The fallacy of appeal to tradition or appeal to history (aka argumentum ad antiquitatem) occurs when an arguer presumes that the established history of something means automatically that it is sound, true, or good.

Here is an example:

Bettie: "Why are you going to buy yourself a pickup truck?"

Freddie: "Because every man in my family for the last four generations has bought one."

There is nothing wrong with a family tradition in itself, but the problem here is that Freddie is offering the history of pickup truck ownership in isolation, as though it were sufficient reason by itself.

More supporting context would be needed. For example, suppose Freddie's parents and grandparents were all farmers in rural Iowa, but now Freddie is a software engineer in urban Chicago, and unlike his father he never goes hunting, skiing, hiking, fishing or camping.

Alternatively, suppose his father and grandfather were plumbers, and that Freddie is one, too, and on weekends he builds home wood-shop projects.

Ultimately, the tradition of truck ownership is neither a good nor a bad indicator by itself. We need to know more about why that tradition was established and if the same or similar reasons apply to Freddie today.

A general template of this fallacy would be:

1. Idea (or practice) X has been established or accepted for a considerable length of time.

2. Therefore, X is good (or true, or wise).