The Ming Dynasty: Starting with Emperor Chongzhen's crackdown on factionalism

"All of them," Chen Zhiyuan said.

"In addition, bring forth the relevant legal codes such as the Great Ming Code. Also, obtain copies of the case files from the Ministry of Justice concerning the cases of Yuan Chonghuan and Mao Wenlong."

"This..." Zhao Delu hesitated, "Transferring the Ministry of Justice's files requires official documentation..."

"Then let's get to the paperwork." Chen Zhiyuan said calmly.

"In the name of the Censorate, issue a document to the Ministry of Justice requesting access to all case files related to Yuan Chonghuan. If there are any obstacles, I can report to His Majesty in person."

Zhao Delu's heart skipped a beat, and he hurriedly said, "This subordinate will take care of it immediately."

For the next three days, Chen Zhiyuan stayed indoors.

The lamp was lit day and night in the main room, and he sat at his desk, reading through memorials one by one.

Zhao Delu, accompanied by two clerks, organized the list according to his requirements. Each memorial was disassembled, summarized, and categorized.

The main charges against Yuan Chonghuan can be categorized into several types.

1. Unauthorized execution of Mao Wenlong. This is the most frequent charge, mentioned in 189 memorials.

II. Allowing the enemy to advance unimpeded. This refers to the Later Jin's breach of the pass last October, and Yuan Chonghuan's ineffective defense. (103 copies)

Third, suspicion of collusion with the enemy. Eighty-seven documents, most of which state that he had secretly met with envoys of the Later Jin, or had corresponded with them.

Fourth and fifth years of pacifying Liaodong, deceiving the emperor. Fifty-four copies.

Fifth, domineering and autocratic. Section 41 refers to his wielding of imperial authority and disobeying orders.

VI. Consumption of grain and provisions. Thirty-three portions.

7. Forming cliques for personal gain. 28 entries, many of which state that he had close ties with Qian Longxi and others.

The memorials defending Yuan Chonghuan focused on the following reasons:

I. Merits at Guangqumen. Seventy-two.

II. The contributions of Ningyuan and Ningjin. Sixty-five copies.

Third, Mao Wenlong was guilty of killing Mao. Fifty-one articles, many of which included charges against Mao Wenlong.

IV. The people and soldiers of Liaodong loved and respected him. (Thirty-nine copies)

V. No evidence was found to support the charge of treason. Thirty-seven copies.

As for the Mao Wenlong case, there were quite a few memorials impeaching Mao Wenlong—most of which were submitted before Yuan Chonghuan was imprisoned.

The main charges are as follows.

Falsely reporting troop numbers, misappropriating rations and pay, engaging in unauthorized trade, being arrogant and disobedient, ignoring orders, and having secret dealings with foreign tribes.

Chen Zhiyuan compared these memorials with the "Great Ming Code".

The Ming Dynasty Code, Criminal Law, Theft and Robbery: "Those who plot rebellion, regardless of whether they are the ringleaders or accomplices, shall be executed by slow slicing. Grandfathers, fathers, sons, grandsons, brothers, and those living with them, regardless of their surnames, as well as the sons of uncles and brothers, regardless of whether they are of the same or different household registrations, shall all be beheaded if they are sixteen years of age or older, regardless of whether they are seriously ill or disabled."

"Those under the age of fifteen, as well as their mothers, daughters, wives, concubines, sisters, and the wives and concubines of their sons, shall be given to the families of meritorious officials as slaves."

This is the crime of treason.

The Ming Dynasty Code, Military Law, Military Administration states: "Anyone who arbitrarily mobilizes troops shall be punished with one hundred strokes of the cane and dismissed from office. If a garrison officer, general, or commander fails to immediately mobilize troops in the event of an emergency, resulting in a failure to execute military orders, he/she shall be beheaded."

This is the crime of letting the enemy advance unchecked.

The Great Ming Code, · Official Law, · Duties System.

"A minister who arbitrarily selects officials shall be beheaded. Relatives of ministers shall not be appointed to official positions without a special imperial decree. Those who violate this shall be punished in the same manner."

This is the crime of tyranny.

The Great Ming Code, Criminal Law, Human Homicide.

"Those who intentionally kill shall be beheaded. If the prisoner has already confessed, but the official intentionally killed him, he shall be punished with one hundred strokes of the cane and dismissed from his post."

This is a crime of unauthorized killing—but Yuan Chonghuan held the imperial sword and had the authority to "act expediently," so this matter needs to be discussed separately.

Chen Zhiyuan compared each item one by one, his brows furrowing deeper and deeper.

He discovered a problem.

These impeachment memorials were mostly vague in their citation of the law.

For example, memorials impeaching Yuan Chonghuan for treason often only stated that there were "evidence of collusion with the enemy" and that he "secretly met with enemy envoys," but rarely specified when, where, or with whom he met, what he said, or whether there was any physical evidence.

The accusations of letting the enemy advance unchecked are mostly generalities, such as "ineffective defense" and "letting the enemy penetrate deep into enemy territory," but few people have specifically analyzed where the defense of Jizhou was neglected, or what specific dereliction of duty Yuan Chonghuan, as the Jiliao Commander-in-Chief, committed in this matter.

The most concentrated charge in the impeachment was the arbitrary execution of Mao Wenlong.

But should Mao Wenlong be executed for his crimes?

Was Yuan Chonghuan's use of the imperial sword to execute without prior approval in accordance with procedure?

Most memorials only condemn Yuan Chonghuan as "arrogant," but few people carefully analyze the provisions in the "Great Ming Code" regarding "generals holding imperial insignia acting expediently."

Chen Zhiyuan then retrieved the imperial edict from the first year of the Chongzhen Emperor's reign when Yuan Chonghuan was reinstated.

The inscription reads: "You are hereby appointed Minister of War and concurrently Right Vice Censor-in-Chief, to oversee military affairs in Ji, Liao, Deng, Lai, and Tianjin, and to be stationed at the pass, with full authority to act as you see fit."

The key phrase is "acting expediently".

He then consulted the "Collected Statutes of the Ming Dynasty": "When a general is sent out to govern a region with imperial insignia and is given an imperial sword, he may execute someone at his own discretion, and report the matter to the emperor afterward."

In other words, from an institutional perspective, Yuan Chonghuan's killing of Mao Wenlong was justified—provided that Mao Wenlong was indeed guilty of a crime deserving of death.

So, is Mao Wenlong guilty or not?

Chen Zhiyuan brought over the case file of Mao Wenlong.

During the Tianqi era, Mao Wenlong went to Liaodong as a military commander. Later, he gathered the defeated soldiers, defended Pi Island, and rose to the rank of Left Military Commander, holding the seal of a general.

He restrained the Later Jin in Dongjiang, but was also impeached repeatedly.

They falsely reported the number of troops, claiming to have 200,000, when in fact they had less than 40,000; they misappropriated rations and pay; and they traded privately with Korea and the Later Jin.

In April of the second year of the Chongzhen reign, Yuan Chonghuan submitted a memorial requesting the establishment of the Dongjiang Military Supply Office to verify the troop numbers of Mao Wenlong's troops.

Mao Wenlong refused to cooperate.

In June, Yuan Chonghuan went to Shuangdao Island under the pretext of reviewing troops, lured and captured Mao Wenlong, listed his twelve major crimes, and beheaded him with the imperial sword.

The twelve deadly crimes are recorded in detail in the case file.

First, when a local dictatorship is in power, military supplies and provisions are not subject to approval.

Second, the reports were all deceptive, and those who killed surrendered people and refugees claimed credit for their crimes.

Third, he was stubborn and self-willed, and insulted the imperial envoys.

Fourth, they embezzled military rations and withheld military pay.

Fifth, they illegally opened horse markets to connect with the border regions.

VI. He forcibly married women from the common people, and his subordinates followed suit.

7. They plundered merchant ships and became thieves.

8. Lust leads to debauchery and behaving like beasts.

9. Detain refugees and prevent them from crossing the sea.

10. They worshipped Wei Zhongxian as their father and erected a statue in the island.

11. The defeat at Tieshan was a convenient cover-up for victory.

12. After eight years of establishing the town, not an inch of Liaodong land has been recovered.

Some of these charges were indeed substantiated—such as embezzling military rations and operating a private horse market.

Some are merely hearsay—such as lust leading to lewdness.

Chen Zhiyuan compared it with the "Great Ming Code".

Killing a general without authorization is punishable by death according to the law.

However, if Mao Wenlong was indeed guilty of capital crimes such as "treason" or "the loss of a city or stronghold," then Yuan Chonghuan could execute him first and report later.

Of Mao Wenlong's twelve major crimes, which one warrants the death penalty?

"To rule a region with absolute power, and to allow no approval for military supplies and provisions"—this is tyranny and should be impeached according to the law, but not a capital offense.

"The reports were all deceptive, and the killing of surrendered people and refugees was used to claim credit"—this is deceiving the emperor and claiming credit, which is punishable by death according to the law.

However, this needs to be verified.

"Opening a horse market in secret, connecting with the border regions"—this is suspected of treason, and if true, he should be executed.

"To worship Wei Zhongxian as one's father" was a political crime during the Chongzhen era, punishable by death.

In other words, Yuan Chonghuan's execution of Mao Wenlong was procedurally justified.

In fact, Mao Wenlong did commit a heinous crime deserving of death.

The question is whether Yuan Chonghuan had the authority to verify these charges and carry out the death penalty himself?

According to the system, the supervisor who wields the imperial sword has the right to "execute at his discretion".

However, this should usually be done in wartime emergencies.

Mao Wenlong did not rebel at the time; Yuan Chonghuan lured him into a trap and killed him, which was indeed procedurally flawed.

Chen Zhiyuan continued to review the case files.

He noticed a detail: after Yuan Chonghuan killed Mao Wenlong, he submitted a memorial to plead guilty.

Emperor Chongzhen's reply at the time was: "Mao Wenlong is based at sea, squandering funds and claiming credit, frequently disobeying imperial orders, and refusing to accept any control."

"Recently, he has again led troops to advance, demanding supplies and making threats, showing signs of arrogance. If you can bring him to justice, it concerns the safety of the border. You should act according to the situation and not have any doubts or fears."

This is an endorsement of Yuan Chonghuan's actions.

In other words, the emperor initially supported Yuan Chonghuan in the Mao Wenlong case.

Why did this later become Yuan Chonghuan's crime?

Because of factional strife.

Chen Zhiyuan retrieved the memorials submitted after October of the second year of the Chongzhen reign.

When the Later Jin broke through the pass, the capital was shaken, and the court began to investigate and hold those responsible accountable.

Those officials who were originally opposed to Yuan Chonghuan linked Mao Wenlong's death to the loss of defense in Jizhou, saying: If Mao Wenlong were alive, the Dongjiang troops could have restrained the Later Jin and prevented them from advancing westward with full force.

Is there any merit to this claim?