No. Non-Seq raised a question that was inescapably a Tu Quoque argument, and thus may be rejected as a logical fallacy.
The fact is, both men believed in constitutional government and the rule of law, but both men were pushed to take actions due to the war that they would have preferred not to take.
If you want to play the comparison game, I'll indulge you momentarily on my own terms: habeas corpus and its ensuing arbitrary arrests, which is a fair enough issue since it is also the most well known and far reaching civil war era abuse of civil liberties and rights.
Of course a comparison between Lincoln and Davis on habeas corpus quickly reveals stark differences in the degrees to which they exercised these policies. Davis exercised what has been described as caution, obtaining a limited suspension on the constitutional authorization of the Confederate Congress. Lincoln, by contrast, suspended it widely and unilaterally without Congressional authorization for two years straight. In doing so he also frequently made unilateral extensions of his suspension orders and ignored five separate federal court rulings against him for doing so.
That is incorrect. If the actions of Lincoln with regard to civil liberties during the war are to be examined critically, then so should the actions of his counterpart Davis. Failure to do so violates the "fairness" standard of ethical reasoning.
How about comparing the resistance Davis got from State righter's who were upset with his own (what they preceived to be) abuse of power.
Stop playing games and deal with the central issue.