I believe that true objectivity is nearly impossible (I would say that it is impossible, but perhaps it can be achieved some unknown way). I certainly wouldn't call myself absolutely objective. I would like to think my work is accurate and true, but much of it, like much of all historical work, relies upon interpretation. I am currently finishing my dissertation on James Lane in a way that I hope revises some popular attitudes towards him. I am confident in my conclusions, but I realize that (if I can get it published afterwards) not everyone will agree. But, hopefully, it will inspire some debate and generally help people look at the man in some new ways and further knowledge and understanding of Lane and his time.
I had no intention of trying to bicker or sling mud here, and I heartily welcome a good historical discussion.