Assassination as Anti‐Colonial Protest : Americans Confront the Japanese‐Korean Relationship

Abstract

Chang In‐hwan assassinated Durham White Stevens in the vain attempt to save Korea from falling further into Japan’s sphere of influence. Chang, along with many Koreans, blamed Stevens for facilitating Japan’s dominion over Korea by providing legal advice to the Japanese and delivering false information to the American public. Chang hoped that Stevens’ death would silence one pro‐Japanese official and become an anti‐colonial protest that raised awareness in the United States that the Korean people were not resigned to Japanese rule. The ensuing media coverage included a debate between Stevens’supporters (namely George T. Ladd) and pro‐Korean individuals (namely Thomas F. Millard, Homer Hulbert, and Korean nationals). Ladd fervently defended Stevens’ record in Korea by restating that the Korean people had low cultural standards and benefitted from Japanese rule’ Hulbert and Millard questioned Japan’s economic and social policies in Korea and called attention to the disparity between Japan’s propaganda and the real conditions in Korea. Beyond this debate, journalists took a largely negative opinion of the Korean presence in the United States. Unfortunately for Koreans, many journalists simply labeled Koreans as anarchists, fatalists, and fanatics―essentially terrorists―who were a threat to American society. Furthermore,Koreans were accused of plotting additional attacks in the United States,thereby posing a serious threat to American public safety. Nevertheless,Chang sparked one of the few dialogues within America over the nature and popularity of Japan’s position in Korea, but the outcome was largely negative for the Koreans because the racist social climate could not tolerate an Asian committing violence against a white. Thus, taken in a strict sense, Chang was successful in his effort to silence Stevens and make the American public aware of the Korean dissatisfaction with Japanese rule. However, the larger legacy proved the act to be a failure because the Stevens assassination figured prominently in the colonization of Korea. His attack unleashed unforeseeable forces that eventually undermined his nationalistic intentions and provided an avenue for greater support for Japan’s control over Korea because the Japanese successfully argued that Japan needed greater control within Korea to prevent anarchist movements. The assassination had the opposite affect sought by Chang: instead of removing Stevens from power and crippling Japan’s presence in Korea, his assassination broadened American support for Japan’s colonization of Korea. The death of Stevens, along with the subsequent assassination of Itō Hirobumi in October 1909, contributed to Western support for the annexation of Korea in 1910.