Primary source versus recycled information

[Gene C]

Not being a writer, and having written nothing more significant than a term paper, I can understand why someone might feel it is adequate to use quotes from other "reliable" sources. Why re-invent the wheel? Why repeat what another competent researcher has already done?

Then you have books like "Dark Union" by Ray Neff. Vague footnotes quoting very questional sources (his original resources)
I'm reading Stanton's biography, written about 60+ years ago. A very good book. The authors have lots of footnotes referencing their sources. Many are letters in private collections. I would have no idea how to track those down

Your lucky after only 15 pages into your book you recognized it's shortcommings. I think it's reasonable to expect for most works of history, to acknowledge the primary source of the information in a footnote or chapter note.

(I wasn't much help was I?)