I've been reading about the Jefferson–Hemings controversy and how it was the overwhelming academic consensus that Thomas Jefferson had remained celibate for over forty years after his wife's death. Award winning biographies by the preeminent Jefferson historians firmly accepted this despite rumors and evidence going back to Jefferson's presidency suggesting otherwise and new evidence published in 1953. Historians were even denied tenure for arguing that Jefferson had in fact fathered illegitimate children with his slave Sally Hemings, but it was conclusively confirmed that he had with DNA testing in 1998.

One of the things I found interesting about this was that as early as 1974 there had been a popular history book that presented detailed evidence to conclude Jefferson did father children with Sally Hemings, although it was overwhelmingly denounced by most academic historians. Shortly after the new DNA findings were published in 1998, public opinion polls from Jefferson historical sites were taken which showed that "Eighty percent of those polled were unmoved by findings they'd assumed all along were fact ... Scholars, not the public, it turned out, were the ones taken by surprise." (Source)

My questions are, in light of instances like this:

• How do academic historians go about approaching historical views that challenge the accepted narrative?

• Do you think that fear of ostracization in the academic community can stifle legitimate historical theories that go against the academic consensus?

I spent a pretty long time attacking Douglas Haig and the British high command in the Great War on this thread. I have watched this debate proceed over 30 or so years.

The Official History of the war was written mostly in the 1930s, but the process went on until the 1950s, and the Official Historian, Edmonds's, view changed over time. He was also subject to balancing competing rivalries and controversies. In the 1960s, a very negative opinion of Haig etc became mainstream, authors from including Alan Clark, Basil Liddell-Hart, Anthony Farrar-Hockley and John Terraine participating, while the BBC commissioned an important documentary series in 1964. The negative opinion remained the dominant one into the 1970s, before others joined Terraine in defending Haig and the British High Command. Meanwhile, the anti-Haig school became even more vitriolic, Denis Winter in Haig's Command accusing Haig of doctoring documents including his diary and the Official History, while John Laffin's British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One has all you need to know in the title.

Today, I sense the pro-Haig lobby is in the ascendant, and I wonder how much this might be the legacy of a nostalgic conservatism in Britain generally (Brexit, Jeremy Clarkson, David Mitchell), applied to history. Keegan, Holmes, Ferguson, Hastings etc have been criticised for their unwillingness to confront the more extreme and horrific acts of British colonialism, for instance.

I can't help but wonder if there is a desire to excise the boil of the Great War command's reputation by those with a desire to restore the respected image of British arms.