AI Tutor
Two historians can study the exact same battlefield records and reach totally opposite conclusions about who truly won the day. So how do you cite a scholar's argument without confusing their opinion for an eyewitness fact?
A secondary source is an account created after an event by someone who did not experience it firsthand, offering an interpretation—an evidence-based argument explaining why or how something happened.
When you cite a secondary source, you aren't just quoting words—you are evaluating an argument shaped by when and why it was written.
How do we weave a scholar's interpretation into our own writing with pinpoint accuracy?

The Three-Part Secondary Citation

To cite a secondary source effectively, always identify the author and origin, embed a precise quote, and explain how it shapes the historical debate.
Let's put this three-part formula to work on a real historical text.

Worked Example: Analyzing Reconstruction

Read this excerpt from historian Eric Foner's landmark 1988 study, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution:
Here is how you turn that excerpt into a fully cited analytical sentence: