Slavery was the primary reason the South seceded

I will not elaborate further on the prose of Douglas or Davis. Interpretation of the passion and meaning behind the whole IDEA had more to do than the constant use of slavery being written again and again. The Pro would like us all to be subjected to the idea secession itself had a one word that set all of this into motion. The Pro also gave us historians that support this claim from our most modern era disregarding the ample amount of historians that saw a wider justification for secession, the many factors that contributed to secession, and who had access to a generation still aware of their personal account to what a southerner faced. The Pro confuses my point by claiming that Robert Rhett Jr. was writing only about slavery. I do hope the Pro recognizes the threat through the use of the Alien and Sedition Act on a whole way of life, not just the Pro's need for one aspect of life, but those he loved and the assets the Pro worked hard to gain were threatened.Some historians of modern era are also quickly to dismiss Charles Beard's economic burden theory simply due to him claiming that "slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War". Beard provides a depth of knowledge on the North's need for expansion of their industrial economy, pressing further and further prior to secession and war. Again, I will make clear, because the Pro continues to write as if I don't comprehend slavery had a role to play in all of this, but as Charles Beard lays out, political strategy and the ways in which pieces are moved and considered at such a high office (balancing economy, State or National budgets, or potential projects) consider heavily on strategy rather the people directly. In conjunction with my point, your link: http://sunsite.utk.edu... has historical reference and makes complete sense when read thoroughly leading to the secession of these States. The economic issues, the agriculture economy that thrived in the south were pressing matters a decade prior. I doubt those opposing or for secession simply orated/lectured slavery as the PRIMARY reason?The falling out of the Compromise of 1850 (laying the groundwork for the freedom to choose to be a free state), the bitterness left from the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 giving popular sovereignty (a strategy that 1850 began to bounce around), undermining the Missouri Compromise of 1820, would politically and economically draw misconceptions as to the intent the Federal Government truly had for the future of southern, planter life and the values. It could also be questioned endlessly that the first shot and battle of the War was based on the commitment of the current southern secession. Though I digress, because I wish to clarify largely on the Northern, democratic strategy leading up to southern secession.I present this link to represent the political need to avoid secession of the States, to curb any skirmishes that already caused strive over racial freedoms that caused a serious fear for "the way of life" in our nation. For an entire decade the whole coordination of how we would be headed as a nation revolved around the respect of economy, way of life for north and south, and as this historian echoes, "the seeds that would be planted". (6:54 - 12:26)The Pro is welcome to cherry pick this IDEA that slavery was the primary reason for secession, but clearly as we see in many wars leading back before our own Declaration of Independence the majority of a governing authority needs a one sentence strategy to pursue bloodshed and perception that rallies the people behind a cause. What better way then to use the prose of Frederick Douglas, to promote writer's such as Whitman and others as the Northern led President Lincoln would no longer tolerate slavery. Washing away the agony and need for white southern way of life as a force that would not economically suffice the future of our nation.As the linked video shares in the last minute the same point driven by the historian in this video that uttered the words "the seed was planted". The political fight was lost on a national level, and one of many factors that would cause the secession for the south now was not a long term fear of losing a way of life, but due to the eroding political support and compromise, a short term political and economic fear set in. I hold no doubt that the Civil War for the North and the slaves who fought or enslaved in southern states would find this as a war to end slavery, and require no other need of asking what led to this war to be that of slavery in itself. The passion and desires of the men and families of the southern states can be further supported by the many points I have made through this article.http://www.civilwarhome.com...Inside it gives a clear perception, among them slavery is capsulized, but from their point of view, the secession goes beyond slavery. The Pro would have you believe that by pulling forward paragraphs that articulate slavery is supporting clearly his primary reason theory; if you read carefully with an analytic mind politics and economics, fear and a way of life, the need for resistance and avoidance of submission becomes the primary attitude. This brings me to further support the confusion the Pro openly shares on the point I made in round 2 where I stated: "A strategy to deceive, to bring about fear, to generate the political Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment, as shared by the Pro in this debate, was an objective from a Northern stance made to enforce abolitionists need for authority and used for leverage for the purpose to ultimate secession of the south."The Pro asked me: "How did these two proslavery compromises have anything to do with abolitionists, who wanted to see slavery eliminated entirely ? In other words, how did they, "enforce abolitionists need for authority"? You also seem to suggest that the North was trying to somehow deceive the South with these two amendments, but I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say (any clarification would be helpful), though that does not make any sense, and there is no evidence for it."The evidence is not only in this excerpt from the linked article above:"The collapse of the Crittenden Compromise in late December eliminated the already slim possibility that the drive toward secession might end with the withdrawal of South Carolina. Still, when Lincoln took office on March 4, the Republicans had reason to believe that the worst of the crisis was oven February elections in the Upper South had resulted in Unionist victories. In January the legislatures of five states-- Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, and North Carolina--had issued calls for conventions. The secessionists suffered a sharp setback in all the elections..." "...A final factor accounting for the Unionist victories in the upper South was the meeting in Washington of the so-called Peace Convention called by the Virginia legislature. The delegates spent most of February debating various proposals for additional guarantees for slave property in an effort to find some basis for a voluntary reconstruction of the Union. Although boycotted by some of the Northern states and all of the states that had already seceded, the convention raised hopes of a national reconciliation and thereby strengthened the hand of the Unionists in the upper South. In the end, however, the convention was an exercise in futility. All it could come up with was a modified version of the Crittenden Compromise. Just before Lincolns inauguration, Republican votes in the Senate killed the proposal."The evidence is also in the political weaving of the last decade. Weaving strongly this mounting ideal that slavery was the only point of contention is not why the south seceded, but in the political and big business attributes that southerner's opposed. Multiple States had already seceded from the Union. The modified version of this compromise sounds much like the previous misdirection and prose used by politicians for a decade. I stand firmly behind my statement and specifically behind the pulled quote of "enforce abolitionists need for authority". The compromise was a reaction ill-conceived and for the prosperity of one-side in the eyes of the secession.What I find most profound is how The Pro has not provided in this discussion the facts that separate the notion that if you asked a southern white man or family of the 1850's the question he would personalize and condemn the value in his way of life supporting the need for secession and not a simple answer as slavery. Supporting this example I share with you this link: (specifically from 20:46 - 27:18) Professor Blight at Yale University does say that this perception is not any longer AS popular as a reason for secession, but as above talking about northern political strategy and posturing, the southern secession put a face on the movement for further States to secede from the Union. At 22:51 he shares points of the Confederate anthem, not Dixie, but the Bonnie Blue Flag. The Professor further critically explains the honor in which men held for their way of life.I await The Pro to prove to all of us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that secession should be represented in our historical references as the disillusion of what people in the south were faced with, as narrowly as they may have viewed it, to subtract the culture and tradition of the justification of secession is as misleading as slopping mud on a canvas and calling it a masterpiece. Let it be clear, I am not the one attempting to convince you that secession had nothing to do with slavery, I am only asking you to step into the shoes of how the southerner would agree and stand by secession after a previous century unchanged by their way of life.