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." There is nothing to elaborate on. They were very clear in what they were saying. Davis's "prose", as you said, "was misleading, and to save face in the defeat of the overall idea of secession," not much to elaborate on there. As for Douglass, as can be seen in my argument above, identified slavery as the main cause of secession. There is no need to reach back into their arguments for some sort of hidden meaning as to what they thought the South seceded for. Just read the words on the page. "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." What does the Alien and Sedition Act, a law passed in 1798 and subsequently repealed in 1802, have to do with Southern Secession? I don't even know what you mean by the second part of that statement. "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, " The "North's need for expansion of their industrial economy" was not mentioned by any Southern state or leader as a reason for secession. You seem to write as if you do not think it matters what Southern leaders or Southern States said their reasons for seceding were. You do acknowledge slavery as having a large part to play in the Secession, but have yet to give me a concrete example or examples of what the primary reason for secession was, like tariffs. You do not come out clearly and say "I believe that the primary reason(s) for the secession of the South was...". You instead came up first with a "layers upon layers" theory, then proceeded to say that "but what drove the south secession was not over slavery, but a complete change to the way of life, a way of values," and finally you said that "Ultimately, the secession was about showing the Federal government how truly serious their ideology was on the topic." (you also did not clarify what you meant by this, so I am assuming my interpretation, which is above, is correct). You have now moved on to an economics theory, that states that the south seceded because of fear of an industrial north, but you then (again) fail to provide any primary source documentation that supports your point, while I amply backed up my arguments with Southern secession documents. You did not respond to the Declarations of Secession by the 4 Southern States and why Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens identify the main cause of secession was slavery (as can be seen in my previous arguments) and not "North's need for expansion of their industrial economy". "The Pro is welcome to cherry pick this IDEA that slavery was the primary reason for secession" I firmly believe that the secession of the south was caused by slavery, just as you firmly believe that it was not. I did not "cherry pick" slavery, but am merely repeating what the Southern states and leaders themselves said. You on the other hand, refuse to even engage why they would cite slavery as the main cause of their secession in their secession documents. "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." I am assuming that you are saying here that the Southern States cited slavery as the primary cause of their secession in order to rally the populace behind them. So, I suppose you are also saying that the average Southern White man would fight for slavery. This seems to contradict a later statement you make: "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." I will answer this charge later. "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. " You list very generic reasons involved with most wars, but refuse to explain the underlying tensions behind these generic causes. Every single thing you listed there "politics and economics, fear and a way of life, the need for resistance and avoidance of submission" has to do with slavery, and are not reasons within themselves. Politics is always involved with war, but the politics of slavery drove the controversy of the civil war. The economics of slavery, " the greatest material interest of the world." was also present. The South's way of life was based entirely upon slavery, as can be seen by the your primary source: "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." Their whole society would collapse without slavery. Your last point, "the need for resistance and avoidance of submission" is perhaps your weakest. The South did not resist for the sake of resistance, but resisted because they thought they were going to have to submit to abolitionists and give up their slaves: "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." You do not list a single reason that does not have slavery as the root cause of it. "This brings me to further support the confusion the Pro openly shares on the point I made in round 2...The evidence is not only in this excerpt from the linked article above:" based upon the quote you provided, you seem to be saying that The North proposed these amendments in order to lure the South back to the North and encourage unionist sentiment in the South. How is this deceiving the South? The compromises were supposed to get the South back in the Union by addressing their main cause for secession: slavery. You also fail again, to explain how this "enforces abolitionists need for authority". "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." Are you suggesting here that the politicians of the 1850s purposefully deceived the entire US into thinking that slavery was the only point of contention? You also seem to say that the two compromises were out of touch with the South's real grievances, and instead reflect the deceived state of affairs that the politicians of the 1850s set up. This does not make any sense, since the South could have easily told the north what they wanted, and then the northern politicians could have written an appropriate compromise. You also, again, fail to provide any primary source documentation to backup your claim that politicians tricked the entire US in the 1850s (if I am understanding you correctly). "The compromise was a reaction ill-conceived and for the prosperity of one-side in the eyes of the secession." How could they possibly view the compromises as one sided in favor of the North? In fact the opposite was true, the compromises gave everything to the slavery and the South while not giving anything to the free North. That is very clear if you would go back and read the documents. "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." The average Southern white man was more than willing to fight and die for racial inequality and slavery. "During the 1850"s, pro-slavery arguments from the churches became especially strident. A preacher in Richmond exalted slavery as "the most blessed and beautiful form of social government known; the only one that solves the problem, how rich and poor may dwell together; a beneficent patriarchate." The Central Presbyterian affirmed that slavery was "a relation essential to the existence of civilized society." By 1860, Southern preachers felt comfortable advising their parishioners that "both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time. A Southern commissioner wrote, 'The slave holder and non-slaveholder must ultimately share the same fate; all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life, or else there will be an eternal war of races." (http://www.civilwar.org...)