The poster probably refers to the the Claremont Review of Books, which is exactly as advertised - a book review. Otherwise, his thinking seems to be muddled.
These are by professors.
Here is part of what they had to say,
famous historian visited my undergraduate university half a century ago and announced that, except for a minor item or two such as a history of the quartermaster corps, the major work on the Civil War was completed. Since then several significant books have been published. Daniel Farber's Lincoln's Constitution is one of them. Reviewed by: Donald K. Pickens, Department of History, University of North Texas. Published by: H-USA (December, 2003) http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=103401078008870
Farber's Lincoln's Constitution deserves a place in this roster of important legal-constitutional history titles. Farber both restates the complex issues facing the bifurcating Union, 1861–65, and connects some, including federalism, judicial review, and presidents' crisis powers, to their prewar evolutions, wartime uses, and post-9/11 reappearances, thereby offering readers many useful insights. For example, he concludes correctly that "In practical terms ... the key issue [in the southern states' decisions for secession] was not sovereignty but power" (44). Harold M. Hyman Rice University http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.3/br_10.html
(emphasis added)