DAVID BARTON & THE USE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

David Barton has used illustrations from Louis L'Amour, a western novelist, to provide historical support for an illustration he used.

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism. - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.aDdSvzaq.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism.

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.aDdSvzaq.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism. - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.RxNm6iYl.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.aDdSvzaq.dpuf

storians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticis - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.RxNm6iYl.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.RxNm6iYl.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism. - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.RxNm6iYl.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism. - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.RxNm6iYl.dpuf

Historians can have honest disagreements about whether the L’Amour story, or other oral traditions passed down through the years, can be used as legitimate historical evidence. They can also debate whether citing a primary source that is quoted in a secondary source is good practice. But when David Barton attacks historians for using second-hand accounts and then goes ahead and does it himself for the purpose of using the “past” to make a political point on the Glenn Beck Show, he deserves criticism. - See more at: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/david-barton-louis-lamour-and-the-use-of-historical-evidence/#sthash.RxNm6iYl.dpuf