The trend of monuments erected related to the Donghak Peasant Revolution symbolically demonstrates how much the perception of the revolution has changed over the past century. Before liberation, monuments to anti-peasant forces were prevalent, but after liberation, such monuments disappeared. Conversely, in the 1960s ~ 1980s, monuments to state power contrasted sharply with those of the prodemocracy movement, which had grown in resistance. The conflict between the Donghak Peasant Army and the anti-peasant army, who fought alongside each other despite their shared righteousness [의리], has been extended in modern history, with democratic forces and military regimes remembering and commemorating the same event in different ways. In this article, I explore the origins of this "different ways of remembering the same event" in the differences between two archetypes of Neo-Confucian political perception, linking these differences to the theories of righteousness between the peasant army and the antipeasant army in the Donghak Peasant Revolution. I then examine how these differences are reflected in the conflict surrounding the memory of "nation" in modern history from the 1960s to the 1980s. Finally, I Added my opinions on the award of honors to participants in the Donghak Peasant Revolution. In Joseon, a Neo-Confucian state like no other in the world, the Neo-Confucian theory of righteousness[의리론] manifested differently depending on the difference in perspectives on self-cultivation[수기] and governing the people[치인], and founding and consolidation of a dynasty[수성과 창업]. It was organized into two types: "conservative and stable" and "reformative" orientation. These two types were viewed as forming the two archetypes of Neo-Confucian political awareness. At this time, since the Neo-Confucian theory of righteousness basically did not go beyond the scope of the Three Bonds and Five Relationships, even when a rebellion broke out, it remained in the pro-royalist mode. However, it was viewed that the political awareness oriented toward reform could go beyond this due to the influence of Mencius's revolutionary theory. From this perspective, we examined the theories of righteousness between the peasant and anti-peasant armies. Despite emphasizing loyalty, that is righteousness to the king, both the peasant and anti-peasant armies fought against each other. Grounded in Neo-Confucian theory of righteousness, the peasant army advocated for the restoration of benevolent governance by eliminating violent attacks and protecting the nation and its people. This had the nature of anti-official uprising. However, going a step further, the theory of founding a dynasty argued that its ultimate goal could go beyond pro-royalism and even advance to the establishment of a "new independent Joseon nation," that is, revolution. Furthermore, even in the anti-foreign power movement aimed at expulsion of Japanese invaders, the movement emphasized Neo-Confucianism, stating, "If the king is humiliated and a subject must die, loyalty and righteousness are one and the same.“ Meanwhile, the anti-peasant army, advocating for defending orthodoxy and rejecting heterodoxy[위정척사], rejected the Donghak and peasant uprisings through the logic of "righteousness and wrong" and "good and evil." They argued, "If we confront the government and the people, then, when discussed in terms of righteousness, it is by no means the duty of a subject." They asserted that the peasant army's righteousness was a false righteousness, and that the anti-peasant army's actions, fulfilling the "duty of a subject," represented the true righteous uprising. While the theories of righteousness in both the peasant army and the anti-peasant army stemmed from the same root of Neo-Confucianism, they differed distinctly, such as the distinction between “self-cultivation and governing the people”, and “founding and consolidation of a dynasty”. This distinction mirrored the differences evident in the struggles over the banner of "nation" in the 1960s and 1980s. Like Neo-Confucianism in the Joseon Dynasty, nationalism in 20th-century Korea held a transcendent position over any other ideology. Because the nationalist tradition was so strong, both opposing forces, whether for "rule" or "resistance," held the banner of "nation." However, their connotations were significantly different. This distinction manifested itself in the distinction between so-called Korean nationalism and popular nationalism. This distinction was also evident in the memory of the Donghak Peasant Revolution in the 1960s and 1980s. On the one hand, there were the Gabo Donghak Revolution Memorial Tower(갑오동학 혁명기념탑, 1963) and the Donghak Revolutionary Army Memorial Tower(동 학혁명군위령탑, 1973), both erected by Park Chung-hee, and the Donghak Revolution Historical Site Restoration Project promoted by Chun Doo-hwan. On the other hand, resistance to these efforts led to commemorative activities by the democratization movement. This resulted in the designation of the "Special Act on the Restoration of Honor of Participants in the Donghak Peasant Revolution" (동학농민혁명참 여자등의명예회복에관한특별법, 2004) and the establishment of a commemorative day (2019). Accordingly, attempts to distort or minimize the Donghak Peasant Revolution can no longer gain traction. The historical interpretation of the Donghak Peasant Revolution has now shifted dramatically. Meanwhile, I concluded that it was necessary to distinguish various movements after 1894 into "national salvation movements" and "independence movements." Based on this premise, I concluded my article by suggesting that, when it comes to restoring the honor of participants in the Donghak Peasant Revolution, rather than linking the second uprising to the Eulmi Righteous Army as a national salvation movement and requesting decorations, it would be wiser to revise special laws, similar to those related to the May 18th Democratization Movement and the Jeju April 3rd Incident, to ensure separate treatment comparable to that given to independence activists.