what are the powersof the confederate system?
612626
In a confederation, each unit has its own government & makes its own laws and is pretty much an independant unit. The purpose of the confederation is for things it would be difficult for the individual units on their own, like defend itself. The powers of the group are limited, and must be agreed upon by the members. The European Union is a form of confederation; they each maintain independant governments, but band together for economic common interests and defense.
580764
a) A larger army \n\nBecause the people in the South were united to defend their land from an invader. They didnt attack they just defended.
534956
I seriously suggest you choose the answer yourself.\n\nStill, I'll give a few possible choices for you to think through.\n\nThe Constitution\nFreedom of Speech\nRight to Assembly\nDemocratic voting\nDiscovering electricity or harnessing steam, etc.\n\nPlus, the Civil War, as mentioned in another person's answer
70308
The original point was after the civil war to get the confederates to pledge their allegiance to the united states.  The original purpose was for the individual to renounce the Confederacy.  Based on this, I would say no that it should not be restored to its original meaning.
413739
Jefferson Davis-Kentucky, President of CSA\nand\nAbraham Lincoln-also of Kentucky, President of USA\nboth during the Civil War
218246
Oh, definately the states had power. They were just working out that national stuff at the time of the articles of confederation.
488350
1. Davis was leader of the Confederacy.\n2. He appointed Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, one of the important\n   generals during the Civil War.\n3. He was responsible for the strategy of defending all \n   Southern territory.\n4. He made poor strategical choices, and kept his friends in\n   command of his armies even though they weren't great\n   generals.\n\nCan't find anything else, but here's a link:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis#Leadership_of_the_Confederacy
110669
- The Confederate Flag - of course\n - The Confederate Seal\n - The Virgina State House -served as the Capitol\n - Jefferson Davis\n - Robert E. Lee\n - Confederate money
600738
Its where the states got to chose if they wanted to be a slave state or a free state. I'm studing the SAME THING!!! Good luck!! =)
137893
My understanding was that the election directly caused the start of secession of states in the South from the union since Lincoln was known for his stand on slavery. The crisis was already at a boiling point by that time already due to non-handling/concessions on slavery of previous administrations.
274050
I do not think an independent Southern Republic (ie: Confederate States of America) would be easy going or even terribly stable. I think it would be a continuing problem to the peace and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere.\n\nThe antebellum leaders of the American South were extremely expansionist, looking to add at least Cuba and Nicauragua as new slave states. The fast-profit method of cotton cultivation in the south was so wasteful and inefficient that the ariable land available would have diminished very quickly with the requirement for even more of Latin America to be seized. Because of the growing worldwide trend against Negro slavery, the traditional supply sources would have been unavailable. This would have inevitably required the extension of slavery to the indiginous Indian populations.\n\nThe Southern economy, again because of the quick-profit mentality, was dependent on outside sources for capital and for manufacturing. As a one-product economy, the CSA would have been the victim of the fluctuations of the foreign market for cotton. The federal blockade during the Civil War forced Europe to develop other sources of cotton (Egypt and South America) and this would have made those fluctuations even more traumatic. Transportation and Energy production in the South would have continued to lag with obsolete technology, again because of the quick profit mentality - and small government thinking. Public investment would have continued to be discouraged.\n\nEmancipation would never have happened, and the flight of runaway slaves to the USA would have increased. As a separate and unfriendly nation, the CSA would have very little influence on US policy. The USA would never condone the return of runaways to slavery and probable torture (although George W was born in Connecticut). This would have led to the requirement of a long and fortified border between the two countries, a further drag on both country's economies.\n\nThere is a definite possibility that the two countries would have fought on different sides in WWI (South with England, North with Germany). Imagine trench warfare along the Tennessee River. Regardless of outcome, South would probably have become a partial protectorate of England, certainly would depend on the Royal Navy for protection.\n\nNo, this would have been a bad thing.
156201
confederate soilders-- but rape, lyching, and those things were going on prior to the KKK.
228213
Slaves in both the Confederate States of America and the United States of America continued serving their masters. Many slaves in both went to war with their owners, others continued their servitude in their occupations prior to the war. Slave owners in the United States were not forced to free their slaves by the Emancipation Proclomation and contiuned to work their slaves until the conclusion of the war.
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
973772
Hell no. Remember that during the segregation era, southern states hindered the advancement of equality by declaring they were "sovereign states" and didn't had to obey federal law. I support states rights to some limit and I think when states conflict with federal government then we are in trouble.
641316
The Reconstruction era scarred the South (the results can still be seen today). It was a glaring example of why a one party system does not work, and how forcing reparation or reparation type laws on the losing side of a war will spark dissension and possibly future violence.\n\nBecause they completely lost their pride and their power, certain elements in the South radicalized. Their mistreatment of minorities (namely blacks) caused widespread debate, hatred, and racism.
564382
He was president of the Confederacy (the seceded Southern states) during the Civil War (1861-1865).