Gapsin Coup of 1884: Korea's First Step Toward Modernization and Progressive Reform
Gapsin Coup of 1884: Korea's First Step Toward Modernization and Progressive Reform
1. The Dawn of Korea's Modernization Movement
The Gapsin Coup of December 1884 represents one of the most dramatic and consequential events in Korean history—a bold, revolutionary attempt by young progressive reformers to transform Joseon from a traditional Confucian kingdom into a modern nation-state through radical political change. Though the coup lasted only three days before collapsing in violence and bloodshed, it marked Korea's first serious attempt at comprehensive modernization and established ideological frameworks that would influence Korean political development for decades to come.
The coup was led by a group of enlightened young intellectuals known as the Gaehwadang (Enlightenment Party or Progressive Party), including Kim Okgyun, Park Yeonghyo, Hong Yeongshik, Seo Gwangbeom, and Seo Jaepil. These men, mostly in their twenties and early thirties, had been exposed to modern ideas through travel to Japan, study of Western thought transmitted through Chinese and Japanese sources, and observation of the dramatic transformations occurring throughout East Asia in the late 19th century.
What made these reformers truly revolutionary was their vision of total transformation rather than incremental change. They didn't merely want to adopt Western technology while maintaining traditional social structures—they envisioned fundamentally restructuring Korean society, politics, and economy along modern lines. Their fourteen-point reform program, announced during the coup, called for abolishing class distinctions, establishing constitutional monarchy, modernizing the military, reforming taxation, and countless other changes that would have completely remade Joseon society.
The coup's failure was as dramatic as its ambitions. Within three days, Chinese military intervention and domestic opposition crushed the reform government, forcing the surviving leaders into exile and resulting in the execution or persecution of countless supporters. Yet this "three-day revolution" left an indelible mark on Korean consciousness, demonstrating that comprehensive modernization was possible to imagine even if not yet achievable, and inspiring future generations of reformers who would eventually succeed where the Gapsin reformers failed.
What do you think drives young revolutionaries to risk everything for radical change? Have you ever encountered ideas so compelling that they demanded immediate action regardless of consequences?
1.1 The Historical Context: Korea's Crisis of the 1880s
To understand the Gapsin Coup's origins, we must grasp the extraordinary pressures facing Korea in the early 1880s. The kingdom found itself caught between collapsing traditional order and threatening new forces, with survival itself seemingly at stake as regional powers competed for influence over the peninsula.
Korea's forced opening through the Treaty of Ganghwa with Japan in 1876 had shattered the isolation policy maintained since the yangyo confrontations of the 1860s-1870s. Within a few years, Korea signed similar treaties with the United States (1882), Britain (1883), Germany (1883), and other Western powers. These treaties brought foreign diplomats, merchants, and missionaries to Korea, exposing Koreans to radically different ways of organizing society and government.
The domestic political situation was increasingly unstable:
- Factional conflicts between conservative and progressive officials intensified as debate over modernization became central
- Chinese influence grew dramatically as the Qing Dynasty asserted control over Korean affairs
- Japanese competition with China for Korean influence created dangerous tensions
- Economic disruption from foreign trade and monetary changes created social instability
- Military discontent over pay disparities and modernization programs led to the Imo Mutiny of 1882
The Imo Mutiny of 1882 had been a watershed event. Traditional Korean soldiers, angry about unpaid wages and the preferential treatment given to a small modernized military unit, rioted in Seoul, attacked Japanese diplomats, and briefly seized control of the capital. The rebellion was suppressed only through Chinese military intervention, which left Chinese troops stationed in Korea and Chinese officials deeply involved in Korean governance—a situation progressive reformers found intolerable and humiliating.
1.2 The Emergence of the Progressive Party
The Gaehwadang emerged from this crisis as a distinct political faction advocating rapid, comprehensive modernization based primarily on the Japanese model. These young officials had observed Japan's dramatic transformation during the Meiji period and believed Korea could and must follow a similar path to avoid colonization or extinction.
The progressive leaders' backgrounds reveal important patterns:
- Kim Okgyun (1851-1894): Brilliant scholar from a middle-level yangban family who traveled to Japan and became convinced of modernization's necessity
- Park Yeonghyo (1861-1939): Royal family member who married King Gojong's sister, providing crucial connections to the court
- Hong Yeongshik (1855-1884): Postal administrator who understood communication technology's importance for modern states
- Seo Gwangbeom (1859-1897): Military reformer advocating for modern armed forces
- Seo Jaepil (1864-1951): Youngest leader who would later become a pioneering advocate for Korean independence
These men shared several characteristics that distinguished them from traditional Korean officials. They were relatively young, well-educated in both traditional Confucian learning and modern subjects, and possessed cosmopolitan perspectives gained through foreign travel or study. They also tended to come from secondary yangban families rather than the highest aristocracy, giving them less stake in preserving traditional privilege structures.
The progressives' ideology drew from multiple sources—Japanese Meiji thought, Western political philosophy transmitted through translations, and Practical Learning (Silhak) traditions within Korean intellectual history. They believed that Korea's survival required matching the organizational efficiency, technological capability, and military power of modernized nations. Unlike conservatives who sought to preserve traditional culture while selectively adopting Western technology, progressives advocated fundamental social and political transformation.
Has this been helpful so far in understanding the reformers' vision? Can you see how foreign exposure shapes revolutionary thinking?
2. Planning the Revolution
The progressive reformers spent months meticulously planning their coup, recognizing that overthrowing the existing government and implementing radical reforms would require careful preparation and strategic timing. Their plans revealed both political sophistication and, ultimately, tragic miscalculations about the balance of forces in Seoul.
The reformers faced several critical challenges in planning their revolution. First, they needed to neutralize Chinese influence, which had grown dramatically since Chinese troops had suppressed the Imo Mutiny in 1882. Chinese officials effectively controlled key aspects of Korean policy, and Chinese military forces in Seoul could crush any reform attempt. The progressives calculated that they needed Japanese support to counterbalance Chinese power.
Second, they needed to secure King Gojong's cooperation or at least acquiescence. As monarch, Gojong's endorsement would provide legitimacy for the reform government. The progressives believed that once they seized power and demonstrated their program's benefits, the king would support comprehensive modernization. This calculation would prove catastrophically wrong.
The strategic plan included several key elements:
- Timing the coup to coincide with the opening of a new postal office, providing cover for gathering forces
- Securing Japanese military support through promises of enhanced Japanese-Korean relations
- Eliminating conservative opposition by assassinating key officials during the initial strike
- Controlling the king to provide legitimacy and prevent counter-coup organization
- Rapidly implementing reforms to demonstrate the new government's capability and vision
The reformers particularly counted on support from Takezoe Shinichiro, the Japanese minister to Korea, who had indicated sympathy for modernization and rivalry with Chinese influence. They believed Japanese troops would protect the reform government long enough to consolidate power and implement changes that would win popular support. This reliance on foreign military backing revealed both the reformers' desperation and their miscalculation of how quickly circumstances could turn against them.
2.1 The Three Days of Revolution
On the evening of December 4, 1884, the Gapsin Coup began with a dramatic attack during a banquet celebrating the opening of the new postal office at Hong Yeongshik's residence. The reformers used the event as cover to assemble their supporters and launch their strike against the conservative government.
The coup's first phase unfolded with shocking violence. As conservative officials attended the banquet, the reformers' supporters set fire to a nearby building as a diversion. In the ensuing chaos, assassins killed several high-ranking conservative officials including Min Yeongik, a powerful figure in the Min clan that dominated court politics. The murders were brutal and public, designed to terrorize opposition and demonstrate the reformers' determination.
The progressives then moved quickly to secure King Gojong, taking him to the Gyeongwoo Palace under the protection of Japanese troops. With the king under their control, the reformers announced the formation of a new government and immediately began proclaiming revolutionary reforms. Their fourteen-point program represented one of the most comprehensive reform visions ever articulated in Korean history:
- Abolish class distinctions ending the yangban aristocracy's hereditary privileges
- Establish government by talented officials through merit-based recruitment
- Reform taxation creating a fair, transparent system replacing corrupt practices
- Modernize military along Western lines with conscription and modern training
- Eliminate sinecures removing useless government positions
- Punish corrupt officials holding those who had enriched themselves accountable
- Promote commerce and industry actively supporting economic development
- Manage finances properly with budgeting and public accounting
- Reform palace expenditures reducing wasteful royal spending
- Establish police system for public order and safety
- Improve foreign relations through modern diplomatic practices
- Reform land ownership addressing inequitable property distribution
- Support education creating modern schools for broader population
- Pursue national development through coordinated government planning
This program was breathtakingly ambitious, proposing to accomplish in months what had taken Japan decades of gradual reform during the Meiji period. The scope reveals both the reformers' visionary thinking and their naïve assumptions about how quickly such fundamental changes could be implemented.
2.2 The Collapse and Bloodshed
The reform government lasted less than three days before catastrophic collapse. Multiple factors converged to doom the coup almost from its inception, revealing fatal flaws in the reformers' planning and assumptions.
The first critical miscalculation involved Japanese support. While Japanese troops initially protected the reformers and the king, the Japanese government had never officially authorized military backing for the coup. When Chinese forces responded forcefully, Japanese commander Takezoe realized that continued support meant war with China—a conflict Japan wasn't prepared to fight in 1884. Japanese troops abruptly withdrew, leaving the reformers exposed and defenseless.
Chinese intervention proved decisive. Yuan Shikai, the aggressive Chinese military commander stationed in Korea, immediately recognized the coup as a challenge to Chinese influence. He mobilized Chinese troops and Korean forces loyal to the conservative government, launching a coordinated assault on the reformers' positions. The attack was overwhelming and brutal.
The final collapse came on December 6-7, with horrific violence:
- Chinese and Korean forces stormed the palace, overwhelming Japanese defenders
- King Gojong was "rescued" by Chinese troops, immediately delegitimizing the reform government
- Street fighting erupted throughout Seoul with widespread casualties
- Massacres of reform supporters as conservatives took revenge
- Destruction of Japanese legation with Japanese diplomats and civilians killed
The reformers fled for their lives. Park Yeonghyo, Seo Jaepil, and a few others escaped to Japan with Japanese assistance. Kim Okgyun also reached Japan initially but would be assassinated there by a Korean agent in 1894. Others weren't as fortunate—Hong Yeongshik was killed during the final battle, and many lower-level supporters were captured and executed with extreme brutality as the conservative government reasserted control.
Please share your thoughts in the comments! Was the reformers' vision achievable, or were they doomed from the start by impossible circumstances?
3. Immediate Consequences and International Ramifications
The Gapsin Coup's failure had profound and immediate consequences for Korean politics, foreign relations, and the balance of power in East Asia. The three-day revolution's collapse didn't simply restore the status quo—it fundamentally altered Korea's trajectory and regional dynamics in ways that would shape events for decades.
Domestically, the coup's failure triggered severe conservative reaction. The Min clan, which had dominated politics before the coup, returned to power with even greater authority and determination to resist modernization. Any officials or intellectuals suspected of progressive sympathies faced persecution, creating a climate of fear that stifled reform discussion for years. The government intensified surveillance of potentially disloyal elements and restricted contact with foreign ideas and influences.
The massacre of reform supporters was extensive and brutal. Beyond the leaders who were killed or escaped, hundreds of lower-level supporters—junior officials, military officers, students, and intellectuals who had supported the modernization program—were executed or imprisoned. This decimation of progressive talent removed from Korea many of the individuals who might have led gradual reform efforts, leaving the kingdom with fewer options for managed modernization.
3.1 The Treaty of Hanseong and Chinese Dominance
The coup's most significant international consequence was dramatically increased Chinese control over Korean affairs. China used the instability as justification for even deeper intervention in Korean governance, effectively reducing Korea to a semi-colonial status under Chinese supervision.
The Treaty of Hanseong, negotiated in the coup's aftermath between China and Japan, formalized the new power arrangement:
- Both powers withdrew troops from Korea, at least temporarily
- Both recognized Korean sovereignty in theory while undermining it in practice
- Japan paid indemnity for damage to Korean property during the fighting
- China consolidated political influence through "advisors" who effectively controlled policy
- Korea lost autonomy in foreign relations and major policy decisions
Yuan Shikai, who had led the military suppression, became the most powerful figure in Korea. As Chinese Resident-General, Yuan effectively supervised Korean government operations, intervening in appointments, policy decisions, and even royal succession issues. Korean officials understood that major decisions required Chinese approval, reducing King Gojong to a figurehead in many respects.
This semi-colonial relationship with China had several effects on Korean development. Reform efforts were constrained by what Chinese officials would approve, generally limiting changes to modest technical improvements that didn't threaten Chinese interests or conservative Korean elites. More comprehensive modernization—especially political reforms that might increase Korean autonomy—became essentially impossible. Korea's room for independent diplomatic maneuvering disappeared as China insisted on controlling Korea's foreign relations.
3.2 Impact on Sino-Japanese Rivalry
The Gapsin Coup and its suppression intensified rivalry between China and Japan over Korean influence, setting the stage for the Sino-Japanese War that would erupt a decade later in 1894. Both powers drew lessons from the incident that shaped their subsequent Korean policies.
For China, the coup confirmed the necessity of maintaining strong military presence and political control in Korea. Chinese officials viewed Korea as essential to China's defensive perimeter—if Korea fell under hostile control (meaning Japanese influence), China's own security would be compromised. This strategic imperative drove increasingly aggressive Chinese intervention in Korean affairs throughout the late 1880s and early 1890s.
Japan learned different lessons. The coup's failure demonstrated that indirect influence through local reform movements was insufficient—if Japan wanted to challenge Chinese dominance, it would need direct military confrontation. The humiliation of withdrawing Japanese troops and seeing pro-Japanese reformers massacred created political pressure in Japan to prepare for eventual showdown with China over Korea. Japanese military modernization accelerated, with Korea explicitly in mind as a likely battlefield.
The coup also affected how both powers viewed Korean capabilities. The ease with which a handful of reformers had briefly seized control, and the equally swift collapse of their government, convinced both China and Japan that Korea lacked the stability and strength to maintain genuine independence. This perception encouraged both powers to view Korea as a prize to be controlled rather than a partner to be respected—an attitude that would have tragic consequences for Korean sovereignty.
Which do you think was more damaging to Korea—the coup's failure or the international power dynamics it revealed?
4. Long-term Legacy and Historical Significance
Despite its failure, the Gapsin Coup left an enduring legacy in Korean political thought and modernization movements. The reformers' vision, though unrealized in their time, established ideological frameworks and demonstrated possibilities that would influence Korean politics for generations.
The fourteen-point reform program became a touchstone for later modernization efforts. When the Gabo Reforms were implemented in 1894-1896 under Japanese pressure following the Sino-Japanese War, many provisions closely resembled what the Gapsin reformers had proposed a decade earlier—abolishing hereditary class distinctions, reforming taxation, modernizing administration, and promoting economic development. The difference was that reforms imposed by foreign pressure after military defeat lacked the legitimacy and nationalistic fervor that might have accompanied successful internal reform.
The coup established progressive reformers as heroic figures in Korean nationalist memory, even though their reliance on Japanese support was controversial. Kim Okgyun particularly became a legendary figure—a brilliant, tragic hero who sacrificed everything attempting to save his country through modernization. His assassination in Shanghai in 1894 by a Korean conservative agent, and the subsequent mutilation of his corpse when it was returned to Korea, transformed him into a martyr for the modernization cause.
4.1 Influence on Later Reform Movements
The Gapsin experience profoundly influenced how later Korean reformers approached modernization. The coup's lessons—both positive and negative—shaped strategic thinking about political change throughout the late Joseon period and beyond.
Key lessons that later reformers drew included:
- Foreign support is unreliable and can evaporate at critical moments
- Radical change requires broader base than a small group of intellectuals can provide
- Military power matters more than ideological correctness when determining outcomes
- International context constrains what's possible regardless of domestic will
- Gradual reform might be more sustainable than revolutionary transformation
The Independence Club movement of the 1890s, led in part by returned exile Seo Jaepil, represented a more cautious approach to reform informed by Gapsin's failure. Rather than attempting violent overthrow, the Independence Club worked within existing structures to promote gradual modernization through education, public advocacy, and pressure on the government. While this approach also ultimately failed to prevent Korea's colonization, it demonstrated learning from Gapsin's mistakes.
The coup also influenced Korean nationalist thinking during the colonial period (1910-1945). The reformers' vision of a modern, independent Korea became part of the ideological foundation for independence movements. Their willingness to risk everything for national transformation provided inspiration for later revolutionaries, even if their specific political program required updating for changed circumstances.
4.2 Debates Among Historians
Modern historians continue to debate the Gapsin Coup's significance and the reformers' choices. These debates illuminate broader questions about revolution, reform, and the possibilities for autonomous modernization in colonial contexts.
Some historians emphasize the coup's progressive vision, arguing that the reformers correctly diagnosed Korea's problems and proposed appropriate solutions. From this perspective, the coup failed not because its program was flawed but because international circumstances and domestic opposition prevented its implementation. Had the reformers succeeded, Korea might have achieved Meiji-style modernization that could have preserved independence.
Other historians focus on the reformers' strategic miscalculations. This perspective emphasizes their naïve reliance on Japanese support, their failure to build broader popular base, their assumption that dramatic proclamations could substitute for institutional capacity, and their underestimation of conservative resistance. The coup was doomed not by bad luck but by fundamental flaws in planning and execution.
A third interpretation stresses structural constraints that made successful autonomous modernization essentially impossible regardless of reformers' choices. Given Korea's geographic position between expanding powers, its limited military and economic resources, and the international system's predatory nature in the late 19th century, even perfect execution might have failed. The coup's tragedy was attempting the impossible rather than making specific mistakes.
These debates matter because they shape how we understand Korea's path to modernity and colonization. If the coup failed due to correctable mistakes, then alternative paths to independence might have existed. If structural factors made failure inevitable, then Korea's colonization reflected systemic forces beyond individual or collective Korean control. Each interpretation carries different implications for understanding both historical causation and moral responsibility for outcomes.
If this article was helpful, please share it! What do you think—was Korean independence achievable in the 1880s with different choices, or were the structural constraints too powerful?
5. The Reformers' Personal Fates and Continued Influence
The individual fates of the Gapsin reformers reveal the personal costs of revolutionary commitment and demonstrate how their influence extended beyond the coup's three-day existence through their later activities and symbolic importance.
Kim Okgyun's story is particularly tragic and compelling. After escaping to Japan, he lived in exile for a decade, continuing to advocate for Korean reform and seeking support for another attempt to modernize Korea. However, the Japanese government, having decided that direct confrontation with China over Korea was premature, gradually withdrew support. Kim lived in increasingly desperate circumstances, isolated and impoverished.
In 1894, Kim was lured to Shanghai by a Korean agent named Hong Jongu, who pretended sympathy for reform while actually working for the conservative Korean government. On March 28, Hong assassinated Kim in a Shanghai hotel. The body was returned to Korea where it was subjected to horrific mutilation—dismemberment and public display—as punishment for treason. This brutal treatment backfired symbolically, transforming Kim into a martyr for modernization whose sacrifice inspired later reformers.
5.1 The Lives of Surviving Reformers
Park Yeonghyo and Seo Jaepil, who escaped to Japan and later America, continued promoting Korean modernization through different means:
Park Yeonghyo eventually returned to Korea after receiving amnesty in 1895, following the Sino-Japanese War which had shifted Korean politics. He served in various government positions during the Korean Empire period, continuing to advocate for reform within the system rather than through revolution. His later career demonstrated how revolutionary fervor could evolve into gradual reformism when circumstances changed. Park survived into the colonial period, dying in 1939 having witnessed both the hopes of early modernization and the tragedy of colonization.
Seo Jaepil's trajectory was even more remarkable. After escaping to America, he became the first Korean to earn a medical degree from a Western university and the first Korean naturalized as an American citizen (adopting the name Philip Jaisohn). He returned to Korea in 1896 and founded the Independence Club and Korea's first vernacular newspaper, continuing the modernization struggle through cultural and educational means rather than political revolution. His later work demonstrated how Gapsin ideals could be pursued through civil society rather than state power.
Seo Gwangbeom, captured during the coup's collapse, was executed in 1897 after thirteen years of imprisonment—another example of the conservative government's vindictive determination to punish the reformers. His long imprisonment before execution suggests that authorities viewed public punishment as more important than swift justice, using him as an ongoing warning against reform attempts.
5.2 Cultural Memory and National Identity
The Gapsin reformers occupy complex positions in Korean cultural memory, representing both heroic vision and cautionary tale. Their story has been interpreted and reinterpreted by different Korean regimes and political movements to support various ideological projects.
During the colonial period, nationalist movements lionized the reformers as patriots who attempted to save Korea from foreign domination. The emphasis was on their nationalistic motivation rather than their specific political program, and the reliance on Japanese support was downplayed or reframed as tactical necessity. This interpretation served nationalist ideology by providing historical precedents for resistance.
In South Korea, the reformers have been celebrated as pioneers of democracy and modernization who advocated progressive values like social equality and constitutional government. Streets, schools, and monuments commemorate leaders like Kim Okgyun and Park Yeonghyo. Their vision is interpreted as anticipating South Korea's eventual democratic development, providing historical legitimacy for modern political values.
North Korea has offered more ambivalent assessment, praising the reformers' anti-feudal stance and desire for national independence while criticizing their reliance on foreign powers and their bourgeois class limitations. The reformers fit awkwardly into Juche ideology, which emphasizes self-reliance—their dependence on Japanese support contradicts this principle even as their anti-feudalism and nationalism align with revolutionary ideology.
These varying interpretations demonstrate how historical events become symbolic resources that different political movements deploy to support their contemporary agendas. The Gapsin reformers' actual beliefs and choices matter less in cultural memory than what they represent—failed martyrs, democratic pioneers, or cautionary examples depending on interpretive frame.
In conclusion, the Gapsin Coup of December 1884 represents a pivotal moment in Korean history when progressive reformers attempted to transform Joseon into a modern nation-state through revolutionary means. Led by young intellectuals like Kim Okgyun, Park Yeonghyo, and Seo Jaepil who had been exposed to modern ideas and witnessed Japan's dramatic Meiji transformation, the reformers launched an audacious coup proposing comprehensive reforms including abolishing class distinctions, establishing constitutional government, modernizing military and economy, and fundamentally restructuring Korean society. Though the coup lasted only three days before collapsing under Chinese military intervention and conservative opposition, its fourteen-point reform program established an ideological framework for modernization that would influence Korean political development for generations. The coup's failure intensified Chinese dominance over Korean affairs, eliminated a generation of reform-minded talent, and set the stage for the Sino-Japanese War by revealing the intensity of great power rivalry over Korea. Despite tactical failure, the Gapsin reformers became heroic figures in Korean nationalist memory, demonstrating that comprehensive modernization was imaginable even if not yet achievable, and establishing precedents for later reform movements that would eventually succeed where they had failed. Their legacy endures in debates about revolution versus gradual reform, the possibilities for autonomous modernization under imperial pressure, and the role of visionary individuals in shaping historical change—reminding us that failed revolutions can sometimes matter as much as successful ones for their symbolic power and inspirational influence on future generations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1. What was the Gapsin Coup and who led it?
The Gapsin Coup was a three-day revolutionary attempt in December 1884 to modernize Korea through radical political change. It was led by progressive reformers known as the Gaehwadang, including Kim Okgyun, Park Yeonghyo, Hong Yeongshik, and Seo Jaepil, who had been influenced by Japan's Meiji transformation and advocated comprehensive modernization of Korean society and government.
Q2. What reforms did the Gapsin revolutionaries propose?
The reformers announced a fourteen-point program including abolishing hereditary class distinctions, establishing merit-based government, reforming taxation, modernizing the military, eliminating corruption, promoting commerce and industry, managing finances transparently, establishing modern police and education systems, and pursuing coordinated national development—essentially proposing to completely restructure Joseon society along modern lines.
Q3. Why did the coup fail after only three days?
The coup collapsed due to multiple factors: Japanese military support unexpectedly withdrew when confrontation with China loomed, Chinese commander Yuan Shikai mobilized overwhelming force to suppress the revolt, King Gojong was rescued by Chinese troops and delegitimized the reform government, and conservative forces launched brutal counterattacks. The reformers lacked sufficient military power and popular base to sustain their government without foreign backing.
Q4. What were the long-term consequences of the coup's failure?
The coup's failure intensified Chinese dominance over Korean affairs, triggered severe persecution of reform-minded officials eliminating a generation of progressive talent, strengthened conservative resistance to modernization, and intensified Sino-Japanese rivalry over Korea that would culminate in war in 1894. However, the reformers' vision influenced later modernization efforts and established them as heroic figures in Korean nationalist memory.
Q5. How do historians today view the Gapsin reformers?
Historians offer varied assessments: some emphasize their progressive vision and argue that better circumstances could have led to success, others focus on strategic miscalculations like naive reliance on Japanese support, while others stress structural constraints that made autonomous modernization impossible regardless of choices. The reformers are generally viewed as visionaries who attempted the necessary but perhaps impossible task of saving Korea through revolutionary transformation.
