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?
Your relativism is showing again.
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.
Good, and as I said earlier, that places you several steps ahead of many of the McPherson and Jaffa types. You obviously lean to the northern side as I do to the southern, but unlike the cause reductionists who shout "slavery and nothing else" (or "tariff and nothing else"), we can at least come to some sensible ground that these attempts at reduction are foolish at best.
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.
Allow me to note there that doing so is heavily prone to fallacy as some things are simply irreducably complex - there's a certain point beyond which the war simply cannot be itemized without serving a detriment to accuracy and fact.
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.
I again disagree, as many of McPherson's statements in that article fly in the face of clear cases of fact. They're simply in error and inexcusable from a supposed historian of his credentials. I have detailed the errors previously for that particular article if you don't mind taking the time to find in on FR a while back. 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.
The problem with his "big picture" though is it is erroniously simplistic and errs factually in several cases.
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?
Depends. If I wanted to be historically accurate, the task of a "single cause" is not possible without severe damage to factual presentation. If I were willing to take the approach McPherson does in that article and simply neglect parts of history that don't support my "single cause," I could theoretically claim that cause to be practically anything.