the partisans could neither accept the loss of their country nor claim that their cause was righteous if they acted in violation of the court's orders. They therefore drew a careful distinction between the person of an individual king and the moral principle of loyalty to the monarchy.... The monarchy was therefore an idealised institution not tarnished by any accidental deviation from the ideal.

The historian David Marr agrees, noting that "the distinction quite rightly pointed out by Professor Truong Buu Lam was in all probability bred of immediate adverse conditions and not the product of a long tradition". Modern Vietnamese historians of the communist regime go to the extent of asserting that Dinh's justification for continued resistance was based on an implicit rejection of the monarchy at large. These historians base their hypothesis on the assertion that the Confucian virtue of monarchical loyalty was unconditional and absolute in 19th-century Vietnam. In the words of the editors of the Institute of Historical Study's journal, Nghiên cứu lịch sử (Historical Studies), "Loyalty to the king was the people's duty, and to satisfy the obligation of monarchical loyalty, the court's orders had to be followed". In the view of Marxist authors, Dinh resolved the conflict between monarchical loyalty and resisting foreign occupation by discarding the constraints of Confucian ethics. They assert that Dinh justified his struggle by placing loyalty to Tu Duc below his loyalty to Vietnam and its people. The Institute of Historical Study's Nguyen Cong Binh stated, "Relying on the people, Truong Dinh placed the country above the king, thus safeguarding his feelings of loyalty to the country". These arguments are consistent with Marxist ideology and its criticism of the Nguyen Dynasty as a "reactionary, feudal regime". Communist party historiography has long criticised the Nguyen Dynasty and its roots in the Nguyen lords for the division of the country in the centuries-long struggle with the Trinh lords of the north and then the subsequent use of French aid of Pigneau de Behaine to unseat the Tay Son Dynasty. It further accords with Hanoi's ideological line of portraying anti-colonial, anti-French fighters of the 19th century as the spiritual ancestors of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

According to historian Mark McLeod, these postulated explanations of Dinh's behaviour are plausible, given the chaos engulfing Vietnam at the time and the lack of conclusive documentation. However, Dinh and his supporters asserted their loyalty to the monarch and justified their struggle in his name, both before and after the signing of the treaty. These declarations show no hint of rejecting Tu Duc's authority nor any reference to a worthier, idealised monarch. Conversely, many of these proclamations display an intense feeling of personal loyalty. A placard that French forces found floating downstream near Dinh's base in Go Cong asserted: "Gratitude ties us to our king. We will avenge the insults he has received, or we will die for him." One of Dinh's proclamations to his followers read: "The Emperor does not recognise us, but it is indeed our duty to carry on our struggle.... The Emperor calls us rebels, but in the depth of his heart he cannot help but praise our loyalty. When the day of victory arrives, not only will the Emperor forgive us, he will furthermore grant us all kinds of awards."

Such writings may be dismissed by skeptics as a political stunt aimed at attracting support for continued resistance by appealing to the widely held Confucian value of monarchical loyalty. This is the explanation suggested by the Marxist authors: "On the one hand, Truong Dinh opposed Tu Duc's order to lay down his arms; on the other hand, he exploited Tu Duc's name in order to call upon the people to rise and fight the French". McLeod argues that the best explanation for Dinh's continued insurgency was that the Confucian tradition allows for a loyal official to disobey his sovereign without calling the sovereign's authority into question. This is termed a tránh thần, meaning a minister who is willing to dispute his sovereign's orders in order to prevent the ruler from committing a mistake, even if this incurred his ire. The minister who allowed the ruler to err rather than risk upsetting him was regarded as a sycophant, a careerist rather a loyal adviser. The loyal official was thus required in certain circumstances to remonstrate with and even to disobey his sovereign to show his concern for the monarch. Thus, according to McLeod, Dinh's disobedience did not ipso facto constitute a rejection of Tu Duc's authority.

Dinh believed that Tu Duc would eventually realise his error and reward the insurgents. Historians feel that it is likely that Gian and Tu Duc saw Dinh's continued resistance as a misguided attempt to help the monarchy. In their written confrontation after the signing of the treaty, Gian did not accuse Dinh of being a rebel, but of excessive devotion to the emperor, which while admirable in principle, was hindering their current strategy. "Monarchical loyalty is a noble quality", Gian had told the recalcitrant guerrilla leader, but "t must have a limit. One cannot exceed this limit and still be faithful and pious. Too much is just as bad as not enough; when a snake begins to have legs, it is no longer a snake..." Tu Duc also appeared to view Dinh's continued resistance as a misguided manifestation of loyalty. Although the southern insurgents' disobedience provided the French with a pretext for further aggression, thereby hindering Tu Duc's plans for regaining the lost territory, the emperor never accused them of rebelling against royal authority. Instead, he continued to refer to them as "righteous recruits" motivated by "indignation" at the actions of the Westerners.

Nguyen Dinh Chieu, the leading poet of the southern struggle, did not portray Dinh as a rebel opposed to the Huế court. In an elegy to fallen insurgents, Chieu asserted that the resistance continued its struggle after the treaty was signed "because their hearts would not heed the Son of Heaven's edict". Chieu strongly supported the partisans' continuing efforts in attempting to expel the French from southern Vietnam, a cause he considered righteous. However, his reference to Tu Duc as the "Son of Heaven" indicates that the legitimacy of the emperor was not called into question. After Dinh's death, Chieu wrote in a poem:

You have spared no efforts to help your country,
Although you disobeyed the royal orders, you shall not be considered a disloyal subject.

Chieu further hoped that the Vietnamese court would change its position and come to the aid of the insurgents, writing: "The sigh of the wind and the cry of the crane held you breathless for more than ten months. You were expecting news from the officials as one expects rain in the dry season."