non-slaveholding

Without slavery, much of the non-slaveholding US (and England) would have had little incentive to industrialize.

And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery.

The non-slaveholding majority weren't as concerned about slavery, but if their state government decided to secede, they felt a loyalty to protect their state.

The realization that many plantation slaves would be better utilized as doctors and lawyers did not free the slaves, nor did economic competition from non-slaveholding plantations.

Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation...

Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.

The document you linked says as much: We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.

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.

The institution of slavery itself did not directly lead to economic fall of the southern states - rather it was the tensions from having a nation with both slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states, and the south's extremely strong incentive to protect their advantageous status even at the cost of war.

Hint: Most of the secession declarations include language like this: > 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.

If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up.”) Again, no other cause is mentioned by any of the states.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world." -- South Carolina's Declaration of Secession: "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." -- Texas Declaration of Secession: "Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union...

No, they seceded after the north stopped respecting slavery, when "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.