Question of inevitability Historians have often pondered whether the war could have been avoided.Glenn Paul Melancon, "Palmerston, Parliament and Peking: The Melbourne Ministry and the Opium Crisis, 1835–1840" (PhD LSU, 1994) pp. 222–239. One factor was that China rejected diplomatic relations with the British or anyone else, as seen in the rejection of the Macartney mission in 1793. As a result, diplomatic mechanisms for negotiation and resolution were missing.Spence, The Search for Modern China (1990) pp. 122–123. Michael Greenberg locates the inevitable cause in the momentum for more and more overseas trade in Britain's expanding modern economy.Michael Greenberg, British Trade and the Opening of China, 1800–1842 (1951), p. 215. On the other hand, the economic forces inside Britain that were war hawks, Radicals in Parliament and northern merchants and manufacturers, were a political minority and needed allies, especially Palmerston, before they could get their war.Peter J. Cain, and Anthony G. Hopkins. British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688–1914 (1993) p. 40. In Parliament, the Melbourne government faced a host of complex international threats including the Chartist riots at home, bothersome budget deficits, unrest in Ireland, rebellions in Canada and Jamaica, war in Afghanistan, and French threats to British business interests in Mexico and Argentina. The opposition demanded more aggressive answers, and it was Foreign Minister Palmerston who set up an easy war to solve the political crisis.Jasper Ridley, Lord Palmerston (1970) pp. 248–260. It was not economics, opium sales or expanding trade that caused the British to go to war, Melancon argues, but it was more a matter of upholding aristocratic standards of national honour sullied by Chinese insults.Glen Melancon, "Honour in Opium? The British Declaration of War on China, 1839–1840." International History Review 21 (1999): 855–874 online.Glenn Melancon, Britain's China Policy and the Opium Crisis: Balancing Drugs, Violence and National Honour, 1833–1840 (2003).
Question of inevitability Historians have often pondered whether the war could have been avoided.Glenn Paul Melancon, "Palmerston, Parliament and Peking: The Melbourne Ministry and the Opium Crisis, 1835–1840" (PhD LSU, 1994) pp. 222–239. One factor was that China rejected diplomatic relations with the British or anyone else, as seen in the rejection of the Macartney mission in 1793. As a result, diplomatic mechanisms for negotiation and resolution were missing.Spence, The Search for Modern China (1990) pp. 122–123. Michael Greenberg locates the inevitable cause in the momentum for more and more overseas trade in Britain's expanding modern economy.Michael Greenberg, British Trade and the Opening of China, 1800–1842 (1951), p. 215. On the other hand, the economic forces inside Britain that were war hawks, Radicals in Parliament and northern merchants and manufacturers, were a political minority and needed allies, especially Palmerston, before they could get their war.Peter J. Cain, and Anthony G. Hopkins. British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688–1914 (1993) p. 40. In Parliament, the Melbourne government faced a host of complex international threats including the Chartist riots at home, bothersome budget deficits, unrest in Ireland, rebellions in Canada and Jamaica, war in Afghanistan, and French threats to British business interests in Mexico and Argentina. The opposition demanded more aggressive answers, and it was Foreign Minister Palmerston who set up an easy war to solve the political crisis.Jasper Ridley, Lord Palmerston (1970) pp. 248–260 It was not economics, opium sales or expanding trade that caused the British to go to war, Melancon argues, but it was more a matter of upholding aristocratic standards of national honour sullied by Chinese insults.Glen Melancon, "Honour in Opium? The British Declaration of War on China, 1839–1840." International History Review 21 (1999): 855–874 online.Glenn Melancon, Britain's China Policy and the Opium Cris.is: Balancing Drugs, Violence and National Honour, 1833–1840 (2003).