[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Simply because many are trying to prove that the South secceded over tariffs and taxation rather than slavery.  It's funny that they would say this since the confederate documentation of the time indicates the reverse.

It's a shame in a way that this revisionism is being rammed down our throats, because many who are sympathetic to southerners in their current fight with the PC world are turned off by such tactics.

[lentulusgracchus]

Well, it's an unnecessary argument. Everyone knows that it's hardly ever "just one thing": people who say that, well, it was just slavery, or like Ditto, it was the expansion of slavery, have to acknowledge that the ill-will with which the slavery issue was taken up flowed almost unimpeded down from the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification controversy a few years after, both of which were about tariffs and the relationship of the federal government to the States. So while the issues may seem to be distinct, the ill-will and sectionalism migrated easily from one issue to another, battening and fattening on the issues almost independently of the development of each individual issue. When we speak of contention and hostility of that order, it's never just one thing that feeds the hostility, which can and will suffuse more than one issue, contaminating the handling of each one as it comes up whether in harness with other issues or singly and seriatim.