To be frank, it's clear the Brits were the baddies here. They used guns to force a state that had banned terrible drugs to unban it.
Whether that state was totally nice or democratic or "Chinese" or whatever value you cherish, is besides the point. It does not legitimize any of what GB did during either Opium War, and therefore I disagree that it's "important to stress".
Really zero hands; there was nowhere in 1839 that would be considered democratic by modern standards (no-one even had universal male suffrage at that point, never mind universal suffrage).
Right. But this renders moot the whole question of force and consent here. One undemocratic government did something to another undemocratic government. Or at least, if you think democracy is the sole source of legitimacy, that's what happens. I think there are other possible stories that could be told.
Neither side of this battle thought that allowing 100% unfettered trade in the terrorities they controlled was a good thing. This wasn't some ideological war by starry eyed libertarians.
