The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
SniperJake94
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Abraham Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,054 times Debate No: 7683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

studentathletechristian8

Pro

Abraham Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis. Lincoln was able to re-unite the Union and he defeated Jefferson Davis. Davis did not organize the Confederacy very well and lost his "country" to Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was intelligent, calm, resourceful, and cautious in the way he dealt with the Union

Davis defied public opinion in the Confederacy and was constantly at heavy tensions with his people and his congress

All in all, Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis
SniperJake94

Con

I will prove that Jefferson Davis is a better president than Abraham Lincoln.
Clarification of the resolution:
1. Doesn't state how Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis.I will prove that Jefferson Davis is a better president than Abraham Lincoln.
Clarification of the resolution:
1. Doesn't state how Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis.
2. Doesn't state when during the president's term.
Contentions:
1. Jefferson's political background gave him some experience before taking office. He served as senator and congressman for Mississippi twice. During Franklin Pierre's presidency Davis served as the Secretary Of War. With these political experiences he has the skill and understanding of the government. In the Civil War with this knowledge he was able to form some type of Confederacy government.
2. During war, countries need presidents who have battle experience. Jefferson Davis graduated from West Point, became a colonel, raised and trained a regiment known as the Mississippi Rifles for the Mexican-American War. He has also fought and wounded at the Battle of Buena Vista. President Polk offered him a brigadier general rank and command, yet Davis declined. Equipped with these experiences from the Mexican-American War, Davis knows which of the best generals to appoint, which strategies to approve, and how to prepare for war from scratch.
3. Jefferson owned a plantation and back then running a plantation was financially risky. Anyone who runs a plantation must know the financial expense, profit, taxes, etc. Many fell in debt, but those who didn't became a form of a leader. For example after the Revolutionary War the Secretary of Treasury was none other than Alexander Hamilition. Hamilton began as a clerk and rose to become Secretary of Treasury. This man was a financial genius, he raised money to pay off most of the war debt. Davis has been through risky financial situations and dealt with them, thus Davis is more prepared to raise money for the government to run the war than a country lawyer such as Lincoln.
4. Jefferson knew which generals to appoint. We all knew he appointed Generals: Beauregard, Jackson, Lee, Stuart, and Johnston. They all shared a deep pride and friendship that enabled them to win against the odds. Because Davis' knowledge of which of the generals defended the Confederacy the best, it survived for 4 years. He has the knowledge and skill to be considered "Commander in Chief"
5. Davis made laws in order to run the war.
a.He encouraged industrial enterprise throughout the South. The industrial industry began to build their own guns and artillery.
b. He 'taxed" a faction of the harvest to feed the army. Hitler later used the same idea for WW2. The Germans also managed to fight for 6 years. Therefore Davis knew how to reach the sources that are needed to fight.
c. He printed greenback bills to fund the war. The North stole the idea.
d. Passed the Draft law and Substitute Act. Enabled to fill general's quota and provided manpower. The North started out by with a Bounty Law(paid soldiers to fight) as the war dragged on the North decided to "borrow" the South's draft law idea.
6. "His zeal, energy, and faith in the cause of the South were of much of the tenacity with which the Confederacy fought the Civil War."-Autobibiography. Most important his' strong belief and leadership allowed the Confederacy to survive and fight for 4 years.
7. After Davis' inauguration as president in 1861, he sent a peace commission to Washington. Lincoln refused to see the ambassadors from the South. This describes that Lincoln was eager to fight rather solve it though alternative means. If Lincoln truly wanted to preserve the Union he would have took every opportunity he had, yet he didn't take this one. (www.americaslibary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/civil/davis_2.)
In conclusion Jefferson has the potential to become a better President than Lincoln. He failed to extend the Confederacy's survival to the present yet he has the resources and leadership skills to make it last for 4 years.

Reasons why Lincoln was a bad president:
1. Lincoln had very little military experience. He did not appoint the right generals during the beginning of his term. This caused many deaths for the North more than the Confederacy. Lincoln was heartless near the end of the war and when he did find the right generals he sent them directly to crush the civilians rather than the "rebels."According to civilwarhome.com/casulaites.htm: North: 360,222 total. South: 258,000.
2.Lincoln cheated the U.S Constitution and arrested thousands of U.S citizens, journalists, and political opponents held them without cause or a trial. His actions violated Amendments 1,4,5,6. He trampled the state's and individual's rights.
3.Lincoln didn't really care about slavery. He allowed it to continue in the border states rather than taking a firm stand against it. Abe actually also fought to preserve slavery in the border states. He want to issue of slavery to stay out of war.
4.Lincoln lost the Senate seat twice. Davis won it on his first try. Davis was better prepared than Lincoln. If Lincoln truly wanted to solve the issue Lincoln could had done something during his time in the House to avoid war rather than taking the top position to intimidate the South, causing them to leave. He also never served as a Cabinet member. Thus Lincoln was much less prepared to become president than Davis.
6. Every country in the world eliminated slavery without starting a civil war. Lincoln's presidency sparked the secession of the South and the war.
Lincoln not only devalue the Constitution, state's rights, and individual rights yet he didn't truly support the end of slavery and wasn't adequately prepared.
2. Doesn't state when during the president's term.
Contentions:
1. Jefferson's political background gave him some experience before taking office. He served as senator and congressman for Mississippi twice. During Franklin Pierre's presidency Davis served as the Secretary Of War. With these political experiences he has the skill and understanding of the government. In the Civil War with this knowledge he was able to form some type of Confederacy government.
2. During war, countries need presidents who have battle experience. Jefferson Davis graduated from West Point, became a colonel, raised and trained a regiment known as the Mississippi Rifles for the Mexican-American War. He has also fought and wounded at the Battle of Buena Vista. President Polk offered him a brigadier general rank and command, yet Davis declined. Equipped with these experiences from the Mexican-American War, Davis knows which of the best generals to appoint, which strategies to approve, and how to prepare for war from scratch.
3. Jefferson owned a plantation and back then running a plantation was financially risky. Anyone who runs a plantation must know the financial expense, profit, taxes, etc. Many fell in debt, but those who didn't became a form of a leader. For example after the Revolutionary War the Secretary of Treasury was none other than Alexander Hamilition. Hamilton began as a clerk and rose to become Secretary of Treasury. This man was a financial genius, he raised money to pay off most of the war debt. Davis has been through risky financial situations and dealt with them, thus Davis is more prepared to raise money for the government to run the war than a country lawyer such as Lincoln.
4. Jefferson knew which generals to appoint. We all knew he appointed Generals: Beauregard, Jackson, Lee, Stuart, and Johnston. They all shared a deep pride and friendship that enabled them to win against the odds. Because Davis' knowledge of which of the generals defended the Confederacy the best, it survived for 4 years. He has the knowledge and skill to be considered "Commander in Chief"
5. Davis made laws in order to run the war.
a.He encouraged industrial enterprise throughout the South.
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Pro

I will rebutle his contentions in the ordered list he gave:

1. Jefferson's political background has no relevance to whether he was a good president or not. Since he was president during the Civil War, he had to come up with brand new ideas on how to run his "country" and to fight on the battlefield. A full-out Civil War had never been experienced on American soil, so none of Jefferson's political background truly helped him. He had to come up with completely new strategies, especially because he was in charge of a rebellious nation, the Confederate States of America. You claim that with his past knowledge he was able to form some type of Confederacy government. Wrong! The government for the Confederacy was first established and then Jefferson Davis took office. Because he spent most of his time battling with states' righters and defying the public opinion, he did not get much accomplished and his political background knowledge proved no real use in his government.
2.Abraham Lincoln also had battle experience! Because Abraham Lincoln was able to win the war and pull the Confederacy back into the Union, it proves that a president does not need all the battle experience that you claim a president needs. So what if Davis had more experience? During the Civil War, a majority of the strategies and plans of the Confederacy were drawn up at the last minute and didn't even go through Davis. Just the fact that the "inexperienced" Lincoln and the Union defeated the "experienced" Davis and the Confederacy proves battle experience did not matter.
3. You make an assumption by saying they MUST know something about financial expense. Lincoln also knew a thing or too about finance. Davis was not more prepared to raise money-he gave Confederacy 9000% inflation compared to the Union's 80% inflation rate
4.Jefferson knew which generals to appoint? Not really. The generals came to him. The Confederate generals had past experiences in wars, and when there home states seceded, they stayed loyal and offered themselves to become generals in the army. In fact, Robert E. Lee, greatest general of the Confederacy, would have been in the Union army, except his home state seceded into the Confederacy, so he went there too. And the Confederacy's generals did not win against the odds, they lost the war. And, a majority of the battles during the Civil War were indecisive militarily, but the Confederacy usually held their spot, but the Confederates usually lost way more men than the Union. Lincoln's risky scheme of trial-and-error for the generals was dangerous, but proved better than Davis's choosings, because the Union won!
5. Lincoln made more laws in order to run the war, and his were better.
a. The industry in South did not begin to build their own guns and artillery. They stole most of the weapons and artillery from Union troops, though one or two factories made a small supply of guns. The Confederates got most of their industry and artillery from hurt Union troops, so your point is invalid. Also, encouraging industrial enterprise did not do too much in South.
b. "He 'taxed' a faction of the harvest to feed the army." So what? The harvest could barely get to the Confederate army, for Union troops obliterated most of Union railroads and transportation ways. That's why Confederate troops were half starved and naked all the time, so Davis's tax did nothing.
c. Davis may have printed greenback bills to fund the war, but IT CAUSED 9000% iNFLATION. THE NORTH USED CREDIT AND HAD A NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM. LINCOLN HELPED THE NORTH PROSPER, Davis let the Confederacy slip.
d.Davis and his Draft Law and Substitute Act did not help out the South; they provided actually little to none manpower. The North actually started out with volunteers, then a conscription (draft) law, and then paid soldiers. But so what? The North got the manpower it needed with Lincoln, the South did not get it with Davis.
6. That quote is not true. He actually doubted the beliefs of the South and how the things were run. His leadership and strong beliefs did not allow the Confederacy to fight for four years: he defied public opinion and was constantly at war with his congressmen. He proved to have faulty leadership: he could not get much done, he could not control the states' righters in the South.
7. That is a biased argument. Lincoln actually met several times with Davis and the Confederacy, but they had strong goals and neither side was willing to compensate. What you are referring to is after the battle of Antietam. Lincoln refused to see the visitors, because he knew that there was no chance of peace and he realized that the South needed to pay. The rebels "cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt." There were actually a couple times where Davis did not want cooperation as well.

"In conclusion Jefferson has the potential to become a better President than Lincoln." You just ruined your whole argument! You have just stated that Jefferson had the potential, or possibility, to have been a better president than Lincoln. You are saying that he was not necessarily a better president, and that's the whole point of the argument! So what if he kept the Confederacy alive for four years? It was mainly because of the generals and the shakiness of some tactics in North. They still lost to Lincoln.

I will refute his arguments regarding Lincoln:
1. Once again, this war was new to the nation and never experienced. Lincoln had military experience, but a president does not need it to succeed. He did not appoint the right generals at first, but he finally found Grant and succeeded in battle. There were obviously more deaths in North, for realizing the huge advantage of manpower, Lincoln intelligently used the Union size at end of war to crush the South. He attacked civilians as part of strategy to win the war, and it won. The North could afford more loses than South, they had over double the Southern population. Lincoln could have had less military experience, but his wit and intelligence won his military engagement over Davis!
2. This is hilarious. Lincoln cheated the Constitution to actually save the Constitution and the Union. He did what needed to be done to succeed. He was quick and smart in using arbitrary power to help the North win back the Confederacy. Davis could not use arbitrary power because he was a poor leader and could not control his own states' righters. P.S. Congress and Northern populace did not mind Lincoln's control)
3. Hilarious! He did care about slavery, but he left it alone in Border States to keep them in the Union and help them win the war! It shows once again his superior resourcefulness and cunning he had over Davis. He did not want slavery out of the war, at first he did to keep Border States in the Union, and once they were, he declared the Emancipation Proclamation to up the morale of the Union to win. He was a genius-way better than Davis.
4.This argument does not relate to the presidency at all-just says how things were before they were presidents-so argument is invalid
6. Lincoln's presidency only sparked secession of the South and the war because the South overreacted-they felt Lincoln was going to abolish slavery in their territory and lifestyle-which he did not plan on. So what if his presidency sparked it? It just proves that Lincoln was a better president by stopping the Confederacy and preserving the Union

Rebuttal to conclusion:
Lincoln devalued the Constitution to save the Constitution and the Union. He went against states' rights and individual rights to save the Union-not too many complained, and Davis could not even overcome his states' righters. He may have not truly supported end of slavery, but he accomplished it and won the war.

His contentions I already rebutted.

As clearly seen, I successfully showed why Lincoln was clearly a better president than Davis. Thanks
SniperJake94

Con

I will go to his rebuttals
1. Basic idea for this refutal: Political background doesn't have any use. I would like to point out: Confederates formed a government and chose Jefferson because he had more experience than the other candidates. My opponent also states "He had to come up with completely new strategies,especially because he was in charge of a rebellious nation, the Confederate States of America," thus this contradicts with what his whole rebuttal says and supports mine. "He" describes Davis, come up with completely new strategies describes Jefferson using his past experiences and original ideas to lead the newly formed government. This also clashes with his rebuttal saying Lincoln was more intelligent because Davis made new ideas that Lincoln later copied.
2. Lincoln's only battle experience was overseeing the war. A president as "Commander in Chief" must have some battle experience before especially in times of war. According to Wikipedia:Lincoln served as a captain in a company of the Illinois militia drawn from New Salem during the Black Hawk War, ALTHOUGH HE NEVER SAW COMBAT. No real live battle experience; also doesn't fit to be Commander in Chief. At least Davis knows how many men are needed for battle unlike Lincoln who sent a absurd amount of 400,000 soldiers for McClellan's Peninsula Campaign.
3. My opponent's 9000% CSA's inflation and USA's inflation has no credible source, thus he can put whatever percentage and say it's a fact. A president must maintain government expense. After the Revolutionary War, U.S was in debt yet it paid most of it off same would happen for the CSA.
4. Generals' can be easily known through reputation; therefore they stood out for Davis. History books even states it! My opponent also states:"And, a majority of the battles during the Civil War were indecisive militarily, but the Confederacy USUALLY HELD THEIR SPOT." This proves because the South didn't retreat and beat the odds. My opponent also states:"but the Confederates usually lost way more men than the Union." No credible statistics just a mere assumption that cannot be supported. I have provide one:civilwarhome.com/casulaites.htm. Just because the Union won doesn't mean Davis' choosiness were wrong. Davis' choosiness proved to be one of the great resistances the Union faced. Lincoln's scheme cost many lives and natural rights.
5a-d .After the blockade the south began to run factories. My opponent also states there were only two factories that made a small supply. Actually there were SEVERAL in Richmond, Vicksburg, Atlanta, Jackson, and New Orleans. These provided most artillery and arms. Confederates CAN'T get most of their industry from hurt Union troops because they don't carry a manufacturing plant around. Moving heavy stolen artillery around creates a slow troop movement and the area in the south is agricultural. Because Davis encouraged industrial enterprise it created jobs for women so they can feed their families. Although Lincoln had destroyed railroads, Davis was intelligent to have a backup plan for shipping taxed crops through supply wagons. And again my opponent has no credible source for his absurd 9000% inflation. My opponent also accepts that Davis was the first to print greenback bills and Lincoln stole the idea. Actually Andrew Jackson ENDED the "national banking system." If the Abe used "credit" doesn't this mean he just plunged us into deeper debt? Yeah seems like he did. Lincoln can't be a better president if he wanted a increasing national debt.
6. Davis states in his Inaugural Address: Our present condition... illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed... it's the right for people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they established... If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled..." He does truly believe the Southern cause. Lincoln defied public opinion, arrested new editors and politicians who were discouraging war, fought against the Radical Republicans in Congress, generals he appointed, and fought against the Copperheads. Clearly Lincoln had more kinds of Northern resistance than Davis proving Davis wasn't that extremely hated. My opponent also states:but they had strong goals and NEITHER side was WILLING to COMPENSATE." Proving Davis also truly believed and did not doubt about the South. If Davis did really have faulty leadership Lincoln probably would have persuaded him.
7. My opponent has no source for his assumption and I had evidence. Also if Lincoln truly wanted the South to pay then his Reconstruction Plan wouldn't had been so lenient.
His refutal to offensive:
1. My opponent states:There were obviously more deaths in North. This contradicts with what he says in "but the Confederates usually lost way more men than the Union." Fact is: North=more deaths than South. I will apply what I refuted from my contention 2. Lincoln's trial and error cost many lives and public support. In this rebuttal my opponent seems to describe that KILLING MANY Union soldiers IS Lincoln's intelligence and wit. Wow. It's better to carefully do things right first, that's what Davis did choosing the right generals first and their tactics worked for 4 years. Abe did not have a strong moral sense because he placed generals to butcher many lives and natural rights just for a cause to save the Union. My opponent also states in his conclusion: He went against STATE'S RIGHTS and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS-not many complained. If your rights were threatened wouldn't you complain? I would.
2. Lincoln cheated the Constitution to actually save the Constitution and the Union. Wasn't the President's oath suppose to be:... and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?" Lincoln clearly didn't defend or protect but suspended it's power just to arrest political opponents, journalist (whom were exercising rights of freedom of press), Copperheads, etc. He clearly violated Constitution amendments 1,4,5,6. My opponent also states:but they HAD strong goals and NEITHER SIDE was WILLING to COMPENSATE." If Davis did really have faulty leadership Lincoln probably would have persuaded him. Davis REMAINED as a confederate until death, thus Davis wasn't a faulty leader. Lincoln conflicted with the Radical Republicans and the public too after the war. For example the biggest riots happened in Chicago, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. The worst happened in New York City on 7-13-1863.
3. My opponent states:"but he left it alone in Border States to keep them in the Union." He agrees with my point. His E.P was to release slaves only in the Confederacy not in Union controlled slave areas. Not all wanted freed slaves because it would mean the loss of jobs and competitions, many freedmen didn't have jobs. It wasn't a genius way because many freedmen didn't have job and E.P is like a issuing a law to a foreign country. If E.P was justified then we should be able to pass a law to tell N. Korea to destroy their nukes. He also states:"the South overreacted-they felt Lincoln was going to abolish slavery in their territory and lifestyle-WHICH HE DID NOT PLAN ON." Clearly contradicts.
4. I had already explained why political past was important and he has not touched on this thus this still stands.
6. Excuse me, I mistyped the #. Lincoln wasn't planning to abolish slavery. So what if his presidency sparked it? Simple, IT STARTS A WAR. He didn't put much of a rebuttal.
If Lincoln was better than Davis, why was he killed? Some really hated him.
My contentions and rebuttals have proven Davis was better than Abe in many areas. Lincoln did not reunite the Union, Andrew Johnson & Hayes did. Abe wasn't resourceful, he indirectly killed many soldiers. Because of the many riots Abe wasn't calm and also defied the public. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Pro

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
SniperJake94

Con

I would like to voting issue to be justified based upon our arguments. Please leave any bias and other known information outside of the debate content. Reason: it will not result in giving a side more advantage before this debate is read. Thank you.

Summary:
My opponent only claims that Davis only defied public opinion. Lincoln had defied both public opinion and the public itself in forms of riots and violating many rights. Clearly Lincoln had more opposition and wasn't a better president.
The loss of the Confederacy wasn't just Davis, but on many leaders.
Lincoln didn't re-unite the Union, Congress did during the Reconstruction era. This argument should be dropped.
Lincoln wasn't intelligent, calm, resourceful, and cautious. I have proven these in my rebuttals. He also caused riots and many Union deaths. No one can be calm in dealing with this.
I have proven that Lincoln was a worse president than Davis. Davis supported rights and Lincoln defied and suspended rights. Lincoln also violated the Constitution's amendments 1,5,6 and the President's oath. Lincoln suspended state and individual rights for his own personal gain. Lincoln wasn't resourceful, cautious, or intelligent as Davis. My opponent describes Lincoln's cautions and resourcefulness is sending many Union soldiers to their deaths. If Abe was cautious than he wouldn't had appointed Generals Burnside, McCellan, and Pope to send Union soldiers to their death. We all know President Davis first appointed the best generals in the South and under their command the South had fewer death than the Union. Davis is indirectly resourceful by appointing great generals that conserved the very limited manpower the south had. Now that's resourceful! Through Davis' intelligence and background he made original ideas to run the war. Later in the war Lincoln stole them. My opponent even agrees with this point: "He had to come up with completely new strategies,especially because he was in charge of a rebellious nation, the Confederate States of America." Thus his points on Lincoln's intelligence falls. Davis' intelligence had more orignal ideas and used them. I urge you to accept my point. My opponent describes that Lincoln drove the U.S into a deeper debt by using credit(that he did not repay). Again he wasn't resourceful. I explained that Davis used greenbacks and taxes to run the war. Davis had a better political and military background was much more prepared for war than Lincoln. This led up to: Lincoln's first years in office proved to be a disaster he appointed the wrong generals to fight, had to deal with riots, etc. Davis had a steady first years in office. Lincoln didn't truly care about slaves because: 1. his E.P only freed slaves in the Confederacy not in Union controlled areas such as the border states. 2. If he was intelligent and cared about slaves than his amendment 13 wouldn't have many loopholes. 3. Border states. Davis truly believed in the Confederacy cause while Lincoln was on the border for of which side to fight for, antislavery or re-unitng Union. In his inaugural address and staying with the Confederacy until its end Jefferson was loyal to his cause. My opponent also quoted,"but they HAD strong goals and NEITHER SIDE was WILLING to COMPENSATE." Meaning Davis was loyal. He also states:"the South overreacted-they felt Lincoln was going to abolish slavery in their territory and lifestyle-WHICH HE DID NOT PLAN ON." This last one was from 2nd part, point 6, 2nd line. It clearly contradicts with what his rebuttal says about Lincoln supporting slavery and supports my argument. Lincoln didn't re-unite the Union that my opponent claims. Congress did using their Reconstruction plan. Therefore you must drop this argument.
My opponent forfeited and was on spring break. He had three days to post yet hasn't provided any further refutals to my rebuttals. Therefore my round 1 and 2 all stand.

Voting issues:
1. My opponent's rebuttal is contradictory with his round 1 case in many ways, I have proven this. Several arguments either contradicts with each other or supports my arguments.
2. I destroyed his case and rebuttals. He has no other arguments standing after round 2. My case still stands.
3. My opponent's credibility on Lincoln was obliterated. And he has no credible source to support his arguments. My sources were bibliographies and others were stated in my case.

In conclusion my opponent had 3 days, forfeited,and was on spring break. He has not refuted any of my rebuttals. Therefore they all stand. I have proven that Davis was a better president than Lincoln and I urge voting for Con. Thank you reading for this debate. If you have any comments and adv ice please message me. And please message me your reasons for your vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Some conduct.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I believe that I would have done a better job at CON...
Posted by arcticanticsdebater 7 years ago
arcticanticsdebater
Gee, I don't know who would win. All this typing you made is a headache. I don't know who I should vote for, but you guys wrote a LOT
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
i'm sorry for not posting the last round. i could have easily rebutted his points, but my relative has gotten really sick again and I have had no time to post. I deeply apologize. If my opponent is willing to take another debate on this at a later time, I would like to be notified. Thanks
Posted by SniperJake94 7 years ago
SniperJake94
I'm on spring break too and I was bored after studying so much. 1. I didn't bring up much crap. If you read YOUR contradictory quotes in my round 2 rebuttal, your case and rebuttal was obviously contradictory and useless. I was just summarizing some points in the comment tab. You also claimed that Congress didn't run in the war. I will let you choose a side: Congress did run or Congress didn't run; either way I will prove that decision is bad. And you didn't state your source. There is no point in debating in the comment tab. I will prove Davis IS a better president than Lincoln in round 3. Also I've been using websites such as civilwarhome, bibilographies, and three high school level U.S history textbooks. I look forward to your reply.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
DUDE ARE YOU INSANE? YOU ARE SAYING LINCOLN WASN'T RESOURCEFUL OR INTELLIGENT? You keep bringing up this crap that Lincoln defied public opinion and Davis didn't. First of all, during the Civil War, Congress in the Union did not run, which allowed Lincoln to use arbitrary power. Because Lincoln violated parts of the Constitution, he saved the Constitution and the Union. The riots you refer to are due to things such as the conscription law, but there were only one or two major cases of those. You keep saying that he locked up all these journalists and how 'terrible' it was. It was not terrible, it was intelligent; he was able to save the Union. Davis, on the other hand, was always fighting with his congress and always defied public opinion. In the Confederacy, each state greatly supported states' rights and secession, for they left the Union. Davis wanted to run a centralized government, and the states in his country were against it. He defied public opinion immensely and could not use arbitrary power like Lincoln. You say Lincoln wasn't smart or resourceful because he lost more men than the Confederacy? That's b.s. First of all, the Union had approximately 22 million people, while the Confederacy had approximately 9 million, and around 3.5 million of those were slaves. (this comes from The American Pageant textbook) It was smart and resourceful of Lincoln to use his manpower to take over the Confederacy. And by the way, the Confederacy did not have sufficient factories. If they did, they wouldn't have allowed Lincoln's naval blockade to suffocate their economy. P.S. The Confederate soldiers, a majority of the time, got a majority of their artillery and guns from Union troops. If they killed them, they would run over and grab their guns and cannons. Here's an example: remember First Battle of Bull Run? It was called a military picnic because when the Union troops fled, the Confederates stole the lunches of the Union spectators. Much more to come in my rebuttal
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
it is not contradictory: you did not understand my points. and throughout the debate the credible source is the U.S. history textbook the American Pageant. i will clarify everything in my argument
Posted by SniperJake94 7 years ago
SniperJake94
First off your rebuttal is self contradictory to your case and if you did read my rebuttal. Two you have no credible source for your assumption on Union & confederate death loss. You also agreed than Davis had better ideas than Lincoln. "Lincoln was intelligent, calm, resourceful, and cautious in the way he dealt with the Union," I have proven this wrong in my rebuttal. Conclusion on it: 1. Killing many Union soldiers wasn't resourceful. You even state that it violates rights, therefore Lincoln indirectly butchered soldiers and rights. And Lincoln went on credit that he didn't pay off, therefore we are in a deeper national debt. He wasn't resourceful. 2. Lincoln wasn't that calm, he was at heavy tensions with political opponents, journalists, the biggest riots in the Civil War, and the Senate in the Union. My opponent only states Davis had to deal with Congress and public opinion. Lincoln had more and a longer opposition than Davis. 3. If he was cautious, why did he put McCellan in charge? After several battle he should had known. Yet he didn't. For those reasons and round 2 rebuttals Lincoln also wasn't intelligent.
Lincoln didn't really re-unite the Union, Johnson did it through Reconstruction. His mistake. So clearly his case on Lincoln was already demolished in my round 2 rebuttal.
Thanks. I hope I corrected his mistake.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
this guy's argument is really ridiculous. there are tons of flaws. u say lincoln defied public opinion? how about davis buddy
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
this is ridiculous. your retubbals are useless. ur wasting ur time
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
studentathletechristian8SniperJake94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
studentathletechristian8SniperJake94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
studentathletechristian8SniperJake94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70