Replies

The following is from Farber's work, Lincoln's Constitution

Farber's work has not been well received in the community of scholarly peers.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Farber104.htm

To cite it as an authoritative or unbiased source is accordingly misleading and unjustified. At its best it is a heavily tilted legal brief for the Lincoln defense team. At its worst it is a sloppily written low grade panegyric.

One book review by a pro-Southern historian is not a community of scholars.

However, the reviewer does say,

Beyond his general approach and his choice of sources, what is one to make of Farber's attitude toward his subject? It is generally even-handed. Thus, in summarizing Lincoln's constitutional record, Farber writes, "Although Lincoln cannot fairly be accused of dictatorship, he did stretch the power of the presidency to its outer reaches. He also authorized unprecedented exercises of government power over individuals: arrest and detention without military process, trial by military tribunals, and whole-sale destruction of individual property (most famously in Sherman's march through Georgia). After decades in which nearly everyone had agreed that slavery in the South was beyond the reach of federal power, he ordered the freeing of millions of slaves with a stroke of the presidential pen. It is little wonder that the constitutionality of his actions has been hotly disputed since almost the day he took office" (pp.20-21).

Farber displays great understanding of the extraordinarily difficult situation President Lincoln faced, and this prompts him to judge him less harshly than extreme libertarians sometimes have done (p.175).

In his Afterword, Farber considers "The Lessons of History." "It was," he writes, "Lincoln's character … that brought the Union through the war with the Constitution intact" (p.200). Here, Farber assumes much of what was at issue during Lincoln's presidency: that the Union was simply a territorial unit, not a group of sovereign states voluntarily joined; that the Constitution was what Lincoln said it was, not what his opponents to the south held it to be. Farber's assumptions on these scores shape most of the rest of his book. In sum, LINCOLN'S CONSTITUTION is a partisan work, more a lawyer's brief for the Lincoln administration to be argued before a contemporary American court or group of academics than an exercise in historiography. It is none the less interesting for that.