Stewart Mitchell (2)

Though his name is largely forgotten today, in his time Horatio Seymour was one of the dominant figures on the American political landscape. This is all the more remarkable given his political career. Born in upstate New York, Seymour enjoyed a rapid rise in politics, serving in the state legislature and as mayor of Utica before winning a term as governor of the state in 1852. During the Civil War, he returned to the governor's office for two tumultuous years, during which he established himself as a prominent critic of many of Abraham Lincoln's policies. Despite his defeat for reelection, Seymour remained a prominent figure and reluctantly accepted the Democratic Party's nomination as president in 1868, only to be defeated by Ulysses S. Grant later that year.

Such a figure deserves a critical study that examines Seymour's life and career so as to understand how he came to play such a prominent role in American history. Unfortunately, Stewart Mitchell's biography is not that study. Despite the considerable amount of research that the author put into it, the book suffers from three major flaws. The first and most glaring is its bias. It becomes readily apparent from the book's first pages that Mitchell is an ardent fan of his subject. While this in itself may not have been a factor against him, he is unable or unwilling to prevent it from coloring his analysis of his subject. Often the book seems less a biography than a brief for the defense, an effort to redeem him from the many attacks he (like many politicians) suffered throughout his career.

As part of that effort, Mitchell feels obligated to revisit the political environment of Seymour's career. While context is necessary for any good biography, Mitchell errs too far in the direction of thoroughness here. At times the book is less a biography of Seymour than a rehashing of antebellum New York politics, as Mitchell's subject disappears for pages while the author details convoluted political struggles in which his subject's involvement was peripheral at best. All of this is recounted in writing which aspires to be soaring and poetic but comes across as excessively florid.

Dated and marred by bias, Mitchell's biography is nonetheless the best study of Seymour's life and career. This in the end is less a testament to Mitchell's achievement than proof that a newer and more critical examination of this figure is needed. Until then, readers seeking to learn more about Seymour and to better understand how he came to play such a prominent role in 19th century American politics will have little choice but to wade through the hagiographic presentation and purple prose of this book, which succeeds primarily in demonstrating that Seymour deserves better treatment than he received.… (plus d'informations)