Yes.
“They are pretty clearly talking about slavery as something those states have in common and about threats to slavery that motivated secession.”
You make two assertions in one sentence. You jumped beyond what was being said by them to make an assertion that is wrong and not supported by the documents.
“But without slavery and the perceived threats to it, you wouldn't have seen a secessionist movement in 1860.”
You are now moving beyond what is being discussed here into your own biased realm of thinking.
“And I trust they'll have the good sense to see this as something more than a personal quarrel between us.”
No quarrel....just you trying to manipulate the truth, and being corrected for doing so.
“Essentially 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.
I did not say that. Again, you are trying to kidnap the discussion and twist my commentary.
“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.”
Again, you are twisting the facts into a canard. That is not the poster's primary error, nor what I was demonstrating as his error. I would also add that you choose a very immature way of admitting that you were wrong.
“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.”
I have done that at length and on numerous occasions. If you had done the same, you would have realized early on that I was correct in pointing out the other poster's error.
“Add their papers and utterances to those you've already mentioned and the picture is that much clearer.”
Actually a thorough study of the documents shows just how diverse the arguments for (and against) secession actually were. It would surprise you if you decided to enter into some scholarly reading rather than wasting your time writing your type of drivel here.
“If you need to go further, perhaps there exist records of the conventions themselves. I doubt they'd contradict the documents we've discussed.”
It is obvious that you do not know if any of that sentence is true or false.
When you want to be rational and pursue a purposeful discussion, rather than just contradict and insult, get back to me and maybe I'll respond.