Millard Fillmore

When it comes to reading a biography, I am expecting for the author to have some bias toward his or her subject. They want to paint them in the best light, by downplaying their flaws at worst, or by trying to explain the historical context and upbringing that surrounded their decision at best. Yet, with Finkelman, I did not have this problem. In fact, I had the exact opposite. Finkelman has a certain vitriol for his subject, with contempt that bleeds through on nearly every page, and this makes for a biography that not only can be difficult to read, but makes me wonder why he chose to write about Fillmore in the first place.

Fillmore was not a terrible person, merely on the wrong side of history, like many of his day. While we may be able to understand that owning another person is wrong, with the gift of hindsight, many people did not share the same views, and often failed to be placed on the correct side of history. This does not even count the people who believed that slavery was wrong, but that the African Americans were still inferior regardless of their social standing. Fillmore still has some notable accomplishments, chief among them working from a poor background to become a lawyer, and eventually, President of the United States. Yet, Finkelman treats this as though it is more unbelievable than commendable, making it seem as though it is astounding that Fillmore could manage being able to hold down a stable job. This paints Finkelman as an extremely biased writer, and it just seems sad overall, given how he should treat his subject with respect. While he does do a good job explaining the Fugitive Slave law, this is probably because it was terrible for the country, and was something that Fillmore supported, so, of course, Finkelman did well explaining it. The rest of the contempt that he holds for his subject makes me give this book a 1 out of 5. I guess that while idolizing your subject can be make for a negative experience, demonizing him can be just as bad.