American Diplomacy in the Orient/Chapter IX

by John Watson Foster

IX

KOREA AND ITS NEIGHBORS

Korea, or Chosen, as it is officially styled,—the Land of the Morning Calm,—has been for ages the scene of conflict between its ambitious neighbors. Its geographical position, a peninsula extending into waters which wash the shores of powerful and rival nations on the east, north, and west, has made it a constant sufferer from invading armies, kept it in subjection, and wasted its resources. It has been fitly termed "the Naboth's Vineyard of the Far East," coveted by great nations both in ancient and modern times.

Its people lay claim to a history of four thousand years. Centuries before the Christian era it had experienced invasion both from China and Japan, and through the succeeding ages it was dominated by one or the other at recurring periods. When the Mongols became powerful under the Manchu sovereigns, and before their conquest of China, Korea felt the devastating effects of their armies. In modern times the kingdom sent embassies and paid tribute concurrently to China and Japan, up to 1832, when these evidences of vassalage ceased respecting Japan, though China continued to exercise suzerainty until her overlordship was completely removed by the late Chinese-Japanese war. During the last half of the nineteenth century Korean territory has been invaded by four of the nations of the West, France, the United States, Great Britain, and Russia. To-day it is a threatening cause of conflict between Japan and Russia.

European commercial activity, which followed the maritime discoveries of the Portuguese in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, found nothing to attract it in poverty-stricken Korea, exhausted by war and taxation. The first recorded formal attempt to open trade with Korea took place in 1832, when the British East India Company fitted out a ship at Canton and sent her on a voyage of commercial exploration to that country. Dr. Gutzlaff, the German missionary, then in the service of the American Board of Missions, went as a passenger in the hope of finding an opening for mission work. The vessel spent a month on the southern coast, and presents were sent to the king of Korea, but they were refused by him. Dr. Gutzlaff, through his knowledge of the Chinese language, was able to communicate with the natives, and occupied himself with medical attention to the people, planting potatoes and teaching their cultivation, and with futile efforts at the distribution of Bibles and works on geography and mathematics in Chinese translations. The expedition was both a commercial and religious failure.^[1]

The first effort to introduce Christianity into Korea was in 1783, and had its origin with the French Jesuits then established at Peking. Although the new religion was strictly forbidden, and its propagators and adherents were visited with bitter persecution, for three quarters of a century the Catholic missionaries, with a heroic devotion undaunted by expulsion and death, persisted in their efforts and were rewarded by some degree of success. During this period measures were adopted at various times for the extermination of the hated foreign sect, but the work of the missions was prosecuted in secret, and the native Christians by thousands continued true to their faith.

In 1866 a fresh outbreak of persecution occurred, and the government resolved to utterly extirpate the foreign religion. Three bishops and seventeen priests were cruelly put to death by the express order of the authorities, and only three escaped and fled to China. The martyrdom of the foreign clergy was also attended with the slaughter of several thousand native converts. The missionaries executed by the government were, with few exceptions, French subjects, and the diplomatic representative of Napoleon III. at Peking immediately took steps to inflict exemplary punishment upon the Koreans.

In October, 1866, the French admiral, with six vessels and 600 men, reached Korean waters in the vicinity of Chemulpo, destined for the capital to dethrone the king and punish his officials for the murder of the French clergy. He captured and burned Kang-wa, a city of 20,000 inhabitants, situated on an island in the bay, but found the Korean army gathered in large force to dispute his progress. A portion of his command fell into an ambush, suffered heavy loss, and were forced to retreat. Minister Burlingame, in his report of the expedition, wrote: "Admiral Roze, probably finding that nothing could be done with his limited force, left Corea to recruit it, with which he cannot return until next spring or summer." But when the news of the failure reached Napoleon, he had other and more pressing need for his army and navy, and after the war with Germany the new French government was content to drop the Korean affair.^[2]

It was least to be expected that the United States would be the next nation to engage in a conflict with this far-off country, but an event occurred in the same year the French priests were executed which was to bring about such a result. On the 8th of August, 1866, an American schooner, the General Sherman, chartered by a British firm in Tientsin and laden by it with a cargo of merchandise, left Chefoo, China, for Korea on a trading venture. It had on board three Americans, the captain, mate, and overseer, two British subjects, the supercargo and interpreter, and a crew of fifteen or twenty Chinese. The vessel entered the Ta Tong River and ascended it to the vicinity of Ping An, where a few days afterwards the entire crew were killed and the vessel burned.

The accounts differ as to the circumstances attending this event. The Korean government reported that the crew provoked an altercation with the people of the vicinity which resulted in the death of the crew and destruction of the vessel. Another account was that the crew were taken prisoners by the governor of the province and decapitated by order of the king. Two American naval vessels, dispatched in 1866 and 1867 to the vicinity, brought back the same conflicting reports.

The vessel was engaged in an illicit trade, as all intercourse with foreigners was forbidden by Korean law. A most unfavorable time was selected for the voyage, following the massacre of the foreign missionaries and the Christians, and when the French government was in active preparation for its warlike expedition. It was currently reported that one object of the voyage was to plunder the tombs of the kings at Ping An, and the fact that the schooner was heavily armed lent color to this report. This latter fact, in the opinion of Mr. Burlingame, may have led the Koreans to confound them with the French.

Two months before the destruction of the General Sherman, another American ship, the Surprise, was wrecked on the Korean coast. The crew were kindly treated by the authorities, transported on horseback and with all necessary comforts to the northern frontier, and delivered to the Chinese officials. By the latter they were harshly received and they secured their release only through the intervention of a Catholic priest, who was presented by Congress with a gold watch for his kindness, accompanied by the thanks of the President.

Minister Burlingame reported the case of the General Sherman to the American admiral on the Asiatic station, with a suggestion that he inquire into the facts and report the same to the government at Washington for instructions. The case was likewise reported by the British minister to the British naval commander. In view of these events Mr. Burlingame anticipated that a large fleet of French, American, and British vessels would be in Korean waters the next year, and he wrote the Secretary of State: "If my advice can have any weight, it will be that our presence there should rather restrain than promote aggression, and serve to limit action to such satisfaction only as great and civilized nations should, under the circumstances, have from the ignorant and weak." Unfortunately Mr. Burlingame did not remain in the legation, and other counsels prevailed at Washington.

The investigations made by the American vessels sent by the admiral to Korea did not seem to justify any action and none was taken. The same course was adopted by the British government. But a year later the United States consul-general at Shanghai, Mr. George F. Seward, reported to the Secretary of State that he had learned of the arrival at Shanghai of a Catholic priest and a party of Koreans, who had been sent by the Korean government to ascertain if an embassy would be kindly received if sent to America and France to explain and make reparation for the destruction of the General Sherman and the murder of the French missionaries. His informant, also, told Mr. Seward that Korea was ready to make commercial treaties and open up the country to foreign trade.

Upon this information the consul-general proposed that he be sent to Korea, with a naval force consisting of two or more of the men-of-war on the Asiatic station, "to ask for an official explanation of the Sherman affair, and to negotiate, if possible, a treaty of amity and of commerce." Secretary Fish communicated this information to the American minister at Peking, Mr. Low, and stated to him that "it has been decided to authorize negotiations to be had with the authorities of Corea, for the purpose of securing a treaty for the protection of shipwrecked mariners, and to intrust the conduct of the negotiations to you. Should the opportunity seem favorable for obtaining commercial advantages in Corea, the proposed treaty should include provisions to that effect." Reference has been made to the resolution introduced in Congress in 1845, looking to the opening of trade with Korea (page 142) and the subject had been from that date in the mind of the government. Mr. Low was instructed "to exercise prudence and discretion, to maintain firmly the right of the United States to have their seamen protected, and to avoid a conflict by force unless it cannot be avoided without dishonor." He was also informed that the admiral in command of the Asiatic squadron had been directed to accompany him, "with a display of force adequate to support the dignity of the United States."

From the outset Mr. Low manifested a want of confidence in the expedition, but he entered resolutely upon the execution of the instructions of his government. Admiral Rodgers and Consul-General Seward were invited to Peking for conference, and the Chinese government was asked to notify the Korean authorities of the coming of the American minister and the object of his visit. The Tsung-li Yamen replied "that though Corea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws," and that though the request "was an extraordinary favor, quite in excess of usage," the notice would be sent.

On May 30, 1871, the American minister, escorted by Admiral Rodgers in his flagship, with four other naval vessels, appeared in Korean waters near Chemulpo, the harbor nearest to the capital. Some difficulty was experienced in finding officials with whom to communicate, but notice was given that the mission of the squadron was peaceful, that it would remain in the vicinity till communication could be had with the king, and that meanwhile some of the ships would be sent up the channel nearer the capital to make surveys. Two days after their arrival, two of the vessels, with four steam launches started up the narrow channel leading to the city of Kang-wa destroyed by the French, and the sea-gate to the capital. Here they were fired upon by the Korean forts. The fire was returned by the ships and the forts silenced without loss on the part of the Americans.

This action satisfied Mr. Low that the government of Korea was determined to resist all intercourse and that his mission was a failure. Nothing remained to be done, in his opinion, but to prevent this attack from being construed into a defeat of the "barbarians" and from injuring American prestige in China. It was decided to demand from the local authorities an apology for this attack, and, in its default, to inflict some exemplary punishment. On June 10, ten days having expired without the receipt of the requisite apology, a force of seven hundred and fifty men was landed from the squadron and destroyed the forts which had fired upon the vessels, it having been determined to confine the punitive operations to them.

The loss of the Americans was three killed and nine wounded. Among the killed was Lieutenant McKee, who in the assault was the first to mount the parapet and leap inside the fort. His father had fallen in the Mexican war at the head of his men.^[3] Mr. Low reports that "about two hundred and fifty of the enemy's dead were counted lying on the field, fifty flags, and several prisoners of war were captured and brought away. … All accounts concur in the statement that the Coreans fought with desperation, rarely equaled and never excelled by any people." Such is the record of America's first contact with the Hermit Kingdom.

During the interval between the first attack and the assault upon the forts, some interesting correspondence had taken place between the Korean officials and Minister Low. Two days after the first firing upon the vessels the governor of the province sent him a communication protesting against the armed vessels entering into the narrow strait whose passage was guarded by forts. He says: "Our kingdom is placed east of the Eastern sea. Your honored country is located west of the Western ocean. All wind and sands for the extent of 70,000 li. For four thousand years there has been no communication between your country and ours. It may be said that it is Heaven's limitation that has placed us so remote from each other, and earth that has hung us so far apart as to cut us off from each other. … There has formerly been not a particle of ill feeling between us. Why should arms now drag us into mutual resentment? If you ask us to negotiate and carry our friendly relations, then let me ask how can four thousand years' ceremonies, music, literature, and all things, be, without sufficient reason, broken up and cast away? … It would be better early to make out a right course of action and each remain peacefully in his own place. We inform you that you may ponder and be enlightened." Wisely did Mr. Low conclude that further negotiation with such a people, either by diplomacy or the cannon, would be of no avail.

On his return to China the minister felt it his duty to report to the Department of State that the information upon which Secretary Fish had ordered the expedition was entirely without foundation. "I feel bound to say," he wrote, "that the consul-general's informant fabricated, for ulterior and base purposes, the information embodied in the dispatches before referred to. There is no reason to suppose that it contained the least shadow of truth." The President in his annual message of 1871 reported the facts to Congress, with copies of the correspondence, and said, "I leave the subject for such action as Congress may see fit to take." But there was no further action, as none could properly be taken respecting an unwarranted enterprise so injudiciously inaugurated, which placed the American minister and the navy in a false light before the world, and which may be regarded as the most serious blunder of American diplomacy in the Orient.^[4]

The official record is sufficiently humiliating to Americans, but a vein of the ludicrous is given to it when it is learned from Consul-General Seward's reports that his informant was an American adventurer named Jenkins, who had misled him deliberately to cover an unlawful expedition which he was then organizing in conjunction with a French priest and a German described by Mr. Seward as a Hamburg citizen and referred to by historians of the country as a "Jewish peddler." The priest joined the expedition in the hope that it might be the means of opening the country to missions, he having been expelled from it. Mr. Seward says the expedition had "for its object to exhume the remains of a dead sovereign, and to hold the bones for profit."

The money to charter and arm a vessel flying the German flag was furnished by Jenkins. The German, who had made several surreptitious visits to Korea, directed the movement. With a crew of Chinese and Manila-men a descent was made on the Korean coast and the locality of the tomb reached. The earth was removed from the mound, but the sarcophagus was found to be too strong for the shovels and other instruments carried by the workmen. On the return of the armed party to the vessel, one of the crew captured a calf, and was carrying it away when he was attacked by the natives and a general conflict followed, resulting in the loss of some of the crew and the killing of a number of the Koreans. This action defeated the object of the expedition and the party returned to Shanghai, where Mr. Seward caused the arrest and trial of Jenkins, on the charge of fitting out a hostile expedition. He was acquitted upon a Scotch verdict of "not proven," but Mr. Seward states that there was no question of his guilty connection with the disgraceful affair.^[5]

Just before the massacre of the French and native Christians in 1866 a Russian man-of-war appeared off Gensan, a port on the eastern side of the peninsula, and demanded the right to trade, but the request was refused. In 1869 the German minister to Japan made a visit to the Japanese settlement at Fusan, and sought through a Japanese, whom he had brought on his ship, to open negotiations; but the Korean authorities not only refused to receive the proposals, but threatened to break off all relations with the Japanese settlement if the effort was persisted in; whereupon the minister quietly returned to his post at Tokio.

The visits of the French and American squadrons and their withdrawal without accomplishing their purpose were interpreted by the Koreans as great military triumphs, and made them even more determined in their policy of exclusion over the foreigners. For some years after these events the Western powers desisted from further attempts to hold intercourse with them. The Japanese, after the reinstatement of the Mikado in power, made an effort to have the former relations between the two governments reëstablished, with a renewal of the Korean embassies and tribute, but the effort was haughtily rejected by the Koreans, influenced, it is believed, to this course by the Chinese. Further attempts which were made to establish intercourse were futile, and the Japanese settlement at Fusan on the southern end of the peninsula was greatly restricted in its privileges. The Japanese were incensed at this treatment, and a large party in the country looked forward hopefully to another conflict with their neighbors which might bring them again under subjection to the Island Empire.

An opportunity to realize their hopes seemed to offer itself in 1875, when a Japanese man-of-war, cruising along the coast, was attacked by the same forts which had been the scene of conflict with the French and American squadrons. Japan seemed ready to declare war, but more sober counsels prevailed, and it was determined first to send a mission to Korea and solicit a treaty of intercourse and commerce. If such a treaty should be refused, war was to follow. An able representative was sent to Peking to notify the Chinese government of the purpose of Japan in dispatching a mission to Korea, and to ascertain whether its suzerain authority would be infringed by this act. The Chinese government, fearing it might be held responsible for the acts of Korea against the French and Americans, disclaimed any control over that kingdom in its treaty relations, which left Japan free to pursue its plans.

The mission, consisting of a prominent general of the army and Inouye Kaoru, an experienced statesman, was accompanied by two men-of-war and three transports carrying a force of eight hundred marines. The squadron anchored in the same waters as their French and American predecessors. Acting upon the advice of the Chinese government, the Korean king sent a deputation to meet the Japanese commissioners and with little delay a treaty of amity and commerce was signed, February 27, 1876, Korea being unwilling to risk a conflict with its more powerful neighbor by a further refusal of intercourse.

By the terms of the treaty the independence of Korea was recognized, three Korean ports were to be opened to Japanese trade, and a diplomatic minister was to reside at Seoul, the capital. The Korean commissioners during the negotiations made it clear that the treaty was to be confined in its application to Japan and that all Western nations were to be excluded from its benefits. They also pleaded with the Japanese to exert their influence to prevent strangers from a distance attempting to visit their country. The same spirit was shown in the dispatch of the Korean embassy to Tokio after the signature of the treaty. It came, as similar Korean embassies had come centuries before, with great display of barbaric splendor, the ambassador being borne on a platform covered with tiger skins, and resting on the shoulders of eight men, with a servant bearing an umbrella of state over his head. During his stay in Japan he resisted all attempts of foreigners, officials or others, to have any intercourse with him. The treaty was rather a renewal of the ancient relations, than a manifestation of any disposition to open the country to foreign intercourse.^[6]

Encouraged, however, by the success of the Japanese, various European nations continued their efforts to communicate with the government at Seoul. A British vessel was wrecked on the island of Quelpart in 1878, and the Koreans rescued the crew, salved the cargo, provided transportation for both to Nagasaki, and refused to accept any compensation for their services. Taking advantage of this event, the British secretary of legation at Tokio was sent in a British naval vessel, ostensibly to make formal acknowledgment of this worthy conduct, but with instructions to establish permanent intercourse with the Korean authorities, if possible; but his mission to that end was a failure.

Other attempts followed in 1880 and 1881. Russian, British, and French naval vessels touched at different ports, and sought to communicate with the authorities at Seoul, but all their applications were firmly declined. The Duke of Genoa, making a tour of the world in an Italian man-of-war, touched at Fusan, hoping through the Japanese agents at that settlement to effect some communication with the king, hut the local officials refused to receive or forward his letters. Not discouraged, he went to Gensan, and spent some time in the harbor of Port Lazareff, establishing pleasant relations with the local authorities. He threatened that unless they transmitted his letter to the king at the capital he would land a force of marines and send it by them; but the most he could accomplish was to have the prefect of the port make a copy of his letter, with the promise to send it with his report of the visit to the governor of the province.^[7]

But notwithstanding this outward show of a fixed determination to keep the "Land of the Morning Calm" in strict seclusion, influences were at work which were destined to bring about a change in the policy of the government. Members of the embassy to Japan, after seeing the advance of that country under foreign influence, had returned with modified views as to the true interests of their people. The presence at Seoul of Japanese and Chinese diplomatic officials and of soldiers armed and drilled in Western style were affording an insight, even though imperfect, of the benefits of modern civilization.

In 1881 a Korean attached to the Chinese legation in Japan sent a notable memorial to the king, which attracted great attention at the court of Seoul. He pointed out that the most threatening danger to his country was from Russia, and that it should abandon its seclusion and look for friends among the Western nations as well as China and Japan. Of these nations, he said, the one most friendly to Asiatic countries was the United States, and he urged the king to secure its friendship by a treaty. The memorial reached the capital at a favorable time, as a change of administration had brought liberal advisers into power. On the return of the author to Seoul, delegates were sent to Tientsin to confer with the viceroy Li Hung Chang, who at that time was directing the foreign policy of China. That shrewd statesman readily saw that Korea could not maintain its policy of seclusion, and he encouraged the plan of a treaty with the United States.

The failure of the ill-advised expedition of 1871 had not discouraged the government at Washington, and it still cherished the hope of securing a commercial foothold in the kingdom. In 1878 Senator Sargent, of California, introduced a resolution requesting the President to "appoint a commissioner to represent this country in an effort to arrange, by peaceful means, … a treaty of peace and commerce between the United States and the kingdom of Corea." In a speech which he made on this resolution the senator justified the action of the Koreans respecting the General Sherman, and condemned the attacks upon the forts by the navy in 1871. Although no formal action was taken on the resolution, the following year Commodore R. W. Shufeldt was dispatched in a naval vessel to the China seas, with instructions to make, if possible, a treaty with Korea. He visited Fusan in 1880 in an effort to execute his instructions, and met with the same refusal that other foreign officials had experienced. But the American legation in Peking had received intimations of the change of sentiment in the Korean court, and Commodore Shufeldt was temporarily detached from sea service and ordered to report to the minister at the Chinese capital, with the object of studying the situation of affairs, so that he might be prepared to take advantage of any favorable opportunity which should present itself in Korea.

The commodore spent the winter of 1881–2 in Peking, and by March it became known to the legation through Li Hung Chang that the Korean government was willing to enter into a treaty with the United States. As soon as the season would permit, steps were taken to make ready a naval vessel, and on May 7 Commodore Shufeldt in a United States man-of-war arrived at Chemulpo, with full power to negotiate and sign a treaty. He was accompanied by three Chinese naval vessels bearing Chinese commissioners, likewise authorized to make a treaty on behalf of China. Both parties being of the same mind as to the general object, little time was required to agree upon the details. On May 24, 1882, a "treaty of peace, amity, commerce and navigation" between the United States and the kingdom of Korea was signed, with simple ceremonies, in a temporary pavilion on the shore opposite the anchorage of the commodore's vessel, and the "Hermit Kingdom" of the East entered into the family of nations under the auspices of the young republic of the West.

Commodore Shufeldt had, at the date of the signing of the treaty, served forty-three years in the navy, during which he had performed important duties in connection with the slave trade and in the Civil War. This diplomatic mission did not come to him by chance, but he, like Perry, was selected for it because of his fitness to perform its duties. He had discharged with credit a diplomatic trust in Mexico during the Civil War, and had made himself conversant with Korean affairs by two previous visits to that country. His last diplomatic success added another worthy page to the history of the peaceful achievements of the American navy.

By the terms of the treaty the United States was admitted to trade in the three ports already opened to the Japanese, and to such as might be afterwards opened to foreign commerce; diplomatic and consular officers were to be received; provision was made for the case of ship-wrecked vessels, and other usual stipulations of commercial treaties; traffic in opium was prohibited; and exterritorial jurisdiction was given to American consuls,—but the following provision was inserted: "Whenever the king of Chosen shall have so far modified and reformed the statutes and judicial procedure of his kingdom that, in the judgment of the United States, they conform to the laws and course of justice in the United States, the right of exterritorial jurisdiction over United States citizens in Chosen shall be abandoned;" and the two countries were to be open to the residence respectively of the citizens and subjects of the other to pursue their callings and avocations.^[8]

A leading London journal, in announcing the signing of the American-Korean treaty, recalled the feat accomplished thirty years before by Perry, who, "overcoming obstacles which had baffled almost every European nation, and without firing a shot, or leaving ill-feeling behind, succeeded in opening Japan to foreign intercourse," and said: "The conclusion of a treaty between the United States and Corea adds another to the peaceful successes of American diplomacy in the far East." And so it has resulted that the establishment of intercourse with the Western world through the United States has been regarded by the Koreans as a recognition of the disinterested friendship of that country.

The signature of the treaty was soon followed by the arrival of an American minister, Mr. Lucius H. Foote, who was received by the king with much distinction and cordiality, and likewise by the queen, who also received the minister's wife. This conduct was in marked contrast with that of Japan even, whose sovereign was not accessible to foreign representatives till fourteen years after the Perry treaty, and still more with that of China, which delayed similar intercourse for a quarter of a century after its treaties with the West.

The reception of the American minister was promptly followed by the dispatch of a special embassy to the United States, consisting of two Koreans of high rank with a suitable suite, who were transported from Korea and returned home in United States naval vessels, after being received with great attention by the President and the American people. The king manifested to Minister Foote his high appreciation of the distinguished reception his representatives had received; and the first ambassador, in making similar acknowledgment on his return, said: "I was born in the dark; I went out into the light, and now I have returned into the dark again; I cannot as yet see my way clearly, but I hope to soon."

The year after the negotiation of the American treaty similar conventions were signed by the representatives of Great Britain and Germany. There was, however, in the British treaty a notable variance from its stipulations with China, as it prohibited the importation of opium into Korea.^[9]

The dispatch of the special embassy to the United States was the only representation to any Western nation until the year 1887, when it was announced that a minister plenipotentiary had been appointed to the United States, and one other to represent Korea at all the European courts with which the country had treaties. This was at once followed by an interdiction on the part of China, on the ground that Korea was a vassal state, and that such a step could not be taken without first obtaining the consent of the emperor. Before the signature of the treaty with the United States in 1882, a letter from the king of Korea to the President was handed to Commodore Shufeldt, in which it was stated that "Chosen has been from ancient times a state tributary to China," but that the United States had no concern with this relation, and that he entered into the treaty as an independent sovereign, and on terms of equality. And upon negotiating treaties with other Western powers a similar notification was given.

The attitude of China in this respect has been most inconsistent. When the French government was proposing to call Korea to account in 1866 for the execution of the Catholic missionaries, the Tsung-li Yamen explicitly disavowed any responsibility for the acts of Korea, and stated that in its relations with other nations it was entirely independent. The same attitude was assumed by China when the Japanese treaty was made in 1876 and the American treaty in 1882. An attempt had been made by treaty between China and Japan in 1885 to regulate their conflicting relations as to Korea. While denying responsibility for the acts of that government towards foreign powers, China was constantly seeking to control its intercourse with them.

The king of Korea, alarmed lest China should make his action a pretext for war, sent a humble petition to the emperor asking for his gracious approval of the appointment of the two ministers to the United States and Europe, at the same time assuring the American representative at Seoul that he was resolved to send them. The emperor gave his approval, but through Li Hung Chang the king was notified that he must appoint only ministers resident, or of the third class, so as to be lower in rank than the Chinese representative; that the Korean minister must apply through the latter for audience; and that he must in all important matters of his mission consult secretly with his Chinese colleague.

Secretary Bayard instructed the American minister in Peking to protest against the action of China, and gave notice to both governments that "as the United States have no privity with the interrelations of China and Corea, we shall treat both as separate governments customarily represented here by their respective and independent agents." The conditions fixed by Li Hung Chang were ignored by the Korean king and minister; the latter was received at Washington without the intervention of the Chinese minister; and no further question has been raised with the United States on the subject; but not until the war with Japan in 1894–1895 did China absolutely withdraw her claim of suzerainty.^[10]

The friendly disposition of the Korean government towards the United States was evinced soon after the treaty in various ways besides the exchange of diplomatic courtesies. The year following the reception of the minister, Dr. H. N. Allen,^[11] a medical missionary of the Presbyterian church of the United States, arrived. He was kindly received by the king and placed in charge of a government hospital—a new institution for Korea—organized by himself. Two other American physicians joined him, and a medical school in connection with the hospital was organized. An American female medical missionary became the physician to the queen and ladies of the court. An American farm was established, with the introduction of blooded stock and instruction in the cultivation of foreign cereals and vegetables. The government solicited the detail of American military officers for the reorganization of the army, an American was selected as diplomatic adviser to the foreign office, schools under American teachers were established, and in other ways preference was shown for American aid to the government and people in the transformation which had commenced.^[12]

The American treaty of 1882 and those of Great Britain and Germany of 1883 were similar in their general features to those made with China in 1858, but they contained one important omission: the guarantee of religious freedom. This, however, did not deter Christian missionaries from entering the country, and the king gave Minister Foote to understand that mission hospitals and schools would be tacitly permitted, and the work of both the Catholic and Protestant missionaries was quietly prosecuted with the knowledge of the government.

France had made earnest efforts to secure a treaty stipulation of religious toleration, and because of the refusal of Korea on this point no treaty was made by that government till 1886, when it secured the insertion of the following clause in its treaty of that date: "Frenchmen resorting to Corea for the purpose of there studying or teaching the written or spoken language, sciences, laws or arts, shall in testimony of the sentiment of good friendship which animate the high contracting parties always receive aid and assistance." In 1888 the American minister was notified by the Korean government that "teaching religion and opening schools of any kind are not authorized by the treaty," and that the government would "not allow religion taught to our people," and the minister was asked to advise his countrymen to observe this prohibition.

Secretary Bayard held that, in the absence of knowledge of how the French and Korean governments construed the clause above cited, Americans could not claim a warrant for religious teaching among the natives from the terms of the French treaty. But the French government and the Catholic missionaries did claim such warrant, and despite the protest of the Korean government they have successfully maintained this claim. As a result American and other foreign missionaries have continued their labors, and they have been attended with a fair degree of success.^[13]

From the time that Japan, after the restoration of the Mikado in 1868, requested the Koreans to resume their ancient tributary relation, a continuous effort was made by the Japanese to secure a predominating influence in the kingdom. This was strenuously resisted by the Chinese, and, as a result, the court of Seoul was the scene of constant intrigues and the overthrow of ministries, marked by violence and barbarity. Twice was the Japanese representative driven from Seoul by armed force and his legation premises destroyed. As already noticed, these conflicts were sought to be avoided by the treaty negotiated at Tientsin in 1885 by Li Hung Chang and Marquis Ito, but the intrigues and disorder continued and had their culmination in the Chinese-Japanese war of 1894.

The causes and details of that war cannot be here narrated further than as they relate to the connection of the United States with that momentous contest.^[14]

In June, 1894, a considerable body of Chinese troops were sent to Korea for the alleged purpose of putting down a rebellion which was threatening the overthrow of the Korean government. This action, claimed by Japan to have been in violation of the treaty of 1885, was followed by the dispatch of a force of Japanese troops which occupied Seoul, and its seaport, and fortified the connecting route. In the mean time the rebellion had been suppressed, and the king of Korea requested the withdrawal of the troops of both nations. The Chinese expressed a willingness to withdraw concurrently with the Japanese. The latter declined until Korea should adopt such reforms in government as would prevent further disorders. The king, greatly alarmed lest his country should become the theatre of war, appealed to the resident representatives of foreign powers to secure the withdrawal of the troops.

Mr. Gresham, the Secretary of State, in view of the provision in the treaty between the United States and Korea which pledged the United States to exert its good offices to bring about an amicable settlement of trouble with other powers, sent a telegraphic instruction to the American minister at Seoul "to use every possible effort for the preservation of peaceful conditions." In execution of this instruction the minister, acting in concert with his diplomatic colleagues, resubmitted the proposal of the king of Korea for a simultaneous withdrawal of troops to the Chinese and Japanese representatives, as an honorable adjustment of the difficulty; but the Japanese again declined the proposal.

The king, upon this second refusal, being satisfied that Japan meditated war, telegraphed his minister in Washington that his independence was seriously menaced and directed him to appeal to the United States to intervene in favor of peace; and he in person asked the American minister in Seoul to allow him to take refuge in his legation in case of necessity, which permission the minister cheerfully granted. Early in July the Chinese government asked the American minister at Peking to telegraph the Secretary of State in its name to take the initiative in urging the powers to unite in a request to Japan to withdraw its troops from Korea. Moved by these appeals and by the natural inclination of his government to do all that was proper to preserve peace between nations friendly to the United States, Secretary Gresham had an interview with the Japanese minister in Washington, in which he referred to the appeals which had been made to his government by Korea and China, and he expressed the hope that Japan would deal kindly and fairly with her feeble neighbor, whose helplessness enlisted the sympathy of the American government, and he said that the apparent determination to engage in war on Korean soil was nowhere more regretted than in the United States. The Japanese minister said that his government recognized the independence of Korea and did not covet its territory, but that the recent troubles had been caused by maladministration and official corruption, and that the Japanese troops would not be withdrawn until needed reforms in the domestic administration of Korea had been made.

On July 8 the British ambassador waited upon Secretary Gresham, by direction of his government, to ascertain whether the United States would unite with Great Britain in an intervention to avert war between China and Japan. Mr. Gresham's reply was that his government could not intervene otherwise than as a friendly neutral; that it had already done so with Japan; that the President did not feel authorized to go further; and that the United States could not join another power even in a friendly intervention.

The efforts of the United States to prevent hostilities were not successful, but the appeals of Korea and China and the kindly manner in which the intervention was received by Japan accentuated the high estimate by these three Asiatic powers of the disinterested policy of the American government. When the war was declared, a still further evidence of the confidence of these powers was shown in the request of Japan to intrust the archives and property of its legation and consulates and the interests of its subjects in China to the care of the United States minister and consuls, and in a similar request from China for a like service by the American minister and consuls towards the archives, property, and subjects of China in Japan. This service entailed a considerable amount of labor of a delicate and sometimes embarrassing character, but it was discharged cheerfully, gratuitously, and to the satisfaction of the two interested countries.^[15]

Out of this service there arose during the war a case which attracted widespread attention and severe criticism of the American Secretary of State in certain quarters. Two Japanese youths were arrested in the French section of the foreign concession of Shanghai on the charge of being spies. They were by the French consul turned over to the custody of the American consul-general, on the ground that he had charge of the interests of Japanese subjects. The Chinese government demanded their surrender, which the consul-general declined to grant unless instructed so to do by his government.

The two Japanese were students and had been residents of the French concession for three years; when arrested they were wearing Chinese dress, which is contrary to the treaty between China and Japan; and on their persons were found maps and memoranda respecting the war. The consul-general reported that, while papers in their possession seemed to lend a certain support to the charge, they were mere boys, and he did not believe they were guilty. He feared that if he turned them over to the Chinese authorities, in the excited state of the country, they would not receive a fair trial, might be subjected to torture, and would surely be beheaded. It was stated that during the Franco-Chinese war, the Russian consul having charge of French interests, exercised jurisdiction over citizens charged with crime by the Chinese authorities.

Secretary Gresham held that the good offices of American officials in China during the war did not warrant granting the Japanese an asylum against the Chinese authorities, that they were not entitled to exterritorial privileges, and that they were subject to trial and punishment by the Chinese tribunals. He, therefore, directed their delivery to the Chinese officials. The consul-general reported that after their delivery to the Chinese they were detained two weeks, tried, declared guilty as spies, and decapitated.

The unconditional surrender of the Japanese students was against the better judgment of Mr. Charles Denby, Jr., charge of the American legation, and of Mr. Jernigan, the consul-general, and was almost universally condemned by the foreign residents of China. A European historian of the war declares "it was the greatest disgrace that ever sullied the American flag." Such sweeping condemnation is based upon the supposed innocence of the accused and the rumors current at the time that they were cruelly tortured on the trial. But it is clear that a Chinese tribunal was the only one which could legally pass upon their guilt; and the consul-general reported that the most authentic information he could obtain was that they were not tortured. Secretary Gresham was correct in his action, and he was assured by the Japanese minister that, in the opinion of his government, the consul-general at Shanghai could not have held the accused against the demand of the Chinese authorities, and that under like circumstances his government would have demanded the surrender for trial of Chinese in Japan.^[16]

As the war progressed and the Japanese forces were triumphant on land and sea, both China and the European powers began to fear the wide-reaching results for the victors. In October, 1894, the British representative in Washington again approached the Secretary of State with the inquiry "whether the government of the United States would be willing to join with England, Germany, France, and Russia in intervening between China and Japan." The Tsung-li Yamen, through Minister Denby, made a similar advance. Mr. Gresham's reply was that "while the President earnestly desires that China and Japan shall speedily agree upon terms of peace alike honorable to both, and not humiliating to Korea," he could not join the powers in an intervention.

President Cleveland felt, however, that the United States should exert its influence for peace, and he decided to make an independent effort in that direction. On November 6 the Secretary of State instructed the American minister in Tokio to represent to the Japanese government that while the deplorable war endangered no policy of the United States, whose attitude towards the belligerents was that of an impartial and friendly neutral, desiring the welfare of both, and cherishing the most friendly sentiments towards Japan, the President directed him to ascertain whether a tender of his good offices in the interest of peace would be acceptable to that government. He was also instructed to convey the caution, which soon after became a humiliating reality, that "if the struggle continues without check to Japan's military operations, it is not improbable that other powers having interests in that quarter may demand a settlement not favorable to Japan's future security and well-being." The reply of Japan to this overture was that it appreciated the amicable sentiments which prompted the United States, but that the universal success of the arms of Japan seemed to relieve its government of the necessity of resorting to the cooperation of friendly powers for a cessation of hostilities; that it would not press its victories beyond the limits which would guarantee to it the just and reasonable fruits of the war; but that those limits would not be reached until China herself should approach Japan directly for peace.

This declination was followed on the same date by a request from Japan to the American minister that in the event of China desiring to communicate with Japan upon the subject of peace, it should be done through the legation of the United States at Peking. The intimation was favorably and promptly acted upon by the Chinese government, as within two days Minister Denby was authorized to transmit direct to Japan overtures for peace. This step led to the assurance from Japan that a peace commission appointed by China would be received in a friendly spirit.

In December, 1894, a peace commission, consisting of Chang Yen Huan,^[17] former minister to the United States and a member of the Tsung-li Yamen, and Shao Yu-lien, a provincial governor, was appointed, and reached Hiroshima, Japan, the place designated for the conference, in January, 1895. After meeting with the Japanese commissioners it was decided by the latter that the Chinese credentials were not in proper form, the conferences were closed, and the Chinese commissioners sent out of the country. The objection to the credentials was purely technical, and the Chinese commissioners offered to have the defect corrected by telegraph to suit the views of the Japanese, but the offer was rejected. The true cause for the failure of these negotiations is most probably found in the fact that a formidable expedition was then ready to sail for the reduction of the fortress of Wei-hai-wei and the capture of the Chinese navy, and the Japanese did not choose to settle upon the terms of peace till this important expedition had accomplished its purpose.

After the capture of Wei-hai-wei, Japan let it be understood through the American legation that it would receive Li Hung Chang, who had been nominated peace commissioner, and on March 19 he landed at Shimonoseki, Japan, with a numerous suite. He was here met by Marquis Ito, prime minister, and Count Mutsu, minister of foreign affairs, and after negotiations continuing through four weeks, terms of peace were agreed upon and a treaty signed. Its leading features were the recognition of the complete independence of Korea and the abandonment of all tribute and vassal ceremonies to China, the cession of the Liao-tung Peninsula, Formosa, and the Pescadores Islands to Japan, the payment of a war indemnity of two hundred million taels, the opening of four new ports by China, and the granting of other commercial privileges.

Soon after the war closed the emperor of Japan sent an autograph letter to the President of the United States, in which he expressed his cordial thanks for the friendly offices extended to his subjects in China by which they were on many occasions afforded succor and relief, and for the services of the representatives of the United States in Tokio and Peking whereby the preliminaries looking to the opening of negotiations and the definite termination of hostilities were adjusted. These acts, his majesty said, tended greatly to mitigate the severities and hardships of war, were deeply appreciated by him, and would tend to draw still closer the bonds of friendship which happily unite the two countries.^[18]

In addition to the friendly service which the United States was able to render both Japan and China during the war in bringing the conflict to a close, the emperor of China invited a citizen of the United States to assist his commissioners in the peace negotiations, and the Japanese commissioners likewise had the benefit of an American adviser in their important labors.

It would trespass upon the bounds marked out for this volume to enter at length upon a consideration of the results of the war. It will be sufficient here to state that it dispelled the idea that China might be counted upon in the near future as a military power. It brought to the attention of the world a new factor not only in the Far East, but in the policy of the Western nations. Japan had demonstrated not only that its people were patriotic and warlike, but that its generals possessed a knowledge of strategy, that it had a well-equipped system of sea transportation, and an advanced knowledge of the methods of supplying and moving large armies, and that it contained within itself the financial resources to maintain a great and expensive war.^[19] There will be occasion in a later chapter to chronicle the influence of this conflict in bringing about the release of Japan from the shackles with which she had been bound by the Western nations.

The war swept away the last vestige of the vassalage of Korea to China. But in its stead was substituted a new danger to its autonomy. Japan had completely dominated the government of that country during the hostilities, and at their termination was prepared to reap the benefits of its success in increased commercial privileges, and in its control of the administration of the king. But in the execution of its plans it had to reckon with the designs of Russia. The government of that great and expanding empire, as its first act of interference, compelled Japan to surrender the best fruit of the war in the retrocession to China of the Liao-tung Peninsula. And since that date it has been a constant competitor with the island empire for favor and privileges at the court of Seoul. It may be that this competition in Korea will bring about the next conflict in the Pacific, and even menace the peace of the world.

Footnotes:

1. For account of early Dutch intercourse (1653), Narrative of an Unlucky Voyage and Shipwreck on the Coast of Corea, by Henry Hamel, republished in Corea, Without and Within, by W. E. Griffis, Philadelphia, 1885. Voyages along the Coast of China, etc., by Charles Gutzlaff, New York, 1833, pp. 254, 332. Corea, The Hermit Nation, by W. E. Griffis, New York, 1897, pp. 169, 359; China and Her Neighbors, by R. S. Gundry, London, 1893.
2. Histoire de l'Eglise de Corée, par Ch. Dallet, Paris, 1874; Griffis's Corea, The Hermit Kingdom, pp. 373, 577; Gundry's China, 228; U. S. Dip. Cor. 1866, p. 536; 1867, pp. 416, 419–426.
3. "In the chapel of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, a tasteful mural tablet 'erected by his brother naval officers of the Asiatic squadron,' with the naval emblems—sword, belt, anchor, and glory-wreath—in medallion, and inscription on a shield beneath, keeps green the memory of an unselfish patriot and a gallant officer." Griffis's Corea, The Hermit Kingdom, 418.
4. U. S. Dip. Cor. 1867, pt. i. 414, 427, 459; 1868, pt. i. 544–551; For. Rel. 1870, pp. 333–339, 362; 1871, pp. 73, 111, 115, 127–149; 1874, p. 254; 7 Presidents' Messages, 145, Ex. Doc. 1 pt. 3, 42d Cong. 2d Sess. 275; Griffis' Corea, 391–395; 503–419; Gundry's China, 240.
5. U. S. Dip. Cor. 1868, pt. i. 548; For. Rel. 1870, p. 337; Griffis's Corea, chap xlv.
6. Leading Men of Japan, by Charles Lanman, New York, 1883, pp. 356–386; Griffis's Corea, 420–423; U. S. For. Rel. 1876, pp. 370, 376; Gundry's China, 244; Problems of the Far East, by George N. Curzon, 1896, p. 191.
7. U. S. For. Rel. 1879, p. 612; Griffis's Corea, 426, 428; Gundry's China, 245.
8. For Sargent resolution and speech, 7 Cong. Rec. pt. iii. pp. 2324, 2600. For treaty, Treaties of U. S. 216; Commodore Shufeldt's Report, May 29, 1882, MSS. Department of State; 8 Presidents' Messages, 111; Griffis's Corea, 428–435 ; Curzon's Far East, 202; Gundry's China, 247; Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1882, p. 175.
9. U. S. For. Rel. 1883, pp. 241–245, 248–250; 1884, pp. 125, 126; 8 Presidents' Messages, 174; Lanman's Leading Men of Japan, 386; Gundry's China, 253, 254; Griffis's Corea, 446, 447.
10. U. S. For. Rel. 1888, pp. 220–248, 380, 433–444, 453; 1894, Appendix i. 29; Curzon's Far East, 203.
11. Dr. Allen has continued his residence in Korea up to the present time, and has so impressed his own government, as well as that of Korea, with his usefulness and prudence, that he has by two presidents been appointed the minister of the United States, and now holds that post with much acceptability.
12. U. S. For. Rel. 1885, pp. 347, 353; 1886, p. 222; 1887, p. 253; 8 Presidents' Messages, 269, 330; Griffis's Corea, 447, 450–453.
13. U. S. For. Rel. 1884, p. 127; 1886, p. 222; 1888, pp. 446–449; Gundry's China, 255; Report on Korean Mission, by Rev. A. J. Brown, Presbyterian Board, New York, 1902, p. 7.
14. For causes of war, Williams's Hist. China, 437–444; Griffis's Corea, 460–462; The People and Politics of the Far East, by Henry Norman, New York, 1895, pp. 359–366; Curzon's Far East, 196–208; The China-Japan War, by "Vladimir," London, 1896, pt. i. chap. iii. and Appendix B; Heroic Japan, A History of the War between China and Japan, by P. W. Eastlake and Yamada Yoshi Aki, London, 1899, pp. i.–ix. and chap. i.; History of War between China and Japan, by J. Inouye, Osaka, 1895, chaps, i. and ii.; U. S. For. Rel. 1894, Appendix i. pp. 5–23.
15. For efforts at intervention, U. S. For. Rel. 1894, Appendix i. pp. 22–39. For good offices to Chinese and Japanese, U. S. For. Rel. 1894, pp. 95, 372.
16. U. S. For. Rel. 1894, pp. 103–126; "Vladimir's" China-Japan War, 114–116, and Appendix E.
17. Chang's residence in the United States, where he was held in high esteem, convinced him that China's great need was reform in government in accordance with Western civilization, and on his return to China he became a leading member of the liberal section in Chinese politics. He was a trusted adviser of the emperor in his reform movement after the Japanese war, and when the empress dowager virtually dethroned the emperor and resumed the control of the government, Chang was condemned to decapitation on the charge of malfeasance in office as an adviser of the throne. The American and British ministers intervened to save his life, and his punishment was commuted to perpetual banishment at hard labor in distant Mongolia. When the reactionary party was in the ascendancy in 1900, and the foreign legations besieged, the empress dowager caused him to be beheaded. His death was a great loss to China, as he was a liberal and enlightened statesman and could have rendered his country valuable service in the trying period following the "Boxer" movement. At the suggestion of the American government, Chang has recently been posthumously restored to his honors and the disgrace attaching to his execution removed from his family.
18. As to peace negotiations, U. S. For. Rel. 1894, Appendix i. pp. 29–106; 1895, p. 969; History of the peace negotiations between China and Japan, officially revised, Tientsin, 1895; Williams's China, 459; "Vladimir's" China-Japan War, pt. iii. chaps, vii. and ix., Appendix I–K; Heroic Japan, chap, xxxiii. and Appendix A. For events of the war, U. S. For. Rel. 1894, Appendix i. 44–104; Williams's China, 444–459; "Vladimir" (cited), pts. ii. and iii. Appendix D, F–H; Heroic Japan; J. Inouye's Hist. For results of the war, China, Travels in the Middle Kingdom, by Gen. J. H. Wilson, U. S. A., New York, 1901, chap. xx.
19. The overwhelming success of the Japanese army in the Chinese war, while unexpected to the world at large, was not a surprise to well-informed military observers. General U. S. Grant, after his visit to China and Japan in 1879, expressed the opinion that "a well-appointed body of ten thousand Japanese troops could make their way through the length and breadth of China, against all odds that could be brought to confront them." Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1887, p. 725.