通過考察真德秀一系列嘉定時期有關宋金和戰與歲幣的奏疏，本文注意到真氏於 嘉定六年尚持對金「撫柔」態度，嘉定七年金人南遷汴京之後真氏則轉向力持「主戰」、 「北伐」。進一步推究真德秀與史彌遠等人立場的異同，不難發現：雙方同以蒙古興起 為憂、皆注意到當下對金關係即奠立日後與蒙古相處之基礎；所差異之處在於判斷金 人亡國遲速的不同。真德秀認為金人亡國之日不遠，宋必須馬上有自立之策，亦據此 批評持相反言論者為茍且、安逸。
衡諸當時邊防實情，真氏議論屬於「以振厲為安靖」的憂國之策，而非純是當下 可以完全具體落實執行的謀國之策。即使如此，憂國與謀國（議論與當政）雙方仍舊 保持共同政治目標而未化為嚴重政爭。由此亦可以反映出嘉定時期史彌遠仍能有效控 制舆論，不致陷入於動辄得咎的困境。

Zheng Dexiu’s position of annual tribute was temperate in the early period of Jiading, but he prefered to advocate war with Jurchen in 1214 A.D. Scholars often observed that Zheng Dexiu was conflicted with Shi Miyuan but ingnored their common ground in that time.
This essay attempts to explain that Zheng and Shi both worried about the rise of Mongolia in north China and regarded the situation of Song-Jin as the foundation of the situation of Song with Mongolia in the future. The cause of the difference between Zheng and Shi was that Zheng considered Jurchen coming to an end immediately, and so Song should be more active. Therefore’ Zheng criticized any objection to his viewpoint as stealing the day of ease.
According to the frontier defenses’ Zheng’s opions perhaps were not practicable but Shi Miyuan still valued that. It reflected that these different political opinions survived together in that time. Thus Shi Miyuan still effectively controlled public opinions in the period of Jiading.