Slavery was the primary reason the South seceded

"The debate as to the primary reason or fervor behind the secession of the south is NOT settled " I agree that there are still contrasting viewpoints on the primary reason for the southern secession, or else I would not have held this debate. I was reffering to a quote in your previous argument where you said ""Academically giving the primary reason of the south's secession is like asking How do you jump rope? And someone says JUMP." You were in essence saying that professional, academic historians would not subscribe to a "JUMP" theory, when in fact many do agree that slavery was the primary cause of the war. I in no way meant to say that the issue was closed, but was simply stating that most serious academic historians disagree with your assessment, and that the sisue has been settled in their minds. "Ultimately, the secession was about showing the Federal government how truly serious their ideology was on the topic. " If I understand you correctly, then you are arguing that the primary reason for secession of the South was not to protect slavery, but to show the government how committed they were to slavery.According to this theory (if I understand it correctly), the South seceded and started a war that claimed over 600,000 lives in order to show the Gov. how committed they were to slavery, and that also means that slavery was not the primary cause of secession. I admit ignorance as to what you are trying to say with this statement. Confusingly to me, you also go into some detail about a "layer upon layers of what the South's secession was truly about" theory. I failed to see you explain what other layers there were to this controversy other than slavery. Jeff Davis's quote lent no credence to this "layer upon layer theory" either. In his quote, he simply denies slavery was the cause of the war and lists the ways Africans benefited from slavery. What other layers were mentioned in this quote? Davis in fact does not give his reason for secession in the quote (even though he was very clear about what it was during the crisis, as can be seen by my quote above). It was simply, as you said, "a way to save face in the defeat of the overall idea of secession". "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." According to this third theory of yours, the South seceded in order to protect their way of life... a way of life that was based entirely on slavery. Your three theories about the primary cause of the Civil War seem to contradict each other, and I would appreciate any clarification. You quote Frederick Douglass in order to back up your "layer upon layers" theory, but on the same website that you cited Douglass from, it says, "February, 1861: Frederick Douglass – “Slavery is the disease, and its abolition in every part of the land is essential to the future quiet and security of the country... It is a matter of life and death. Slavery must be all in the Union, or it can be nothing. This is fully understood by the slaveholders of the cotton States and hence they can accept no compromise, no concession, no settlement that does not exalt slavery above every other interest in the country. ” Douglass is saying that Slavery was the primary cause of the cotroversey with the South (it was the disease), and in order to get rid of that controversey, you must abolish slavery (cure the disease). "Over and Over again you also find the rhetoric of the word submission or to submit when discussing secession." The one example you cited in respect to this statement has everything to do with slavery (which seems to contradict your "layers upon layers" theory). It even says "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." He is literally saying that without slavery, life is not worth living. This shows the fanaticism with which southerners regarded slavery, and also should prove that they were willing to secede and go to war for it. "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."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. "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." Your reasoning here seems to be that we needed a single, clear answer as to what the Civl War was about, and we wrongly came up with slavery. You say that that the answer of slavery is too easy and simple. Why must an explanation be complicated and difficult? In any case, the Southern states certainly came up with the too-easy, too-simple answer of slavery as the primary cause of secession: Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." Georgia: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery... The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers." Texas: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." South Carolina: "The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due... The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution... A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction." (http://sunsite.utk.edu...) I await your arguments and clarifications.