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.
"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".
He is addressing the "ordinances of secession".
The Ordinances of Secession, originally numbering 7 (eventually becoming 11) do not list any causes, a direct refutation of the poster's characterization, and your repeated argument. Read for yourself here.
All 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.
What has come to be known as the declarations of causes, given in various historical contexts, were efforts of assorted entities tending to disclose their reasons for secession. As you pointed out, some originated from officials, others from witnesses, clerks, newspaper reporters, or whoever. None of these documents were officially derived from legislation, despite your weak attempts at trying to develop inferences from who printed what and on what date.
Again, he said and you supported that, "A couple of them (ordinances of secession) may not mention slavery as a primary cause of secession, but most do, loud and clear".
Most do?
In addition to the afformentioned 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.
Maybe the poster meant that they should all be takne together. Well, if taken altogether, they published at least 20 documents declaring or otherwise affirming their secession.
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.
To reiterate the facts and specifically and only with regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
As you wanted to point out in support of the poster's error, the convention of South Carolina also adopted a letter of causes addressed to all the other slave holding southern states outlining their list of justifications and urging others to join them. You offered up this document, but is the same type of casual narrative offered by only 3 other states. It is interesting reading but nothing more than ancillary composition.
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.