The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Confederacy was better than the union.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 930 times Debate No: 44042
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This round will be for acceptance only


I accept!

It appears Pro has not provided any definitions on what the debate was actually about. Is this a debate about who was better at fighting, about which was better to live in or about which had the cooler name? Because Pro has not defined the debate, the definition is material to debate. Thus, I will give my own interpretation.

The thesis states: "Confederacy was better than the union." Pro has not specified which Confederacy or which Union he/she is referring to. I assume that the Confederacy Pro is referring to is the "Confederate States of America," and the Union is the "United States of America."

Better is defined as: "higher in quality, more skillful"[1]

Therefore, my interpretation is that the United States of America was better than the Confederate States of America at warfare.

Warfare is defined as: "The waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict."[2]

Now that the debate has its definitions, let the debate proceed!

Debate Round No. 1


Ok, the first thing i want to say is, the Confederates didnt want slaves, they wanted states rights, also, the war technically never ended, neither side surrendered, the only reason it "ended" was because of the states joining the union.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it- Abraham Lincoln


We are not debating whether or not the Confederacy wanted slaves or not. I could easily prove that they did, but that is not the purpose of this debate.

My argument is as follows:

The United States of America was better than the Confederate States of America at warfare.

The United States won the civil war. [1] Because the United States beat the Confederate States at war, the United States were better at warfare. I could go on and on about how the Union's military was better trained, and had better weapons, but the fact that the United States beat the Confederates is sufficient.

Debate Round No. 2


The US did not win the war, neither side surrendered, also, lincoln was a communist, and the Confederacy was founded off of states rights, and there is absolutely no way you could prove that the Confederates wanted slaves, the Confederacy was better in many ways, such as fairness and morality.
By the latter part of 1864 the CSA was moving toward ending slavery. In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would have ended slavery even if it had "won" the war, as prominent historians like J. G. Randall and David Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1969, p. 522).
The Confederate president himself, Jefferson Davis, came to strongly support ending slavery. So did CSA Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, Governor William Smith of Virginia, and leading CSA Congressmen Ethelbert Barksdale and Duncan Kenner (who was one of the largest slaveholders in the South).

On to why the Confederacy was better overall: The confederates were not wrong to leave the union, they were right, they were taxed because of their cotton farms, if thats how the union wanted to play, the Confederacy might as well have taxed Lincoln for his top hat and beard! Just as Lincoln had characteristics to himself, so did the Confederacy, they wanted to keep their cotton farms without getting taxed, which the union said was not an option, so they suceeded from the evil union to form their own country with their own laws and culture.


"The US did not win the war, neither side surrendered, also, lincoln was a communist, and the Confederacy was founded off of states rights"

Really? I provided a source stating that the United States of America won the American Civil War. Pro also insists neither side surrendered; however, Pro is mistaken. On April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to the United States at the Appomattox Court House located in Virginia, thus losing the war.[1]

Furthermore, we are not debating what the Confederacy was founded off of, nor about President Lincoln's political stances and is therefore irrelevant to this debate.

"On to why the Confederacy was better overall: The confederates were not wrong to leave the union, they were right, they were taxed because of their cotton farms"

Once again, has nothing to do with "whose better" in any shape or form. It does not even prove that the Confederacy had a better military than the United States.

Pro has not challenged my interpretation of the thesis, nor my argument. Pro also fails to provide any evidence whatsoever on why the Confederacy was better than the Union at anything. Pro insists of justifying the south's secession from the Union. However, the thesis states: "Confederacy was better than the union." Not: "The South was justified in seceding from the United States of America."

Pro has failed to make his case and has not negated any of my arguments. I have shown that the United States of America was "better" than the Confederacy at warfare.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
Since the debate isn't about slavery or ethics anymore, I feel more comfortable pointing this out:

@Reb: You have Lincoln's quote correct, but I don't think you've interpreted it's significance correctly. The Union did fight the Civil War in order to preserve the Union, and not free the slaves. This is true, although there were lots of abolitionist movements in the Union that were pressuring a ban on slaves. Lincoln was not one of those persons, but a "moderate" who didn't like slavery but wouldn't ban it in order to incite a war.

However, the Confederacy most certainly did secede from the Union for the sole purpose of preserving slaves. They did not secede for states' rights. All of the official documents (there were many) that listed why the CSA seceded did not advocate states' rights, except the right to secede. They all said specifically that their resignation was due to preserving slavery. The Vice President said the entire CSA was build on the idea of preserving slavery. The CSA Constitution stated that slavery could never be banned.

In fact, the South at the time was bitter about states' rights, because the slaves who escaped from their masters would be able to take refuge in Northern states due to what the South perceived to be too little federal protection. The agenda of the Union was not primarily abolitionism but the preservation of the Union, it is true; however the entire CSA agenda was primarily and almost exclusively: Slavery. It was not about taxes, or states' rights; such beliefs are actually popular myths.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
@Merrit--you had an enormous advantage in the "natural" wording of the resolution. Why did you chose to do the counter-intuitive resolution analysis (that is, make it about warfare skill)?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InfiniteBears 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't break con down