Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The civil war conflict
Conflicts that led to the civil war essay
Conflicts that led to the civil war essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The civil war conflict
With the elite stealing from the public, this was a way to ensure that they remain in power; even if this meant at the cost of their countries economy and political stability. We have to consider that during this time ethnic groups were also attempting to take part in having some portion of this power by contending against one another for scarce resources which in turn created rebellions to begin emerging in their nation. This is how civil conflict began taking place. When the people begin becoming greedy and attempting to take part in some of the wealth that was initially taken from them, then this lack of trust will most often create mayhem. But all was not lost, many states may have struggled during this time to create a stable and successful …show more content…
As mentioned, multiple factors played a part in state failure. But what we should also consider is whether these prior informal structures were a reason that certain actors were capable of gaining power and interest. Criminal economic wars that have occurred during times of peace can also be a deciding factor on whether a war prolonged or not. This applies to warlords or elites who provide security against taxation in a failed state. The elites interests would be to continue failing their citizens and making sure civil conflict was an issue rather than the citizens blaming the central power. Somalia can be made a strong example of this. On one hand we can see that when there is a climate of tension or battle amongst its people or its different clans, then the central state for power is seen as a tool for suppressing its people and financial extraction. On the other hand, we know that certain elites in power may be in fear of a new central government being created that may disturb their money-based greed and personal political gains. Its an obstacle that the elite attempt to make disappear. If such factors are not put into consideration, then these powerful actors may get in the way of state-building efforts and continuing to fail the …show more content…
Rather than creating growth and stability, the independence had an opposite effect. He argues throughout When Things Fall Apart that legitimate coercion is often used throughout Europe as a strategy to have a stable state. Africa, unfortunately, has not done the same but rather the people and the elite have used violence tendencies to create fear and as a way to control the means of production of wealth and the state. It is due to this violence and coercion that Africa has struggled to maintain any success. He also continues to point out that Africa has three main players who are all competing for the production of wealth and at times a mean for power; the elite in power, the citizens and the the customers of their natural resources. These three players are essential when attempting to create a stable state. There has to be an equal amount of legal coercion and production of wealth amongst the three players for a state to succeed and accomplish stability. Unfortunately this was not the case when it came to
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
"The wind of change is blowing through this [African] continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it" (Macmillan). This speech, made by the prime minister of England in 1960, highlights the vast changes occurring in Africa at the time. Changes came quickly. Over the next several years, forty-seven African countries attained independence from colonial rule. Many circumstances and events had and were occurring that led to the changes to which he was referring. The decolonization of Africa occurred over time, for a variety of complex reasons, but can be broken down into two major contributing factors: vast changes brought about in the world because of World War II and a growing sense of African nationalism.
Leading up to the final outbreak of the Civil War, the issue of slavery was greatly avoided until it became a huge controversy from 1850 to 1861, especially between the North and the South. From the start of the nation’s beginning, the Founding Fathers had collaborated to create the Constitution, which was expected to unite the nation and its people together. Evidently, as slavery threatened to shred apart the union, the Constitution was proved powerless to alleviate the rising tensions. As time progressed, the Constitution’s imperfections were exposed one by one to the Americans. By the 1850’s, the Constitution had failed to produce clear terms on the process of determining whether new states would be free or slave-holding, the status of slaves and free blacks concerning the Fugitive Slave Acts, and the issue of secession within the discontented states. All the defects contributed to the ultimate failure of the nation, with the impending Civil War not far away.
Civil War During the American Civil War, which lasted from 1861-1865, over 620,000 accounted soldiers were killed. Known as the "the first modern war", historians generally agree that the reason for this was because this was a time of transition for the military. Armies and Navies were still using tactics where they would gather large forces of firepower to bear on the enemy. At the same time, weapons were being developed which were accurate and lethal well beyond any arms of the earlier conflicts.
The Civil War was the fundamental event in America's historical realization. The war fixed two necessary questions which left it unclear by the revolution. The war all started because of rigid differences between the freemen and the slave states over the power of the national government to ban slavery in the regions that had not became states yet. The American Civil War was the biggest and by far the most vicious battle in the Western world between the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and the beginning of World War I in 1914. Northern victory was the war that preserved the United States as one nation and broken the foundation of slavery that had separated the country from its beginning (James McPherson, 2013).
It is thought-provoking, in the sense that Africa’s need for foreign created a race to the bottom, much like what Pietra Rivoli described in The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy. Due to some African states’ reliance on foreign aid in order to mine and profit on their resources, they allow business standards to be lowered and for Chinese firms to tip the contracts moresoever in the favor of Chinese firms. This lowers the potential earnings of African states by lowering royalty rates, for example. Additionally, Burgis’ research was thorough and transparent. When he did not receive a response or if his questions were dodged, he made it obvious to the readers. Sure, some could view this book as too anecdotal to be used as a credible source of Africa’s situation. However, this is due to the nature of the system Burgis is writing about; after all, they are shadow states for a reason. Some readers will be saddened by this text, others angry, most curious to learn more, but above all, everyone will be intellectually stimulated and
The Civil War is widely believed to be the necessary evil our country had to go through in order to come to a common understanding and abolishment of slavery. Yet the slavery had existed in our lands since before our country was even established, so what made us examine it closer so as to see that its nullification was required? Between the years of 1850 to 1861, our country¡¯s eyes were turned toward slavery by the major reform movements in the north, the discrepancies that came with the westward expansion, and the dispute over what rights a state was truly granted.
...nt variables. It can deal with the interests within a country and interests out of it. It can occur due to ideological differences or religious differences. It can occur due to a power grab, and in the cases of a failed brinkmanship, can be a complete accident. Each war throughout history has its own unique set of reasoning for occurring, which makes studying the causation of war so fascinating: in every war you study, you are guaranteed to find so many unique characteristics that it possesses.
Sometimes the aftermath of a war can be just as destructive as the war itself. This was especially true after the First World War. When the war was over, governments were in shambles, unable to govern their own subjects. They could not give their people what they needed, and in the political turmoil aspiring leaders used this to their advantage and took power. After World War One, the totalitarian leaders of Adolf Hitler in Germany, Benito Mussolini in Italy, and Joseph Stalin in Russia were able to take power through the political chaos that followed the war, each government’s inability to provide for their people, and the people’s hunger for change.
Some of the effects of slavery in America were positive, but almost all of slavery’s impact in Africa was harmful. One major change in the areas that slaves were exported from is shown in demographics. Thousands of males were taken from their families and communities, and the tribes were expected to survive without many of their local leaders or role models. Not only did local tribes in Africa have hardships, but the leadership in many of the countries’ governments weren’t stable. The cruel trade demonstrated “how the external demand for slaves caused political instability, weakened states, promoted political and social fragmentation, and resulted in a deterioration of domestic legal institutions” (Nunn) in Africa. In addition to the crumbling political aspects of the tribes, there were cultural and native conflicts. Many wars and disagreements occurred, and those conflicts significantly slowed down development and economic growth in African countries
How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney, was one of the most controversial books in the world at the time of its release. The book seeks to argue that European exploitation and involvement in Africa throughout history. This is the cause of current African underdevelopment, and the true path to the development is for Africa to completely sever her ties with the international capitalist economy. Rodney describes his goal in writing the book in the preface: “this book derives from a concern with the contemporary African situation. It delves into the past only because otherwise it would be impossible to understand how the present came into being and what the trends are for the near future” (vii). Rodney writes from a distinctly Marxist perspective by arguing that the inequalities inherent in European capitalism and required exploitation of certain countries in order to sustain capitalism.
Africa’s struggle to maintain their sovereignty amidst the encroaching Europeans is as much a psychological battle as it is an economic and political one. The spillover effects the system of racial superiority had on the African continent fractured ...
There is no doubt that European colonialism has left a grave impact on Africa. Many of Africa’s current and recent issues can trace their roots back to the poor decisions made during the European colonial era. Some good has resulted however, like modern medicine, education, and infrastructure. Africa’s history and culture have also been transformed. It will take many years for the scars left by colonization to fade, but some things may never truly disappear. The fate of the continent may be unclear, but its past provides us with information on why the present is the way it is.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.