Abraham Lincoln was a better president than Jefferson Davis

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