Many modern historiographical concepts, such as official, idealistic or altruistic (F. R. Dulles, J. Foster, J. Moore, T. Millard), geopolitical or international-political (A. Mahan, P. Reinsch), political realism (G. Morgenthau, T. Roosevelt, L. J. Halle, R. Osgood, W. J. Smith). Lafeber), the concept of vital interests of the United States (A. Baveridge), originate in the early period of the Far Eastern policy of the United States.

The interest of American historians in US policy in Korea in the late XIX-early XX centuries is due to the fact that then the Korean Peninsula became one of its objects. The United States entered into a treaty with Korea in 1882, having no special interests there, except for the need to provide for the lives and property of shipwrecked sailors and open Korean ports to American trade. The treaty was signed with the assistance of the Qing Empire, which tried to use the United States as a counterweight to Japan in Korea.

The development of American historiography in the period under review took place in two main directions. Proponents of the widespread idealistic trend insisted on the exclusively positive role of the United States in the lives of the peoples of East Asia, including Korea, who were closed from the outside world. The United States was assigned the role of protecting the semi-independent kingdom from encroachments primarily by China and Russia. The idealists were opposed by representatives of the school of political realism, who developed the ideology of the US colonial policy in the Far East.

This review attempts to analyze the most significant works of American historians and identify the main trends in the development of the historiography of US policy in Korea in the late XIX-early XX centuries, interpreting it based on existing concepts of US foreign policy.

DOCUMENTARY SOURCES

Modern researchers of American politics in Korea have access to a wide database of documentary sources, statistical materials, and literature that is freely available on the Internet. In order to get an idea of the official goals of American policy towards Korea, it is necessary to carefully study the official documents published by the State Department. Among them, the most interesting are the instructions of the Secretaries of State to their representatives in Seoul, dispatches of the latter to the State Department, in the appendices to them-correspondence with the Korean Wang, the president of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Korea, correspondence with the heads of other missions accredited in Seoul, reports of naval officers with information about the internal situation of the from missionaries traveling around the country. Based on these materials, one can get an idea of Korea at that time, its economic and political state, and the attempts of the closed state in the past to integrate into the new international order, which was dominated by the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia from the West, and China and Japan from the East. The instructions of the US Department of State carried out the main idea that the American policy on the Korean Peninsula was the fulfillment of a civilizing "mission", the purpose of which was to ensure the "welfare" and "independence" of the Korean people in the fight against colonialism of other European powers and neighboring Japan and China [FRUS, 1866-1905].

The diplomatic correspondence of the American mission in Seoul with the State Department, re-recorded on microfilm by J. M. McCune in 1937, was first published in two collections in 1951 by scientists at the University of California, J. M. McCune, J. A. Harrison [McCune, Harrison, 1951], and in 1963 by S. A. McKune.J. Palmer (1963). In the preface, American scientists said that the United States, during the international struggle to establish control over the Korean Peninsula, maintained "impartial neutrality." However, a careful study of the correspondence shows that the US neutrality was rather formal in nature, and the State Department's policy was aimed at ensuring its own interests on the Korean Peninsula. The third volume of the collection, supplemented by new documents from the US National Archives and the US State Department's official historical documentary series "Foreign Relations of the United States", was released by the Center for Korean Studies at the University of Hawaii in 1989 (Burnett, 1989).

Among the official materials, the speech of the representative of the State of Oregon in the US Senate, J. H. Mitchell, is of interest. On August 31, 1888, he presented the memorandum of the American adviser to the Korean King O. N. Denny "China and Korea". Describing the political situation of Korea in relation to China and other foreign powers that have concluded friendly treaties with the Korean government on equal terms, and giving all the facts confirming that Korea is an independent state based on the principles of international law adopted by all civilized peoples, O. N. Denny, the King's foreign policy adviser, expressed concern that as a result of China's intervention may result in its absorption of Korea (Mitchell, 1888). The purpose of Denny's memorandum was to draw attention to the actions of the Chinese representative in Seoul, Yuan Shikai, and the Beijing government, which did not recall him even after he was convicted of plotting against the king [Weber's Report to Geers].

From the text of Mitchell's speech, it follows that the time has come when the American government is called upon to provide good services to the government and people of Korea in accordance with the first article of the US-Korean Treaty of 1882. The Korean government, until the country's complete loss of independence, counted on the support of the United States, considering this article as evidence of the readiness of the American government to come to the rescue of the Korean people. help. Between September 1904 and December 1905, the Korean government sent six requests to the Roosevelt administration for "good offices" under the treaty, but they did not meet with a response (Patterson, 1986). Attempts by American historians to justify the actions of their government in relation to Korea to blame the Korean authorities for misinterpreting the legal concepts of "good offices" and" interference " do not seem justified.

Later, the American missionary G. Halbert wrote in the book "Leaving Korea" about how Denny devoted several years to protecting Korea from its capture by China. "His arguments (in favor of Korean independence - A. Sh.) were convincing, but of little use in the face of Korea's desire to retreat to the old relations of suzerain and vassal... if the war (the Japanese-Chinese war of 1894-1895-A. Sh.) had not occurred and confirmed Korean independence, then foreign powers would have been forced to withdraw their representative offices" (Hulbert, 1906, p. 217). The subsequent increase in Japanese influence over the Korean Peninsula as a result of the Sino-Japanese war corresponded to American foreign policy interests in the Pacific region, which were opposed to the interests of China and Russia.

Important information is provided by official publications in the American missionary journals Corian Repository (published monthly from 1892 to 1898 under the editorship of H. J. Appenzeller) and Corian Review (published monthly from 1901 to 1905 under the editorship of G. Halbert). Here it should be taken into account that the American missionaries in Korea had a special influence on the course of events, being a kind of" ideological vanguard " of American expansion in the East [Muradyan, 1971, p.82]. The Corian Republic contains several interesting materials on the history of American policy in Korea: a detailed report by Admiral R. W. Schufeldt on the preparation and signing of the US-Korean Treaty [Appenzeller, 1892], a version of the sinking of the schooner General Sherman in 1866 [Gale, 1895], a report on the appointment of Allen to the post of United States envoy States in Korea with its characteristics (Appenzeller, 1897). The extended edition of the Corian Review contains a version of the armed conflict of 1871 (Schley, 1905).

Clippings from leading American newspapers found in appendices to the correspondence of Russian representatives in Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo in the Archives of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire: The New York Tribune, The New York Times, The Sun, The Missionary Herald, and The New York Herald", "The San Francisco Herald". The last two newspapers were subscribed to by the American mission in Seoul in 1883-1905.

THE ORIGIN OF THE MAIN CONCEPTS OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF US POLICY IN KOREA (LATE XIX-EARLY XX CENTURIES)

Early American studies on the development of US-Korean relations contain extensive, little-known material in the Russian literature and interesting observations. Although these works are mainly descriptive in nature and can only be conditionally attributed to scientific literature, they deserve attention, since they contain in their rudimentary form concepts that were later developed by American historiography, which is characterized by the idealization of American diplomacy and US policy, the positioning of the "great Pacific power". Early American historiography is characterized by an emphasis on the traditional nature of the United States ' policy, its adherence to the principles of the "founding fathers", the dissemination of American democratic ideals and political institutions, and Christian values.

The first American research on Korea was influenced only by the then - growing philosophical trend in the United States-pragmatism, represented by C. S. Peirce and J. P. Morgan. Dewey. The most famous contemporary and eyewitness of the events of the early period of US-Korean relations, the author of numerous publications on the countries of the Far East and US politics, W. Griffis, in his work "Korea - a hermit country", noted that the United States already in 1757 began to "show commercial interest" in Korea, when American products from Connecticut and Massachusetts became popular. enter the Chinese markets of Beijing and Canton (Guangzhou) [Griffis, 1889, p. 388]. To justify the actions of American diplomacy, he cited the treatise "Politics for Korea" compiled by Huang Zongxian, an adviser to the Chinese minister in Japan, according to which Russia posed a threat to Korea, while China and Japan were "natural friends and allies due to their geographical and historical proximity to Korea." The document attached great importance to the need for allied relations between Korea and the" natural friend of Asian nations " of the United States [Griffis, 1889, p. 430]. The author called the Korean officials whom the American side managed to persuade to sign the treaty progressive. Moreover, he even compared their introduction to American mores with Peter the Great's introduction to Western European culture (Griffis, 1889, p.434).

Unlike American historians of later times, who in every possible way veiled the expansionist aspirations of the United States in the period under review, W. Griffis did not ignore the ambiguous reaction of Koreans to the signing of the first US-Korean treaty. The author described the opposition movements in Korea in some detail, including ultra-Confucians who oppose the presence of foreigners on their territory and so-called fanatical patriots who attempted to overthrow the "progressive-minded" administration in Seoul (Griffis, 1889, p.434).

In the Corian Review preface to the seventh edition of Griffith's 1904 essay, the American presence in Korea is evaluated from a different perspective: "The center of world politics has shifted from the Atlantic and Mediterranean to the shores of Korea, China's military reputation has been damaged, and the United States has become one of the great powers with interests in Asia." [Griffis, 1904, p. 503].

In his final work, America in the East, W. Griffis examined early U.S.-Korean relations from the point of view of the exclusively civilizing influence of Americans on the development of Korea. With a certain amount of irony, he described the first Korean representatives who arrived at the reception of President C. A. Arthur in white national clothes and straw hats [Griffis, 1899, p. 122], and explained all American enterprises organized in Korea as "the practical mindset and character of Americans" [Griffis, 1899, p. 124]. The American expedition under the command of Admiral Rogers to Korea was interpreted by W. Griffis from the standpoint of "altruism": the belligerent attitude of its participants towards the local population

he passed it off as a display of "bravery, zeal, and discipline", and the conclusion of an unequal treaty - as the deliverance of the "hermit state" from "isolation and barbarism" (Griffis, 1899, p.200-201). In general, the publicist W. Griffis, when assessing American policy in Korea, proceeded from the thesis about the virtue of the American people, called "to lead, not to be led" [Griffis, 1899, p. 235-236].

An American researcher of the early period of US-Korean relations, a journalist for The New York Herald, T. Millard, when describing the internal situation of Korea since the establishment of Japan's suzerainty, paid quite a lot of attention to the foreign policy of the United States during this period. Thus, speaking about the attempts of the Japanese regime's advocates to justify the Japanese order in Korea, pointing out their similarity to the American policy in the Philippines, he insisted on the inadmissibility of such a comparison, since "the Philippine government is ahead of the Japanese government" in "all important and necessary factors that are inseparable from liberal institutions", and "the Japanese administration in Korea It is 50 years behind the management of affairs in Japan itself" (Millard, 1909, p. 147). The author explained the willingness of the Washington government to comply with all Japanese wishes, i.e., it recalled Allen and soon closed the mission in Seoul altogether, agreeing to conduct all diplomatic relations with Korea through Tokyo, without particularly worrying about the gradual absorption of the country by Japan in 1905., "his conviction of Japan's "good intentions" after it gave assurances that it would respect American interests and pursue a policy of encouraging and supporting them in order to attract other foreign investments. However, as soon as the Japanese administration isolated foreigners in Korea, it made them, including Americans, the target of attacks and ruin" (Millard, 1909, p. 151).

Among the few American historians of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries who considered Korea in the context of the East-oriented policy of the United States was Professor P. Reinsch of the University of Wisconsin. An adherent of the theory of "American exceptionalism", in his monograph "World Politics at the end of the XIX century" on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War, he expressed sympathy for the Japanese, who ousted "sluggish and incompetent Russians" from Korea and "encouraged any attempts at reform" on the peninsula, in contrast to "Russians who hindered their implementation" [Reinsch, 1900, p. 174-175]. "The United States must play a leading role in international affairs," Reinsch wrote, "the people and resources of our power would not be up to their calling if sooner or later they did not realize their duty in this important position that it has reached" [Reinsch, 1900, p.311]. Reinsch's ideas contributed to the development of the international political concept in the historiography of the interwar and postwar periods.

In connection with the tradition of praising the US policy established by the beginning of the XX century in historiography, J. R. R. Tolkien wrote: Foster argued that the policy of the United States Government was imbued with a spirit of justice, forbearance, and generosity; that its early and late relations with Korea were due to friendly participation; and that after the capture of the Philippines, the United States entered into "new and complementary neighborly relations "with it, along with Japan and China. As arguments in favor of the absence of US political interests in Korea, the author cited the unanswered appeals of Korea and China to the US government and, moreover, the "delicate manner" with which the Japanese troops were brought in [Foster, 1970, p.335].

The monograph of the missionary, editor of the Corian Review G. Halbert "Korea's Departure" is characterized by the desire to give an objective assessment of the current international situation around Korea at that time. That is why G. Halbert was able to present a fairly accurate picture of the inevitability of establishing Japanese domination there. Unlike his contemporaries, the author did not make statements about the discovery of Korea by America, moreover, he drew attention to previous attempts by other states, including Russia, to establish trade relations with Korea; to the "prevailing external circumstances" under which the United States was the first Western country to conclude a treaty [Hulbert, 1906, p. 121Halbert called the US actions towards the Korean government treacherous, when they immediately supported the statements of Japanese representatives about the supposedly voluntary conclusion of a treaty establishing a Japanese protectorate, and the Korean emperor's petition to the president received in advance was deliberately not considered. "Americans of all classes have been saying for a quarter of a century that the American flag serves justice and truth, "Halbert stated," but when the decisive moment came, we were the first to leave it (Korea) in the lurch." For the edification of future historians, he wrote that the next consideration of such a "contemptuous attitude"is to be considered

the American authorities can hardly add glory to this page of history in the historical chronicles of the American people [Hulbert, 1906, p. 224]. At the same time, the author's position is not without pragmatism. In his essay, Hulbert sought to draw the attention of the American authorities to the threat to US commercial interests in Korea from Japan [Hulbert, 1906, p.461-462]. The disadvantage of this work is that it is based entirely on the American missionary's own observations and conclusions and does not contain references to information sources.

American historiography at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was an important preparatory stage in the development of American historiography of US-Korean relations. However, in general, the works of this period are descriptive and journalistic in nature.

DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTS OF AMERICAN HISTORIOGRAPHY ABOUT US POLICY IN KOREA AT THE TURN OF THE XIX-XX CENTURIES. DURING THE INTERWAR PERIOD

The interwar period of American historiography is characterized by the formation of a new source base based on scientific facts and historical research. American historians in this period avoided idealizing the role of the United States in the fate of the peoples of the Pacific region. Theses about "altruism", "humanism", "predestination of fate" were not so often heard. However, American historiography continued to follow the tradition of continuity of the principles of the "founding fathers", while not limiting itself to the presentation of events, general formulations, references to official declarations, and turned to the scientific justification of historical facts.

A recognized achievement in American historical scholarship during the period under review was the monograph "Americans in East Asia"by Professor T. Dennett of Princeton University. The US-Korean Treaty of 1882 was interpreted by him only as a document that provided the United States with new commercial opportunities (opening of commercial ports) [Dennett, 1922, p. 461-462]. In reality, the treaty was unequal in nature, including articles on extraterritoriality and consular jurisdiction. The United States received the rights of the most favored nation. In T. Dennett's interpretation, the treaty "reflected the general policy of the American government" and was just "an instrument that dragged Korea into the ocean of intrigue", while the Americans themselves were "unable to control the situation on the peninsula" (Dennett, 1922, p. 520). It is worth taking into account the detailed description of the circumstances of signing the contract. In the article "The Discovery of Korea", based on documents of the United States Department of the Navy, according to which the US Secretary of State F. J. Pollin. Frelingheusen ordered Schufeldt to sign the convention on shipwrecks, warning against "achieving more significant successes "[Paullin, 1910, p. 498].

At the same time, one of the many followers of the concept of T. Dennett, Fr. Nelson, clarified that the" strictly non-political atmosphere " of American policy towards Korea began to manifest itself under Secretary of State T. F. Bayard, when the United States on the eve of the Sino-Japanese war declared its intention "not to go beyond the need to ensure the terms of the treaty" [Nelson, 1967, p. 193].

In a special article devoted to the problems of American policy in Korea in the period 1883-1887, T. Dennett, largely relying on documentary sources, drew the attention of scientists to previously insufficiently studied aspects of the US political course on the Korean Peninsula. Thus, an American historian noted that Great Britain was the first to "show interest" in the Korean issue, "expressing concern that Korea, being completely independent from China, might fall into the hands of its European rival Russia, "while the" naive diplomacy of the Schufeldt Treaty " showed the peacefulness of the United States [Dennett, 1923, p. 84]. In T. Dennett's interpretation, all interested parties - China, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and Korea-sought to involve the American government in any obligations or troubles in order to defend their "individual" interests on the Korean Peninsula, whereas the essence of American policy was precisely to ensure their own interests, which were not devoid of pragmatism. It is no coincidence that the historian called Seoul "the most slippery puddle" that American diplomats have ever had to fall into [Dennett, 1923, p. 86].

T. Dennett recognized the failure of the" vaunted " isolation policy of the United States in the Far East in the 1880s.-

Apart from international guarantees, he wrote, such guarantees had to be respected before the Schufeldt Treaty opened Korea." As you know, the Americans wanted access to the Sea of Japan, but they were not willing to be responsible to Korea for this, which meant getting something without offering anything in return. Conditions for compliance with effective guarantees, T. Dennett concluded, were to strengthen the American naval presence in the East and bring the diplomatic and consular service in line with new requirements. To understand the specifics of the formation of American policy in Korea, the American historian suggested comparing it with the then US policy in Hawaii and Samoa [Dennett, 1923, p. 102-103]. Thus, he tried to prove that American policy in Korea continued the previous course on the islands in the Pacific Ocean and, despite some of its miscalculations, was invariably aimed at ensuring the national interests of the American people.

T. Dennett's monograph "Americans in East Asia" is supplemented by a critical study of American policy in East Asia in 1902-1905, based on the study of T. Roosevelt's correspondence, "Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War". This work was carried out taking into account the published monograph of the Professor of the Johns Hopkins University, J. R. R. Tolkien. Latane "From isolation to leadership. Revised version. Review of US Foreign Policy " (1922). When considering American interests in Korea on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War, T. Dennett justified the "absence of objections" of the American government to the dominant Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula that had developed by 1903 by "preferring Korean self-government, Chinese invasion and Russian bureaucracy" (Dennett, 1925, p.103). In his opinion, the growing conflict of interests between China, Russia and Japan could be a sufficient reason for the US government to "sound the alarm" (Dennett, 1925, p.104).

T. Dennett in his research emphasized the pragmatic nature of American policy in Korea, and the attention he showed to the previously unexplored political aspect of US-Korean relations contributed to the development of the" international-political " concept of American historiography, which was later widely used in the research of American historians of the interwar period. Among them, American Clark University professor A. Dennis argued that the United States, being "just interested observers", did not take part in the colonial enslavement of Korea by Japan, and ultimately "American influence would not matter for Korea" [Dennis, 1969, p.176]. Like T. Dennett, A. Dennis considered American policy in Korea in the context of the international situation in the Far East, including US-Japanese relations, as a result of which "an understanding was reached" on the issues of seizing the Philippines and Korea. In fact, the US policy was selective - in fact, the US authorities supported the colonial seizure of Korea by Japan in order to promote their own interests in the region.

The missionary and publicist A. J. Brown argued that although the Korean Peninsula was a strategic point of domination in the Far East, at that time, unlike other powers (Russia was meant), the Korean Peninsula was a strategic point of domination in the Far East. The United States did not intend to engage in pure philanthropy [Brown, 1919, p. 131]. A. J. Brown did not ignore the US diplomatic methods towards Korea on the eve of the introduction of Japanese troops into its territory: he presented the evasive responses of the State Department to requests for protection from the Korean side as "diplomatic camouflage". "The American authorities considered intervention impractical and found it convenient to justify themselves in technical reports," concluded A. J. Brown, " the protest would not have yielded results, it would not have helped Korea, but would only have angered Japan." In support of these words, Roosevelt's equally cynical comments were quoted: "Korea absolutely belonged to Japan. Korea itself was not capable of insisting on the implementation of the treaty. Moreover, the treaty was based on the erroneous assumption that Korea was capable of governing itself" (Brown, 1919, p. 201).

The above data allow us to conclude that the strengthening of Japanese control over the Korean Peninsula corresponded to American foreign policy interests in the Pacific region, opposed to the interests of China and Russia. Thus, Korean sovereignty has become a "bargaining chip" in US Far Eastern policy. Attempts by American historians of the interwar period to justify the actions of their government in relation to Korea to blame the Korean authorities for misinterpreting the legal concepts of "good offices" and "interference" do not help to clarify the true nature of early US-Korean relations.

RESEARCH IN THE POST-WAR AND MODERN PERIODS

In the post-war period, a more detailed study of the history of American foreign policy in the Korean direction of the late XIX-early XX centuries was developed in the United States. A significant factor for this was the formation of Korean research centers at major American universities (Harvard, Washington, Michigan, Hawaii, California (Berkeley), and Pennsylvania) in the early 1970s. After the Second World War, namely after the mid-1960s, studies of US-Korean relations in the early period by such Korean scholars as V. S. R. Brand, S. Burnett, J. Chay, K. Eckert, M. Gurtov, K. Moskowitz, F. Harrington, Lee Yur Bok, E. Nam, S. Palmer are highlighted, W. Patterson, H. Conroy, Jung Suk Chay, Choi Hae Wol, Fr. A. Scharf, E. W. Wagner, M. Robinson. They formed a solid base for the research activities of a new generation of American Korean scholars. Unlike their predecessors, the works of these authors are based on a broad source base with the involvement of state documents and new archival materials. The accumulation of significant historical material, a new interpretation of known facts in the context of theoretical aspects of US foreign policy (for example, the influence of F. D. Roosevelt's "New deal" on the establishment of the ideals of American democracy) led to the fact that in 1980-1990, US-Korean relations in the early period from generalizing studies on US Pacific policy were singled out as a special topic.

In the monographs and articles of American authors, an "altruistic" approach to assessing the past Korean policy of the United States prevails. Pragmatic and subjective-idealistic views on the historical process are being developed. According to the popular American concept of "predestination of fate," providence itself intended that the United States should rule over all territories of national interest, including Korea. As an argument, the American historian R. Swatout (University of Washington) cites the fact that the 1840s are often referred to as the age of predestination, marked by the end of the Mexican-American War and the entry of Texas, New Mexico, California and Oregon into America. As a result of the entry of the last two states into the United States, they had the opportunity to control the bays of San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound. "Expansionists such as President J. K. Polk coveted these two ports because they were seen as natural starting points for American trade entry into the Pacific," he writes. Swartout (1996, p. 5).

In the monograph "The West goes East", Professor Lee Yur Bok of the University of Hawaii justified the first attempts to establish trade relations between the American and Korean sides by creating "favorable conditions" for the United States to enter into official relations with Korea, when in 1866, in response to a request from the American envoy in Beijing, A. Burlingham, to mediate in clarifying the circumstances of the death of the schooner "General Sherman" of the Chinese Foreign Relations Department stated that relations between China and Korea are only "ceremonial" in nature [Lee, 1988, p.15].

The US-Korean Treaty of 1882, which "became the international legal basis for the recognition of an independent state by the Western world, "is considered in the light of the" beneficial influence " of the United States: after the signing of the treaty, Korea created its own national flag, and a Korean diplomatic mission was sent to the United States with the first credentials drawn up using the Korean Hangul alphabet. [Nahm, 2007, p. 78]. Lee Yur-bok's argument that the American treaty in Korea was opposed to the Ili Treaty concluded in 1880 between Russia and China is interesting: the Americans were afraid of Russia's further penetration into East Asia [Lee, 1988, p.23].

This version was previously put forward by Professor E. Malozemov of the University of California, whose book "Russian Policy in the Far East" provides information that Great Britain and the United States in 1880 informed Korea about the threat of a Russian invasion of the north-eastern part of its territory, including the port of Lazarev [Malozemoff, 1953, p.28].

Professor V. Chandra, in his research, carried out with the support of the Center for Korean Studies at the University of California, said that the treaty showed the peaceful nature of American policy. He drew attention to the fact that, despite the initiative to conclude a treaty coming from the Americans, it was at the insistence of China that Korea responded positively to the American "overtures". It was China, not Korea, that actively engaged in negotiations with the United States on the treaty.

The researcher sees the main feature of the conclusion of this agreement in the fact that Korea initially ceded its independence to China in this matter. Korea continued to be dependent on China, and the United States was called upon to pursue a traditional policy towards Japan [Chandra, 1988, p. 32-33].

Professor F. Harrington (University of Wisconsin) draws attention to the reluctance of Americans from the very beginning of establishing relations with Korea to participate in the CoE's military modernization. The positive response to the assignment of military specialists to Kojon came only five years after the intervention of the Charge d'affaires of the United States in Seoul, W. Rockhill, who recommended that military advisers be selected from "those who retired from the army or from recruits who did not receive a referral to the service" [Harrington, 1986, p. 37].

Biographical works devoted to the lives and activities of individual American diplomats and advisers who are called upon to carry out the official line of the State Department in Korea are of no small importance in the study of American policy in Korea. Among them is a study by Professor R. Swataut of the University of Hawaii on the political role of American lawyer, diplomat and adviser O. N. Denny in Korea. Swatout shows the struggle in Washington's ruling circles over the issue of Korean independence, drawing attention to the reason for the rejection of Denny's position, outlined in his address to Senator Mitchell: the American envoy to Beijing, Ch. Denby took the pro-Chinese side in the Korean issue and received the full support of Secretary of State T. Bayard (the families of both diplomats had long-standing friendly relations) [Swartout, 1980, p.106]. Swartout questions the "altruistic" nature of U.S. policy in Korea, denouncing official Washington's policy of "strengthening relations with China, even at the cost of Korean independence" (Swartout, 1980, p. 109).

S. Burnett and W. Patterson (University of Hawaii) drew attention to the desire of Washington's ruling circles to use the contradictions of the powers around Korea in their personal interests. At the same time, in their opinion, the United States had grounds to pursue an expansionist policy in the Pacific: the old paradigms, the manifesto of Providence and the Monroe Doctrine, are reduced to a new paradigm of social Darwinism (Burnett, 1989, p.9).

Of considerable interest is the joint work of two American professors P. H. Clyde (Duke University) and B. F. Beers (North Carolina University) "The Far East. History of the influence of the West and the response of the East (1830-1965)". Turning to a theoretical understanding of the current international political situation around the Korean Peninsula by the beginning of the 20th century, the authors offer an explanation of the "new US policy" towards Korea ("new political ideas plus previous commercial interests") [Clyde, 1966, p.196]. Scientists suggest that the" starting point " in this policy is 1895, when, on the one hand, the outcome of the Sino-Japanese war determined the new alignment of forces in the region (European rivalry and Asian antagonism), and on the other-the death of the mastermind of the new and great expansionist policy John L. O'Sullivan and the development of his philosophical ideas by J. Burgess (Columbia University), where T. Roosevelt studied, and A. Mahan, whose lectures were later published under the general title " The Influence of naval forces on History." The generalized doctrine based on the publications and speeches of these influential theorists marked a new milestone for the United States - the need to expand its continental borders [Clyde, 1966, p.196].

P. Clyde's concept, which has gained wide acceptance in modern American local history, justifies the " new policy "by saying that control over Manchuria and Korea was the key to establishing control over" economically important " China for the United States. In addition, from a military point of view, Korea was considered as "a necessary base for possible operations against Russia" (Clyde, 1966, p.228).

Proponents of this approach explain the refusal of T. Roosevelt from the necessary "intervention in the Korean question" by the fact that at that time Japanese control over Korea was, first of all, "a more suitable means of countering Russian expansion", and secondly-the provision of "quid pro quo" (quid pro quo). Japan, which recognized the dominance of the United States in the Philippines (Eckert, 1990, p. 203). The United States "balanced Japan" by implementing a policy of "protection" in the Philippines and in the interest of strengthening Japanese cooperation in implementing an "open door" policy in China, mainly in Manchuria, in accordance with the "Korea for Manchuria" plan [Nahm, 1988, p. 205].

Within the framework of the "meeting of Western and Eastern civilizations" concept, modern American historiography explains the unfriendly policies of T. Roosevelt and W. Bush. Rokhila in relation to-

The Research Institute of Korea is concerned with their personal desire to implement " American ideals "in foreign policy actions in the Far East, in particular by introducing" backward Asian states "to"advanced Western civilization". In their opinion, "progressive" Japan was "destined" to conduct this mission in Korea (Johnson, 2011, p. 111).

After the publication in 1959 of P. A. Esthus 'article" The Taft-Katsura Agreement-reality or myth? " (Esthus, 1959) in American historiography, there was a tendency to justify the role of the Americans in the Japanese enslavement of Korea by saying that the Taft-Katsura memorandum was not valid, because it was not submitted for consideration submitted to Congress and ratified in accordance with international standards. In fact, the document remained secret until it was discovered by the American historian T. Dennett in the 1920s (Chay, 1968). Many American researchers define the Taft-Katsura Agreement as a "special understanding" between the Roosevelt administration and the Katsura Government. Despite various interpretations of this document, it is obvious that the Roosevelt government, contrary to the obligations contained in the US-Korean Treaty of 1882 to come to the aid of Korea in the event of a threat to its independence, actually contributed to the final enslavement of the Korean people by the Japanese.

The formation of new approaches in the historical research of American authors on the issue of US Korean policy in the early period was facilitated by the geopolitical concepts of N. Spikeman, H. Mckinnor, and N. Brzezinski, according to which the global development of the world is based on US geocentrism. N. Spikeman included the Korean Peninsula in the Eurasian "Rimland" (according to Mackinder, a marginal crescent) located between the "Heartland". According to the American scientist's hypothesis, " whoever controls Rimland controls Eurasia; whoever controls Eurasia controls the fate of the world "(Sempa, 2010). In the development of this concept, modern American historiography links ensuring the vital interests of the United States with their active participation in the politics of the countries of the Far East, and in particular Korea. From this point of view, Professor of the University of Hawaii, J. R. R. Tolkien. Chay considers American security interests in Asia, which emerged after the annexation of the Philippines in 1898, to be one of the most important factors in the development of early US-Korean relations. Under Roosevelt's leadership, they became more sensitive to the changing nature of the international system in the region, in which Korea was not a full member and independent player, but acted as a victim caught in the grip of two major players - Japan and China (Chay, 1990, p.7).

American historiography was influenced by the ideas of the founder of political realism, G. Morgenthau (University of Chicago), who in turn adopted the teachings of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. The terms "national interest" and" national strength " are a common thread in most of the works of American scientists published at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. Thus, Kang Un Jo, while studying the topic, raised the question of the superiority of the United States over "cornered" Korea: the United States, "repelled by Korea, could leave the closed kingdom alone for one or another decade, but for Korea this would mean living in borrowed time" (Kang, 2005, p. 36]. The works of American historians pay considerable attention to the efforts of American diplomats and military advisers to resist China's unwelcome interference in Korean affairs before 1895 and to contain Japan's growing dominance in Korea after 1895. Washington ordered its representatives to observe strict neutrality in all international and domestic conflicts and monitor the mood of the Korean wang towards China, Russia and Japan. In general, the situation around the Sino-Japanese conflict shows that the United States did not take part in defending the independence of Korea. With their tacit consent, the fate of Korea was sealed.

* * *

The results of American researchers ' study of the problems of US-Korean relations at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries indicate a significant amount of work done by US historians. This key period in the history of US foreign policy helps to understand many of the phenomena of the current US foreign policy towards the Korean Peninsula, which has its roots in this era.

Extremely important methodological significance for the study of US-Korean relations in the period under review are the provisions of the American geopolitical principles.

concepts that allow us to identify the main principles of the geopolitical approach to determining the essence of the US Far Eastern policy at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The conceptual foundations of US policy towards Korea at the initial stage of their interaction, which can be traced in the writings of American historians, are a reflection of Washington's desire to be a central force in international relations and a leader in the Pacific region.

list of literature

AVPRI (Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire), AVPRI (Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire). F. Japanese table. On. 493. 1892 l. 101 102, 210.

Muradyan A. A. American missionaries in the countries of the Far East, South-East Asia and Oceania in the XIX century Moscow, 1971.

Pak B. D. Russia and Korea, Moscow, 2004.

Ssmpa F. Spikeman's World II URL: http://konscrvatizm.org/konscrvatizm/gcopolitika/090410213813.xhtml (accessed: 16.03.2013).

Appenzeller H.G. The Opening of Korea: Admiral Shufcldt's Account of It // The Korean Repository. Vol. I. 1892.

Appenzeller H.G. The New American Minister // The Korean Repository. Vol. IV. 1897.

Brown A.J. The Mastery of the Far East. N.Y., 1919.

Burnett S.S. (ed.). Korean-American Relations. Documents Pertaining to the Par-Eastern Diplomacy of the United States. Vol. III. The Period of Diminishing Influence 1896-1905. Honolulu: University of Hawaii press, 1989.

Chandra V. Imperialism, Resistance and Reform in Late Nineteenth Century Korea: Enlightenment and Independence Club. Berkeley: University of California, 1988.

Chay J. The Taft-Katsura Memorandum Reconsidered // Pacific Historical Review. Vol. 37. № 3. August 1968.

Chay J. Diplomacy of Asymmetry: Korean-American Relations to 1910. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.

Clyde PH., Beers B.F. The Far East: a History of the Western Impact and the Eastern Response (1830-1965). New Jersey: Prcnticc-hall, 1966.

Dennis A.L.P. Adventures in American Diplomacy 1896-1906. N.Y., 1969.

Dennett T Americans in Eastern Asia: a Critical Study of the Policy of the United States with Reference to China, Japan and Korea in the 19th Century. N.Y.: Macmillan Company, 1922.

Dennett T. Early American Policy in Korea, 1883-7 // Political Science Quarterly. Vol. XXXVIII. 1923.

Dennett T. Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War. N.Y.: Doublcday, Page & Company, 1925.

Eckert C.J. Korea Old and New: a History. Seoul: Ilchokak Publishers for the Korea Institute; Harvard University, 1990.

Esthus R.A. The Taft-Katsura Agreement - Reality or Myth? // Journal of Modern History. 1959. № 31 (1).

Foster J.W. American Diplomacy in the. Orient. N.Y., 1970.

FRUS: Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United Stales / University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center. 2011 // URL: http://uwdc.library.wisc.edu/collcctions/frus (дата обращения: 12.03.2013).

Gale J.S. The Fate of the General Sherman // The Korean Repository. Vol. II. 1895.

Griffis W.E. Corea: The Hermit Nation. N.Y., 1889.

Griffis, W. E. America in the East: a Glance at our History, Prospects, Problems and Duties in the Pacific Ocean. L., 1899.

Griffis W.E. Korea: the Hermit Nation. Preface to the Seventh Edition // Korean review. 1904. Vol. 4. № 11.

Harrington F.H. An American View of Korean-American Relations, 1882-1905// One Hundred Years of Korean-American Relations, 1882- 1892 / Ed by Yur-Bok Lee and Wayne Patterson. Mobile, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1986.

Hulbcrt H.B. The Passing of Korea. L., 1906.

Johnson A.S. Early American Perceptions of Korea and Washington's Korea Policy, 1882-1905// Korea Journal. Winter 2011.

Kang W.J. The Korean Struggle for International Identity in the Foreground of the Shufeldt Negotiation, 1866-1882. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005.

Latané J.H. From Isolation to Leadership Revised: A Review of American Foreign Policy. Garden City: Doublcday. Page and Co., 1922.

Lcc Yur-Bok. West Goes East. Paul Georg von Möllendorff and Great Power Imperialism in Late Yi Korea. Honolulu, 1988.

Malozcmoff A. Russian Far Eastern Policy 1881-1904 with Special Emphasis on the Causes of the Russo-Japanese War. Berkeley Los Angeles: University of California, 1953.

McCune G.M., Harrison J.A. (cds.). Korean-American Relations. Documents Pertaining to the Far-Eastern Diplomacy of the United States. Vol. I. The Initial Period 1883-1886. Bcrkclcy-Los Angeles: University of California press, 1951.

Millard T.F. America and the Far Eastern Question. N.Y., 1909.

Mitchell J.H. of Oregon. Remarks in the Senate of the United States. August, 31, 1888 / / AVPRI. F. Japanese table. On. 493. 1892 g. d. 2. l. 210-213 vol.

Nahm A.C. Korea: Tradition and Transformation: a History of the Korean People. Elisabeth, NJ: Hollym, 1988.

Nahm A.C. A Panorama of 5000 Years: Korean History. Seoul: Hollym, 2007.

Nelson M.F. Korea and the Old Orders in the Eastern Asia. N.Y., 1967.

Oh Wei Nam. The Transformation of Frank Schoficld (1889-1970): Opening Korea, a Hermit Nation in East Asia // Social Identities. Vol. 14. № 2. March 2008.

Palmer S.J. (cds.). Korean-American Relations. Documents Pertaining to the Far-Eastern Diplomacy of the United States. Vol. II. The Period of Growing Influence 1887-1895. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California press, 1963.

Patterson W. Duality and Dominance: A Century of Korean-American Relations // One Hundred Years of Korean-American Relations, 1882-1982 / Ed by Yur-Bok Lee, Wayne Pattersons. Mobile, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1986.

Paullin C.O. The Opening of Korea by Commodore Shufcldt // Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 25. № 3. 1910.

Rcinsch P.S. World Politics at the And of the Nineteenth Century as Influenced by The Oriental Situation. N.Y.: The Macmillan company, 1900.

Schley. Rear Admiral Schley on the Little War of 1871 // The Korean Review. Vol. IV. 1905.

Swartout R.R. Mandarins, Gunboats, and Power Politics: Owen Nickerson Denny and the International Rivalries in Korea. Honolulu, 1980.

Swartout R.R, Gurtov M., Larson J.F. Korea's Amazing Century: from Kings to Satellites. Seoul, 1996.

Permanent link to this publication: