Category: Civil War

Uncle Toms Cabin, 1852

Harriet Beecher Stowes novel was in unprecedented circulation for its time and described the despair and anguish that shrouded slavery throughout America. Using the example of a deceived and suffering enslaved person, the author showed the cowardice, hypocrisy, and lies of the entire system and its defenders in particular (Stowe, 2021). Contemporaries recognized that Stowe did a great job by publishing the novel. The novel provoked fierce criticism from the enslavers and their families; the author was repeatedly exposed. However, the book became a propaganda mouthpiece on the path to freedom from slavery, fundamentally influencing public sentiment. Even Abraham Lincoln admitted that Stowe was the key to starting the Civil War.

The Dred Scott Case of 1857

The Dred Scott case became a black stain on American law, encouraging the spread of slavery even in states where it did not exist at that time. Even though Dred Scott died a free man, the judiciary never showed him a favor, having struggled for many years. Dred Scott was humiliated by judges and enslavers, and only the abolitionists helped him contain the pressure (Helg & Vergnaud, 2019). This case subsequently increased the wave of abolitionism, and Abraham Lincoln repeatedly referred to the story of Dred Scott in his debate with Stephen Douglas.

The Lincoln Douglas Debates, 1858

The Douglas-Lincoln debate underlined everything that had happened before it. Lincoln mentioned Dred Scotts legal losses referred to other separate stories; in particular, both debaters said The Kansas-Nebraska Act (Kyte, 2022). These debates reflected the contradictions between the South and the North sharply, and Lincoln used the metaphor of a divided house. With its division and total contradictions, this home, America, tears itself apart from within and collapses. Stephen Douglas was a stern opponent of Lincoln, who already had popularity and political merit. The problem of slavery was raised to a new level of discussion, and the intensity became evident to everyone.

The Inevitability of the American Civil War

Society could have avoided a civil war in America, but the intensity of public discontent was too great. The community was ready for changes and wanted them, and the passionate people intercepted the agenda in time; they wrote literary works and filed lawsuits. However, it was hard for society to part with the idea of slavery. Single disturbances would not have led to a Civil War, but their combination and concentration made war inevitable.

References

Helg, A., & Vergnaud, L. (2019). Slave no more: Self-Liberation before abolitionism in the Americas. The University of North Carolina Press.

Kyte, L. (2022). Admitting a wrong: Apology for the historical injustice of the Dred Scott case. BYU Law Review, 47(1), 317-354.

Stowe, H. B. (2021). Uncle Toms cabin. Phoemixx Classics Ebooks.

Introduction

The American Civil War stands out as the most devastating conflict ever to have been waged on American soil. In this deadly war, the Northern States went into battle against the Southern States for the sake of preserving the unity of the Union of States. The Southern States had threatened to break apart from the union and establish their own independent states.

This threat was acted upon when eleven Southern States seceded from the Union in 1860 and declared themselves independent. The Northern States, under the Lincoln Administrations, therefore reacted by taking up arms to go into battle against the Southern rebels. The American Civil War therefore began in 1861 and lasted for the next 4 years during which hundreds of thousands of lives were lost.

This war had a lasting impact on the destiny of the USA and Americans continue to commemorate the events of the Civil War through an array of public events inducing reenactments. This paper will set out to describe the American Civil War with focus being given to the causes of the conflict and the main outcomes of the war. The paper will also highlight some of the reasons why the Union forces emerged victorious in this historical war.

Causes of the Civil War

The election of the strong Republican, Abraham Lincoln as the US president triggered the start of the Civil War. The seceding states explicitly stated that Lincolns election was the reason why they decided to pull out of the Union at that moment. During his rise to prominence, Lincoln had articulated a firm antislavery position (Ford 91).

Lincoln held the opinion that the phrase all men are created equal uttered by the founding fathers applied to both White and Black Americans. His convictions and ideals led him to make a pledge that he would stop the westward expansion of slavery that the Southerners were lobbying for and actively financing. Lincolns presidency marked a radical break with the past and it was seen as a break from the domination of the Slaveholders in State affairs.

His election into the highest office in the land was therefore seen as a threat by the Southerners who were adamant in their will to preserve slavery and the norms of the white society dependent upon that institution. Lincolns inauguration as president was quickly followed by the secession of seven southern states and the formation of a Union of Confederate States of America. Within three months, four more states had joined the confederacy making the total number of seceding state eleven.

The issue of the amount of power held by the States and how much was vested in the Federal government served as a primary cause of the Civil War. The Confederacy wanted power the greater amount of power to lie with the states since according to them, the United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States (Swindler 166).

On the other hand, the Union supported a strong central government that would have more power than the constituent states. This division led to the Southern States moving towards secession since they were of the opinion that the individual states should be able to act independently on issues that affected them.

The expansionist politics endorsed by the United States contributed to the breakout of the Civil War. Americans were engaged in an endeavor to expand further into the West, conquering territory until they reached the Pacific Ocean. Disagreements arose over what policies would be applied to the new territories.

While the Northerners were interested in abolishing slavery in the new territory, the Southerners were keen to ensure that this institution was preserved in the new lands. In an attempt to come up with a solution to the issue, politicians invented the Henry Clay Compromise of 1850.

This compromise comprised of resolutions that would ensure that the interests of the North and the South were protected in the expansion. Ford observes that while these resolutions were able to strike a balance between the free and slave states for a while, the South did not fully honor the resolutions (255). Southern States continued to push for slavery in the new states and eventually succeeded, leading to the outbreak of the civil war.

The issue of slavery was very divisive since the societies in the northern and southern states had different economic and social structures. Due to the economic and cultural background of the Northerners, this population took a firm stand against slavery. Renowned politicians from the North such as Abraham Lincoln called made their anti-slavery stand known and opposed expansion of slavery into the new lands in the West. Southern leaders were pro-slavery and according to them, this institution was crucial to the economic well-being of the South.

Slave ownership was the cornerstone of Southern wealth, security, and well being and protecting the slavery institution was a necessary step to guard the material interests of the Confederate whites. As such, the Confederate soldiers entered military service to defend the supremacy of white persons and property (Gallagher and Engle 311). On the other hand, the Union side saw the abolition of slavery as key to preserving the union of the State.

Outcomes of the Civil War

The most important outcome of the Civil War is that it led to a decisive victory by the Union Forces. With the defeat of the secessionists, the reunification of the United States under the Federal Constitution was achieved. The Confederacy idea was abandoned as the Southerners had to come back to the Union since they had been defeated in the war.

As the victorious side, the Union was able to impose its vision of the country. A stronger union of the states was established and the states became a United States (Gallagher and Engle 311). The post Civil War government was highly centralized and it wielded great power. The federal government established its dominance over the states and it has continued to do so ever since.

The war led to many deaths and casualties as soldiers and civilians made sacrifices for their sides. By the end of the war, the Confederacy had incurred a loss of more than 260,000 soldiers while the Union suffered from a loss of over 360,000 Federal soldiers.

The higher number of Union soldiers deaths, was caused by the fact that the Union forces had to engage in the attacking while the Confederate forces simply defended their territory. Ford reveals that the high number of troop deaths in the war was because the objective of the war was to weaken or destroy the opposing army and not to gain any geographical territory (132).

The War imposed a huge financial burden on the country as resources had to be dedicated to war efforts by both sides. The Union dedicated its industrial efforts to aiding the war while the south also channeled money to the war efforts.

Over the course of its existence, the war is estimated to have cost in excess of $20 billion. Ford notes that this figure was 30 times larger than the federal governments budget in the year before the war (34). While both sides suffered from financial strain because of the war, the Southern economy received the greater damages.

Before the war, the North already boasted of a stronger economy and a better-developed infrastructure. The war was more damaging to the South since the North had a larger and better-equipped army. The agriculturally based economy of the South was devastated as Northern troops destroyed plantations during the war. Historians document that the devastation of the war on the Confederacy side was so great that it took six decades for the Southern states to get back to their pre-Civil War agricultural productivity (Woodworth 563).

The War led to the disruption of the lives of citizens in the North and the South. While most of the war was waged by soldiers against their opponent soldiers, civilians sometimes fell victim of attacks. In some cases, unruly troops set fire upon plantations leading to great loss of property and even lives.

The lack of Federal protection to the people of the seceding states in the south made civilians vulnerable to opportunistic attacks from thugs. Troops often burned down buildings therefore destroying towns that they had conquered. The destruction of the war did not end with the official surrender of the Southern states. Many insurrections followed the defeat of the confederacy as rebels continued to wage war against the Northern States and generally devastate community life.

The Civil War led to the official abolition of slavery in the United States. In 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves who were in the areas currently under Confederate military control. Through the emancipation policies, Lincoln effectively linked the preservation of the Union with the abolition of slavery.

When the war ended in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified therefore ensuring that the American Constitution would guarantee the freedom of all slaves (Woodworth 568). The Southerners who had fought to preserve the slavery institution were embittered by this outcome since they had to set their slaves free. In spite of the black population achieving their freedom because of the war, the white society continued to prevent them from exploiting its benefits fully (Woodworth 568)

The war led to the political dominance of Northern Republicans. Before the war, the Southerners had had the greatest influence in American politics.

During the War, the Confederate states were out of the Union and this allowed the Northerners to pass a number of acts in Congress that had been considered before the war but were blocked by Southern economic and political interests (Woodworth 560). Without the Southerners, the Northern politicians were able to implement acts that promoted western expansion and the interest of the Northerners.

Why the Union Won

The states making up the Union were more industrialized and their army had military superiority to the less industrialized confederacy. Due to the higher level of industrialization, the North was able to produce weapons more efficiently that the South.

Historians document that the north was able to purchase over 1.4 million artillery rounds and 260 million small-arms cartridges from Northern munitions makers in a year while the Confederacy produced only 150 million small-arms cartridges for the entire duration of the war (Gallagher and Engle 311).

The Union had over 700 naval vessels engaged in the war efforts. Most of these vessels were ironclad, making them formidable machines of naval warfare. In contrast to this, the Confederacy had almost none, making it impossible for the South to wage any naval attack against the North. This overwhelming advantage in weaponry by the Northern army gave them a significant advantage over the Confederacy and contributed to their ultimate victory.

The naval blockade by the Union contributed to the victory of the North. As an economy based on agricultural products, the South was heavily reliant on the foreign exchange earned by exporting their products through the Atlantic and the Gulf Coast. The South was also dependent on goods from outside since the region was not as industrialized as the North or other European countries. During the Civil War, President Lincoln called for a blockade that was aimed at preventing the South from receiving supplies and arms.

Gallagher and Engle state that this ever-tightening blockade was very effective and by 1865, it had succeeded in choking off imports to the Confederacy almost completely (311). As a result, the southern economy was crippled since ship operators were unwilling to have their ships confiscated by the Union Forces or destroyed. With little activity at the Southern ports, the Southern armies experienced a shortage of suppliers and ammunition as the war carried on.

The Union was able to sustain its economic activities even during the duration of the war. The industrial capability of the Northern states ensured that they exhibited growth even during the war. These states were able to sell off surplus industrial products overseas and earn foreign currency (Ford 56). In contrast to this, the South experienced economic stagnation or even deteriorated during the period of the war. The economic realities of the South led to high inflation rates and a general negative attitude towards the war by southerners.

The population of the warring parties also had some impact on the outcome of the war. Specifically, the Union had a larger population than the Confederacy. Some scholars argue that the Union won because of its overwhelming numbers. This argument is supported by the fact that while the Confederacy mustered close to 900,000 soldiers, the North was able to employ over two million soldiers (Gallagher and Engle 311).

The impact that great human and military resources had on the outcomes of the war was acknowledged by the Confederate Leader General Robert E. Lee who declared in his farewell address that the Confederate Army has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers of resources (Gallagher and Engle 311). By harnessing the vast resources that the North boasted, the political and military leaders of the Union were able to achieve the military might necessary to win the war.

Conclusion

This paper set out to provide a detailed discussion of the Civil War between the American North and South. It begun by nothing that the election of Abraham Lincoln triggered the secession that led to an outbreak of the war. Both sides were determined to win the war and due to this resolve, the war dragged on from 1861 to 1865.

The war resulted in the victory of the Union and the abolition of slavery in the US. The paper has highlighted that the overwhelming resources in population, industrialization, and infrastructure, strong leadership and a great commitment to the war enabled the Union to win the war.

Works Cited

Ford, Lacy. A Companion to the Civil War and Reconstruction, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print.

Gallagher, Gary, and D. Engle. The American Civil War: This Mighty Scourge of War, Colorado: Osprey Publishing, 2003. Print.

Swindler, Walsh. Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation. ABA Journal 67.1(1981): 166-169. Print.

Woodworth, Steven. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. Print.

Introduction

There are numerous documentations that accounts for the American history. Most of these documentations give details on events such as colonization and slave trade in the country. It becomes fascinating to study the transition that United States has undergone since its establishment. There are other documents that accounts for some of the historical sites and their significance to the country. One of the sites that have been greatly featured in the countrys history is Fort Sumter.

Situated in the harbor of Charleston, Fort Sumter is a vital part of American history. It is believed that American civil war originated from this fort and spread to other parts of the country. As a result, there have been numerous documents that give reasons that triggered civil war in this region while others outline the progression of the civil war and its effects to the fort. The discussion of this paper aims at giving a historical account of the fort, how it was built and its significance to parties that fought in the American civil wars. It will also give the current status of the fort and its current use.

Building of Fort Sumter

The fort is located at the entrance to Charleston harbor and is named after Thomas Sumter a general. The 1812 war spurred the need for construction of a fort to strengthen the United States military along the coast which led to construction of fort Sumter. Its construction commenced in 1827 and went on up to 1860. It was built with granite from England which was used to make a sand bar at the entrance. The fort itself was built by brick. It was made up of 5 sides and had the capacity of handling 135 guns and 650 men though there was no time that the fort was full to the capacity. To ensure that it was hard to destroy the fort, the builders decided to make its walls thicker.

Confederate rebels fired at Fort Sumter in April 1861. This was at the time when Lincoln was president. The president had to act fast to ensure that his soldiers were not overpowered and the fort confiscated from them. The harbor was in command of Major Robert Anderson. Sumter was the most vital fort under Union control. To overthrow those manning the fort required a thorough training as it was hard to gain access into the fort. Beauregard continued training the South Carolina militia how to use guns in harbor ports.

Lincoln did not like war and he sent supplies to the harbor using Star of the West ship, which were blocked by the Confederates. This is after being informed that Anderson had food that would last him to the fifteenth. Lincoln tried to reduce tension by calling South Carolinas governor to inform him about the supplies.

Acting under orders of President Jefferson Davis of Confederacy, General Beauregard commanded the Union to surrender Fort Sumter. The Union ignored this order prompting the Confederate to fire. This made Anderson surrender.

Abraham had a strong belief about the supremacy and need to protect the countrys constitution. This belief made him to call upon local militia to suppress any opposition against federal laws and territory. This is the fort that fired shots from a civilian merchant ship which initiated the American Civil war. This incident did not trigger the war, but was a bad sign of things to come. The civil war was triggered by a number of factors one of them being slavery.

North and South Carolina seemed to be following different rules and lifestyles. The north was more developed and densely populated. The south was less developed and with its main economic activity being agriculture. The campaigns against slavery affected very few people in the south because very few were slave holders. This battle came right after Lincoln was elected president, at the same time South Carolina started a session debate. The session debate continued in other states like Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

The state of South Carolina seceded in December 20, 1860. This army which later called itself union army occupied Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was a well built fort, and most important than Fort Moultrie. All the troops were bought from fort Moultrie to come defend fort Sumter.

This is a move opposed by the authority who felt that he should hand over the fort. Andersons men needed supplies, this would become difficult to get because there were no US troops in the area. President James did not want to escalate the war.

At the same time he needed to protect the fort, hence Major Anderson remained there. He reached a compromise to send civilian transport to the port so that the rebels would not fire at unarmed civilians. The delivery was made using a civilian ship, Star of the West which reached the Charleston Harbor. The rebels fired two shots at the ship, but their bullets did not get the target.

Importance of fort Sumter to the confederates

Confederates after taking fort Sumter made effort to strengthen it. They perceive the fort as important to their military ambitions as it had been constructed with most strong materials. This meant that it was hard for enemies to break into the fort. The manner in which the fort had been constructed gave its users an advantage over their enemies. It had various tires that were strategically located. The forts barbette gave the confederates a wide angle from which they could attack their enemies.

It was possible to see their enemies approaching from far thus prepare to attack. By winning fort Sumter, the confederates believed that they would bar their enemies from attacking them. Being build of up- to-date materials, it was hard for attackers to get control of the fort. This meant that those who would manage to take its control were superior. Confederate taking control of the fort showed their superiority thus making their enemies fear them.

First Battle of Fort Sumter

On the night of December 26, 1860, General Anderson secretly removed the cannons from Fort Moultrie and relocated his soldiers to Fort Sumter. This was after realizing that fort Moultrie was defenseless. Sumter being strategically located and built of the state of the art materials offered good defense. The move was not received well by South Carolina government which found it as an insult. This led to them immediately ordering for the fort to be evacuated. During this period, President Buchanan was still in power. Lincoln was waiting to be inaugurated as the next president. The president went against their order and commanded his soldiers to organize an ambush on the confederates.

Three aides (Lieutenant Chisolm, Captain Stephen Lee and Colonel James Chesnutt) were sent in April 12 1861 to order for surrender of fort Sumter, Anderson declined. This was because Anderson new that they were to be supplied with food shortly thus they could be able to continue defending the fort. The aides went back to Beauregard who consulted his war secretary on the issue. He then decided to aides back and ordered them to think of whether to use force to get the fort. They approached Anderson again who discussed his conditions. For him he was willing to leave the port on April 15^th so long as he did not get other orders from home.

He claimed that as they had less food, they would leave immediately their supply got exhausted. Asked on the exact date, Anderson could not give the exact day they expected to leave. This was a trick as he knew that the president had authorized for a ship to resupply them with food and ammunition. All that was required is to trick the confederates until the supply arrives. By giving up the fort, it would appear that Lincoln had seceded to the confederates. This made him decide to supply his soldiers with food and ammunition rather than asking them to leave the fort. By Lincoln allowing the confederates to take fort Sumter, he could not be in a position to hold the Union together. After consulting his advisors, he decided to supply the soldiers guarding the fort.

According to the confederates, Anderson was to assure them that he was not going to attack their ships at all. However, he said that he could not relent from attacking them if their happen also to attack his fleet. They failed to come to agreement and the aid went to Fort Johnson which was close to Sumter. Here Chesnutt gave orders for firing of Port Sumter. The Confederate fired towards fort Sumter continuously for 34 hours. It is not known who the first person to fire the first bullet was. Edmund Ruffin, an agronomist, claims to have fired the first shot. It is also claimed that Lieutenant Henry ordered a firing by which James Island fired the first shot against fort Sumter.

This shot was fired at 4.30 am and is believed to be the first shot. The Union returned ineffective fire, which had little impact because it was mounted on a low tier as opposed to the highest tier (barbette tier). The colors of the Union fell during the attack prompting Lieutenant Norman J. Hall to risk his life to put it back up. In the process he burnt his eyebrows. No union soldier died in battle. However, a confederate soldier was hit by misfired cannon which made him bleed to death. The second soldier got injured by a shot salute. This was the 47th shot out of 100.

Surrender

As the fight intensified, the forts flag post fell. This left United States soldiers without a flag. Before Anderson and his team could come up with alternatives of hoisting the flag, the confederates sent their aides to enquire on whether it was an indication that they were about to surrender. Anderson agreed for a ceasefire at 2:30 p.m. the same day. By the evening they had curved out terms with respect to how Anderson and his men could evacuate the fort. The Union soldiers ended up succumbing to confederates pressure and handed the fort to them. No soldier from both frontiers was injured or killed during the fight.

To leave the fort, Anderson demanded that the confederate soldiers had to salute the United States flag by shooting in air a hundred times. However, the shooting was stopped at the fiftieth time after it produced sparks that left one soldier dead (Daniel Hough) while scores of others got injured. Union troops spent the night in a confederate ship and later ferried to their ship which was waiting outside the harbor. The soldiers and their families sailed back to land that was under the control of the Union. This left the confederates with control of the fort.

After the War

Anderson and his troop got overpowered by the confederates. This is because they had inferior weapons and their food and weapon supply was delayed. Eventually the confederates emerged victorious taking control of the fort. As the fort had been made strongly and was strategically located, it gave the confederates an upper hand with respect to defense. It was hard for enemies to attack and overthrow them. The war left the fort in ruins. This led to the need for people to work in order to restore its initial value. The American soldiers took the responsibility of rebuilding the fort. As all its walls had been damaged, the military struggle to re-level the damaged walls.

However, it was hard to raise them back to their initial height. This made them leave them at a lower height. The walls were also partially rebuilt to repair where they were completely damaged. Eleven of the initial rooms used for storing guns were completely rebuild as they had been damaged during the war. The third level of gun emplacement was eliminated as it was hard to restore it.

The defeat of the American soldiers led to Lincoln championing for all states to combine their efforts and come up with a strong troop to reclaim the fort from the confederates. With the magnitude of rebellion being low, Lincoln managed to lure the Northerners to support his idea. He managed to get support from approximately 75,000 volunteers. They waged a fight against the confederates which lasted for four years.

Eventually, the confederates succumbed and left the fort. For all this time, Charleston harbor was being controlled by confederates. The Union forces regained control of the fort several days after the confederates surrendered which resulted to disintegration of the confederacy. General Anderson hoisted Fort Sumter flag once again.

From 1876-1897, the fort acted as a light house station. No government or soldiers guarded the fort. Nevertheless, the war between the Americans and the Spanish made the military focus on the fort due to its military usefulness. The military started reconstructing some of the facilities that had gotten damaged over the time. They came up with a huge blockhouse in 1898. The house was named Battery Huger after General Isaac Huger who had died when participating in the war. The fort was not used during the First World War though there was a minor garrison in the fort to guard the two riffles kept in the house. By the time the second war erupted, the fort was not being used as a military base. It was only acting as a tourist end with numerous visitors coming to the fort.

Uses of fort Sumter today

After the Congress recognized the significance of fort Sumter, it decided to erect a monument at the site. Since then the fort has been used as one of the major tourist sites in the country. As a result, thousands of tourists visit the fort annually. For years, the fort has been used as a national park service. There are numerous materials and weapons used by the soldiers during the war that are still stored in the fort. It is this reason that makes the fort a tourist attraction. Scholars visit the site to collect information regarding the history of the fort. A guard station has been built in the fort which is used as life saving station. There are always people at the station who assist sailors in case of problems.

The light house in the fort is used to guide ships. As it is tall, it is possible for sailors to spot it from far. There are people in the fort who have volunteered to assist in rescuing people from wrecked ships. Despite the station being controlled by national park service department, it still acts as a lifesaving station as well as a navigation aid site. In addition, the fort acts as museum and different exhibitions are held in the site where tourists are informed about the historic events that took place in the fort and its current importance to the country.

Bibliography

Brewer, Paul. The civil war: state by state. San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2004.

Catton, Bruce. Picture history of the civil war. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., 1982.

Detzer, David. Allegiance: fort Sumter, Charleston and the beginning of the civil war. New York: Harcourt, 2001.

Eyewitness to History. The first shot of the civil war: the surrender of fort Sumter, 1861. Eyewitness, 2006. Web.

Hickman, Kennedy. American civil war: battle of fort Sumter, Military History Guide, 2010.

Ripley, Warren. Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War. Charleston, S.C.: The Battery Press, 1984.

Turner, John. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1890.

Wise, Stephen. Gate of Hell: Campaign for Charleston Harbor, 1863. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994.

The Civil War in the United States continues to attract the interest of many historians who want to discuss the underlying causes of this conflict and its effects. In particular, they often discuss the extent to which this confrontation was inevitable. Overall, it is possible to say that the notion of inevitability is not fully applicable to this situation. More attention should be paid to the individual decisions of policy-makers, their attitudes, and values. It is often assumed that the conflict related to the legal status of slavery in the country was irreconcilable. However, by looking at the events which preceded the Civil War, one can argue that the confrontation did not have to evolve in the civil war; more likely, it can be explained by the failure to reach a compromise. This is the main thesis that should be elaborated more closely.

This issue can be discussed by looking at the primary sources. Historians, who support the idea that the American Civil War was inevitable, lay stress on the dramatic differences in the opinions of northern and southern political leaders (Heyrman, Lytle.& Stoff, 2010). For instance, one can mention the arguments expressed by John Calhoun (1850), who believed that there had been various encroachments on the rights of Southern states. For instance, one can speak about attempts to limit slavery in the country. In his view, the government had to put an end to such attempts; otherwise, the political role of the South could be reduced to the minimum. He speaks about the domination of Northern politicians in the state apparatus due to the growing population of these (Heyrman, Lytle.& Stoff, 2010). Therefore, one of the options available to the Southern states could be to secede from the Union, if their needs were not taken into account by the government. This is one of the details that can be identified. To some degree, the events known as Bleeding Kansas suggest that pro-slavery and anti-slavery interest groups could enter into a violent conflict.

In turn, Abraham Lincoln (1858) also focuses on the problem of slavery. In his opinion, the Union could not remain sustainable if the problem of slavery was not resolved. He refers to the notorious Dred Scott decision, which highlighted the potential conflict between two regions of the country. Moreover, in his view, the spread of slavery had to be stopped. This is why he focuses on the Kansas-Nebraska Act according to the status of slavery could be determined with the help of popular vote (Lincoln, 1858). In his opinion, this decision was completely unacceptable. Overall, one can say that both politicians recognize the importance of slavery, and they have the opposite opinions on this issue. Moreover, they are unwilling to consider the interests of one another. Therefore, these dramatic differences in opinions indicate that the civil conflict in the United States could eventually break out. This is one of the arguments that can be made.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember several details indicating that the conflict was not inevitable. In particular, one should mention that Southern state did not secede from the Union simultaneously. This process was led by South Caroline, but it was not immediately supported by the legislators in other states. For instance, one can mention Tennessee, which was the last to join the Confederacy. Moreover, West Virginia emerged as a state because local policy-makers did not want to secede from the Union. Furthermore, they abolished slavery before the end of the Civil War.

Moreover, there were some slave states did not secede; for instance, one can mention Missouri and Delaware. Thus, one cannot say that the problem of slavery was irreconcilable. This is one of the exceptions that should be taken into account. Overall, the pattern of secession does not fully support Calhouns idea that all Southern states did want to be a part of the Union because the government wanted to restrict or abolish slavery. These are some of the issues that should be taken into account.

Much attention should be paid to the willingness or unwillingness of the local elite to accept the policies of the federal government. In some cases, they did not want to secede from the United States only because of the conflict which emerged as a result of the slavery debate. Moreover, the support of cession was particularly strong in the states in which the economy was very dependent on slave labor (Heyrman, Lytle.& Stoff, 2010). In this case, the idea of inevitability is not fully acceptable. More likely, one can speak about the failure to reach a compromise.

This discussion is important because it indicates that the American Civil War continues to be a subject of heated debate among historians. One cannot say that this conflict was pre-determined by some forces that could not be controlled. The examples, which have been described, suggest that this war takes its origins in the attitudes and interests of separate politicians who could not change the strategies. In particular, one should speak about the unwillingness of Southern political leaders to accept the dangers of depending on slavery. These are the main details that can be distinguished.

Reference List

Calhoun, J. (1850). The Clay Compromise Measures. Web.

Heyrman, C., Lytle, M., & Stoff, M. (2010). U.S.: A Narrative History. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lincoln, A. (1858). House Divided.Web.

The American Civil War led to massive destruction of property and loss of life. Many people were killed in the southern and northern state battlefields. However, the war led to the emergence of a united and strong country driven by a desire to achieve one dream. Though the Civil War occurred in the 19^th century, the roadmap to the war began back in the 17^th century.

In 1619, slave trade emerged in America when Virginia English settlers bought 20 Africans from a Dutch ship to work on their farms. These first batches of slaves were later sold away as indentured servants, a title that completely changed with the arrival of more Africans into the country.

The establishment of slavery followed the enactment laws in states such as Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1660 which legalized slavery. However, Maryland adopted a new law in 1663 that not only legalized slavery, but also recognized life slaves. This was followed by a law in 1667 that revoked the initial English requirement which forced slaves to convert to Christianity before serving the white people (Forster 96).

The first antislavery group emerged in Pennsylvania to stage a protest against this practice. This group argued that slavery was against Christianity as the slaves were stolen from Africa. The Pennsylvania abolition society began countrywide sensitization campaigns in 1775 to advocate for the end of slave trade and slavery. A year later, the declaration of independence was pronounced, and the country gained independence from English empire. According to the independence declaration, all men were created equal and should be subjected to an equal and just environment (Waugh 220).

After the independence declaration, Vermont joined the United States in 1777 together with Pennsylvania in 1780. During the Philadelphia convention of 1787, delegates debated the merits of halting further importation of slaves into the country. However, South Carolina and Georgia threatened to boycott any resolution that would halt the importation of slaves. In 1790, the country had the first census which indicated that African slaves were 18% of the countrys population. However, the states that had abolished slavery such as Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts had no slaves (Waugh 221).

In 1793, the fugitive slave act which allowed for the recovery of runaway slaves was enacted. The provision of cotton gin patent in 1794 increased the value and demand for slaves in states such as South Carolina and Virginia. In 1807, the United States senate passed a law that led to the abolition of slave importation into the country. In 1838, the first antislavery black movement known as the Underground Railroad Network was organized (Kherdian 121).

In 1849, Harriet Tubman, a key figure in the antislavery movement, escaped from slavery. She assisted 300 more slaves to escape. In November of 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States, paving way for the Emancipation Proclamation. More than 75,000 troops were recruited from the militias to help enforce antislavery laws in the country. However, a number of states such as Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Louisiana seceded from the union in response to the policies of Lincoln. The Civil War began in 1861 in fort Sumter, ushering in the darkest era in American history (Waugh 223).

Works Cited

Forster, Stig. On the Road to Total War: The American Civil War and the German Wars of Unification, 1861-1871. Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 1997. Print.

Kherdian, David. Visions of America. New York: Macmillan, 1973. Print.

Waugh, John. One man great enough: Abraham Lincolns road to Civil War. Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007. Print.

Topic

Causes and Consequences of the Civil War (1861-1865).

Grade/Subject/Academic Level

7^th Grade/History/ Regular.

Time

45 minutes.

Springboard/Warm-up Activity

Topic: To review previous lessons and link up these lessons with the current lesson.

Activity

I will randomly select students to explain what they have gained during the previous lessons. This is meant to help me as a teacher to determine whether students are aware of the facts that come before any war, either short-term or long-term conflict, or both types of conflict must prevail, and also understand that war is associated with detrimental consequences.

Students should a Pre and Post-test Assessment

I will introduce the questions after giving the following short statement, Having heard some of the causes and consequences of the war, you are required to answer some short questions to determine your current level of knowledge. The questions given will include (sample of pre and post-assessment test):

1. Define war____________________
2. Explain three causes of war
3. State four consequences of war
4. Highlighting the period, describe a historic war event of your choice.
5. What are some of the measures that can be taken to prevent the occurrence of war?

The same questions will be used for post-assessment but will be specific to the Civil War. The students are likely to score less than 70%.

Pre Assessment Data

Sunshine State Standards and Learning Outcomes

Big Idea

To understand and explain the chronological sequence of the Civil war from the beginning to the end, and define its causes and consequences.

MH.7H.1.1. Refining the chronology of the Civil War

MH.7H.1.2. Extending and refining the cultures of the conflicting parties

MH.7H.1.3. Extending and refining the influence of open boundaries on the Civil War

Learning Outcomes

Students will learn

• The chronological events of the Civil War
• The causes of the Civil War
• The consequences of the Civil War
• The aftermath of the civil war

Topic Outline with Teacher Activities and Questioning

Learning Style

The lesson is intended to promote audio, visual, and kinesthetic learning. The lesson will begin with an audio-video film describing the Civil War. Later on, the teacher will augment the film by giving a brief lecture of 10 minutes. The major part of the class will involve cooperative learning (kinesthetic learning) where students will be randomly divided into groups.

Activity 1: Film (5 minutes)

Students will watch a film that gives a summary of the Civil War and will be asked to re-tell this film in their own words in their notebooks.

Activity 2: Lecture

I will refine the film so that students understand it better. I will advise them to read the books: Mark Johnson, That body of brave men: the U.S. regular infantry and the Civil War in the West (2003), Howard Jones, Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War (1999), and The American Civil War (2002) edited by Thomas E. Griess, as well as extensive online literature to delineate information and enhance learning.

Activity 3: Group-work (10 minutes)

Papers written in numerical numbers from 1 to 5 will be used to place students into their respective groups. Each group will be given a question to answer and a representative will be selected to present the groups work in two minutes of speech.

Activity 4: Vocabulary review

Terms such as the Civil War, Confederate, Republicans, the Democrats, and the Republicans will be reviewed. Word organizers will be used to help students learn as many words as possible.

Questioning

Analysis

Q. What are some of the measures that can be used to prevent war?

Q. Do you think that the Civil War would have been avoided? Why/ Why not?

Q. Was there an end to the Civil War?

Synthesis

Q. Mention different types of war that you know?

Q. How did these wars come about?

Q. What are some of the wars we are experiencing in the current world?

Evaluation

Q. Describe the events during the Civil War?

Q. What were the causes and consequences of the Civil War?

Notebooks will also be used to evaluate students in terms of their ability to analyze and synthesis content.

Evaluation and Pre and Post-Test Assessment

The questions given at the beginning of the lesson will be used towards the end of the lesson to evaluate the knowledge gained. However, the questions will be as specific as, define the Civil War______________. I presume that after the lesson, each student will get at least 80%. Notebooks will be used to evaluate an individuals level of understanding.

Post-Assessment Data

Student ParticipationGuided Practice

Each group will be given a question to discuss, and later present it to others. Meanwhile, each group member will write down in their notebooks what their group has discussed.

Student ParticipationIndependent Practice

Students will work independently during pre and post-assessment. They will be required to answer five short questions to evaluate the level of their knowledge at the beginning of the lesson, and knowledge gained at the end of the lesson.

Students with Special Needs

Students who are not native English speakers will be assisted to enhance understanding by the use of simple language and review of vocabulary.

Closure

I will end the lesson by giving the students feedback on their group-work activity. Besides, I will collect the notebooks and inform the students of what the next lesson will be about.

There are so many movies, which present rather captivating and educative information about the Civil War. Some of them focus on loving affairs during the times of the war; some movies touch upon the historical issues and battles; and some movies just concentrate on certain situations and events in order to represent the peculiarities, which are inherent to wars.

Some of these movies are Gettysburg, The Birth of a Nation, Gods and Generals, The Red Badge of Courage, and Gone with the Wind; the last movie deserves our attention in this paper, because of numerous reasons. Gone with the Wind is a historical movie about the War between the States, the Reconstruction, and the inequality that was inherent to those times with all its cruelty and unfairness.

With the help of this movie, people can easily observe that slavery and racism were considered to be one of the most integral parts of the Civil War.

The epic drama under consideration is about the life of Scarlet OHara, a fictional character, during a certain period of time  before the times of the Civil War till the times of Reconstruction. First, the movie presents a clear picture of pre-Civil War life: its every day problems, balls, public meetings, etc. Of course, people faced certain difficulties caused by racial and ethnical inequality: black people had to work and be slavers for white ones.

However, these problems turned out to be nothing in comparison to the events, which are waiting for them in near future. The Civil War frustrated so many dreams, and no one could overcome the difficulties.

To my mind, Scarlet OHara is one of those characters, who helps to comprehend how serious and terrible the war and its outcomes are. At the beginning of the movie, when Scarlet is flirting with the twins, she just cannot comprehend why so many people are constantly talking about the upcoming war. She finds this war simple, stupid, and unnecessary. However, with time, when this stupid war takes so many loved people, Scarlet cannot but be angry with it. She does not know what to do and how to save her family and herself.

When the Civil War starts, we see that Scarlet helps numerous people, who have been injured during the actions. She tears to pieces her dress in order to bind the wounds; she tries to hold on herself and be useful to people. This transformation from a young girl, who does not care about the war and its outcomes into a woman, who is ready to kill in order to protect her house and her family, a woman, who can overcome numerous troubles in order to help and save or relief someones life.

Without any doubts, the Civil War caused numerous stresses and pressure on people. Those people, who want to continue their lives and save their childrens future, have to be strong, have to be courage. So, first of all, Gone with the Wind helps to comprehend the emotional level of the Civil War and the Reconstructions: peoples emotions, troubles, tears, and lives, which were taken by the war.

However, emotional aspect of the war is not the only one that is perfectly described in the movie. Historical events should be also mentioned in this discussion. This masterpiece gives a clear picture of the South; this Civil War saga and the description of a woman, who represents poverty, wealth, war, and wars consequences, demonstrate the historical development of the events.

In this movie, it may really seem that Yankees are quite good people, and the representatives of the Confederation turn out to be evil. However, in the process of watching it, we can realize that Yankee are not that safe and kind, and they are the people, who are ready to spoil all Confederates gentility.

Gone with the Wind is considered to be a worthwhile piece of writing that touches the minds and souls of millions of people. In fact, it is not my opinion only. Lots of critics have the same point of view and share it with the readers and listeners. The perfect story for a nation that had just struggled through an economic depression, it attract readers and viewers everywhere. (Young 213)

The point is that the writer of the novel and the director of the movie made a wonderful attempt to use true facts and unite them with the fictional ones. In fact, Shermans troops were on their way to the Carolinas, however, in the movie, they return to Atlanta, and this fact does not coincide with the reality.

Of course, there are certain misunderstandings, which take place between the reality and the fiction that was created by ordinary people. Eventually, the cultural/nationalistic division between North and South becomes rather confused; in the second part of the film, an intertitle speaks of white Northern and Southern veterans coming together against African Americans in common defense of their Ayran birthday. (Stokes 181)

Well, I cannot but agree that the historical information, presented in the movie, is not really reliable. However, I also cannot but mention that it is a story not about the Civil War only. This movie helps us to see what made people go to actions and give their lives for safer future. There were so many circumstances, which had to be taken into consideration, in order to realize that the war was not a simple obligation.

It was something more that touched so many people. Freedom and independence  these are the two things, which any person appreciates most of all. During the Civil War, black people wanted to find their independence and become free. So much blood, so many tears, and so many lives& Because of such terrible outcomes, the results could not disappoint people, and we and our future generation should be proud of those actions, which were taken during the times of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Gone with the Wind is regarded to be one of the best epic movies about love, lost, hate, and war. People cannot avoid certain things and cannot influence their development. Wars are the things, which can be caused by several people, and other millions of people will be suffered from them, losing their relatives, lovers, and friends. Beautiful actors, great play, and interesting settings  all this make the movie worthy of attention and admiration.

People should have a chance to know more about the Civil War that was crucially important in the life of every American. Watching the movie is one of the ways to become aware of the historical facts. In fact, the wars have nothing pleasant to share with people, this is why a bit of fiction and attention to other interesting for people details will certainly make watching any historical movie more captivating and easier.

Works Cited

Stokes, Melvyn. D. W. Griffiths: The Birth of a Nation: A History of the Most Controversial Motion Picture of all Time. Oxford University press US, 2007.

Young, William, H. The Great Depression in America: A Cultural Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007.

Discussion

Feminism in the Civil War South dates from anti-slavery movement which demanded abolition of slavery in the early 20^th Century. As an organized force, feminism agitated the rights of each person of self ownership as a moral jurisdiction. There were remarkable women who played prominent roles towards this course in the American history. They were inspired to work religiously for oppressed slaves. One such remarkable woman was Elizabeth Van Lew, who provides a deep insight into the cultural motivation of the American Civil War. Unionists agitated for abolition of slavery and this blended well with Elizabeth Van Lews empathetic nature that made her side with the Unionists. This paper discusses feminism in the Civil War South filtered through the life of Elizabeth Van Lew.

Main body

Elizabeth Van Lew was a remarkable feminist crusader in American history. She came from a traditional family that owned slaves, but her empathetic nature drove her confront slavery issue and cooperate with the Unionists. Her stand was controversial given her family background as slave owners. She vehemently crusaded against racism and worked efficiently as a Union agent in the Confederate South (Varon, p.9). Her family did not denounce slavery and the company of slave owners but rather played a tenuous middle ground position between abolitionism and proslavery creed. The family lamented the evils of slavery yet continued to hold blacks in bondage hoping that the vice would gradually erode from the South. The white South refused to reform this policy (Varon 63).

This fact was affirmed on august 30, 1861 when Confederate Congress intensified its campaign against the Unionists. They passed a Sequestration Act that allowed confiscation and sequestration of property belonging to alien enemies. The act applied to both women and men. The legislation acted as a form of intimidation. Elizabeth refused to pay attention to press warnings, instead, skillfully kept her detractors off-balance (Varon 63). This is portrayed when she visits Confederate soldiers in hospitals and ministers to them to fake solidarity. As she made such gestures she escalated her own efforts on behalf of the Union prisoners in 1861. Elizabeths played a significant role in halting slavery and secession posturing to redeem the South (Varon 63).

During the rising tension between the South and the North, Elizabeth sided with the North because of her humane policies of ending slavery and racism. When the Civil War commenced, she bravely assisted in advancing the cause of the Unionists in her own home. For instance, she assisted by hiding soldiers who escaped from confederate prisons, collaborated with Union sympathizers, and held clandestine meetings with spies from the Unionist army. Elizabeth sacrificed much of her family wealth on behalf of the federal soldiers and civilians. This was detrimental to the family reputation in the eyes of the Richmond town neighborhood. During the Civil War, this remarkable woman wished to deliver Virginia from repressions of slavery, secession, and unnecessary war. Her efforts and prayers were achieved, when Virginia was taken over by the Union army in 1865.

As a spymaster for the Unionists, Elizabeth had trusted insiders in confederate prisons who furnished her and the prisoners with strategic information. She also had a trusted unionist, a clerk in the Adjutant-Generals office at Richmond. This man was privy to returns indicating the strengths of rebelling confederate regiments, brigades, divisions, and corps, their mobility and where they were stationed (Varon 93). In essence, Elizabeth got briefings directly from the confederacy bureaucracy itself. The fugitives were not only a source of intelligence for the Union, but also served as a propaganda tool against the confederacy over barbarism against to captives. However, the confederate authorities were firm on acts of espionage. For instance, they took action and punished dissenting women in 1861. In the same year, they detained the first union woman, Mrs. Curtis suspected of espionage in Richmond. She was later incarcerated, released and sent home where she narrated her account to New York newspapers. She was described as a strong minded female and advocate of womans rights who did not qualify civil treatment (Varon 63).

After the Civil War, Elizabeth continued her political activism; she was appointed postmaster of Richmond in 1869 by President Ulysses Grant, where she embarked on a controversial and pioneering career as a female politician and representative of the Republican Party. This remarkable woman worked extra ordinarily for eight years, until 1877 when she was stripped the position of postmaster. She had converted her library in the mansion into an office to continue with her work of fighting for respective rights. In her private office, she had written letters to the Northern press the treatment of African Americans by whites in Richmond; she collaborated with Susan Anthony and Ana Dickinson, advocates for women rights. She also wrote about her horror at the political attacks directed at her by opponents from both fellow Republicans, envious of her coveted position, and the Democrats who were against her racial egalitarianism. When her political career came to an end, Elizabeths fellow.

Before the Civil War, Elizabeth had hoped that Virginia could find her own remedies to the problem of slavery without interference from radical operatives from the North or extremists from the South. She only sided with the Lincoln administration when she saw the moderate leaders in Virginia being marginalized by the quick ascendance of the secession movement in the spring of 1861. She adopted the cause of emancipation during the Civil War just like Ulysses and Lincoln (Varon, 18). She looked upon African Americans as vital partners in fight to restore the Union. She also worked well with the Union leaders. For instance: when Grant Ulysses was general in chief of the federal forces, he engaged her services as a spy during campaign in Virginia; when he became President, he appointed her to the coveted office of postmaster of Richmond (Varon 63).

Feminism in the Civil War South is also enticed prominently in Elizabeths participation in the politics of reconstruction that was divisive. At the end of the War, she joined Andrew and Sumner, Massachusetts politicians in the fight to advance the cause of black civil rights. Her political battles transformed her to a radical, a tendency that kindled her admiration of Sumner; an idealist with uncompromising principles with a vision of having a world without racial discrimination (Varon 5).

Conclusion

In sum, Elizabeth Van Lew and other women played a momentous part in the American history. The direct daring efforts in the struggle against oppression and injustices met against humanity help restore liberty that laid the foundation of Great American nation. Elizabeth Van Lew was a resilient woman who took controversial stands. She vehemently tried to free her family slaves and daringly got involved in Civil war activities. She also pioneered women participation in American politics at the end of Civil War.

Works Cited

Varon, E. Southern Lady, Yankee Spy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Introduction

The American Civil War, also known as the War Between the States started at 1861 and ended in 1865. It was a civil war in the United States of America when the Southern slave states declared about their desire to get separated from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America. With Jefferson Davis as their leader they started a fight against the United States federal government. This war which took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and caused an undetermined number of civilian casualties ended the slavery in the United States and strengthened the role of the federal government. In other words, the Civil War was started in order to end slavery but whether it was necessary to start a war for this is the question Bruce Levin is answering in his book Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War.

Main body

There is absolutely no doubt that the Civil War of 1861was one of the most memorable events in the history of the United States: The American Civil War was, by general agreement, the most important event in the history of the United States. It altered the internal structure of American society more profoundly than had the Revolution (Bruce Levin, p. 1). Even these days people still argue what caused the war of brother against brother and they have different opinions towards the real reasons of this terrifying event. Bruce Levin names slavery one of the main reasons of the Civil War. As he states in his book, the South and the North of the States had a very significant difference in economical development. In the South the number of poor people prevailed whereas the north had grown economically and had a large paid labor force available. Levin describes the southern and northern positions very clearly and keeps to the idea that having such differences and opposing views over slavery it was impossible for them to remain united.

Bruce Levin does not pay proper attention to the issue of religion in the Civil War which is also the fault of many other sources: Despite the uncontested and unrivaled centrality of the Civil War in American history, despite its importance for both the history of the South and the history of African Americans, and despite its nearly mythic place in the popular mind (as seen in the massive continuing interest in Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, as well as the huge popularity of the Ken Burns PBS series), surprisingly little attention has been devoted to the war as a religious experience and event (Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, Charles Reagan Wilson, p. 3). In fact, religion was everywhere where the war was: Politicians on both sides of the conflict invoked God to justify their actions, soldiers and their families prayed for Gods blessing, religious-based organizations mobilized relief and urged reform, and the slaves reaching for freedom praised God for their day of Jubilee. Thus we can state, that religion is what kept people alive during this war thats why it can not be ignored.

Conclusion

To sum it up, in his book Bruce Levin gives clear causes of the American Civil War of 1861-1865 and gives detailed information on each of them as well as he states that the divergences between the North and the South of the States culminated in this war. He lays a special emphasis on the slavery and the struggle which took place in order to abolish it. His book is a valuable piece of writing which should be recommended for reading to everyone who is interested in the history of the United States.

References

1. Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, Charles Reagan Wilson. Religion and the American Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
2. Bruce Levine. Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War. New York: Hill and Wang, 2005.

Introduction

Colombian internal conflict is one of the most protracted civil wars in the world. After a few decades, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) had established its position as the most stable guerrilla group in Latin America with considerable resources to run its operations. To this end, the issue of political economy arises in a war system as actors compete for natural resources to fund their operations.

Rebel groups always prompted the escalating war crisis as they embarked on rent-seeking tendencies to cause more instability for their resource gains against the state. The guiding research question is how political economy can explain the protracted Colombian Civil War, specifically between the state and FARC. In this literature review, therefore, the focus is based on how the political economy can explain the protracted Colombian Civil War.

Literature Review

For several decades, political scientists and economists have focused on intrastate wars and as a result, much evidence is now available on the issue. In the period of the Cold War, intrastate wars were regarded as proxy conflicts supported by superpowers to advance or defend their key interests in various parts of the world (Richani, 2001). Richani (2001), a scholar who has widely studied conflicts, applied systems analysis to various intrastate wars in order to elucidate the political economy of some of the most protracted wars and their possible solutions. The systems analysis is widely applied in interstate conflicts globally. The definition of the political economy of a protracted civil war is based on two major elements:

1. a wide range of political and economic resources acquired by players in the war,
2. the importance of these acquired resources as shown by actions of players in influencing military activities, territories, incomes, and support.

In addition, the accumulated resources also influence how a state distributes its national wealth. Richani (2001) argues that the witnessed intensification of conflict in Colombia was associated with the crisis of the war system triggered by the fight for the exploitation of natural resources among the warring factions, the state, rebels, and paramilitaries.

It is observed that the conflict in Colombia could have been triggered by the skewed protection provided by the state, which only favored dominant members (Richani, 2001). Consequently, many peasants and popular groups allowed armed groups to emerge as providers of security. Richani (2001) claims that the origin of FARC can be traced to the 1930s and 1940s  the periods in which peasants fought to protect themselves from large landowners.

FARC was officially formed in 1964, and it has always focused on protecting farmers (Campesinos). In this sense, therefore, FARC was created because of the failure of the state to protect minorities, and it subsequently embarked on a rent-seeking mission for resources. The group, however, experienced major obstacles because wars were expensive. Previously, FARC and other rebels depended on local and foreign sources for funds.

Once the Cold War ended, foreign financiers were no longer dependable and, therefore, guerrillas wanted new sources of funds, specifically self-financing. Consequently, FARC has generally depended on its own resources generated from rents extracted for the protection of locals. FARC levied taxes based on incomes and commodities. The guerrillas taxes mainly came from local business executives, drug traffickers, cattle ranchers, owners of large parcels of land, and multinational firms among others. In addition, FARC engaged in kidnapping for ransoms. By collecting taxes, FARC offered protection, stable business environments, and policing. Rent-seeking practices led to a war system in Colombia.

In Colombia, the war system emerged because of the states failure to arbitrate and solve social issues, specifically land ownership (LeGrand, 2003). Opposing actors also succeeded in coming to terms with the escalating war and, thus, they ensured that the war continued to create a favorable political economy, which made the conflict extremely rewarding to their interests with regard to economic, cultural, political, and/or ideological. In this sense, a favorable political economy can only be realized when resources acquired by actors overshadow costs associated with wars. FARC had realized that it could not gain access to such assets through peaceful engagement.

Based on this observation, the concept of greed or grievance was introduced in attempts to explain civil wars (Ballentine & Nitzschke, 2005). Greed, according to Collier and Hoeffler (2000), is associated with economic motivations and opportunities to loot (loot seeking), and it is linked to more cases of conflicts than other factors, such as culture. Hence, resource wealth is responsible for triggering violence (Collier & Hoeffler, 2000).

On one hand, it is noted that grievances are merely excuses used by rebels to conceal and justify their greed. Empirically, Collier, and Hoeffler (2000) observe that most rebellions seem to be associated with the capture of resources, for instance, drugs in Colombia to finance rebels. On the contrary, Peceny and Durnan (2006) claim that greed-driven rebellions of Collier and Hoeffler (2000) cannot thoroughly account for the character of the Colombian interstate war.

The greed-driven rebellion fails to explain the origin of the war, the enduring ideological vision of FARC, or its social base in specific sectors of rural areas of Colombia (Peceny & Durnan, 2006). In addition, it cannot explicitly demonstrate the unlikely relationship between the character of coca and FARC. Therefore, Peceny and Durnan (2006) argue that FARC grew stronger because of lootable wealth, specifically coca.

The US anti-drug policies led to the dismantling of drug operations in the state-controlled territories, but not rebel-held regions where coca cultivation thrived. Ultimately, it led to increased narcotrafficking to generate more revenues and, therefore, resources that FARC used to modernize its armed forces and make it more professional through creating military schools and accessing overseas training. As such, it gained a tactical advantage over the state.

Still, from a political economy perspective, the FARC military strategy has been strategic in terms of presence and expansion. For instance, it expanded since the 1980s to departments and municipalities with huge economic resources, large farms, mining, oil, cattle ranches, and coffee (Richani, 2001; Ross, 2006). Further, FARC also occupied its traditional bases for a cocoa plantation. Notably, after this expansion strategy, FARC occupied all departments and gained access to vital areas, including middle to higher growth-oriented locations, municipalities, the Caribbean coast, and other areas with higher economic worth. Strikingly, FARC only concentrated on such regions for both economic and political reasons.

Politically, FARC wanted a large base of supporters from popular middle-sized cities, to assume modernization, and to appeal to others beyond rural setups while disputing state dominance. Rent extraction remained important for FARC to gain its political goals. Increased rent extraction allowed FARC to acquire more resources with regard to arms, personnel, command, control, and communication (Richani, 2001).

Rebels, state, and paramilitary groups are all involved in extraction and rent-seeking behaviors and, thus, compete for resources. In the 1980s, various paramilitary groups emerged at the local levels to cater to the needs of the local influential elites, who were heavily taxed by rebels and feared rebels growing power (Gutiérrez, 2008; Romero, 2000). While paramilitaries competed with all these actors, they related to the state in terms of dependency and autonomy for logistical support provided by armed forces. However, paramilitaries were more aggressive in their strategies relative to the state because of a lack of pressure, such as sanctions, to control their activities.

In many respects, the state government was weak, poorly equipped, lawless, and relied on poor social networks. As such, a protracted civil war could escalate as rebels and paramilitaries became more aggressive in their quests. Largely, the weakness of the state is attributed to intrastate conflict and its escalation. That is the failure of the state associated with a prolonged crisis of hegemony that created a vacuum, which rebels and paramilitary readily exploited to establish their authority mainly through coercion.

Conclusion

In war history, economic dynamics are extremely important to actors. Thus, an analysis of intrastate wars from a political economy viewpoint potentially enhances comprehension of major dynamics involved in civil wars. In addition, they are vital for actors and other stakeholders who are interested in conflict resolution and post-conflict peace processes. Therefore, the political economy of the Colombian Civil War should be considered as an important component of any initiatives aimed at ending the conflict. The validity of a political economy viewpoint is based on competition for protection rent among a weak state, paramilitaries, and rebels and improving extraction strategies to sustain the war as each actor aims for a more prominent national outlook and role.

References

Ballentine, K., & Nitzschke, H. (2005). The political economy of civil war and conflict transformation. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.

Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2000). Greed and Grievance in Civil Wars. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.

Gutiérrez, S. F. (2008). Telling the difference: guerrillas and paramilitaries in the Colombian War. Politics & Society, 36(1), 334.

LeGrand, C. (2003). The Colombian crisis in historical perspective. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 28(5556), 165209.

Peceny, M., & Durnan, M. (2006). The FARCs best friend: U.S. antidrug policies and the deepening of Colombias civil war in the 1990s. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 95-116.

Richani, N. (2001). The political economy of Colombias protracted civil war and the crisis of the war system. Journal of Conflict Studies, 21(2), 1.

Romero, M. (2000). Changing identities and contested settings: regional elites and the paramilitaries in Colombia. International Journal of Politics,Culture and Society, 14(1), 51-69.

Ross, M. L. (2006). A closer look at oil, diamonds, and civil war. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 265-300.