I agree entirely. As one who does not maintain that the war is reducable to any one cause, I think it is fair to say that fault for this circle lies elsewhere in those who do.
Academic historians rarely maintain that any event has only one cause or can be explained in a word.
In most cases, yes. But with the war, there are many "credible" academics who push the slavery-only line as their own beliefs. The Jaffa cult subscribes very strongly to this position. James McPherson has also advocated it and written articles asserting that other issues, such as the tariff, were inconsequential and essentially irrelevant. It's also undeniably a the common perception among many non-historian northerners and is accepted as undeniable fact by "mainstream" media types regardless of where they're from.
Your Great Satan McPherson has written 230 pages on "why men fought in the Civil War," that apparently disproves that any one word answer can be given for the genesis of the war.
That particular book is problematic for McPherson and indicates very clearly that he is a man incapable of accepting his own research's findings. While McPherson's book definately does evidence the wide array of issues involve, he personally maintains that slavery was virtually the sole cause and the dismisses others - "The Civil War was not fought over the issue of tariff or of industrialization or of land grants...What lay at the root of this separation? Slavery."
http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=34903
McPherson's analysis is almost like the scientist who gets a set of numbers from an experiment but refuses to accept them because they contradict his previous hypothesis on something.
If slavery had survived and industrialism died, we would doubtless view things in a different light.
Surely, but again - my issue is with those such as McPherson who dismiss all issues but slavery out of hand and insist that slavery alone defined the conflict - even when their own evidence shows otherwise. If someone thinks slavery was the biggest or one of the biggest issues, fine. That's certainly a possible interpretation. But I ask for the sake of honesty and historical accuracy that the other issues be included and given their due recognition. The alternative is little more than selective propaganda designed to demonize the south and deify the north around the single issue of slavery.
The conflict over slavery does seem to have been the essential catalyst that produced that kind of war at that time and place, though other factors clearly fanned the flames and inclined individuals to support one side or the other.
You have stated this before in similarly general terms. Please elaborate your reasoning with specifics.
The line about the success of the Fire-eaters being due to the fact that they didn't all represent one set of views comes from Eric Walther's book, "The Fire Eaters" and the reviews of it. It's not a dig at the southern extremists, just a matter-of-fact description accounting for their appeal.
I've actually been meaning to obtain a copy of that book if I can find one. The vast majority of my reading of the fire-eaters has come in the form of their own speeches and writings. Unfortunately there are relatively few texts out there giving an account of them for historical purposes.
I suppose you're right that Wigfall played an important role in that last session. Apparently he played an important role in killing compromise measures.
If you mean by inciting the southerners to leave and forwarding the conclusion that the situation was beyond repair, then yes. As for the particular compromise measures that came before the House and Senate, not really. By the time they made it to the floor he was virtually alone as the single deep south secessionist remaining in congress and could have done very little to alter them even if he wanted to. The compromise proposals at that point died because of the uncompromising opposition to them from the Sumner faction of northern radicals. This is not an opinion about Sumner, but a matter of fact of that session - his group killed the hopes of compromise on the floor, a fact that was openly admitted and recognized by more level-headed northerners and even some otherwise fiercely partisan northerners who recognized the urgency of the situation. They ranged from Clement Vallandigham to Stephen Douglas to William Seward and Charles Francis Adams, all northerners from a wide array of beliefs who placed the blame on the northern radicals.
And naturally, Wigfall weighed in himself. At the close of the session when moderates were pleading last ditch compromise attempts, Wigfall rose to explain why he saw the split as an inevitability and held out little hope for compromise. His clearly stated reason was that neither he, nor even the moderates could get a fair word in before Congress in debate with the openly hostile Sumner faction.
Reading Walther's account, I don't see Wigfall as motivated primarily by race-hatred.
I would have to concur. Wigfall came from a prominent South Carolina planter family and inherited some slaves from them. Accounts of their relationships with the Wigfall family indicate mutual respect between the two, even under the detestable institution of slavery with all its wrongs. As the war was coming to a close, Wigfall's freed house servants stood watch for him and even helped him escape the yankee troops that were looking for confederate officials to arrest. His view on slavery's existence reflects certain strains of a planter view of the time, but he was hardly some sort of a barbaric hate-filled racist figure often stereotyped into the plantation role by later writers.
But Wigfall definitely does seem to be driven by demons, though. Mary Chestnut recounted the assessment of a friend of Wigfall's about the Senator's conduct in the day's leading up to the war: "Wigfall chafes at the restraints of civilized life. He likes to be where he can be as rude as he pleases and he is indulging himself now to the fullest extent, apparently."
And Chestnut's is a perfectly reasonable account of a very vibrant and somewhat eccentric figure. He was a famed duelist, among other things if that is to give an indication of his personality. In Congress he was a staunch ideological southerner who made the case for his beliefs to the fullest. As I noted earlier, his great skill was the floor fight - he was feared and respected as a skilled debator, and that session provided the perfect opportunity for him to employ his strengths.
I don't see slavery as the sole and only reason for secession and war because of that southern nationalist sentiment, because the Middle South wouldn't have joined the rebellion just for the sake of slavery, and because political compromises had twice prevented the slavery issue from producing war. Had the Southern sense of nationhood been weaker, or political actors more dedicated to peace, war might not have happened.
But there are those who aren't contented with such a view and want to go still deeper to find an underlying "strong" or "deep" explanation that will account for more. There's a difference between the "subjective" feelings of the actors involved and the sought-for "objective" deep explanation. There's also the conflict between what one takes as a fundamental reality and what one regards as a surface phenomenon to be "unveiled." Slavery is certainly a "stronger" explanation than tariffs. It goes further and explains more. And it's also a deeper explanation than industry vs. agriculture. It accounts for the adhesion of most of the rural Midwest to the Union cause.
I don't regard McPherson's article as objectionable. He bases his conclusions on Rhodes's own findings from long ago. I tend to regard those "accidental" or adventitious" factors as more important in history that any one big cause. But McPherson certainly does make a plausible case. In this article for a popular audience, he's looking at the "big picture," rather than the individual and subjective factors that motivated men to fight. Whether his conclusion is "science" or "fundamentalism" it's far more than just his own unsupported private opinion.
Nor is McPherson assessing blame or guilt. I wouldn't put things as starkly as he does. "Slavery defined the South" didn't reflect the consciousness of all who fought for the South. McPherson's view "unveils" things that people of the time thought very real indeed. But slavery certainly did account for much of the difference between the free and the slave states. The conflict over the expansion of slavery accounted for most of the bitterness between North and South. And the defense of slavery accounted for the early secessions that sparked the war. While other issues may have produced additional frictions, which one was more lacerating than slavery?
The language of the "single cause" will offend many people, but what explanation or reason or cause can you give that will explain as much as McPherson's? Can you refute his "deep explanation" or offer a better one? Do you have an explanation that goes deeper or further?