The Ordinances of Secession, originally numbering 7 (eventually becoming 11) do not list any causes, a direct refutation of your characterization, and your often repeated argument.
All the Ordinances were the legislatively approved, legal language documents by which each of the seceded states severed their connection with the Federal Union. All were the result of officially approved state legislators, voting in state conventions, legislatures, or by popular referendum.
In addition to the aforementioned Official Ordinances produced by a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, there were others of nominal importance: 2 rump state conventions, 1 territorial convention, and 2 Indian tribes that published one or more secession documents around the beginning of the war.
As also is known, the conventions of 4 of those 11 states adopted an additional “Declaration of Causes” as a nonbinding legislative resolution, and serving as public information.
Out of the 20 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mentioned slavery in any context beyond geographical nomenclature (only 5 mention it at any length - the sixth is in a single brief clause).
Fourteen of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery or without mentioning it at all.
So, what is the conclusion? Essentially about the only thing that is obvious is that your postings have been wrong.
Why would you say such a thing?
In Ordinances of Secession documents, Causes can be said to begin with the word "Whereas".
Of the first seven states to declare secession, Alabama used the word "whereas" once in its Ordnance of Secession, Texas three times.
No other state used "whereas" in its Ordnance.
Of those four "wereeas's", only one, a highly generic hand-waving reason, did not refer to slavery (more on this later).
You understand, I'm certain, that the word "slavery" was sometimes substituted-for with words like "property interests" and "domestic institutions".
PeaRidge: "Out of the 20 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mentioned slavery in any context beyond geographical nomenclature (only 5 mention it at any length - the sixth is in a single brief clause)."
Such a comment is most disingenuous and misleading!
In fact, every secession document, generated by the first seven states to secede "at pleasure", if they gave any reasons, list concerns over slavery as their Number One Reason.
PeaRidge: "Fourteen of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery or without mentioning it at all."
No, of the first seven states to secede, their "reasons" are overwhelmingly concerns over slavery, with one or two other problems thrown in, very briefly.
For example, Texas complains that Col. Robert E. Lee, who was in charge of protecting the Texas frontier against Indians, was doing a lousy job of it.
That is such a serious charge, isn't it, I'm just certain Lee will play no significant role in any future Confederate Army, right?
PeaRidge: "So, what is the conclusion?
Essentially about the only thing that is obvious is that your my-PeaRidge postings have been wrong."
There, fixed your rare but important typographical error, for you.
Yes, you're welcome, FRiend.