Slavery was the primary reason the South seceded

Thank you for clarifying you position and I will do my best to elaborate on "a long list of reasons".*minutes throughout will be attached to excerpts related to this video link: The Pro in this debate openly shared half a dozen historians and further ambiguously identified 'many others' who support the primary cause for secession of the southern states to be that of slavery. The debate as to the primary reason or fervor behind the secession of the south is NOT settled and widely discussed as to having layer upon layers (this point I will further clarify below). If this primary reason was "settled", as the Pro would suggest, we wouldn't still have discussion or debate as to the reasons of secession. Furthermore, this topic is not and can not be simplified through two documents as to what led the confederacy to secession. Slavery did exist in the southern states, a undertone and political beckoning to go to war and to avoid war were herald, but what drove the south secession was not over slavery, but a complete change to the way of life, a way of values, a principle that involved slavery and abolitionists to call upon the obscenity and torment to those who had no direct comprehension of it's short or long term truths. Jefferson Davis, in January 1861, would try to capture with a dignified reserve in saying: "The south is now confronted by a common foe, the south should, by the instinct of self-preservation be united. The recent declaration of the candidate and leaders of the "black republican party" must suffice to convince many whom have formerly doubted the purpose to attack the institution of slavery in the States. The undying opposition to slavery in the United States means war upon it where it is, not where it is not. That is, the republican's did not simply oppose slavery in the territories, they oppose slavery in the slave States, and they would not stop until they would have obliterated it. The time is at hand when the great battle is to be fought by the defenders of the constitution government and the votary's of mob rule, fanaticism, and anarchy." (0:50 - 2:54)Clearly, he was advocating a sand in the line was drawn, and that those who stood with the Confederate's were being lobbied by a Northern movement to change generations of land owners and agricultural norms into anarchy. Oddly, a rhetoric we wildly hear claimed today in our current political landscape, and playing into the views that his reference of "defenders of the constitution" was his, or the southern states who should secede, as the moral right in his justification. After the Civil War, Davis wrote one of the longest rebuttal to what "many" would claim to be "a failed political revolution". He titled it "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" publishing it in 1882, arguing-touring, the war had nothing to do with slavery:"Slavery was in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident. Generally, African's were born slaves of barbarian masters and taught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, and sold by heathen masters. They were transferred to shores enlightened by rays of Christianity. Blacks have been put to servitude, trained in the gentle arts of peace, order, and civilization..." (4:00 - 5:50) The passage continues on and on, and lends credibility to, as the Pro would generally reference "neo-confederates" in his first round, Why might you ask would Davis dismiss the idea of what the Civil War was about, that it had anything at all to do with slavery. As contradicting as it may sound to the point I am making, I share it to clearly showcase how even Davis was a proponent to the layer upon layers of what the south's secession was truly about. Indeed, it was misleading, and to save face in the defeat of the overall idea of secession, but it clearly showcases this layer of layers that enveloped the reasoning behind the south secession as a whole.Frederick Douglas would finalize in the mid 1880's that the war was between "men of thought, as well as of action, and in dead earnest for something beyond the battlefield...the war was about ideas." In February 1961, he would write "What is this but a premium to insolence, a petition for increased contempt, and humble solicitation to be kicked again? Faith, the human flesh-mongers see at every step the effect of their medicine, and every day they “down with another dose.” First they talk of the slow process of “co-operation” as a condition to breaking up the Union; then they talk of the right of individual States to secede; and finding both Government and people appalled with fear, they fall to seizing forts, arsenals, arms and ammunition, capturing Custom Houses, Post Offices, tearing down the national flag, and firing upon an unarmed Government vessel, with the national flag flying at her mast-head." - http://gathkinsons.net... -Douglas would speak about slavery very directly based on his own personal experiences and attempt to generalize with great effort the truth of secession throughout many passages was that of fear and a value system broken by perception of slavery truly represented not just to our nation, but internationally to those who hypocritically branded the United States. Again the south seceded on the idea that either they stood for their values and rights or they fall victim to condemnation.Over and Over again you also find the rhetoric of the word submission or to submit when discussing secession. One example of this, written by the editor of the Charleston Mercury, Robert Rhett Jr. , were a series of articles written under the heading "Terrors of Submission": "If the South, once submits to the rule of abolitionists, by the general government, there is probably an end of all peaceful separation of the Union. We can only escape the ruin they meditate for the South by war. The ruin by the South of the emancipation of her slaves is not like the ruin of any other people, it is not a mere loss of liberty, but it is a lost of liberty, property, home, country, everything that makes life worth living." (13:50 - 15:15)Summarizing slavery to be about the secession is not inaccurate from the views of those who didn't see the end of a way of life, but layer upon layers that led, formalized, and drove the instability that led to the Confederate's overall need and desire to seek secession was the objective to unify the cause against the Union. 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.It is too easy for the North, or the Pro, to declare the answer to be of simply slavery (or to just JUMP) as the answer to secession. The Civil War was fought with the primary idea of slavery in mind, and after a century of debates in depth of the subject, long-winded discussion citing this answer to the question of secession to be simplified from a perspective that plays to the need of the requirement of a solid, defined answer, like any war in our nation's history has seemingly required. For those in the South at the time of conception, and for those behind the philosophy of the secession, knowing even at that time the cards were stacked against them, the question of What was the primary reason the South Seceded? (or How do you jump rope?) requires something more than just a solid, simplified reason as to why half of our country would make such a "leap".The Pro is confusing the primary reason of the Civil War was over slavery with the need and values in question of the South's secession.. The War and what preluded it is not for the same primary reason. The South didn't secede DUE TO slavery; they became acustomed too and provided whtat they truly believed to be the spirit of their planter culture. Ultimately, the secession was about showing the Federal government how truly serious their ideology was on the topic.