
‘Hamilton’ and History: Are They in Sync? - pepys
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/theater/hamilton-and-history-are-they-in-sync.html?_r=0
======
mklim
I disagree with the idea that the musical is painting Hamilton as a blameless
hero of the people and glossing over his Federalist policies. For an example
off the top of my head, you've got Jefferson (who is not portrayed as a
villainous contrast to Hamilton's "goodness" in the musical--not sure how the
author came to that conclusion) directly calling him out as an ambitious man
vying for Wall Street power in "Washington on Your Side":

    
    
        I get no satisfaction witnessing his fits of passion
        The way he primps and preens and dresses like the pits of fashion
        Our poorest citizens, our farmers, live ration to ration
        As Wall Street robs ‘em blind in search of chips to cash in
        This prick is askin’ for someone to bring him to task
    

The same character calls Hamilton out for not wanting to come to France's aid
in "Cabinet Battle #2":

    
    
        He knows nothing of loyalty
        Smells like new money, dresses like fake royalty
        Desperate to rise above his station
        Everything he does betrays the ideals of our nation
    
        [...] do we not fight for freedom?
    
        Have you an ounce of regret?
        You accumulate debt, you accumulate power
        Yet in their hour of need, you forget
    

Hamilton is shown as a man who came to power from an immigrant background
against the odds. As far as I've been able to read up on him, though, that's
historically accurate--and the play goes into the details of his policies and
his personality flaws as well. Coming out of it and thinking that Hamilton is
a purehearted hero for liberty seems like an overly simplistic and reductive
reading of the play to me.

~~~
jdoliner
If anything I'd say that the play goes above and beyond what I'd expect to
make the other characters look good by comparison. For example take the final
song which shows Burr being remorseful about the slaying of Hamilton. In
reality he never really expressed remorse. He spoke the words "I would have
known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me." He was being
sarcastic, not expressing actual remorse.

------
entee
Of course Hamilton will cut parts of history short, modify some and embellish
others. It's a work of art that has to cram 30 years into around 3 hours of
musical theater. Hamilton was probably an elitist, he also was probably not as
strongly against slavery as the musical implies. Then again, the musical
doesn't really talk all that much about his views on slavery either, just a
few mentions here and there.

Historical fiction need not be 100% factually accurate to powerfully inform. I
have read more actual history about this period because the musical made it so
compelling than I otherwise would have.

In the end it's remarkable how much of the history it gets right (beautifully
summarizing the complicated negotiations around the creating of the national
bank for example), and how it shows two sides loathing one another and
fighting through energetic political discourse eventually found a way to
compromise and/or move on in order to build a nation.

Today we have one political party that seems completely unwilling to
compromise and another that's heading that way. Nobody wants to accept defeat,
nobody want to accept half-a-loaf to keep things going. We should remember
that this country was founded on sometimes good and sometimes terrible
compromises, but the country moved forward as a result. Yes the worst ones
eventually were resolved by blood, and we're still handling the aftermath, but
without compromise we'd never have had the chance to figure out which were the
better angels of our nature.

~~~
protomyth
> Today we have one political party that seems completely unwilling to
> compromise and another that's heading that way.

Perception is an interesting thing. Many of us believe one party has
compromised too much and caved, being steam rolled by the party that won't
compromise a thing even when their majorities are taken away.

Hamilton actually did a pretty good job at an amazing compromise involving the
location of the capital and debt responsibility. Both sides got something of
worth, and it probably was a part of keeping the states together.

~~~
entee
Trying to scrupulously avoid inflammatory descriptions but I personally
believe the Republican Party has become a shadow of its former self by taking
a totally uncompromising and childish approach to policy and governing.

I think it's important to have two parties that have strong ideas, even ones I
disagree with. It's not ok to have total obstruction and political total war.
Total war just leaves everyone worse off, the country deserves better. I would
like to know why back then people disagreed at least as strongly with one
another but we're able to move forward and today we've totally lost than.

~~~
protomyth
And I personally believe anyone uttering the phrase "I have a phone and a pen"
has no interest in compromise or how they shut out amendments when they
controlled the Senate, but they get backed by the press. Our country does
deserve better, and I'm a bit sick of seeing an obstructionist meme applied to
the wrong party.

President Clinton understood compromise and did great things, this President
doesn't.

------
drhayes9
The whole second act of the musical puts Hamilton's worse qualities on
display: his over-consideration with his legacy, his centralization of banking
power to further his own rise to power, his hot temper and fondness for duels.
I think there are some necessary summarizations and a lot of it gets
condensed, but I also think Miranda went to great pains to ensure he got the
spirit of the narrative down right. Ron Chernow, the guy who wrote the
biography that inspired the musical in the first place, as an historical
advisor to the musical.

Slightly off-topic, but the genius community is really great at annotating and
calling out the details here: [http://genius.com/albums/Lin-manuel-
miranda/Hamilton-origina...](http://genius.com/albums/Lin-manuel-
miranda/Hamilton-original-broadway-cast-recording)

~~~
sixo
L-M-M himself comments on the lyrics on Genius fairly often, too.

------
jdoliner
Warning, unabashed Alexander Hamilton fan here.

It's truly appalling that this article questions Hamilton's dedication to
abolition. He did a great deal to actively fight slavery during his life and
it's all incredibly well documented. Look at the work he did with the New York
Manumission Society or the endless political battles he had over abolition. I
can't imagine what Hamilton would have had to do to satisfy these people/

~~~
tamana
Who are "these people"?

------
dankohn1
Disregarding "the inherent limits of musical theater as a venue for policy
analysis", this is a great look at the underlying issues in Cabinet Battle #1.
[http://www.vox.com/2015/11/27/9771784/hamilton-cabinet-
battl...](http://www.vox.com/2015/11/27/9771784/hamilton-cabinet-battle-debt)

------
aschearer
If you want to learn more about Hamilton I highly recommend "Alexander
Hamilton" by Ron Chernow. (Which I now see was an inspiration for the play,
who knew.) One thing I took away was that the world we live in pretty much
what Hamilton envisioned. Another thing is that we're still playing out the
ideological disputes between Hamilton and Jefferson.

~~~
jdoliner
Most of us knew :)

But great suggestion none the less, it really does speak incredibly well to
our current political situation and makes the case well that we are living in
Alexander Hamilton's america.

------
dsiroker
I watched the musical in January and I just finished the audiobook version of
the Chernow biography of Hamilton (pro tip: listen at 2x speed to save 19
hours) and I have to say the musical stuck VERY close to the biography. A few
embellishments for dramatic effect but the substance is all spot on. Unless
the biography is flawed, I'd say that ‘Hamilton’ and History are very much in
sync.

In case you want to learn more, I posted "Three Timeless Truths Entrepreneurs
Can Learn from Alexander Hamilton" earlier today based on what I learned from
the biography:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11475047](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11475047)

~~~
RodericDay
I'm wrapping up the bio, read, and I gotta say... Chernow's not my favorite
biographer (comparing mostly to Ray Monk's bio of Wittgenstein here). On the
one hand, the amount of raw material that surfaces is amazing, and I am
delighted to have read tons of the Hamilton's own writing and that of his
contemporaries.

However, if anything the musical tones down the hero worship from his book,
into something more palatable. When he calls Eliza going to the cottage
"abandoning" him, and talks about his cheating in terms of him "being too much
for her", or his rhapsodizing about him being right about the worthlessness of
the French revolution vs. the American one, it starts wearing on you.

edit: Still totally worth a read.

------
WalterBright
> Alexander Hamilton “was more a man for the 1 percent than the 99 percent,”

Every generation inevitably reinterprets history to fit their own narrative.

~~~
tamana
Of course. How else could someone understand anything except within the
context of their worldview? Adopting a fully alien perspective requires deep
immersion, which only few people have time for, and even they can't do t for
all perspectives.

~~~
WalterBright
> Adopting a fully alien perspective requires deep immersion

Not at all. Reading history from another generation's perspective, which
doesn't fit the current generation's politically correct worldview, is simply
uncomfortable.

(Every generation has their political correctness, it's just the term that is
modern.)

------
RodericDay
I really like this piece from Jacobin, "Reading Hamilton from the Left":
[https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-
the...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/)

