[CaptainHaplo]

con·tem·po·rar·y

[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] adjective, noun,plural-rar·ies.
–adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

I will assume you mean a document from the time period - and not a modern one.

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel

published in the English Magazine: All the Year Round, December 28, 1861 edition (Dickens/Morley)

Perhaps the relevant portion of the historical speech of one Robert Barnwell Rhett - a US Senator who resigned his seat and spoke at the South Carolina convention will do?

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

How about the Georgia Secession document?

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Yes - I am fully in agreement that slavery was a major cause. But to claim that other economic factors - like the proposed Morrill Tariff - had no impact - after the history of the Tariff of Abomination and the following Nullification Crisis, is to blindly insist that every confederate soldier was thus willing to fight and die for the property of the rich neighbor - since not every soldier owned slaves.

It was Richard Hofstadter who in the 1950's asserted that slavery was the only real issue - up to that time it was accepted that slavery, other economic issues (such as tariffs), states rights, and inequal representation were all real factors. So I am guessing you guys learned your history in the 50's and 60's when his views were predominant? It should be noted that modern historians are now more in agreement with Charles Beard - who in the 1920's asserted that tariffs played a large role in the war starting.

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught. I don't fault you for that - and steve, I was not meaning to talk down to you. I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes

But there was more to it than JUST that. More than just slavery is mentioned in just about every single document or speech related to the question from the time period. What more do you need?