You posted below, so I answered where you posted. Simple as that. Oh my gosh.
As for the secession documents, as I stated below, there is a real difference in the long passionate "Delarations for Cause" documents, and the shorter legal "Ordinances of Secession" as anyone can clearly see. The Ordinances were merely the shorter more simple, formal legal action, which are meant to be non-informative.
I posted the Declarations of Cause which go into great detail about the reasons they felt secession was necessary. In those documents, they completely and repeatedly self-identify themselves as the "slave-holding states" or the "slave states". They do not call themselves the "anti-federal states" or the "constitional states" or the anti-tarriff states" they don't even call themselves the "property rights states". Over and over they themselves call themselves the "slave states", thus defining what they themselves saw as THE central issue of contention.
They define their opposition as the "non-slave states" or the "anti-slave states". It is unquestionably, in their own minds, THE most important central issue which divided themselves from the other side.
Anyone can read the documents online or previously posted below, and see for themselves. I got completely bored trying to count the references in their own documents, to how many times they used the terms "slave states" or "slave-holding states" one way or another and called it quits after a couple dozen.
Now, one more time, since you have now five times have asked me to post this, here is the editorial from the Charleston paper, speaking of the birth of the confederacy, for your convenience George, for this fifth time I have now capitalized, the four times in two sentences that he used the term:
"In 1860 South Carolina seceded alone from the old union of States. Her people, in Convention assembled, invited the SLAVEHOLDING STATES (none others) of the old Union to join her in erecting a separate GOVERNMENT OF SLAVE STATES, for the protection of their common interests. All of the SLAVE STATES, with the exception of Maryland and Kentucky, responded to her invitation. The SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY OF SLAVES STATES was formed. "
Now, George, I think this fellow and his South Carolina readership, might maybe have known what he was speaking about. And the "(none others)" reference comes from the editorial not me.
It was this document, and the repeated monontonous use of the term "slave states" that prompted my short paraphrase of the essence of what these fellows were trying to express to their OWN constituency, in their OWn words, how they identified themselves and their OWN cause.
If you, George, cannot take the CSA political leadership, and the leading voices of the CSA press at their own words, written in their own time, for their own people to read, just who do you want me to believe?
If the CSA leadership's own words, and the CSA press's own words are not to be trusted, then what is the point of defending the CSA in any manner whatsoever at all? Such a position is ludicrous beyond belief. One must either believe what these fellows themselves say about themselves, or else throw out all of their positions and statements to the wind as just utter nonsense that cannot be depended upon.
So I ask you: did these fellows know what they were talking aboiut or not?