[DiogenesLamp]

1 - Pride. The wealthy slave owners resented being told they were evil. If you read Thomas Sowell’s essay on Black Rednecks, it is obvious how being ‘dissed’ was viewed in the South.

People don't like being called "deplorables" by their social elite "betters" in places like Boston and New York? Why I can't imagine why that might have bothered them.

2 - Expansion of slavery. The secession documents show the wealthy slave owners wanted slavery to expand, and felt allowing individual states to outlaw slavery unduly restricted their opportunities.

I believed that theory for most of my life. In fact I believed it up until about two years ago when I found out the facts don't support the claim. Slavery was predominantly cotton. Cotton was the only thing making slavery profitable. In what territory will cotton grow? None. (Maybe a teeny bit in Kansas.)

If cotton won't grow in the territories in 2019, then it wouldn't grow in the territories in 1860 either.

I'm going to skip your regurgitation of the secession documents. Only three, perhaps four say anything about slavery being the reason for secession. Virginia's certainly says nothing about slavery, it says they are leaving because the government is trying to make war on states which are exercising their right to leave.

[Bull Snipe]

“they are leaving because the government is trying to make war on states which are exercising their right to leave.” Exactly what had the Buchanan Administration done to make them think that leaving the Union was the only option available to them?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Slavery was predominantly cotton.

Actually it was just slightly more than half. 1.8 million slaves were involved in cotton production, which leaves 1.4 million who were not.

Cotton was the only thing making slavery profitable.

So all of those other 1.4 million slaves were a money-losing proposition? It makes one wonder why people kept buying them, at higher and higher prices, in the non-cotton producing areas.