I know that Foote did not consider himself an historian and his work's are great reading without the citations.
My question is - does Foote make noticeable and significant mistakes in his narrative? Or, should someone feel as comfortable treating Foote's content as accurate and true as they would if reading a self proclaimed, more traditional historian/scholar?
My question is - does Foote make noticeable and significant mistakes in his narrative? Or, should someone feel as comfortable treating Foote's content as accurate and true as they would if reading a self proclaimed, more traditional historian/scholar?