李仲公其人其事

李仲公,贵阳人,早年毕业于京师国立法政专门学堂,1914年与李大钊一道留学日本早稻田大学,回国后任众议院首席秘书,参与《晨钟报》的创办,参加反袁、护法、护国运动。1924年在上海加入国民党。北伐战争初期,担任国民党中央执行委员会书记长、国民革命军总司令部秘书长处处长等职。南京国民政府成立后,担任国民政府交通部次长、军事委员会秘书处长、内政部禁烟委员会主任委员、立法院立法委员等职。中华人民共和国成立后,担任国务院参事、政协全国文史资料研究委员会委员等职。译著有《日本帝国主义的满蒙观与我们的驳议》、《烟禁问题》、《更生庐杂咏》等著作,系国民党军政要员中有名的诗人、书法家。     

九、十两军应列入北伐军序列

在中国共产党的推动下,广东国民政府继承孙中山先生遗志,决心北伐。1926年6月5日通过出师北伐案,颁布了动员令,7月1日,国民革命军在广州东校场举行北伐誓师典礼,蒋介石就国民革命军总司令职,7月9日,正式出师。在人们的认识里,一直认为北伐军的基本队伍只有八个军。研究中国现代史的较有代表性的著作如胡华同志主编的《中国革命史》、广东高等院校编写组编的《中国共产党简史讲义》、黄元起等主编的《中国现代史》、梁寒冰等主编的《中国现代史大事记》以及国民党政府官方出版的民国史书籍中,皆执此说。成     

国民党军政要人游琅琊山轶闻

1927年4月18日,蒋介石在南京另立“国民政府”,选举胡汉民为国府主席,自己仍担任国民革命军总司令?5月1日,蒋介石决定兵分三路北伐,与张宗昌决战于苏皖一带。18日,第二路军邓振铎师攻占滁州。5月下旬,北伐军连克蚌埠、扬州等地、6月2日,攻克徐州,兵锋直抵陇海线。     

1949年，蒋介石去台前曾重修家谱

1949年元旦,国民党中央社广播了蒋介石的《新年文告》,各大报纸也刊登了这一特大新闻。在这篇文告中,蒋介石宣称下野,不再担任总统,解甲归田,退隐家乡。1月21日下午,蒋介石匆匆拜谒中山陵,搭乘"美龄号"座机飞抵杭州。第二天一早直飞宁波,换乘美国高级防弹轿车,沿着鄞奉公路,驰向他的家乡——奉化溪口。     

李仲公与《日本帝国主义的满蒙观与我们的驳议》译著出版前后

“九·一八事变”前后,蒋介石推行“攘外必先安内”的反动政策,国家民族危在旦夕。刚辞去国民政府交通部次长而“称病”闲赋苏州的李仲公,向蒋介石提出“联共抗日”主张,并提呈具体“方案”,受到蒋介石的重视并约见商谈,虽然蒋介石从同意其主张到反悔,李仲公却成为国民党内最早提出“联共抗日”主张之人。此时,李仲公译著出版的《日本帝国主义的满蒙观与我们的驳议》一书,成为爱国知识分子拍案而起的抗日先声。     

李仲公为什么诬陷贺龙

《文史精华》2003年第8期《贺龙在“文革”中》(作者:安熠辉)一文提到李仲公在“贺龙通敌案”中起的作用。 那么,李仲公为什么诬陷贺龙呢? 从历史上看,原因有二:一是1927年3月,公开叛变革命前的蒋介石曾经派时任其秘书长的李仲公到武汉“运动”贺龙,而贺龙在“谈心”时把李仲公抓了起来,甚至     

论1927年蒋介石的访日问题

1927年8月12日,因宁汉合流、北伐失利等事,蒋介石不得不下野,辞去北伐总司令一职.返乡后,蒋介石仍未停歇,不断接见党内人士,并赴日游历,拜访日本朝野要人,尤其与日本总理大臣田中义一的会谈,最为重要.透过《蒋介石日记》《事略稿本》《外务省记录》等资料的比对,可纠正过去对1927年蒋介石游历日本的误解,并理解蒋介石坚持北伐、回避满蒙问题的做法,实出于中日力量悬殊的现实.     

北伐风烟话旧影——纪念黄埔军校建校90周年

<正>1926年7月9日,国民革命军誓师北伐。国民革命军有8个军,约10万人。7月12日中共中央发表《中国共产党关于时局的主张》,14日国民党发表《北伐出师宣言》,两党一致号召全国人民支持国民革命军进行北伐。北伐的主要对象是三支军阀部队:一是直系吴佩孚,二是奉系张作霖,三是由直系分化出来、自成一派的孙传芳。在帝国主义指使下,这三支反革命力量联合起来了。北伐仅一年时间,基本消灭了军阀吴佩孚、孙传芳的军队,重创了军阀张作霖     

国民革命军占领京津与蒋介石的谋略

攻克京津,占据北洋中枢的所在地,彻底剥夺北洋军阀的全国统治权,是国民革命军再次北伐的既定战略目标。自“济南惨案”严重地遏制了北伐的军事攻势后,以蒋介石为首的北伐军将     

渐进的共和：李仲公与《晨钟报》研究

就任《晨钟报》编辑期间;李仲公发表多篇文章阐述自己的政治思想,主张在中国实行渐进的共和。此种政治思想的形成,既是其民族主义立场和爱国主义情结的使然,又与当时中国社会局势的动荡和多变有密切关联,还与个人的学术背景和知识构成有极大关系。由于缺乏对中国政局的本质了解,此种政治思想的最后结果只能是不切实际的空想。     

“杀杨儆宋”：杨杏佛被刺问题中的一个误解

蒋介石为何暗杀杨杏佛,"杀杨儆宋"说曾长期流行,照此杨成了过渡的工具,成了用以警示并可替代的牺牲品.其实"杀杨"是必然的,此举并非针对宋庆龄,主要目的是要扼杀民权保障同盟,一举扫除专制道路上的障碍.况且动机只是一个方面,还有个人原因也很重要,即具体暗杀对象与被选个人的情况有关.在蒋介石眼里,杨是一大祸害,他曾不顾禁令如实报道苏区,现又为民权保障同盟总干事,到处营救政治犯,做了许多共产党想做而做不到的事情.有如此"前因""后果"的考虑,民权保障同盟中最能干最起作用的杨杏佛自然便成了被暗杀的首选.杨杏佛被杀的动机和原因究竟如何,关系对他的评价能否如实到位.     

Between left and right: cooperation and the split between Yu Qiaqing and the CPC during the era of the Northern Expedition

During the Northern Expedition, the Communist Party of China (CPC) had close contact with certain businessmen; one of these was Yu Qiaqing of Shanghai, who played a role in the background of the Three Armed Uprisings of Shanghai Workers. Because of this contact, Yu Qiaqing was regarded as a leading figure of the leftist bourgeoisie. He was also considered an important collaborator with the provisional municipal government after these uprisings. However, his cooperation with the CPC did not jeopardize his alliance with the Nationalist Party. When Chiang Kai-shek, an old friend of his, arrived in Shanghai, Yu soon turned himself into one of Chiang's financial advisors. Although it is hard to argue that Yu Qiaqing's behavior was representative of most businessmen's party preferences, it does demonstrate that some businessmen had a profiteering attitude in politics and were open to taking advantage of the nexus between politics and business. Influenced by the political context and situation, the CPC was also able to flexibly apply its “class analysis” theory during that time to justify the policy of cooperating with people like Yu Qiaqing. However, the failure of cooperation with the bourgeoisie by 1927 became an excuse for opposing factions within the party to criticize this policy, and even affected the CPC's subsequent policy line afterwards.     

出土墓志与东魏北齐邺京行里制度探析

东魏北齐邺京里坊的设置沿袭北魏洛阳里坊制度,文献记载往往以里或乡里形式称谓居住地。然而有4方东魏北齐时期墓志,志文记载墓主的居宅异于常例,为某行某里,或某行某坊。通过对墓志时代及墓主身份等因素的综合研判,并结合史书记载,可知东魏初至北齐末,某行某里(坊)是邺京里坊称谓的一种常用格式。"行"的称谓源自邺京行经尉制度,行名与里(坊)名的连用,是基于城市治安管理角度所产生的隶属关系的呈现,在名称上反映了某行区域内里的管辖情况。且行名与里名存在一定关联,将行名与里名对照,可知邺京部分行名与里名相同。     

Chiang Kai-shek’s faith in Christianity: the trial of the Stilwell Incident

Chiang Kai-shek’s faith in Christianity has long been a controversial issue. Some have held that his faith was genuine while others have claimed that it was merely a posture to curry favor with the Americans. Now that the Hoover Institution has released Chiang Kai-shek’s diaries, historians are in a better position to explore this long-ignored part of Chiang’s life. This paper will examine Chiang’s faith as it developed during the Stilwell Incident, the most serious crisis of US–China military cooperation during World War II. While facing American pressure to grant military command to General Joseph W. Stilwell, Chiang reveals in his diaries how he relied on his faith in the Bible, how he interpreted the Bible, and how he applied his understanding of the Bible to his political decision making. An examination of Chiang’s diary during this crisis will help us understand his practical relationship with Christianity, which in turn will provide insight into Chiang’s attitudes and methods in dealing with the Stilwell Incident.     

Chiang Kai-shek's reading: an inquiry based on Chiang's diary, 1920s–1940s

At different times of his life, Chiang Kai-shek entertained three different images of himself: saint, hero and revolutionary guru. The orientation of his reading roughly corresponded with these roles: to be a saint, he emphasized moral learning and self-improvement; to be a hero, he stressed military strategy and politics; and to be the guru for a revolution, he had an enduring interest in the histories of revolutions in other nations. He seldom took an interest in books about knowledge, leisure or entertainment, which had little connection with these three roles. Chiang was closer to a traditional Chinese intellectual than to his predecessor Dr. Sun Yat-sen in his knowledge structure, value orientation and behaviour codes. Although Mao Zedong was as devoted to old Chinese books as Chiang, Mao preferred history and classical literature while Chiang preferred Confucian classics. Mao read old books from a historical materialist point of view, whereas Chiang synthesized “Three Principles of the People” (Sanmin zhuyi) with Confucian doctrines.     

Mourning During the Tongzhi Regency

The Tongzhi Regency (1861–1875), historiographically marked as the beginning of the Qing dynasty's (1644–1912) decline, also saw the emergence of a new political alliance between the Han Chinese grand councilors / Hanlin academicians and the Empress Dowagers Ci'an and Cixi, who ruled from behind the curtains with the former's support. The Hanlin academicians gained their high positions partly from their allegiance to the empress dowagers but largely through patron–client networks, which were based on native-place associations and scholarly interests. Using the case of Li Hongzao (1820–1897), the chief tutor of the Tongzhi Emperor, this article argues that, to him, such networks mattered more than the empress dowagers’ favor and recognition, and that his situation reveals the dynamics of late Qing court politics. In particular, the article focuses on how Li was able to use his appointment as Tongzhi's chief tutor to defy the wishes of the court and mourn his adoptive mother, showing the limits of late Qing imperial power in the realm of Confucian discourse.     

毛泽东论中国大革命胜利考析 --兼论对陈独秀的历史评价

对于中国大革命,人们历来认为它是失败的.毛泽东却在不少文章和讲话中谈到大革命(毛泽东习惯上称为北伐战争)的胜利,这给了我们评价大革命以新的启示和思考.过去所谓大革命的失败,通常是指蒋介石、汪精卫叛变革命、屠杀人民,进而又使北伐剩下奉系军阀残余势力未能最后消灭.其实这不能界定为大革命的失败:因为蒋、汪不是大革命的目标,北洋军阀才是这次革命的对象,北洋军阀不久就彻底覆灭,北伐(大革命)本身是胜利的,消灭蒋介石国民党反动政权已叫土地革命战争了.过去把胜利了的大革命一直说成是失败,最主要原因当是大革命时的中共主要领导人陈独秀长期受到批判和不公正待遇.现在随着对陈独秀的客观公正评价,应把对大革命的错误结论矫正过来.     

论大革命后期张发奎与中共的离合

张发奎是北伐战争中著名的国民党左派将领,大革命时期,曾经与共产党人有过密切的合作,中共也曾经对他寄望甚殷,对他做了许多争取工作。但由于种种原因,在第一次国共合作破裂的紧要关头,张发奎仍选择了追随右派分共。中共遂放弃“依张”政策,单独发动南昌起义,对此,张提出“井水不犯河水”,分共而不积极反共。不久,张发奎赶走桂系、回到广州,中共提出不要对张再有任何幻想,又在广州发动起义,张大为恼怒,极力镇压。国共分裂之初,中共还不懂得应如何对待国民党地方实力派,张发奎等也还未学会与国共对立后的中共如何打交道。