A Kingdom Caught Between Empires

In the late 19th century, Korea found itself at the crossroads of imperial ambitions. The Joseon Dynasty, long a tributary state of Qing China, faced increasing pressure from Western powers and a rapidly modernizing Japan. The arrival of foreign ships and missionaries shattered Korea’s isolationist policies, creating social and political upheaval. Against this backdrop, two documents arrived from the Korean king on August 16, 1882—one expressing gratitude for suppressing a rebellion, the other pleading for the return of his father, the Daewongun. The Qing court’s response was firm: the Daewongun, deemed too dangerous, would remain in exile. This episode reveals the fragile balance of power in East Asia, where Korea struggled to navigate its dependence on China while resisting foreign encroachment.

The Imjin Mutiny: A Misnamed Rebellion

Historical records often conflate the 1882 Imjin Mutiny (also called the Imo Incident) with the Donghak Movement, but this is a misconception. The mutiny began when disgruntled Korean soldiers, angered by withheld wages and perceived favoritism toward modernized troops, revolted in Seoul. While some mutineers may have been Donghak sympathizers, the rebellion was not orchestrated by the movement. Instead, it reflected broader discontent with corruption, foreign influence, and the heavy-handed presence of Qing forces. The mutiny forced King Gojong to seek Chinese intervention, leading to the Qing general Yuan Shikai’s rise as a key power broker in Korea.

The Rise of Donghak: A Religion of Resistance

The Donghak Movement, founded in 1860 by the scholar Choe Je-u, emerged as a response to Western imperialism and domestic inequality. Choe, disillusioned by Korea’s subjugation after the Opium Wars, argued that Western strength lay not just in military might but in the unifying power of Christianity. To counter this, he blended Confucianism, Buddhism, and indigenous beliefs into a new doctrine—Donghak, or “Eastern Learning.” Its teachings rejected foreign influence, condemned social hierarchies, and promised salvation through folk rituals. Despite Choe’s execution in 1864, Donghak grew underground, attracting peasants and marginalized groups. By the 1890s, it would ignite the massive Donghak Peasant Rebellion, but in 1882, it remained a latent force rather than the mutiny’s instigator.

Qing and Japan’s Military Entanglements

The Imjin Mutiny had immediate geopolitical consequences. Under the Treaty of Chemulpo, Japan gained the right to station troops in Korea, ostensibly to protect its nationals. The Qing, determined to maintain suzerainty, also kept forces in Seoul. This dual military presence intensified factional strife between pro-Qing and pro-Japanese officials at the Korean court. King Gojong, though politically constrained, proved adept at playing the powers against each other. For instance, his decision to appoint the young Yuan Shikai to train Korean troops was a calculated move—Yuan’s rapid promotion sowed discord within the Qing garrison, weakening China’s grip.

The Craft of Survival: Korea’s Delicate Diplomacy

Korea’s leadership, though overshadowed by foreign armies, was far from passive. Recognizing their precarious position, officials manipulated rivalries to carve out autonomy. The king’s plea for his father’s return, though denied, was a bid to reassert royal authority. Meanwhile, figures like Yuan Shikai became both tools and threats—his arrogance and ambition, evident in his disrespect toward his mentor, Zhang Jian, mirrored the Qing’s overconfidence in controlling Korea. Over his 12-year stay, Yuan mastered the art of political maneuvering, skills he later wielded as China’s president.

Legacy: The Fuse of Future Conflicts

The Imjin Mutiny and the Donghak Movement set the stage for larger catastrophes. Japan’s growing military footprint culminated in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), where China’s defeat ended its dominance over Korea. Meanwhile, Donghak’s anti-foreign ethos evolved into a nationalist uprising, challenging both domestic elites and foreign invaders. Today, these events underscore the perils of imperialism and the resilience of grassroots movements. For Korea, the late 19th century was not just a story of victimhood but of cunning adaptation—a lesson in how small states navigate the ambitions of giants.

Conclusion: History’s Unintended Lessons

The August 16 petitions and the mislabeled “Donghak Mutiny” reveal a complex web of religion, power, and survival. Korea’s king sought to balance filial piety with realpolitik, while Qing China misjudged its waning influence. The Donghak Movement, though suppressed, foreshadowed the anti-colonial struggles of the 20th century. And figures like Yuan Shikai—brilliant yet flawed—embodied the era’s turbulent shifts. In the end, this chapter reminds us that history is rarely about clear villains or heroes, but about the messy interplay of ideology, ambition, and the desperate scramble for sovereignty.