Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article examines how rebels govern after winning a civil war. During war, both sides—rebels and their rivals—form ties with civilians to facilitate governance and to establish control. To consolidate power after war, the new rebel government engages in control through its ties in its wartime strongholds, through coercion in rival strongholds where rivals retain ties, and through cooptation by deploying loyal bureaucrats to oversee development in unsecured terrain where its ties are weak. These strategies help to explain subnational differences in postwar development. The author analyzes Zimbabwe's Liberation War (1972–1979) and its postwar politics (1980–1987) using a difference-in-differences identification strategy that leverages large-scale education reforms. Quantitative results show that development increased most quickly in unsecured terrain and least quickly in rival strongholds. Qualitative evidence from archival and interview data confirms the theorized logic. The findings deepen understanding of transitions from conflict to peace and offer important insights about how wartime experiences affect postwar politics.

Conventional political economy models predict taxation will increase after franchise expansion to low-income voters. Yet, contrary to expectations, in ranked societies—where social status is a cleavage—elites can instead build cross-class coalitions to undertake a strategy of bureaucratic weakening to limit future redistributive taxation. We study a case where status hierarchies were particularly extreme: the post-Civil War American South. During Reconstruction, under federal oversight, per capita taxation was higher in counties where slavery had been more extensive before the war, as predicted by standard theoretical models. After Reconstruction ended, however, taxes fell and bureaucratic capacity was weaker where slavery had been widespread. Moreover, higher intrawhite economic inequality was associated with lower taxes and weaker capacity after Reconstruction in formerly high-slavery counties. These findings on the interaction between intrawhite economic inequality and pre-War slavery suggest that elites built cross-class coalitions against taxation where whites sought to protect their racial status.

The mid-Piacenzian is known as a period of relative warmth when compared to the present day. A comprehensive understanding of conditions during the Piacenzian serves as both a conceptual model and a source for boundary conditions as well as means of verification of global climate model experiments. In this paper we present the PRISM4 reconstruction, a paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the mid-Piacenzian ( ∼  3 Ma) containing data for paleogeography, land and sea ice, sea-surface temperature, vegetation, soils, and lakes. Our retrodicted paleogeography takes into account glacial isostatic adjustments and changes in dynamic topography. Soils and lakes, both significant as land surface features, are introduced to the PRISM reconstruction for the first time. Sea-surface temperature and vegetation reconstructions are unchanged but now have confidence assessments. The PRISM4 reconstruction is being used as boundary condition data for the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2 (PlioMIP2) experiments.

The United States has always been more than simply a group of united states. The constitutional history of national union and component states is linked to a third category: federal territory. This Article uses an integrated history of territory, statehood, and union to develop a new framework for analyzing constitutional statehood. Three historical periods are crucial—the Founding Era, the Civil War, and Reconstruction—as times when statehood was especially malleable as a matter of constitutional law. During each of those formative periods, the most important constitutional struggles about statehood and the union involved federal territories. Conflicts about territories reveal an important distinction between theories of states' constitutional authority to participate in national politics (the \"skeleton\" of statehood) and their constitutional authority to resist the national government (the \"muscle\" of statehood). The skeletal authority of states to participate in federal politics has been legally explicit and essential since the Articles of Confederation. By comparison, advocates for muscular states' rights have relied on dubious inferences and historical distortions. During the Founding Era and the Civil War, pivotal disputes concerning territories were resolved to favor the skeleton of representational statehood instead of the muscular statehood of antifederal resistance. During Reconstruction, however, the Supreme Court created new doctrines of muscular statehood that were based on inaccurate histories of the Founding and the Civil War. Judicial decisions like the Slaughter-House Cases and the Civil Rights Cases applied those doctrinal theories of muscular statehood to limit individual rights and congressional power under the Reconstruction Amendments. In the late twentieth century, such precedents gained force after the confirmation of politically conservative Supreme Court Justices, and similar doctrines might be even more powerful with the modern Court's conservative supermajority. This is not how constitutional law should work. Muscular statehood achieved doctrinal success much later than most observers assume, and it has neither the positivist pedigree nor the compelling results to justify antimajoritarian constitutional status. Although the constitutional skeleton for states' participation in the federal government is foundationally important, constitutional doctrines of muscular statehood to resist national democracy should be presumptively disfavored.

This essay draws a parallel between the political and social dynamics of Hindu nationalism in India under Narendra Modi and the policies of racial segregation of the Jim Crow era in the United States (from approximately 1880 to 1965). As with the marginalization of black Americans based on race during Jim Crow, Hindu nationalism aims to marginalize Muslim Indians based on religion. Methods similar to those used in the Jim Crow South—including exclusionary laws, segregation, and vigilante violence—are now being deployed in India to subdue Muslims. Such actions go against the principles of equality established by India's 1950 Constitution. As in the Jim Crow South, the judiciary in India has proven slow to play its assigned role as guarantor of liberal constitutionalism. Friends of liberal, constitutional democracy will be wise not to count on judges to salvage the situation. In the end, only the voters can decide to stop Hindu nationalism, or else underwrite its final advance.

One of the persistent challenges in multispectral image analysis is the interference caused by dense cloud cover and its resulting shadows, which can significantly obscure surface features. This becomes especially problematic when attempting to monitor surface changes over time using satellite imagery, such as from Landsat-8. In this study, rather than simply masking visual obstructions, we aimed to investigate the role and influence of clouds within the spectral data itself. To achieve this, we employed Independent Component Analysis (ICA), a statistical method capable of decomposing mixed signals into independent source components. By applying ICA to selected Landsat-8 bands and analyzing each component individually, we assessed the extent to which cloud signatures are entangled with surface data. This process revealed that clouds contribute to multiple ICA components simultaneously, indicating their broad spectral influence. With this influence on multiple wavebands, we managed to configure a set of components that could perfectly delineate the extent and location of clouds. Moreover, because Landsat-8 lacks cloud-penetrating wavebands, such as those in the microwave range (e.g., SAR), the surface information beneath dense cloud cover is not captured at all, making it physically impossible for ICA to recover what is not sensed in the first place. Despite these limitations, ICA proved effective in isolating and delineating cloud structures, allowing us to selectively suppress them in reconstructed images. Additionally, the technique successfully highlighted features such as water bodies, vegetation, and color-based land cover differences. These findings suggest that while ICA is a powerful tool for signal separation and cloud-related artifact suppression, its performance is ultimately constrained by the spectral and spatial properties of the input data. Future improvements could be realized by integrating data from complementary sensors—especially those operating in cloud-penetrating wavelengths—or by using higher spectral resolution imagery with narrower bands.

[...]I recognize the maddening imperfections of memory: its unreliability, its failures, its deceptions, its panderings, its whispering seductions, its stealthy editing of experience for personal benefit-and its penchant for cruel taunts, for hurling self-condemnations at us without warning, for keeping us awake at night as we cling to any distraction to avoid an encounter with the rebuke of our own recollections. Here I was at Johns Hopkins, an institution that prided itself on being the model of the modern research university in the United States, an institution dedicated not to the placid ideal of cultural conservation but to inquiry, to the remorseless supplanting of traditional learning with ever more incisive and disruptive scientific knowledge, including the relentless rethinking and reinterpretation of the past. What is described here is a very intimate memory-world, the Lebenswelt of a couple, \"our tribe of two,\" against whose union the peeping-Tom intrusions of \"reality\"-the nattering, cynical voice declaring \"he isn't that handsome, she isn't that pretty\"-seem irrelevant, since they are not expressed in the wordless language that, Gioia tells us, is learned by heart. (Why is it that we say that memorized things are learned by heart, rather than by head?) Families, too, accumulate such lore, mental scrapbooks of sayings, stories, adages, puns, snatches of TV shows and song lyrics and advertising jingles, forming a household patois, also learned by heart, also generally inaccessible to outsiders, sometimes even spouses-in-law.

Throughout history, internal and external pressures on Black landowners have resulted in the fragmentation of ownership through heirs property. This fragmentation is analogous to the erosion of community ties within minoritized neighborhoods susceptible to gentrification. Both contexts contribute directly to involuntary exit and land loss within the Black community. This Note analyzes the history of Black property ownership within the United States to illustrate the roots of heirs property and gentrification and evaluates traditional responses to these phenomena through the lens of the tragedy of the anticommons. In doing so, it highlights flaws in existing solutions to heirs property. It culminates with a proposed Uniform Act to mitigate and prevent gentrification-induced involuntary exit that incorporates elements of both the Uniform Bartition of Heirs Broperty Act and responses to the tragedy of the anticommons.

Internationally famous as a work of political science,1 the essays of \"Publius\" have particular importance to American constitutional theorists who seek to understand the historical meaning of the federal Constitution.2 The Supreme Court has cited The Federalist Papers in hundreds of cases,3 and for more than two hundred years every generation of constitutional scholars has debated and discussed the essays in countless books and articles.4 Despite their fame, modern scholars often question whether The Federalist Papers are reliable guides to the original understanding of the Constitution. william Crosskey, for example, argued that The Federalist Papers \"contain much of sophistry; much that is merely distractive; and some things . . . which come perilously near to falsehood. Constitutional historians commonly explore the influence of pre-Founding essayists like Montesquieu, Locke, and Paine.12 It would be equally relevant to explore the influence of pre-Reconstruction essayists like Publius on the framing and ratification of the three Reconstruction Amendments. [...]modern constitutional scholarship is increasingly attentive to the period between the Founding and the Civil war as a source for understanding the development of constitutional law.13 Yet, to date, no prior scholarly work has considered the degree to which the federalism principles of The Federalist Papers informed the constitutional commitments of either the framers or ratifiers of the Reconstruction Amendments. Part II presents a decade-by-decade empirical investigation of antebellum and Reconstruction-era newspaper references to The Federalist Papers in the period 1788 to 1870. The data is collected from the Readex collection of historical newspapers, a subscription-based collection containing thousands of newspapers, including ethnic publications, from 1690 to 1922.29 Although this is only one of a number of historical newspaper databases, i believe Readex is sufficiently robust to allow reasonable, if tentative, conclusions about the presence of The Federalist Papers in antebellum public debate and the comparative popularity of each of the 85 essays.

The second, the \"congressional\" theory, found in the majority report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (1866), implied (though avoided clearly stating) that the rebellious states had committed what Senator Charles Sumner more bluntly termed \"state suicide,\" and until full readmission to the Union would be held under the authority of Congress as something like conquered territories. The third, \"radical,\" theory held that the war was fought over principles of abstract justice announced in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The legal scholar Hurd wrote in an 1881 treatise that the \"very name reconstruction,\" though disguised in legislative debate by conservative constitutional language, actually named \"a general reorganization of our political life,\" a radical, even revolutionary, change in the relation of the federal government to the states and in the nature of citizenship. \"7 Partisan participants gathered their materials and wrote histories through the end of the nineteenth century: for example, Grant's vice president Henry Wilson (History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America [1872-1877]) and Alabama Democratic congressman Hilary A. Herbert (Why the Solid South?