how effective are governments in selling civil war settlements

Which was a successful strategy for winning the Civil War?

The strategy for the United States was to surround the territory of the South in the Anaconda Plan, blockading the Atlantic Ocean and controlling the Mississippi, to keep goods from going into or out of the South and forcing them to surrender.

What was the economic impact of the Civil War?

The Union's industrial and economic capacity soared during the war as the North continued its rapid industrialization to suppress the rebellion. In the South, a smaller industrial base, fewer rail lines, and an agricultural economy based upon slave labor made mobilization of resources more difficult.

Who has the economic advantage in the Civil War?

The UnionThe Union had a clear advantage in the “economics” of this war. It not only had a population roughly three times the free white population of the Confederacy, it also had the advantage of larger and far more sophisticated market institutions with which to organize its war effort.

Does the US still have debt from the Civil War?

An Associated Press analysis of federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148 years after the conflict ended.

Who benefited from the Civil War?

The Civil War confirmed the single political entity of the United States, led to freedom for more than four million enslaved Americans, established a more powerful and centralized federal government, and laid the foundation for America's emergence as a world power in the 20th century.

What changed economically after the Civil War?

After the Civil War, the North was extremely prosperous. Its economy had boomed during the war, bringing economic growth to both the factories and the farms. Since the war had been fought mostly in the South, the North didn't have to rebuild.

Could the Confederacy have won?

The South could win the war either by gaining military victory of its own or simply by continuing to exist. For as long as one Confederate flag flew defiantly somewhere, the South was winning. As long as the word “Confederate” had genuine meaning, the South was winning.

Was the North or south more wealthy during the Civil War?

The 1860 census data show that the median wealth of the richest 1% of Southerners was more than three times higher than for the richest 1% of Northerners.

How much did the Civil War cost back then?

In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.

Can the US ever pay off its debt?

Congress has made many attempts to lower the national debt, but it hasn't been able to reduce the growth of what the nation owes. The U.S. debt is the outstanding obligation owed by the federal government.

What would happen if the US paid off its debt?

2:538:01What If The US Paid Off Its Debt? - YouTubeYouTubeStart of suggested clipEnd of suggested clipSo would lead to galloping or hyperinflation galloping inflation is when the price of goods. AndMoreSo would lead to galloping or hyperinflation galloping inflation is when the price of goods. And services Rises. More than 10 percent per month and hyperinflation.

What country has the most debt?

Japan, with its population of 127,185,332, has the highest national debt in the world at 234.18% of its GDP, followed by Greece at 181.78%. Japan's national debt currently sits at ¥1,028 trillion ($9.087 trillion USD).

What was the economic impact on the South after the Civil War?

After the Civil War, sharecropping and tenant farming took the place of slavery and the plantation system in the South. Sharecropping and tenant farming were systems in which white landlords (often former plantation slaveowners) entered into contracts with impoverished farm laborers to work their lands.

How did the Civil War affect the American economy quizlet?

Economic impacts from the Civil War were extremely important. ECONOMICALLY, The Northern economy was booming, there was steel manufactering and corporations transition from war supplies to other industries. Cotton textiles boomed but wages did not keep up with prices. Also, peoples standard of living declined.

What were the political economic and social effects of the Civil War?

The Civil War destroyed slavery and devastated the southern economy, and it also acted as a catalyst to transform America into a complex modern industrial society of capital, technology, national organizations, and large corporations.

Why was economy a cause of the Civil War?

Southerners made huge profits from cotton and slaves and fought a war to maintain them. Northerners did not need slaves for their economy and fought a war to free them. Everything else, many textbooks claim, was tied to that economic difference and was anchored by cotton.

Bottom Lines

Negotiated Settlement to Civil War May Cause More Harm than Good. Civil wars ending in negotiated settlements are (1) more likely to recur; (2) no more likely to lead to democracy than other types of settlements; and (3) do not deliver increased prospects for economic prosperity.

A Statistical Assessment of Civil War Termination

This study's data set of all civil wars fought from 1940–2007 (137 wars in total) shows that victories occurred more than four times as often as negotiated settlements and seven times as often as cease-fires/stalemates. The trend, however, was clearly toward a negotiated settlement.

The Way Ahead

At their ideal extremes, neither negotiated settlements (as typically designed and implemented) nor victories are apt to resolve civil wars in a way that (1) spares lives, property, and cultural treasures; (2) endures; (3) creates space for greater political liberty; and (4) establishes the conditions necessary for economic reconstruction, recovery, and development..

Downloads

For Academic Citation: Toft, Monica Duffy. “ Rethinking Rebellions: A New Approach to Ending Civil War .” Policy Brief, Quarterly Journal: International Security, April 2010.

What was the peace process between South Africa and the ANC?

The 1990s peace process between South Africa and the ANC illustrates how high civilian reliance incentivizes rebel leadership to push for public benefits. The ANC's power base was strongly civilian: it relied on a “people's power” strategy, and was involved in local governance, facilitating the development of, and working in tandem with, alternative governing structures to those of the state ( Huang 2016 ).

Why do rebels stand firm?

Our central argument is that rebel leaders whose military and political power depends more on constituent populations will “stand firm,” signing peace agreements that provide a greater proportion of public benefits, whereas rebel leaders who do not depend on civilian constituents will be more willing to “sell out,” signing agreements with fewer public benefits for the civilians they claim to represent. 6 This follows for three reasons: (1) the need to maintain military effectiveness; (2) civilian influence on rebel governance; and (3) leaders’ desire to maintain political power.

When do rebel leaders “sell out” their constituents in the terms of peace?

When do rebel leaders “sell out” their constituents in the terms of peace by signing agreements that benefit group elites over the rebel constituency, and when do they instead “stand firm,” pushing for settlement terms that benefit the public they claim to represent? This article examines variation in the design of civil war settlement agreements. It argues that constituents, fighters, and rebel elites have different preferences over the terms of peace, and that rebel leaders will push for settlements that reflect the preferences of whichever audience they are most reliant on and accountable to. In particular, leaders of groups that are more civilian-reliant for their military and political power are more likely to sign agreements that favor broad benefits for civilian constituents, while leaders who do not depend on civilian support for their political and military power will sign agreements with fewer public benefits. We test this argument using original data on the design of all final peace agreements reached between 1989 and 2009, and several proxies for the group's level of reliance on civilian supporters. Using a variety of statistical tests and accounting for nonrandom selection into peace agreements, we find strong support for our hypothesis.

Do rebels depend on civilians?

The above discussion suggests that rebel leaders who depend on civilians for their military/political power will be more likely to fight for public benefits in the terms of settlement than rebel leaders whose power does not derive from civilian support.

How much war recurrence is negotiated settlement?

With regard to the negotiated settlements, there is just over 1 percent war recurrence, thus making any inference from such data unreasonable. In the same way, less than 1 percent of war recurrence out of total terminations suggests: does the war recurrence factor deserve that much attention at all? There is no compelling reason for policy makers to discourage peace agreements and support one side to push a war to its “natural end”. The nature of the data does not provide sufficient scope to be able to accept or discard Wagner’s or Downes’ hypotheses, either. Wagner argues that rebels use negotiations to re-gather strength and re-wage wars, and Downes claims that negotiated settlements are not the right solutions to ethnic or identity wars.

Why is the Civil War study a realist?

This theory assumes that one state sees its gain not only in its own progress, but in undermining the progress of another state. The reason for selecting realist theory is because most civil war studies are basically realist in nature. They see warring groups’ behavior through self-interest, power, and deceits.

What did Toft claim about the Cold War?

Toft, and also Caroline Hartzell (Hartzell, 1999), claims that the practice of signing agreements significantly increased after the end of the Cold War (Toft, 2010a). However, Toft has come to her conclusion using the dataset of both Cold War and post-Cold War – data from 1940s to 2000s (see Toft, 2010a; Toft, 2010b; Toft, 2010c). Therefore, taking into account the shift in the world order after the two power blocks lost their ideological interests in civil wars (Stedman et al., 2002), the question arises whether those claims can be empirically verified if the dataset is to be disaggregated into post-Cold War data only. Against this backdrop, this study tests the above-mentioned hypotheses or claims on the evidence. Table 1 below contains the disaggregated data of Toft (Toft, 2010b) which shows the figure of post-Cold War cases. As the population of the data is rather small to be able to apply any statistical tool, the simple tabulation of data is analyzed – based on percentage calculation.

Why did UNITA revert back to armed struggle against MPLA government?

As regards the peace agreement , apparently the reason UNITA reverted back to armed struggle against MPLA government was mainly MPLA’s ill-intentions, disputed elections, etc. However, the character of the agreement and the international community’s position, which failed to induce the spoiler leader Jonas Savimbi vis-à-vis his diamond supplies, were arguably a major motive for which Savimbi embraced war rather than peace (Stedman, 2000).

How long does it take for a war to recur?

According to Toft’s criteria, when violence re-erupts within the period of 5 years after the signing of peace agreements, a war is taken as recurred. She only includes those wars in her data set that have 1,000 battle deaths per year in average (for details, see Toft, 2010a). Incidentally, UCDP (Uppsala Conflict Data Program) includes wars which have 25 battle-related deaths per year and, as a result, has many more war terminations included, compared to Toft (see Kreutz, 2010).

What was Wagner's theory of defeat?

Wagner’s hypothesis that defeat would leave rebels so weak that they could hardly re-gather the strength to re-wage war does not hold true in this case. Because, taking into account the fact that UNITA was almost completely destroyed at one point, which was then revived by US support into a solid warring side (Ray, 2007; also see “Former Rebels in Angola Shun Unity Meeting” in New York Times, 1992/11/22), enlightens the fact that relapse into war is contingent on the international structure (for the effect of international structure on civil wars, see also Hartzell et al., 2001) and interest, rather than on the sabotaged conditions of warriors, as Wagner claims (Licklider, 1995). In the context of Cold War, UNITA had enjoyed a significant support from the Reagan administration (Ray, 2007).Though the Cold War-type of international interest was irrelevant when UNITA resumed war in 1998, Congo-Brazzaville and Zaire first, and then Burkina Faso and Togo, helped resupply the diamond rich UNITA.

What is the title of the book Peacemaking in International Conflict?

Zartman, W.I. ed., 2007. Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Bottom Lines

A Statistical Assessment of Civil War Termination

The Way Ahead

Related Resources