Talk:First Opium War

Aelmsu

I've reread the sources, to make sure I didn't miss anything (and perhaps I missed twice), but I came up short.

For starters, Gelber does not mention anything about where the women were in my reading, so I disagree with the use of "contrary to this view". I also rechecked volume 10 of the The Cambridge History of China (originally the cited source) and located the line about opium being the single most profitable commodity of the 19th century, but could not find anything about the British Empire's revenues (if it even makes sense to speak of such a thing). He says "Opium now flowed freely from all of India to Canton, and by 1836, total imports came to $18 million, making it the world's most valuable single commodity trade of the nineteenth century".

I have not read the entirety of Joanna's book, but I have checked each page referenced and find no mention of a ban. I'm welcome to this being a case of an incomplete citation, or differing edition, and a quote would be enough to budge me on this point.

Anti war views in Intro

To be fair, Britian didn't unanimously agree to a war. There was significant internal division within their gov about the ethics of forcing the Chinese to continue the opium imports through war, with some proponents arguing that it was unethical. Sir James Graham, Lord Phillip Stanhope, and William Ewart Gladstone led the anti-war faction in Britain, and denounced the ethics of the opium trade and opposed the war. I think that is noteworthy significant history that should be mentioned in the introduction chapter. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Free trade wasn't the Chinese laws

The intro was incredibly biased and making it seem like the Chinese were the ones in violation of "principles". The elephant in the room is that the Chinese didn't want the British to profit from opium whereas the British saw the Chinese refusal to let British to sell opium to them , as some kind of sleight. Like how dare the Chinese create their laws that make it inconvenient for the British to profit from opium. The most important context that should be emphasized is that the opium trade was illegal and the British ignored that. Yet the intro makes it seem like the Chinese were in the wrong here for violating the principle of free trade as if they were in breach of international laws. Such an extremely biased take to blame it on the Chinese despite they didn't break the laws. The British did break Chinese soverign laws and hence it should be noted in the intro clearly as what really occurred behind the onset of the war. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Do your objections still hold? This all seems to be covered in the lead. LastDodo (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne Foreign Secretary?

The following passage makes it seem like Melbourne became Foreign Secretary after Palmerston and for the remainder of the war:

In Britain, changes in Parliament resulted in Lord Palmerston being removed from his post as Foreign Minister on 30 August. William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne replaced him, and sought a more measured approach to the situation in China. Lamb remained a supporter of the war.

I believe this is not accurate, at least Melbourne is not listed as Foreign Seretary on the page about the office, rather it seems Lord Aberdeen replaced Palmerston when the Melbourne government fell and Peel became Prime Minister on 30 August 1841. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastDodo (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)