This thesis intends to prove that Stephen V. Ash’s model of occupation from his work, When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, is applicable to St. Augustine’s occupation experience in the Civil War. Three overarching themes in Ash’s work are consistent with Civil War St. Augustine. First, that Union policy of conciliation towards southern civilians was abandoned after the first few months of occupation due to both nonviolent and violent resistance from those civilians. Second, that Ash’s “zones of occupation” of the occupied South, being garrisoned towns, no-man’s-land, and the Confederate frontier apply to St. Augustine and the surrounding countryside. Finally, Ash’s assertions that the southern community was changed by the war and Union occupation, is reflected in the massive demographic shifts that rocked St. Augustine from 1862 to 1865. This thesis will show that all three of Ash’s themes apply to St. Augustine’s Civil War occupation experience and confirms the author’s generalizations about life in the occupied South.

Although a relatively new research field, many quantitative studies have over the past decade been undertaken examining rebel governance as an insurgent practice in intrastate conflicts around the globe. Nevertheless, gaps persist in the understanding of how common aspects of rebel governance, such as inclusive service provision, affect competing non-state actors in multi-rebel group conflict landscapes. Hitherto, this is the research puzzle of interest. This study asks the question: how is rebel group violence against civilians affected by a rival rebel group practising inclusive service provision? The hypothesis is that the level of violence against civilians practised by a rebel group decreases if a rival rebel group engages in inclusive service provision. The applied research method is a qualitative structured focused comparison between ELN in Colombia and GIA in Algeria from 1994 to 1999. The study does not find support for the hypothesised causal relationship, although forms of attempted emulation and outbidding of rival actors seem present in both studied cases. Further research is needed to fully dismiss the possibility of rival rebel group inclusive service provision sharing a negative variable relationship with rebel group violence against civilians.

No description available.

No description available.

Neither the Union nor the Confederacy was prepared to care for the massive numbers of sick and wounded which occurred at the onset of the Civil War. While their surgeons benefited from the knowledge gained during the Crimean War regarding the cleanliness of military hospitals, the isolation of infection, and the use of the new general anesthetics, no facilities for their use existed in America. The Confederate Chief Surgeon, Samuel Preston Moore, had no entrenched medical bureaucracy to battle. By early 1862 he had formed a well-organized medical department and had many hospitals operational. His surgeons shared the problems of their northern colleagues: ignorance of the cause of infection, inadequate training, and untrained hospital personnel to care for the sick and wounded. What the South did not share with the North was alack of resources which was intensified by a naval blockade. This narrative thesis uses records from three Richmond hospitals of 1862-1865 to reveal the problems faced by all hospital personnel, and to address the question of responsibility for the high rates of hospital morbidity and mortality which occurred. It is technically oriented to give both physicians and laymen insight into the day to day triumphs and tragedies of these men and women who worked under nearly impossible conditions. / Master of Arts

During the early parts of the Civil War authorities created two distinct prisons, Old Capitol in Washington, D.C. and Castle Thunder in Richmond, Virginia. These institutions were reactions to an increase in prisoners of state. Confederate and Union officials established these prisons for this particular group: the disloyal. Although both structures held prisoners of war, the most vocal and prominent group of prisoners were civilians. The variety and character of both of these prisons are entirely unique in the annals of the war. The conglomeration of the young and old, rich and poor, male and female forced atypical social settings and class antagonisms. For the most part, governmental authorities took added interest in Old Capitol and Castle Thunder because of the distinctive characters of these prisons and the concurrent feelings that civil liberties should be preserved. Under constant scrutiny, both Congresses, along with prison and military officials, attempted to make sure the prisoners in these two capitals received good treatment. Inmates at these two prisons did receive above average treatment. In some instances, life in these institutions did not resemble incarceration. The heightened awareness of officials and prison superintendents were the primary reason for this good treatment. Yet officials in each state understood that these treasonous persons could be dangerous to each respective government. These feelings were not unwarranted, because many deserved confinement and punishment for their traitorous ways. / Master of Arts

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Digitized by Kansas State University Libraries

All organizations involved in war are concerned with military cohesion. Yet previous studies have only investigated cohesion in a very narrow manner, focusing almost solely on Western state militaries or on micro-level explanations. This dissertation argues for the need to broaden this perspective. It focuses on three classic sources of cohesion – coercion, compensation and constructs (such as identity and ideology) – and investigates their relevance in the Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003). More specifically, this dissertation consists of an inquiry of how the conflict's three main military organizations – Charles Taylor’s Government of Liberia (GoL), the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) – drew on these three sources to foster cohesion. Based on thirteen months of ethnographic fieldwork with former combatants, this dissertation contains five parts: an introduction, which focuses on issues of theory and method, and four essays that investigate the three sources of cohesion in the three organizations. Essay I focuses on the LURD rebels, and provides an insider account of their strategy. It shows that even decentralized movements like the LURD can execute strategy, and contends that the LURD fought its fiercest battles not against the government, but to keep itself together. Essay II focuses on coercion, and counters the prevailing view of African rebels’ extensive use of coercion to keep themselves together. Since extreme coercion in particular remained illegitimate, its use would have decreased, rather than increased, cohesion. Essay III investigates the government militias to whom warfighting was subcontracted. In a context characterized by a weak state and fragmented social organization, compensation may have remained the only available source of cohesion. Essay IV investigates identities as sources of cohesion. It argues that while identities are a powerful cohesive source, they must be both created and maintained to remain relevant. Taken together, this dissertation argues for a more comprehensive approach to the investigation of cohesion, and one that also takes into account mezzo- and macro-level factors.

This thesis is an attempt to address the surprising lack of study into the question of usurpation in late antiquity. During a period defined by a textual corpus (289-389), the thesis looks at how usurpers and usurpation were presented in the panegyrics delivered to emperors and their courts. That usurpation features very heavily in this corpus should tell us something in itself, but it is a feature of these texts which has hardly been observed. The thesis shows how the panegyrics employed aggressive rhetorical tactics that sought not to bury usurpers in silence but rather to glory in their destruction and to create characters for the usurpers and their regimes that were designed to reinforce the legitimacy claims of the victorious emperor. The language of the panegyrics concerning usurpers and usurpation is thus virtually worthless as a tool to reconstruct the historical actualities of the people and times that they discuss. It cannot be used, as some scholars have done, to give insight into the working of particular usurpations. But the study also demonstrates that the panegyrics are far too valuable a body of sources to simply ignore, as many more scholars have tended to do. The panegyrics demonstrate the beginnings of the processes of memory sanction, or damnatio memoriae, that were imposed upon defeated usurpers and, as such, give us a valuable insight into how imperial Romans recorded their history and conceived of the power structures through which they were governed. Panegyrics are vital to our understanding of usurpers and usurpation because they are the first step in the process of understanding why our narrative sources are so unreliable concerning such men.