Footnotes, endnotes or online notes?

[RJNorton]

Susan and Eva, I agree. The first Lincoln assassination book I read in the 1960's was Jim Bishop's The Day Lincoln Was Shot. I found the topic fascinating, but I wonder to this day where Mr. Bishop found some of his information. The book is not footnoted. I consider Bishop a very good writer, and his book is full of fascinating details. But I really miss the source notes. On the opposite end of this is a book like Bill Richter's excellent Sic Semper Tyrannis. On some pages the footnotes take up more than half the page! Or Mike Kauffman's American Brutus. The notes are a book by themselves. I agree, Eva, as I also can go both ways on footnotes and endnotes. When Mike Kauffman's book arrived I actually read the endnotes first. Fascinating!

A good example of what happens when there are no footnotes is in Eleanor Ruggles' Prince of Players: Edwin Booth. On p, 213 she writes, "As soon as he could afford it Booth had reimbursed the Virginia farmer whose tobacco barn had been burned down during John Wilkes' capture." Other writers then include this information and footnote Ruggles' book (which has no footnotes). I think Dave Taylor has searched high and low for proof of this but has found no evidence Edwin actually paid for the barn.

P.S. Scott, welcome to the forum!