I am here, as requested! (Apologies for the slight delay—yesterday was busy for me.)
Let me begin with what I liked: I am, first and foremost, intrigued that you're taking an iconoclastic approach to these stories and historical figures. As an iconoclast myself, of course I'm a sucker for that style. I'm a big believer in the "no cow too sacred for slaughter" approach with art and writing, so it works for me that you're tackling the founding fathers with an irreverent tone and a willingness to dive into the salacious, scandalous details. That's great!
However, I disliked the execution.
For starters, it's difficult to call this an introduction. It read more like a cover letter you'd send to a literary agent or publisher, where you're telling them how great your novel is and all the nifty things about it, in the hopes they'll agree to represent or publish you. Maybe that's what you were aiming for: thinking readers would pick up this book at a store and quickly scan the first page, you're trying to convince them the product is worth purchasing. But really, this is not the way to go about it (and I'm also of the opinion you shouldn't approach an introduction with that sort of transactional mindset). Don't just vaguely tell me your book explores death in a cool way or humanizes real people, show that to me.
At this point, the "introduction" is quite nebulous and murky. I know you think the book's great, but I'm not sold on it—especially since the introduction itself is so disorganized and (as Shady said) disorienting. It's hard to grasp what, exactly, is being said and by whom. That doesn't give me much hope for the rest of the book: I am assuming, based on this intro, the novel might be equally confused and confusing.
And that brings me to your main question: did this intro hook me and make me want to continue reading? My answer would be no. I say that not only because of the disastrous way it's written and structured, but also because I'm just not interested in bathroom anecdotes or toilet humor. Never have been, never will be. So you lost me right at the start, the second you mentioned that as a selling point. To me, it had the opposite effect: I found it repellent and juvenile. But that's just me. I know a lot of people, for reasons I cannot fathom, are delighted by those sorts of stories and jokes. That's the gamble you take, I suppose: by immediately mentioning that in your introduction, you're sure to turn off a lot of people, but you're also sure to appeal to a number of people who are entertained by... that. So, here's my suggestion: if the toilet stuff plays a large role in this book, you probably should make some kind of reference to it in your introduction, so that the reader has an honest idea of what they're getting into and so you reach the right audience. But if it's something that only plays a small role, and you don't want to repel people who find toilet stuff to be an instant dealbreaker, you could omit it. Up to you.
Even if you hadn't included any reference to that content in this intro, the writing style and structure would've kept me from buying the book or reading more of it. However, if the style and structure were perfect, I still think the emphasis on bathroom habits would've been enough to make me assume the book would be base and crass and not my cup of tea. I like sacrilege, but only when it's sophisticated and purposeful, not when it sounds like something a shock-jock or twelve-year-old boy would say.
Those are my overarching thoughts. Now for some specific notes:
No need to capitalize the D in "depression."
were constant in Founding Farther’s lives.
First of all, you misspelled "father" as "farther." (Proof your work!) Second of all, I think you should say "the founding fathers," as they tend to be referred to that way: with a definite article before "founding fathers." Furthermore, neither F needs to be capitalized. And finally, it should be founding fathers' with the apostrophe after the S rather than before it, because it's plural.
when Sam Adams and John Hancock shared a bed; who’d have known one of these fellows talked about severed heads in their sleep?
This part, in my opinion, was the most interesting. It was the only detail that made me go "hmm, maybe I would like to read this."
The book also includes ‘Historical Notes’ after each chapter.
If you're American, those single quotations should be double quotations. I also don't think you need them, since you're capitalizing the H and N, which already distinguishes it.
Readers will learn Everything Triggers Everything explores death in ways each person responds in their unique grieving process with high regard towards platonic friendships.
Jesus, this sentence is a mess. Where do I even begin? Well, I'll start with the easy bit: you should italicize "Everything Triggers Everything" if that's the name of the book—which, based on context clues, I'm assuming it is. As for the rest of this sentence... um... burn it with fire? In all seriousness, this makes no sense. The structure—or lack of structure, I should say—is terrible. It feels like the writing equivalent of throwing everything against a wall to see what sticks. I've read it ten times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say. It just sounds like you had a stroke while thumbing through a thesaurus.
You will be exposed to the reality of life in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
That E and N don't need to be capitalized.
It was also assumed such a thing defied the purity of a body, and God forsakes entrance into Heaven.
Change this to: "It was also assumed such a thing defiled the purity of a body, and would cause God to forbid entrance into heaven."
Through the lens of modern eyes, Onania’s belief system is bizarre, so I of course included a particular segment in one of the stories.
A segment of what? Onania? Masturbation? It's entirely unclear—an unfinished sentence.
I’m a character writer who does not plan anything.
I can tell.
also presents sexual intercourse. These interactions have purposes that drive situations in a clearer light towards humanizing real people who existed.
First of all: show, don't tell. Second of all: why are you moralizing your choice to include sex scenes? It's weird and unnecessary. You've already established you're quite willing to divulge prurient and puerile details. Now is not the time to get high-and-mighty about it.
And with that, we have reached the end. Whew. This was short, yet somehow still a doozy. My advice would be to rewrite the whole thing with a clearer sense of what you want to say and how you want to say it. Make sure your sentences are grammatically correct. Show more, tell less. Don't capitalize everything willy-nilly. And proofread, proofread, proofread!
Hopefully this helps. Keep writing!