Broad denunciation of historians for ideological conformity is not the same as engagement on the facts. The most effective demolitions of Leftist historians are based on comparing what they say against what their cited sources actually say — or even showing that their claimed sources do not exist. One up and coming young antigun Leftist historian lost his teaching position over such a fraud and left the profession.
I remember the lying "historian" who claimed guns were rare in early America and the corporate media joyfully swallowed it and put that out on all the airwaves.....only for more research to show he had made that up, had no evidence to support it and guns were VERY common in early America...ie the exact opposite of his claims.
The problem we have today is ideological conformity all throughout Academia. That applies to History departments as much as if not more than almost any of them save perhaps Journalism and Sociology. Usually they won't be so stupid as to make up facts or quotes. They could get found out and embarrassed if they do that. What they do instead is:
- highlight any facts or quotes that support their narrative (like Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech or those portions of the declarations of secession that talk about slavery)
- studiously ignore and refuse to mention any quotes or facts that are embarrassing and undermine their narrative. (eg Jefferson Davis saying the war was not about slavery, (like the Corwin Amendment or the fact that the US Congress passed a resolution saying they were not fighting over slavery or the fact that abolitionism was extremely unpopular in the North or any discussion of tariffs and federal outlays)
- Have a laser-like focus on the statements and acts of those they dislike (so as to attack them) while completely ignoring it when the side/individuals they do like said or did the same things or things that were even worse......note this works well for them because almost nobody in the mid 19th century held the same views almost everybody in the West holds today. So for example just highlight these statements and acts. Ignore Lincoln's multiple flamingly racist public statements. Refuse to mention that it wasn't just slavery that was banned in much of the North or the West, it was BLACKS (even free ones), etc.
By telling only half the story....their narrative....and doing everything possible to bury the other side's arguments so most people never even hear it....they can indoctrinate students to believe what they want them to believe.