[DiogenesLamp]

Five states issued Declarations of Causes, and one is hard pressed to find anything but slavery as the issue in any of them

What five? I've read them all, and I only recall a few that stated slavery was the reason. Others referred to "slave owning states", which is just a statement of reality at that time.

Even so, five out of eleven is still putting the cart before the horse. 6 is a larger number than 5.

Virginia did not issue a "Declaration of Causes," unlike those other five states. Maybe they felt that the part of the Declaration of Independence that said "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" didn't apply to them.

And here we go again. Saying "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind..." means what? Compulsion? One is obligated to state a cause for exercising the right of independence? In my understanding of the English language, this means a list of causes is a mere courtesy, not an essential requirement. If one does not wish to explain why one no longer wishes to associate with others, one does not have any requirement to do so. The right to independence is not conditional on a "respect for the opinions of mankind."

Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States

And you are bending over backwards to interpret this as a claim that they are seceding because of slavery, rather than accepting it as a mere statement of fact that they see the slaveholding states being oppressed.

The government made it clear that the target of it's army was the Southern slave holding states. Pointing out that this is the case does not constitute a claim that they are seceding over slavery.

No, they are seceding over the fact that an army has been launched against people whom they see as having a right to leave the Union, per the Declaration of Independence.

But again, Southern reasons for leaving are irrelevant. The Declaration grants the right to leave for any reason desired by the people.

The debate must be regarding the reasons why Northerners left their homes to go into Southern states and kill people who did them no harm.

Why did Northern people invade the South? *THAT* is the only relevant question regarding the civil war.

[BroJoeK]

Bubba Ho-Tep: "Five states issued Declarations of Causes, and one is hard pressed to find anything but slavery as the issue in any of them."

DiogenesLamp: "What five?
I've read them all, and I only recall a few that stated slavery was the reason."

Please see my post #355 above for a complete listing of the five original state's documents, two letters to slaveholding states -- Rhett & Stephens -- and the two original secession states which issued no such documents.

The post links to all seven documents and you can see for yourselves that every one features slavery importantly if not exclusively.
None failed to mention slavery.

Also note the link to a nice article quantifying the focus of those pre-Sumter Reasons for Secession:

1. Mississippi: 93% context & slavery
2. Georgia: 81% context & slavery
3. Texas: 79% context & slavery
4. South Carolina: 61% context & slavery

Add Alabama's Ordinance of Secession which discusses only slavery, plus Rhett's letter and Stephen's "Corner Stone" speech and none of the seven documents fails to mention slavery prominently, if not exclusively.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "And here we go again.
Saying 'a decent respect for the opinions of mankind...' means what?
Compulsion?
One is obligated to state a cause for exercising the right of independence?
In my understanding of the English language, this means a list of causes is a mere courtesy, not an essential requirement.
If one does not wish to explain why one no longer wishes to associate with others, one does not have any requirement to do so.
The right to independence is not conditional on a 'respect for the opinions of mankind.' "

This is actually an important element in DiogenesLamp's Lost Cause insanity and so should not be skipped over or sluffed off.
DL wishes to equate our 1776 Founders' long list of legitimate past abuses suffered with 1860 Fire Eaters' "at pleasure" secession over slavery's potential future expansion.
And that is only remotely possible if reasons don't matter.
It's why DL goes to some efforts to pretend the 1776 Declaration's reasons were "a mere courtesy", not necessary, not even important, indeed they're really a distraction according to DiogenesLamp from the fact that Founders had an inherent right to secede any time, under any circumstances, for any reasons or for no reasons -- "at pleasure" -- it doesn't matter, according to DiogenesLamp.

That's his opinion and, sane or not, he's entitled to it.
But it's not what our Founders said -- not one, ever.
It's simply DiogenesLamp hoping to insert his own insanity into the words of our Founders.
Regardless, none of them believed it, what the believed instead was:

"when a long train of [British] abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [our Founders] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

Independence is justified & made necessary by "a long train of abuses & usurpations", no Founder ever said differently.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "But again, Southern reasons for leaving are irrelevant."

Fire Eaters' reasons are indeed relevant because Lost Causers keep telling us it wasn't "all about slavery" when the facts clearly show it was.

DiogenesLamp: "The Declaration grants the right to leave for any reason desired by the people."

It does no such thing.

DiogenesLamp: "The debate must be regarding the reasons why Northerners left their homes to go into Southern states and kill people who did them no harm.
Why did Northern people invade the South? *THAT* is the only relevant question regarding the civil war."

The real answer is simple & direct, but DiogenesLamp doesn't like it so he pretends it's "debatable".
The answer is: Americans went to war in 1861 for the same reasons we went to war in, say, 1775, 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1941 & 2001, among others -- because we believed we'd been seriously attacked.
It's that simple & direct, like it or not.

Of course Lost Causers hate, hate, hate any comparison of Fort Sumter to, say, Pearl Harbor -- they much prefer the Gulf of Tonkin.
But it doesn't matter because if you try hard enough, you can find reasons to condemn every US President involved in a war for his pre-war actions.
Most especially, FDR's pre-Pearl Harbor actions can be read to say he was the perpetrator not the victim.

But all such talk is after the fact and the truth remains that, even in the Gulf of Tonkin, we were attacked.
And claims that Lincoln "provoked" Davis are no more valid than claims FDR "provoked" the Japanese.
In all cases the enemy had a choice and chose war.