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.
If pointing out the poster's errors and your misrepresentations can, in your mind, be called technical quibbles and traps, then no wonder you are so misinformed about antebellum U. S. history.
As I correctly pointed out, none of the Declarations of Secession gave slavery as a reason for leaving the Union. The poster was misinformed as to the truth, as are most that think they know the reasons for secession. They always point out and misrepresent the truth of the documents.
You, on the other hand, know that what I pointed out was the truth. You did not bother to quote the unofficial documents, but attempted to misrepresent the formal documents.
And you accuse me of childish sophistry when you deliberately misrepresent the facts while trying to insert your canards.
Here is an example of your type of comments that allege something that was not said:
“But to say that none of the ordinances gave indications of the reasons behind the actions of the legislatures or conventions would not be correct.”
That is a pure example of your disgusting sense of fair debate.
I have to admit that drawing the distinction between the Ordnances of Secession and the Declarations of the Reasons of Secession is technically correct - even if it is just a half-step above playing spelling nazi.
If he he wishes to indulge in leftist hair-splitting exercises then I would respond that the ambiguity he presents in “Therefore, any notion that these documents were formal, legal explanations is totally false” is itself false because he failed to explicitly define which exact documents he was referring to with respect that that particular response.
*rollseyes*