If your opinions are well-grounded, there will be credible historians who agree with you. If you know of none, that bears against the soundness of your views and ought to be taken as a reason for reflection and reappraisal.
You may be willing to outsource your interpretations of history to those in Academia, I am not. I prefer to read the original sources for myself and do my own interpreting.
That is a supposition.
If you are not already aware, I would like to acquaint you with the "Asch Conformity Experiments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
To sum it up, these psychological experiments revealed that 80% of people will claim to believe something simply because they think the majority believe it too.
Historians suffer from the same sort of "group think" as do physicists and other people. My observation of Academia tends to indicate that they are a sort of hive mind where ideas outside the mainstream result in the ostracization and condemnation of heretics.
So no. Being unable to find a "credible" historian to support a view does not necessarily prove your views are wrong.
Especially when the evidence is compelling such as it is in the case of money being the dominant factor in the North's decision to invade the South.