"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.
I grant that not everyone who supported secession was motivated by the same factors to the same degree. If it were "all about slavery" secession wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. But without slavery and the perceived threats to it, you wouldn't have seen a secessionist movement in 1860.
Essentially about the only thing that is obvious is that your postings have been wrong.
People can decide that for themselves. If there's anyone out there following this, they don't need you making pronouncements for them. And I trust they'll have the good sense to see this as something more than a personal quarrel between us.
"Essentially" (a pretty annoying way to begin a sentence) you're saying that these assemblies voted for secession for no reason or any reason you choose to make up, and we can't use contemporary documents written or authorized by people in those assemblies as evidence to establish just why they voted as they did.
If you want some kind of pat on the head because you demonstrated that the original poster was wrong in using the phrase "ordinances of secession" to refer to other documents, fine. Consider your head patted. But the discussion has gone beyond than that. And you can't trade on your little success forever.
If any of this is still in doubt I suggest you look at the papers and speeches of the secession commissioners officially appointed by the various conventions or state governments. Add their papers and utterances to those you've already mentioned and the picture is that much clearer. If you need to go further, perhaps there exist records of the conventions themselves. I doubt they'd contradict the documents we've discussed.