I suggest that differing understandings of the past are not based on different facts, but rather on different ideas as to what those facts mean.
Accurate scholarship has the potential, in theory anyway, to allow us to reach an accurate understanding of the facts of history, to the extent documented.
But the bare-bones facts have little real meaning until somebody adds an opinion as to what those facts mean, and often how they apply to today's world. And I strongly suspect there will always be strong differences of opinion in this regard.
The problem is that far too often these discussions avoid what I consider the critical two-step process of: 1. Determining to agree as to what the facts are in the case. Who did what to whom when, and in what order? 2. What does that timeline mean?
If we make it clear whether we're talking about step 1 or step 2, possibly we could make progress.
Since we've been arguing about these issues on FR for at least ten years, and since America in general has been arguing about it since, well, the north and south started to develop in different ways in the 1600s, I don't think "progress" is really in the cards.
Whatever the shade of your political and regional beliefs, let's all at least admit that we do this because we enjoy arguing.