Slavery was the primary reason the South seceded

The Pro continues to write without actually taking into account the resources I have used to support the claims that Secession. .. let me say that again. .. Secession of the South had multiple reasons for taking place. The Pro would like all of us to believe the more he asks questions about how confused he is and the more he repeats himself that he will not only further convince himself that the Pro advocates for the "Union", and not the historical facts in which clearly have, for over 150 years, been present beyond the half a dozen historians he proceeded to give credit too. The Pro never diligently provide cited material to support where they ever claimed any statement referencing this "primary reason". It should also be noted the Pro understands little of political strategy and propaganda beyond what his fingertips and mouse click tells him directly. Sadly, and unfortunate, that analytic capabilities seem to not challenge the depth of the Pro to counter claim any point except to cherry pick. Cherry Picking - Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate. I don't believe the Pro intentionally cherry picked, given his critical thinking skills on the topic and the obvious repetitive nature in being subjective to his passionate envisioning of what The Civil War was about. Though this topic was not about the Civil War and it was about the reason behind the South Secession. Their secession was objectively debated about from my position, and not subjectively driven as the Pro continued to mix his comprehension of War and secession. I would like to conclude bringing forward the Pro's last linked source. Right above his "cherry picked" church excerpt you find printed in clear English, concise to the atmosphere that secession, and eventual war no matter the politics laid before representatives, became no other option:"The South felt increasingly beleaguered as the North increased its criticism of slavery. Abolitionist societies sprang up, Northern publications demanded the immediate end of slavery, politicians waxed shrill about the immorality of human bondage, and overseas, the British parliament terminated slavery in the British West Indies. A prominent historian accurately noted that “by the late 1850’s most white Southerners viewed themselves as prisoners in their own country, condemned by what they saw as a hysterical abolition movement. ”As Southerners became increasingly isolated, they reacted by becoming more strident in defending slavery. The institution was not just a necessary evil: it was a positive good, a practical and moral necessity. Controlling the slave population was a matter of concern for all Whites, whether they owned slaves or not. Curfews governed the movement of slaves at night, and vigilante committees patrolled the roads, dispensing summary justice to wayward slaves and whites suspected of harboring abolitionist views. Laws were passed against the dissemination of abolitionist literature, and the South increasingly resembled a police state. A prominent Charleston lawyer described the city’s citizens as living under a “reign of terror. ” - . http://www.civilwar.org... -I would like to conclude no differently than I had in Round 3: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.