Hello everyone!

I want to make sure the average reader who is somewhat knowledgable in Korean politics could understand my thesis. Please also let me know if you see any blatant grammer errors or wrong word usages. Thank you!

I have added some IDs to help you guys out.

Some IDs:
Chosun Dynasty: lasted from 1392-1910 Korea. Funny how it took an outside power to break up this country that has been arguably unified longer than any other country in the world. Oh well

Taewongun: Grand Prince, or Korean King Kojong's dad who ruled in his son's name when his son was a minor from 1864-1873. Supported domestic reform but foreign isolationism. Pretty stable ruler.

King Kojong: The son of the Taewongun who ruled Korea from 1873-? Overthrew his daddy in 73' because the elites thought his dad was to progressive. Kojong was basically used by elites. Eventually Kojong became more progressive domestically and open to international contact than his father. Very unstable ruler.

"Opening of Korea": Took place with Kanghwa treaty that was signed with Japan in 1876 under King Kojong.

Thesis
In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne. Within this conceptual barrier and monarchial government, the Taewon’gun’s policies seem to resemble more closely popular opinion, than the volatile Kojong policies. I agree with Syngman Rhee when he “attributes the weaknesses of the Korean people to the traditional system and rules that oppressed them and denied them proper education.” Indeed, both these late 19th century Korean leaders can be considered at fault for not supporting popular democratic reforms more openly. I argue, however, that within this available Korean leadership, a stable and sturdier leader such as the Taewon’gun would have better served the Korean people during the “Opening of Korea” than Kojong who “projected an overall image of an insecure, frightened, vacillating, and irresolute [youth].” The Taewon’gun gauged public sentiment more effectively, and his promotion for limited domestic policy reform laid the groundwork for future democratic development. King Kojong on the other hand took various stances, aligning with literati, foreign governments, or popular sentiment; catering to whichever choice he needed at the time and was least threatening not only to his throne’s power, but its mere existence.
Hi Rudy.

Very good. My suggestions are all of a minor nature.

In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne.
- "Envision" is an American term. That's fine with me. It depends on your target audience. The British equivalent would be "envisage".

Within this conceptual barrier and monarchial government, the Taewon’gun’s policies seem to resemble more closely popular opinion, than the volatile Kojong policies.
- To keep sequence of tense, it should be "seemed to resemble ..."
- There's a slight lack of clarity with the "than" comparison. Consider two possible interpretations:
1. Taewon'gun's policies resemble popular opinion more than Taewon'gun's policies resemble Kojong's policies.
2. Taewon'gun's policies resemble popular opinion more that Kojong's policies resemble popular opinion.
See what I mean? The reader can probably infer the correct meaning, but it's not stated clearly.

I agree with Syngman Rhee when he “attributes the weaknesses of the Korean people to the traditional system and rules that oppressed them and denied them proper education.” Indeed, both these late 19th century Korean leaders can be considered at fault for not supporting popular democratic reforms more openly.
- Should the quote start after "attributes"? Or is Rhee attributing to a third party?
- Is "openly" the right word? It depends whether they secretly supported the reforms.

I argue, however, that within this available Korean leadership, a stable and sturdier leader such as the Taewon’gun
- "Stable" is an adjective, "sturdier" is a comparitive. You can't really join them with the co-ordinating conjunction "and".

would have better served the Korean people during the “Opening of Korea” than Kojong who “projected an overall image of an insecure, frightened, vacillating, and irresolute [youth].”
- I suppose it could be assumed that your quote is again from Rhee, but there's a fair bit of text between this quote and the earlier one, so you may want to attribute it again.

The Taewon’gun gauged public sentiment more effectively, and his promotion for limited domestic policy reform
- Should be "... promotion of..."

laid the groundwork for future democratic development. King Kojong on the other hand took various stances, aligning with literati, foreign governments, or popular sentiment; catering to whichever choice he needed at the time
- Should be: "... he needed to at the time."

and was least threatening not only to his throne’s power, but its mere existence.
- Need the pronoun "whichever" after "and".
- "Mere" seems a bit weak here. Perhaps, "... its very existence" would be more emphatic.

Cheers

John.
Thank you very much John. Your comments are very clearly thought out and informative.