[page 63]

THE UNITED STATES KOREAN RELATIONS

Part II.

The Naval Incident Under Rear Admiral John Rodgers

A careful consideration of all the available facts concerning the loss of the General Sherman leads one to conclude that both parties concerned were more or less to blame for the unfortunate affair. The question as to which party first provoked the trouble will, I fear, always remain an open question. However, I think we ought to give the Korean side the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as the General Sherman was the aggressor.

In the communication of the King of Korea to the Board of Rites, Peking, China, September 30th, 1866, the blame for the destruction of the General Sherman is laid to the action of the crew. He said, These magistrates answered very clearly, giving the circumstance of a strange vessel having pushed her way in the autumn of 1866, of wounds and injuries inflicted on the inhabitants, of the detention and the indignity to an officer, and of the consequent exasperations of the people, resulting in self-provoked disaster and destruction.

If the American vessel had not abused our people how could the Korean officials and people have wished to maltreat them first.

Hon. Fredrick F. Low, United States minister to China, in his communication to Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, on June 6th, 1871, seems to indicate that the crew of the American schooner was largely to blame for the attack and destruction of the ship and the crew. He said, During the same year another American schooner, the Surprise, had been wrecked and become a total loss; but the officers and crew were safely sent through to China by land. This circumstance led many to believe in the truth of the stories told by the Korean officials about the wanton acts of the persons on board the Sherman, which brought down the wrath of the people upon those on board. [page 64]

According to the usages of international law, the General Sherman was committing a breach of the above mentioned law, in that it was attempting to navigate the inland waters of a foreign country with which the United States, not only had no treaty, but the officers of the said vessel had been repeatedly warned by the Korean officials not to do so. Such a breach of international etiquette created an embarassing, if not a most critical situation, for both the crew of the General Sherman and the United States government. On the other hand, such an infringment of international courtesy, did not warrant the offended power in committing such barbarous acts upon the vessel and its crew, as investigations lead us to believe were done. International law has a more just and humane way of dealing with such infractions of law. Korea, even in her isolation, could not plead ignorance as an excuse for such a cruel act

The most deplorable thing about the matter is that there was not a single survivor of the ill-fated vessel from whom a full and accurate report could be obtained. The information upon which the final conclusion is based, comes from parties not actually engaged in the affair and who were, no doubt, in most cases, prejudiced or influenced by greatly exaggerated reports due to intense excitement and hatred. Again, the investigator must bear in mind another fact in order to understand the attitude of the Koreans at this particular time. *In 1866 the French government had sent a punitive expedition to Korea to demand satisfaction for the murder of a number of the French Catholic priests and the killing of many of their Korean converts. This expedition under Admiral Roze, though only partially successful, was still fresh in the minds of the Korean government and people and created a feeling of antipathy, if not bitter antagonism, to all Westerners. In the opinion of most of the

*Admiral Roze was in command of the French punitive expedition to Korea in October 1866, consisting of the vessels Guerreire, Laplace, Primauguet, Droulede, Tardiff, Lebrethon, and Kien-chien with 1000 troops.

[page 65]

Korean people and the officials, the expedition was a total failure, and served not only to intensify their belief in their own superiority but their self-sufficiency. The reigning Taewongun (regent) vowed to have nothing to do with Western countries and did his utmost to incite the whole nation into an attitude of bitter opposition to them. This is obviously seen, not only by the manner of his dealing with the representatives of Western powers, but in the erection of the tablets he had prepared and set up in Pyengyang and Seoul, to which reference has already been made.

Another fact which made it very difficult to deal directly with Korea in this matter was that she was not an independent nation, and all negotiations had to be made through China, of which Korea was then a tributary state. Such negotiations meant long delay and great embarrassment Diplomatic negotiations with Oriental countries, such China and Korea at the time of the General Sherman Affair, were very slow and required consummate patience, shrewd political sagacity and diplomacy of the highest order.

The wreck of the American Schooner Surprise and the destruction of the General Sherman with the murder of the entire crew, raised at least three important issues for the United States to adjust, viz., the investigation of the causes of the destruction of the American Schooner, the securing of a treaty to protect wrecked American seamen, and the consummation of a commerical treaty between the two nations.

The need for a treaty of amity to protect American seamen who might be wrecked off the dangerous Korean coasts was made imperative by the destruction of the General Sherman and the wreck of the Surprise. Cases of a similar character might arise at any time as the ships of the United States were frequently sailing the Korean waters on their way to Japan and China. In a communication from Hon. Hamilton Fish to the United States Minister to China, Hon. F. F. Low, this fact is emphasized. He said, It has been decided to authorize negotiations to be had with the [page 66] authorities of Korea, for the purpose of securing a treaty for the protection of ship-wrecked mariners.......

The need for a treaty of commerce was very urgent. The United States had already concluded commercial treaties with Japan and China and as her ships were compelled to travel on seas in proximity to the Korean coasts, dangers to seamen and shipping were not only apparent but real. The United States minister, Hon. Fredrick F. Low, in his communication to Secretary of State, Hon. Hamilton Fish, on July 6th, 1871, said,

The opening and rapid increase of trade with China, Japan, and Russian Manchuria, required vessels to skirt the coast of Korea in voyages and brought prominently into view the undesirability of allowing a country directly in the track of a great commerce bounded on two sides by the sea, to remain with its coasts, outlaying islands and dangerous passages, totally unexplored. The Corean government would neither make these surveys itself, nor allow other nations to do it without incurring great risk.

Moreover, the United States minister argued, that his insistance upon the right to demand a commercial treaty with Korea, was not based upon any selfish motive, but upon a natural law which it was not possible for any nation to totally ignore. He said in the same communication as above mentioned,

It will hardly be contended, I imagine, that the natural law, or the right of self-preservation, will permit any nation occupying territory bordering upon the sea to so far exclude itself from all intercourse that it will neither adopt means to survey its coasts, islands, channels, nor allow this to be done by others; nor is it consistent with the principle of humanity that an isolated nation shall be allowed to maltreat and massacre without question those whom the perils of the sea cast upon its shores.On the contrary, the sea is the great highway of the nations, which no country is at liberty to obstruct with impunity, and where natural obstacles and dangers exist, all governments have a right to demand that they shall be clearly defined and marked so that they may be avoided. It is also the right of all countries, which should be jealously guarded, to provide adequate means for the safety and protection of its mariners and the recovery of their property. This no nation can properly deny. [page 67]

It is interesting to note the reasons given by the Korean court, in its communication to the Board of Rites in Peking, China, for its refusal to negotiate commercial treaties with foreign nations. It said;

Heretofore, foreign nations have been in ignorance of the character and productions of this country, and we have been repeatedly pestered with applications for commercial intercourse; but that is entirely out of the question with this country, and that merchants would not find it profitable was set forth in a communication to the Board in the 5th year of Tungchih (1866) somewhat as follows: It is universally known that our humble state is a small dependency in a corner of the sea; that the people are poor and the articles of commerce scanty; that the precious metals and the precious stones are not found here, while grain or cloth fabrics are not abundant; that the products of the country are insufficient to meet domestic wants; and if they were permitted to flow abroad, thus impoverishing us at home, this insignificant land would certainly be in extreme danger, and difficult to protect from ruin; furthermore, that the habits of the people are sparing and plain, the workmanship poor and crude; and that we have not a single article worthy of commerce with foreign nations.

The constant wish for commercial intercourse, while the utter impossibility of this countrys entrance into