Why (and when) did the empty cross v.s. crucifix split happen? Today, we have Catholic and Orthodox churches (and a few others) using the crucifix whereas most Protestant denominations make exclusive use of an empty cross.  When and why did the Protestant churches reject the crucifix as an icon?

I have read this, but the answer exclusively addresses the empty cross's preferential use in the the very early church.  I worry about Manichaeistic influences on that point, but, more importantly, I want to know why the modern Protestant factions do this, not why the very early church did this.  If the modern Protestant factions do this for the same reasons as the early church (from what I understand: fear of persecution, discomfort with bodily images of Christ, feeling that images of Christ's humanness lessens his divinity) having those reasons explained from a Protestant perspective nonetheless would be helpful to me.

I am making the assumption that it is the newer churches that have changed.  If this is incorrect, please point this out and explain why all of the older churches took up the crucifix after the Reformation.
While I cannot tell you when the practice of wearing an empty cross began, I can give you the reason that I was given for doing so.

As a Southern Baptist I was taught that the empty cross symbolizes that Jesus is no longer dead, but that he took up his life again as he said he would.

This is not my interpretation nor is it my feeling, I wear a crucifix since it reminds me that he died for my sins. a lot of people died on a cross, and so to my mind, the empty cross does not conjure up thoughts about Jesus dying for my sins, but the crucifix does. None of my fellow Christians have ever criticized my wearing of the crucifix.

So I suppose it only matters what the cross or crucifix means to you personally.