Talk:General Sherman incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is the true General Sherman ?[edit]

Hi! I have a question. These External links show incompatible information as follows:

the General Sherman (formerly the US navy gunship Princess Royal)
That is http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-p/pr-royal.htm.
...The Princess Royal was a Confederate navy blockade runner built in 1861. It was originally built for service in the Irish sea. It was 619 tons, 197 feet x 27 ft x 11 ft. It had one propeller, 2 boilers,
she became the merchant steamer General Sherman and was active until 10 January 1874, when she sank off Cape Fear, North Carolina.
  • 2. USS General Sherman (1864-1865, "Tinclad" # 60)
That is http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-g/gn-shrmn.htm
USS General Sherman, a 187-tonside-wheel "tinclad" river gunboat , was built in 1864 at Chattanooga, Tennessee,

Which is the true General Sherman ?--Lulusuke 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)--202.222.130.253 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second vessel is too small to be the ship involved here.Drutt 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second vessel might be the correct one, because the first page contradicts itself. It seems strange that a 619 ton cruiser which originally carried a crew of 90 would be in Korea with only 19 crew (plus one missionary). Therefore it appears that the kimsoft site, finding information about a "General Sherman" mistakenly presumed it was the same ship.
An American merchant W. B. Preston arranged with the Meadows & Co., a British firm in Tientsin, to send the General Sherman (formerly the US navy gunship Princess Royal) to Korea. The crew members were: Captain Page, Chief Mate Wilson and the owner Preston (all Americans); George Hogarth (a British); thirteen Chinese and three Malays.
The Princess Royal was a Confederate navy blockade runner built in 1861. It was originally built for service in the Irish sea. It was 619 tons, 197 feet x 27 ft x 11 ft. It had one propeller, 2 boilers, one horizontal geared engine and could make 11 knots. It carried a crew of 90 and two 12-pound cannons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.133.122 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the Princess Royal story may be the correct one, though how such a small crew could handle here remains in question. The source below relates that the ship was not totally burned and was refloated and used as Korea's first powered warship. It was then handed back over to the original American owner at the insistence of the Chinese after which it sunk in later years. As for the crew being soldiers and the ship being a US Naval vessel, that is highly unlikely for a ship with this history. No register for the Navy and the crew was not American.

http://www.shipstamps.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8589 Maddogducati (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in what source is "obsolete"[edit]

Why is "U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1870" not listed as an "obsolete" source, and neither is "Rev. Thomas's letter dated 12 January 1866 published in Missionary Magazine July 1866", nor is "Ein verschlossenes Land. – Brockhaus, Leipzig 1880", while "Gojong-sillok" (Vol.3)" IS considered obsolete, when they are all from roughly the same time? Isn't this a blatant bias discrediting against Korean recordkeeping, which in fact is the most authoritative source in this case? --186.60.238.95 (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English or US?[edit]

Was this an English or US expedition? This is confusing:"British trading firm Meadows and Co., based in Tientsin sent..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.111 (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question. Have removed the claim that it was a US merchant marine ship, although it is possible it was registered in the US to British owners. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a US ship operating in and around China, where the US and European powers exercised extraterritorial powers due to unequal treaty rights. The ship was on a US mission to open trade with Korea and arrived in China where it liaised in Tientsin with the above trading firm. While in China, it took on supplies, and also took aboard Robert Jermain Thomas, a Welsh missionary with Bibles. QuantumK (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in article[edit]

I just write this to show some errors in 'General Sherman Incident.' General Sherman was 80-ton armed merchant Schooner which was American style.And the day the writer is confusing is August 17 not 16 or 18. The most important thing is that the captain didn't explain their every purpose to Korean officiers. Also the ship loaded unnecessary items for Korean and she was too much armed since there were 19 soldiers as a merchant ship. Moreover, the ship was owned by an American plunderer, Breston(?) who had pretended that he just traded with South-East Asian countries. Furthermore, in Korea, before the ship was burnt down, they kept attacking riverside town at night when Korean officiers denied to trade with them.

Their original purpose was not a trade.

Please note that a stamp was issued (Scott #4639 by Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) commemorating the sinking of the General Sherman but it was issued 9/2/06 as 130won. Scott Stamp Monthly, June 2009 page 56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.180.19 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True General Sherman is what 'General Sherman Incident' is explaining since that is in a textbook. (preceeding text by 10:21, 7 April 2008 67.49.134.211)
Well, there certainly are errors in the article. For example, there is no such thing as a "side-wheel schooner." Possibly what is meant is a side-wheel steamer with schooner rigging, but have removed the reference to schooners at all pending further information. However, obviously you need to either find English language sources for the differences above, or perhaps revise your own information of the affair. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error regarding Turtle Boat[edit]

In the text, it was mentioned that a "Turtle Boat" saw action during the GS affair. There is no evidence that an actual "geobukseon" or "turtle boat" was used after the late 16th century Japanese invasion. What was more likely referred to regarding the 1866 GS incident was a boat that was filled with burnables and covered, which made it look somewhat like a turtle. Supposedly, the Koreans lit such boats on fire and drifted them out to the GS to torch it. - Bluelake (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do something with this![edit]

From: The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition. Peter N. Stearns, General Editor

1871, May 16

After the United States vessel, General Sherman, had sailed up the Taedong River toward P'yngyang and was attacked and destroyed by local Koreans, killing all 24 crewmen on board in 1866, a U.S. naval force, under Capt. Robert Shufeldt (1822-95), and the minister to Beijing, Frederic Ferdinand Low, tried to open Korea by force, as Commodore Matthew Perry (1794-1858) had done in Japan (1854) [>]. Marines landed at the mouth of the Han River, but hostilities ensued, and the project had to be abandoned. This subsequently became known as the “American Disturbance of 1871.”

The Taewn'gun held to a strict antiforeign posture in diplomacy, in spite of both China's and Japan's having been opened by force in the preceding three decades.

It is always pleasant to visit Wikipedia and find people screaming at each other that something needs to be done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, but there's hardly anything else to do. Obviously there are different versions of what occured (at the very least apparently Korean bias, North Korean bias, and Western bias versions) and the actual article is a mess. So us amateurs rather depend on someone with knowledge of the period or access to a decent library to come fix it for us. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Activities[edit]

The article totally fails to mention that upon the General Sherman's arrival, Mr. Robert Jermain THOMAS promptly proceed to engage in Christian Missionary and Christian Proselytizing activities, which were forbidden and outlawed by the Chosôn/Yi Dynasty Court. Mr. Thomas and the General Sherman were ordered by local Officials to stop all missionary and proselytizing activities. Mr. Thomas refused to do so and continued with his missionary and proselytizing activities, and Capt. PAGE, Mr. WILSON and Mr. W. B. PRESTON, all, refused to restrain and restrict Mr. Thomas's missionary and proselytizing activities. The engagement in outlawed and forbidden Christian Missionary and Christian Proselytizing activities, was another source of tension and conflict. - Armillary (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daewongun's order to kill all crews of General Sherman[edit]

Many articles discussing the General Sherman Incident repeat a quote known as 'the order of Daewongun.' These articles state that Daewongun himself sent an order that General Sherman must leave immediately or all aboard would be killed. Then, is it true? There are no Korean government documents supporting this order was ever issued. In fact, it was not advantageous to Koreans that the crew got killed and they knew that. Governor Park Gyu-su's dealing with General Sherman was to make the ship leave without any incidents.

Then, where did this quote first appear? The North-China Herald & Supreme Court & Consular Gazzette, dated Mar. 20, 1873 clearly identify the origin of this statement-- Father Félix-Clair Ridel. Father Ridel is one of surviving French priests during the massacre of Catholics that occurred early 1866. He escaped Korea and arrived in Chefoo, China on the middle of June, 1866. He and Mr.Robert Jermain Thomas worked very hard to convince French Naval Forces to launch a punitive expedition into Korea. However, the French had to put out the uprising in Vietnam first. On Sept. 10, 1866, when father Ridel led a small reconnaissance into Korea, he learned about the destruction of General Sherman and the fate of her crew. He went to near Pyongyang for further inquiry. When he came back to China in early October, he made a report that the crew of General Sherman was all executed. This statement is inaccurate for the crew was shot or beaten to death by civilians. Around the same time, a rumor was spread out about so-called 'the order of Daewongun.' And ever since, this statement has been re-used in many articles discussing the General Sherman Incident. I finally found the source of this statement was Father Ridel. Sun58kim (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to believe that a Catholic priest would be seeking "revenge" as the page currently claims, since one teaching of Christianity is to "love your enemies" and forgiveness is the primary message of Christian missionaries. Your claim that missionary Thomas somehow colluded with Father Ridel to convince the French into a "punitive" action is also questionable without more support. Let's at least get Father Ridel's full name (above) in his first mention.QuantumK (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check another Wikipedia article on "French campaign against Korea (1866)." Father Ridel came to Korea on Sept. 10th, 1866 as a part of French Military Expedition Force. The Missionary Thomas and Father Ridel's active involvements in the French invasion of Corea is well documented facts-- such as, U.S. Foreign Correspondence, letters written to London Missionary Society by R.J. Thomas and Joseph Edkins & etc.. Sun58kim (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Sherman incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Sherman incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plundering temples?[edit]

The sources for this are not listed in the references, except in the most skeletal way. I found one source which says that the Chinese and Malay crew members were boasting they would steal gold from the Koreans when they arrived, but nothing to support the assertion as found in the article. To me, it looks like conspiracy mongering, and, as I said, none of the sources listed can be followed up, which is against Wikipedia policy, as I understand it. Note too that the "further reading" sources actually have nothing to do with the substance of the article. Two of them deal with the 1950-53 war, and the other doesn't even list the General Sherman incident. I will delete in one week unless anyone can provide a good reason why these constitute "further reading" on the topic. Theonemacduff (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Sherman incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add Aftermath[edit]

Should there be a dedicated section on "Aftermath".

One of the understandable reasons why Koreans had such strict policies to prohibit warships and merchant ships in traveling on their Han river is because they had been attacked by the French warships and even later a German merchant who tried to blackmail and force them in opening up trade.

Those events occurred only months and a following year respectively after the general Sherman incident. 

Two months after the General Sherman incident, a French fleet of seven warships did actually show up, establishing a blockade of the Han River and dispatching a landing force to the size city of Ganghwa on the island of the same name.

However, Korean troops successfully repelled the invaders at the fortified monastery of Jeongdeung-sa, and the French troops ultimately had to beat a hasty retreat from an increasingly untenable position. They sacked Ganghwa city on their way out, stealing cultural relics and attempting to make off with a large engraved bell—before encroaching Korean troops forced them to abandon the booty as they fled back to their ships.

Then, in May of the following year, German merchant Ernst Oppert barely escaped Korea with his life after a misfired attempt to blackmail the Korean regent into opening trade with the West by holding the interred remains of the regent’s father hostage. You can’t make this stuff up! These incidents inspired the Joseon dynasty to mobilize Koreans against future potential invasions.

And then the first American military Action in Korea occurred as a consequent reaction to the General Sherman incident. I think such information are highly relevant and worthy to be added as they are closely related and gives an idea of Korea's policies of that era and their purpose.

Source https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/forgotten-korean-war-1871-174724 Casualfoodie (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs like this should be avoided except sometimes as an attributed opinion if its author is considered notable in the field (WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:USERGEN, WP:ATTRIBUTE, WP:YESPOV). WP:RSN and its archives can be consulted if necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 01:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong photograph for SS General Sherman[edit]

As H-Gram 063 The Battle of Ganghwa, Korea, 1871 and NH 63848 USS Princess Royal pointed out, SS General Sherman was originally named Princess Royal, and it was captured as a blockade runner in January 1863. It was not USS General Sherman which was built in 1864. I have removed the wrong photo. There is a watercolor of SS General Sherman as NH 63848, but I won't put it up until its copyright status is clear. --Happyseeu (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little is known about the ship[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_161#What_ship_was_sunk_in_the_General_Sherman_incident_in_Korea,_1866? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.
I found a link to an article that summarizes the video I watched (Peterson was interviewing Larsen in the video). I'm going to try and find a peer reviewed paper or book from Larsen on the topic. toobigtokale (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find a publication from Larsen on the topic (maybe I'll email him), but the Naval History and Heritage Command explicitly denies that it was a steam ship.
Relevant quote: General Sherman was a centerboard schooner (not a steam vessel, nor an ironclad, as in most accounts). [...] The ship’s prior history is murky, but it appears to have been originally British owned, possibly named Princess Royal. [...] The ship was acquired by an American owner, W.B. Preston, shortly before the voyage commenced, and the ship was then registered as an American-flag vessel under the name General Sherman.
Note: the ship is also consistently described as a "schooner" (example) even in a 1910 source, although I don't know if schooners are exclusively sail ships (I know nothing about boats)
I'm going to eat dinner and may/may not look into this further later; I wasn't planning on it being a big research priority but it's an interesting question toobigtokale (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale For consistency, I note the article uses SS in two places. And the name without SS in many more... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Sherman_incident&oldid=1206607521"