Both of them were favorable.
As for Gutzman's review, his gripe is that Farber was not following his own views on nullification, and therefore must not be aware of the conclusive evidence supporting it.
He cites as an example the fact that Farber did not cite his own five year old work in the Southern Historical Journal.
You mean Mackubin Thomas Owens, who practices the same Lincoln idolatry you do?
The negative reviews like Gutzman's come from actual PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY JOURNALS - not the Claremont Review of Books.
As for Gutzman's review, his gripe is that Farber was not following his own views on nullification, and therefore must not be aware of the conclusive evidence supporting it.
No ftD. Gutzman's gripe is that Farber did not even bother to consider viewpoints that differed from his own preconceived position. He did not consider different viewpoints because he was making a partisan argument, not a scholarly one.