Replies

First, where do you get the idea that it is held in low esteem by the 'scholarly community'. From the fact that a major scholar tore it to shreds in a peer reviewed academic journal.

A scholar tore it to bits (and frankly, I do not read the review that way).

So one scholar did not like it.

I gave you a link to two other scolars who did, both professors.

Moreover, how well received were Mise's works received by the scholars?

You cited one pro-Southern reviewer as evidence. You keep alleging and impugning Gutzman as pro-southern yet have offered no evidence to that, nor any evidence that anything Gutzman ever said about Farber was wrong. Why is that?

His constant harping on Farber's errors on nullification, referring to a five year old journal article he wrote for Southern History Journal as proof, that Farber was not up to date on the 'original sources'

Farber was not writing a scholarly work per se, but a popular one, for the average person.

So, I did not know that Farber's work is considered in low esteem by scholars nor do I know that now. And you'll never know as long as you invent phony reasons to dismiss and neglect every critical review out of convenience for Farber.

Well, since I have found scholars who approved of his work, your view of it being rejected by the 'scholarly community' proves to be an incorrect one (what a shock!)

Here is a favoritable review of the work, The Claremont Institute is not a scholarly peer reviewed journal. It is a Lincolnite hack machine that agrees with Farber because they share in his extreme partisan disposition toward Lincoln.

And what about the other two works that I gave you as proof?

I know you could not have missed them, they are only two posts away from the Claremont review.

A scholar tore it to bits (and frankly, I do not read the review that way).

The blind never do.

"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." - Kevin Gutzman

I gave you a link to two other scolars who did, both professors.

You gave me links to two unscholarly hack jobs published in unscholarly publications such as the Claremont Review of Books, which is every bit as partisan as Farber himself.

I, on the other hand, have given you a total of three reviews - all from refereed scholarly journals - that have one or more severe criticisms of flaws in Farber's book. Naturally you ignore it and pretend they don't say what they plainly do.