Has Any one read the constitution of the Confederacy,?
927359
This sounds like a homework question to me. Sorry, I won't help you. I feel you need to read BOTH and you come up with the answer. You need to know these things.\n\nI will tell you this. The North distorted the truth about the Civil War or War between the States.  The war was NOT fought because of slavery. The north had slaves too. They were fighting over textiles, cotton, land, resources it was all economic.
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.
801737
Here you go: \n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/const.html\n\nhttp://www.azleg.state.az.us/Constitution.asp\n\nNow all you have to do is read and then contrast and compare. Have fun.
708049
The Confederate States of America
662985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States - Thats the confederate picture I'll help with Union soon.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_Map_1864_including_Civil_War_Divisions.png - Thats for the entire United States but not labeled.
614574
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution
359889
The secession of states was when the Southern States decided to leave the union and form The Confederate States of America.  No, they were not inbred blue bloods who wanted to hold onto slavery (slavery was just as rampant in the North - it began there).  The CSA truly believed in the right for states to govern themselves as set forth in the Articles of the Constitution.  This secession led to the War of Northern Aggression (commonly known as the Civil Way), which lasted from April 1861 to April 1864.
125225
The constitution was ratified in 1787.
980429
For the text book answer it is 1861 to 1865.  However All the Southerners know that Reconstruction is still in place and still being held against us.\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
205487
Yes.  Lincoln understood that the nation was threaten to fracture beneath his feet and he did what had to be done.  Of course it is important to understand that the South never really left the Union--the Constitution doesn't give states the right to seceed, but they thought they did and he had to impel them to return (in their minds.)
362813
I think the confederate flag represents a terrible part of america's history and those who fly the stars and bars should be looked at as traitors.  The confederacy stood for slavery yes, but more importantly it stood for a government that ceceeded from the United States to become their own country.
925852
haha you must have mr.cuda too! yeah the articles of confederation WEREN"T effective , he doesn't realize that the dbq says to "evaluate this statement". It doesn't say that you HAVE to agree but in class he made it seem as if that's how he wants it written, which is really hard becaue none of the documents support that idea.
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)
906419
Since it's quite obvious that English is not your native language, and that you've never even seen the Constitution, may I ask how you've heard of this document?  Did you read about it on the back of your Kid's Meal bag?
1094372
Buy a copy of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers
918428
Simon & Schuster: Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America (Hardcover) \nA History of the Confederate States of America By William C. Davis \n\n\nShelby Foote is a great war author, also....
782299
Well, my opinion is that the document is outdated.  It's just a piece of paper,  made by men after all, and yet it is revered as if made by the hand of God.  \n\nI think it should be considered to draw up a new constitution: One that wouldn't need exhaustive amounts of amendments, and would apply to the state of affairs in 2006 versus 1776.  It could also include and merge all the standing supreme court decisions, which would allow the justices to refer to the constitution instead of court precedent, a practice I find to be admirable but not necessarily wise.  (A decision handed down in the past may nonetheless have been in error.)\n\nI realize that this is an extremely radical viewpoint.  But nonetheless I think people should consider the fact that the constitution is more symbolic now than truly effective.