The Emperor Postpones Saigō’s Proposed Korea Mission

Relations with Korea were unsettled after the restoration government changed the diplomatic documents delivered through Tsushima. Korean officials rejected language and honorifics that altered the implied relationship between the two countries. Saigō Takamori proposed going as envoy, and the council supported dispatch in August 1873, before Iwakura’s return. Iwakura Tomomi returned in September 1873 while the government was considering Saigō Takamori’s dispatch to Korea. Sending an envoy carried risks beyond the presentation of a new letter.

The proposal was reaffirmed on October 15. Ōkubo Toshimichi opposed it and submitted his resignation on October 17. His accompanying letter stated that he could no longer accomplish the purpose of his office, while insisting that he would still serve the state in a crisis.

Iwakura presented the case against immediate dispatch to the emperor. On October 24 the emperor accepted postponement without a fixed date. This decision reversed the provisional council outcome. Saigō, Itagaki Taisuke, Soejima Taneomi, Etō Shinpei and Gotō Shōjirō left office. Their departure reduced the governing coalition and strengthened the position of those who had opposed dispatch. Former colleagues then pursued different courses, including political petitioning and, later, armed opposition.

The dispute involved the authority to settle policy as well as the risks of the mission. Saigō’s memorandum professed courteous negotiation; opponents feared its consequences and prioritized domestic work. The imperial ruling supplied the final decision, but neither the council’s proposal nor the ruling can by itself establish every participant’s private intention. Korea’s resistance to the new diplomatic forms was an independent part of the conflict.

Postponement did not commit the government to abstaining from force abroad. The Taiwan expedition followed in 1874, and the Ganghwa incident in 1875 preceded the treaty imposed on Korea in 1876. The crisis settled who controlled the immediate decision and when to act; its outcome did not remove coercion from subsequent policy.