• In the quiet countryside, I lay abed for more than ten days. On September 1st, I returned to the provincial capital and perused Ta Kung Pao. The front page was marked in red, and the central section contained many of my favorite editorials, which greatly delighted me. I am eager to set down some of my own views in response.

I oppose the “Greater Republic of China” and advocate instead for a “Republic of Hunan.” Why? There once prevailed a fallacious notion: that only large nations could survive in the modern world. This line of thinking has fueled imperial expansion, oppressed smaller, weaker peoples within their own borders, spurred competition for overseas colonies, reduced semi-civilized and uncivilized peoples to utter servitude, stifled their capacity for self-improvement, and sought only to render them obedient and submissive. Prominent examples include Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Russia, and Austria—nations that, by sheer luck, reaped what they did not truly sow. Then there is China: it failed even to secure that illusory “success.” What it did gain was the virtual annihilation of the Manchus, the near-extinction of the Mongols, Hui, and Tibetans, and the chaotic disintegration of the Eighteen Provinces into three rival governments, three parliaments, over a dozen warlord governors, circuit inspectors, and commanders-in-chief. Meanwhile, ordinary people were being killed and raped daily; property was being plundered; foreign debts piled up like mountains. Despite calling itself a republican state, few citizens understood what “republicanism” actually meant. Of its forty million inhabitants, at least thirty-nine million were illiterate and unable to read newspapers; the entire country lacked a single railway built on indigenous initiative. It could not operate its own postal service, navigate “foreign ships,” or manage the salt monopoly. Among the Eighteen Provinces, regions such as Hunan, Sichuan, Guangdong, Fujian, Zhejiang, and Hubei had become little more than conquered territories, repeatedly trampled under foreign boots, suffering endlessly—no end in sight. Whose fault is this? I would argue: the fault lies with imperialism, with the great powers, and with that very fallacy—that only large nations can endure in the global arena. At bottom, however, the ultimate responsibility rests with the people themselves.

Today we see that most of the world’s great powers have already crumbled. The Russian flag has turned red, proclaiming a cosmopolitan realm of the common people. Germany too has taken on a reddish hue. Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary have all achieved independence. Jews, Arabs, and Armenians have reestablished their states. Ireland yearns to break free from British rule, and Korea longs to cast off Japanese domination. Even in our own Northeast, in Siberia and the Russian Far East, three separate governments have arisen. Across the globe, the tide of “national self-determination” surges ever higher, shattering the grand illusions of the great powers, exposing the deceptive rhetoric of ambitious rulers, and dismantling the edifice of imperialism once and for all. A growing number of peoples worldwide have awakened.

What of China? With the exception of politicians, bureaucrats, and warlords, the Chinese people too have begun to stir. Nine years of pseudo-republican rule and incessant civil strife have forced a collective awakening: the nation’s overall reconstruction within a unified framework is utterly hopeless. The wisest course, therefore, is to abandon any attempt at national unification altogether and instead pursue independent development at the provincial level, embracing “provincial self-determination.” Each of the eleven provinces, three special administrative regions, and two frontier territories—seventeen entities in total—should be transformed into independent states.

As for Hunan: what of us in Hunan? Above all, our thirty million fellow provincials must awaken. The Hunanese have but one viable path: self-determination and self-governance. We must establish a Republic of Hunan within Hunan’s own territory. I have long believed that saving Hunan—and, by extension, saving China—requires joining forces with other liberated peoples around the world. Without the resolve and courage to build Hunan as a sovereign state, Hunan will remain trapped in perpetual stagnation.

Regarding the question of Hunan’s development, I regard it as a fundamental issue worthy of public discussion. I humbly seek the attentive ears of my thirty million compatriots and hope we may together engage in a vigorous debate on this profoundly important topic. Today marks merely the beginning; further deliberations will follow in the days ahead.

O Changsha Ta Kung Pao, 1920, Vol. 3: A History of the Hunan Autonomy Movement (Part I), Taitung Publishing House, 1920.  The Fundamental Question of Hunan’s Reconstruction || The Republic of Hunan, 1920