"Read the ordinances of secession passed by the various southern states. A couple of them may not mention slavery as a primary cause of secession, but most do, loud and clear".
The poster is obviously confused as to what documents were "passed" and represented official statements, and documents on secession that were published by sources that provided nothing more than commentaries that do not reflect legal actions of the state governments.
I stated the fact that "None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union."
You said that "Actually that is not factual" and quoted passages using the geographic references, having nothing to do with the poster's assertion that "(most of the ordinances) mention slavery as a primary cause of secession."
His assertion was shown to be false, and you attempted to confuse the issue.
So, it is you that are not being factual.
This is not the first time recently that you have provided erroneous and confusing posts.
That Texas and Virginia did give reasons -- "that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression" and "the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States" -- and Alabama mentioned a desire "to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose" leaves us in litte doubt that slavery was a major -- the major -- cause of their action.
The "Declarations of the Reasons of Secession" were intended to fill in the gaps that the merely legalistic ordinances left. They may or may not have carried the same legal weight as the ordinances -- though if secession was unconstitutional they probably did. I don't know if they were official in the highest sense, but they can certainly be regarded as semi-official or quasi-official, since they issued from participants themselves. In any event, I don't recall anyone complaining that they were wildly inaccurate and unreflective of the mood of the conventions.
It looks like all you are doing is setting rhetorical traps and using technical quibbles to justify put-downs of other posters, rather than trying to get at substantive truths.
I didn't realize that "slaveholding" was actually only a geographical designation.
I'll bear that in mind the next time I head slaveholding-bound on I-95 to Florida.
It could come in handy if I have to ask for directions in Georgia or Slaveholding Carolina.
Of course if a geographical designation was all that was intended, "Southern" or "South" would have served their purpose.
"Slaveholding" or "slave-holding" served a purpose and wasn't just thrown in by accident.
The poster is obviously confused as to what documents were "passed" and represented official statements, and documents on secession that were published by sources that provided nothing more than commentaries that do not reflect legal actions of the state governments.
The "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" was authorized by the President of the South Carolina Convention and signed by the President and his clerk. It was written by Christopher Memminger who chaired the committee which wrote the Confederate constitution. He served as Confederate Secretary of the Treasury. That's official enough for me.
The Texas and Mississippi Declarations were published by the official state printers together with the secession ordinances. The Georgia Declaration was stamped "Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861," so presumably it also had some official approval by the Convention or Legislature.
It would take a lot of research to figure out who authorized and approved what, but if one is interested in understanding the reasons for secession, one can't simply dismiss the declarations issued from and by (in one way and another) the seceding bodies.
Nor would it be accurate to say that none of the ordinances gave slavery as a reason for secession. While not primarily intended to give any reasons, at least two and perhaps three do indicate the importance of slavery in the secession decision.