The Hamilton Phenomenon 164889125X, 9781648891250

Citation preview

The Hamilton Phenomenon

Edited by

Chloe Northrop Tarrant County College

Series in American History

Copyright © 2022 by the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Vernon Art and Science Inc. www.vernonpress.com In the Americas: Vernon Press 1000 N West Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 United States

In the rest of the world: Vernon Press C/Sancti Espiritu 17, Malaga, 29006 Spain

Series in American History Library of Congress Control Number: 2021950200 ISBN: 978-1-64889-422-0 Also available: 978-1-64889-125-0 [Hardback] Cover Art by Mitch Miller esketcho.com | @esketcho Product and company names mentioned in this work are the trademarks of their respective owners. While every care has been taken in preparing this work, neither the authors nor Vernon Art and Science Inc. may be held responsible for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

Table of contents Acknowledgements Introduction: From Nevis to New York

v vii

Chloe Northrop Tarrant County College

Chapter 1

Part One: Strike the Set

1

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

3

Kade Ivy University of Notre Dame

Chapter 2

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical: Illusion and Identity in Two American Musicals

25

Kristin Leadbetter UC San Diego

Chapter 3

Hamilton and Historical Memory: An American Musical Raises the Curtain on Historical Trauma and Decolonization of American Identity

47

Kerry L. Goldmann University of North Texas

Chapter 4

Part Two: Don’t Be Shocked When Your History Book Mentions Me

69

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

71

Eric Medlin Wake Technical Community College

Chapter 5

Ladies Don’t Wear Red: Gender, Class, and Fashion in Hamilton

93

Larissa Knopp St. John’s University

Chapter 6

Reclaiming the Narrative: Hamilton as a Repertory Archive

109

Kaitlin Tonti Seton Hall University

Chapter 7

Part III: “What Is a Legacy?”

127

Who Tells Which Story? Teaching Hamilton, History, and Memory

129

Shira Lurie Saint Mary’s University

Chapter 8

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”: Hamilton Rewrites the American Literature Course

151

Katherine L. Curtis and Alison Tracy Hale University of Puget Sound

Chapter 9

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”: Using Place to Teach about Alexander Hamilton and Early America

185

Julie Richter William & Mary

Epilogue: Hamilton and Disney

203

Chloe Northrop Tarrant County College

About the Authors

221

Index

225

Acknowledgements This book is for all of my students who challenge me to try to stay relevant, no matter how old I am getting. I would have never been able to do this without the support of my husband, Heston, and the adventuresome spirit of my niece, Addisyn. Aspen, I can’t wait for you to blow us all away. Chloe Northrop

27BC11

Introduction: From Nevis to New York Chloe Northrop Tarrant County College

The momentum of Hamilton: An American Musical initially appeared unstoppable. The Grammy, Tony, Pulitzer, and Oliver Award-winning musical leaped from Broadway fandom to mainstream popular culture. Infants donned onesies with “Young, Scrappy, and Hungry” emblazoned across the front, and grandparents participated in the #gramilton Instagram contest. However, the unique challenges of 2020 threatened Hamilton’s continued rise. With the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic, other issues that had long been present in the United States also surfaced.1 In addition to the ongoing pandemic, the pessimism and doubt that infects the country also menaces artistic performances and the future of live productions.2 National Tours have been cancelled and rescheduled only to be postponed a second or third time to open to uncertain audiences in fall 2021. Many stage productions have announced permanent closures.3 Even the summer 2020 release of the live version of the Original Broadway Cast on the streaming service, Disney+, seems like a quaint recollection from the vantage of 2022. The arguments over American History, patriotism, and how these issues are presented are vigorously and violently contested on social media, in classrooms, and in the

1 See Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of our Discontents (New York: Random House, 2020). 2 After shutting down in March, many Broadway shows began reopening in September 2021. 3 These include the musicals Frozen, and Mean Girls. They will both live on as national tours. See Thom Geier, “All the Broadway Shows Killed (and Postponed) Due to Coronavirus Shutdown,” January 7, 2021, https://www.thewrap.com/broadway-showsclose-early-coronavirus-shutdown-hangmen-virginia-woolf.

viii

Introduction

very halls of the United States government.4 The question is, does a musical like Hamilton have a place in our current society? With unprecedented responses to racial issues in the United States of America in summer 2020, including calls for the removal of controversial historical statues, Black Lives Matter protests, and outrage against the killing of unarmed individuals in America, this once “woke” musical now seems quite conservative to many observers. Does the “story of America then told by America now,” still have a place in current rhetoric? The Hamilton Phenomenon will discuss the impact of this musical on culture, scholarly studies, education, and our own lives as educators, researchers, and citizens. Like many readers, I first encountered the Hamilton musical by chance. I remember in early 2015 seeing an article that Jonathan Groff, beloved Broadway star of Spring Awakening and the TV show Glee, would be starring as George III in a musical about Alexander Hamilton. Immediately incredulous about a musical focusing on the life of America’s first Treasury Secretary, I was interested but skeptical. Recalling the glazed look of my students in my survey-level United States History course at the community college of which I am employed, I did not see how anyone could muster too much excitement over funding and assumption, or the inner workings of the First Bank of the United States. Throughout 2015 I kept hearing about the musical, and, after defending my dissertation treated myself to a quick weekend trip on a budget airlines flight. I naively thought I would try out the lottery, where the fellow cash-strapped, Broadway enthusiasts line up and put their name in to see if they will be one of the lucky few to receive a front-row (or limited view depending on the production and venue) seat for a discounted price. My cousin and I gamely took the bus and subway from the airport and strolled up, ready to claim our prize. To my astonishment, the line to sign up for the lottery went around the block. I think that is when I first realized, if you will indulge me, that “this is not a moment it’s a movement.” Lin-Manuel Miranda and many of the Original Broadway Cast Members came outside for an infamous “Ham4Ham” performance that included the “Ten Duel Commandments”. Also, to commemorate the anniversary of September 11, Miranda gave a heartfelt

4 On Monday, January 21, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, in the last days of the presidency of Donald Trump, the 1776 Commission released a report concerning America’s founding, in opposition to The 1619 Project by the New York Times. Historians soundly rejected the conclusions of the 1776 Commission. Once Joe Biden took office, the original site, once part of the White House web page went offline. See also Kenya Evelyn, “Historians rail against Trump administration's 1776 Commission,” January 22, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/22/1776-commission-report-trumpadministration-historians.

Introduction

ix

speech about that day that resonated with the crowd and connected the “greatest city in the world” with the tragedy that still elicited an emotional response. Unsurprisingly, we did not win the lottery, so we tried our luck with rush tickets at a different venue. More curious than ever, I left NYC with an unmet desire to see Hamilton. Weeks later, while waiting for my students to turn in exams, I saw that the Cast Album had been released. I put on my headphones to see what the fuss was really all about. From the first chords, I could tell that this was something special. I reached out to my friends who were fellow Broadway lovers to see if anyone would join me for another trip up to see it in person. When all declined, I purchased one limited view seat, booked another flight on my favorite budgetfriendly airline, and calculated that my funds would only cover one night at a hotel. The floor of La Guardia Airport would have to suffice for the second night. Seeing the Original Broadway Cast (sans Daveed Diggs, who was on vacation) proved to be worth the cramped seats on the bright yellow airplane, the questionable night on the airport floor, and the whirlwind trip from Dallas to NYC. Armed with my own enthusiasm, I returned and vowed to begin incorporating it into my college lectures and assignments. As a newly-minted full-time faculty member of Tarrant County College, one of the first events that the History Department hosted in my first semester was a campus-wide lecture for Constitution Day. I suggested that we might reach out to someone who would speak about Hamilton and try to give some context for the increasingly popular musical. This proved to be a success as a professor from a neighboring University spoke about the connections between Hamilton and the U.S. Constitution to a standing-room-only crowd. Often, guest lecturers would only attract the few students longing for some extra credit in a class and a free pizza lunch. This, however, showed me how we could harness some of the energy produced by this production and contextualize it within a historical framework. Students gave the lecture high points in their evaluations. The success in the Constitution Day Lecture caused me to research other ways in which students might learn more about our Founding Fathers through the intersection of public history and popular culture. To that end, I booked a small traveling exhibit from the Gilder Lehrman Institute, which our campus library graciously hosted. Students could look over the display at their leisure and connect it with the music emanating from their Spotify playlists. The library curated a special display of books in the collection to accompany the traveling exhibit. Like many other historians, I desired that my students, and the larger community, bolster the history disseminated through pop culture with scholarly publications.

x

Introduction

My first assignment involving Hamilton predictably had mixed results. I asked my students to review the musical. Some students detailed how they were moved by listening to the album. Others stated that they would not play this music at “their worst enemy’s funeral.” Seeing the students, most of whom had never heard of Hamilton in early 2016, react with such emotion to the music alone made me as an educator feel like I was accomplishing something. With more accessibility due to the traveling tours, this assignment has seemed less novel throughout the semesters I have utilized it. I would later detail this assignment during the 2017 meeting of the Society of Early Americanists (SEA), and a Poster Presentation at the 2018 meeting of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (ASECS). I remember one comment during the SEA Roundtable where a skeptical older gentleman scoffed at incorporating a Broadway musical into our classrooms. He pointed out that there were errors and the best practice would be to ignore the popularity of the production and stick to our own research. I balked at this notion. Wondering if this stemmed from my semioutside status at academic conferences due to my employment at a community college, I challenged his point. Should we, as scholars of early American studies, ignore something that is obviously incredibly popular? I also wondered as well if this stemmed from jealousy. Scholarly publications by trained historians and scholars rarely reach the public’s attention. The commercial success of Hamilton was certainly enviable, but rather than ignore this phenomenon, I, like many others, sought to join the wave to discover what interesting intersections could be explored. Throughout 2016, my personal obsession with Hamilton grew. Sharing the music with the uninitiated became a passion. This included my then sevenyear-old niece, who could recite much of the musical with exuberance. That winter, on a cruise with my family, I realized that the local ferry could take us from our stop at St. Kitts to the neighboring island of Nevis, Hamilton’s birthplace. The bouncing ferry delivered us to the small Caribbean island, where we visited a local museum that had an exhibit on display detailing the life of this creole West Indian who rose to a Cabinet-level position in the United States of America’s first administration. This exhibit detailed how, after rising to such prominence, he then fell to relative obscurity until his rebirth through the musical. My family, along with a few other tourists, wandered around this small island and I wondered how many were brought by a similar desire to see this place that birthed someone who was quickly becoming a household name and figure.

Introduction

xi

Figure 0.1: Chloe Northrop, “Hamilton’s Grave at Trinity Church,” New York City, January 13, 2017.

I continued to ponder this journey as we too followed Hamilton’s path from the Caribbean to New York City a few weeks later. This trajectory seemed to be one that represented the American Dream. While walking through the halls of the Hamilton Grange, where Hamilton and his family once walked and lived

xii

Introduction

their private lives (albeit not in the exact same location), we realized that our meeting coincided with Hamilton’s birthday on January 11.5 We were not the only pilgrims seeking to follow Hamilton’s path in a relocated home that is now part of the National Park Service. Not unlike the experiences described by Julie Richter in her chapter “Thinking about ‘The Room Where It Happens’: Using Place to Teach about Alexander Hamilton and Early America,” I desired to explore the spaces in order to gain a deeper understanding of this period. On this quest for knowledge, we encountered a gentleman from St. Croix at the “Grange.” He shared with us how he visits yearly and brings items from Hamilton’s early home to his burial spot at Trinity Church in Lower Manhattan. He shared how he had placed soil from Hamilton’s mother Rachael Fawcett’s grave in the Trinity Church memorial as a tribute to Hamilton’s roots and those of his mother, who died in 1768.6 That year, the visitor from St. Croix had brought leaves from sugar cane plants to remind viewers of Hamilton’s connection with the West Indian islands. We later made our way to Trinity Church where we saw this display and Hamilton’s grave. My family then enjoyed a viewing of the musical (sans OBC, but still as awe-inspiring, and their first). Like the theatergoers described by Kerry Goldmann in her chapter “Hamilton and Historical Memory,” and Kristin Leadbetter in “Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical: Illusion and Identity in Two American Musicals,” my privileged position allowed me to partake in these experiences with my family. Furthermore, my own journey, with different transportation, motives, and outcomes, inspired me to question both the Founding Father himself and what the musical was trying to portray. During the long months of 2020, while reading A Promised Land by Barack Obama, I found myself in the same struggle as the former President. I too vacillate between hope for the future, love of America, and shame and disappointment with the failures, both past and present. Where does this musical fit in with this narrative? Should a stage production be tasked with something so monumental? What will be the enduring nature of the Hamilton musical? This work seeks to follow in the footsteps, while forging new paths. The 2018 work, Historians on Hamilton, treated readers with experts who questioned the veracity of the musical, and placed it in both theatrical and

5

See Noémie Despland-Lichtert, “A look at how Hamilton’s tourist-flocking Grange house was moved,” September 18, 2017, https://archinect.com/news/article/150029 055/a-look-at-how-hamilton-s-tourist-flocking-grange-house-was-moved. 6 For more information on the efforts of the Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society, please visit: https://www.the-aha-society.com.

Introduction

xiii

historical context.7 Long before any mainstream criticism, this work began to flesh out the inaccuracies in both the musical and the original source, Ron Chernow’s biography on Hamilton. This groundbreaking work provided a foundation for future inquiries on this subject.8 The research since that publication has been fruitful as well.9 With the expansion of reach through the traveling tours of the musical and the scholarly talks and displays they have inspired, the interest in early America, and the intersection of theater and public history has been diverse. However, the reactions against Hamilton, once relegated to a more conservative sect, have expanded. Historians have long grappled with the legacy of the Founding Fathers. These individuals, once revered as paragons of virtue, have increasingly come under negative scrutiny. With artists like Titus Kaphar crafting images of individuals like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Andrew Jackson, modern audiences confront these stalwart figures in a new light.10 Kaphar’s art situates these familiar faces in scenes that at once seem recognizable to modern audiences, but also include elements that might seem shocking to some observers. As an assignment, my students evaluate these paintings and deliver predictably diverse reactions. Seeing the nails on George Washington’s face in Shadows of Liberty (2016, Yale University Art Gallery) with the strips of cloth hanging down from the canvas, students often ask if that is the United States’ Constitution ripped up and why the artist would choose to do that. When they find out that the strips actually contain the names of enslaved individuals that the Washington’s owned, a hush usually descends upon the classroom. Some are uncomfortable to see the first president, the beloved “General” from the American War for Independence, situated in a way that directly confronts his ownership of individuals in bondage. Others are pleased and state that they support this artistic inclusion that includes Washington’s participation with enslavement. Kaphar’s treatment of Washington is not a

Renee Christine Romano and Claire Bond Potter, Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018). 8 For more on Chernow’s work and the historiography concerning Hamilton, see Chapter 4 in this volume. 9 See Lisa A. Tucker, Hamilton and the Law: Reading Today's Most Contentious Legal Issues Through the Hit Musical (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2020). 10 Tiana Reed, “Artist Titus Kaphar Is Creating a New Artistic Canon; Through Work That Confronts History and Illuminates the Black Experience, Kaphar Is Breaking the Mold for Art Nonprofits at His Organization, NXTHVN,” in The Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition. New York, N.Y: Dow Jones & Company Inc, 2020. 7

xiv

Introduction

singular event for this artist, and extends to other popular Founding Fathers, Presidents, and politicians alike. Kaphar’s rendition of Thomas Jefferson has less nuance than Shadows of Liberty, but is no less poignant. Behind the Myth of Benevolence takes inspiration from Rembrandt Peale’s 1800 portrait of Jefferson. Peale’s iconic image flaccidly folds back from the frame, exposing a canvas underneath. The inner canvas reveals a seated black woman who is gazing at the viewer. The simple background gives way to a single pitcher on the table next to the woman. Donning a green and gold head wrap with one shoulder and knee exposed, the viewer is left to ponder the identity of the woman. While some have described her as Sally Hemings, the enslaved woman who Jefferson likely fathered children with and freed upon his death, others have pointed out the dissimilarities in appearance between the light-skinned Hemings, and the sitter for the portrait.11 Kaphar himself stated that she is “more of a symbol of many of the Black women whose stories have been shrouded by the narratives of our deified founding fathers.”12 The criticism inherent in Kaphar’s pieces is largely absent from Hamilton. Hamilton does criticize Virginians in Cabinet Battle #1 for their participation with slavery. Jefferson’s debut in Act Two coyly refers to “Sally,” but one has to go to the Hamilton Mixtapes to find a more explicit reference to the Jefferson/Hemings connection. This demo, Cabinet Battle #3 did not make the final musical. In this number, Hamilton crows about Jefferson: “Yet still, people follow like lemmings/All your hemming and hawing, while you're hee-hawing with Sally Hemings.”13 The mention of slavery puts the heroes of the musical in the best light, or dances around the topic. Indeed, the issue of enslavement is scant and fleeting in Hamilton and serves as one of the main criticisms of the musical. The subject of slavery and Hamilton did not go unnoticed by scholars and early critics of the musical. Leading scholars joined together in Historians on Hamilton, which was one of the first publications to critique the musical, pointing out flaws in the production.14 For instance, Hamilton portrays the

See Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000). 12 Victoria L. Valentine, “National Portrait Gallery: Titus Kaphar and Ken Gonzales-Day Explore ‘UnSeen’ Narratives in Historic Portraiture,” March 28, 2018, https://www.cultur etype.com/2018/03/28/titus-kaphar-and-ken-gonzales-day-explore-unseennarratives-in-historic-portraiture-in-new-national-portrait-gallery-exhibition. 13 Lin-Manuel Miranda, “What Did I Miss?,” in Hamilton: An American Musical; “Cabinet Battle 3 (Demo),” in Hamilton Mixtapes. 14 Romano and Potter, Historians on Hamilton. 11

Introduction

xv

titular character as a “revolutionary, manumission, [abolitionist],” however, new research indicates he might have indeed owned and employed enslaved individuals. Jessie Serfilippi’s recent article, ‘“AS ODIOUS AND IMMORAL A THING’ Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” details Hamilton’s connection with enslavement.15 Through his in-laws, the Schuylers, Serfilippi uncovers damning evidence that Hamilton was not the “manumission, abolitionist,” so sympathetically portrayed in the musical. Serfilippi notes that in Ron Chernow’s biography, and the musical Hamilton, that the eponymous hero’s thoughts and feeling about slavery are not up for debate. However, with the popularity of both the book and musical, such research has gained new traction and reaches a wide audience. Popular articles that discuss Serfilippi’s findings include the New York Daily News, Smithsonian Magazine, History.com, and The New York Times. Hamilton therefore has helped reestablish several Founding Fathers in popular lore, and has inspired new research, and the widespread dissemination of that research. There is no denying its impact on popular culture. In the 2021 Presidential Inauguration, National Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gordon invoked lyrics from Hamilton in her stirring piece “The Hill We Climb.”16 The ensuing Twitter banter between Gordon and Miranda demonstrates the ubiquitous nature of both the creator himself and the lyrics he produced. With Gorman’s inaugural poem they are now both becoming a part of contemporary American history. Artistic creations are not meant to be solid facts, but they can guide observers to a new understanding, and spark curiosity. In the years since Hamilton has arrived on stage, the political climate and social upheavals have demonstrated the importance of historical inquiry in dealing with our past. Building upon previous scholarly works and investigating new information, The Hamilton Phenomenon demonstrates the vast possibilities present using Hamilton as a touchpoint. This work seeks to interrogate the historical roots present in the musical, including both on the stage and in the public, how Hamilton has inspired scholarly research, and finally, how it has informed and stimulated pedagogical experiments in the classroom. These authors contribute to the ongoing conversation with their

15 Jessie Serfilippi, ‘“As Odious and Immoral a Thing:’ Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, 2020, https://parks.ny. gov/documents/historicsites/SchuylerMansionAlexanderHamiltonsHiddenHistoryasanEnslaver.pdf. 16 Sarah Bahr, “Amanda Gorman Alludes to ‘Hamilton’ in Inauguration Day Poem,” January 20, 2021, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/amandagorman-hamilton-inauguration-poem.html.

xvi

Introduction

varied approaches that will certainly inspire additional research and new publications. The first section of this work, “Strike the Stage,” might at first seem at odds with opening chapters. “Strike the Stage” typically refers to the routines at the end of a production, including taking down the set and readying the items for storage or the next destination. For The Hamilton Phenomenon, we use this designation to refer to the deconstruction of the musical. While metaphorical, these authors interrogate themes that resonate throughout Hamilton. Using the musical as an embarkation point, they engage and critically examine issues that emerge from the popularity surrounding the musical, as well as in the early American period itself. Though multidisciplinary in their approaches, these authors demonstrate the opportunities present in this theme. Setting the stage, Kade Ivy’s “Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton” uses interpretations of the American Revolution on stage, reaching back into the eighteenth century. Showcasing many theatrical productions that are far less popular and well known than Hamilton, Ivy demonstrates the legacy in which Miranda inserted his own inclusion into this rich history. Through interpretations of these historical plays, as well as the inclusion of these readings in an undergraduate course, Ivy engages with the popularity of the musical and encourages both students and readers to question historical memory as it relates to stage productions. While Ivy examines several theatrical compositions in relation to early American history, memory, and performance, Kristin Leadbetter focuses on one musical, American Psycho, in relation to Hamilton. Debuting around the same time as Hamilton, these two productions appear to be quite different in their objectives. With New York City as the background for both pieces, the similarities between the two are fleshed out by Leadbetter, who examines the motivations behind two ambitious leads, who find themselves in conflicts with their peers over the need to distinguish themselves. Whereas one of the leads becomes a Founding Father, and the other a serial killer seems to be a stretch of the imagination, Leadbetter demonstrates how themes such as ambition, performance, and the need for recognition transcends both pieces. Although one found box office success, and the other closed after fifty-four regular performances, the comparison showcases some of the darker sides of Hamilton through the lens of the competing musical, American Psycho. The first two chapters examine Hamilton through theatrical performances ranging from the eighteenth to twenty-first century, Kerry Goldmann’s “Hamilton as a Conservative Revolution: An American Musical Raises the Curtain on Historical Trauma and Decolonization of American Identity” employs a decolonial lens in order to critique the musical. While pointing out the cultural sensation that Hamilton has produced, Goldmann calls for

Introduction

xvii

further theatrical performances that would perhaps build upon the success and interest of Hamilton, and stage a more “radical revolution” that would challenge the existing genre of American history that relies on a colonialdominated lens and memory. By challenging theatrical performances to take into consideration works by scholars of decoloniality, Goldmann presents a striking path forward for artistic productions. The second part of this book, “Don’t be shocked when your history book mentions me”, unveils chapters that deal with Hamilton through the lens of historical memory and records. These scholars utilize the popularity of Hamilton to inform their own research and work. The three different chapters interrogate themes ranging from historiography, fashion, and archival research, these chapters demonstrate the various ways scholars can build upon the themes, popularity, and cultural relevance of the musical to enhance their own research. This begins with Eric Medlin’s “Hamilton and the Historical Perspective”, which traces the historiographical background of how scholars have examined both Hamilton and the early American period. Chernow’s biography itself is part of this tradition and owes a great deal to the scholars whose work his builds upon. Medlin argues that the musical itself is part of a larger conversation that often gets obscured because of a few very prominent contributions. This reminds us that these canonical pieces often are a portrayal of the political climate, author’s preferences, and cultural milieu, that is often better understood in hindsight. Larissa Knopp’s “Ladies Don’t Wear Red: Gender, Class, and Fashion in Hamilton” connects the costumes on stage to the fashion in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. While acknowledging that historical accuracy is not always the goal of musicals, due to the constraints of performing on stage, the blend that Hamilton strikes between the historical dress and necessities of the costume design provides an interesting entry point for analysis in this chapter. The character traits, gender, class, and status all play a role in the sartorial choices for the characters in the musical. This connection between the archives and the stage is further explored in the final chapter of this section. “Reclaiming the Narrative: Hamilton as a Repertory Archive” by Kaitlin Tonti investigates the absence of women in archival records and the efforts made by historians to flesh out the experiences of women during this period. Tonti describes how women have often been the preservers of historical records while remaining curiously absent from these archives that they helped assemble. Although acknowledging the dearth of women’s voices in archival records, she notes the opportunities that are present. These include collections that house papers of women like “The Schuyler Sisters,” and how the interest in all things Hamilton has led to more individuals seeking out the

xviii

Introduction

primary sources for their own consumption. Furthermore, she uncovers how the popularity of women like “Angelica, Eliza, and Peggy” has expanded to more women in early American history. Several historical institutions, like the Gilder Lehrman Institute, has harnessed such recognition in their most recent public programs. Tonti notes that while such endeavors are laudable, these privileged experiences should not represent the lives of all women during this period. Indeed, she argues that the musical itself has become a “repertory archive” due to the sheer cultural force and the position it inhabits. These chapters represent a few of the opportunities present from coupling research in the Colonial, Revolutionary, and Early National period with Hamilton. With interest in this period still high and conversations around race, slavery, Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution still incredibly relevant, more research will indeed continue to unravel, challenge and build upon the themes present in Hamilton. Some of these emerging scholars might be sitting in college and university classrooms, taking courses that focus on this period and using Hamilton as a departure or focal point in the course. Whereas Ivy’s chapter in the first section introduced pedagogical themes, the final three chapters, in “What is a Legacy”, present interesting ways in which Hamilton has inspired teaching, the creation of courses, and the restructuring of existing courses. Shira Lurie’s detailing of her first-year seminar in “Who Tells Which Story? Teaching Hamilton, History, and Memory” lays the foundation for this section. Rather than using Hamilton as a starting point, like many others, including the Gilder Lehrman Institute, have done, Lurie instead focuses on historical representation and memory. Like Goldmann and Medlin, Lurie’s contribution invites readers to question how we remember the past as she challenges her students to view history not as written in stone and unchangeable, but as something that can be contested, questioned, and reinterpreted. Initially shocked to sacrilege Hamilton, these students slowly grew more comfortable with the notion of examining the themes in this musical with a more analytical gaze. Like patriotism itself, they learn that one can love something and still find fault with it and desire for circumstances to be different. Furthermore, these students are encouraged to think critically about the creation of national myths and engage in themes that emerge in the musical. These include the topics of “Founders Chic”, race, gender, slavery, and contemporary history. Lurie’s students leave this class with a more nuanced view of this transitional period through these interrogations. Such engagements allow these burgeoning scholars to feel more confident in their skills as historians and to question other strongly-held beliefs. This approach in the classroom allows students of history to participate in a first-year seminar that introduces them to historical themes that will provide a

Introduction

xix

foundation for future courses. Whereas Lurie’s approach focuses on historical memory and myth-making, the next method employs a collaborative technique for first-year literature students. “‘In the [class]room where it happens’: Hamilton Rewrites the American Literature Course” brings together two scholars from the University of Puget Sound who created an introductory course on Early American Literature. Katherine L. Curtis and Alison Tracy Hale’s joint efforts resulted in an innovative course that allows these sophomores at this liberal arts college to be seduced into eighteenth-century texts through their interest in Hamilton. Designing this course around the life of Alexander Hamilton, they structure the texts through familiar works like Chernow’s biography and include primary sources. Some of these are more well-known through the musical, like the “Reynolds Pamphlet,” others are mentioned in passing on the stage, such as the Federalist Papers. By viewing the facsimiles of the documents, rather than transcriptions, students begin to flirt with historical research. The assignments challenge students to engage critically while getting creative as well. Following this baptism into texts corresponding with the musical, students feel confident in the course conclusion with engaging with more contemporary criticisms. These innovative courses demonstrate how scholars are applying distinctive approaches, and students are presented with challenges that transcend the disciplines in which they are studying. Students leave with skills that will benefit them in a variety of majors and future careers. These examples show how the liberal arts are evolving and inspiring students to question beloved beliefs and equip students with tools that will render them more civically engaged and informed. Julie Richter challenges us to step into many of the extant spaces that Hamilton traversed. Many of the popular locations showcased in the musical are still accessible to the general public, and Richter invites the reader to both visit and critically examine these places through the lens of a traveler and historian. Although not always faithful to the original eighteenth-century structures, Richter unfolds sites that will be familiar to those who are acquainted with the musical. This allows avid fans, scholars, and interested enthusiasts to engage with eighteenth-century architecture, material culture, and historical sites. This engagement encourages an intersection of historical inquiry and pop culture. The epilogue examines the relationship between the Walt Disney Company and the acquisition of the streaming rights for Hamilton on Disney+. While at first the musical might seem at odds with the other streaming opportunities on this family-friendly application, however, the history of Walt Disney and his affection for certain portrayals of early American history reveals this to be a

Introduction

xx

choice that is not out of character for Disney. Particularly in a year with scant new material due to production halts surrounding COVID-19, this procurement added fresh material and a patriotic offering for quarantined streamers. These chapters demonstrate the diverse responses that Hamilton has inspired in the half decade since its debut. With a renewed public interest in eighteenth-century American history, these scholars have built upon both the success and the inquiry that this popular historically-based, yet not entirely historically-accurate stage production has encouraged. The future of stage productions and the aftermath of the criticisms that have emerged surrounding Hamilton are still in flux, however, the opportunities for engagement with early American history remain fresh and relevant as ever. Bibliography “Artist Titus Kaphar Is Creating a New Artistic Canon; Through Work That Confronts History and Illuminates the Black Experience, Kaphar Is Breaking the Mold for Art Nonprofits at His Organization, NXTHVN,” in The Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition. New York, N.Y: Dow Jones & Company Inc, 2020. Bahr, Sarah. “Amanda Gorman Alludes to ‘Hamilton’ in Inauguration Day Poem.” January 20, 2021, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/ 01/20/us/amanda-gorman-hamilton-inauguration-poem.html. Despland-Lichtert, Noémie. “A look at how Hamilton’s tourist-flocking Grange house was moved,” September 18, 2017, https://archinect.com/news/a rticle/150029055/a-look-at-how-hamilton-s-tourist-flocking-grange-housewas-moved. Evelyn, Kenya. “Historians rail against Trump administration’s 1776 Commission.” January 22, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/22/1776commission-report-trump-administration-historians. Geier, Thom. “All the Broadway Shows Killed (and Postponed) Due to Coronavirus Shutdown.” January 7, 2021, https://www.thewrap.com/broad way-shows-close-early-coronavirus-shutdown-hangmen-virginia-woolf. Gordon-Reed, Annette. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton Mixtapes. 2016. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc. Reed, Tiana. “Artist Titus Kaphar Is Creating a New Artistic Canon; Through Work That Confronts History and Illuminates the Black Experience, Kaphar Is Breaking the Mold for Art Nonprofits at His Organization, NXTHVN,” in The Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition. New York, N.Y: Dow Jones & Company Inc, 2020. Romano, Renee Christine and Claire Bond Potter. Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Serfilippi, Jessie. ‘“As Odious and Immoral a Thing:’ Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, 2020,

Introduction

xxi

https://parks.ny.gov/documents/historicsites/SchuylerMansionAlexanderH amiltonsHiddenHistoryasanEnslaver.pdf. Tucker, Lisa A. Hamilton and the Law: Reading Today's Most Contentious Legal Issues Through the Hit Musical. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2020. Valentine, Victoria L. “National Portrait Gallery: Titus Kaphar and Ken Gonzales-Day Explore ‘UnSeen’ Narratives in Historic Portraiture,” March 28, 2018, https://www.culturetype.com/2018/03/28/titus-kaphar-and-kengonzales-day-explore-unseen-narratives-in-historic-portraiture-in-new-nat ional-portrait-gallery-exhibition. Wilkerson, Isabel Caste: The Origins of our Discontents. New York: Random House, 2020.

Part One: Strike the Set

Chapter 1

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton Kade Ivy University of Notre Dame1

Hamilton has been called “revolutionary theater,” and, as the title and contents of this volume suggest, has prompted an ongoing phenomenon of interest among the public and, increasingly, scholars across multiple disciplines.2 This description of the musical suggests two meanings that, I think, are both generally true: (1) that Hamilton takes as its subject the people and events of the American Revolution as well as (2) that Hamilton, as a piece of theater, represents a shift of some sort in the making and existence of theater. The former meaning seems self-evident upon a surface reading of the musical, and the extent of the latter meaning has been explored by scholars in terms of, among other things, the play’s treatment of history, its integration of hip-hop culture and vernacular with the conventions of traditional musical

1

I thank Sandra Gustafson, Jason Shaffer, and the brilliant students in my course, ‘The Stage Where It Happens: Dramatizing the American Revolution from the Propaganda Plays to Hamilton,’ for their helpfulness and astute insights at different points as I have identified and explored this archive. 2 Early on in the Hamilton phenomenon’s cultural life, the historian Joanne B. Freeman, one of the musical’s earliest academic champions, called the musical “clearly revolutionary theater.” She goes on to note that “in its form and style, the play is so different” (Bess Connolly, “In conversation: Joanne Freeman on Alexander Hamilton the man and ‘Hamilton’ the musical,” Yale News, August 11, 2016, http://news.yale.edu/ 2016/08/11/conversation-joanne-freeman-alexander-hamilton-man-and-hamiltonmusical). For a collection of other scholarly responses to the musical, see a special forum on Hamilton in Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2 (Summer 2017); and Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, eds., Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America’s Past (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018).

4

Chapter 1

theater, and its deliberately multiracial casting choices.3 Generally missing from these conversations, though, is the perspective that literary criticism may offer regarding Hamilton’s relationship to the dramatic adaptations of American Revolutionary history and figures that treaded the boards before it. Recent scholarship from historians has certainly explored Hamilton’s place in the larger cultural milieu surrounding a renewed public interest in the American Revolution. Andrew M. Schocket, for example, has argued that the musical fits what he calls a “common mold” of cultural productions such as films and television series, especially those since 2000, that treat the American Revolution in similar fashions, referring to the phenomenon as “American Revolution rebooted.”4 Similarly, Kenneth Owen has argued that Hamilton “represents the apotheosis of Founders Chic,” a term many scholars have used to describe the popular phenomenon of adapting the figures and events of the American founding into neat, digestible characters and stories that, as Owen goes on to say of Hamilton, “work against developing a complex, nuanced understanding of the American founding.”5 These observations and

3 On the play’s treatment of history, see, for example, Benjamin L. Carp, “World Wide Enough: Historiography, Imagination, and Stagecraft,” Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 289-94; Joanne B. Freeman, “‘Can we Get Back to Politics? Please?’: Hamilton’s Missing Politics in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 42-57; Nancy Isenberg, “‘Make ‘em Laugh’: Why History Cannot Be Reduced to Song and Dance,” Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2, (Summer 2017): 295-303; and Heather S. Nathans, “Crooked Histories: Re-presenting Race, Slavery, and Alexander Hamilton Onstage,” Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 271-78. On the show’s blending of hip-hop with traditional musical theater, see Brian Eugenio Herrera, “Looking at Hamilton from Inside the Broadway Bubble,” in Historians on Hamilton, 222-48; and Loren Kajikawa, “‘Young, Scrappy, and Hungry’: Hamilton, Hip Hop, and Race,” American Music 36, no. 4 (Winter 2018): 467-86. On multiracial casting, see Patricia Herrera, “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 260-76; and Lyra D. Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 58-70. 4 Andrew M. Schocket, “Hamilton and the American Revolution on Stage and Screen,” in Historians on Hamilton, 170-72. See also Andrew M. Schocket, Fighting Over the Founders: How We Remember the American Revolution (New York: New York University Press, 2015). 5 Kenneth Owen, “Historians and Hamilton: Founders Chic and the Cult of Personality,” The Junto: A Group Blog on Early American History, last modified April 21, 2016, https://earlyamericanists.com/2016/04/21/historians-and-hamilton-founders-chicand-the-cult-of-personality. Elsewhere, Owen has said that Hamilton “transmogrifie[s]” this Founders Chic tendency “into something suitably progressive” (Owen, “Can Great Art Also Be Great History?,” The Independent Review 21, no. 4 [Spring 2017], 512). For more on Hamilton and Founders Chic, see David Waldstreicher and Jeffrey L. Palsey,

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

5

criticisms certainly hold weight. In some respects, this mega-popular, commercial Broadway musical belongs in the same category of Revolutionrelated entertainment into which Schocket places the Mel Gibson film The Patriot (2000) or the children’s television series Liberty’s Kids (2002-04).6 I would argue that folding Hamilton into such a big-tent category obscures its place in a literary tradition to which it is tied much more closely: plays that have dramatized the events and figures of the American Revolution. Indeed, even before Lexington and Concord, Americans have turned to drama to explore how the Revolution could be, how it was, and, as Hamilton seeks to show us, how more perfect it could have been. Unlike film or television, theater as a form necessarily traffics in immediacy, with both play and audience aware of the present. And if we are aware of the present when at the theater, then it follows that we must be aware of the past. This phenomenon has led performance theorists such as Marvin Carlson to argue that stage productions always recycle certain elements and that the theater is indeed “ghosted” by our memories.7 If Carlson is correct in this assessment (and I believe he is), then it follows that theater invites us to question our individual and collective folklore and memories vis-á-vis the American Revolution. Thus, it seems to me that if we want to examine cultural productions that interrogate rather than confirm our conceptions about the American Revolution’s pasts, presents, and futures, then one of the most fruitful archives to explore would be that of the dramatic texts that treat the Revolution in various ways. Hamilton is certainly an important piece of this archive, and it is by far the most commercially successful. However, several other theatrical pieces, whose premieres range from the eighteenth century to the present, also dramatize the people and events of the Revolution. In fact, these plays explore themes and display formal conventions that are not dissimilar to those in Hamilton, yet these pieces remain largely absent from critical conversations about the musical.8 In this chapter, I employ Hamilton as a

“Hamilton as Founders Chic: A Neo-Federalist, Antislavery, Usable Past?” in Historians on Hamilton, 137–66. 6 Schocket, “Revolution on Stage and Screen,” 170. 7 Marvin Carlson, The Haunted Stage: The Theatre as Memory Machine (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 6. 8 Exceptions to this trend in scholarship include, not surprisingly, work by scholars who specialize in early American theater. Jason Shaffer, for example, has put Hamilton in conversation with the musicals 1776 (1969) and Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson (2010), arguing that musical theater in particular “has a bottomless appetite” for adapting history (“A Million Things We Haven’t Sung: American History and the American Musical” [lecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, October 31, 2017]). Heather S.

Chapter 1

6

guide through some examples from this archive of dramatic texts. Many of these plays were part of the syllabus for an undergraduate literature class I recently designed and taught that placed the plays, primarily from the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, in conversation with Hamilton. Though this chapter does not focus as much on pedagogy as the pieces in section three of this volume, I hope to demonstrate here, just as I sought to do in my course, that Hamilton makes similar moves in form and content to these other plays and that these plays represent a larger tradition in which we may place Hamilton. I am not arguing that Hamilton represents a perfect theatrical culmination of what came before it. Nor am I arguing for a string of influence that these plays have on Hamilton; I cannot, for example, produce evidence that LinManuel Miranda read Revolution-era propaganda plays on the same vacation during which he, in a now-famous story in Hamilton lore, picked up Ron Chernow’s biography. Rather, I want to argue that Hamilton provides both scholars and, in my experience, undergraduate students, with an inroad for engaging with this larger archive of American dramatic literature. This archive offers a different, slightly narrower classification than that of Founders Chic or American Revolution rebooted, one that prioritizes Hamilton as drama and invites us to consider how the genre has uniquely treated the American Revolution. This archive, in turn, may also help us to better understand Hamilton as Revolutionary drama, as one theatrical piece that tells one part of the nuanced story of America’s founding. The Eighteenth Century: Propaganda and Ambiguity One of the earliest examples of drama concerning the American Revolution was actually published before the first shots of the war were fired. Mercy Otis Warren, a member of the Boston elite who corresponded with other prominent early American figures such as Abigail Adams and would go on to write one of the first histories of the Revolution, anonymously published

Nathans has examined Miranda’s Hamilton vis-à-vis nineteenth-century plays that also feature Alexander Hamilton as a character, including Jon H. Nichols’s The Essex Junto (1802) and George Henry Calvert’s Arnold and André (1864) (“Crooked Histories,” 272, 275). Employing a broader scope than Shaffer’s or Nathans’s archives, musicologist Elissa Harbert has considered Hamilton alongside other musicals that have adapted history, American and otherwise, arguing for musicals’ ability to explore the past while also commenting on the present (“Hamilton and History Musicals,” American Music 36, no. 4 [Winter 2018], 414). On the publication history of the play, see Richards, “Print, Manuscript, and Staged Performance,” 79–81.

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

7

several pieces of dramatic propaganda that stoked the flames of the movement. The first of these, The Adulateur, appeared in two sketches in The Massachusetts Spy in 1772. It was published with new material (not written by Warren and by most counts written without her knowledge or permission) as a more complete pamphlet play in 1773.9 The play transposes the concerns of colonial Massachusetts to a fictitious place she calls “Upper Servia” and publishes the play with an epigraph from Joseph Addison’s Cato (1713), which, as Jason Shaffer has noted, became a significant text of common interest to the Patriot cause in Revolutionary America.10 Perhaps using Cato as a model and as a reference to bring readers into the world of the play, The Adulateur dramatizes a fight against tyranny in the hopes that it will help spur a Revolution among the colonists reading her play. Both in Warren’s newspaper sketches and in the published pamphlet, the primary tyrant is Rapatio, the title figure and a representation of the Massachusetts colonial governor Thomas Hutchinson. This ruthless, yet often outrageous, character embodies and satirizes the tyranny and abandonment of first principles enacted on the American colonies by Hutchinson and, by extension, the British crown. Rapatio is quite often over-the-top in his passion and declarations. He states at one point, for example, his desires to “quench the generous flame, the ardent love / Of liberty in Servia’a free born sons.” As pangs of guilt begin to light upon him, he states that he has “long bid adieu” to the “phantom

9 Warren’s

unknown collaborator incorporated her original newspaper sketches into the later parts of the pamphlet version, which has been read as a response to the Boston Massacre. As Jeffrey H. Richards has noted, Warren was unhappy with the pamphlet version, calling it a “Plagiary” (Quoted in Richards, “Print, Manuscript, and Staged Performance,” in Cultural Narratives: Textuality and Performance in American Culture before 1900, eds. Sandra M. Gustafson and Caroline F. Sloat (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011, 81) and revising it in manuscript as two speeches and contextualizing notes for her family in the 1790s (81). For an analysis of the play in the context of its place in the newspaper The Massachusetts Spy, see Sandra J. Sarkela, “Freedom’s Call: The Persuasive Power of Mercy Otis Warren’s Dramatic Sketches, 17721775,” Early American Literature 44, no. 3 (2009), 541-52; as well as Jason Shaffer, “Making ‘an Excellent Die’: Death, Mourning, and Patriotism in the Propaganda Plays of the American Revolution,” Early American Literature 41, no. 1 (2006), 6-9. I cite from the pamphlet version of the play, The Adulateur: A Tragedy ([Mercy Otis Warren, et al.], Boston: n.p., 1773). America’s Historical Imprints. 10 Jason Shaffer, Performing Patriotism: National Identity in the Colonial and Revolutionary American Theater (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 53. See 30–65 for an exploration of Cato’s larger influence.

8

Chapter 1

conscience.”11 This image is, of course, outrageously twisted yet perhaps darkly comic in its striking metaphor of quenching liberty’s flame and personification of the conscience as a sort of ghost. This brand of comedy calls to mind one of King George III’s final lines in his catchy Hamilton song, “You’ll Be Back”: “Cuz when push comes to shove / I will kill your friends and family to / remind you of my love.”12 The King’s line gets a laugh for its morbidity and for its images of violence being comically out of place in an upbeat, 1960s-style pop song. But the lyric also serves to establish George as a ruthless villain out of touch with reality and threatening to destroy the colonies he claims to love, not unlike the effects of Rapatio’s lines in The Adulateur. These two villains are entertaining, yet they also pose threats to virtue and liberty. The two main heroes of the drama are Brutus and Cassius, which call to mind the historical figures (and eventual Shakespeare characters) who lead the conspiracy against Julius Caesar.13 These men honorably resist Rapatio’s tyranny and tie their actions to their personal senses of patriotic virtue. They see their fight as one in a genealogy of conflicts for the sake of freedom that they must continue for future generations, looking both backwards and forwards for inspiration. By harnessing the power of biting satire to criticize leaders and by dramatizing its heroes’ noble fight for freedom and quest for legacy, the play invites readers to imagine and, we may infer, encourages them to support the impending Revolutionary conflict. In the play’s first scene, added by the unknown pamphlet dramatist, Brutus comments that Rapatio and his representatives “tread down our choicest rights.”14 Rapatio has killed what Brutus calls a once “glorious harvest” of freedom and left “the sullen ghost of bondage” ,” which “shades the affrighted land” in the harvest’s place.15 These patriots must now retaliate to not only regain their rights but to also maintain their own honor, which they tie up in

et al.], The Adulateur, 26. Rapatio’s lines here are extrapolated from Warren’s first sketch entitled “The Adulateur.” See [Warren], “The Adulateur.” Massachusetts Spy (Boston, MA) II, no. 56, March 26, 1772: 15. America’s Historical Newspapers. 12 Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, Hamilton: The Revolution (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016), 57. 13 As Richards notes, Brutus was also the name Warren used for her brother, James Otis, Jr. Brutus does not appear in either of Warren’s original sketches, so we should assume they were added by the collaborator. As Richards also notes, later in her life, Warren added a speech for a character named Brutus in a new manuscript form of the drama (Richards, “Print, Manuscript, and Performance, 81). 14 [Warren, et al.], The Adulateur, 5. 15 Ibid., 5. 11 [Warren,

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

9

the legacies of their brave ancestors, whose “illustrious shades…hover o’er this country; / And watch like guardian angels o’er its rights.”16 This material struggle, then, is also a supernatural one, between the ghosts of freedom’s death left in Rapatio’s wake and the Patriots’ ancestral angels. Brutus and Cassius must continue the noble line of freedom’s defense begun by these ancestors who “spilt” their “precious blood…To gain for us the happiest boon of heaven.”17 The contemporary Patriots, in turn, recognize that their current moment may solidify their own legacies, and they want future believers and partakers in liberty to look to them just as they presently look to their ancestors. As the first scene ends, Brutus implores the “power supreme” to “teach us to act with firmness and with zeal” so that “from our fate shall future ages know, / Virtue and freedom as thy [the power supreme’s] care below.”18 Freedom, Brutus seems to assume, is the gods’ preferred order of things. Brutus and his friends must be firm and zealous—two traits clearly tied to republican virtue—not only to defeat Rapatio but also to act as a model for future generations. The Servians’ commitments to honor and to developing their legacies mirror Hamilton’s quest throughout Miranda’s musical. Brutus’s speech on “future ages” calls to mind Hamilton’s final soliloquy, in which he wonders, “What is a legacy?” He answers, “It’s planting seeds in a garden you never get to see.” Hamilton goes on to call America a “great unfinished symphony” for which he “wrote some notes at the beginning,” but a song which ultimately “someone [else] will sing for me.”19 Facing death, Hamilton contemplates what he is leaving behind in his public life, acknowledging that what he has helped to begin will be perpetuated by others who come behind him, just as Brutus and Cassius hope for their cause in The Adulateur. As the musical shows, though, the concept of legacy is more complex for Hamilton than it is for Brutus. Brutus feels a spiritual, ancestral kinship with the Servians who came before him and defended liberty on the same soil on which he stands. Miranda’s Hamilton, on the other hand, is painfully aware that he is starting and honing a personal legacy of his own alongside that of the new nation. As an immigrant, Hamilton cannot claim the relationship to the land of North America that Brutus can claim to that of Servia, nor can he claim any related ancestral privileges. As Hamilton angrily tells Washington after the Lee-Laurens duel, “Well, I don’t have your name. / I don’t have your titles. / I don’t have your

16 Ibid.,

6-7. 8. 18 Ibid., 8. 19 Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 273. 17 Ibid.,

Chapter 1

10

land.” However, were Hamilton to get the chance to command his own battalion, he goes on, he “could fly above my station after the war.”20 Hamilton, in other words, cannot rely on his name for success, nor even look to an American legacy that he may model and continue. Rather, he must plant the seeds of his own legacy based on his own talents, creating and taking his shot. The highs and lows of Hamilton’s pursuit of a legacy is, of course, a recurring theme throughout the musical, and when we look to The Adulateur, we can see that continuing and creating a legacy also occupied imaginations in Revolutionary America. The play calls its readers to both literal and imaginative arms in the defense of virtue and liberty against immoral tyrants. The play’s fictitious setting establishes virtue and liberty as universal in its argumentation, principles stretching across time, place, and peoples, even if America does not yet have the political history of the fictional Servia. Nobly taking up arms not only honors the American patriots’ spiritual ancestors, but it also establishes and secures that liberty—and, just as importantly, the noble examples of patriots past and present—for future generations, just as Miranda’s characters seek to do. The closet drama certainly stoked the flames of the Revolution, and Warren and her collaborator were far from alone. In addition to Warren’s other propaganda plays, authors such as Hugh Henry Brackenridge, best known for the satirical novel Modern Chivalry (1792), also tried their hand at political drama. Brackenridge dramatized the first major battle of the Revolution with his The Battle of Bunkers-Hill (1776) and explored the failed siege of Quebec in The Death of General Montgomery (1777). Brackenridge wrote both pieces for his students to practice oratory, but both plays were also published in Philadelphia.21 After the war and as a professional theater scene began to develop in the metropolitan areas of the new nation, playwrights began to remember the Revolution on stage in front of paying audiences. Audience reactions to such productions could be mixed, as we can see from one of the better-known productions of this sort, William Dunlap’s André. This tragedy, first staged at New York City’s Park Theatre on March 30, 1798, is a largely fictionalized treatment of the events leading up to the 1780 hanging of Major John André, the British officer much-admired on both sides of the Revolutionary War conflict. The historical André was captured behind Patriot lines as he transported the deserter Benedict Arnold’s instructions showing the British how to capture West Point. The play imagines the struggle and inner

20 Ibid., 21 For

104. more on Brackenridge’s two plays, see Shaffer, Performing Patriotism, 152–65.

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

11

conflict that George Washington—referred to only as “The General” in the play—may have experienced as he ordered André to be hanged according to military procedure. As a text, the play is rich, nuanced, and is one of the first post-Revolution plays that poses questions about possible shortcomings and failures of the Revolution, questions that Hamilton also asks. In one of the most noteworthy scenes in André, occurring at the top of the play’s third act, the purely fictional Colonel Bland, a Patriot officer and former British prisoner of war whose release André had negotiated, pleads with the General to spare André’s life. Bland implores, “To pardon him would not encourage ill. / His case is singular, his station high, / His qualities admired, his virtues loved.” The General concedes that he “know[s] the virtues of this man and love[s] them, / But the destiny of millions, millions / Yet unborn, depends upon the rigour / Of this moment.”22 André, Washington seems to acknowledge, is an honorable man.23 But the military court has condemned him, and the current tide of the war requires his execution, Washington reasons, if for no other reason but to make an example out of him: “The haughty Briton laughs / To scorn our armies and our councils. Mercy / Humanity calls loudly that we make our now-despised power be felt, vindictive.” As he declares earlier in this dialogue, “By the laws of war we will abide.”24 Honor and duty are in conflict, and Dunlap’s Washington regretfully chooses the latter because he, just like Miranda’s Washington, knows that posterity will judge every move he makes. He loves honor, but his position requires the fulfilment of duty. The General’s regretful resoluteness shatters, and then infuriates Bland, who wonders if he any longer even wants to fight for “the country that forgets to reverence virtue” (317), ultimately concluding to “serve not, / Scorn to serve” the Patriot cause. Bland then declares, “Thus from my helm / I tear what once I proudly thought the badge / Of virtuous fellowship,” before tearing the Continental Army’s cockade from his helmet and storming away from the General. Left solo onstage, the General calls Bland a “rash, headstrong, maddening boy” and states that, under normal circumstances, “Duty would ask that thou should’st rue thy folly.” Given that the outburst was in defense of

Dunlap, André (1798), in Early American Drama, ed. Jeffrey H. Richards (New York: Penguin, 1997), 86. 23 Jeffrey H. Richards has tied the interest in André’s honor to notions of masculinity and explored Bland’s love for André. See Jeffrey H. Richards, Drama, Theatre, and Identity in the American New Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 124–40. 24 Dunlap, André, 86–87. 22 William

12

Chapter 1

André, though, Washington declares that the deed will be “forgotten.”25 While he cannot abandon duty to save André, it appears that the General can let Bland’s mild insubordination slide, perhaps a primary difference being that Bland’s outburst was a slight against only Washington, while André’s transgressions affect the integrity of the entire war effort. Like André, Hamilton also imagines conflicts between Washington and his subordinates, perhaps most memorably between Washington and Hamilton in “Meet Me Inside,” which I have briefly mentioned previously. Unlike Dunlap’s stoic, duty-bound General, Miranda’s Washington is written to be as passionate and intense as his fellow characters, a deliberate choice to highlight Washington’s humanity and diverse struggles.26 As Washington tries to get familiar with Hamilton by calling him “Son,” Hamilton resists, telling him he’s “notcha son.” Washington replies by telling Hamilton to “watch your tone.”27 Hamilton does nothing of the sort, insisting on being given a command, which Washington resists because he, unlike Hamilton, knows Eliza is pregnant. Washington continues, “Your wife needs you alive, son, I need you alive—,” to which Hamilton bursts out, “Call me son one more time—.” This line, of course, constitutes a threat of physical violence against Washington, and the following stage direction advises that “Hamilton freezes, aware of the line he has crossed.” Rather than doling out a punishment, Washington simply tells him to, “Go home, Alexander. That’s an order from your commander.” When Hamilton challenges once again, Washington repeats, “Go home,” as the scene ends and transitions to Eliza revealing her pregnancy to Hamilton.28 Just as with Bland, Miranda’s Washington does not formally punish Hamilton, instead ordering him to leave the battlefield to visit his wife; indeed, Washington will call him back to the war front just two songs later in “Guns and Ships.” This scene, not unlike the one in André, reveals a Washington that is the dignified historical figure yet also a human with similar struggles and concerns to his subordinates. Both Washingtons are generous toward their troops and recognize that leadership almost always must be by the book but that discernment and human connection must also play a part, whether these traits manifest in forgiving the passions of an officer about to

25 Ibid.,

86-87. Miranda did not want his Washington to seem like “a bloodless superman.” Thus, in his first appearance, he is “scrambling to stave off defeat, not coasting to glory” (Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 58). 27 Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 104. 28 Ibid., 105, 110; italics in the original. 26

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

13

see his friend executed, or in being patiently paternal toward an ambitious, talented aide-de-camp too eager to make a name for himself. Furthermore, the production histories of both André and Hamilton demonstrate the potential for Revolutionary theater to affect its audiences beyond the playhouse. While patently fictional, the argument between Bland and the General in Dunlap’s play stages the popular emotions surrounding the historical execution of Major André. We have little primary evidence of Washington’s feelings toward André beyond the fact that he ordered the execution only after the recommendation of the military court and, even then, offered to exchange André to the British for Arnold. But we do know that the historical Alexander Hamilton, for example, wrote to John Laurens that while the military “could not but condemn him,” “never perhaps did any man suffer death with more justice, or deserve it less” than André, who died “universally esteemed, and universally regretted.”29 Hamilton’s sentiment certainly extended to the opening night audience of Dunlap’s tragedy. According to Dunlap’s writing in the published play’s preface, Bland’s passionate onstage outburst, particularly his throwing down the cockade, offended “the veterans of the American army who were present on the first night.”30 Dunlap encourages this group, however, to “remember the diversity of opinion which agitated the minds of men at that time on the question of the propriety of putting André to death.”31 For the play’s initial audience, though, Bland’s vivid removal of the cockade from his helmet represented more than “diversity of opinion.” Instead, according to another of Dunlap’s accounts, audiences interpreted the scene itself as almost treasonous, or at least hostile to the spirit of the revolutionary cause. As Dunlap relates in his History of the American Theatre, the performance was “received with warm applause” until Bland’s removal of the cockade. The audience then, Dunlap relates, turned on the play and “thought the country and its defenders insulted, and a hiss ensued.” Though the uproar was soon dissipated—by means which Dunlap does not relate—what the playwright identifies as “the feeling excited by the incident was propagated out of doors.” This propagation prompted Dunlap to alter the play for its final two performances by adding a scene in which Bland expresses remorse for removing the cockade and is allowed to reattach it after learning of

29

“From Alexander Hamilton to Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, [11 October 1780],” Hamilton Papers, National Archives: Founders Online, accessed January 31, 2021, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-0896. 30 Dunlap, André, 64. 31 Ibid., 65.

14

Chapter 1

Washington’s mercy towards him.32 Dunlap learned the hard way that the wounds of war do not heal easily, nor does objectivity after victory come quickly. The important questions about the Revolution that Dunlap poses in André—What constitutes treason? Is it ever pardonable? What are the limits of patriotic duty? Which moral principle should be regarded more highly: justice, or virtue?—will have to be answered onstage by another play. Whether that other play is Hamilton also remains an open question. Though Miranda’s musical has, to my knowledge, never been significantly altered in content to appease dissenters, the actions of its cast onstage after one particular performance has been met with various reactions. I am referring, of course, to the November 18, 2016, Broadway performance of Hamilton, attended by then-Vice President Elect of the United States, Mike Pence. After what was by most counts a typical performance, Brandon Victor Dixon, then playing Aaron Burr, delivered a prepared statement at the curtain call, thanking the Vice President-Elect for attending the show and stating that the company was “alarmed and anxious” that the incoming Trump administration would not “defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.” Pence, who had already made his way toward the exit, stopped to listen and then left the theater with a smile on his face.33 When asked about the incident two days later, Pence demurred, praising the production and its cast and saying he took no offense to their message.34 Pence’s boss, on the other hand, was not so conciliatory. On the morning after the performance, then-President Elect Trump tweeted that the cast had “harassed” Pence at the “safe and special place” of the theater, and that they should “Apologize!”35 Over the ensuing weekend, Trump sent and deleted a few more tweets about the incident, calling Hamilton “overrated.” In another tweet, he singled out Dixon, calling him “very rude and insulting” for his

A History of the American Theatre from Its Beginnings to 1832 [1832], ed. Tice L. Miller (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 226. 33 Christopher Meale and Patrick Healy, “‘Hamilton’ Had Some Unscripted Lines for Pence. Trump Wasn’t Happy,” New York Times, November 19, 2016, https://www.nytim es.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html. 34 Eric Bradner, “Pence: ‘I wasn’t offended’ by message of ‘Hamilton’ cast,” CNN, November 20, 2016, https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/20/politics/mike-pence-hamiltonmessage-trump/index.html. 35 Meale and Healy, “Trump Wasn’t Happy.” 32 Dunlap,

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

15

“lecture” and baselessly claiming that he “Couldn’t even memorize lines!”36 Thus was Hamilton brought into party politics. Scholars even joined the discussion, no doubt elevating it to a discussion of historical context, such as in Elizabeth Maddock Dillon’s op-ed demonstrating that the early American theater, like when Dunlap’s André treaded the boards, was once a place where the community came not only to see a performance but also to debate and perform issues of national importance.37 Even though they occurred more than two centuries apart, these two responses to André and Hamilton demonstrate that using the theater to interrogate history or to address contemporary politics can be a messy enterprise. The communal experience of playgoing requires a community of worldviews that may be in conflict, and the genre of drama is uniquely equipped to manage those conflicts in real time. An eighteenth-century play may be changed, a twenty-first-century musical may deliver a curtain call message directed at a specific audience member, and any number of other performances engender different responses, or indeed none at all. The Twentieth Century and Beyond: Hamilton’s More Immediate Predecessors and Contemporaries As the nineteenth century began, professional theater in the United States took a turn toward melodrama, spectacle, and entertainment, which often meant it turned away from exploring weightier themes, such as those related to remembering the Revolution. Exceptions include, as Heather S. Nathans has noted, two plays that feature Alexander Hamilton as a character: The Essex Junto (1802), a satire by Jon H. Nichols, and Arnold and André (1864), a historical drama by George Henry Calvert.38 Royall Tyler’s comedy of manners, The Contrast (1787), undoubtedly the best-known pre-1800 American play, celebrates the Revolution and its new American ideals by satirizing Americans’ continued interest in British culture at the expense of nurturing their own. A fourth theatrical endeavor was the wildly popular Rip Van Winkle, a dramatic version of Washington Irving’s short story that was adapted by 36 Christopher Rosen, “Donald Trump deletes ‘Hamilton’ tweet,” Entertainment Weekly, November 19, 2016, https://ew.com/article/2016/11/19/donald-trump-deletes-hamilto n-tweet. 37 Elizabeth Maddock Dillon, “Long Before ‘Hamilton’ Brouhaha, Theater Was Anything but Polite,” New York Times, November 22, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/ 11/22/theater/hamilton-and-history.html. For Dillon’s academic treatment of such topics in the early Atlantic world, see New World Drama: The Performative Commons and the Atlantic World, 1649-1849 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014). 38 Nathans, “Crooked Histories,” 272, 275.

16

Chapter 1

Joseph Jefferson and Dion Boucicault. This production toured America and the world throughout the nineteenth century, starring Jefferson in the title role. Irving’s original story, of course, is about a man who sleeps through the Revolution only to wake up a new American, but the play pays little attention to the changes brought about by the war. The twentieth century saw the development of the book musical, the genre that brought us what is perhaps Hamilton’s clearest and best-known predecessor, 1776, which dramatizes the proceedings of the Second Continental Congress and the eventual signing of the Declaration of Independence. With songs by Sherman Edwards and a book by Peter Stone, 1776 opened on Broadway in 1969 at the 46th Street Theatre, which would later be renamed the Richards Rodgers Theatre and eventually house the Broadway production of Hamilton. 1776’s main trio of characters includes John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson as they work to draft the Declaration and convince their fellow delegates to vote unanimously for independence. 1776 is, unsurprisingly, a much more traditional musical than Hamilton, featuring a typical score of show tunes and dramaturgically focusing on a much briefer amount of time in the leadup to one primary event, as opposed to the entire adult life of one man. Miranda, though, certainly recognizes his indebtedness to Sherman and Edwards, name and tune-checking 1776’s opening song, “Sit Down, John!,” as Hamilton writes his rebuttal to John Adams’s taunts in “The Adams Administration.”39 On a deeper level, though, Hamilton represents a shift from 1776 vis-à-vis the ways in which the Broadway musical may treat the American Revolution as history. In one of the most haunting book scenes of 1776, Adams realizes that in order to get the Southern colonies to vote for independence, the explicit references to chattel slavery must be stricken from the text of the Declaration. Adams says to South Carolina’s delegate, Edward Rutledge, “If we did that [remove references to slavery] we’d be guilty of what we ourselves are rebelling against.” When Rutledge remains obstinate, Franklin admonishes Adams to “consider what you’re doing,” to which Adams replies, “Mark me,

Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 224. Hamilton sings, “Sit down, John,” to the tune of the 1776 song before adding, “You fat mother-[BLEEP]er” (224). In a portion of the song that was cut from the musical, Hamilton sings an imagined rebuttal to Adams that features a more direct reference to 1776. In the cut section, Hamilton declares, “They were calling you a dick back in / ’seventy-six / And you haven’t done anything new since!” (224). 39

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

17

Franklin, if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.”40 Franklin offers the striking response: That’s probably true. But we won’t hear a thing, John—we’ll be long gone.” 41 The mere fact that these lines appear in a musical and were uttered eight times a week on a Broadway stage proves Franklin wrong on his first count. Though he and Adams are indeed physically “long gone,” their influence and legacies remained in the 1960s, and they remain today. What Franklin—and, by extension, 1776—argues here is essentially that legacies are real and noteworthy, but the Founders’ legacies are, or at least should be, that they were imperfect men striving toward more perfect ideals. The transcendent matters of independence and liberty will, Franklin suggests, allow for a later addressing of other issues such as slavery. Thus, even as Franklin notes posterity’s fickleness, he nevertheless projects one assessment it may offer to him and the others present. The characters in 1776 are thus articulating and arguing for the terms of their own legacies before their audiences. The characters in Hamilton agree that history is unpredictable, but, unlike the Adams and Franklin of 1776, they recognize the futility of even trying to predict how posterity will judge them. As Washington tells Hamilton before the Battle of Yorktown, “Let me tell you what I wish / I’d known / When I was young and dreamed of glory. / You have no control.” The company then joins him in singing, “Who lives, who / dies, who tells your story.”42 This refrain, and indeed this theme, are motifs throughout the musical. In a footnote to this first appearance, Miranda writes, paraphrasing Macbeth, “We strut and fret our hour upon the stage, and how that reverberates is entirely out of our control and entirely in the hands of those who survive us. It’s the fundamental truth all our characters (and all of us) share.”43 Washington repeats these lyrics verbatim at the top of the musical’s closing number, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story?,” with the company repeating the title lyrics throughout the song as Hamilton’s legacy is explored from the perspectives of various characters in the musical. Is his legacy the financial system, as Jefferson and James Madison

40 Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, 1776: A Musical Play (New York: Penguin, 1970), 135-36. 41 Ibid., 136. Franklin’s entire speech reads: “That’s probably true. But we won’t hear a thing, John—we’ll be long gone. And besides, what will posterity think we were— demigods? We’re men—no more, no less—trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. John, first things first! Independence! America! For if we don’t secure that, what difference will the rest make?” (Stone and Edwards, 136). 42 Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 120. 43 Ibid., 120n2.

18

Chapter 1

ponder? Is it his death at a relatively young age, as Angelica asks? Or is Alexander’s legacy Eliza’s, and the myriad things she does over the next five decades?44 The answer, the musical seems to suggest, is yes, and. Hamilton’s legacy is all of these things and infinitely more historical interpretations, into none of which the historical Hamilton has any input. Rather than offering an interpretation of history like the figures of 1776, the characters of Hamilton know that those interpretations are beyond their control and are reliant on various perspectives, experiences, and degrees of hindsight. For my final example, I would like to bring our attention to a play that at the time of this writing has received little attention, James Ijames’s The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington. This play has received very few major productions, among them a 2014 staging at Flashpoint Theatre in Philadelphia and a 2021 production at the Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the play was set to have a production at Chicago’s famed Steppenwolf Theatre Company in the spring of 2020, which has since been postponed.45 Set at Mount Vernon on Christmas Eve 1800, the play takes as its impetus the fact that though George Washington left the enslaved people he owned to Martha until her death, she nevertheless freed them in late 1800, two years before she died. This manumission was done quite possibly because Martha feared that the enslaved people might harm her.46 In the play, Martha is ill and has a fever dream in which she is brought face-to-face with her, her husband’s, and indeed America’s shortcomings on slavery.

44 Ibid.,

280–81. “Flashpoint Theatre to Hold ‘Miz Martha’ World Premiere,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 27, 2014, https://www.phillytrib.com/entertainment/flashpoint-theatr e-to-hold-miz-martha-world-premiere/article_dbd1efcb-a0f7-509a-96e3-78daa00f5f fd.html; Francis Marion Platt, “Hudson Valley Shakespeare Fest is back with The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington,” Hudson Valley One, July 7, 2021, https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2021/07/07/hudson-valley-shakespeare-fest-is-backwith-the-most-spectacularly-lamentable-trial-of-miz-martha-washington; Doug George, “What’s next for Chicago theater and dance? Shows with coronavirus cancellations and rescheduling,” Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2020, https://www.chicagotribune.com/co ronavirus/ct-ent-coronavirus-cancels-chicago-theater-20200313-utre75ii7rftxgpf3hdoz mczdu-story.html. 46 This postulation comes primarily from a letter that Abigail Adams wrote to Mary Cranch, stating that Martha “did not feel as tho her life was safe in their hands” (Quoted in James Ijames, The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington [New York: Dramatists Play Service, 2018], 7). 45

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

19

In past productions of the play, a white actress has played Martha Washington while all the other characters that Martha meets in her dream— including King George III, Abigail Adams, and George Washington—have been played by Black performers. In fact, the character breakdown specifies that the same actors who play the enslaved characters in the early part of the drama should play certain characters in the dream sequence. Not unlike in the original company of Hamilton, then, an actor of color plays George Washington in Miz Martha. In contrast to Hamilton’s Washington, though, the Washington of Miz Martha explicitly points out the shortcomings of America’s founding in regard to slavery. Called as a witness to Martha’s trial, George reminds her of the historical fact that almost all of the enslaved people at Mount Vernon came to him when they married. “No man real talk!,” Washington tells the judge in the dream, “Those are her slaves, son! I married into that. I mean…Martha was a pimp. She had like three hundred cats working for her for free man. Picking all that cotton…for…free. She was all like ‘Slaves betta have my cotton!’ Pimpin’ your honor.” Ijames’s Washington attempts to wash his hands of Martha’s issue and is flabbergasted when she tells him of her fear for her life. As he leaves the courtroom without offering any help, he simply tells her, “Cain’t blame me. Ain’t my fault. Free’em. Let’em go!” before adding, “What you want me to do Martha? I’m dead!”47 In contrast to Miranda’s Washington, and indeed to Dunlap’s, Ijames’s Washington is a man of inaction and blame shifting. He lays blame for Martha’s predicament at her feet and attempts to escape culpability from Martha for what she sees as his leaving her in this predicament and, by extension, from the audience of Ijames’s play for his larger role in American slavery. Indeed, Ijames posits a Washington who is largely unseen in existing narratives, one who is now answerable for all parts of his legacy. Spectacularly lamentable as it is, Martha’s dream trial does not seem to engender much of a lasting change. As she wakes up on Christmas morning, Martha calls William, the enslaved child of Martha’s own enslaved half-sister, Ann, to her bed. She tells him a story about “a granny [who] walks with her little man across a great field of golden flowers.” She says that the boy “is strong and keeps in step with her…his little brown hand clinching hers.” William pensively observes, “That’s a long way away,” to which Martha replies, “It always is.” This moment of future contemplation soon gives way to Martha’s order for William to “Go get that glass of water I asked your mother for,” referring to a request of William’s mother, Ann, that Martha had made the previous evening. After this line, the play’s final stage direction states that

47 Ijames,

Miz Martha, 56–57.

20

Chapter 1

“Martha’s face grows stony” before a “Quick blackout.”48 The story Martha tells William opens the possibility of future racial unity before she closes it with a return to the reality she perpetuates, which is laid all the barer by the fact that Martha is presently giving order to her nephew and half-sister. A more equitable future is certainly legible to Ijames’s characters, but, the play seems to suggest, this future “always is” a goal that is “a long way away.” If Hamilton celebrates America’s progress and potential, then Miz Martha Washington also notes the nation’s potential while more explicitly reminding us of its early early—and Ijames seems to imply, present—failures. I hope this essay has demonstrated a traceable archive of American plays that explore various aspects of the Revolution. Hamilton is an important part of this archive, but it is not its only artifact. It does not stand alone in theater history nor, as Eric Medlin demonstrates in this collection, in early American historiography. Each of these plays poses questions, makes revelations, and suggests new lines of imagination. Indeed, each play models a different method of memory, and each of these methods has its strengths and shortcomings. As I conclude, then, I would like to suggest that

48 Ibid., 63. In the list of dramatis personae, Ijames identifies Ann Dandridge as the “Mulatto half-sister of Martha. House slave,” an explicit reference to the historical figure of the same name. He identifies William by first-name only as a “10-12 year old boy slave. Martha’s son” (4). Though not as explicit as the one to Ann, William seems a clear analogue to William Costin, who would grow up to become a well-regarded activist for Black people’s freedom and advancement in the first half of the nineteenth century. Costin’s family claimed he was the son of Ann Dandridge, Martha Washington’s halfsister. The historical record surrounding these claims—from Martha’s having an enslaved half-sister to Costin’s relation—is inconclusive. However, as David O. Stewart has summarized, some relation between Costin and Martha Washington is “probably true.” See Stewart, “The Mount Vernon Slave Who Made Good: The Mystery of William Costin,” Journal of the American Revolution, December 22, 2020, https://allthingsli berty.com/2020/12/the-mount-vernon-slave-who-made-good-the-mystery-of-williamcostin/. Mary V. Thompson has proposed that the Costin claim “conflated the lives of two women,” making Costin Martha Washington’s great-nephew. See Thompson, “‘Several history texts suggest…’,” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.mountvernon.org/the-estate-gardens/ask/question/several-history-texts-su ggest-that-john-parke-custis-like-his-2-grandfathers-fathered-a-child-with-an-enslavedwoman-what-are-any-details-you-can-offer-about-the-day-to-day-living-conditions-ofcustis-and-ann-dandridge-costin-the-mother-of-william-costin-. Henry Wiencek, on the other hand, claims with confidence that Martha held Ann in slavery and that William Costin was the son of Ann and Jack Custis, Martha’s son. See Wieneck, “Slaves and Slavery in George Washington’s World,” Commonplace: the journal of early American life, accessed January 25, 2022, http://commonplace.online/article/slaves-and-slavery-in-george-washi ngtons-world/. Separately, Stewart states that this idea is “somewhat credible.”

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

21

literary studies may help us to introduce an additional dimension to the scholarly conversation surrounding the Hamilton phenomenon. By foregrounding Hamilton as part of a traceable body of dramatic works, we can begin to look at the musical as an imaginative, literary object instead of (only) a piece of popular history. Placing Hamilton in conversation with this literary archive shows that it is but one permutation of how theater can help us remember the infinitely complex history of the American Revolution. The Adulateur is one permutation, and 1776 is yet another. Considering this archive in such a way invites us to employ an interpretive rubric I suggested to my students when we discussed Hamilton’s historical fidelity and the current conversations surrounding it; I encouraged my students to focus on what is present in the text as opposed to what is not. In offering this advice, I meant to suggest that historical fidelity is not always the most complete rubric by which to assess works of imagination that explore historical topics. If we focus too much on historical fidelity without analyzing other aspects of a work, we may run the risk of asking too much of a text while simultaneously neglecting the aesthetic knowledge we can glean from it and shortchanging the nuanced granularity of historiography. It is demonstrably true that Hamilton gets some history wrong. Yet is worth remembering that Hamilton tells part of the Revolutionary American story, but it does not—nor does it purport to—tell the whole story. I want to posit that such a position is completely acceptable. I do not mean to absolve or shield Hamilton from any critique—even and especially critiques based in how it treats historical fact—but merely to suggest shaping that critique as an analysis of literature, a work with things at play beyond a rough presentation of (though not an exercise in) history. The musical is but one narrative, one string, one imaginative exploration that, as with any narrative, has perspectives for which it does not account. Luckily, we have this larger archive I have explored in this chapter. Miz Martha Washington offers a different perspective than Hamilton, André explores some of the oversights in Miz Martha, and, as Kerry Goldmann hopes for in this volume, perhaps many more plays will live, die, and tell (parts of) stories over the next 250 years of revolutionary theater. Bibliography Bradner, Eric. “Pence: ‘I wasn’t offended’ by message of ‘Hamilton’ cast.” CNN, November 20, 2016. https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/20/politics/mike-penc e-hamilton-message-trump/index.html. Carlson, Marvin. The Haunted Stage: The Theatre as Memory Machine. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001. Carp, Benjamin L. “World Wide Enough: Historiography, Imagination, and Stagecraft.” Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 289–94.

22

Chapter 1

Connolly, Bess. “In conversation: Joanne Freeman on Alexander Hamilton the man and ‘Hamilton’ the musical.” Yale News, August 11, 2016. http://news. yale.edu/2016/08/11/conversation-joanne-freeman-alexander-hamilton-m an-and-hamilton-musical. Dillon, Elizabeth Maddock. “Long Before ‘Hamilton’ Brouhaha, Theater Was Anything but Polite.” New York Times, November 22, 2016. https://www. nytimes.com/2016/11/22/theater/hamilton-and-history.html. Dillon, Elizabeth Maddock. New World Drama: The Performative Commons and the Atlantic World, 1649-1849. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014. Dunlap, William. A History of the American Theatre from Its Beginnings to 1832 [1832] Edited by Tice L. Miller. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2005. Dunlap, William. André (1798). In Early American Drama, edited by Jeffrey H. Richards, 58–108. New York: Penguin, 1997. “Flashpoint Theatre to Hold ‘Miz Martha’ World Premiere,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 27, 2014. https://www.phillytrib.com/entertainment/flashpo int-theatre-to-hold-miz-martha-world-premiere/article_dbd1efcb-a0f7-509 a-96e3-78daa00f5ffd.html. Freeman, Joanne B. “‘Can we Get Back to Politics? Please?’: Hamilton’s Missing Politics in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton, 42–57. George, Doug. “What’s next for Chicago theater and dance? Shows with coronavirus cancellations and rescheduling,” Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2020. https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-ent-coronavirus-ca ncels-chicago-theater-20200313-utre75ii7rftxgpf3hdozmczdu-story.html. Harbert, Elissa. “Hamilton and History Musicals.” American Music 36, no. 4 (Winter 2018): 412–28. Herrera, Brian Eugenio. “Looking at Hamilton from Inside the Broadway Bubble.” In Historians on Hamilton, 222-48. Herrera, Patricia. “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton, 58-70. Ijames, James. The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 2018. Isenberg, Nancy. “‘Make ‘em Laugh’: Why History Cannot Be Reduced to Song and Dance.” Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 295-303. Kajikawa, Loren. “‘Young, Scrappy, and Hungry’: Hamilton, Hip Hop, and Race.” American Music 36, no. 4 (Winter 2018): 467–86. Meale, Christopher, and Patrick Healy, “‘Hamilton’ Had Some Unscripted Lines for Pence. Trump Wasn’t Happy.” New York Times, November 19, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html. Monteiro, Lyra D. “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton, 58–70. Miranda, Lin-Manuel, and Jeremy McCarter. Hamilton: The Revolution. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016. Nathans, Heather S. “Crooked Histories: Re-presenting Race, Slavery, and Alexander Hamilton Onstage.” Journal of the Early Republic 37, no. 2 (Summer 2017): 271–78. National Archives: Founders Online. “From Alexander Hamilton to Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, [11 October 1780].” Hamilton Papers. Accessed

Dramatizing the American Revolution on the Way to Hamilton

23

January 31, 2021. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/0102-02-0896. Owen, Kenneth. “Can Great Art Also Be Great History?,” The Independent Review 21, no. 4 (Spring 2017): 509–17. Owen, Kenneth. “Historians and Hamilton: Founders Chic and the Cult of Personality.” The Junto: A Group Blog on Early American History. Last modified April 21, 2016. https://earlyamericanists.com/2016/04/21/histori ans-and-hamilton-founders-chic-and-the-cult-of-personality. Platt, Francis Marion. “Hudson Valley Shakespeare Fest is back with The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington.” Hudson Valley One, July 7, 2021. https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2021/07/07/hudson-valleyshakespeare-fest-is-back-with-the-most-spectacularly-lamentable-trial-ofmiz-martha-washington. Richards, Jeffrey H. Drama, Theatre, and Identity in the American New Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Richards, Jeffrey H. “Print, Manuscript, and Staged Performance: Dramatic Authorship and Text Circulation in the New Republic.” In Cultural Narratives: Textuality and Performance in American Culture before 1900, edited by Sandra M. Gustafson and Caroline F. Sloat (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011): 73–96. Romano, Renee C. and Claire Bond Potter, eds., Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America’s Past. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Rosen, Christopher. “Donald Trump deletes 'Hamilton' tweet.” Entertainment Weekly, November 19, 2016. https://ew.com/article/2016/11/19/donald-tru mp-deletes-hamilton-tweet. Sarkela, Sandra J. “Freedom’s Call: The Persuasive Power of Mercy Otis Warren’s Dramatic Sketches, 1772–1775.” Early American Literature 44, no. 3 (2009): 541–68. Schocket, Andrew M. Fighting Over the Founders: How We Remember the American Revolution. New York: New York University Press, 2015. Schocket, Andrew M. “Hamilton and the American Revolution on Stage and Screen.” In Historians on Hamilton, 167–86. Shaffer, Jason. “Making ‘an Excellent Die”: Death, Mourning, and Patriotism in the Propaganda Plays of the American Revolution.” Early American Literature 41, no. 1 (2006): 1–27. Shaffer, Jason. “A Million Things We Haven’t Sung: American History and the American Musical.” Lecture given at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, October 31, 2017. Shaffer, Jason. Performing Patriotism: National Identity in the Colonial and Revolutionary Theater. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Stewart, David O. “The Mount Vernon Slave Who Made Good: The Mystery of William Costin,” Journal of the American Revolution, December 22, 2020, https://allthingsliberty.com/2020/12/the-mount-vernon-slave-who-madegood-the-mystery-of-william-costin/. Stone, Peter, and Sherman Edwards. 1776: A Musical Play. New York: Penguin, 1970.

24

Chapter 1

Thompson, Mary V. “‘Several history texts suggest…’,” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, accessed January 25, 2022, https://www.mountvernon.org/ the-estate-gardens/ask/question/several-history-texts-suggest-that-john-p arke-custis-like-his-2-grandfathers-fathered-a-child-with-an-enslaved-wo man-what-are-any-details-you-can-offer-about-the-day-to-day-living-con ditions-of-custis-and-ann-dandridge-costin-the-mother-of-william-costin-. Waldstreicher, David, and Jeffrey L. Palsy. “Hamilton as Founders Chic: A NeoFederalist, Antislavery, Usable Past?” In Historians on Hamilton, 137–66. Warren, Mercy Otis. “The Adulateur.” Massachusetts Spy (Boston, MA) II, no. 56, March 26, 1772: 15. America’s Historical Newspapers. Warren, Mercy Otis, et al. The Adulateur: A Tragedy. Boston: n.p., 1773. Wiencek, Henry. “Slaves and Slavery in George Washington’s World,” Commonplace: the journal of early American life, accessed January 25, 2022, http://commonplace.online/article/slaves-and-slavery-in-george-washingt ons-world/.

Chapter 2

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical: Illusion and Identity in Two American Musicals Kristin Leadbetter UC San Diego

American Psycho held its final performance at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre on Broadway on June 5, 2016, after just eighty-one performances, including twenty-seven preview performances. Featuring music and lyrics by Duncan Sheik, and book by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, the musical is an adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’ 1991 novel and the 2000 film by Guinevere Turner and Mary Harron. Set in Manhattan in the 1980s during the Wall Street boom, American Psycho revolves around Patrick Bateman, a young heterosexual white male and wealthy investment banker consumed by his appearance and reliant on material signifiers, seemingly emblematic of an American era. His competitiveness with others, especially his colleagues, for recognition and affluence, along with an escalating disillusion with material wealth, spirals into violent proclivities, which may be real or imagined. The musical premiered in 2013 at London’s Almeida Theatre and enjoyed a soldout, extended run. Its New York run, despite an all-star cast directed by Rupert Goold, two Tony nominations (Lighting Design and Scenic Design), enthusiasm from fans of the cult-classic film, and several positive reviews, failed to bring in big audiences.1 There have been many productions with worse odds that have been able to keep their doors open longer, so why did American Psycho close so quickly? As one cast member suggested, “This is

1 Robert Viagas, “The Verdict: See What the Critics Thought of American Psycho on Broadway,” Playbill, April 21, 2016.

26

Chapter 2

what happens when people have only heard about and want to see one show in town.”2 There was no mystery about which one show dominated the box office. It was well known among Broadway fans that the hottest ticket in town was Hamilton: An American Musical written by, composed by, and starring LinManuel Miranda. Based on Ron Chernow’s biography of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, the production opened Off-Broadway at the Public Theater in February 2015 and quickly moved from its sold-out, Drama Desk Award-winning run to the Richard Rodgers Theatre by August. The story takes place in pre- and post-colonial New York City and centers around Alexander Hamilton, a young, heterosexual, white (historically speaking) male, the first Secretary of the Treasury, and creator of our nation’s financial system as well as the nation’s first banks. His ambition is an emblematic connection to the formation of America (“I’m just like my country/I’m young, scrappy, and hungry”) but his fierce need to distinguish himself, his all-consuming climb up the social and economic ladder often puts him in violent conflict with his peers (“Why do you assume you’re the smartest in the room?/Soon that attitude’s gonna be your doom”).3 Sound at all familiar? The similarities between American Psycho and Hamilton with regards to their respective main characters are striking and undeniable, and an even stronger familiarity when examining how both musicals strategically present to the audience their contrived American identity and ideology. When telling their stories, both shows rely heavily on illusions or deceptive appearances, but they differ in the way the illusions reveal or conceal themselves. A postmodern examination of American Psycho delves into the themes of simulation and reality, and the role materialism and consumerism play in the formation of illusory identities. In American Psycho, illusions are explicit; they call attention to themselves and invite audiences to delight in the satiric commentary, and later to question the reality of the events that have transpired and the possible delusions of the narrator. Contrastingly, Hamilton’s illusions are near imperceptible, and I would argue the show’s success is dependent on the invisibility of those illusions. This chapter uses methods of critical engagement previously applied to American Psycho to investigate Hamilton and demonstrate how these two seemingly dissimilar musicals share tactics and articulate similar messages about the illusion of American identity.

2 Anonymous,

personal conversation with cast member, June 5, 2016. Lin-Manuel Miranda, “My Shot,” Hamilton: An American Musical, Atlantic Records, 2015; Ibid., “Non-Stop.” 3

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

27

The novel and film version of American Psycho have already been subjects for critical discourse in the arts and humanities. First published in 1991, Bret Easton Ellis’ novel was surrounded by controversy and wide public attention due to its graphic descriptions of sexual and physical violence by its sociopathic protagonist. The story unfolds through Bateman’s present tense stream of consciousness, which introduces us to his lifestyle by tracking his everyday activities, such as working out, going out to dinner with his fiancé Evelyn, and going to nightclubs with his friends. Bateman’s narration includes conversations with friends and personal opinions that articulate a privileged, materialistic lifestyle in which even people are interchangeable objects. Early on, the monotonous tone is interjected by Bateman’s violent fantasies, which soon become violent actions. Bateman is revealed as a sadistic serial rapist and killer, who at first targets those he deems devoid of value, such as a homeless man and his dog or call girls he hires. One of the most prominent moments is when Bateman murders a colleague, Paul Owen (renamed Paul Allen for the film), whom he sees as competition. As an investigation into Owen/Allen’s disappearance begins, Bateman’s violent behavior becomes more frequent and reckless. The violence he enacts is described in the same regimented, elaborate detail as his daily routines. Bateman’s long, gruesome, and disturbing narrations of rape, torture, and murder, including cannibalism and necrophilia, are excruciatingly difficult to read and watch. The frenzy surrounding the novel began before it was published, when some of these horrifying passages were leaked, and the National Organization for Women (NOW) called for a boycott of the novel and its publishers.4 However, its polarizing reception was not solely based on what Ellis wrote, but how he wrote it. In an essay on post-modern literature, Elizabeth Young gives a full account of the condemnatory reviews and explains how critics vilified the work, rating it as “not literature” on the grounds it had defied genre classification and the standard criteria for analysis.5 Young argues how Ellis’ style and aesthetic gave critics the impossible task of critically analyzing it and were key elements that contributed to the novel’s dismissal. Ellis wrote American Psycho from the serial killer’s perspective - a jarring first-person narration with “deadening prose” which only “comes alive when Patrick kills someone.”6 This was drastically unlike previous horror fiction or crime novels about serial killers, which were

Eldridge, “The Generic American Psycho,” Journal of American Studies 42, no. 1 (April 2008), 20. 5 Elizabeth Young, “The Beast in the Jungle, the Figure in the Carpet,” in Shopping in Space: Essays on America’s Blank Generation Fiction (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1992), 88. 6 Eldridge, “The Generic American Psycho,” 22. 4 David

28

Chapter 2

often written from the third-person point of view and with a structured style that would build readers up to an adrenaline rush through fear.7 American Psycho’s story largely consists of Bateman’s mind-numbing opinions on fashion, grooming products, and popular music, punctuated with extreme “stomachchurning” descriptions of the violence he enacts on others.8 Yet, critics leaned on the parameters of genre classification and comparisons to mainstream literature when condemning the novel. David Eldridge, in his essay “The Generic American Psycho,” explains how the critics’ reliance on mainstream genres influenced their reviews. He suggests that Ellis deliberately and carefully crafted the narrative and its main character from the literary debris of a variety of “debased” genres, such as shock horror, splatter-punk, transgressive fiction, and art house. In other words, by crossing genres, Ellis presented a challenge for typical methods of assessment and the novel was condemned as “ineptly’ written” and “artless junk.”9 However, almost a decade later, American Psycho was transformed from artless junk into a successful “mean and lean horror comedy classic” film adaptation which sparked a renewed interest in and reconsideration of the novel.10 Its screenwriters, Harron and Turner, offered an alternative gaze from the alienating first-person narrative of the novel and in doing so refocused audiences on the satiric and allegorical world of which Bateman is both a product and manufacturer. This perspective accentuated the absurdity and “absolute banality” of late-eighties consumerism for audiences and became a guide for the musical adaptation’s approach.11 The 2016 musical matched many of the film’s aesthetic choices and further blurred the genre lines and point of views by incorporating a Greek-esque chorus who judge and reinforce consumer capitalistic values in real time. The film’s (and musical’s) approach drew on elements of dark comedy and transgressive fiction, which according to Eldridge unveils a lens through which it is easier to investigate the satirical nature of Patrick Bateman’s well-crafted outward persona. In academic circles now, the novel is considered to have been “widely misread” and that the early “insistence on relabeling American Psycho as (sub)genre fiction thus presented a way of suspending normal critical engagement with

7 See popular horror fiction novels such as Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris. 8 Ibid. 9 Roger Cohen, “Bret Easton Ellis Answers Critics of ‘American Psycho,’” The New York Times, March 6, 1991. 10 Stephen Holden, “‘American Psycho’: Murderer! Fiend! Cad! (But Well-Dressed),” The New York Times, April 14, 2000. 11 Eldridge, “The Generic American Psycho,” 22.

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

29

the text itself.”12 Hence, genre destabilization proved to be a fundamental key to the craftsmanship of the novel and fortiori Bateman’s identity. Likewise, Lin-Manuel Miranda adopted a genre crossing and blending approach in his creation of Hamilton, with an abundance of cultural references that appeal to a broad audience. However, instead of receiving scorn and dismissiveness for its failure to cohere to a singular genre and style of theatre from its critics and audiences, the musical was, and often still is, showered with praise and met with literal resounding applause. Described by Miranda as a story about “America then, told by America now,” the show prides itself on its color-conscious casting, in which the cast is almost entirely comprised of actors of color playing white historical figures. 13 Until more recently, the majority of reviewers found Hamilton’s genre-blending entrancing and each component deserving of distinct praise. The musical numbers of Hamilton are an assortment of genres, including hip-hop, R&B, pop, soul, classical, and traditional showtune ballads, each purposefully used to distinguish and develop characters and within an operatic form. Miranda’s script is a blend of historical fanfiction of a founders-chic quality, neither non-fiction nor fiction, furnished with lyrical prose.14 It contains Shakespearean themes and poetical structure, elements of morality plays, and tragically flawed characters embraced by a Greek chorus. What’s more, the script is peppered with theatrical, cultural, and topical references for audiences to recognize and appreciate. With such a collection of literary, theatrical, and musical styles, Miranda, like Ellis, demands an unusually intricate process for those who wish to analyze his work through a critical lens. Hamilton was a melting pot of style with tourist-trapping extravagance that seemed to have something for everyone, and hailed in initial reviews as a progressive, inspiring, cultural, and crucial conversation piece. However, similar to American Psycho, genre destabilization serves as a distraction for audiences and critics and therefore functions as fundamental building block for both works. While initial reviews and feelings toward the two works were on the opposite ends of the spectrum; American Psycho disgusts while Hamilton delights; their collage of genres is a shared and crucial element and lays the foundation for well-crafted illusions. Although genre categorization can often act as a guide for analytical

12 Young, “Beast 13 Edward

in the Jungle,” 88. Delman, “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History,” The Atlantic, September

29, 2015. 14 Kate Keller, “The Issue on the Table: Is ‘Hamilton’ Good For History?” Smithsonian, May 30, 2018.

Chapter 2

30

discussion, these two works simultaneously expose and reinforce the illusion that such a practice is able to explain or assess the merit and meaning of art. An integral part of genre destabilization is a recycling of material from other works of art, and incorporating references that invoke familiarity and reinforce a canonical hierarchy. It seems logical for critics to have compared American Psycho to existing works, as even the title invoked Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 classic horror film. The violence and “horrific level of detail” that characterizes much of the story is inspired by FBI case files of serial killers, shock-horror films and hardcore pornography. Bateman’s actions emulate those of the characters in canonical horror classics, such as Leatherface in Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Trelkovsky in Roman Polanski’s The Tenant (1976), and others in films by Stanley Kubrick, and by Hitchcock. The film and musical found ways to expand on these allusions, as well as incorporate others through cinematography, music, props, and staging. For example, when Bateman lures an intoxicated Owen/Allen to his apartment in order to kill him, the film and musical both add on to novel’s supplied reference to one ultra-violent film with another: Bateman dancing to “Hip to be Square” as a precursor to the kill, owes much to Alex (Malcolm McDowell) performing “Singin’ in the Rain” as he viciously assaults the writer and his wife in A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971). Yet the sequence also draws on another film indelibly associated with “ultra-violence”: with Allen seated and disoriented while Bateman makes quirky moves to the music, there are clear echoes of the earslicing scene in Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs (1992).15 Bateman’s sexual and physical violence are recreations of what he sees and reads; therefore, these references are beyond simple easter eggs for fans of shock horror and help point to how illusion functions in the story. Bateman is not just a sociopathic killer hiding underneath designer brands and politically correct phrases; his killing isn’t even original, which begs the question: does Bateman, as an individual, really exist? Bateman’s existence, as well as the meaning and nature of existence and identity, is a slowly unfolding inquiry at the core of the story. The film and musical adaptations are sharp, satirical treatments of the pervasiveness of consumer capitalism on individuality, with Bateman as an amplified, sociopathic emblem of a society that values wealth and appearance over any discernible moral code. Bateman’s citational behavior is not just limited to

15 Eldridge, “The Generic

American Psycho,” 30.

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

31

acts of violence – he spends every waking moment as a replication of some “prefabricated cultural posture.”16 The opening number of the musical is an introduction to Bateman’s apartment, his material belongings, and his morning ritual - an exhaustingly descriptive advertisement for a luxurious lifestyle that practically erases its narrator - culminating in his proclamation that “this is what being Patrick Bateman means to me.”17 The declaration introduces the audience to one element of Bateman’s illusory identity: he is as remarkable as the products he covers himself in. The comedic tone of the references alerts the audience to the illusion; for instance, Bateman confidently boasts about his electronic devices: “The TV set: 30-inches, digital, Toshiba. High-contrast, highly defined, plus it has picture-in-picture capabilities. My Walkman, with auto reverse continuous play, is by Sony.”18 For audiences in 2016, these devices failed to impress and lacked the grandeur they may have once had. The references are nostalgic, comedic, and the satirical remove allows the audience to clearly see how consumer capitalism perpetuates the illusion of identity. Without the pre-approved products and playthings deemed noteworthy by those society has also deemed noteworthy, being Patrick Bateman means nothing at all. Bateman desperately clings to his wealth and accessories for self-worth, but the narrative continues to lay his illusion bare through references. He constantly regurgitates the opinions of those with clout; he references GQ and Vanity Fair when discussing fashion, cites restaurant reviews from The New York Times, echoes, almost verbatim, the opinions of music journalists, and almost too predictably, worships and quotes Donald Trump. Every reference draws an apt parallel to Bateman or to the world he occupies, and they help form the layers upon layers of masks that when removed, reveal its wearer has no identifiable, individualized face. Likewise, Hamilton is filled with intentional and uncanny references to outside source material that, when pulled away, reveal the musical is quite bare of originality, credibility, or nuance. However, many of the references are far removed from the musical’s subject matter, or happen lightning-fast, almost impossible to catch, complicating an audience’s ability to spot their function as architects of illusion in the same way they might see those in

16

Julia Jarcho, “Absence Pleasures: Whiteness, Death, and Music in American Psycho,” Americana: The Journal of American Popular Culture (1900-Present) 11, no. 1 (Spring 2012), https://americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2012/jarcho.htm. 17 Duncan Sheik, “Selling Out,” American Psycho (Original London Cast Recording), Concord Records, 2016. 18 Ibid., “Opening (Morning Routine).”

32

Chapter 2

American Psycho. Hamilton’s references to other theatrical works, literary characters, and homages to popular hip-hop and pop songs are an effective tool for appealing to a broad, diverse audience. Audience members familiar with popular hip-hop or R&B music can find numerous examples of Miranda’s tendency to liberally borrow lyrics and structure from artists such as Notorious B.I.G. (Biggie Smalls) and DMX.19 Additionally, frequent theatregoers, especially fans of musical theatre, might recognize prominent citations from classical musicals, like Rodgers and Hammerstein’s South Pacific, Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance, as well as contemporary musicals such as Jason Robert Brown’s The Last Five Years.20 Accompanying a blend of music genres and references, Hamilton further appeals to a diverse audience with literary references that liken Hamilton and his friends to prominent figures. For instance, Miranda’s Hamilton, in anticipation of the war, compares himself to Moses (from the biblical Book of Exodus), thereby compelling the audience to think of Hamilton as a savior of his people and servant of God.21 In Act Two, Alexander labels himself as Socrates for his superior grasp on ethical, philosophical, and political questions.22 Additionally, Miranda connects his titular character to another well-known titular character: Macbeth. In a letter to his sister-in-law, Alexander quotes William Shakespeare’s play and states that his colleagues think of him as Macbeth of the newly independent country.23 The implication is that his peers have wrongfully cast him in this role, and he rationalizes that his ambition and vast knowledge must be the cause for this characterization. Later, Angelica deems him an Icarus (from Ovid’s Metamorphosis) who “has flown too close to the sun” after he publishes the details of his extramarital

Bella Ross, “Hamilton: Every Music Easter Egg & Reference,” ScreenRant, August 30, 2020. 20 In “My Shot” Aaron Burr advises Alexander and his friends, Laurens, Mulligan, and Lafayette to lower their voices and be careful of speech that challenges the status quo. Burr sings “you’ve got to be carefully taught,” a paralleling of the song in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s South Pacific; In “Right Hand Man” George Washington refers to himself as a “model of a modern major general” as a nod to the “Major-General’s Song” from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirates of Penzance; in “Say No to This,” the R&B tone of the song suddenly shifts in the last stanza to a replication of “Nobody Needs to Know” from The Last Five Years by Jason Robert Brown. For more, see Brian Eugenio Herrera’s chapter “Looking at Hamilton from Inside the Broadway Bubble” in Historians on Hamilton (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018). 21 Miranda, Hamilton, “My Shot.” 22 Ibid., “Non-Stop.” 23 Ibid., “Take a Break.” 19

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

33

affair in an effort to exonerate himself from accusations of embezzlement of government funds.24 The allusion is misfitting and an overly simplistic attribution of Hamilton’s behavior to his ambition. Instead of commenting on his selfish, panicked attempt of self-preservation, the musical aligns him with mythic, superhuman figures. Miranda’s Hamilton and Ellis’ Bateman share this unique trait of ascribing themselves with exceptional qualities. Bateman is guided by a fanatical confidence comparable to Miranda’s Hamilton and similarly, within the musical, insists he is “Not a Common Man:” Look at history, open the books/There are statues with great looks/There are gods, there are kings/I’m pretty sure I’m the same thing/Beyond boundaries, beyond rules/I’ve been taught in the best schools/There is little I won’t do, is the same thing true for you? /I am needing so much more, every pleasure is a bore/I am something other than a common man/I’m not a common man.25 This song comes after Bateman and Evelyn discuss their future wedding, and while Evelyn fantasizes about the band and the food, Bateman fantasizes about beheading her. Immediately following, he pays two prostitutes to engage in violent, sadistic sexual acts with each other and him. Under caricatured eighties neon lighting and among a chorus adorned with fake blood, Bateman’s bravado and self-aggrandizement in this song highlight how deep entrenchment in unbridled ambition and an unrelenting quest to feel satisfied can mutate into delusions of grandeur. Furthermore, this moment exemplifies the striking resemblance in how both musicals use their main characters to channel a principal myth about the underlying purpose for the foundation of America. The fantasy that drove America’s development as a nation is a primary contributing factor in the illusory national identity we hold today. Perry Miller’s Errand into the Wilderness discusses how the second wave of colonists viewed themselves as undertakers of a divine mission. They saw America as a “New Eden, a second chance ordained by God” and a place of transcendent potential.26 As such, America’s identity is bound to faith in its own power and purpose, and if and when confronted with its own violence, corruption, or failure, it retreats into ideological illusions of its greatness. This identity is an illusion Americans lean on, evidenced in our monuments, annual celebrations,

24 Ibid., “Burn.”

A Common Man,” American Psycho. Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1956), 2.

25 Sheik, “Not 26 Perry

34

Chapter 2

and our media, which often perpetuate America’s savior complex while suppressing our shame.27 The references in Hamilton and American Psycho channel this complex through their respective main characters, Hamilton and Bateman, who are often characterized by their beliefs in their own transcendent status and potential. However, American Psycho slightly deviates in its representation of American identity and almost every character partakes in compulsive self-admiration to an extremity where they are unable to recognize or distinguish their friends and coworkers. This element is another example of how American Psycho first constructs its world with themes of illusion and identity, and then explicitly shows audiences its architecture. Contrastingly, in Hamilton, the references to prodigious figures that are the building blocks of Hamilton’s fictive persona remain hidden. They do not convey the derided narcissistic tone of Ellis’ Bateman, and thus the audience remains submerged in illusion. Consequently, all the references, although similar to American Psycho in content, function in a completely different way – fortifying the illusions rather than exposing them. I see this strategy as part of the genius of Hamilton: the musical moves at a rapid-fire pace, so as quickly as the allusions come, they go, giving the audience a brief feeling of familiarity before moving on. There is something delightfully satisfying for audience members when they can recognize a musical or literary reference; these selfassuring moments prove their cultural fluency. Familiarity and understanding breed trust. Hamilton needs its audiences to trust its content in order for it to succeed, just as Bateman needs to conceal himself in Valentino suits and recitations of trendy opinions in order to fit in. For both musicals, references are a critical component, and it is important to distinguish how referentiality elicits illusory feelings of relatability and accessibility. Both musicals also recognize that identity is a social process and share another key tactic in their respective development of story and illusion: cultivating public identity through the use of sound bites. In the 1970s, sound bites became a prevalent tool for mass communication, with news media companies employing them to promote an upcoming story by offering a concise phrase indicative of the context of the piece. As televisions became a household staple, sound bites grew as a form of rhetoric that was in response to societies’ need for brevity and summarized information. The use of sound bites has expanded well beyond their news cycles as companies have

27 The extent of an American, specifically white, savior complex is evident in films depicting domestic or international issues (The Help, Cry Freedom, Savior, Indiana Jones, etc.), in schools that promote Eurocentric curriculums, in patterns of involvement in foreign affairs, and in voluntourism.

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

35

recognized the strategic value of concise messaging in the competition for consumers’ time and attention. Therefore, sound bites have become a marketing tool, able to tell a story, rather than acting as a prelude. A wellcrafted sound bite is a tool of persuasion: it tells consumers what to believe, what principles to uphold, and can elicit strong emotions. Although they provide extremely limited information, they tell a memorable story. A sound bite is not measured for its effectiveness by its factual content, context, or critical analysis of a story, it is measured by its ability to be sensational. Consider the sound bite “War on Terror,” “Make America Great Again” or “love is love is love is love is love” – these are messages that leave deep impressions on the people that hear them. They oversimplify an issue or are misleading and compose a story of American ethics without offering supporting evidence or specific details. In the composition of its story, American Psycho provides characters whose dialogues are brimming with sound bites that have “no sense of consistent political philosophy” and are an illusion of investment in social issues. They are discernible and fashioned to expose the vapid and shallow cores of the characters who speak them. For example, early in the narrative, while at dinner with friends, Bateman chimes in on a conversation on the most pressing issues of the day, displaying conflicting political opinions and a lack of internal logic: We have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. Ensure a strong national defense, prevent the spread of communism in Central America, work for a Middle East peace settlement, prevent U.S. military involvement overseas…We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights while also promoting equal rights for women...We also have to control the influx of illegal immigrants. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values…28 Bateman begins the monologue by dismissing his friend, Timothy Price, who mistakenly believes there are “killing fields” in Sri Lanka for people of Jewish descent, and then pivots to a litany of incompatible political and social stances. The musical turns this scene into an ode to Sri Lanka, and while Bateman strings together buzzwords and phrases, the chorus sings, “Oh Sri

28 Bret

Easton Ellis, American Psycho (New York: Vintage, 1991), 15.

Chapter 2

36

Lanka, your love I cannot find/You are so distant, you are not one of mine.”29 This moment, in which the group is almost gleefully uninformed, exposes the fallible illusion of their performative empathy. It stands out as an implosion of illusion, as the audience sees how Bateman’s responses are a rehearsed collection of knowledge and attitudes. The allure of sound bites bears a striking resemblance to the characters’ desire to adorn themselves with luxury labels and products and is fundamentally about “trying on that identity.”30 However, the illusion extends beyond the parameters of Bateman’s (and the other characters’) public persona. His performative utterances are more representative of our current culture than audiences would probably like to admit. The presentation of sound bites as strategic, manufactured façades can elucidate audiences’ own absurd and illusory “mechanical recitation of correct attitudes.”31 American Psycho is able to dispel any empathetic feelings towards its narrator and make audiences aware that Bateman’s words sound nice but are devoid of meaning. By identifying American Psycho’s utilization and effectiveness of sound bites, one can investigate how Hamilton covertly follows the same trend. Some of these sound bites are innocent fun and ignite local pride, by romanticizing New York City and hailing it as “the greatest city in the world” and later playfully teasing with “everything is legal in New Jersey” citing a condescension many native New Yorkers recognize.32 American Psycho has a similar moment in Act Two, when after a vacation to the Hamptons, Bateman returns and declares, “Thank God, New York City/That Long Island is pretty shitty,” which sends local audience members into uproarious laughter.33 The sound bites integrate the shows into the fabric of New York and to a greater degree American culture. The awareness of their surroundings and inclusion of sound bites as inside jokes forms a bond with local audiences and induces a longing to be “in the know” from tourists. They are the low-hanging fruit of sound bites, but effectively communicate the illusively cool lifestyle of cosmopolitan, Big-Apple dwellers. Other sound bites function in the same harrowing manner as many of Bateman’s: buzzwords or phrases sprinkled throughout the narrative that assert a trending social opinion but in actuality are unexamined, and their meaning depreciated.

29 Sheik, “Oh,

Sri Lanka,” American Psycho. American Psycho,” 27.

30 Eldridge, “The Generic 31 Ibid.

Schuyler Sisters,” Hamilton; Ibid., “Blow Us All Away.” Am Back,” American Psycho.

32 Miranda, “The 33 Sheik, “I

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

37

For instance, Hamilton’s female characters’ lines are almost entirely sound bites, particularly those spoken by Angelica Schuyler, Hamilton’s sister-in-law and Miranda’s token proto-feminist. Upon her and her sisters’ arrival in New York City, when the colonies were a powder keg waiting to explode, she proclaims: You want a revolution? I want a revelation! /So, listen to my declaration/’We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal’/And when I meet Thomas Jefferson/ I’m a’ compel him to include women in the sequel, work!34 The line appeals to the women in the audience, impelling them to feel connected and represented, but it is a deceptive tactic and masks the show’s inability to even pass the Bechdel test. Audiences are further swept up in the sisters’ exuberance - with sound bites like “how lucky we are to be alive right now!” - of living during a revolution that never aimed to benefit women, in a musical that only uses its female characters as plot devices.35 In the second half of the musical, the exploitation continues, as Eliza, Hamilton’s wife, after being collateral damage in a publicly distributed pamphlet detailing Alexander’s extramarital affair, remarks that she is “erasing herself from the narrative.”36 This is a well-disguised sound bite in a song about a scorned woman, and this line might resonate as genuine interest in Eliza’s trajectory if she was part of Hamilton’s narrative to begin with. However, she and the meager three other women who have names in the show are only ever in service to the male-driven narrative and only given sound bites as character attributes. The rhetoric used within the musical is worth analyzing, particularly the language meant to parallel modern day social issues and narratives. In the song “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down),” Hamilton and the French Marquis de Lafayette, in reference to themselves rap, “Immigrants: We get the job done.”37 The connection to the current issues regarding immigration reform are clear and purposeful. However, this sound bite channeled the “we’re all immigrants” logic and a problematic universal immigration story, one that allows white Americans to equate their ancestors’ hardships to those of non-white immigrants seeking refuge now.38 This line frames those fighting 34 Miranda, “The

Schuyler Sisters,” Hamilton.

35 Ibid. 36 Miranda, “Burn,”

Hamilton.

37 Ibid. 38 Akiba Solomon, “For the Millionth Time, We Are Not ‘All Immigrants,” ColorLines, July 16, 2019, www.ColorLines.com/articles/millionth-time-we-are-not-all-immigrants.

Chapter 2

38

for independence as immigrants, successfully carving out a better life, disregarding their status as colonizers. Furthermore, this sound bite crafts a narrative that erases two groups of people that contributed greatly to America’s victory, neither of which immigrated here: African-Americans descending from slavery and Native Americans. Therefore, a line that seemingly advocates for immigrants, is actually a continuation of Hamilton’s attempt to reframe a national identity and ensure an identity for itself as radically progressive. Additionally, similar to the role they play in American Psycho, Hamilton’s sound bites are effective in espousing inconsistent political and social ideologies, particularly when examined against historical records.39 Although intended to be racially progressive work, Hamilton gives little attention to the racial injustices of its historical time period. It maintains its illusory identity as profoundly inclusive through sound bites about slavery. These sound bites are scattered throughout the musical, only enough to make an audience believe that slavery is an issue that Hamilton (the man and the musical) care about. For example, the opening number is an exposition of Alexander Hamilton’s youth in the West Indies and contains a vague reference to his witnessing of the slave trade: The ten-dollar Founding Father without a father/Got a lot farther by workin’ a lot harder/By bein’ a lot smarter/By bein’ a self-starter/By fourteen, they placed him in charge of a trading charter/And every day while slaves were being slaughtered and carted/Away across the waves, he struggled and kept his guard up/Inside, he was longing for something to be a part of.40 Playing into racial bootstrap ideology, the single line about slavery barely functions as an acknowledgement of historical violence against people of color and instead serves to venerate Hamilton for his humble beginnings. The line functions as a sound bite because it is extremely limited in content and is an unexamined appeal to emotion. It is enough to remind audiences of the issue of slavery, but brushes past its brutalities and instead compels the audience to focus on Hamilton’s struggles, how he overcame unimaginable odds and thus, how remarkable his accomplishments are.

39 Keller, “The

Issue on the Table.” Hamilton,” Hamilton.

40 Miranda, “Alexander

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

39

The musical continues to use anti-slavery sound bites in order to “upraise the character of their hero…and diss their flawed characters.”41 Thomas Jefferson is arguably the musical’s central antagonist (as Burr’s storyline does not immediately place him in conflict with Hamilton) and, not so coincidentally, is the only character recognized as a slaveholder, despite many of Hamilton’s allies also owning slaves. At the historical first Cabinet meeting, after another crowd-pleasing shout-out to being “here with us in New York City,” Hamilton and Jefferson argue over the establishment of a national bank.42 Jefferson asserts that it would be unfair for Southern states to pay for the debt of Northern states. Hamilton responds: Thomas, that was a real nice declaration/Welcome to the present, we’re running a real nation/Would you like to join us, or stay mellow/Doin’ whatever the hell it is you do in Monticello?…/A civics lesson from a slaver. Hey neighbor, /Your debts are paid cuz you don’t pay for labor. /‘‘We plant seeds in the South. We create.’’/Yeah, keep ranting, /we know who’s really doing the planting.43 The scene is structured as a rap battle with lyrics designed to taunt Jefferson and dismantle him and his position. The song makes a blink-and-you’ll-missit reference to Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, which is quickly moved past and overshadowed by the pissing match between the two men. This section of the song is a sound bite for the musical overall, as well as for Hamilton, the character. These lines paint Hamilton as an abolitionist, a label that is further nourished through Eliza’s sound bites in the finale as the company mourns his death: ‘‘I speak out against slavery/You could have done so much more if you only had/Time.’’44 Like many of the sound bites we hear in commercials or from politicians that promise an unknowable, but ideal future, this line asks us to live in an illusion. Historians have since dismantled the musical’s many assumptive statements and wishful thinking with factual evidence.45 Most recently, Jessie Serfilippi, a historian and interpreter for Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, reported new evidence from primary sources, and

41

Lyra D. Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in LinManuel Miranda’s ‘Hamilton,’” The Public Historian 38, no. 1 (February 1, 2016), 95. 42 Miranda, “Cabinet Battle #1,” Hamilton. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story.” 45 See Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, eds, Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018).

40

Chapter 2

concluded that “Not only did Alexander Hamilton enslave people, but his involvement in the institution of slavery was essential to his identity, both personally and professionally.”46 However, because Hamilton’s sound bites have already depreciated any significance of progressive ideologies, their historical inaccuracy does little to dampen the celebration of the musical’s popularity and influence. Like Hamilton, Bateman’s words make him popular and influential, but for audiences, the sound bites in American Psycho are used as a “disquieting strategy…destabilizing Bateman and his perspective on events by constructing his world from a variety of cultural debris.”47 The sound bites are a set up: as quickly as Bateman reaches for a prefabricated posture, it is almost immediately slapped away by a succeeding conflicting posture or action. The audience is able to recognize Bateman’s cognitive dissonance, and how the sound bites help generate the illusion of an identity. Hamilton’s use of sound bites may also be a disquieting strategy; however, the intention is not to destabilize its protagonist or itself, but its audience. By incorporating sound bites (even inaccurate ones), Miranda can forego exploring any of racist, sexist, or elitist components of our nation’s origin story, “conveniently erasing…any complexity that might tarnish the inspirational and/or nostalgic storylines he made it his mission to tell.”48 The sound bites are performative allyship aimed at reconstructing a Founding Father’s and a nation’s identity through an omission of facts and wishful qualities to fill in the gaps. Furthermore, there is nothing in Hamilton that rouses us to this tactic – therefore the illusion maintains its deceptive force and expects audiences to believe in the story that is being sold to them.

46 Jessie Serfilippi, “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing’: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site: NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 2020, 4. 47 Eldridge, “The Generic American Psycho,” 15. 48 Tyler Crawford, “The American Nightmare: Hyperreality and Loss of Identity in American Psycho and Escape from Tomorrow,” Florida Atlantic University, 2016, 18. Crawford’s thesis uses Jean Baudrillard’s theory of simulacrum to discuss themes of manufactured ideologies and identities in American Psycho and Randy Moore’s Escape from Tomorrow (2013). Part of that discussion is Walt Disney’s successful subversion of admirable American ideologies into mass produced material objects, which replaces the need for a “real” national identity. the distribution and consumption of American ideology. The above quoted text refers to Walt Disney, but I find it a fitting description of Miranda’s tactics, particularly considering Disney’s purchase of Hamilton’s distribution rights in 2020 for an astounding $75 million.

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

41

The illusion of identity continues in the materialization of cultural and social visibility in these works in regard to agency and spectatorship. In American Psycho, the musical Les Misérables, colloquially known as Les Mis, by Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg is referenced twenty-five times throughout the novel. In the film, the camera pans past billboards and advertisements, Bateman has a poster in his bathroom and mentions tickets he has for a matinee performance. The same images and dialogue appear in the musical adaptation, with the addition of an entire scene that takes place at a performance of Les Mis. Les Mis’ presence in American Psycho is more than just a shout-out to the hit musical of the 1980s or another subject for Bateman to drone on about. After Les Mis’ London premiere broke box office records, the show came to Broadway in 1987, prefaced by a monumental 10-month marketing campaign, in which New York City was inundated with advertisements featuring the face of the impoverished, young Cosette blended into a tattered red, white, and blue flag. It quickly became the Broadway show people came to see, it was a signifier of class and sophistication, and with an advance ticket sale of over $12 million upon opening, it was almost impossible to obtain a ticket.49 On one level, the recurring comments about Les Mis are a continuation of the satirical treatment of consumerism, in which the audience can recognize and identify the humor in the heightened importance Bateman places on the musical as a signifier of cultural status and wealth. On another level, when one considers the context of the musical, based on the novel by Victor Hugo, its inclusion in Bateman’s narrative is a harrowing commentary on how American ideology is manufactured and sold. Hugo’s novel takes place in post-revolutionary France and depicts the harsh realities of poverty and class divides, corrupt infrastructures, and systemic indifference towards those who were suffering. What is significant about Bateman’s obsession with Les Mis is how it juxtaposes his disdain for the poor, sick, and suffering he sees on the New York City streets every day. He is enthralled by the powerful ballads and history turned into spectacle, yet he is callous and even murderous to the poverty-stricken and homeless he encounters outside the theatre doors. Julian Murphet’s work contextualizes how this contrast exposes the irony of Les Mis as an “all-dancing, all-singing extravaganza open only to the middle

Bennetts, “Marketing ‘Les Miserables,’ Or, Maneuvering Behind a Hit,” The New York Times, August 20, 1987.

49 Leslie

42

Chapter 2

class and upper class, who are content to spend more on tickets than they will all year on charity” and the hypocrisy of the eighties yuppie lifestyle.50 The content of Les Mis adds another layer of illusion to Bateman’s identity and heightens its symbolic value, thus, magnifying its importance in the story. Les Mis takes on a Baudrillardian quality as a controlled process of production and consumption – a manufactured form of “mentality, ethics, and everyday ideologies” in the shape of “liberation of needs, of individual fulfillment, of pleasure, and of affluence” and that quality transcends Bateman’s seemingly distant world and begins to reflect our own.51 Attending Les Mis was not solely an indicator of wealth and status, but of mentality and ethics. More importantly for Bateman and his friends, attaining tickets to Les Mis was on par with booking a coveted reservation at Dorsia; it was an achievement signifying accessibility, influence, and clout. Hamilton, like Les Mis, is a historical spectacle in a hyperreal environment. Hamilton functions in our world much like Les Mis does in Bateman’s. Hamilton had $30 million in advance ticket sales before they opened on Broadway, and broke records for having some of the highest price tags and highest demand on its tickets, a relevant truth years after its premiere.52 Its color-conscious casting, fresh approach to history, and critics who claim stamped it a “theatrical powerhouse and a fixture of contemporary American culture”53 fulfill the demand for “only the appearance of human revolution.”54 For many, this appearance may be the strongest motivator for purchasing Hamilton tickets, and reinforces the American practice of “profound white investment in black culture” and “using blackness as source, as the nourishing presence of an original American something – American positivity itself.”55 Though we celebrate it for its revolutionary inclusivity and accessibility, The Broadway League’s research on the demographics of audiences showed Hamilton as having only 23 percent non-Caucacian viewers.56 In many cases,

Julian Murphet, Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho: A Reader’s Guide (Bloomsbury Academic, 2002). 51 Jean Baudrillard, Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings, edited by Mark Poster, translated by Jacques Mourrain (Stanford University Press, 2001), 50. 52 Andrew Gans and Michael Gioia, “Hamilton Opens with Multi-Million Dollar Advance,” Playbill, August 7, 2015. 53 Keller, “The Issue on the Table.” 54 Jean Baudrillard, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1998), 54. 55 Jarcho, “Absence Pleasures.” 56 Broadway League, “Research and Statistics.” The Broadway League: The Official Website of the Broadway Industry, www.broadwayleague.com/research/research-reports. 50

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

43

audience members consume Hamilton for its symbolic value, a nourishing “reproduction of a productive force” that allows Americans to purchase progressive ideologies. They can applaud themselves at the same time they applaud the black and brown bodies on stage, then leave the theatre and turn a blind eye to a live performance of systemic racism sponsored by New York City’s stop-and-frisk program. Standing in the afterglow of Hamilton’s ingenuity and recasting of American narratives is a much easier and more comfortable position than trying to grapple with our nation’s deeply-rooted and recurring violence. We compulsively shine light on America’s small steps towards progress in order to sustain the illusion of a virtuous national identity. Like much of our nation’s history, at the end of American Psycho, Bateman’s crimes are left unrecognized and in the dark. Throughout the story, characters consistently turn a blind eye to the distinguishable features or actions of those around them. As a result, there are many instances of mistaken identity, furthering how profoundly permeating the illusions of identity are. This ultimately contributes to the ending when Bateman, who has lost control of his urges and his grasp on reality, frantically confesses his crimes to his lawyer, Harold Carnes’ answering machine. However, when Bateman later confronts Carnes and confesses again, Carnes mistakes him for another colleague. Despite Bateman’s insistence on who he is and what he’s done, Carnes laughs it off as a joke, arguing that Bateman isn’t capable of violence. Carnes further concludes that Bateman could not have killed Paul Allen, given that he just had dinner with Allen a few days ago. Bateman is confronted by the illusory nature of every aspect of his identity, and by the end, wants his violent, atrocious actions acknowledged, yet is forced to watch everyone either fall victim to their idealizations of who he is or feign ignorance. Bateman eludes punishment and returns to his group of friends, who are preparing for a night of fine dining and partying. The ending of American Psycho is often misconstrued as ambiguous as it can leave audiences questioning the reliability and sanity of the narrator. A common but superficial question raised by the piece is, “was any of it real?” or “did he really kill anyone or was it all in his head?” However, Bateman’s confession and subsequent realization of the meaningless of his actions underlines the inescapability of illusory identities in his world. As the musical comes to a close, Bateman returns to the symbolic identity he began with, except he is not just an emblem for 1980s American consumer capitalism. The story can no longer be a comment on how external appearance is not a reflection of interiority if his violent actions are not even acknowledged. In the final song, he explains: “In the end no one

44

Chapter 2

is safe/Nothing is redeemed/And yet I am blameless.” 57 This line is a fitting connection to the American national identity. We are a nation continually ignoring or whitewashing our history, instead embarking on discovering new means of self-worship. Our history is filled with inconsistent or contradictory ideologies and actions, yet we insist on calling ourselves the greatest country in the world. Our evolution can only go as far as our willingness to address and right the wrongs we have done, but we would rather retreat into the comfort of our illusion than face our harsh reality. Hamilton is the latest medium for the American illusion. It made a massive intervention in American theatre and promoted conversations on diversity, equity, and inclusivity. However, there is a clear tension between its praiseworthy qualities and an unquestionably whitewashed narrative. The musical furthers the propensity for turning history into spectacle and is “insidiously invested in trumpeting the deeds of wealthy white men, at the expense of everyone else, despite its multiracial casting.”58 It promulgates a notion that one of the finest things people of color can aspire to do is sacrifice part of their identity for the chance to vindicate and venerate white people, all for the homogenized corporate machine that is Broadway. Yet, for all its uses of illusion, we have made Hamilton the most audacious illusion of them all. For present-day audiences, Hamilton communicates an American identity, or an illusion of one: wealth, status, appreciation for art, and most importantly, participation in progressive social reform, specifically improvements in racial equality and justice. However, we are a nation that elected Donald Trump in 2016. We have watched the drastic rise in the presence of, and violence from, far-right domestic terrorists, we continually witness systemic racial oppression from our justice system, and we are still battling for equal rights for women, people of color, and immigrants. Hamilton does not reflect the “complex racial history and identity of America” in the way we think it does or would like it to.59 It merely shifts our focus to the illusion that we are addressing our complex history and identity, rather than looking at the reality of constant, continued racial violence of twenty-first century America. In the 2015–2016 Broadway season, two debuting musicals, Hamilton and American Psycho, both relied heavily on illusion for their stories to be told and both reflected how illusory a national identity can be. American Psycho’s use of illusions are purposeful and integral to the structure and plot and

Is Not An Exit,” American Psycho. Casting,” 96. 59 Zeba Blay, “No, The ‘Hamilton’ Casting Call For ‘Non-White’ Actors Is Not Reverse Racism,” HuffPost, March 31, 2016. 57 Sheik, “This

58 Monteiro, “Race-Conscious

Hamilton: An American (Psycho) Musical

45

intentionally overt. The hyperreal aesthetics of the novel, film, and musical adaptation magnify the satirical remove with intimations to other genres and artistic styles and tactics. The work transcends its caricatured 1980s backdrop and offers a searing commentary of how illusion functions in America, specifically in the construction of an American identity. Hamilton employs similar tactics - however, its use of illusion in not only its narrative structure, but also in its relationship to an audience is near imperceptible. By both musicals’ end, their main characters have become concepts of American identity. Like American Psycho does for Bateman, Hamilton crafts an illusory identity for its main character. More pertinently, Hamilton crafts an illusion of American societal progress, racial equality, and inclusivity, but is not actually any of those things outside of the theatre doors. Holding Hamilton to the post-modern critical assessments of American Psycho, reveals it as an equally lavish façade that wishes to maintain a past and present concept of American identity—one that I argue, similar to Patrick Bateman, simply does not exist.60 Bibliography Aguirre-Sacasa, Roberto and Duncan Sheik. American Psycho., Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre, New York City, 2016. Anonymous. Personal conversation with cast member. June 5, 2016. Baudrillard, Jean. Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Edited by Mark Poster. Translated by Jacques Mourrain. Stanford University Press, 2001. Baudrillard, Jean. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1998. Bennetts, Leslie. “Marketing ‘Les Miserables,’ Or, Maneuvering Behind a Hit.” The New York Times, August 20, 1987. Blay, Zeba. “No, The ‘Hamilton’ Casting Call For ‘Non-White’ Actors Is Not Reverse Racism.” HuffPost, March 31, 2016. Broadway League. “Research and Statistics.” The Broadway League: The Official Website of the Broadway Industry. www.broadwayleague.com/rese arch/research-reports. Cohen, Roger. “Bret Easton Ellis Answers Critics of ‘American Psycho.’” The New York Times, March 6, 1991. Crawford, Tyler. “The American Nightmare: Hyperreality and Loss of Identity in American Psycho and Escape from Tomorrow.” Florida Atlantic University, 2016. Delman, Edward. “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History.” The Atlantic, September 29, 2015. Eldridge, David. “The Generic American Psycho.” Journal of American Studies 42, no. 1 (April 2008): 19–33.

60 Sheik, “This

Is Not An Exit,” American Psycho.

46

Chapter 2

Ellis, Bret Easton. American Psycho. New York: Vintage, 1991. Gans, Andrew, and Michael Gioia. “Hamilton Opens with Multi-Million Dollar Advance.” Playbill, August 7, 2015. Holden, Stephen. “‘American Psycho’: Murderer! Fiend! Cad! (But Well-Dressed).” The New York Times, April 14, 2000. Jarcho, Julia. “Absence Pleasures: Whiteness, Death, and Music in American Psycho.” Americana: The Journal of American Popular Culture (1900-Present) 11, no. 1 (Spring 2012). Keller, Kate. “The Issue on the Table: Is ‘Hamilton’ Good For History?” Smithsonian, May 30, 2018. Miller, Perry. Errand into the Wilderness. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, 1956. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic Records, 2015. Monteiro, Lyra D. “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton.” The Public Historian 38, no. 1 (February 1, 2016): 89–98. Murphet, Julian. Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho: A Reader’s Guide. Bloomsbury Academic, 2002. Romano, Renee C., and Claire Bond Potter, eds. Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Ross, Bella. “Hamilton: Every Music Easter Egg & Reference.” ScreenRant, August 30, 2020. Serfilippi, Jessie. “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing’: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver.” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 2020. Sheik, Duncan. American Psycho (Original London Cast Recording). Concord Records, 2016. Solomon, Akiba. “For the Millionth Time, We Are Not ‘All Immigrants’.” ColorLines, July 16, 2019. www.ColorLines.com/articles/millionth-time-weare-not-all-immigrants. Viagas, Robert. “The Verdict: See What the Critics Thought of ‘American Psycho’ on Broadway.” Playbill, April 21, 2016. Young, Elizabeth. “The Beast in the Jungle, the Figure in the Carpet.” In Shopping in Space: Essays on America’s Blank Generation Fiction. New York: Grove Press with Serpent's Tail, 1994.

Chapter 3

Hamilton and Historical Memory: An American Musical Raises the Curtain on Historical Trauma and Decolonization of American Identity Kerry L. Goldmann University of North Texas

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s 2015 Broadway musical Hamilton: An American Musical garnered immediate attention for its music, talent, and the radical imagery of Founding Fathers portrayed by actors of color. These historical figures, as well as most mainstream theatre roles, are traditionally played by white actors, often leaving actors of color marginalized on the American stage. Miranda’s theatrical revolution prompted countless articles praising his cultural creation as a radical revolution in American theatre and historical imagery. It is difficult, when viewed through a pop culture lens, to look beyond the progressive mission of the musical. Hamilton presents as a strong cultural force challenging historical memory with a non-white cast reenacting America’s founding. Additionally, Hamilton is a significant tool in educating diverse American audiences on artistic therapy, racial healing, and an attempt at radical redistribution of the American identity to those who have long been denied ownership. Despite the progressive mission of Hamilton, when viewed through a decolonial lens that serves to decentralize the white world narrative, it is unveiled that this racial reordering still subscribes to Eurocentric, universal standards that hail the conqueror as the greatest role one can hope to play. The history of America remains steeped in colonial nostalgia, dramatizing colonizers, subjugators, and enslavers as captivating protagonists who continue to be glorified both on the American stage and in American minds.

48

Chapter 3

With minorities at the narrative’s helm, is American colonization made more digestible in today’s world, or does this performance merely equalize imperialism as a game for all to play? Popular culture is an especially strong force in constructing and strengthening colonial structures. As an organizing agent of society and world views, cultural performance should be a site of objective critique and problematizing to designate between unintentional reinforcements of colonialism and true decolonial efforts. To effectively utilize culture in decolonizing the American mind, scholars of decoloniality must encourage influential artists and culture creators to further Miranda’s idea of radical inclusion by resignifying roles in American history and culture. Untold and long-buried stories need to take center stage to foreground the Other, as opposed to perpetually galvanizing the coveted role of the conqueror. Miranda’s musical, Hamilton, sets the stage for a new era of mainstream theatre that pivots the industry in the direction of future radical inclusion. Yet, some history scholars remain skeptical about the benefits of Miranda’s approach. Lyra Monteiro and Patricia Herrera contributed chapters to a 2018 volume, Historians on Hamilton, which aptly problematized Miranda’s use of race in the musical and the neglect of black history.1 Though the subject of race has been broached in several works, such as those of Montiero and Herrera, there has yet to be scholarship devoted to viewing the musical specifically through postcolonial theory or exploring the democratic functions of theatre and its inherent potential to decolonize minds. To understand the implications of where Miranda falls short in his ultimate goal of social and cultural uplift, this chapter will first briefly introduce decolonial theory to the context of American history and signify theatre as the prime art form to effectively decolonize the mind. Next, I will discuss Miranda’s positive intentions, followed by a more colonialityconscious examination of the ways in which Miranda is preoccupied with colonial remnants, and illuminate the ultimate failure of this show to decolonize the American mind through performance. The purpose of this treatment is not to diminish this artistic product, negate its productive contributions, or malign Miranda. Instead, it is a call to critique especially popular cultural creations that uphold oppressive systems and to challenge those who produce culture to be more conscious of these structures and how

1

Lyra Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton,” and Patricia Herrera, “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past, eds. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018).

Hamilton and Historical Memory

49

they can use their art to contribute to the dismantling process. In concluding, I push for the reimagining of a theatrical piece that stages a truly radical revolution against a colonized historical memory that continues to captivate colonized American minds and bodies. Decolonial scholars, such as Anibal Quijano, Walter Mignolo, Ramon Grosfoguel, and Maria Lugones, signify current presentations of historic oppression, such as cultural and educational hegemony, as the “coloniality of power.”2 In applying this lens of coloniality to American popular culture, the nation’s true colonized structures are unveiled and unburdened by nostalgia. European colonization of America involved the removal and genocide of native populations, legislative and societal prejudice against “undesirable” immigrants, and the shifting systems of enslavement and debasement of Africans, and later, African Americans.3 Today, the American coloniality of power is performed through monuments, education, and popular culture, and these performances deny historical traumas of subaltern groups while reinforcing hegemonic historical memories in the education system and cultural landscapes that venerate the colonizer. 4 Each of these scholars argues that decolonization must first occur in the minds of the colonized as a radical rejection of the primacy of Eurocentric values and ideologies before bodies can be decolonized.5 Quijano, along with Grosfoguel and Mignolo, asserts that the colonizer’s dominance of knowledge production veils these power structures, perpetuating the coloniality of power and rendering true decolonization an arduous undertaking. Culture representations greatly affect the mind in terms of shaping memory and how people perceive the world around them. Therefore, it is a potent place to start this work.

2

Anibal Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” trans. Michael Ennis, Nepantla: Views from the South, 1.3 (2000), 533; Walter Mignolo, “Delinking: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality, and the grammar of decoloniality,” in Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no. 2 (2007), 450; Ramon Grosfoguel, “Geopolitics of Knowledge and Coloniality of Power: Thinking Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans from the Colonial Difference,” Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in a Global Perspective, ed. Ramon Grosfoguel (Berkley: University of California Press, 2003), 3–4; Maria Lugones, “Toward a Decolonial Feminism,” Hypatia, vol. 25, no. 4, Fall 2010, 743. 3 Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” 560–561. 4 Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2010), 3. 5 Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” 573; Grosfoguel, “Geopolitics of Knowledge and Coloniality of Power,” 38; Mignolo, “Delinking,” 28–29.

50

Chapter 3

In 2008, Lin-Manuel Miranda was launched into the spotlight of American theatre after winning the Tony Award for Best Musical for In the Heights.6 The musical showcased a diverse cast as it was set in the mostly Latinx neighborhood of Washington Heights. In 2015, he used diverse casting in a setting that was more unexpected. Miranda was keenly aware of both historical subjugation and theatrical influence on social change, and he saw Hamilton: An American Musical as an opportunity for people of color to finally claim ownership of their country within historical and cultural spaces. Quijano and Mignolo locate the rise of racial hierarchies at the center of European justifications for colonization when it began.7 The subsequently proprietary nature of American history and identity denies participation to many groups, even those who have been here for generations, or sometimes centuries. Historically, theatre has reinforced societal and cultural inequity. The Other is most often presented on stage in a manner that misrepresents their identity because their presentation is controlled by theatre producers and audiences that are mainly made up of the majority group. The Other is, therefore, set on stage and cloaked in the preconceived notions of a now validated audience.8 However, because theatre is such a significant force in that construction, it also has the potential function to reject and dismantle the status quo. Theatre, in its pure artistic form, functions on democracy and transformation of the self, making it an apt cultural medium through which to stage a revolution. Though the modern American theatre has alienated the more radical roots of theatre and remains colonized, the internal democratic nature of theatre necessitates collaboration and the valuing of individual roles that work together towards collective creation.9 Miranda framed this endeavor as personal, as well as communal, by stating, “We have the opportunity to reclaim a history that some of us don't necessarily think is our own.”10 Live theatre is commonly used in therapeutic

Melena Ryzik, “Heights Before Broadway,” New York Times online, March 14, 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/theater/14heig.html. 7 Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” 534; Walter Mignolo, “Preamble: The Historical Foundation of Modernity/Coloniality and the Emergence of Decolonial Thinking,” in A Companion to Latin American Literature and Culture, ed. Sara Castro-Klarén (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 13. 8 Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999), 50. 9 Peggy Phelan, Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (New York: Routledge, 1993), 187. 10 Adam Perez, Ashley Ross, and Salima Koroma, “Why History Has Its Eyes on Hamilton's Diversity,” Time online, December 15, 2015, time.com/4149415/hamiltonbroadway-diversity. 6

Hamilton and Historical Memory

51

practice as it has the potential to heal the self as well as broader communities from the traumas of colonization.11 According to subaltern and race scholar Frantz Fanon, the early tactics of denying Native people and African Americans their intrinsic identities and violently imposing Eurocentrism in their ideologies afflicted the minds of these groups and has endured, still affecting their mental health today.12 This mental violence is a pivotal step in the dehumanization process that denies identity and therefore a person’s autonomous value. Role-playing allows for self-assertions of identity and world-making.13 Furthermore, empathy can be created between actor and audience—marking theatre as an exceptional art form in its potential to build such empathetic connections.14 Empathy is necessary to the cause of decolonization because it allows people to connect with others, despite difference, and liberates people from preconceived notions that are so often used to justify subjugation. Miranda acknowledged the presence of historical and cultural traumas endured by people of color and offered critical drama therapy for actors of color to embody these powerful figures, and symbols of American identity, for the first time. The American stage, reflecting society, was a historically white space of cultural dominance, and it reinforced ownership of the American identity by ritualistically and exclusively performing white expressions and representations. This was presented as a “national culture.” The idea of which, Fanon argues, subverts outliers, the racial Other in this case, as being inferior or completely void of culture.15 Miranda’s mission is to increase stage opportunity for marginalized actors of color, as well as more broadly affect the minds of participants and observers, by challenging the iconic American identity of white men in powdered wigs. Artists of color have predominantly been locked out of mainstream venues and continuously denied

11

David R. Johnson, “The History and Development of the Field of Drama Therapy in North America,” Current Approaches to Drama Therapy, ed. David R. Johnson (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 2009), 10. On the links between drama, therapy, and race, see P.A. Hays’ Addressing Cultural Complexities in Practice: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Therapy (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2008) and B.M. Williams’ “Minding our own biases: Using drama therapeutic tools to identify and challenge assumptions, biases and stereotypes,” Drama Therapy Review, 2(1), (2016), 9–23. 12 Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 1963, repr. 2004), 183. 13 Patrice Pavis, Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1992), 5. 14 Lindsay B. Cummings, Empathy as a Dialogue in Theatre and Performance (New York: Springer Publishing, 2016), 123. 15 Ibid., 150.

52

Chapter 3

opportunities to be cast in roles or plays that are not specifically created for a minority cast with a storyline merely focused on highlighting difference and the minority experience. As a site of cultural influence, the American theatre needs to embrace a radical inclusion of stories, creators, cast, and audience to produce powerful decolonizing culture and uplift the intrinsically valuable identities of marginalized people. Miranda’s level of commitment to this objective prompted him to exercise his creative control by explicitly stating in the script that every production of Hamilton must be performed with a mostly non-white cast.16 The rise of “colorblind casting” in the 1990s appeared inclusive but did nothing to tip the scales of heavy white-casting due to people not actually possessing a colorblind trait. Miranda insists instead on “color-conscious casting,” which marks a new, progressive turn against more conservative measures of inclusion that attempt to erase difference.17 His efforts of inclusion are in the spirit of radical democracy. The only exception to the nonwhite rule is the character of King George III, who is written intentionally to be played by a white actor. This aesthetic creates a distinction between the white imperialist and the revolutionaries of color. As stressed by Quijano, Grosfoguel, and Mignolo, racial hierarchies play an integral role in upholding the coloniality of power, and the neoliberal notion of colorblindness is more detrimental to the cause of rectifying racial injustice.18 Society should be conscious of color and difference, as Lugones prescribes, because the American system is entrenched in differences.19 In the United States, race dictates both identity and societal position. Therefore, an awareness of hierarchal identity can lead to necessarily harsher scrutinizing of deep-seated racism. Difference should be acknowledged but reframed as lateral variations as opposed to hierarchical. Miranda’s proposed solution is to reorder the hierarchy of difference and challenge people’s assumptions about who belongs where on the hierarchical chain. Miranda’s goal of radical inclusion also aligns with Lugones’ objective of decolonizing the gendered

16 “Hamilton Musical: Auditions,” accessed May 20, 2020, hamiltonbroadway.com/auditions.

Anthony Appiah and Amy Gutmann, Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 3. 18 Quijano, “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” 541. Grosfoguel, “Geopolitics of Knowledge and Coloniality of Power,” 24. Mignolo, “Delinking,” 479. 19 Lugones, “Toward a Decolonial Feminism,” 753. 17

Hamilton and Historical Memory

53

mind, stating that he embraces the possibility of women playing the Founding Father roles.20 Since its debut, Hamilton has held the position of one of the most popular musicals on Broadway and remains the coveted ticket for many Americans.21 It even attracted international patrons to New York beginning in 2015 and debuted in London’s West End in 2017. Still, the story is the most familiar to American audiences, and the imagery invoked by the actors of color would be most jarring to those familiar with how the story of the nation’s founding has always been told. Despite its popularity, the public reaction to Miranda’s casting stipulations exemplifies the stagnation of progress in the American mind and their continued aversion to the “Other” telling “their” story.22 Proprietorship is a key building block of colonialism and a remnant within the new order of coloniality. Therefore, colonizers remain violently nostalgic in clinging to past and present ownership of history and culture, as southerners clung to their enslaved people even in the early days of emancipationist whispers. Despite criticism from both the public and national theatre organizations, Miranda remained firm, positing the significance of his drama therapy in healing interminable racial and cultural tensions. When the cast was hosted at the White House, President Obama commended Miranda’s decision and the overall message, stating, “With a cast as diverse as America itself, including the outstandingly talented women, the show reminds us that this nation was built by more than just a few great men—and that it is an inheritance that belongs to all of us.”23 Miranda’s efforts provide professional and artistic opportunities for minority actors, as well as the opportunity to portray these key figures in American history, previously a privilege only afforded to white actors. Though this is an admirable attempt to reorganize historical memory and condemn cultural exclusion, problems remain. Miranda stated in a 2015 interview, “We're telling

20

Lugones, “Toward a Decolonial Feminism,” 744; Andrea Towers, “‘Hamilton’ Casting Call Wants Women to Play Washington and Burr,” Entertainment Weekly online, March 3, 2016, ew.com/article/2016/03/03/hamilton-casting-women-washington-burr. 21 Hamilton shows, along with all Broadway productions, have been halted in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 22 David Ng, “‘Hamilton’ Musical Runs into Trouble over ‘Non-White’ Casting Notice,” LA Times online, March 30, 2016, www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-etcm-hamilton-musical-diversity-20160330-story.html. 23 Spencer Kornhaber, “‘Hamilton’: Casting After Colorblindness; A Brief Controversy Over the Play’s Pursuit of Diversity Reminds Just How Potent that Diversity is,” The Atlantic online, March 13, 2016, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/03/ hamilton-casting/476247.

54

Chapter 3

the story of old, dead white men but we're using actors of color, and that makes the story more immediate and more accessible to a contemporary audience.”24 Miranda’s well-intentioned casting creates another issue which indicates his lack of understanding or acknowledgement of the persistent colonial narrative. This problem is especially visible through his color-conscious casting and the implied message of a single white character. The distinction made between the white King George and revolutionaries of color erases the culpability of the founders in their violations of human and civil liberties. This creative decision generates the idea that there is a racial line of colonial relativism. Within this reimagining, King George is the “wrong” kind of colonizer because he is racially exclusive while the founders are more favorable as color-conscious colonizers. A racially diverse group of imperialists should not be perceived as more progressive or their atrocities viewed as more bearable within the annals of America’s history simply by presenting them through a lens of diversity. Michelle Alexander mapped America’s cycle of coloniality in her 2016 book, The New Jim Crow. Miranda’s casting initiative can be viewed as little more than “cosmetic diversity,” as defined by Alexander.25 On the surface, there is indeed diversity and inclusion. However, this effort serves as a false comfort, staving off the acknowledgement of problematic historical roots that persist in today’s America. The persistence is due in part to the holistic heroification of these white male histories, both in classrooms and popular culture. Despite his stand to be color-conscious instead of colorblind, Miranda’s campaign is still bound up in conservative notions of diversity that fail to provoke the level of memorial discomfort that fosters radical change. A true effort of decoloniality would condemn all colonizers and instead recognize and respect the identities, struggle, and sufferings of subaltern groups at the hands of these “revolutionaries.” Even when Miranda’s rendition of Alexander Hamilton calls for a movement in the show, his line, “Foes oppose us, we take an honest stand. We roll like Moses, claimin' our Promised Land,” suggests that these wealthy white men were not only the oppressed, but the enslaved within the colonies.26 This narrative emboldens the colonists

24 Frank DiGiacomo, “‘Hamilton’s’ Lin-Manuel Miranda on Finding Originality, Racial Politics (and Why Trump Should See His Show),” The Hollywood Reporter online, August 12, 2015, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hamiltons-lin-manuel-mirand a-finding-814657. 25 Alexander, The New Jim Crow, 244. 26 Lin-Manuel Miranda, “My Shot,” Hamilton: An American Musical, 2015. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc.

Hamilton and Historical Memory

55

with a righteous cause for revolution and serves white nostalgic memory rather than historical reality, especially when noting that the British North American colonies were regarded among the freest colonies in the world when calls for revolution rang out.27 Furthermore, calls for independence came on the heels of Britain’s High Court condemning slavery and the empire’s proclamations to protect native lands from the American colonists. The American colonists, more than the British monarch, aggressively exerted their Whiteness in America with their racially determined economic, political, and societal structures. Their revolutionary cause was directly tied to their desire to the continuation of owning other people, which American historian Edmund S. Morgan referred to as the “American Paradox, the marriage of slavery and freedom.”28 He argued that the Revolution, in fact, depended on that hierarchy.29 Miranda’s mission to reorder the historically racial hierarchy dating back to this conservative revolution negates the opportunity to challenge and dismantle the structure altogether. Drama therapy emerged as another central mission for Miranda in hopes of positively impacting the colonized minds of actor and audience. Actors of color were given the opportunity to embody roles which hold great power in the nation’s history and minds. Play therapy, as previously stated, is significant for individual performers, but it is not intended to be insular or a private experience to benefit a few actors. Instead, it is meant to function as a publicly performed message and aesthetic, available to diverse American, and even international, audiences each week. Miranda’s intention to therapeutically impact his audiences came through when he stated, “Our cast looks like America looks now, and that's certainly intentional…It's a way of pulling you into the story and allowing you to leave whatever cultural baggage you have about the Founding Fathers at the door.”30 He sought to challenge the audience’s colonized perceptions and exclusionary cultural production by allowing his audience to experience American history through a new lens. With the unprecedented popularity of this musical, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world have gathered to bear witness of this staged

27 Alfred F. Young and Gregory Nobles, Whose American Revolution Was It? Historians Interpret the Founding (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 115. 28 Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton and Company, 1975), 6. 29 Ibid., x. 30 M. Paulson, “‘Hamilton’ Heads to Broadway in a Hip-Hop Retelling,” New York Times online, July 12, 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/theater/hamilton-heads-to-broad way-in-a-hip-hop-retelling.html.

56

Chapter 3

phenomenon and engage with critically re-imagining America’s past and present. Expanding on Miranda’s intention, this therapy plays to two distinct types of audiences with two different messages in mind. White audiences are to approach Hamilton as participants in bearing witness and reflecting on their response. If their reaction to seeing Founding Fathers of color was jarring, their takeaway should be an understanding of why radical inclusion is necessary to foster a semblance of equitable representation and opportunity for non-white America. For racially marginalized audiences, they are seeing, for the first time, a physical likeness between themselves and their country’s founders, inspiring a sense of national identity, participation, ownership, and pride. White audiences are theoretically stripped of their wealth in identity and culture, and both are redistributed to audience members who have been historically marked, and presently maintained, as America’s marginalized. Miranda’s intention of redistributing the white hold on America’s historical and present identities was ambitious and commendable. However, once an artistic product is received by an audience, the audience imbues their own meaning onto the product. The meaning of Hamilton was no longer solely defined by its creator’s conscious intention. Miranda’s audiences would also be impacted by the stage presentations of his unconscious ties to a colonized historical narrative and the currently colonized institution of the American theatre. Though the internal functions of theatre as an art form render it an effective tool for social change, Miranda seemingly ignored the schism between the art form and theatre as a commercial institution, or business. The institution of American theatre operates today as a limited stage for social change due to the emphasis on profit, mass appeal, and its general lack of accessibility. According to Broadway research reports on the 2015-2016 season, the year Hamilton premiered, 77% of audience members were white, 40% held a college degree, and the average age was 45.31 Their most recent report on the 2018-2019 season showed that 75% of audience members were white, 81% held a college degree, the average age was 40, and the average household income of audience members was $261,000.32 The makeup of theatre audiences has not greatly changed over time. Historically, spanning the scope of centuries and locations across the world, the theatre is a space for those of racial and economic privilege. Audience demographics not only determine accessibility to a cultural product, but also the content and aesthetic standards of what is produced.

Demographics of the Broadway Audience 2015-2016 Season,” Broadway League: Research Reports, accessed January 20, 2020, www.broadwayleague/reports. 32 “The Demographics of the Broadway Audience 2018-2019 Season,” Broadway League: Research Reports, accessed July 28, 2020, www.broadwayleague/reports. 31 “The

Hamilton and Historical Memory

57

Mainstream American theatre is played to appeal to its majority demographic of older, affluent, white audiences. It is difficult to stage stories and representations that do not uphold the comforts and perceptions of these particular audience members who inhabit the upper classes of society and whose patronage facilitates the theatre’s financial operations. The Broadway theatres in New York City are nearly the only theatres in the country that garner profit from box office revenues. Even though most are legally classed as “non-profit,” the theatres of New York are different from theatres across the nation in that they operate more commercially, and they yield a larger profit margin.33 Most community and regional theatres must reinvest nearly all revenue back into the theatre in order to still operate next season. The high expenses of productions and commercialization account for the often exorbitant prices of Broadway shows, with Hamilton seats ranging into the thousands the year it opened.34 To give due credit to Miranda, he attempted to combat ticket scalpers that were somewhat responsible for the ticket increases by partnering with New York senators and push for legislative reform.35 Still, even at their original base price at round $200 in 2015, theatre in general is still considered a luxury expense for too many people around the country. Neither low household incomes nor elitism in the American theatre are faults of Miranda himself. However, a significant aspect of his original intention to heal the mental traumas of colonized people of color, as Fanon discusses, could not realistically be met due to these demographics. Even when Hamilton set out from New York on the national tour in Chicago and Los Angeles in 2017, the show was still relegated to expensive theatre houses, meaning that the only difference in audience demographics was the state of residence.36 Beyond the tour, the rights to produce the show have thus far

33 The

COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 has stalled these profit margins in New York and has threatened the closure of theatres around the nation. 34 Jesse Lawrence, “On Eve of Debut, Hamilton Has Most Expensive Secondary Market Tickets On Broadway,” Forbes online, July 13, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesse lawrence/2015/07/13/prior-to-debut-hamilton-has-most-expensive-secondary-marke t-tickets-on-broadway/#54c15a3c6adb. 35 Daniel Kreps, “Lin-Manuel Miranda, Chuck Schumer Seek Scalper Crackdown With New Bill,” Rolling Stone, August 14, 2016, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musicnews/lin-manuel-miranda-chuck-schumer-seek-scalper-crackdown-with-new-bill-249 785. President Obama signed the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act of 2016 into law on December 14, 2016. 36 Adam Hetrick, “‘Hamilton’ Announces National Tour Cast,” Playbill, January 5, 2017, https://www.playbill.com/article/hamilton-announces-national-tour-cast.

58

Chapter 3

only been released to upscale white-owned theatres, negating community theatres and theatre companies owned by people of color. Though this is true for most touring shows, Hamilton is supposedly meant to be received by a more democratic audience and help artists of color throughout the theatre industry. The show is following a traditional path of Broadway hits to only have rights released to professional or revenue-earning theatres and has not yet been released for “amateur” production, such as community theatres or high schools. By following the traditional succession of licensures, Miranda’s show remains exclusive. His intended mission has the potential to further help oppressed communities by allowing the show to be produced in minority-run theatres, such as the National Black Theatre of Harlem who use their theatrical productions and finances to artistically and practically build up the black community from within. Additionally, bringing an incredibly popular show, such as Hamilton, to smaller theatres would increase audiences and revenue for these theatres that actively work to develop their underserved communities. Theatres continue to wait, however, especially given that producing Hamilton would involve paying large fees for license use and legal oversight. A rejection of large-scale theatres can pave the way to more holistic public ownership of the theatrical medium. In live performance, there is a physical embodiment of human experience, and empathy is manifested through an exchange of energy which can only occur through live audience reception.37 In the theatre, actor and audience share the labor in empathybuilding. On July 4, 2020, Hamilton: An American Musical premiered on Disney’s streaming service, which naturally reached a broader audience than ever before.38 However, the theatrical magic of empathy-building can only manifest through live performance, and the same wide audience deserves to see the show in its original, intended form. Mainstream American theatre unfortunately does not currently operate as a site of democratic inclusion as reflected in the stories told, and the makeup of production, casting, or audience. In attempting to democratize the theatre, Miranda’s greatest success of inclusion goes as far as casting, which is indeed noteworthy. However, in its intended live theatrical form, Miranda’s drama therapy does not work for either group. Though white audiences will be

Empathy as a Dialogue, 18. Daniel Frankel, “Disney Plus ‘Hamilton’ Viewership Exceeds Those Who’ve Seen It Live, Research Company Says,” Next TV, July 20, 2020, https://www.nexttv.com/ne ws/disney-plus-hamilton-viewership-exceeds-those-whove-seen-it-live-research-com pany-says. 37 Cummings, 38

Hamilton and Historical Memory

59

surprised by the cast imagery, they are still hearing their stories in an upscale theatre surrounded by people of their group. The theatre needs reorganization in all aspects to reflect the diversity of America, become accessible to all, and subsequently effect change through cultural performance. Theatre itself is not the cause of these systemic structures. However, as a popular of mode of education and a cultural force that effects the way people see the world, it can be wielded as a powerful tool in building empathy and challenging bias. Hamilton’s attempt to challenge white historical memory and cultural hegemony is not only visible in casting, but in content as well. Throughout the musical, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant with extremely humble beginnings. He originally came to the colonies for opportunity and upward mobility, which modern audiences find relatable as it mirrors the modern immigrant tale of arriving to claim the mythologized American dream. Ironically, America is historically recognized as the land of immigrants, despite white America historically discouraging immigration and presently holding prejudicial perceptions of outsiders. Deep-seated xenophobia of immigrants, especially those with darker skin, relegated these groups to underpaid jobs and low-income housing and denounced their place in American history and identity.39 Miranda takes a shot at these denouncements by focusing on this aspect of Hamilton’s identity and highlighting the fact that immigrants have not simply engaged in American history by arriving, but in fact they own a piece of the founding itself. Historically and musically, Hamilton arrived in the colonies with insatiable ambition for upward social mobility. Miranda’s musical writing employs rap and hip-hop due to the historically revolutionary nature of both genres of music, and each character’s attributes are reflected in which musical style they entertain.40 Miranda paints Hamilton as a chaotic, yet poetic, revolutionary through his fast-paced, slightly off-beat, rapping: I'm past patiently waitin'! I'm passionately smashin' every expectation Every action's an act of creation I'm laughin' in the face of casualties and sorrow For the first time, I'm thinkin' past tomorrow!41

Whiteness of a Different Color, 115. Robin Kelley, Race Rebels: Culture, Politics, and the Black Working Class (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 186–187. 41 Miranda, “My Shot.” 39 Jacobson, 40

Chapter 3

60

The theatrical iteration of Alexander Hamilton has steadfast ambition as well as a clear desire to enact change for a better future, which is gleaned from each of his verses. In the musical, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Aaron Burr sling the line, “Ya best g'wan run back where ya come from!” at Hamilton.42 This line will sound familiar to contemporary audiences, reflecting the popular rhetoric of ordering immigrants out of the country. Furthermore, it is written in dialect to mock Hamilton as an islander. They doubt his qualifications in his military and government positions due to his Caribbean origins. Even though Hamilton overcomes societal prejudice to excel at each role he takes on, he still faces scrutiny from the other founders who view him as a political competitor. In the musical, the character of Hamilton also commits himself to ending the institution of slavery, which is expressed in the lyrics, “We’ll never be free until we end slavery.”43 This phrase, appearing at the end of the Revolutionary War number, “The World Turned Upside Down,” exemplifies an ideal-minded character who saw the revolution as only the beginning of a mass liberation for all; a campaign in which Miranda seems similarly engaged. In the song, “My shot,” Miranda writes: This is not a moment, it's the movement Where all the hungriest brothers with something to prove went Foes oppose us, we take an honest stand We roll like Moses, claimin' our Promised Land And? If we win our independence? 'Zat a guarantee of freedom for our descendants? Or will the blood we shed begin an endless Cycle of vengeance and death with no defendants?44 Through his historical knowledge, Miranda actively calls out the persistence and cyclical nature of coloniality beyond the initial fight for independence. The first two lines suggest a nod towards present movements, such as Black Lives Matter, as the new mantle of radical revolution. Miranda further signifies Hamilton’s “radicalism” by positing a conservative as his greatest foe. Standing in contrast to the ideals and methods in Hamilton’s rapped verses, Aaron Burr, who is villainized as the antithesis of Hamilton, represents the outdated politics of

42 Ibid., “We

Know.”

43 Ibid., “The World Turned 44 Ibid., “My

Shot.”

Upside Down.”

Hamilton and Historical Memory

61

respectability captured in more rhythmic R&B tracks, and lyrics such as “Talk less, smile more…fools who run their mouths off wind up dead.”45 Miranda’s mission again falls short due to his lack of acknowledgement of how deep the coloniality of knowledge runs. Hamilton’s immigrant success story highlights an American self-determinist motif, reminiscent of Horatio Alger’s rags-to-riches books during the Gilded Age.46 This theme conveys the message that because Hamilton persevered through prejudice and accomplished exceptional feats, all immigrants have the same opportunity as long as they have the right work ethic. Furthermore, Hamilton provided both military and civic service to the country, providing him a quantifiable value as an immigrant. This notion, in turn, suggests that the acceptance of immigrants is contingently based on certain attributes that Americans deem desirable. Therefore, Miranda’s attack on immigrant prejudice is a conservative effort. Hamilton’s exceptionalism sets a standard of high expectations for immigrants to perform in order to earn minimal respect from Americans, rather than it be naturally afforded. It is hard to reconcile Hamilton’s immigrant experience with that of others. It was exceptional, in some ways reflecting Miranda’s own story. Miranda’s parents are Puerto Rican natives who faced prejudice as both immigrants and people of color, but their high status jobs allowed them to provide comfortably for the family. Hamilton, on the other hand, despite his low economic status, was of mostly British and Scottish descent and did not face the same relegation on the racial hierarchy. Additionally, Hamilton was not a man of the people. Hamilton was, in fact, one of the least democratically-minded of the Founding Fathers. Although he grew up impoverished and spent most of his life in debt, he was not a champion of the masses. Instead, he admired the wealthy classes, encouraging the young country to function as an aristocratic republic, with minimal political and economic opportunity given to the people.47 At best, this storyline flattens the immigrant experience, and at worst, it justifies prejudices held against “unexceptional” immigrants. The use of hip hop as a historically revolutionary genre of music masks the truly conservative campaign of these un-revolutionary characters. Miranda’s framing of the founders is another product of the colonized mind and historical memory. This problem inherently begins with the earliest education of Americans regarding the Founding Fathers, which paints a picture of

45 Ibid., “Aaron

Burr, Sir.” John William Tebbel, From Rags to Riches: Horatio Alger and the American Dream (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 74. 47 Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 509. 46

62

Chapter 3

infallible heroes who fought for radical ideas of liberty and equality. Certain stories are shelved, in both the American curriculum and this American musical, to avoid marring the memorialized fathers of freedom. In Hamilton, George Washington is lauded as the epitome of a stern but caring father-figure and honorable rebel leader who stands against tyranny for the welfare of the people. George Washington, in reality, was a wealthy Virginia slaveholder who aggressively pushed natives out of the Ohio Valley and led an egregious and steadfast pursuit of his runaway slaves during the Revolutionary War.48 Thomas Jefferson is presented as a comedic, zany character, and the perhaps most disgraceful side of this titan of a Founding Father was played for laughs. In his opening number, the Jefferson character flippantly casts a command to “Sally” in the song, “What Did I Miss?”49 Sally Hemings has historiographically been referred to as Jefferson’s slave “mistress,” which diminishes the prevalence and disturbingly widespread societal acceptance of slaveholders raping enslaved women.50 Though Sally’s voice was unfortunately never lifted to shed light on the truth of her dynamic with Thomas Jefferson, a person in bondage is incapable of legal consent. Therefore, this coerced relationship deserves more sensitive treatment. Miranda’s portrayals of Washington and Jefferson reinforce the nostalgic coloniality of knowledge, and he invalidates current causes by linking the present movement of deeply oppressed groups with the American Revolution. A running motif throughout Hamilton is the idea of historical memory in regard to the question of who records and communicates history. This theme is the loudest and gives the greatest pause in considering the power of historical and theatrical storytelling. In Act I, George Washington sings, “History has its Eyes on You,” making the Hamilton character acutely aware of the fact that his story will be recorded.51 This cautioning song imprints upon all of his future actions in the show, reappearing several times in reprise, and it renders him ever conscious in questioning what will be included in his history. What Washington sang rang true with reality. The eye of historical memory has consistently been fixed on these men. For others in American history, the concerning question was not necessarily what would be told of their history, but rather would their history be told at all? By continuing to tell

48 Cassandra Pybus, Epic Journeys of Freedom: Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and Their Global Quest for Liberty (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006), 19. 49 Miranda, “What Did I Miss?” 50 Suzette Spencer, “Historical Memory, Romantic Narrative, and Sally Hemings,” African American Review, vol. 40, no. 3 (Fall, 2006), 508. 51 Miranda, “History has its Eyes on You.”

Hamilton and Historical Memory

63

the colonizer’s tale, with merely radically different imagery, the eye of history has yet to be diverted, and Americans once again take note the importance and cogency of the founder’s stories through popular public performance. The theme of historical memory is reprised in various songs, and it comes full circle in the final song of the show, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story.” The spirit of the now deceased Washington laments: Let me tell you what I wish I’d known When I was young and dreamed of glory You have no control: Who lives Who dies Who tells your story?52 The sentiment of Washington’s verse is backed by Hamilton’s sister-in-law and confidant, Angelica, who mourns over the absence of Hamilton within the annals of American history, singing, “Every other founding father story gets told…Every other founding father gets to grow old.”53 This number epitomizes Miranda’s objective to have America remember the “forgotten” Founding Father. Though he wanes in popular memory, Hamilton has enjoyed a stable place in historical teachings. Some early American historians, such as William Hogeland, are further puzzled by Miranda’s choice of an elitist who sought to dilute democracy as a man of the people and a champion of democracy.54 Miranda’s aim still exists within the universal perspective as it is an effort to remember the colonizer, place him center stage, and cast him as the most coveted role in American popular culture. In the end, the respective revolutions of the founders and Miranda fall short of decolonization or radical change. The American Revolution was conservative. It was led by the elite classes, who at times used violence to force the masses to conform to the cause. Their objective was also conservative in that they did not want a true change of state and a form of diluted democracy in which freedom only applied to the few. Miranda’s endeavor is a radical turn, but it cannot be designated as a truly radical

52 Miranda, “Who

Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story.”

53 Ibid.

William Hogeland, “From Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton to Hamilton: An American Musical,” in Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018), 20.

54

64

Chapter 3

revolution. For his efforts to be deemed a radical revolution and a successful decolonization of the American mind, he needed to reject the universal view that the stories of the conquerors are the only stories worth telling. The portrayal of wealthy, powerful, elite members of society could never be a revolutionary story because radical movements begin at the grassroots level, such as antislavery and the Civil Rights Movement. Such revolutions are led by the masses for radical change, rising up against an oppressive status quo. These stories of grassroots movements dramatize wars waged against oppressors by those who seek no less than inclusive ownership of national identity and history, participation in society, and cultural autonomy. While the triumphs of these men are necessarily celebrated and further humanized in the musical, there is no mention of Native Americans, and only a few mentions of slavery. The founders extinguished the pluralistic histories of America to craft their own and assert dominance with their “singular” story. Their efforts are ritualistically fortified through public performances, and Hamilton is no exception despite Miranda’s desire to emerge as exceptional. What becomes clear through Miranda’s misstep is that coloniality is not about intention, but rather knowledge and sight. The lifeblood of coloniality is supplied by a country that is oblivious to the ways in which colonialism, racism, and systems of oppression persist. Due to the colonized epistemology of American history, the minds of Americans are still colonized and their eyes remain veiled as to the many ways they not only observe, but also participate in and contribute to, the system of coloniality. True decolonization involves a radical redistribution of knowledge production, as discussed by Quijano and Grosfoguel, in order to lift the veil and at last see. Intention is meaningless and change is elusive without the knowledge or sight to discern the coloniality of culture. The founders are not who history forgot. Their story has been told through every educational and cultural medium as an iteration of sacrament to be forever and unduly paid to the “old, dead white men” for their crimes against humanity and history. American history, and history in general, is never singular. Holistic history proliferates from the plurality of groups, cultures, and knowledge bases. To deny the value of “other” histories, or to cast them as alternatives to a “standard” line of history, reinforces historical and present manifestations of societal and cultural marginalization. If historical narratives continue to play out on the American stage, the roles played in American history must be pluralized and resignified, imbuing all with historical meaning, independence, and ownership. History has its eyes on producers of popular culture as a mainstream force which informs and reflects popular perceptions and ways of knowing. Therefore, popular culture must be a site of critique and the scrutinizing of artistic objects that perpetuate hierarchies and

Hamilton and Historical Memory

65

silence identities. If theatre is to be used as a tool of decoloniality, it must first be democratized and opened to the masses for creation, participation, and viewership. It is time to unveil, celebrate, and perform the histories, identities, and roles of those who have been forced into the periphery of the historical eye and behind the curtain of the American stage. Bibliography Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press, 2010. Appiah, Anthony, and Amy Gutmann. Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Books, 2004. Cummings, Lindsay B. Empathy as a Dialogue in Theatre and Performance. New York: Springer Publishing, 2016. “Demographics of the Broadway Audience 2015-2016 Season.” Broadway League: Research Reports. Accessed January 20, 2020. www.broadwayleague reports.com/reports. “Demographics of the Broadway Audience 2018-2019 Season.” Broadway League: Research Reports. Accessed July 28, 2020. www.broadwayleaguerep orts.com/reports. DiGiacomo, Frank. “‘Hamilton’s’ Lin-Manuel Miranda on Finding Originality, Racial Politics (and Why Trump Should See His Show).” The Hollywood Reporter online. August 12, 2015. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fea tures/hamiltons-lin-manuel-miranda-finding-814657. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1963. Reprint 2004. Frankel, Daniel. “Disney Plus ‘Hamilton’ Viewership Exceeds Those Who’ve Seen It Live, Research Company Says.” Next TV. July 20, 2020. https:// www.nexttv.com/news/disney-plus-hamilton-viewership-exceeds-those-w hove-seen-it-live-research-company-says. Grosfoguel, Ramon. “Geopolitics of Knowledge and Coloniality of Power: Thinking Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans from the Colonial Difference.” Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in a Global Perspective, Ed. Ramon Grosfoguel. Berkley: University of California Press, 2003, 1–40. “Hamilton Musical: Auditions.” Accessed May 20, 2020. Hamiltonbroadway. com/auditions. Herrera, Patricia. “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past. Eds. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 260–276. Hetrick, Adam. “‘Hamilton’ Announces National Tour Cast.” Playbill. January 5, 2017. https://www.playbill.com/article/hamilton-announces-national-to ur-cast. Hogeland, William. “From Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton to Hamilton: An American Musical,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is

66

Chapter 3

Restaging America's Past. Eds. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 17–41. Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999. Johnson, David R. “The History and Development of the Field of Drama Therapy in North America.” Current Approaches to Drama Therapy, Ed. David R. Johnson. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 2009. Kelley, Robin. Race Rebels: Culture, Politics, And The Black Working Class. New York: The Free Press, 1996. Kornhaber, Spencer. “‘Hamilton’: Casting After Colorblindness; A brief controversy over the play’s pursuit of diversity reminds just how potent that diversity is.” The Atlantic online. March, 31 2016. www.theatlantic.com/ entertainment/archive/2016/03/hamilton-casting/476247. Kreps, Daniel. “Lin-Manuel Miranda, Chuck Schumer Seek Scalper Crackdown With New Bill.” Rolling Stone online. August 14, 2016. https://www.rolling stone.com/music/music-news/lin-manuel-miranda-chuck-schumer-seek-sc alper-crackdown-with-new-bill-249785. Lawrence, Jesse. “On Eve Of Debut, Hamilton Has Most Expensive Secondary Market Tickets On Broadway.” Forbes online. July 13, 2015. https://www. forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2015/07/13/prior-to-debut-hamilton-hasmost-expensive-secondary-market-tickets-on-broadway/#54c15a3c6adb. Lugones, Maria. “Toward a Decolonial Feminism.” Hypatia, vol. 25, no. 4, Fall 2010, 742–759. Mignolo, Walter. “Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality, and the Grammar of De-Coloniality.” Cultural Studies. 21:2 (2007): 449–514. Mignolo, Walter. “Preamble: The Historical Foundation of Modernity/Coloniality and the Emergence of Decolonial Thinking.” A Companion to Latin American Literature and Culture. Ed. Sara Castro-Klarén. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. 2015. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc. Monteiro, Lyra. “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past. Eds. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 58–70. Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: Norton and Company, 1975. Ng, David. “‘Hamilton’ Musical Runs into Trouble over ‘Non-White’ Casting Notice.” LA Times online. March 30, 2016. www.latimes.com/entertainm ent/arts/culture/la-et-cm-hamilton-musical-diversity-20160330-story.html. Paulson, M. “‘Hamilton’ Heads to Broadway in a Hip-Hop Retelling.” New York Times online. July 12, 2015. www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/theater/hamil ton-heads-to-broadway-in-a-hip-hop-retelling.html. Pavis, Patrice. Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992, 5. Perez, Adam, Ashley Ross, and Salima Koroma. “Why History Has Its Eyes on Hamilton's Diversity.” Time online. January 19, 2016. time.com/4149415/ hamilton-broadway-diversity.

Hamilton and Historical Memory

67

Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. New York: Routledge, 1993. Pybus, Cassandra. Epic Journeys of Freedom: Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and Their Global Quest for Liberty. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Trans. Michael Ennis. Nepantla: Views from the South, 1.3 (2000): 533–580. Ryzik, Melena. “Heights Before Broadway.” New York Times online. March 14, 2008. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/theater/14heig.html. Spencer, Suzette. “Historical Memory, Romantic Narrative, and Sally Hemings.” African American Review. Vol. 40. No. 3 (Fall, 2006): 507–531. Tebbel, John William. From Rags to Riches: Horatio Alger and the American Dream. New York: Macmillan, 1963. Towers, Andrea. “‘Hamilton’ casting call wants women to play Washington and Burr.” Entertainment Weekly online. Accessed October 8, 2019. ew.com/ article/2016/03/03/hamilton-casting-women-washington-burr. Young, Alfred F. and Gregory Nobles. Whose American Revolution Was It? Historians Interpret the Founding. New York: New York University Press, 2011.

Part Two: Don’t Be Shocked When Your History Book Mentions Me

Chapter 4

Hamilton and the Historical Profession Eric Medlin Wake Technical Community College

In 2016, one of the more unusual events of Mike Pence’s tenure as Vice President-Elect of the United States took place. Pence attended a showing of Hamilton, the smash hit musical that had taken the country by storm just two years prior. Following the performance, members of the cast stepped out of character to chastise Pence for the racist and nativist policies of his boss. As Vox reported at the time, lead actor Brandon Victor Dixon said to Pence, “We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents—or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us.”1 The confrontation, an unprecedented act during a culturally significant work of art, dominated a news cycle. Katherine Brooks described the impact of this political statement. She wrote, “A production expected to generate upward of $1 billion in sales, that has always engaged in the politics of our time, has the capacity to reach more people than your average pop culture phenomenon... and that’s not a platform to be taken lightly. It’s precisely why Dixon told audience members to take out their phones and record his speech.”2 This moment helped crystalize the unique role that Hamilton has played in our culture. The musical does not easily fit into the simple partisan boxes that have been drawn over the past dozen years. By its mixture of individualistic

1

Caroline Framke, “Mike Pence went to see Hamilton. The audience booed—but the cast delivered a personal plea,” Vox, November 19, 2016, https://www.vox.com/culture/ 2016/11/19/13683864/mike-pence-hamilton-booed-clip. 2 Katherine Brooks, “‘Hamilton’ cast’s message to Pence is what free speech looks like,” HuffPost, November 19, 2016, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hamilton-cast-messag e-pence_n_582fdda7e4b058ce7aab4d05.

72

Chapter 4

themes and catchy songs with color conscious casting, it has transcended politics in many ways. But these clashing themes have proven challenging to the students of its ideas and impact. As a work set in the past, Hamilton is closely attached to the historical profession. Historians see the musical as a driver for their field, a gateway for those who would not otherwise be interested in learning about the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary War. It has brought millions of dollars into the field through tourism, grants, and programs such as the “EduHam” project, which brought thousands of New York high school students together to watch the play and perform educational pieces inspired by it.3 Hamilton is seen as a touchstone for sharing history with the greater public and as a new way of communicating historical arguments and ideas outside of the profession. But Hamilton is not a product of the historical profession. It is a Broadway musical channeled through a popular biography written by a financial journalist (Ron Chernow). The songs were not written by tenured professors at Ivy League departments. There is a source book of inspirations and suggestions for further reading, but there was no peer review and no expectation of absolute historical accuracy. The tension that resulted between the profession and the cultural touchstone is a fascinating window into the historiography of the Revolutionary period and the ways in which a musical can shape our understanding of the past in some, but not all, of the same ways a monograph can. By using the works of Early American historians, the writings of Hamilton’s creators, and the discourse caused by the production of the musical, I argue that Hamilton makes a clear historiographic point about both the Early Republic period and the broader work of history, which is that the combined force of Chernow’s book and Miranda’s musical have resulted in a full-scale rewriting of the historical legacy of Alexander Hamilton. This rewriting has opened new interpretive areas, such as the sphere of modern finance and personal beliefs about slavery, that have been applied to Hamilton’s contemporaries. It has led to dozens of new books on Hamilton and the characters and ideas surrounding the musical. The Chernow/Miranda approach also has the capability to expand past the Early Republic period, as shown by Chernow’s rewriting of the legacies of J.P. Morgan and Ulysses S. Grant along similar lines.

3 Valerie Strauss, “The unusual way Broadway's 'Hamilton' is teaching US history to kids,” The Washington Post, June 28, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ answer-sheet/wp/2016/06/28/the-unusual-way-broadways-hamilton-is-teaching-ame rican-history-to-kids.

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

73

But in addition to the specific arguments the songs and biography make, there is also the greater importance of contributing to historical interpretation with a musical. This legacy is more the work of Miranda than of Chernow. Miranda’s approach has used the new technique of a multicultural musical to help bolster and revitalize the old, yet essential, approach of narrative biography. With these forces, Hamilton has blasted past the critiques of the historical profession and has only cemented its legacy in pop culture over five years after its initial debut. Prior to the twentieth century, Alexander Hamilton had mainly been known by historians as an anti-democratic elitist. In keeping with the focus on the revolution and the “history of the parties” framework of early American historiography, writers throughout the nineteenth century focused almost entirely on Hamilton’s career during the Revolution and the George Washington administration.4 He was always associated by historians such as George Bancroft and John Bach McMaster with his reputation as the leader of the Federalist Party, a pro-bank, pro-corruption nobleman in opposition to Thomas Jefferson’s democratic farmers and workers. Anti-Hamiltonian historians believed he was an aristocrat who was doomed to failure in his efforts against the Jeffersonians. Jefferson biographer John Randall decried the Federalist leader as a devious figure, one who hated democracy and saw the Constitution as “a temporary bond until some crisis of state would enable him to seize power and establish a monarchical government.”5 But to his supporters, Hamilton was a genius patriot, one who aided Washington before “giving to the United States a national government, and therewith a national character and policy.”6 In his biography of Hamilton, Henry Cabot Lodge argued that Hamilton was a brave, robust supporter of Washington and steward of public finance. With regards to one of Hamilton’s financial Reports, Lodge argued that Hamilton’s goal was “to restore the credit and good name of the United States, to do what was just in the majority of

George Bancroft, History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent. Volume VI (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882, 1884), 25, 29, 235, 453. John Bach McMaster, A History of the People of the United States, from the Revolution to the Civil War (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1884), 144, 568–570. Also see Joseph Ellis, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Vintage Books, 1998), 8. 5 Merrill D. Peterson, The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), 156. 6 Anson D. Morse, “Alexander Hamilton,” Political Science Quarterly 5, no. 1 (1890), 1–23. 4

74

Chapter 4

instances and to the greatest number, and he urged, in conclusion, that any other course was impracticable... his reasoning could not be answered.”7 This view was crystallized during the Progressive period. Throughout the 1910s and 1920s, a new generation of historians began to write history that reflected their liberal worldview. They focused on dualities such as eastern versus western, poor versus wealthy, and liberal versus conservative. The latter became a dominant theme in the work of Vernon Parrington. In his massive Main Currents in American Thought, Parrington distilled the essence of American liberalism to the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and opposed it to the philosophy of Hamilton. To Parrington, Jeffersonianism was a mix of property rights and the worth of the individual. Jefferson believed that “the people were honest and well-meaning; and if government were brought close to them, kept responsive to their will, a new and beneficent chapter in human history would open.”8 He devoted his life after 1776 “to the work of providing such political machinery for America as should guarantee for all the enjoyment of those unalienable rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness].”9 In contrast, Parrington portrayed Hamilton as a shrewd thinker wholly committed to the domination of the upper class.10 Parrington wrote: “Something hard, almost brutal lurks in his thought—a note of intellectual arrogance, of cynical contempt. He was utterly devoid of sentiment, and without a shred of idealism, unless a certain grandiose quality in his conceptions be accounted idealism. His absorbing interest in the rising system of credit and finance, his cool unconcern for the social consequences of his policies, reveal his weakness.”11 In many ways, the viewpoint of the Progressives stuck. The consensus historians of the mid-twentieth century were more objective and focused on psychological explanations rather than teasing out sectional or class conflicts. But many of these men and women were still liberal at heart and opposed the aristocratic implications of the Hamiltonian program. Richard Hofstadter, who criticized numerous liberal heroes in his The American Political Tradition, saw in Hamilton an inherent aristocrat who “candidly disdained the people” and wished for a “permanent governmental body to ‘check the

Cabot Lodge, Alexander Hamilton (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1882), 119. Vernon Louis Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought: An Interpretation of American Literature from the Beginnings to 1920 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1930), 354. 9 Ibid., 344. 10 Ibid., 299. 11 Ibid., 295–296. 7 Henry 8

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

75

imprudence of democracy.’”12 After the historiographic developments of the 1960s, the Progressive-era image of Hamilton as the father of American capitalism crystallized. In his massively successful A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn argued that Hamilton was “one of the most forceful and astute leaders of the new aristocracy”13 who believed that “government must ally itself with the richest elements of society to make itself strong.”14 While many historical figures were rehabilitated in the midtwentieth century, a supreme distrust of Alexander Hamilton persisted throughout all of these oscillations and disputes. The interpretation of Hamilton that had been developed throughout the twentieth century was significantly shaken by the twin forces of Ron Chernow and Lin-Manuel Miranda. Chernow is an established historian of power who works within the tradition of political biography. Born in 1949, Chernow worked as a freelance journalist and think tank researcher before starting his literary career in 1990. Several of his early books helped deal with and rectify the image of previously hated figures in American history. Chernow’s first book, The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance, dealt with the legacy of J.P. Morgan, the oftenmaligned banker and robber baron. Chernow pushed back against the standard narrative of Morgan by focusing on the modern nature of his business approach and the many innovations that he introduced into the financial world. To Chernow, Morgan’s firm did not just make money or exercise an inordinate amount of power during the Gilded Age. As Chernow writes, it also “stopped panics, saved the gold standard, rescued New York City three times, and arbitrated financial disputes.”15 Morgan was different from his less enlightened contemporaries “in that their rapacity stemmed from pure greed or lust for power while his included some strange admixture of idealism.”16 While Chernow in no way argues that Morgan was a saint, he was clearly not the villain historians or his earlier critics made him out to be. He was simply misguided, a man “suffering an excess of morality” who “believed

12 Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: Vintage Books, 1948), 5, 4. 13 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present (New York: Harper Collins, 1999), 95. 14 Ibid., 101. 15 Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990), xii. 16 Ibid., 38.

Chapter 4

76

that he could master the problems of his era at a time when others were confused by the sheer dynamism and speed of economic change.”17 Instead of J.P. Morgan Sr., Chernow focuses his vitriol on Morgan’s successors at his firm, such as J.P. Morgan Jr. and Thomas Lamont. Chernow criticized Morgan Jr. for his anti-Semitism in addition to his brash behavior and his general inferiority to Morgan, Sr. It was Lamont who stands out as perhaps the only villain of the book for his appeasement of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. Lamont was a close supporter of Benito Mussolini, helping the Italian dictator secure a $100 million loan from the Morgan bank and generally bolstering his public image. According to Chernow, Lamont helped foster the idea “that there were two Mussolinis—the sound economic leader and the tough politician—who could be treated separately.”18 Chernow shows Lamont’s callousness by his indifferent responses to atrocities committed by the fascist government. Lamont’s personal relationship with Mussolini, and the massive amounts of money that the Morgan bank received from him, were all that mattered. These personal failings drew Chernow’s ire much more than the accumulation of wealth and the plutocratic control that Morgan’s bank could command at any time. Chernow’s 2004 biography of Hamilton followed the same pattern. It relates a literary narrative, beginning with intimate scenes of Eliza Hamilton in her old age attempting to rectify her late husband’s reputation, and flashes back with a chronological approach tracing Hamilton’s childhood up through his career and tragic death in 1804. At the time, Chernow’s book was praised mainly for its focus on certain details that earlier historians had overlooked or omitted. The book looks closely at Hamilton’s life in the Caribbean, a region that had been neglected by the majority of American historians prior to the mid-twentieth century. It analyzes Hamilton’s political approach and his work prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Chernow goes into detail on Hamilton’s numerous publications and discusses his views on nearly every major question of the mid-eighteenth century. This approach yields surprising results that were simply not part of the earlier historiography surrounding Hamilton. For instance, Chernow discusses Hamilton’s status as an immigrant and his attachment to the Caribbean. He notes that Hamilton played a role in the development of revolutionary ideas in the Atlantic world, as shown by his connections with the Marquis de Lafayette. Time and again, Hamilton’s status as an immigrant

17 Ibid., 18 Ibid.,

58. 282.

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

77

comes up in discussions of his political ideas and career, even though Hamilton would have been seen at the time as someone moving between parts of the British Empire and not necessarily as a foreigner. Chernow sees Hamilton as the archetype of the American immigrant, someone who came to the United States in order to seek new opportunities and success. He was “an unusually tolerant man with enlightened views on slavery, native Americans, and Jews. His whole vision of American manufacturing had been predicated on immigration.”19 Chernow also notes Hamilton’s work against slavery and his many pronouncements against the practice. Hamilton first became aware of the barbarities of slavery as a boy growing up in the slave society of St. Croix. Chernow writes, “This early exposure to the humanity of the slaves may have made a lasting impression on Hamilton, who would be conspicuous among the founding fathers for his fierce abolitionism.”20 Chernow admits Hamilton later made money from the slave trade, but he carried the memories of slave contact and witnessed abuse with him for the rest of his life. Later, Chernow describes numerous instances of the adult Hamilton’s opposition to slavery. During the war, he supported emancipating slaves in exchange for their military service, arguing that “an essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their muskets. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and I believe will have a good influence upon those who remain by opening a door to their emancipation.”21 Hamilton then fought for manumitted slaves after the war and served as a member of New York’s Manumission Society, which eventually secured gradual emancipation in that state.22 Chernow quotes other Founding Fathers’ statements against slavery but writes that “few, if any, other founding fathers opposed slavery more consistently or toiled harder to eradicate it than Hamilton...”23 In addition, Chernow shows that Hamilton was a war hero, how close he was to George Washington, and how he helped develop the nation’s financial system. As in his biography of J.P. Morgan, Chernow reframes his subject as a financial pioneer, rather than a supporter of plutocracy. Chernow attempts to portray Hamilton’s Bank of the United States as a precursor to the central

Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), 658. Chernow dismisses any anti-immigrant sentiment that Hamilton expressed as a morose response to personal setbacks or the result of grief at the death of his son (658). 20 Ibid., 23. 21 Ibid., 122. 22 Ibid., 216. 23 Ibid., 211–212. 19

78

Chapter 4

banks of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Hamilton’s ideas are described as “astonishingly precocious” and modern.24 Chernow describes the financial system as an institution that, instead of supporting aristocracy and the holders of inequitable mortgages, “could generate prosperity that might enrich the few but also lubricate the wheels of commerce.”25 Hamilton’s opponents were not well-meaning democrats but backwards, archaic politicians who wrote about him in “quasi-satanic” terms and “considered banking and other financial activities as so much infernal trickery.”26 Chernow’s ideas were expanded and disseminated by Miranda’s smash musical. The point of Hamilton was, of course, to entertain and inform, not to present and develop a historiographic argument. Nevertheless, Miranda furthered Chernow’s interpretation in his choice of themes and the elements of Hamilton’s life that he included and excluded. As numerous commenters have shown, Miranda downplayed many aspects of Hamilton’s career that were closely focused on by later historians.27 One glaring example of omission in the work of Chernow and Miranda is Hamilton’s work during the Constitutional Convention. Almost a month into the convention, Hamilton proposed that the new nation have an elected monarch who served for life along with a Senate that also served for life. This monarch would curb the democratic tendencies that had greatly disturbed Hamilton and led to his initial support for the convention. According to James Madison, Hamilton argued that “An Executive for life... will therefore be a safer depository of power [than an elected president who could use the Army to stay in power indefinitely.] It will be objected probably, that such an Executive will be an elective Monarch, and will give birth to the tumults which characterize that form of Govt. He wd. reply that Monarch is an indefinite term.”28 This idea was anathema to the gathered delegates, many of whom had just fought a war against the very idea of a king.

24 Ibid.,

347. 346. 26 Chernow, Hamilton, 347. 27 Annette Gordon-Reed, “The intense debates surrounding Hamilton don’t diminish the musical—they enrich it,” Vox, September 13, 2016, https://www.vox.com/the-big-id ea/2016/9/13/12894934/78amilton-debates-history-race-politics-literature. Jason Frank and Isaac Kramnick, “What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Hamilton,” New York Times, June 10, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/opinion/what-hamilton-forgets-about-alex ander-hamilton.html. 28 “James Madison’s Version, [18 June 1787],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0098-0003. 25 Ibid.,

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

79

Chernow does acknowledge this statement. He denotes it as “completely daft” and an unfortunate reflection of Hamilton’s “essentially pessimistic view of human nature.”29 But Chernow quickly dismisses the speech as being blown out of proportion by Hamilton’s many enemies. They argued falsely that “it embodied the real Hamilton, the secret Hamilton, as if he had blurted out the truth in a moment of weakness.”30 Chernow also makes sure to remind the reader that many of Hamilton’s contemporaries had also supported monarchical trappings in government, although his list of “harebrained” or “monarchical” alternatives included relatively benign proposals such as support for a unicameral legislature. While Chernow criticizes this controversial speech in his book, the moment is reimagined as a triumph in Miranda’s Hamilton. In “Non-Stop,” Burr describes the speech in which Hamilton “goes and proposes his own form of government!” and says that Hamilton “Talks for six hours! The convention is listless!”31 Instead of being monarchical, the speech is seen as heroic. While there is some apprehension in the crowd, Hamilton is nevertheless praised by an ensemble member as a “bright young man” whose support for the Constitution contrasts with Burr’s conniving selfinterest. The actual details of the speech are never mentioned, and the end of “Non-Stop” marks the end of Act I and a shift to the period of Hamilton’s life after the ratification of the Constitution. This omission is clarifying. The most important innovation of Miranda’s work, and Chernow’s work on which it was based, was to emphasize Hamilton’s personal qualities over policies such as this one. Two of the strongest themes that Miranda reiterates are Hamilton’s status as an immigrant and as an opponent of slavery. The theme of immigration comes up numerous times in Hamilton’s connection with the Marquis de Lafayette. One of the most famous lines from the musical is in its description of Yorktown when Lafayette calls out “Immigrants!” and both Hamilton and Lafayette sing, “we get the job done!” Hamilton’s heritage comes up again when Burr mentions a pivotal meeting at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agree to Hamilton’s financial plans in exchange for the capital being moved to the Potomac River. Burr denotes the moment as an event where “Two Virginians and an immigrant walk into a room,” and that “The

Hamilton, 231–232. 235. 31 Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Non-Stop,” in Hamilton, 2015. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc. 29 Chernow, 30 Ibid.,

80

Chapter 4

immigrant/ emerges with unprecedented financial power/ A system he can shape however he wants/ The Virginians emerge with the nation’s capital.”32 The fight against slavery is represented by the frequent appearance of John Laurens in the musical. Laurens is one of Chernow’s and Miranda’s most intriguing historical finds. He was almost unknown prior to the late twentieth century. There were occasional mentions of Laurens as an abolitionist in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but the vast majority of history books and articles either mentioned only his military career or did not mention him at all. His abolitionist career received attention in a Southern history of the Revolution by John Richard Alden, a history of slavery by David Brion Davis, and an Oxford History of the United States volume by Robert Middlekauff.33 But he received no mention whatsoever in seminal American history texts by Samuel Eliot Morison, Henry Steele Commager, and James West Davidson. Even Howard Zinn, a revisionist historian more likely to mention famed abolitionists than his predecessors, did not mention Laurens in his groundbreaking A People’s History of the United States. But in Hamilton, Laurens is a major character. He was a prominent South Carolinian who opposed slavery in a state where over 40% of the population was enslaved in 1790.34 Laurens was one of the few Southerners who took a lead role in abolition in the early years of the nation. He discussed multiple plans to pursue abolitionist policies with Hamilton, and has been rumored to have been in a romantic relationship with Hamilton.35 At one point, Laurens proposed to enlist and arm a regiment of slaves who would be freed. He argued, “I would bring about a two-fold good; first, I would advance those who are unjustly deprived of rights of mankind to a state which would be

32 Miranda, “The

Room Where It Happens.” Richard Alden, The South in the Revolution, 1763-1789 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1957); David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006); Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: the American Revolution, 1763-1789 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History of the American People (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965); Morison, Samuel Eliot, Henry Steele Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg, The Growth of the American Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980); James West Davidson and John E. Batchelor, The American Nation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986). 34 Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor, Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790: South Carolina (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1908), 8. 35 Caroline V. Hamilton, “The Erotic Charisma of Alexander Hamilton,” Journal of American Studies 45, no. 1 (2011), 1–19. Accessed February 2, 2021. Doi:10.2307/23016756. 33 John

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

81

proper gradation between abject slavery and perfect liberty, and besides I would reinforce the defenders of liberty with a number of gallant soldiers.”36 The South Carolina legislature seriously considered Laurens’s proposal after the reversals of 1779, but rejected it after opposition from the many large slaveholders of that body. Laurens’s plans to continue the fight against slavery were cut short by what many thought was his meaningless death at the Battle of the Combahee River in August 1782, nearly a year after the surrender at Yorktown and the official end of the war. Laurens’s death is one of the most pivotal and tragic moments in the entire musical. Once he learns what happened in a mournful scene with Eliza Hamilton, Alexander simply says “I have so much to do.”37 The ghost of Laurens sings with him. This moment is so key to the musical’s emotional impact that the song where Laurens’s death is announced is left out of the original cast recording. Miranda explained that he wanted the audience to experience its gravity in person.38 Focusing on slavery, immigration, and the brilliance of Hamilton’s financial program allows Chernow and Miranda to ignore the more questionable policies that Hamilton proposed. In addition to his failed proposal of a semi-dictatorial ruler, Hamilton also helped adopt the policy of militant opposition to rebellious acts by poor farmers. The Whiskey Rebellion was one of the seminal moments of the second George Washington administration, in which poor farmers rose up against a tax on whiskey that disproportionately affected them. Hamilton pushed Washington to lead a large army to quash the rebellion, in what many viewed as an overzealous attack against a poorly organized group of farmers. Washington and Hamilton’s Whiskey Rebellion army totaled over 10,000 troops against an unorganized force of 600 armed farmers. Chernow describes the Whiskey Rebellion as a serious threat. His tale is filled with large, organized rebel armies and the threat to “erect guillotines” in a replay of the French Terror.39 The episode is another example of Chernow’s focus on Hamilton’s genius, since he formulates and plans the affair perfectly. Chernow has to write about the most outlandish aspects of the rebellion

G. Simms, ed. The Army Correspondence of Colonel John Laurens in the Years 1777–8 (New York: Bradford Club, 1867), 108. 37 Miranda, “Tomorrow There’ll Be More of Us Lyrics.” 38 Nora Dominick, “Hamilton’s Lin-Manuel Miranda shares a scene not on the cast album,” Broadway World, September 24, 2015, https://www.broadwayworld.com/ar ticle/HAMILTONs-Lin-Manuel-Miranda-Shares-a-Scene-Not-on-the-Cast-Album-2015 0924. 39 Chernow, Hamilton, 470. 36 William

82

Chapter 4

because, as even he admits, it crumbled without serious resistance. Upon seeing the massive army of Hamilton and Washington, “the military expedition met little overt resistance... most delinquent distillers were rounded up, and others either surrendered or fled into the mountains.”40 Despite Chernow’s spinning of the rebellion as a heroic moment for Hamilton, it clearly did not have universal appeal. In Miranda’s musical filled with Hamilton’s greatest exploits, the Whiskey Rebellion is left out entirely. Chernow’s approach to historical figures does not apply only to Hamilton. He gives the same treatment to Ulysses S. Grant in a 2017 biography. Grant had also been maligned by historians for the past century, mainly due to the corruption that dogged his presidency and his personal qualities. Time and again, historians brought up Grant’s drunkenness and inattention to the affairs of state as hallmarks of his presidency. According to historians from the nineteenth century onward, Grant was an exceptional general who was incapable of governing. His administration was beset by scandal. There was the Credit Mobilier scandal, a railroad fraud that cost the federal government millions of dollars and involved Grant’s 1872 running mate. The Gold Ring scandal of 1869 involved his brother-in-law, and the Whiskey Ring of 1875 involved two of his private secretaries. Bruce Catton’s 1954 biography of Grant argued that the corruption in his administration hampered its approach to Reconstruction. Grant believed in “the effort to protect the Negro in his newfound freedom,” but “the men who supported Grant on this stand were the men who definitely were not in politics for their health...”41 With Reconstruction and corruption combined in the eyes of many Northerners, it was only a matter of time before the country pleaded for the government to “sweep the whole mess under the rug.”42 This combination doomed Grant’s hopes of a third term and his future legacy. Grant’s most positive legacy, in the view of later historians, was certainly his efforts against the Ku Klux Klan. Grant saw the organization as a violent, illegal attempt to overturn the results of the war he had just won. With his support, Congress passed the three Enforcement Acts of 1870–71 to curb Klan activity. These acts empowered the federal troops stationed across the South to stop Klan meetings and arrest its leaders. The Klan ended as an organization in 1872. While many historians praised Grant for his stance against the Klan, others viewed his role in Reconstruction in a more critical

40 Ibid.,

470. Bruce Catton, U.S. Grant and the American Military Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1954), 179. 42 Ibid., 180. 41

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

83

way. Historians from the Dunning and “revisionist” schools believed Grant went too far, while later historians believed he abandoned Reconstruction with his failure to stop “Redeemer” Democrats from taking over state legislatures throughout the region in the early 1870s. Howard Zinn wrote, “as white violence rose in the 1870s, the national government, even under President Grant, became less enthusiastic about defending blacks, and certainly not prepared to arm them.”43 As in his Hamilton biography, Chernow attempts to refocus the view of Grant with regard to personal traits, policy, and social justice. Chernow praises Grant’s personality in much the same way he praises Hamilton’s. He describes Grant as “a sensitive, complex, and misunderstood man with a shrewd mind, a wry wit, a rich fund of anecdotes, wide knowledge, and penetrating insights.”44 At other points, Grant is praised as “a far-seeing general,” “an adept politician,” and, as William T. Sherman once said, “no namby-pamby fool; he was a man—all over—round and complete.”45 In order to craft a new Grant, Chernow goes beyond personal traits and dives directly into policies. Chernow devotes significant space to Grant’s actions against the Klan. The Klan is one of the most heavily indexed terms in the book. Chernow classified the fight as “the imperishable story of Grant’s presidency.”46 In a rejection of earlier critics, Chernow writes that Grant “had employed forceful, no-holds-barred actions to loosen the Klan’s grip” and cited Frederick Douglass, who “wisely saw that the random corruption cases that tarnished the administration’s reputation were far less consequential than the president’s unqualified support for southern blacks.”47 Chernow rarely hints that Grant could have done more in the climate of the Gilded Age, with Democrats united against him and Republicans offering uneasy support. Grant’s battle against the Klan shows his willingness to assert the power of the executive branch, a harbinger of the actions of strong twentieth century presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Grant’s behavior was more characteristic of these modern presidents than of his Gilded Age contemporaries, many of whom often deferred to Congress on matters of importance. To bolster this point, Chernow discusses Grant’s mostly forgotten plan to combat an economic recession: “Garfield [a congressman] and Richardson [Grant’s treasury secretary] talked Grant out of an ambitious and

43 Zinn,

204. Chernow, Grant (New York: Penguin Press, 2017), xx–xxi. 45 Ibid., 958. 46 Ibid., xxii. 47 Ibid., 706, 709. 44 Ron

84

Chapter 4

farsighted plan to combat unemployment through a large-scale public works project, which would have anticipated Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.”48 Chernow also omits and limits factors that have led historians to discount Grant over the previous 150 years. He spends an inordinate amount of space challenging the notion that Grant was a drunkard. On the question of Grant’s drinking, Chernow writes that it remains “the most explosively persistent myth” about the 18th president.49 Despite Grant’s lifelong struggle with alcohol, Chernow argues that “drinking almost never interfered with his official duties” and that Grant “managed to attain mastery over alcohol in the long haul.”50 Grant’s drinking appears over 25 times in the index. Chernow’s excuses for it became a key theme to many reviewers. Typical among these was Janet Maslin in the New York Times, who wrote, “Chernow is deeply in his subject’s camp, always ready to play apologist about the drinking and other troubling behaviors.”51 Chernow’s defense is too clearly connected to his positive views of Grant to be entirely supported by his critics. Chernow also rejects the idea that Grant’s administration was particularly corrupt. He takes pains to remind the reader that Grant was not personally involved in any of the many episodes that clouded his legacy. Rather, according to Chernow, “the manufactured outrage over the scandals came from legislators eager to discredit Reconstruction and the moral underpinnings of the administration.”52 Chernow even tries to argue that most of Grant’s scandals were confined to the second half of his second term and therefore should have less impact on his legacy. As assessments of the Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon administrations show, the exact timing of scandals rarely changes a presidency’s evaluation by historians. Chernow’s approach to Grant is tweaked but slightly compared to his approach for Hamilton. With Hamilton, Chernow focused on both the modern aspects of Hamilton’s economic program and the moral aspects of his fight against slavery and xenophobia. Chernow cannot find many modern financial elements in Grant’s economic program. Therefore, Chernow focuses on Grant’s modern use of a powerful executive branch in implementing Reconstruction, which also shows Grant’s moral interest in social justice.

48 Ibid.,

778. xxiii. 50 Ibid., xxiii. 51 Janet Maslin, “In Ron Chernow’s ‘Grant,’ an American giant’s makeover continues,” New York Times, October 10, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/books/review-gra nt-biography-ron-chernow.html. 52 Chernow, Grant, 825. 49 Ibid.,

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

85

Chernow and Miranda have done more than just improve the public view of historical figures. Increased praise of Hamilton in recent years, based on the Chernow/Miranda model, has consequently led to a worsening of Thomas Jefferson’s reputation. Jefferson has mostly been revered for his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the Democratic Party’s predecessor. As noted in the Parrington quotation above, Progressive historians loved Jefferson for his opposition to industrial capitalism and his reverence for the common citizen. Merrill Peterson wrote an entire Bancroft Prize–winning book about Jefferson’s importance to American politicians, historians, and thinkers. In The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (1960), Peterson writes that Jefferson was so influential in American history because he “was the most eloquent exponent of political ideas which were to be called democratic and which were to become virtually synonymous with the American ideal.”53 His ideas were always consulted by politicians, historians, and cultural leaders in every generation. “Of freedom,” Peterson writes, “Jefferson speaks to the present with the same urgency as to his own time, and with a voice as affirmative as it is authentic.”54 Peterson believed that Jefferson was the dominant speaker from the era of the Founding Fathers, even more so than Benjamin Franklin or the father of the nation, George Washington. But by the end of the twentieth century, the interpretation of Jefferson became clouded by the controversy about his slaves and his non-consensual relationship with Sally Hemings.55 This relationship, definitively proven by Annette Gordon-Reed in Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997), was later confirmed by DNA. In Hamilton the musical, Jefferson is first introduced with Sally Hemings at his side. His role develops as that of an interloper, focused on gaining power and besmirching Hamilton’s reputation in the process. The musical does not mention Jefferson’s work towards the development of democracy or in the political traditions spelled out by Peterson. Chernow’s focus on character, modernity, and issues of race fits into the general shift of attitudes against Jefferson. Earlier writers moved past the contradiction of Jefferson’s personal actions and his political achievements. But Chernow does no such thing. He refers directly to Jefferson when he argues that “the most damning and hypocritical critiques of [Hamilton’s] allegedly aristocratic economic system emanated from the most aristocratic

The Jefferson Image, 445. 456. 55 For a masterful summary of this literature on Jefferson’s reputation, see Joseph Ellis, American Sphinx, 16–26. 53 Peterson, 54 Ibid.,

86

Chapter 4

southern slaveholders, who deflected attention from their own nefarious deeds by posing as populist champions and assailing the northern financial and mercantile interests aligned with Hamilton.”56 This attitude has been reinforced by numerous works on Jefferson released in the past five years. It has also resulted in a loss of Jefferson’s popularity among the public at large, as evidenced by the move to remove Jefferson’s name from schools and official Democratic Party events.57 The works of Chernow and Miranda have also shifted historians’ approach to telling the stories of famous people. Chernow and Miranda’s approach is so powerful partially because it validates not just Hamilton but the entire idea of the narrative biography written for a popular audience. Historians have worried for decades about the preeminence of narrative history. They have bemoaned its overwhelming focus on old white men and its simplistic approach to political history. To many historians, works on the Founding Fathers are reminders of the nineteenth century, when many historians followed early biographers such as John Marshall and John Randall by teasing out the meaning of America in its founding men. This approach created a historical template that left out women, minorities, the poor, and broader social, economic, and cultural factors. Lyra D. Monteiro argued that traditional narrative history made it seem as though “the only people who lived during this period—or the only ones who mattered—were wealthy (often slave-owning) white men.”58 Academic historians have been working to correct this approach to history since the 1960s. By retelling the story of men like Alexander Hamilton, historians worry that Miranda and Chernow are undoing that vital post-1960 historiographic work. Chernow and Miranda sidestep these concerns in several ways. First, they tell a multicultural story with themes such as immigration and abolitionism that reject the traditional hierarchies and interests of old-fashioned political Hamilton, 211. Zauzmer and Michael Brice-Saddler, “D.C. committee recommends stripping the names of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Scott Key and others from city government buildings,” Washington Post, September 1, 2020, https://www.washington post.com/dc-md-va/2020/09/01/dc-building-school-renaming; “Falls Church to removes Thomas Jefferson and George Mason school names,” WSLS, December 9, 2020, https:// www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/12/09/falls-church-to-removes-thomas-jeffersonand-george-mason-school-names; Steve Almasy, “Dems in Jefferson’s home state change name of Jefferson-Jackson dinner,” CNN, March 3, 2018, https://www.cnn. com/2018/03/03/politics/virginia-democrats-rename-dinner/index.html. 58 Lyra Monteiro, “Race-conscious casting and the erasure of the Black past in LinManuel Miranda’s Hamilton,” Public Historian 38, no. 1 (February 2016), 89. 56 Chernow, 57 Julie

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

87

biographers. Their work shows that narrative biography can be popular and up-to-date if it emphasizes the correct themes and approaches. This idea has been born out by a number of narrative biographies released to overwhelming acclaim since 2015. One of the most famous was Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom by David W. Blight, longtime professor of history at Yale University. Blight’s book was a definitive, old-fashioned biography that nevertheless won praise from popular and academic presses, including from radicals. An author for the Guardian wrote, “This is a monumental book, a definitive biography, rich with the biblical cadences that filled Douglass’ life and imagination.”59 It was praised in the New York Times for its focus on the traditional arc of Douglass’s life: “Blight isn’t looking to overturn our understanding of Douglass, whose courage and achievements were unequivocal, but to complicate it—a measure by which this ambitious and empathetic biography resoundingly succeeds.”60 In 2019, the book became one of the few to win both the Bancroft Prize and the Pulitzer Prize. The Bancroft in particular shows near-universal acclaim within the historical profession. There was no hint that reviewers were unhappy about the traditional use of narrative biography to tell a detailed, balanced story about a famous non-white figure. In addition to Blight, there has been a steady release of prominent, wellreceived narrative biographies among the historical profession. John A. Farrell, Kerri K. Greenridge, and Joe Jackson have all won prominent awards for narrative biographies published since 2017. Farrell’s book, in particular, won acclaim for its revelations about Nixon during Vietnam.61 Like Chernow, Farrell is not a professional historian, but he nevertheless won accolades for his meticulous research and the slightly new take he delivered on a well-worn subject. Miranda’s work is also part of this trend. It tells the previously boring, antiquated story of political biography in a slightly different way, this time through a new medium. While his goal is to tell a historical story similar to

59

John S. Gardner, “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom review: a monumental biography,” Guardian, October 27, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ oct/27/frederick-douglass-prophet-of-freedom-review-biography. 60 Jennifer Szalai, “A big new biography treats Frederick Douglass as man, not myth,” New York Times, October 17, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/books/revi ew-frederick-douglass-prophet-of-freedom-david-blight.html. 61 Jason Heller, “‘Nixon: The Life’ humanizes—but doesn’t rehabilitate,” NPR, April 12, 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/04/12/522926517/nixon-the-life-humanizes-but-does nt-rehabilitate.

88

Chapter 4

those of John Marshall or John Randall in the nineteenth century, he does so both through historically aware theater and through the casting decision of bringing in non-white actors to play white historical figures. This approach, while established in the field of theater, is relatively new for historical interpretation. By combining a new focus on progressive themes with a dramatic adaptation and cutting-edge casting choices, Miranda is able to combine the popular appeal of a political biography with the recent advances of the historical profession. Hamilton therefore has something for everyone, which makes it hard to criticize. At the same time, Hamilton is clearly not universally beloved. Miranda and Chernow have caused tension in the historical community. Part of the community’s response to Hamilton stems from the fact that neither Chernow nor Miranda are historians. To some, their success seems to discount many of the advances towards rigorous social, economic, and cultural history that have defined the profession over the past five decades. Lacking training in history means that they bypass some of the critical complications that historians have identified for the sake of preserving a good story. As Annette Gordon-Reed wrote a year after the musical’s release, “Viewers (both white and black) can celebrate without discomfort because black people are playing the men who have been, of late, subjected to much criticism. Imagine Hamilton with white actors... Would the rosy view of the founding era grate? Would we notice the failure to portray any black characters, save for a brief reference to Sally Hemings?”62 With the release of the Hamilton movie on Disney+ in July 2020, it is clear that the musical’s popularity will only continue to grow. The same is true of Chernow’s work and approach. People will continue to buy narrative biographies, many of which will have an anti-racist theme. They will focus on the Founding Fathers, incorporating some but not all of the historiographic developments over the past five decades. In many ways, Hamilton has led to the continued viability of narrative biography for the next, left-leaning generation. This impact will be much greater than the canonization of Alexander Hamilton that Miranda and Chernow have accomplished since the first bars of Miranda’s musical rang out in February of 2015.

62

Annette Gordon-Reed, “Hamilton: The Musical: Blacks and the founding fathers,” National Council on Public History Blog, April 6, 2016, https://ncph.org/history-atwork/hamilton-the-musical-blacks-and-the-founding-fathers.

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

89

Bibliography Alden, John Richard. The South in the Revolution, 1763-1789. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1957. Almasy, Steve. “Dems in Jefferson’s home state change name of JeffersonJackson dinner.” CNN, March 3, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/ politics/virginia-democrats-rename-dinner/index.html. Bancroft, George. History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent. Volume VI. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882, 1884. Brooks, Katherine. “‘Hamilton’ cast’s message to Pence is what free speech looks like,” HuffPost, November 19, 2016, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ hamilton-cast-message-pence_n_582fdda7e4b058ce7aab4d05. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor. Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790: South Carolina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1908. Catton, Bruce. U.S. Grant and the American Military Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown, 1954. Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Press, 2004. Chernow, Ron. Grant. New York: Penguin Press, 2017. Chernow, Ron. The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990. Davidson, James West, and John E. Batchelor. The American Nation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986. Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006. Dominick, Nora. “Hamilton’s Lin-Manuel Miranda shares a scene not on the cast album,” Broadway World, September 24, 2015, https://www.broadway world.com/article/HAMILTONs-Lin-Manuel-Miranda-Shares-a-Scene-Noton-the-Cast-Album-20150924. Ellis, Joseph. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. “Falls Church to remove Thomas Jefferson and George Mason school names.” WSLS, December 9, 2020, https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/12/09/ falls-church-to-removes-thomas-jefferson-and-george-mason-school-names. Framke, Caroline. “Mike Pence went to see Hamilton. The audience booed— but the cast delivered a personal plea,” Vox, November 19, 2016, https:// www.vox.com/culture/2016/11/19/13683864/mike-pence-hamilton-booedclip. Frank, Jason, and Isaac Kramnick. “What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Hamilton.” New York Times, June 10, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/opini on/what-hamilton-forgets-about-alexander-hamilton.html. Gardner, John S. “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom review: a monumental biography.” Guardian, October 27, 2018, https://www.theguar dian.com/books/2018/oct/27/frederick-douglass-prophet-of-freedomreview-biography.

90

Chapter 4

Gordon-Reed, Annette. “Hamilton: The Musical: Blacks and the founding fathers.” National Council on Public History Blog, April 6, 2016, https:// ncph.org/history-at-work/hamilton-the-musical-blacks-and-the-foundingfathers. Gordon-Reed, Annette. “The intense debates surrounding Hamilton don’t diminish the musical—they enrich it.” Vox, September 13, 2016, https:// www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/9/13/12894934/hamilton-debates-histor y-race-politics-literature. Hamilton, Caroline V. “The Erotic Charisma of Alexander Hamilton,” Journal of American Studies 45, no. 1 (2011): 1–19. Accessed February 2, 2021. doi:10.2307/23016756. Heller, Jason. “‘Nixon: The Life’ humanizes—but doesn’t rehabilitate.” NPR, April 12, 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/04/12/522926517/nixon-the-lifehumanizes-but-doesnt-rehabilitate. Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage Books, 1948. “James Madison’s Version, [18 June 1787],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-00 98-0003. Lodge, Henry Cabot. Alexander Hamilton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1882. Maslin, Janet. “In Ron Chernow’s ‘Grant,’ an American giant’s makeover continues.” New York Times, October 10, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/ 2017/10/10/books/review-grant-biography-ron-chernow.html. McMaster, John Bach. A History of the People of the United States, from the Revolution to the Civil War. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1884. Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: the American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. “Non-Stop.” In Hamilton: An American Musical. 2015. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. “The Room Where It Happens Lyrics.” In Hamilton: An American Musical. 2015. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. “Tomorrow There’ll Be More of Us Lyrics.” In Hamilton: An American Musical. 2015. Atlantic Recording Corporation, compact disc. Monteiro, Lyra. “Race-conscious casting and the erasure of the Black past in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton.” Public Historian 38, no. 1 (February 2016): 89–98. Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Oxford History of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Morison, Samuel Eliot, Henry Steele Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg. The Growth of the American Republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Morse, Anson D. “Alexander Hamilton.” Political Science Quarterly 5, no. 1 (1890): 1–23. Parrington, Vernon Louis. Main Currents in American Thought: An Interpretation of American Literature from the Beginnings to 1920. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1930. Peterson, Merrill D. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Hamilton and the Historical Profession

91

Simms, William G, ed. The Army Correspondence of Colonel John Laurens in the Years 1777–8. New York: Bradford Club, 1867. Strauss, Valerie. “The unusual way Broadway's ‘Hamilton’ is teaching US history to kids.” The Washington Post, June 28, 2016, https://www.washing tonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/06/28/the-unusual-way-broad ways-hamilton-is-teaching-american-history-to-kids. Szalai, Jennifer. “A big new biography treats Frederick Douglass as man, not myth.” New York Times, October 17, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1 0/17/books/review-frederick-douglass-prophet-of-freedom-david-blight.html. Zauzmer, Julie, and Michael Brice-Saddler. “D.C. committee recommends stripping the names of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Scott Key and others from city government buildings.” Washington Post, September 1, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/09/0 1/dc-building-school-renaming. Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present. New York: Harper Collins, 1999.

Chapter 5

Ladies Don’t Wear Red: Gender, Class, and Fashion in Hamilton Larissa Knopp St. John’s University

There is a certain fascination with picking apart the costumes in period films and productions. Lively debates crop up on social media, YouTube videos are created, and subreddits are filled with chatter about whether certain fabrics, cuts, or colors are historically accurate. The Broadway musical Hamilton: An American Musical is no different, though the costumes of the show presented a larger challenge. The costumes used in Hamilton had to help set the stage, quite literally, for the show and help the audience suspend their reality enough to appreciate that the story told is set in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but the costumes also had to meet the needs of the show itself. The actors needed to be able to move freely, they had to be able to sing, and they needed to be able to change costumes quickly. Costume design must take into account the time period, the tone of the musical, and the actors’ needs in order to be effective. The musical takes a unique approach to history: the main characters, historical white figures, are portrayed by actors of color, the sung-through musical is a mix of hip hop and rap that pulls inspiration from modern and historical music. This requires that the costumes provide the context needed without pulling the audience out of the world created by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Paul Tazewell, the costume designer for Hamilton, meets the practical needs of costumes design, but he also provided quality costume design by creating the visual context of the historical era and providing a modern shorthand for audiences to understand the characterization of the main characters and how they vary from each other. The characters’ roles, morality, and how they change over time is explicitly shown by the costumes worn throughout the musical, this is especially true for the three main female characters Angelica Schuyler, Elizabeth Schuyler, and Maria Reynolds, as well as for Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

Chapter 5

94

Costume Design Ultimately, the goal of costume design is to help the audience follow the narrative of the story. Hamilton, though inspired by true events, is just a good story told through song and rap. Its goal is to entertain the audience and the costume design is used to help the audience grasp the time and place the story is set, without distracting from the play itself. Rebecca Cunningham wrote in The Magic Garment that “an actor’s costume helps concentrate the powers of imagination, expression, emotion, and movement into the creation and projection of a character to an audience.”1 Costume design helps audience members transcend place and time, to fully immerse in the show and the magic of theater. Also, costuming is an important way to help characterize important figures. Characters will often have a distinct style within the show accompanied by their own color scheme. Melissa Merz argued in The Art and Practice of Costume Design that “[u]nderstanding the psychology of clothing, or the reason people wear what they wear, is essential for creating a cohesive design.”2 Costume is a tool to create a whole world and the individual designs must help define the character, but it also must work as a unit in the larger system of the world-building. Elissa Harbert also addressed this specific need in the context of history musicals. She argues that while history musicals are often upheld as a way to teach the public about the past, they are never faithful to historians’ accounts of events. The musicals that Harbert examined, including Hamilton, “have a veneer of historical authenticity both visually, in their costumes, props, and sets, and textually, in the form of facts, statistics, and quotations from period documents incorporated into their dialogue and lyrics. These gestures toward authenticity help create historical ambience, but they do not change the fact that these are narratives in which aesthetic and dramatic concerns are prioritized over historical fealty.”3 This emphasizes the idea that costume design must serve the ultimate goals of a Broadway show, to entertain audiences and continue to draw more viewers. Costumes must not interfere with the performers’ ease of movement or ability to sing or speak. This means that in historical shows the characters are not dressed in period pieces. Also, performers must be able to quickly doff and don

Rebecca Cunningham, The Magic Garment: Principles of Costume Design (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2019), 1. 2 Melissa Merz, “The Magic of Costume Design,” in The Art and Practice of Costume Design, ed. Melissa Merz (Baton Ratron, FL: CRC Press, 2016), 13. 3 Elissa Harbert, “Hamilton and History Musicals,” American Music 36, no. 4 (Winter 2018), 414. 1

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

95

pieces, often in cramped quarters. Part of that ease comes from layering pieces from different outfits, and part comes from the different closures that the pieces use. Costumes can be visually pleasing and keep the appearance of a certain period, but the logistics of costume changes should be baked into the entire show.4 Before the costumes are created, the designer must understand the vision of the director and the needs of the costume shop. The gowns used in Hamilton have the silhouette of the late eighteenth century, but they do not require the undergarments and closures of the time. Women’s gowns were often closed by being sewn or using straight pins. When actors need to make quick costume changes, historical closures are impractical. Also, different pieces can be used in multiple outfits, the characters of Eliza and Angelica use the same skirt with different bodices. It gives the appearance of costume changes when in actuality it is just a quick top change. Not all costumes require all the small details required for true historical accuracy, such as historical hair styles with elaborate hats and bonnets to complete the outfit or historical accessories or perfumes that often complete an outfit. Tazewell explained in an interview that it was decided that the historical period would be reflected in everything worn from the shoulders down, but neck up would be modern.5 This saved the cast from having to wear wigs and historical hair styles or from wearing hats and head coverings. The male characters’ costumes were just as important as the female characters’, especially after the Revolutionary War ended. The scenes that covered the Revolutionary era found the male characters dressed in blue military style jackets with cream trim that matched the cream waistcoats and white breeches. They also wear riding boots that come to their knees. These blue coats serve as an easy way to demark the American troops from the red jacketed British troops in the musical. The coat length, color, and fabric during the scenes after the war all helped the audience understand the characters’ personality and role in the show. Daveed Diggs, as Thomas Jefferson, wore a dramatic purple jacket made in silk that was inspired by Prince and Jimi Hendrix when first introduced after the intermission, a jacket so long that it brushes his ankles. Miranda, as titular Hamilton, wore a shorter jacket with matching bottle green breeches and white stockings. In an interview, Tazewell revealed that Miranda specifically requested a green suit in order to represent

4

Kat Richter, “Make it Snappy: Performing the Seamless Costume Quick Change,” Dramatics, April 2017, accessed April 5, 2021, https://dramatics.org/make-it-snappy. 5 Melia Robinson, “The ‘Hamilton’ Costume Designer Tells Us His Secrets to Dressing the Founding Father,” Tech Insider, April 13, 2016, https://www.businessinsider.com/ paul-tazewell-costume-designer-hamilton-2016-4.

96

Chapter 5

his character’s connection to money.6 Jefferson’s character is flamboyant and bold, so his purple suit matches his over the top personality. As the musical progresses, Jefferson’s jacket is shortened but it is still made in purple velvet. Purple is often associated with royalty and that connection can be made with one of the most well-known Founding Fathers, one who was born into wealth, had access to an education, and spent many years in France. Madison and Washington are much more subdued compared to Hamilton and Jefferson. Washington is dressed in a black suit throughout the second half of the musical and Madison wears a gray suit with a yellow waistcoat. Late Eighteenth Century Fashions and Historical Costuming It is important to examine the trends of the late eighteenth century in order to establish what themes and silhouettes inspired the costume design. Items held by the Fashion Institute of Technology and the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art show the fabrics, colors, and shapes that marked late eighteenth century fashion, specifically those found in North America during the Revolutionary Era and the years that immediately followed. Though clothing was used to distinguish class, wealth, and gender, in colonial North America, sometimes those distinctions were not always cut and dried. In her book, Kate Haulman describes how those lines were blurred; “[F]ashion in dress was about distinguishing oneself sartorially in ways that could result in social confusion…As a material practice and a concept, fashion was protean and shifting, its meanings unstable, contested, and as various as changing styles themselves. It was Atlantic by local; metropolitan and colonial; a would-be establisher of imperial and social hierarchies and their potential obscurer.”7 People of different social classes wore clothes associated with classes higher or lower than themselves for various reasons, fashion trends came from Paris and London but were filtered through the societies of Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and other colonial cities, which worked together to help blur the lines of the social hierarchy. Fashions in colonial North America were distanced, both physically and metaphorically, from those in England and on the European continent. Trends naturally arrived later in North America, sometimes fabrics arrived too late or not at all, and the people in colonial cities often had stylistic preferences that varied greatly from

6

Patrick Pacheco, “‘Hamilton’ Costume Designer on How He Streamlined 18th Century Looks for a 21st Century Show,” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), June 11, 2016. 7 Kate Haulman, The Politics of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 14.

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

97

city to city.8 Some of the pieces held today show that colonial fashions were often more understated. Even when using high-end fabrics, the gowns often were not decorated with as much ribbon work or lace accents. Women’s clothing of the time included many layers to help create the proper silhouette and to protect the gowns. American fashions were less showy than the continental and English fashions of the period. An ensemble held by the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum provides a great example of what women of means wore during the late eighteenth century in colonial America. The ensemble is relatively simple and displays the quality of the fabric, a rich green Spitalfields damask.9 The skirt does not drag on the floor, the bodice has a flat front that comes to a point at the waist and is closed by pins up the front, and the ensemble is paired with heels made with the same green silk. The fabric is decorated with a floral motif that catches the eye as the dress moves. As mentioned, the gown has little added decoration, though there is white lace around the square collar and at the base of the threequarter sleeves. The gown was a subtle declaration of wealth and class and could be paired with fine jewelry. Another example held by the Costume Institute is a skirt from circa 1750. The skirt is made of linen and is a cream color, embroidered with floral designs. Sprigs of flowers decorate the body of the skirt, while a border of various flowers and leaves surrounds the hem of the skirt.10 Though the skirt is dated about twenty-five years earlier than the green ensemble, the skirts are very similar. They are about the same length and are made with enough fabric to accommodate petticoats and the extra padding worn around the hips, similar to the cut of the dresses worn in Hamilton. A dress also held by the Costume Institute provides an example of women’s fashion in the late eighteenth century. It is brown cotton printed with red and blue flowers all over. The dress, from circa 1774, has been constructed with pleats at the hips so that the skirt has a fullness and can accommodate the correct underthings, also, the back of the bodice has been darted so that the bodice fits snugly against the stays.11 The dress was photographed while on exhibit and had been styled with a fichu around the neck and some lace at the bottom of the

8

Ibid., 41. “Ensemble,” Silk, ca. 1775, 1994.406a-c, Costume Institute, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 10 “Skirt,” Linen and wool, ca. 1750, 42.188.1, Costume Institute, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 11 “Dress,” Cotton and linen, ca. 1774, 26.38a, Costume Institute, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 9

98

Chapter 5

sleeves. The brown dress has a similar shape to the green ensemble, but the type of fabric shows that it was probably used for less formal occasions. A fashion plate from 1778 France titled “Grand Robe Francoise” portrays a gown that has the same overall shape as the colonial gowns, but is much more decorated. Made of blue silk, the gown has a sacque back and a petticoat that is highly decorated, the draped silk caught up with yellow bows, and the sleeves and neckline are trimmed with lace.12 Also, the fashion plate depicts a lady wearing a high wig, powdered and curled, with a white cap. Women often wore caps and hats during this era, the caps were worn both indoors and outdoors, with a hat added when going out. The gowns worn by the women in the musical certainly had the correct shape. The skirts were the correct length, the bodice that came to a point at the waist, and square necklines lined with white lace gave the impression of the late eighteenth century gowns that are held by institutions today. One key difference is that the examples examined are made with fabrics that have prints or have been richly embroidered. The gowns worn by the Schuyler sisters during the song “The Schuyler Sisters,” where the three sisters are introduced, were all made of silk taffeta fabric that appears to be in solid tones, but has iridescent qualities that can be seen as the women move about the stage. In an effort to allow the actors to move in a very modern way, the actresses were not wearing stays, boned bodices were used instead, which gave a similar appearance to the structure that is obtained by wearing stays, and when the women spin as they dance, the audience can see that they are wearing several petticoats under the skirts, but not panniers or other hoops. Also, in that introductory song, the women were out in public and did not have caps on or fichus around their shoulders. The gowns they wore looked more suited for an evening out at a ball rather than a jaunt in downtown Manhattan. The musical focuses on the years between the American Revolution and 1804, the year that Alexander Hamilton died from wounds sustained from a duel with Aaron Burr. Men’s and women’s fashions shifted dramatically during the last few years of the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century. Women’s fashion in particular changed silhouettes. The gowns in the early nineteenth century were fitted around the bust and then fell loose past the waist and hips. An English fashion plate from 1808 labeled “London Dresses for July” depicts two women in white dresses, one in a pink open robe dress and the other wearing a green pelisse. Both women are wearing head coverings, one is in a

12 Pierre-Thomas LeClere and Paul Cornu, 1881-1914, “Grand Robe Francoise, Fashion plate from Galerie des Modes et Costumes Francçais,” SPARC Digital, accessed March 28, 2021, https://sparcdigital.fitnyc.edu/items/show/1039.

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

99

white lace cap, while the other wears a straw bonnet.13 The gowns are free to fall from the bust and do not have hoops or padding underneath in order to emphasize the hips. These gowns were still worn with stays and petticoats but looked much less structured than the dresses that preceded them. As the show moves through the late eighteenth century and into the early nineteenth century, the gowns that the women wear change. Eliza and Angelica appeared in the style that emerged in the last few years of the eighteenth century and continued into the early nineteenth century, which visually helps move the show in time, especially since the men’s costumes do not significantly change. Eliza is first seen wearing a blue dress in the new silhouette that is tight around her bust and then drops in a loose fall past her waist and hips during the song “Burn.” The bust is smocked with a ribbon tied just below and the gown is made with a delicate fabric that is covered in white polka dots. Angelica is shown in a similar dress, hers is in the same orangey pink that her original gown was in. The dress she wears has a netted skirt overlay and she wears a silk pelisse that fastens over her bust, but then cuts away so that her skirt is not covered. Also, at this point in the musical, during the song “The Reynolds Pamphlet,” Angelica’s hair has been pulled up into a topknot and no longer falls down her back, which helps show the passage of time and distinguishes Angelica more from Eliza. Men’s fashions of the time also required many layers and could be just as detailed as women’s clothing. An American men’s suit held by the Costume Institute is a prime example of the era covered in the first act of Hamilton. The suit, circa 1780, is made of linen, silk, and cotton, and includes a jacket, waistcoat, and breeches.14 The color is quite similar to the color of the fabric worn by the ensemble and principal characters during the first song of the show, a yellowed cream or parchment color. Though it looks quite simple at first glance, especially since it is photographed without the neckcloth worn during the eighteenth century, it is actually quite decorated. There is fine embroidery on all three pieces of the suit, even including the button coverings. The embroidery is done in white and is found along the front of the jacket, around the collar, around the pockets on both the jacket and the waistcoat, and along the front closures of the breeches. Fashion was highly criticized during the late eighteenth century. Despite the fact that not adhering to trends could spell ruin for women, fashion was often 13 Vernor, Hood & Sharpe, Poultry, “London Dresses for July,” SPARC Digital, accessed April 2, 2021, https://sparcdigital.fitnyc.edu/items/show/2957. 14 “Suit,” Linen, silk, and cotton, ca. 1780, 2007.87a-c, Costume Institute, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

100

Chapter 5

deemed to be frivolous or a sign of moral decay. In the article “Serious Daughters” Leslie Reinhardt explains that in “America and on the Continent, essayists and polemicists criticized fashion on many different, sometimes contradictory, grounds: among other things, it was called extravagant, affected, artificial, changeable, masculine, immodest, and immoral.”15 Women’s standing in society was displayed by the clothes she wore, but she also could be reviled if she appeared to put too much effort into her appearance or that she was too invested in the latest trends. Men also could be scorned for caring too much about their appearance. In the musical Hamilton, the character of Thomas Jefferson twice brings up Alexander Hamilton’s appearance. The first is in “Cabinet Battle #2” when he claims that Hamilton “smells like new money, dresses like fake royalty desperate to rise above his station.”16 In the song that immediately follows, “Washington on Your Side,” Jefferson again comments on Hamilton’s clothes; “The way he primps and preens and dresses like the pits of fashion.”17 Hamilton’s recent ascent in American society is a key point of contention between him and Jefferson. Jefferson sees Hamilton’s new money and too fashionable clothing as an indication of his morality. Haulman explores this concept through a journal written by a young woman in Trenton, New Jersey. The woman, Sarah Eve, joined some acquaintances in visiting the wife of a doctor and wrote about the visit, stating that she did not want to appear inflexible she went along with the outing but found the women to be caught up in appearances and material goods. Eve saw outward display and internal merit as being tied together and she was not alone; Positive encouragements reported the ostensibly virtuous behavior of the ‘people of fashion’ while denigrating fashion itself…not only were the virtues of modesty, industry, frugality, and sensibility used to further political goals, but the goals themselves acquired a new social dimension…In particular, attacks discursively used fashion to target high-status women and wealthy men of commerce, the latter by questioning their masculinity through impugning their republican independence.18

15 Leslie Reinhardt, “Serious Daughters: Dolls, Dress, and Female Virtue in the Eighteenth Century,” American Art 20, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 36. 16 Christopher Jackson, Daveed Diggs, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Okieriete Onaodowan, “Cabinet Battle #2,” Atlantic Records, 2015, on Hamilton: An American Musical, Spotify. 17 Daveed Diggs, Okieriete Onaodowan, Leslie Odom Jr. and ensemble, “Washington on Your Side,” Atlantic Records, 2015, on Hamilton: An American Musical, Spotify. 18 Haulman, The Politics of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America, 118-119.

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

101

Participation in fashion was a requirement for men and women of a certain class, but there was a delicate balance between being too fashionable and not enough, and the morality of a person could be judged by how well they balanced the two. Historical Accuracy Hamilton is unique, it is modern, a complete rapped-through show that uses modern slang and touches on modern debates while set in the late eighteenth century, but it is not the first history musical. The history musical genre, while much smaller than the “period musical” which are accepted as openly fiction, generally are “promoted and received as telling a more or less true story and that it emphasizes some degree of historical accuracy.”19 Elissa Harbert explores the spectrum that history musicals are on, historical credibility and fictionalization being a key challenge. The accuracy of the storytelling will not be addressed in this paper, but the costumes will be examined. Sara JablonRoberts and Eulanda Sanders worked to create a definition of historical accuracy in the context of theatrical costume design and their work included interviewing contemporary Broadway costume designers in order to understand their perceptions of historical accuracy and what they believe necessary to achieve it.20 Some argue that historical accuracy is necessary in the theatre when the show is portraying a historical period, that the audience must be transported through the clothes, to better understand the characters through the accurate portrayal of the clothing of the era. The belief that historical accuracy was essential began to erode in the early twentieth century. Costume designers began to focus on catching “the impression of the time” and not getting bogged down in literal translations of the historical clothing.21 Some costume designers believed that trends of the past are so foreign to modern audiences that historically accurate costumes would actually prevent the audience from fully engaging with the characters because they would be too distracted. The most compelling argument though is that historical accuracy is just not a viable option. Modern costume designers approach the design of costumes with a modern eye and have access to modern textiles, dyes, and machines; “Since many costume practitioners and historians maintained that…designers cannot help but incorporate elements of their own period into designs purporting to reproduce those from those from the past,

19

Harbert, “Hamilton and History Musicals,” 413. Sara Jablon-Roberts and Eulanda A. Sanders, “The Underlying Definition of Historical Accuracy,” Dress 45, no. 2 (2019), 108. 21 Ibid., 112. 20

Chapter 5

102

they often recommended avoiding historical accuracy as the objective in designing costumes.”22 Though true accuracy may not be obtainable, JablonRoberts and Sanders explain how designers use textiles, undergarments, and silhouette to provide the appearance of accuracy. The silhouette is the most important component and it is achieved by paying attention to small details, such as where the waist sits or the cut of a sleeve. Their definition of historical accuracy also includes the body, which entails height and body build, as well as skin tone and hairstyles. The historical body may be hard to come by, as different societies value different physical forms, but it can be aided by practicing mannerisms of the time and moving in a way that historical figures would move. Melissa Merz writes that “continued study into the mannerisms, movements, culture, purpose, evolution, fabrics, construction, and social histories will be useful with different periods of dress.”23 There was a massive gap to bridge between the audience and the world that Miranda created. That bridge was created in part through the casting decisions, choosing to portray powerful white historic figures with actors of color. The costume design was one more way to tie the two worlds together. In an article published in the Los Angeles Times, costume designer Tazewell spoke of his inspiration. In an early read-through, Okieriete Onaodowan, who played Hercules Mulligan and James Madison, wore a ski cap; Tazewell said, “It seemed so connected to who Oak was as an actor, and I also thought that it connected him to Mulligan because it could live both in the 18th century and in the contemporary world…So I thought it was a smart choice to incorporate that kind of thing in order to bridge the gap between their world and ours.”24 That ski cap, as well as other touches, make the costumes in Hamilton feel modern, even as they maintain the silhouette of the late eighteenth century. There is a definite choice to not be historically accurate, the actors move in modern ways, the way they strut across the stage and the way that they dance keeps them solidly in the twenty-first century. Costume as Shorthand When the Schuyler sisters are introduced, the women are dressed in bold, eyecatching colors that set the tone for each of their characters. Eliza is dressed in cool blues and greens throughout the show, while Angelica is dressed in orangey pinks. When introduced, both Eliza and Peggy wear three-quarter sleeves with lace around the edge. Angelica’s dress has full sleeves and while

22

Ibid. Merz, “The Magic of Costume Design,” 13–14. 24 Pacheco, “Streamlined.” 23

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

103

she does have lace around her neckline, she does not have lace on her sleeves. Angelica is portrayed as the more cunning and less naïve sister. She takes an active interest in politics, she states that she will talk to Jefferson about women and the Declaration of Independence and in “Take a Break” she gives advice to Hamilton in his dealings with Jefferson, and sees the world for what it is. In the song “Satisfied,” which she sings immediately after Eliza’s “Helpless” about falling in love with Hamilton, Angelica says “I’m a girl in a world in which my only job is to marry rich…I’m the oldest and the wittiest and the gossip in New York City is insidious.”25 She is the sister that is more aware of the harsh realities of the world, she goes on to mention that she understands that her last name, her standing in New York society, is what makes her attractive to men. The gowns that she wears, in warmer tones and in slightly different cuts, show the audience that, while still a lady, she is worldlier. Angelica arrives back in New York in the song “Take a Break” and is wearing an almost masculine bodice, it appears as if she wears a waistcoat underneath a jacket and both have buttons on the front, the jacket even has two pockets on it. In that same song, Eliza is wearing the same bodice from “Schuyler Sisters” but with a blue ribbon now tied around her waist and a fichu in the neckline. The two dresses show the characterization of the two women: Angelica is a woman who travels and is politically minded, whereas Eliza has chosen a more domestic life, one where she supports her husband’s political goals, but ultimately is more concerned with her children and home life. This obviously is purely the portrayal within the show, both sisters were mothers and wives in actuality. When we are introduced to Maria Reynolds, she is in a red gown, with no white lace at the sleeves or neckline, with her hair down and her lips painted a bright red to match her dress. Immediately the audience understands that this woman is not like the other women in Hamilton’s life. His wife and sister-inlaw wear gowns in delicate pinks, greens, and blues, nothing as bold as what Reynolds wears, and their gowns do not usually lace down the front, unlike Reynolds’. Eliza Schuyler does wear one bodice that laces down the front, but it is in deeper blue and is paired with a fichu that covers her chest. Also, the way the two dresses are laced is significantly different. The lacing on the front of Reynolds’ gown is much more abstract, it is uneven and looks as if one side of the lacing is missing. Eliza’s lacing is much more structured, it is even and the laces are tied in a neat bow at the top of the bodice.

25 Renée Elise Goldsberry and ensemble, “Satisfied,” Atlantic Records, 2015, on Hamilton: An American Musical, Spotify.

104

Chapter 5

Also, while their hairstyles may be down and not historically accurate, their hair is styled. It is pulled back from their face and has a polished, finished look to it. Reynolds’ hair is curly and loose down her back, even falling into her face a bit, which immediately helps the audience understand that she is ready to move their relationship to the bedroom. This association with loose hair and women of ill repute was present even during the eighteenth century. A published book from 1788 listed women of Covent Garden and shared detailed accounts of their looks, skills, and occasionally anecdotes about the women. The author, Harris, described nearly every woman’s hair color, but for certain women he wrote more detailed descriptions. One woman had “dark hair, flowing in ringlets down her back,” while another had “light-brown hair, which waves in many a graceful ringlet.”26 Harris described another woman in even greater detail, “Her hair is also black, of which great ornament, nature has been lavishly bountiful, for when loose, it flows in unlimited tresses down to her waist.”27 His descriptions of these women are similar to the hairstyle that Reynolds’ wears. The fact that many men saw these women’s hair down is linked to their morality, their hair would not have been down if they had not been entertaining men in their bedrooms. Reynolds’ character is also relayed by the lyrics of “Say No to This,” the song that describes the affair between Hamilton and Reynolds; “She turned red, she led to her bed, let her legs spread and said stay.”28 The music turns sultry and the use of a cello brings to mind sinuous movement. This portrayal of Reynolds, all in red, leading Hamilton to the bed and asking him to stay, urges the audience to see Reynolds as the seductress and Hamilton as the victim of a shameless woman. This shorthand is certainly not unique to Hamilton and that is why it is so effective. Audiences have seen fallen women or the femme fatale dressed in red leading men down paths of sin time and again, in all types of media such as Jessica Rabbit, Marilyn Monroe in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, and Julia Roberts as Vivian Ward in Pretty Woman. That is why the use of red on Reynolds is such an effective choice. The audience sees the woman in red and immediately knows that she is not the same type of woman as the others that have been introduced. 26 Harris’s list of Covent-Garden ladies: or, man of pleasure’s kalendar, for the year, 1788, London: printed for H. Ranger, 1788, pg. 21 and 36, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, accessed April 16, 2021, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CW0124952228/ECC O?u=nypl&sid=ECCO&xid=ba438c89&pg=36. 27 Ibid., 34. 28 Jasmine Cephas Jones, Leslie Odom Jr., Lin-Manuel Miranda, Sydney James Harcourt, and ensemble, “Say No to This,” Atlantic Records, 2015, on Hamilton: An American Musical, Spotify.

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

105

This shorthand allows for the character of Hamilton to take no responsibility for the affair. The lyrics cast him as the victim. Despite describing the situation that led Reynolds to approach Hamilton for help, her abusive relationship with her husband and his subsequent abandonment of her, it still presents Reynolds as a master manipulator, not a victim of an era that kept women in vulnerable positions due to strict gender roles and limited options for women of all social classes, but especially for those who did not have resources such as family and money. Costume also shares with the audience the emotional state of Eliza and Alexander Hamilton after their eldest son died from wounds sustained during a duel. Eliza still wears her blue empire waisted gown, but she dons a black pelisse over it that has closers across the bust and puffed sleeves at the shoulders. Alexander wears a black velvet suit and black stockings, with a white cravat and white lace at the wrists. Angelica is also shown in a black pelisse over her gown, one that is embroidered heavily. The lives of people in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were marked with periods of mourning, women would wear black for a predetermined amount of time and then shift to other half-mourning colors, such as gray and lavender. The Hamiltons lived during a period when mourning habits were shifting. Lucia McMahon wrote, “Although eighteenth-century parents grieved the deaths of their children, many tended to exhibit what historians have characterized as a ‘more passive attitude of Christian resignation’…It was proper and expected to mourn the loss of loved ones, but religious and cultural conventions stressed restraint, and women in particular were admonished to avoid excessive displays of grief.”29 Parents wore mourning clothes for a period of time, but were not expected to be outwardly emotional, though McMahon’s research shows that women often wrote about their overwhelming grief and by the antebellum period mothers were allowed to be more explicitly emotion. The period of mourning in the show allows the audience to see a more vulnerable side of the Hamiltons. The show focuses heavily on the drive and ambition of Hamilton, but this moment shares with the audience the ways that the relationship between Eliza and Alexander is nuanced, that they grow from the pain and hardship that they endured. The black costumes, similar to the mourning clothes worn during the late eighteenth century, are also a way to portray the muted moment in the show. The music slows and quiets, the

29 Lucia McMahon, “‘So Truly Afflicting and Distressing to Me His Sorrowing Mother’: Expressions of Maternal Grief in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia,” Journal of the Early Republic 32, no. 1 (Spring 2012), 29.

Chapter 5

106

stage is dimmed, and the costumes are darker. It is almost jarring when “The Election of 1800” begins and Jefferson asks “can we get back to politics?”30 Conclusion The costume design is an incredibly important part of a show like Hamilton. The costumes are necessary aides for the audience to feel transported to the world of rapping Founding Fathers; they help bring the eighteenth century to the twenty-first century. While a close examination does reveal that the musical Hamilton is not solely about history, instead it is a vehicle for cultural commentary relevant to the present day, it does aim to help people learn from history.31 Tazewell brought historical silhouettes to the stage, altered enough to allow for freedom of movement, but married that historical style with thoroughly modern touches so that the overall tone of the show was modern, which allowed the social commentary to speak throughout the show. The use of costume design allowed the audience to pick up certain indicators about the characterization of the main characters. This was especially true about the main female characters: Elizabeth Schuyler, Angelica Schuyler, and Maria Reynolds. Each woman played a distinct role in Hamilton’s life and the use of certain color palettes and style choices helped the audience understand those roles, yet they were also not trapped in the eighteenth century. The characters were able to speak to emotions and events that women today experience. Ultimately, a show like Hamilton: An American Musical can be a great entry point for audience members to learn more about historical figures who may come across as dull or one dimensional. Tazewell said, in an article published by the Los Angeles Times, “In order for it to resonate as strongly as possible, I thought it was important to get beyond our preconceived notions of these iconic figures while honoring how Lin had brought the story to light.”32 The show tells an entertaining story, while also drawing attention to an exciting period in American history. The musical does well to bring three women to the forefront at different points of the show, it helps center women as important figures during the Revolutionary era and gives voice to historical figures often overlooked, as well as portraying well-known figures in new

30 Okieriete Onaodowan, Daveed Diggs, Leslie Odom Jr., Lin-Manuel Miranda, and ensemble, “The Election of 1800,” Atlantic Records, 2015, on Hamilton: An American Musical, Spotify. 31 Elissa Harbert, “Hamilton and History Musicals,” American Music 36, no. 4 (Winter 2018), 414-417. 32 Patrick Pacheco, “‘Hamilton’ Costume Designer on How He Streamlined 18th Century Looks for a 21st Century Show,” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), June 11, 2016.

Ladies Don’t Wear Red

107

ways. The use of costumes inspired by the eighteenth century, with modern hair and accessories, allows audiences to enjoy the show and to be fully immersed in a world of rapping Founding Fathers, but also sparks curiosity about the era and can inspire audience members to go out and learn more about the fashions, the people, and the systems that are addressed by Miranda’s work. Bibliography Costume Institute. Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York. Cunningham, Rebecca. The Magic Garment: Principles of Costume Design. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2019. Gladys Marcus Library Special Collections and College Archives, SPARC Digital Collection. Fashion Institute of Technology. New York. Harbert, Elissa. “Hamilton and History Musicals.” American Music 36, no. 4 (Winter 2018): 412–428. Harris. Harris's list of Covent-Garden ladies: or, man of pleasure's kalender, for the year, 1788. Containing the histories and some curious anecdotes of the most celebrated ladies now on the town, or in keeping, and also many of their keepers. London: printed for H. Ranger, 1788. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CW01249 52228/ECCO?u=nypl&sid=ECCO&xid=ba438c89&pg=36. Haulman, Kate. The Politics of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2011. Jablon-Roberts, Sara and Eulanda A. Sanders. “The Underlying Definition of Historical Accuracy.” Dress 42, no. 2 (2019): 107–125. LeClere, Pierre-Thomas, and Paul Cornu. “Grand Robe Francoise, Fashion plate from Galerie des Modes et Costumes Francçais,” SPARC Digital, 1881-1914, accessed March 28, 2021, https://sparcdigital.fitnyc.edu/items/show/ 1039. McMahon, Lucia. “‘So Truly Afflicting and Distressing to Me His Sorrowing Mother’: Expressions of Maternal Grief in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia.” Journal of the Early Republic 32, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 27–60. Merz, Melissa L. “The Magic of Costume Design.” In The Art and Practice of Costume, edited by Melissa Merz. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic Records, 2015, Spotify. Pacheco, Patrick. “‘Hamilton’ Costume Designer on How He Streamlined 18th Century Looks for a 21st Century Show.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), June 11, 2016. Reinhardt, Leslie. “Serious Daughters: Dolls, Dress, and Female Virtue in the Eighteenth Century.” American Art 20, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 32–55. Richter, Kat. “Make it Snappy: Performing the Seamless Costume Quick Change.” Dramatics. April 2017. Accessed April 5, 2021. https://dramatics.or g/make-it-snappy.

108

Chapter 5

Robinson, Melia. “The ‘Hamilton’ Costume Designer Tells Us His Secrets to Dressing the Founding Father.” Tech Insider, April 13, 2016, https://www. businessinsider.com/paul-tazewell-costume-designer-hamilton-2016-4. Vernor, Hood & Sharpe, Poultry, “London Dresses for July,” SPARC Digital, accessed April 2, 2021, https://sparcdigital.fitnyc.edu/items/show/2957.

Chapter 6

Reclaiming the Narrative: Hamilton as a Repertory Archive Kaitlin Tonti Seton Hall University

In 2016, Hamilton: An American Musical’s debut at Richard Rogers Theatre revitalized the Broadway stage. The excitement in seeing a hip-hop musical engage with the theme of America’s founding era resulted in monthly sold-out shows, Hamilton-themed merchandise, and the popularity of short but telling catchphrases like “Work!” The musical also inspired a revitalized effort to reconnect with America’s past, precisely the Revolutionary War moment. Alexander Hamilton’s face remained on the ten-dollar bill, and Lin-Manuel Miranda, the son of Puerto Rican lineage, made history playing the role of Hamilton in front of an audience at the White House that included the first black president, Barack Obama. History teachers and early American experts were equally thrilled when their students were newly inspired by eighteenthcentury culture and politics. Great success cannot be without criticism, however, and as the musical became a beacon for diverse casting practices, historians noted that Hamilton failed to address slavery’s role in Hamilton’s life and vast early America. Ed Morales, author and lecturer, argues that Hamilton, on stage, was successful in how it amplified the “Obama era” in its representation of a seemingly progressive Founding Father who creates the immigrant American Dream before the Revolution had even begun.1 However, since 2020, when Black Lives Matter protests reveal the absolute necessity for nation-wide anti-racist efforts, some aspects of Hamilton have been looked at more critically. Laura Zornosa of the Los Angeles Times writes, “critics across the board have taken issue with the whole host of perceived problems Morales, “The Problem with Hamilton the Movie,” CNN, last modified July 7, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/opinions/hamilton-movie-mixed-messages-black-li ves-matter-morales.

1 Ed

110

Chapter 6

including the erasure of Black and Indigenous people to claims of revisionist history.”2 Of course, historians have been aware of these problems since the play’s debut off-Broadway at The Public Theater in 2015. Historians argue whether Hamilton is a groundbreaking take on America’s Founding Fathers, or if it is just another white revisionist history, this time dressed up in hip-hop culture. It is thought by some that black actors playing white founders undermines the experience of enslaved populations, and scholars have addressed their concern that Miranda did not adequately showcase early American black figures. Lyra D. Montiero argues that promoting the show as having embraced color-blind casting is misleading, but that the dilemma with misrepresentation in the musical is not limited to early black America.3 Catherine Algor notes there is no mention of coverture's limitations on women’s rights and that leaving Eliza “left to tell the story” only engages white women as history’s preservers.4 The sum of these criticisms demonstrates the reality that although Hamilton is an exciting revision of the early National era, the show cannot relate lost history in the annals of often inaccessible archives. Critical evaluations of Miranda’s musical are warranted; there is a gap where the voices of an early national black and female population seem insignificant to traditional founding fathers such as Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson. However, it is not the responsibility of a two-hour performance to relay approximately thirty years of intricate, complicated race and gender history. Viewers can only expect Hamilton to reinvigorate America’s founding story with some additional flourishes. Namely, the musical must tell a story that is appealing and comfortable to general audiences; it cannot assume a new historiographic approach to Revolutionary America altogether. Despite its flaws, Hamilton successfully uses performance to challenge the generic, white aesthetic that surrounds America’s founding. It is a stylish reconciliation of Americans’ historical memory with the present day. To

2 Laura Zornosa, “With ‘Hamilton’ now a movie, an old debate reignites about who tells its Story,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2020, https://www.latimes.com/entertainmentarts/movies/story/2020-07-10/hamilton-movie-critics-lin-manuel-miranda. 3 Lyra D. Montiero, “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past, ed. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018), 58. 4 Catherine Allgor, “Remember…I’m Your Man’: Masculinity, Marriage and Gender in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past, ed. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018), 94.

Reclaiming the Narrative

111

reassess where Hamilton succeeds is to distinguish between the concepts of recover and reclaim in archival studies. Recover tends to assume that the object in question is restorable to its original or “correct” state or claims that what is lost is also a retainable “possession.”5 Reclaim suggests returning something to an improved state. Many definitions imply that it describes a “challenge or protest” of something that already exists.6 In other words, reclaim also implies to reimagine or recreate. Rather than view Hamilton as a failed attempt at recovering understudied historical participants, I argue that it should be viewed in its efforts to reclaim elements of modern, diverse cultures as pathways to revisit and reimagine the eighteenth century. In doing so, Hamilton is successful in creating a repertory archive within the boundaries of the stage where culturally diverse bodies and hip-hop reclaim America’s founding story for multicultural audiences. What Hamilton Can’t Do: Limitations of the Traditional Archive When the lights dim, and the unmistakable first notes of the title song “Alexander Hamilton” start to play, spectators first see a black man playing the role of Aaron Burr, who history otherwise remembers as a white Princeton alum, born and raised in New Jersey. As the show proceeds, a diverse cast of BIPOC actors appears as the bodies and voices through which Hamilton’s life story is told. As the story envelops the audience in drama, romance, and a sense of new patriotism, general audiences might leave the theater forgetting that ethnic diversity was not a characteristic of the early American elite. They also might leave having made the incorrect association that black characters playing white founders mean the voices of black and indigenous men and women are easily found in America’s stories. However, the reality is that the black, minority, and female voices that characterize America’s founding generation in Hamilton are not the ones easily recoverable in traditional academic archives. Archives in the United States have always been a place of politics in how they are often the recipients of poor government and institutional funding and conservative political attacks against the humanities, social sciences, and arts. As Susan Scott Parrish observes, the problem is not “the underappreciated archivist” whose job is to protect and maintain the preserved materials, but instead in how the relationship between archives and the public has changed throughout the centuries.7 Intended initially as a place for the working class,

5 Oxford

English Dictionary (2020), s.v. “Recover.”

6 Ibid., “Reclaim.”

Susan Scott Parish, “Rummaging/In and Out of Holds,” Early American Literature 45, no. 2 (2010), 261–274. 7

112

Chapter 6

archives, Patrick Joyce notes, offered self-help to everyday citizens.8 As archives evolved, their technical practices, such as acquisition, cataloging, and accessibility, showcased their political nature. National archives are essential in creating national memory. However, preservation is often stifled by budget issues that are “not only means of allocating resources to various units and functions within an organization; they are also instruments for defining the character and activities of the organization itself.”9 In other words, archival funding determines what objects are acquirable and whether they are accessible to the public. As procuring funding is often a challenge, budgeting is often a priority over preservation. Unquestionably, preservation in archives has always been a matter of politics in deciding what is worthy of preservation. Blouin and Rosenberg note that the political and cultural content of archives not only makes an impression upon the public and influences reality, but outlets of acquisition and organization also influence the public’s relationship with national historical memory.10 When government funding is already scarce, allocation spending preserves mainly white, patriarchal records, thus resulting in silences and gaping holes that erase a diverse past. Archive organization is often misleading for African American texts. Simon Gikandi argues that seventeenth- and eighteenth-century black voices seem nonexistent because the slave narratives that are preserved and available to researchers are mainly dated from the nineteenth century.11 This results in harmful assumptions about what lived experiences contributed to the Revolutionary area and development of the early republic. Archive bias also extends to author recognition. Recovering a whole text is preferable to finding fragmented writing. Found writing from canonical authors garner the most attention, as in 2017 when the discovery of previously unfound Walt Whitman poems, fully preserved in their entirety, caught the

Patrick Joyce, “The Politics of the Liberal Archive,” History of the Human Services 12, no. 2 (1999), 35–49. 9 Richard Harvey Brown and Beth Davis-Harvey, “The Making of Memory’: The Politics of Archives, Libraries, and Museums in the Construction of National Consciousness,” History of the Human Services 11, no. 4 (1998), 17–32. 10 Francis Xavier Blouin Jr. and William G. Rosenberg, introduction to Archives, Documentation and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar, ed. Francis Xavier Blouin Jr. and William G. Rosenberg (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 2007), 1–4. 11 Simon Gikandi, “Rethinking the Archive of Enslavement,” Early American Literature 50, no.1 (2015), 81–103. 8

Reclaiming the Narrative

113

attention of the New York Times, making it into their “Books News” section.12 In this vein, Marisa Fuentes suggests that archival fragments “shape the meaning produced about them in their own time and our current historical practices.”13 Consequently, though, fragments cannot tell the whole story; thus, fragments of a life that had been unknown or previously unexplored do not garner the same excitement, nor are they labeled groundbreaking or history changing. Despite these biases, scholars have considered new ways of reading histories that acknowledge people of color and other minority voices. In Early American Literature’s recent special issue titled “Beyond Recovery,” Lauren Coats and Steffi Dippold address the misguided belief that scholars assume they are recovering something from the gaps and silences that typically define hidden voices in the early American record. Nevertheless, these voices are often not recoverable. Coats and Dippold attest to this problem by pointing to how, when silenced voices are present, they exist only in the margins of letters and other partially regarded legal documents and footnotes.14 These documents do not offer the full potential for recovery. Progress in archival scholarship shows that researchers must look beyond the notion that everything is recoverable, or that there was ever something to recover in the first place. Similarly, Kathleen Donegan suggests that when recovery is impossible, the scholar’s responsibility is to accept that the silence exists—and that this silence reveals more about the subject than any number of futile mentions on scraps of aged paper could.15 Traditional, two-dimensional archives provide obstacles to even the most prepared, well-intentioned professional researchers. Archive bias limits the voices and stories that resonate with America’s founding. Therefore, while Hamilton can refashion the founding story, it is not equipped to recover inaccessible or even lost voices. What Hamilton Can Do: The Repertory Archive Although Hamilton cannot recover new historical voices or claims, it can inspire audiences to learn more about the familiar and lesser-known names associated with the Revolutionary moment. Performance makes public history accessible

12 Jennifer

Schuessler, “Book News: In a Walt Whitman Novel, Lost for 165 Years, Clues to ‘Leaves of Grass,’” New York Times, February 20, 2017. 13 Marisa Fuentes, Dispossessed Lives: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Archive (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2016). 14 Lauren Coats and Steffi Dippold, “Beyond Recovery: Introduction,” Early American Literature, 50, no.2 (2020), 297–321. 15 Kathleen Donegan, “Rose,” Early American Literature, 50, no.2 (2020), 321–331.

114

Chapter 6

while encouraging reimagined forms of the stories that whitewash the past. Within the confines of the stage, Hamilton reignites interest in the Founding Fathers’ and Mothers’ lives by creating its own, three-dimensional archive where hip-hop is repurposed to reclaim the early republic for a modern audience. This approach to history is theorized through performance as archive, or repertory archive. Diana Taylor explores the relationship between performance and archive in dialogue with performance and cultural memory. Performance, Taylor emphasizes, is a mode for transferring knowledge and a “system of learning” that extends how knowledge is acquired.16 Performance binds communities and is essential to building and preserving communal memory. It is not the variance between orality and textual means of knowing that is of the most significance, but Taylor points out the distinction between archives and embodied performance. Traditional archives are limited in distributing knowledge, but the repertoire as archive uses the performing body, the performer, to assist the receiving body, the audience, in retaining the knowledge production, Taylor states.17 New ways of thinking about history through performance have successfully challenged static cultural memory enforced through traditional archival recovery. Carol L. Bernstein adds to Taylor’s findings that archives are spaces that repress and hide historical, cultural traumas. Ensuring the legitimacy of cultural memory, Bernstein believes, is in the relativity between the lived experience and the “moment of testimony.”18 Hamilton is one of the newer productions to employ repertoire as an archive; several theatrical experiments have embraced this challenge in the past. One example is in Bill T. Jones’s 1994 production, Dancing to the Promised Land, in which he choreographed scenes from Uncle Tom’s Cabin in conjunction with the story of the Last Supper in the Bible. Bernstein notes that Jones’s documentary showcases Uncle Tom’s Cabin as played out along with religious images leading to the death of Jesus Christ. Reflecting on Stowe’s abolitionist statement through quick, raw dance and fleeting sounds of the past, including speeches from leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., culminate in a scene that asks the audience to consider racial justice.19 Bernstein adds that in the production process,

Diana Taylor, The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003), 16. 17 Ibid., 17. 18 Carol L. Bernstein, “Beyond the Archive: Cultural Memory in Dance and Theater,” Journal of Research Practice, 3, no. 2 (2007), 1–14. 19 Terry Brennan, “Last Supper at Uncle Tom’s Cabin/The Promised Land,” Chicago Reader, 1992, https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/last-supper-at-uncle-toms-cabi nthe-promised-land. 16

Reclaiming the Narrative

115

when Jones was choreographing Tom’s death by whipping, he was reminded of a personal story of his grandmother, who, enslaved, was also brutally beaten when she failed to mind her enslavers’ orders.20 Jones’s family trauma is then tied to the national tragedy that is slavery through the repertory archive rather than the traditional one. Indeed, Jones’s past is now part of the national conversation on race that reached more people through the theater than through preserved documents or textbooks. Likewise, museum programs are using performance to reach patrons. At the National Museum of American History, History Alive, an interactive theater program, hosted The Time Trial series, which encouraged audiences to participate in an interactive theater performance that reassessed the misdeeds of historical figures. In The Time Trial of John Brown, for instance, audiences reassessed their former beliefs about John Brown’s raid. On trial for the audience, Brown offered his perspective of the event, and while the audience did not decide upon Brown’s guiltiness, they were pressed to account for misunderstandings in their personal historical memories. The Time Trial series pushed the boundaries of the repertory archive by involving the audience as participants. Susan Evans notes that most participants were at first defensive of their positions on the topic, noting that one woman had always considered herself a pacifist, but after viewing the performance her beliefs were challenged and she was “unsure as to what John Brown’s other option would have been.”21 Through this series, the conversation between the actors and attendees enhanced performative movement as a vehicle for reimagining the past. It explored history beyond the two-dimensional text and reclaimed stories that are often prematurely judged without critical, historical assessment. In other words, without physical bodies in the seats, history could not be challenged. Much like how performance works in The Time Trial of John Brown and Dancing to the Promised Land, Hamilton reveals new cultural memory constructs in reclaiming the country’s founding. Historians have commented on Miranda’s use of hip-hop as a popular form of music to attract younger audiences, and yet it is essential to address how hip-hop then becomes part of the repertory archive that reclaims the Revolution for modern audiences. When a 2016 casting call for Hamilton sought out non-white actors, this raised concern among Actors’ Equity groups that color-blind or colorconscious casting might result in bias. Later reworded to reflect Miranda's

20 Bernstein, “Beyond

the Archive,” 11. Evans, “Personal Beliefs and National Stories: Theater in Museums as a Tool for Exploring History,” Curator: The Museum Journal 56, no.2 (2013), 189–197. 21 Susan

116

Chapter 6

original idea on casting, the note called for “NON-WHITE men and women, ages 20-30.”22 He said in a 2013 interview, “I’m going to cast the best rappers I can find, whether they’re white or not. It’s a thorny issue, but I think that race and gender should be considered the same way that height and age are – they’re a factor.”23 Seeing Thomas Jefferson portrayed by Daveed Diggs and George Washington portrayed by Christopher Jackson serves as a striking reminder that the men they are playing once enslaved people of the same race as the actors who now embody their voices. These characters then speak through rap, which helps the audience to view the long history of black oppression through the lens of hip-hop culture. References to hip-hop are plentiful in Hamilton to the extent that even the observers with the least awareness of contemporary popular culture would recognize its influence in Miranda’s reclaiming of early America. Several similar instances demonstrate Miranda’s commitment to embedding hip-hop culture in Hamilton’s repertory archive. Forest Wickman for Slate compiled a list of the hip-hop references, track by track, and while some of them are fun, such as Eliza’s singing the lyrics “the boy is mine” in “Helpless,” an homage to Brandy and Monica’s “The Boy Is Mine,” many of them bring to light the racial trauma that rap artists explore.24 For instance, Wickman points to a line in “My Shot,” where Hamilton sings, “Only nineteen but my mind is older / These New York City streets get colder, I shoulder / Every burden, every disadvantage / I have learned to manage.”25 The line “only nineteen but my mind is older” refers to Mobb Deep’s, “Shook Ones, Part II,” released in 1995. Although the “nineteen” line is what stands out, the rest of Deep’s lyrics echo a young Hamilton’s interpretation of his impoverished condition, stating, “I’m only nineteen but my mind is old / And when things get for real my warm heart turns cold / Another nigga deceased, another story gets told.”26 Miranda’s adaption of Deep reclaims the broader message of racial injustice,

22

Nigel M. Smith, “Broadway Hit Hamilton Under Fire After Casting Call For ‘NonWhite’ Actors,” The Guardian, March 31, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/stage/ 2016/mar/31/broadway-hamilton-musical-casting-call-nonwhite-actors. 23 Eric Kohn, “How ‘Hamilton’ Became a Color-Conscious Casting Trailblazer, Before It Was Cool,” IndieWire, 2020, https://www.indiewire.com/2020/07/hamilton-cast-castin g-directors-diversity. 24 Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Helpless,” track 10 in Act 1 on Hamilton: An American Musical, August 2015, compact disc. 25 Miranda, “My Shot,” track 3 in Act 1. 26 Mobb Deep, “Shook Ones” (Part II) by Mobb Deep, track 15 on The Infamous, 1994, compact disc.

Reclaiming the Narrative

117

forcing him to mature in the face of a life that may be cut short by violence, just as Hamilton reminds us in his obsession with building a legacy. In another instance, debates between the founding fathers are conveniently stylized as “Cabinet Battles” in the musical’s second act. In “Cabinet Battle 2,” Thomas Jefferson cheekily raps his position on the newly formed United States’ involvement in the rumblings of the French Revolution, stating, “stand with our brothers as they fight against tyranny / I know Alexander Hamilton is here and he / would rather not have this debate / I'll remind you that he is not Secretary of State.” The long stanza ends with “Hey, and if you don’t know, now you know, Mister President.”27 However, Miranda only wrote the “Mister President” part of the line, as the rest is credited to The Notorious B.I.G.’s (Biggie) 1994 hit “Juicy.” At the end of each of the three stanzas, Biggie repeats the phrase, “And if you don't know, now you know.”28 “Juicy” follows Biggie’s rise in fame, dedicating the album “To all the teachers that told me I’d never amount to nothin’ / To all the people who lived above the buildings I was hustlin’ in front of / Called the police on me when I was just tryin’ to make some money to feed my daughter.”29 Ending each stanza with the declarative “now you know” demonstrates the power that Biggie wielded as a celebrity, a power that he admits was impossible for him to attain before he was propelled into fame. Miranda articulates a similar version of Jefferson, played by Diggs, who asserts his power when he brags about his statesman status in the song “What’d I Miss.”30 Miranda’s adaption of these popular songs works toward reclaiming the Revolutionary moment and the Broadway stage as cool. More significantly, the inclusion of hip-hop as a form elevates Hamilton from being just another stage production to its status as a repertory archive. The stage, the bodies, both on stage and in the audience, and the theater walls create an archive where the Revolutionary moment is now forever associated with hip-hop and race-conscious casting. Miranda uses the stage not only as a space to reassess the founders’ lives, but as a space where artists like Deep and Biggie are preserved and now viewed as not only consequential in their own generations but also for their contributions to performative public history. Hamilton preserves the racial injustice that is told through hip-hop and embodied in diverse casting. It even extends to incorporate personal history, as Miranda’s portrayal of Hamilton as an immigrant reflects on his own challenges growing

27 Miranda, “Cabinet

Battle #2,” track 7 in Act 2. B.I.G, “Juicy,” track 10 on Ready to Die, 1994, compact disc. 29 Notorious B.I.G, Ready to Die, Bad Boy Records, 1994, compact disc. 30 Miranda, “What’d I Miss,” track 1 in Act 2. 28 Notorious

118

Chapter 6

up as a Hispanic American. Not all the hip-hop references were intentional. In a series of tweets, Wickman pressed Miranda to acknowledge whether Hamilton’s brag in “Helpless,” “All I have’s my honor, a tolerance for pain / A couple of college credits and my top-notch brain /Insane, your family brings out a different side of me” was inspired by Cypress Hill’s “Insane in the Brain.”31 Miranda responded, “Ha. Subconscious.”32 That the line occurred to him subconsciously shows Miranda’s witness to hip-hop culture as embodied in the repertory archive that he has created of Hamilton’s world. What Hamilton Continues to Do: Inspiration Outside the Repertory Archive If the catchy lyrics and melodies of a hip-hop musical bring audiences to the theater, it is the story that keeps them invested when they leave. Hamilton clearly portrays Alexander Hamilton’s life story in a way that is relatable to theatergoers, and yet Miranda’s narrative does not solely belong to Hamilton, or even to Jefferson or Washington. In the way that Hamilton informs current and past racial injustices, the musical also highlights the voices of women, many of whom were not household names before the show’s debut. Although Hamilton does not recover any voices that were not already prevalent in the traditional archives, the integration of Angelica and Eliza as primary characters reignites public interest in early American women’s stories and challenges the stereotypes that the home is only a space for domesticity. In the last song in the show, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” Eliza Hamilton sings, “I put myself back in the narrative.”33 Preceding this final moment in the play, Eliza learns of Hamilton’s affair with Maria Reynolds and angrily sings in “Burn,” “I’m erasing myself from the narrative.”34 Eliza’s perceived understanding of her role is flexible; with Miranda’s archive, she has the power to decide when and who hears her voice. Eliza’s position challenges the generalized conceptions that surrounded women in early America, specifically the Revolutionary era. Often, women in this era are assumed to be oppressed by their husbands and incapable of contributing to public discourse both verbally and through the written word. However, this stereotype is not entirely accurate regarding the women featured in the musical. Many of the Founding Mothers were active participants in national dialogue with men, but they were limited by the space where intellectual

Hill, “Insane in the Brain,” track 3 on Black Sunday, 1993, compact disc. (@Lin-Manuel), “Ha. Subconscious,” Twitter, September 24, 2015, 10:46 a.m., https://twitter.com/Lin_Manuel/status/647059651905855489. 33 Miranda, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” track 23 in Act 2. 34 Miranda, “Burn” track 15 in Act 2. 31 Cypress

32 Miranda

Reclaiming the Narrative

119

conversation was appropriate. Past approaches to analyzing the private and public spheres relied on a strict dichotomy that perceived women in the home and men in Congress’s halls. Yet, the influence of wealthy, white, and wellconnected women, like the Schuyler sisters, revealed the private and public dichotomy as fluid and malleable. The mid-eighteenth century saw a flux in the number of social events where women were in attendance. Many of these events were held in homes and hosted a mingling of both men and women, thus challenging and extending what spaces were considered public. French culture inspired American women to establish their own meeting places, and the literary salon was of much popularity. Real life contemporaries of the Schuyler sisters, such as Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson, held literary coteries and other types of social circles in their homes. There, both men and women discussed literature, politics, and other relevant social matters.35 These gatherings offered women an outlet for discussion that simultaneously incorporated them in the national dialogue and allowed their reputations as mothers and wives to remain intact. For the founding elite, though, another outlet existed where public and private boundaries were challenged, and women discussed national matters of interest with men. David Shields and Frederika Teute introduced the Republican Court as a space where women spoke “speculatively about politics, religion, and philosophy and the right to exercise wit and deflect the unwanted attentions of others.”36 Martha Washington was known to hold court in her drawing-room, where evenings would begin with the president greeting everyone followed by smaller break-out circles for conversation and dining. Letters show that invitation to court was considered a form of social mobility in the new nation’s most elite circles. When Washington did not host court in her drawing room, other cabinet members’ wives took on the host responsibility. Eliza Hamilton was known as a salon hostess, along with Lucy Knox, wife to Henry Knox, and Anne Willing Bingham, wife to Senator William Bingham.37 Knowing that women like the Schuyler sisters were involved in the national dialogue makes two scenes in Act One more significant in gauging women’s roles in telling Hamilton’s story. When the Schuyler sisters are introduced in the song “The Schuyler Sisters,” Angelica, Eliza, and Peggy roam the New York

35

Chiara Cillerai, “Scribal Publication of Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson’s Commonplace Books,” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 48 (2019), 76. 36 David S. Shields and Frederika J. Teute, “The Republican Court and the Historiography of a Women’s Domain in the Public Sphere,” Journal of the Early Republic, 35 (2015), 172. 37 Susan Branson, These Fiery Frenchified Dames: Women and Political Culture in Early National Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2003).

Chapter 6

120

City streets looking for intellectual stimulation. Aaron Burr, played by Leslie Odom Jr., approaches Angelica, played by Renée Elise Goldsberry, on the street and sings the line, “Excuse me, miss, I know it’s not funny / But your perfume smells like your daddy’s got money./ Why you slummin’ in the city in your fancy heels / You searchin’ for an urchin who can give you ideals?”38 Angelica chastises him with the short line, “Burr, you disgust me,” but recovers from his interruption by returning to her focus to politics, singing, “I’ve been reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine” and a few lines later, “And when I meet Thomas Jefferson, I’m gonna compel him to include women in the sequel [to the Declaration of Independence].”39 Burr’s efforts to undermine Angelica’s search for “new ideals” is thwarted when she continues the song, and her and her sisters’ voices are woven into the surrounding political chatter. Miranda’s choice to set the Schuyler sisters introduction on the streets of New York City merits attention because it is later juxtaposed with the home as a space of power for the sisters. The Winter Ball scene is essential to the movement from street to home in how it demonstrates the tightrope on which Angelica must balance between speaking her mind and maintaining a proper woman’s reputation. The ball is representative of the types of social circles where women could speak as freely as Angelica does when she first meets Hamilton. In the “Satisfied” number, she matches Hamilton’s intellectual capacity for conversation, singing, “So this is what it feels like to match wits with someone at your level / What the hell is the catch? / It’s the feeling of freedom, of seein’ the light / It’s Ben Franklin with a key and a kite / You see it, right?” Of course, “the catch,” is that her intellectual desires are secondary to her duty as a woman who must marry into a class above Hamilton’s. Angelica recognizes the personal sacrifice she must make in allowing Eliza to win Hamilton’s affections when she sings, “He’s after me because I’m a Schuyler sister / That elevates his status / I’d have to be naive to set that aside.”40 Thus, despite Angelica’s desire for an intellectually satisfying partner, the audience views her decision as one that conforms to eighteenth-century society’s expectations of her. That Angelica maintains the same independent demeanor in the house that she did in the streets carves a path for Eliza to take over the role as the central sister and maintain a sense of agency in the home. Eliza’s agency, however, looks different from Angelica’s in how her primary function is as Hamilton’s wife in the first act and the beginning of the second

38 Miranda, “The

Schuyler Sisters,” track 5 in Act 1.

39 Ibid. 40 Miranda, “Satisfied,”

track 11 in Act 1.

Reclaiming the Narrative

121

act. Her character’s search for a distinct voice is not as apparent as her sister’s but still maintains a significant though gentle presence in the play. Following Eliza’s upbeat message in “Helpless,” most of her songs are calm and soothing validations sung to Hamilton. For example, in “That Would Be Enough,” Eliza sings, “Look at where you are, look at where you started / The fact that you’re alive is a miracle / Just stay alive, that would be enough.”41 Her haunting chanting of the phrase “stay alive” in the song of the same title further signifies her quiet but necessary character. Eliza’s chanting frames the narrative expressed in “Stay Alive” – as Hamilton tells a story about the struggling Patriot cause, her voice predicts what is to come; in other words, her chanting infers that Hamilton’s survival will yield to the future and his greater legacy.42 Eliza continues command of the narrative from within the home in the Second Act. Following Hamilton’s infidelity, Eliza performs “Burn,” where she sings: “I’m erasing myself from the narrative,” which is followed by her line “I put myself back in the narrative” during the last number, “Who Lies, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story.”43 These phrases suggest that despite her primary status as a wife and mother, she is also the preserver and teller of the history that later generations will know. In other words, her domesticity provides her with the opportunity to decide what will and what will not remain in the legacies told by future generations. Through these scenes, Angelica and later Eliza are reclaimed as the intellectual and influential women they were in real life; however, Miranda’s artistic license emboldens this sense of independence by removing the rest of Phillip Schuyler’s children from the show. In “Satisfied,” Angelica sings, “My father has no sons so I’m the one who has to social climb for one / So I’m the oldest and the wittiest and the gossip in New York City is insidious.”44 While Angelica was the oldest, born in 1756, his oldest son to live through adulthood was John Bradstreet Schuyler born in 1765.45 By only including the sisters, Miranda weaves a narrative that puts Angelica at the center of a personal battle between desire and intellect, and social responsibility. Of course, Hamilton can only account for the women whose lives were preserved – mainly through their husbands’ extant letters and other assorted papers.

41

Miranda, “That Would Be Enough,” track 17 in Act 1. Miranda, “Stay Alive,” track 14 in Act 1. 43 Miranda, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” track 23 in Act 2. 44 Miranda, “Satisfied,” track 11 in Act 1. 45 George W. Schuyler, Colonial New York: Philip Schuyler and His Family (New York: Scribner, 1885), 243. 42

122

Chapter 6

While it is not Miranda’s responsibility to unearth hidden women’s voices, it should be remembered that women such as the Schuylers are exceptions to the rule when it comes to the accessibility and preservation of archived voices. Less wealthy, non-white women were essential to early American development, yet their legacies were not recorded. When viewing the Schuyler sisters within the Hamilton repertory archive, they evoke excitement for general audiences in how the sisters exhibit what a progressive America might hope their early daughters embodied: political awareness, a witty demeanor, intelligence, and recognition of their self-worth. It is no surprise, then, that when my colleague’s seven-year-old daughters ask to listen to the soundtrack, they do not ask to listen to Hamilton; they ask to listen to “the Angelica show.” Amidst the popularity of the show there has been increased interest in early Americans’ lives, and it has spurred visits to archives and museum exhibits and resulted in funding for new programs to benefit history education in public schools. An abundance of merchandise is available for purchase, such as water bottles that read the phrase “WORK” in honor of the Schuyler sisters or any number of t-shirts that feature lines such as “Burr Shot First” or “Not Throwing Away My Shot.” The popularity behind these sentiments gives more leverage to viewing the show as an archive, one where history is not static and twodimensional but moving and active. The musical’s fame has even extended general interest in more traditional academic routes. Joanne Freeman, Harvard Professor of History and American Studies, had previously been recognized for her commitment to studying Hamilton’s life and early National culture, including dueling. Her seminal book, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic, was the inspiration behind Miranda’s “Ten Duel Commandments,” and following the musical’s release, it became clear that more women’s voices needed to be heard in the humanities, especially history and literature.46 In this vein, Karin Wulf, Emily Prifogle, and Keisha N. Blain organized Women Also Know History, a website for visitors to find women historians for professional opportunities in historical advisement.47 Hamilton fever also inspired K–12 education efforts in public schools. In 2018, the Gilder Lehrman Institute initiated Revisiting the Founding Era, a program “designed to provide librarians and local leaders with the resources and support they need to create engaging community conversations” about

B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); Miranda, “Ten Duel Commandments,” track 15 in Act 1. 47 Karin Wulf, Keisha N. Blain, and Emily Prifogle, Women Also Know History, women alsoknowhistory.com. 46 Joanne

Reclaiming the Narrative

123

the early republic.48 The program offers primary sources, access to historical scholarship, and a monetary stipend to community libraries. In addition, Gilder Lehrman founded the Hamilton Education Program, which provides Title I public schools with the opportunity to see the musical. Students learn about the primary sources that inspired the music in Hamilton, and they even participate through creating and performing their artistic approaches to early American history.49 These examples demonstrate the extent to which Hamilton, as a performative archive, engages and encourages communities in closer exploration of the American past. However, the connection between stage, education, and the public is also a personal one. As a Lillian Gary Tayler Fellow at the Mary and David Harrison Institute for American History, Literature, and Culture, I witnessed a young girl, no more than twelve years of age, and her mother visit the archives. They requested the Angelica Schuyler collection and quietly read from the letters sent by Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lafayette. The young girl’s eyes lit up with excitement and her eyebrows furrowed as they worked through the difficult eighteenth-century script. They smiled, giggled, and at certain moments raised their eyebrows, undoubtedly delighted by the notion that what they saw on the stage and heard on the soundtrack was inspired by the real-life letters before them. At this moment, the separation between the traditional, two-dimensional archive and the repertory archive was closed. What had been seen on the stage was finally reconciled with tangible, preservable history. The world of Hamilton is so extensive that it becomes a repertory archive in and of itself. Scholars expressed disappointment with Miranda’s choice not to focus more on the ethnic and racial diversity in early America, claiming diversity was represented in race-conscious casting. Yet, Hamilton, as a form of entertainment, cannot be expected to reveal new historiographies; it cannot uncover what is understudied or entirely abandoned in traditional, institution-based archives. Within the boundaries of the Richard Rodgers Theatre, however, Hamilton is a repertory archive, where performing bodies and hip-hop meet with the founding era, thus assigning new significance to the musical’s modern elements. Hamilton is also essential to reimagining the roles of early republic women. Songs such as “Satisfied,” “The Schuyler Sisters,” and “Burn” combat the domestic stereotypes that assume eighteenth-century women remained in the home. Miranda’s depiction of

48

“Revisiting the Founding Era,” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/revisitingfoundingera. 49 “Hamilton Education Program,” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/hamilton-education-program.

Chapter 6

124

Angelica as a friend and adviser to Hamilton, as she was in real life, challenges the private and public sphere binary that has kept women stuck in an eitheror position regarding politics and society. The characters and music have inspired a wide array of individuals, thus making Hamilton unique in how it appeals not just to one youthful generation. Inspiration from the show has resulted in educational initiatives that make music and history accessible to public school districts, and teachers have used the musical to reignite student interest in American history. As the show continues to run at various theaters throughout the nation and Europe, the coming years will likely see new forms of Hamilton inspiration that encourage Americans to reassess and challenge conventional narration of the Revolutionary moment. Bibliography Allgor, Catherine. “‘Remember…I’m Your Man’: Masculinity, Marriage and Gender in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past, edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Bernstein, Carol. “Beyond the Archive: Cultural Memory in Dance and Theater.” Journal of Research Practice, 3, no. 2 (2007): 1–14. B.I.G, Notorious. “Juicy.” Recorded 1994. Track 10 on Ready to Die. Bad Boys, compact disc. B.I.G, Notorious. Ready to Die. Recorded 1994. Bad Boys, compact disc. Blouin, Francis Xavier Jr., and William G. Rosenberg. Introduction to Archives, Documentation and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar, 1–4. Edited by Francis Xavier Blouin Jr. and William G. Rosenberg. Michigan University Press, 2007. Branson, Susan. These Fiery Frenchified Dames: Women and Political Culture in Early National Philadelphia. Pennsylvania University Press, 2003. Brennan, Terry. “Last Supper at Uncle Tom’s Cabin/The Promised Land.” Chicago Reader 1992. https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/last-supperat-uncle-toms-cabinthe-promised-land. Brown, Richard Harvey and Beth Davis-Harvey. “‘The Making of Memory’: The Politics of Archives, Libraries, and Museums in the Construction of National Consciousness.” History of the Human Services 11, no. 4 (1998): 17–32. Cillerai, Chiara. “Scribal Publication of Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson’s Commonplace Books.” Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture 48 (2019): 75–87. Coats, Lauren, and Steffi Dippold. “Beyond Recovery: Introduction.” Early American Literature 50, no.2 (2020): 297–321. Deep, Mobb. “Shook Ones (Part II).” Recorded 1994. Track 15 on The Infamous. Loud RCA, compact disc. Donegan, Kathleen. “Rose.” Early American Literature, 50, no.2 (2020): 321–31. Evans, Susan. “Personal Beliefs and National Stories: Theater in Museums as a Tool for Exploring History.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56, no. 2 (2013): 189–97.

Reclaiming the Narrative

125

Freeman, Joanne B. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. Yale University Press, 2002. Fuentes, Marissa. Dispossessed Lives: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Archive. Pennsylvania University Press, 2016. Gikandi, Simon. “Rethinking the Archive of Enslavement.” Early American Literature 50, no.1 (2015): 81–103. “Hamilton Education Program.” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/hamilton-education -program. Hill, Cypress. “Insane in the Brain.” Recorded 1993. Track 3 on Black Sunday. Columbia, compact disc. Joyce, Patrick. “The Politics of the Liberal Archive.” History of the Human Services 12, no. 2 (1999): 35–49. Kohn, Eric. “How ‘Hamilton’ Became a Color-Conscious Casting Trailblazer, Before It Was Cool.” IndieWire. 2020. Accessed October 31, 2020. https:// www.indiewire.com/2020/07/hamilton-cast-casting-directors-diversity. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. “Burn.” Recorded August 2015. Track 15 in Act 2 on Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic, compact disc. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. “Cabinet Battle #2.” Recorded August 2015. Track 7 in Act 2 on Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic, compact disc. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. “Helpless.” Recorded August 2015. Track 10 in Act 1 on Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic, compact disc. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. (@Lin-Manuel). “Ha. Subconscious.” Twitter, September 24, 2015. https://twitter.com/Lin_Manuel/status/647059651905855489. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Recorded 2015. Atlantic, compact disc. Montiero, Lyra D. “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton.” Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past, edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2018. Morales, Ed. “The Problem with Hamilton the Movie.” CNN Online. 2020. Accessed October 31, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/opinions/ha milton-movie-mixed-messages-black-lives-matter-morales. Parish, Susan Scott. “Rummaging/In and Out of Holds.” Early American Literature 45, no. 2 (2010): 261–74. “Revisiting the Founding Era.” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/revisitingfoundingera. Schuessler, Jennifer. “Book News: In a Walt Whitman Novel, Lost for 165 Years, Clues to ‘Leaves of Grass.’” New York Times. February 20, 2017. Schuyler, George W. Colonial New York: Philip Schuyler and His Family. New York: Scribner, 1885. Shields, David S., and Fredrika J. Teute. “The Republican Court and the Historiography of a Women’s Domain in the Public Sphere.” Journal of the Early Republic, 35, no.2 (2015): 169–83. Smith, Nigel M. “Broadway Hit Hamilton Under Fire After Casting Call for ‘Non-White’ Actors.” The Guardian. 2020. Accessed October 31, 2020.

126

Chapter 6

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/mar/31/broadway-hamilton-mu sical-casting-call-nonwhite-actors. Taylor, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Duke University Press, 2003. Wulf, Karin, Keisha N. Blain, and Emily Prifogle. Women Also Know History. Womenalsoknowhistory.com. Zornosa, Laura. “With ‘Hamilton’ now a movie, an old debate reignites about who tells its Story.” Los Angeles Times. 2020. Accessed October 31, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-07-10/ha milton-movie-critics-lin-manuel-miranda.

Part III: “What Is a Legacy?”

Chapter 7

Who Tells Which Story? Teaching Hamilton, History, and Memory Shira Lurie Saint Mary’s University

The students who enrolled in my first-year seminar “Hamilton: Musical and History” were all fans of the smash-hit show. They arrived expecting that the course would use Hamilton as an entry-point into early American history. After all, this is the approach used by many elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educators, as well as various historical institutions. For instance, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History’s “Hamilton Education Program” has partnered with Hamilton’s creators and producers to “help students see the relevance of the Founding Era by using primary sources to create a performance piece…following the model used by Lin-Manuel Miranda.”1 Hamilton has made early American history both accessible and cool – a feat that neither historians nor educators dared dream possible. They are, of course, wise to capitalize on this rare moment of widespread interest in the nation’s founding story. But the pedagogical opportunities the Hamilton phenomenon has created go beyond merely using the musical to introduce students to early American history. Indeed, the show has much more to reveal about historical memory than it does history. History is a discipline in which historians advance arguments about the past based on their interpretations of historical evidence. In contrast, historical memory is the cultural construction of narratives about a community’s shared past that are often shaped by contemporary concerns. In the American context, historical memory is

1 “Hamilton Education Program,” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, https://www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/hamilton-education-program-0.

130

Chapter 7

intimately tied to ideas of nationhood, patriotism, and identity. The stories Americans tell themselves about their history ground how they think about who and what is considered “American.” Clashes over conflicting historical memories have fueled the recent culture wars. The struggles over Confederate monuments, The 1619 Project, and Columbus Day, just to name a few, are all driven by competing narratives about the national past. Hamilton is part of this larger conversation. It advances a particular view of history shaped by the nation’s current moment. Which is why, on the first day of term, I told my class that we would treat Hamilton not as a gateway into history, but rather into historical memory – we would investigate what the show and its success reveals about how Americans remember their past. A critical approach to Hamilton would allow us to wrestle with how the show represents America’s founding story to a mass audience and why that representation has achieved such broad appeal. In doing so, we would consider how national myths are created, challenged, and reinforced, and what the consequences of them may be. This essay will contemplate several avenues for exploring historical memory in the classroom through the study of Hamilton and its popularity. First it will place Hamilton within a larger genre of art devoted to the American Revolution and consider whether it constitutes an example of “Founder’s Chic.” Next, it will examine specific elements of Hamilton’s storytelling related to gender, race, immigration, and social mobility. Finally, it will compare Hamilton in the Obama and Trump eras to investigate how historical memories and cultural perceptions evolve over time. Hamilton is one of many pieces of modern art that depicts the American Revolution and the nation’s early years. This genre contains several conventions, most of which advance a triumphalist, white male narrative. Fictional portrayals typically feature uber-masculine Patriots fighting for an abstract, undefined concept of “freedom.” These works center the Patriot cause to the extent that Loyalism, or even mere hesitancy towards independence, appears as cowardly, wrong-headed, and marginal. In these tellings, American nationhood is the only right and just path, thus erasing the thousands of white colonists, Indigenous peoples, and free and enslaved African-Americans who sided with the British Empire in their quest for liberty and prosperity. Some common examples include The Patriot (2000), HBO’s John Adams (2008), and the musical 1776 (1969). Given the mass consumption of these depictions, their representations of history are critical in forming American historical memory about the founding. “What people see onscreen

Who Tells Which Story?

131

shapes their perceptions of history,” writes historian Andrew M. Schocket, “and in this case, the very events that Americans look to as they think about the nation’s principles.”2 These works thus encourage a view of the nation’s founding that is grounded in white male militarism and assumes the righteousness of the American experiment. Placing Hamilton within this genre opens up a conversation about the ways Hamilton aligns with these conventions and the ways it disrupts them. The show’s male leads certainly fit the Patriot archetype – the Sons of Liberty’s aggression, manliness, and heterosexuality are all on display as they rap about violence, drinking, and their sexual appetites at the close of “Aaron Burr, Sir.”3 Likewise, their war aims are characteristically vague. Hamilton merely justifies independence as the appropriate reaction to the mother country “shittin’ on us endlessly.”4 Indeed, no specific argument for independence is necessary because Hamilton and his cohorts take it as a given. Loyalism is only given voice by one character, Samuel Seabury, whose British accent, effeminate mannerisms, and slow, lilting verse make him an easy target for Hamilton’s ridicule.5 In all of these ways, Hamilton reinforces the popular narrative, bolstered by this genre, that American nationhood is an inherently good entity and the product of white male achievement.6 Hamilton departs from convention, though, with its treatment of violence. Unlike the sweeping battle sequences in The Patriot, Hamilton confines years of warfare to just a few onstage moments. Moreover, the show implicitly condemns gun violence in its three dueling sequences, two of which end in tragedy. “I don’t think it’s lost on contemporary audiences that guns are responsible for all of the deaths in our show,” Miranda told Rolling Stone.7 Instead of military might and valor, Hamilton celebrates writing as Hamilton’s most laudable trait and the key to the American experiment’s success. Miranda repeatedly uses the metaphor of building to refer to the foundational importance of Hamilton’s written contributions. “I wrote financial systems

2

Andrew M. Schocket, “Hamilton and the American Revolution on Stage and Screen,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past, eds. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018), 172, 171–179. 3 Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Aaron Burr, Sir,” Hamilton: An American Musical, Atlantic 551093-2, 2015, compact disc. 4 Miranda, “My Shot,” Hamilton. 5 Miranda, “The Farmer Refuted,” Hamilton. 6 Schocket, “The Revolution on Stage and Screen,” 174–179. 7 Simon Vozick-Levinson, “Revolution on Broadway: Inside Hip-Hop History Musical ‘Hamilton,’” Rolling Stone, August 6, 2015.

132

Chapter 7

into existence,” Hamilton reminds himself in “Hurricane,” while his wife laments the “palaces out of paragraphs” he erected for her in “Burn.”8 In Miranda’s telling, the American nation was formed through the creative power of the quill, rather than the destructive power of the gun. Non-fiction accounts of the Founding Era also form an important subset of this genre and most often fall into the category of “Founder’s Chic.”9 The term refers to the collection of popular histories devoted to hagiographies of the “Founding Fathers.” These biographies, like Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton that inspired Miranda’s creation, credit American “greatness” to the individual personalities and attributes of the founders. Founder’s Chic treats its subjects as miraculously adept, intelligent, and moral geniuses who achieved both personal and national glory. As a result, these books envelop patriotic messaging in intensely admirable characters, making them both accessible and assuring reads.10 Historians criticize Founder’s Chic as simplified stories that provide comfortable and conservative narratives to readers. The titans of the genre, including Chernow, are not trained historians, but rather journalists who do not subject themselves to the rigors of either archival research or peer review. More troubling, their work represents a reaction to the social and cultural turns in the historical discipline that centered non-elite, non-male, and nonwhite experiences. One practitioner lamented that a recent synthesis, “devotes roughly equal space to Phyllis Wheatley and Samuel Adams.” “Where once the likes of Benjamin Franklin and James Madison...received considerable attention in the pages of scholarly journals,” he went on, “today’s reader is more likely to read of the plight of urban chimney sweeps or unwed mothers.”11 As a result, historians have dismissed the Founder’s Chic genre as an “anti-liberal reaction,” “neo-Federalist,” a symptom of modern “celebrity culture,” and wilful ignorance of “several generations of progressive

Hamilton; Miranda, “Burn,” Hamilton. term was coined by journalist Evan Thomas in 2001. See Evan Thomas, “Founders Chic: Live From Philadelphia,” Newsweek, July 9, 2001. 10 David Waldstreicher and Jeffrey L. Pasley, “Hamilton as Founders Chic: A NeoFederalist, Antislavery, Usable Past?” in Historians on Hamilton, 137–166; Jeffrey L. Pasley, “Federalist Chic,” Common-Place 2, no. 2 (2002); David Waldstreicher, “Founders Chic as Culture War,” Radical History Review 84 (Fall 2002), 185–194; H. W. Brands, “Founders Chic,” The Atlantic, September 2003. 11 John Ferling, Set the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), ix–x. 8 Miranda, “Hurricane,” 9 This

Who Tells Which Story?

133

historiography.”12 Scholars maintain that the success of the genre, especially in comparison to the sale of academic books, is shaping a problematic popular historical narrative – one in which the nation’s founding story is narrowed to a handful of powerful figures. Whether or not Hamilton constitutes Founder’s Chic is a lively subject for classroom discussion and a helpful entry point into conversations about historical memory. As several scholars have pointed out, Hamilton’s focus on the individual attributes of its titular subject as the driver of the American founding experience is the prototypical approach of the genre. This is, of course, unsurprising given that Chernow’s work inspired Miranda’s creation and that Chernow served as historical advisor on the project. Miranda appears to have uncritically accepted the narrative thrust of Founder’s Chic. “As I was reading Ron Chernow’s biography Alexander Hamilton, I said, ‘This is the most hip hop sh*t I’ve ever seen,’” recalled Miranda in an interview with Oprah Magazine in which he described Hamilton as “relentless.” “That’s why he designed a financial system and established the Coast Guard, and cowrote the Federalist Papers. He had that drive.”13 But others have argued that Hamilton upends the conservative conventions of its inspiring text. After all, personifying the founders in the dancing bodies of performers of color and putting into their mouths modern references, hiphop cadences, and profanities seems antithetical to the genre’s notoriously air-brushed depictions. As a result, Aja Romano of Vox argues that Hamilton is more fanfic than Founder’s Chic: “It’s simultaneously an alternate version of American history and a modern political [alternate universe] in which none of the Founding Fathers are white and everything happens in a blurred temporality that could be modern-day America.”14 Furthermore, the show’s pro-immigrant message surely sets Hamilton apart from the majority of works that make up Founder’s Chic. By considering Hamilton in terms of genre, students can place the show in its creative context and contemplate historical memory in popular culture. Once they have identified the common conventions and narratives, they can think through the consequences of how Americans remember this history. Is

12

Waldstreicher, “Founders Chic as Culture War,” 185-186, 189; Brands, “Founders Chic;” Pasley, “Federalist Chic.” 13 Oprah Winfrey, “Oprah Talks to Lin-Manuel Miranda About Immigrant Grit, The Oprah Magazine, July 6, 2018; Waldstreicher and Pasley, “Hamilton as Founders Chic“; Andrew M. Schocket, “The Founders Chic of Hamilton,” NYU Press Blog, October 9, 2015. 14 Aja Romano, “Hamilton is fanfic, and its historical critics are totally missing the point,” Vox, July 4, 2016.

134

Chapter 7

structural reform conceivable if we view the foundations of the country as unequivocally right and good? Is dissent possible if we silence the opposing sides of the past? Are justice and reconciliation achievable if we erase the experiences of people of color and instead focus solely on powerful white men? Above all, who gains from this narrative and who is marginalized? Critically engaging with historical memory empowers students to question and critique Hamilton and its messages about the past and to think through the significance of the show’s success.15 It also allows them to apply those analyses beyond Hamilton. In my class’s final assignment, students analyzed another artistic representation of the founding era of their choosing. Their topics included movies, books, video games, toys, monuments, and other musicals. Students noticed the patterns that crossed mediums, as well as when artists attempted to buck convention. They analyzed their subject’s interpretation of history and developed arguments about the historical memories their works advanced. In doing so, students sharpened their critical thinking skills and engaged thoughtfully with both cultural products and national narratives. Once introduced to a critical lens through discussions of genre, students can explore specific elements of Hamilton’s storytelling. Gender, race, immigration, and class are all central to Hamilton and the historical memory that it constructs. While the show features strong female characters and even, in the case of Angelica Schuyler, empowers them to rap, Hamilton relegates women to the sidelines of history and relies on gender stereotypes to delineate between good and evil. As those who critique Hamilton as Founder’s Chic suggest, the show focuses on the masculine domains of politics, war, and dueling, and isolates women outside of and unable to impact these realms. “Although history sometimes turns on Alexander’s relationship to women,” notes historian Catherine Allgor, “the female characters do not derail the narrative of male power, war, and statebuilding.”16 Instead, women are depicted as, at best, distractions, and at worst, obstructions to male performance and achievement. Eliza Hamilton repeatedly begs her husband to leave war and politics for the comforts of home and family, “Take a break” is her repeated refrain. Even Angelica undercuts her political advice for Hamilton to “get through to Jefferson...don’t stop ‘til you agree” with an exhortation to abandon his work and “run away with us for the summer.” “I know you’re very busy, I know your work’s

15 Schocket, “The

Revolution on Stage and Screen,” 183–184. Catherine Allgor, “‘Remember... I’m Your Man’: Masculinity, Marriage, and Gender in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 101.

16

Who Tells Which Story?

135

important, but I’m crossing the ocean and I just can’t wait,” she writes him.17 Whereas his wife and sister-in-law appear as pests for Hamilton to swat away, Maria Reynolds demonstrates that women can also more insidiously disrupt male ambition. She lures Hamilton into adultery, upending his marriage, but perhaps more importantly, leading all of his colleagues to declare that he’s “never gonna be president now.”18 But during the American Revolution and early republic, women did much more than pout and seduce. For instance, historians have emphasized the pivotal role that white women played in non-importation – the widespread boycott of British imports to protest Parliament’s taxes. They circulated pledges of non-compliance, wrote articles in local newspapers, and formed “spinning clubs” that produced American textiles. During the War of Independence, white women took over the running of taverns, shops, farms, and plantations when their men left for the battlefield. Thousands joined the Continental Army in supportive roles, like washerwomen and nurses. Likewise, enslaved African-American women who fled to British lines worked as cooks and guides. Some women even disguised themselves as men and fought on both sides of the war as soldiers and spies. Deborah Sampson of Massachusetts, for instance, served in the Continental Army for over two years as “Robert Shurtliff” and was wounded in battle.19 After the war, white women assumed a new political role, that of Republican Mothers. In the new republic, white male citizens elected their own representatives to govern. For this system to work, men had to put selfinterest aside and act according to the common good. Moreover, the future survival of the republic required that subsequent generations be instilled with the same morality, virtue, and integrity of the founders. These values would be inculcated, American believed, at the mother’s knee - a phenomenon known as “Republican Motherhood.” “In the years of the early Republic a consensus developed around the idea that a mother committed to the service of her family and to the state, might serve a political purpose,” explains Historian Linda Kerber. “The Republican Mother was to encourage in her sons’ civic interest and participation. She was to educate her children and guide them in the paths of morality and virtue.” Republican Motherhood did not empower women to participate directly in electoral politics. As Kerber notes, the

a Break,” Hamilton. Reynolds Pamphlet,” Hamilton. 19 Alfred F. Young, Liberty Tree: Ordinary People and the American Revolution (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 100–143; Alfred F. Young, Masquerade: The Life and Times of Deborah Sampson, Continental Soldier (New York, Vintage Books, 2004). 17 Miranda, “Take 18 Miranda, “The

136

Chapter 7

Republican Mother “was not to tell her male relatives for whom to vote. She was a citizen but not really a constituent.”20 Still, Republican Motherhood invested maternity and childrearing with political purpose and significance. Hamilton does not interrogate gender or white womanhood in the Founding Era, but rather relies on gender stereotypes to reveal character. Those who perform their “proper” gender roles are depicted as worthy heroes. The Sons of Liberty, for instance, are brave, ambitious, hyper-sexualized, and committed to the new nation. Their female counterparts are self-denying, domestic-minded, chaste, and devoted to their men. In contrast, those who “improperly” embody their gender are represented as villainous. King George acts effeminately and flamboyantly, Samuel Seabury is cowardly and easily intimidated, and Maria Reynolds is seductive and lustful.21 By hewing to traditional notions of gender and telling a masculine story, Hamilton spins a conservative telling of the Revolution in which female liberation was impossible. While Angelica Schuyler proudly affirms that “when I meet Thomas Jefferson, Imma compel him to include women in the sequel,” she did not and he would not.22 The legal, political, social, and economic restrictions on women remained in place as white men transitioned from subjects to citizens. “There were many moments when the framers could have allowed women of property to vote, could have let married women retain property, could have modified divorce laws, or could have set aside the rules of coverture altogether and started from scratch. They chose not to,” Allgor reminds us.23 But the radical potential of the Revolution unrealized is not Hamilton’s story. Instead, the show buoys a narrative that celebrates the Revolution’s achievements and places powerful white men at its center. Students can use an investigation of gender in Hamilton to think through the show’s wide appeal. In particular, they might consider why the show challenges xenophobia and plays with racial categories, and yet relies on traditional conceptions of women and gender. Does this choice reflect a stubbornly male-centric historical memory of this time period? Does it imply society’s willingness to challenge racial, but not gender hierarchies? In my class, students were especially interested in Eliza Hamilton’s final song, in which her life’s work is summarized as an attempt to shape her husband’s

Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: The Institute of Early American History and Culture, The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 283, 199–200. 21 Allgor, “Remember...I’m Your Man,” 97–100. 22 Miranda, “The Schuyler Sisters,” Hamilton. 23 Allgor, “Remember...I’m Your Man,” 110, 101–102. 20

Who Tells Which Story?

137

legacy. “And when my time is up, have I done enough? Will they tell your story?” she asks.24 Students discussed what a show centered on Eliza, rather than Alexander, would look like and speculated that it would not have achieved anywhere near the same amount of acclaim. Race-conscious casting is, of course, central to Hamilton’s artistic interpretation and progressive credentials. Critics have widely praised the casting of performers of color as the white Founding Fathers and Mothers as innovative and inclusive. The choice, wrote The New York Times, “flips minstrelsy on its head.”25 Even Chernow became a self-described “‘militant’ defender of the idea that actors of any race could play the Founding Fathers.”26 Some insist that the diversity displayed on stage is a way to combat the frequent whitewashing of early American history and reclaim the founding story for all Americans. “With a cast as diverse as America itself,” remarked President Barack Obama, “the show reminds us that this nation was built by more than just a few great men.”27 Daveed Diggs, who originated the roles of Thomas Jefferson and the Marquis de Lafayette, agreed: “I walked out of the show with a sense of ownership over American history.”28 Others have found the casting problematic. Visually, race-conscious casting puts race at the center of the show. But in terms of character and plot, it removes race from the narrative. Despite a diverse company, there are no Black, Brown, Asian, or Indigenous characters in Hamilton. Slavery is barely mentioned and never depicted on stage, save for a throwaway line addressed to a once-appearing, unspeaking Sally Hemings.29 The violence of settler colonialism is completely absent. While the Hamilton creative and marketing teams have frequently repeated that the show “is a story about America then, told by America now,” scholars have challenged this characterization as historically blind.30 “[The idea] is misleading and actively erases the presence and role of black and brown people in Revolutionary America, as well as before

24 Miranda, “Who

Lives? Who Dies? Who Tells Your Story?” Hamilton.

25 Jody Rosen, “The American Revolutionary,” The New York Times Magazine, July 8, 2015.

Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, Hamilton: The Revolution (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016), 3.3. 27 Spencer Kornhaber, “Hamilton: Casting After Colorblindness,” The Atlantic, March 31, 2016. 28 Janese Branden, “Hamilton Roles are This Rappers Delight,” Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2015. 29 Miranda, “What Did I Miss?” Hamilton. 30 Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 33. 26

138

Chapter 7

and since,” observes Historian Lyra D. Monteiro. “America ‘then’ did look like the people in this play, if you looked outside of the halls of government.”31 The issue grows stickier when considering that many of the leading characters in Hamilton bought, owned, and sold hundreds of enslaved people. While Jefferson’s slaveholding is thrown at him as a pithy rejoinder to his economic vision, Washington’s is never mentioned.32 Nor is Madison’s or the Schuyler’s. At one point, Hamilton self-describes the Sons of Liberty as “a bunch of revolutionary manumission abolitionists” – a wildly misleading characterization.33 During the American Revolution, Hercules Mulligan, for instance, owned an enslaved man named Cato, whose contributions to Mulligan’s espionage go uncredited in the show.34 Embodying slaveholders in African-American performers further erases the existence and significance of slavery in early America, as well as the centrality of race. Race was essential to the structure of the eighteenth-century American world. The Whiteness of these leading figures was the key to their legal, political, economic, and social power, just as the Blackness of the people they held in bondage was the key to their subjugation. White Americans bought and sold men who looked like Christopher Jackson; they did not elect them president. Race-conscious casting adds an anachronistic slipperiness to the relationship between race and power, which is summed up well in Professor of Theater Patricia Herrera’s anguish at her daughter’s wish to be Angelica Schuyler for Halloween. “The person you hear and who performs the character of Angelica Schuyler is the talented African American woman Renée Elise Goldsberry,” she explained, “and what you love about her is the Destiny’s Childesque R&B soul that she brings to that character.”35 Herrera did not want her child to “reclaim” the founding by embodying a white slaveholder. There are important differences between Schuyler and Goldsberry, which raceconscious casting blurs.

31 Lyra D. Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 62. 32 Miranda, “Cabinet Battle #1,” Hamilton. 33 Miranda, “My Shot,” Hamilton. Recently uncovered evidence indicates that Hamilton, himself, owned enslaved people; Jessie Serfilippi, “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing’: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, 2020. 34 Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting,” 64. 35 Patricia Herrera, “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 274.

Who Tells Which Story?

139

To discuss these issues with specificity, my class focused on George Washington. At the end of his life, Washington owned 123 enslaved people, his wife, Martha, owned 153 enslaved people, and he rented 40 enslaved people from other white enslavers to labor at Mount Vernon. These enslaved people’s uncompensated labor facilitated Washington’s military and political career – the wealth they created enabled Washington to hold high public office. Hamilton’s only recognition of this fact comes in the show’s dying moments and is so subtle, only those in the know would catch it. As Eliza Hamilton sings, “I speak out against slavery. You could have done so much more if you only had time,” Washington bows his head and nods vigorously, in shame.36 Blink and you will miss it. In fact, watch carefully and you might miss it, too – after all, Washington’s nod could be interpreted in several different ways. Identifying Washington as an enslaver and understanding the inseparable connections between his slaveholding and public power are important foundations for discussing the artistic choice to have a Black man portray him on stage. But it is also critical to delve deeper into Washington’s personal relationship with slavery. For that, we turned to the life of Ona Judge. Judge’s story reveals that the first president was not trapped in a system of slavery that he privately abhorred; rather, he chose enslavement as his preferred labor system and went to great lengths to preserve it. Judge was a Black woman enslaved to the Washingtons who escaped at age twenty-two and eluded their attempted recapture until her death at age seventy-five. In 1790, Washington moved to Philadelphia, the new national capital, and brought six enslaved people, including Judge, with him. However, a 1780 Pennsylvania law provided for the gradual emancipation of enslaved people, including the provision that any enslaved person brought to the state by their owner would be legally free after half a year of residency. To avoid the loss of his human property, Washington rotated his enslaved people out of the state every six months, deliberately denying them the opportunity of legal emancipation. 37 Washington refused to countenance self-emancipation either. On May 21, 1796, Judge ran away from the Washingtons.38 George Washington’s attempts to re-enslave Judge with advertisements offering rewards for her capture and

36 Miranda, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells You Story?”, Hamilton; Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 208. 37 Erica Armstrong Dunbar, Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge New York: 37 Ink/Atria Books, 2018), 54, 66-70, 110; Erica Armstrong Dunbar, “George Washington, Slave Catcher,” The New York Times, February 16, 2015. 38 Dunbar, Never Caught, 54.

140

Chapter 7

an emissary charged with apprehending her all failed. Nevertheless, Judge’s story reveals that Washington’s relationship with slavery was neither benign nor neglectful – he worked hard to maintain his enslavement of others. While Hamilton portrays Washington as the moral center of the show, in reality, he was, according to historian Erica Armstrong Dunbar, “a planter president” who used the suffering of others to “maintain his wealth, his lifestyle and his reputation.”39 That Hamilton does not identify Washington as an enslaver is a glaring and intentional omission. The issue of race-conscious casting and slavery in Hamilton facilitates a discussion about how Americans grapple with their history of slavery and racial injustice. In particular, students may consider the difficulties Americans often have in reconciling the tensions between White male freedom and African-American enslavement during the founding era. This struggle is at play in the current controversies over how to memorialize the Founding Fathers and the backlash to The 1619 Project. Hamilton’s race-bent telling of a white story, its erasure of slavery to venerate enslavers, is tied up in these issues. The show and its popularity speak volumes about what Americans forget about their past to more comfortably remember it.40 Some of my students, however, were resistant to these critiques. They argued that Hamilton is a way to shape historical memory for people of color that is not embedded in generations of trauma. What is more, imagining a Black man as the first president can lay the groundwork for electing future presidents of color. Seen in this light, race-conscious casting is a powerful tool in combatting the associations of Whiteness and power that have plagued American politics in both the past and present. Historian Joseph M. Adelman has also made this point. He maintains that Hamilton offers the opportunity to think about “whether there might be historical truths better represented with the freedom that comes with art, and whether there are ways to make the issues and stories important to [historians] resonate more deeply with the American public.”41 In other words, a historical memory that focuses on empowerment rather than subjugation gets at deeper and more important truths than mere historical precision.

39 Dunbar, “George Washington, Slave Catcher,” The Granite Freeman, Concord, New Hampshire (May 22, 1845). 40 For more on forgetting and remembering the American Revolution, see Alfred F. Young, The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999). 41 Joseph M. Adelman, “Who Tells Your Story?: Hamilton as a People’s History,” in Historians on Hamilton, 294.

Who Tells Which Story?

141

Immigration, not slavery, is Hamilton’s focus. But here, too, we find complex issues of class, race, and memory that are ripe for discussion. Miranda has famously cited Hamilton’s immigration to New York from the Caribbean as his entryway into the character. “That’s a familiar storyline to me, beginning with my father and so many people I grew up with in my neighbourhood,” he told The Atlantic.42 Hamilton’s repeated refrain of its titular character’s immigrant origins celebrates his corresponding work ethic and the implied just, meritocratic America that rewarded his talents. The show’s pro-immigrant message grew more poignant as the Trump campaign and presidency brought xenophobia into the political mainstream. The line “Immigrants! We get the job done!” still regularly draws applause.43 However, in the eighteenth-century world, Hamilton was not an immigrant, but rather an internal migrant of the British Empire, moving from one colony to another. His race, language, religion, gender, and status as a free person granted him privileges that most migrants, the majority of whom were either indentured or enslaved, lacked. When Hamilton arrived in New York City, he was not the tenacious underdog of Miranda’s imagination – “another immigrant coming up from the bottom” – but rather, a man already just a few feet from the top.44 Again, race-conscious casting further occludes these issues. The portrayal of Hamilton by a Latino actor elides the very different experiences of white immigrants and immigrants of color, both then and now. “No matter how much harder they worked, the direct ancestors of the black and brown actors who populate the stage and sing these lines would never have been able to get as far as a white man like Alexander Hamilton could,” Monteiro observes.45 A Latino immigrant could not have become a cabinet member in the eighteenth century, just as a Black man could not have become president. The idea would have been laughable.46 The real Hamilton was also no friend to immigrants. In 1798, he championed the passage and enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws. The Alien Law consisted of three pieces of legislation: the Naturalization Law

42 Edward Delman, “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History,” The Atlantic, September 29, 2015. 43 Miranda, “Yorktown,” Hamilton. 44 Miranda, “Alexander Hamilton,” Hamilton. 45 Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting,” 64. 46 Matthew Clinton Sekellick, “Hamilton and Class,” Studies in Musical Theatre 12, no. 3 (2018): 257-263; Leslie M. Harris, “The Greatest City in the World?: Slavery in New York in the Age of Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, 71-93; Waldstreicher and Pasley, “Hamilton as Founders Chic,” 139.

142

Chapter 7

lengthened residency requirements for citizenship from five to fourteen years, the Alien Friends Act allowed the President to detain and deport aliens he deemed dangerous, and the Alien Enemies Act enabled the automatic deportation of aliens from countries with which the United States was at war. These laws, Hamilton and his Federalist allies hoped, would enable the federal government to stem the flood of European immigrants who had come to the United States over the past several years. Federalists suspected immigrants, especially those from Ireland and France, of importing radical, disruptive ideas. “Renegade Aliens conduct more than one of the most incendiary presses in the UStates [sic],” complained Hamilton. “Why are they not sent away?”47 Federalists also disliked immigrants because they overwhelming voted Democratic-Republican.48 Comparing Miranda’s version of Hamilton with the historical one allows students to contemplate Hamilton’s progressive messaging. Why did Miranda choose to make Hamilton the symbol of his pro-immigrant argument when the man so poorly fits the bill? Perhaps there is a way in which Hamilton aims to avoid controversy by dressing its left-leaning ideology in conservative clothing. That is, a historical memory that celebrates immigrants may be more acceptable to those on the Right because it centers a white, Christian, English-speaking migrant who erected barriers to more widespread immigration. Miranda’s attempt to walk the tightrope of a hyper-polarized political culture may help explain Hamilton’s popularity. Several of my students brought up Obama’s famous observation: “This show brings unlikely folks together. In fact, Hamilton I’m pretty sure is the only thing that Dick Cheney and I agree on.”49 The show’s treatment of social mobility adds another layer to conversations about these issues. In both its narrative and origin story, Hamilton reifies the concept of the “American Dream” – the notion that American society rewards

“From Alexander Hamilton to Jonathan Dayton, [October–November 1799],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-23-020526. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 23, April 1799 – October 1799, ed. Harold C. Syrett, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976, 599–604). 48 Terri Diane Halperin, Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2016), 35–37, 54–61; Douglas Bradburn, The Citizenship Revolution: Politics and the Creation of the American Union, 1774-1804 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 162–165; James Morton Smith, “Alexander Hamilton, the Alien Law, and Seditious Libels,” The Review of Politics 16, no. 3 (July 1954), 305–333. 49 Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at ‘Hamilton at the White House,’” March 14, 2016. 47

Who Tells Which Story?

143

hard work and that an individual’s social mobility is purely dependent on their own merits. This narrative ignores all structural barriers and external factors that contribute to a person’s status and instead blames any failures on personal defects. Hamilton credits its titular character’s work ethic and writing talents for his rapid ascent from friendless immigrant to Washington’s “Right Hand Man.” “How to account for his rise to the top? Man, the man is non-stop,” Burr tells the audience.50 The implication is that America is a meritocracy. The show omits many of the external elements that facilitated Hamilton’s social climb – most significantly, that the Schuyler family acquired its wealth through enslavement. “Hamilton is able to reap all of the rewards of his own labour, while the work that enables his success, that of servants, soldiers, enslaved peoples, clerks and so on, is not portrayed,” argues writer Matthew Clinton Sekellick. “This is the story of the American dream: if you work hard, you can achieve anything – but that success is contingent on labour that is left out of the narrative.”51 Hamilton further buoys the myth of the American Dream through the show’s creation story. Like Hamilton’s Hamilton, Miranda is commonly viewed as a scrappy underdog who shook the Broadway establishment with his genre-busting concept that no one believed could be a hit. “They’re gonna laugh. That’s okay. Keep writing,” Miranda defiantly told his Twitter followers after winning the Grammy for Best Musical Theater Album in February 2016.52 The story has three familiar beats: Miranda’s moment of inspiration while reading the Chernow biography on vacation, the early stages of the project when people scoffed at a hip-hop musical about the first Treasury Secretary, and the show’s phenomenal success once mounted at the Public Theater and then transferred to Broadway. “The narrative of the show’s creation amplifies the show’s themes,” observes Jeremy McCarter, co-author of Hamilton: The Revolution. “It tells the stories of two revolutions.”53 Miranda’s achievement is surely astounding, but hardly revolutionary. Like Hamilton, Miranda already enjoyed the elite status that many true outsiders covet – Hamilton marked Miranda’s fourth Broadway writing credit and his second original musical. His first, In the Heights, won four Tony Awards, including Best Musical. He had also already won an Emmy, Grammy, Olivier,

Hamilton. Sekellick, “Hamilton and Class,” 261; Harris, “The Greatest City,” 81; Waldstreicher and Pasley, “Hamilton as Founders Chic,” 139. 52 Lin-Manuel Miranda, Twitter post, February 17, 2016, 3:26pm, https://twitter.com/ lin_manuel/status/700053844693291008?lang=en. 53 Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 11, 10. 50 Miranda, “Non-stop,” 51

Chapter 7

144

and Obie Award before Hamilton debuted. Furthermore, even in its earliest conception, Hamilton was not a dark horse – it had the backing of the biggest names in the business. In 2012, Jeffrey Seller, a powerful producer known for such other hits as Rent, Avenue Q and In the Heights, optioned the project. Before transferring to Broadway, Hamilton debuted in the Public’s 2014-2015 season, the venue that famously also launched A Chorus Line and Hair. Moreover, Miranda’s success with In the Heights secured him the ear of legendary composers and lyricists, like John Kander (Cabaret, Chicago, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Fosse), John Weidman (Pacific Overtures, Assassins, Contact), and Stephen Sondheim (West Side Story, Gypsy, Company, Follies, Sweeney Todd, Sunday in the Park with George, Into the Woods, Assassins), all of whom Miranda conferred with when writing Hamilton. As such, Hamilton was not the little show that could; it was a Broadway-bound powerhouse from the start.54 Both Hamilton’s and Hamilton’s accomplishments are still, of course, remarkable, but it is worth reflecting on why Miranda and others have gravitated toward an underdog story to give them resonance. Both narratives support the myth of the American Dream and imply that social mobility is meritocratic. In doing so, both accept the supposed justice of American capitalism in which individuals rise and fall according to their own character. Again, a view of history and American society that is comforting, if incorrect. As mentioned, most of my students enrolled in the class as die-hard Hamilton fans and so were initially uncomfortable critiquing the show. In the second week, I watched their jaws drop when I voiced the idea that the character of King George was embedded in anti-British and misogynistic stereotypes. One student stayed after class to confirm that I did in fact like the musical, despite what I had said. After several similar incidents, I decided to confront the issue, which generated the most fruitful discussion of the semester – we talked about the role of critique and the importance of thinking critically about art, historical memory, and national myths. I put the following quote from Monteiro on the board: “Learning to see how our ‘faves’ – whether they are Barack Obama or Big Macs or Star Wars or Buffy – how they themselves are embedded in and products of capitalism, of environmental degradation, of racism, of misogyny…to me, that is the work that cultural criticism can do...the truth is that Hamilton is both a piece of art that troubles me deeply, and a piece of art that sustains me, that gives me life.”55 I watched the relief wash over my students’ faces as they realized that they could critique something and love it at the same time. Using Monteiro’s words as a starting

and McCarter, Hamilton, 20, 47. 102–103, 173–174. D. Monteiro, “How to Love Problematic Pop Culture,” Medium, August 27, 2017.

54 Miranda 55 Lyra

Who Tells Which Story?

145

point, we had a meaningful conversation about the value of critically engaging with the art and narratives that surround us. Through this discussion, students grew more confident in unpacking the historical memories they had previously automatically accepted. One student boldly stated that she no longer viewed the American Revolution as a positive event in human history – a position, she admitted, she would have believed unthinkable just a few weeks prior. Others stated that they felt more comfortable grappling with the idea of the “founders” as enslavers and in thinking through the relationship between slavery and freedom in early America. Historical memory, one student observed, should be more than just comforting stories for those who hold power. The Hamilton phenomenon can also open up conversations about how historical memory changes over time. As the Obama administration gave way to the Trump era, Hamilton’s place in popular consciousness and its messages evolved. Hamilton’s interpretation of American history famously enjoyed the vocal support of Barack and Michelle Obama. Miranda debuted the first song he had written at the White House in May 2009. He performed what would become the show’s opening number for President Obama and guests to a standing ovation. The video then went viral on YouTube. After both the president and first lady saw the show, they invited the cast to the White House for a special event in January 2017. In his opening remarks, Barack Obama described Hamilton as “a quintessentially American story” about “a striving immigrant” who “climbed to the top by sheer force of will, and pluck, and determination.” In the show, “we recognize the improbable story of America.”56 These words solidified as truth the many myths that Hamilton asserts. Two years later, the former president appeared on The Hamilton Mixtape, reciting Washington’s Farewell Address.57 The Obama administration gave Hamilton’s interpretation of history the backing of the presidency and held it up as the true national story. In doing so, the distinctions between history and historical memory blurred. Hamilton became a legitimate representation of history, one whose hopeful view of America aligned with much of the Obama administration’s rhetoric. At the White House event, Michelle Obama told the students in attendance that “Hamilton teaches us history the way it really should be taught.”58 But the

56

Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at ‘Hamilton at the White House,’” March 14, 2016. 57 Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton, 14-15. 58 Michelle Obama, “Remarks by The First Lady at ‘Hamilton at The White House’ Student Workshop,” March 14, 2016.

146

Chapter 7

contrast between Hamilton’s America and the real one was brought into full relief by the Trump presidency, which challenged the show’s pro-immigrant, racially-empowering messages. In the Trump era, Hamilton transitioned from a show that reflected a celebratory history of modern America to one that argued for a vision of the past and future that challenged the dominant messages about who and what should be considered “American.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hamilton became a symbol of the resistance to Trump and his white supremacist, patriarchal ideology. Miranda and Hamilton offered their full-fledged support to the Clinton Democrats in the summer and fall of 2016. For instance, the production hosted a fundraising performance of the show in July that featured speeches by Miranda and Clinton with tickets ranging from $2,700 to $100,000. “Include women in the sequel,” Miranda tweeted with a picture of him and Clinton at the event.59 In October, Miranda and Goldsberry performed at a “Broadway for Hilary” fundraising event. “Mi gente: experience is not a liability,” Miranda pleaded in a remixed version of “The Ten Duel Commandments.”60 That same month, in his opening monologue as Saturday Night Live host, Miranda mocked that Trump was “never gonna be president now”—a reference to the Access Hollywood tape that had leaked the day prior.61 After Trump’s election, Hamilton and its fandom continued to oppose Trump and his administration. On November 18, Vice-President Elect Mike Pence was greeted by boos when he attended the show. After the final curtain, Brandon Victor Dixon, who portrayed the role of Aaron Burr, read a statement addressed to Pence highlighting the show’s celebration of diversity and inclusion. Trump called for a boycott of Hamilton in response.62 In addition, signs declaring “Immigrants Get the Job Done!” and “History Has Its Eyes on You” populated The Women’s March the day after Trump’s inauguration and on the anniversaries since.63 In 2018, Miranda performed a mashed-up version of “The Story of Tonight” at the March For Our Lives Rally in Washington, D.C. In the fall of 2020, Miranda and several Hamilton cast

59 Robert Viagas, Adam Hetrick, “Hillary Clinton Gets Powerful Endorsement from LinManuel Miranda at Hamilton Benefit,” Playbill.com, July 14, 2016. 60 Lin-Manuel Miranda, Twitter post, July 12, 2016, 5:11pm, https://twitter.com/Lin_ Manuel/status/752973676870569984. 61 Josh Dickey, “‘SNL’ host Lin-Manuel Miranda taunts Trump: ‘Never gonna be president,’” Mashable, October 9, 2016. 62 Caroline Framke, “Mike Pence went to see Hamilton. The audience booed – but the cast delivered a personal plea,” Vox, November 19, 2016. 63 Shanice Davis, “Lin-Manuel Miranda Reacts To Outpour Of ‘Hamilton’ Signs At Nationwide Protests,” Vibe, February 3, 2017.

Who Tells Which Story?

147

members performed a remixed mash-up of several of the show’s songs for a virtual “When We All Vote” event dedicated to promoting voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election.64 Under Trump, Hamilton became an aspirational view of America and its history – one that Americans would have to fight for to make manifest by defeating Trumpism. My students regularly returned to this idea when discussing the show’s success. Hamilton’s transformation from a bipartisan triumph to a rallying cry for the Left reveals the malleable nature of historical memory and cultural myths. How we remember reveals much more about the society we currently live in than it does about the past. Hamilton is, at its heart, a show about myth-making. Despite repeated attempts to shape his own legacy, Hamilton eventually accepts what others had preached all along: “You have no control who lives, who dies, who tells your story.”65 But Hamilton is caught in the same endeavor. The show strives to assert its version of America and its history – one in which the national project is inherently righteous, the founding was achieved with minimal violence, men strive for greatness, women support their men, racial difference does not exist, slavery and settler colonialism are inconsequential, and immigrants can rise to wealth and power if they work hard enough. But this is not the American story. By empowering students to critically engage with Hamilton, educators can equip them with the skills to question not only the art that they consume, but also the national narratives that surround them. The Hamilton phenomenon is an excellent opportunity to explore historical memory in modern American society and think carefully about who benefits from particular patterns of remembering and forgetting. Broadening understandings of who and what make up the American experience will allow students to see themselves and their peers in their nation’s history and to combat simplistic, triumphalist narratives that omit centuries of injustice. There is room in the American story for Washington and Judge, for immigrants and forced migrants, for settlers and the dispossessed, for written creations and violent destructions, for empowerment and trauma, for people of all races, genders, and classes. The world is wide enough for Hamilton and all of them.

64 Sam

Gringlas, “‘Hamilton; Cast Re-imagines Show’s Lyrics To Promote Voter Registration Day,” NPR, September 22, 2020. 65 Miranda, “History Has Its Eyes On You,” Hamilton.

Chapter 7

148

Bibliography Adelman, Joseph M. “Who Tells Your Story?: Hamilton as a People’s History.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 277-296. Allgor, Catherine. “‘Remember... I’m Your Man’: Masculinity, Marriage, and Gender in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 94–115. Bradburn, Douglas. The Citizenship Revolution: Politics and the Creation of the American Union, 1774-1804. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. Branden, Janese. “Hamilton Roles are This Rappers Delight.” Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2015. Brands, H. W. “Founders Chic.” The Atlantic, September 2003. Davis, Shanice. “Lin-Manuel Miranda Reacts To Outpour Of ‘Hamilton’ Signs At Nationwide Protests.” Vibe, February 3, 2017. Delman, Edward. “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History.” The Atlantic, September 29, 2015. Dickey, Josh. “‘SNL’ host Lin-Manuel Miranda taunts Trump: ‘Never gonna be president.’” Mashable, October 9, 2016. Dunbar, Erica Armstrong. “George Washington, Slave Catcher.” The New York Times, February 16, 2015. Dunbar, Erica Armstrong. Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge. New York: 37 Ink/Atria Books, 2018. Ferling, John. Set the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Framke, Caroline. “Mike Pence went to see Hamilton. The audience booed – but the cast delivered a personal plea.” Vox, November 19, 2016. “From Alexander Hamilton to Jonathan Dayton, [October–November 1799],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/docume nts/Hamilton/01-23-02-0526. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 23, April 1799 – October 1799, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976, 599–604]. Gringlas, Sam. “‘Hamilton; Cast Re-imagines Show’s Lyrics To Promote Voter Registration Day.” NPR, September 22, 2020. Halperin, Terri Diane. Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2016. Harris, Leslie M. “The Greatest City in the World? Slavery in New York in the Age of Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past, edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2018. “Hamilton Education Program.” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-and-events/hamilton-education -program.

Who Tells Which Story?

149

Herrera, Patricia. “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 260-276. Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill: The Institute of Early American History and Culture, The University of North Carolina Press, 1980. Kornhaber, Spencer. “Hamilton: Casting After Colorblindness.” The Atlantic, March 31, 2016. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic 551093-2, 2015. Compact disc. Miranda, Lin Manuel. Twitter post, February 17, 2016, 3:26pm, https://twitter. com/lin_manuel/status/700053844693291008?lang=en. Miranda, Lin Manuel. Twitter post, July 12, 2016, 5:11pm, https://twitter. com/Lin_Manuel/status/752973676870569984. Miranda, Lin-Manuel and Jeremy McCarter. Hamilton: The Revolution. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016. Monteiro, Lyra D. “How to Love Problematic Pop Culture.” Medium, August 27, 2017. Monteiro, Lyra D. “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 58-70. Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President at ‘Hamilton at the White House.’” March 14, 2016. Obama, Michelle. “Remarks by The First Lady at ‘Hamilton at The White House’ Student Workshop.” March 14, 2016. Pasley, Jeffrey L. “Federalist Chic.” Common-Place 2, no. 2 (2002). Romano, Aja. “Hamilton is fanfic, and its historical critics are totally missing the point.” Vox, July 4, 2016. Rosen, Jody. “The American Revolutionary.” The New York Times Magazine, July 8, 2015. Sekellick, Matthew Clinton. “Hamilton and Class.” Studies in Musical Theatre 12, no. 3 (2018): 257–263. Serfilippi, Jessie. “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing’: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver.” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, 2020. Schocket, Andrew M. “Hamilton and the American Revolution on Stage and Screen.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 167–186. Schocket, Andrew M. “The Founders Chic of Hamilton.” NYU Press Blog, October 9, 2015. Smith, James Morton. “Alexander Hamilton, the Alien Law, and Seditious Libels.” The Review of Politics 16, no. 3 (July 1954): 305–333. The Granite Freeman. Concord, New Hampshire. May 22, 1845. Thomas, Evan. “Founders Chic: Live From Philadelphia.” Newsweek. July 9, 2001.

150

Chapter 7

Viagas, Robert, and Adam Hetrick. “Hillary Clinton Gets Powerful Endorsement from Lin-Manuel Miranda at Hamilton Benefit.” Playbill.com, July 14, 2016. Vozick-Levinson, Simon. “Revolution on Broadway: Inside Hip-Hop History Musical ‘Hamilton.’” Rolling Stone. August 6, 2015. Waldstreicher, David and Jeffrey L. Pasley. “Hamilton as Founders Chic: A Neo-Federalist, Antislavery, Usable Past?” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 137– 166. Waldstreicher, David. “Founders Chic as Culture War.” Radical History Review 84 (Fall 2002): 185–194. Winfrey, Oprah. “Oprah Talks to Lin-Manuel Miranda About Immigrant Grit.” The Oprah Magazine, July 6, 2018. Young, Alfred F. Liberty Tree: Ordinary People and the American Revolution. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Young, Alfred F. Masquerade: The Life and Times of Deborah Sampson, Continental Soldier. New York, Vintage Books, 2004. Young, Alfred F. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.

Chapter 8

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”: Hamilton Rewrites the American Literature Course Katherine L. Curtis and Alison Tracy Hale University of Puget Sound

“Enter me, he says in parentheses” Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical juggernaut, hit Broadway on September 25, 2015, with what those of us who teach and work with early American literature, history, and culture might call perfect timing. Contemporary students, immersed in digital media, struggle not only to make sense of the era’s unfamiliar genres, tropes, and language, but also to find significance in material that may violate contemporary values and mores. Students frequently seek college courses that offer immediate and unmediated relevance to their interests and tend to decry–quite understandably–the misogyny and racism present in many of these early texts, but often do so anachronistically and at the expense of the works’ full complexity. Other students enter a course in early American literature believing that they already know what early authors have to say, and that the texts are obsolete and too politically untenable to be worth reading; they also experience the period’s dearth of imaginative fiction and the prevalence on the syllabus of political essays, sermons, and letters as insufficiently literary or imaginative to satisfy those raised on the exploits of Harry Potter and Katniss Everdeen. In the pages that follow, we discuss how we centered Hamilton the musical and Alexander Hamilton the historical figure to revitalize an introductory-level course on early American literature. Hitching our pedagogical wagon to LinManuel Miranda’s star, so to speak, allowed us to both generate and capitalize on student enthusiasm for the musical; at the same time, the musical’s focus on the interpretive practices integral to reading and reimagining history set the stage for the kinds of work essential to a college-level English course. In the first

152

Chapter 8

section of the essay, we discuss the general structure of the class and its use of the musical and Ron Chernow’s 2005 biography of Hamilton (Miranda’s acknowledged source for much of the historical and biographical information that shaped the musical); we also describe how additional course readings address the particular goals of a literature class at this level. The second section covers course assignments, focusing in particular on our collaboration in developing new research-based assignments that ask students to make use of primary source materials. In the third section, we consider the pedagogical connections between the historically focused work of the course and class discussions regarding contemporary issues surrounding the musical. Such intersections enhance the relevance of the early material without reducing them to a mere anticipation of current concerns. Throughout the pages that follow, we focus in particular on the impact these changes have had on student learning and on the student experience of the course. Alison Tracy Hale, the English Department’s specialist in early American literature, and Katy Curtis, Humanities Liaison Librarian, had already collaborated in developing research-based assignments for a first-year writing/information literacy course and an introduction to English Studies course for majors here at our small liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest. When we discovered a shared passion for Hamilton–and for its historical source materials–we began tossing around ideas for a course that could use the musical, and the resurgence of interest in the period, to showcase the relevance and pleasure of working with literary and historical materials from the eighteenth century. In Miranda’s own avowed interest in the historical record, we saw an opportunity for a new approach, one that would promote eighteenth-century literature and culture while raising key questions about historiography, canonicity, cultural memory, and the significance of literature to the emergence of American identity. At the same time, we had no interest in simply reproducing a hagiography of the founders; our students needed to encounter and engage with a multiplicity of voices and perspectives from Hamilton’s time and from our own. Here again, timing–in this case, the groundswell of critical and academic responses to the musical–was fortuitous. By the time we pioneered the course in Fall 2016, critics had begun to raise concerns about the musical’s radical yet problematic racial casting and the show’s political valence in the era of Obama’s presidency.1 Historians were 1

For example, Lyra D. Monteiro first published her essay “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton” in 2016 (The Public Historian 38:1), 89-98, generating a series of responses. Tracing such debates with students became much easier with the 2018 publication of Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter’s collection Historians on Hamilton, cited throughout this essay.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

153

beginning to reflect on the significance of the show as a cultural phenomenon, on the questions raised by its status as “fictional history” and on its proximity to the rise of “Founders Chic,” the title of H. W. Brands’s September, 2003 article in The Atlantic in which he cautioned against an excessive reverence for the elite white men of traditional American history: Interest in the Founders has risen and fallen over time, as has admiration for them and their accomplishments. Although such things are hard to measure, it's probably fair to say that their stock is currently at an alltime high. It's also fair, and necessary, to say that this isn't entirely a blessing for their country. In revering the Founders we undervalue ourselves and sabotage our own efforts to make improvements— necessary improvements—in the republican experiment they began.2 From its inception, then, the course was rooted deliberately not only in the issues of the eighteenth-century past, but also in debates about both the contemporary era and our vexed relationship to that historical past. The shifting popular and academic conversations about the musical have enriched the course since we first began offering it, in fall of 2016. The course has now been taught four times, most recently in fall 2019, with slight variations each semester as we continue to adapt the sequencing, incorporate new contemporary materials, and further refine specific reading and writing assignments. Despite those adjustments, however, the central core of the class, its emphasis on narrative, interpretation, the use of primary sources, and its focus on the important political conflicts of both Hamilton’s era and our own, has remained consistent. For the purposes of this essay, we have focused on our most successful experiences; individual examples or assignments, therefore, may not be from the same iteration of the course. “My name is Alexander Hamilton”: Overview of Course Structure The class is offered as a sophomore-level course on early American literature within the English major. It carries a standard unit of credit and is offered via two 80-minute class meetings a week for a 15-week semester. At our institution, a course at this level prioritizes the fundamental skills associated with English Studies: students read and analyze primary texts, develop their analytical writing, and become more fluent in literary history, issues of periodization, and the significance of historical and other contexts. As the

2 H.W. Brands, “Founders Chic,” The Atlantic (Sept, 2003), https://www.theatlantic.com/ magazine/archive/2003/09/founders-chic/302773/.

154

Chapter 8

instructor of record for the course, Alison sought to include compelling assignments that made use of academic research and engaged students with primary historical documents. As the Humanities Liaison Librarian, Katy routinely offers library sessions tailored to a specific course or assignment; in addition, she assists faculty in creating and shaping engaging research and other information literacy activities for students. Having already familiarized herself with some of the primary materials relevant to Hamilton’s story, Katy suggested some assignment possibilities that became central to the course. Working from those collaborative assignment plans, Alison then built out the full syllabus, adding additional literary content and further context. The class centers on the life of Alexander Hamilton as narrated in Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography Alexander Hamilton and moves through seven units that are organized chronologically. Early units focus somewhat narrowly on biographical information and Hamilton’s own writings, while later units expand outward to incorporate a wider range of eighteenth-century voices, both political and literary. In this way, the course takes advantage early on of students’ enthusiasm for the musical and for the biographical Hamilton, gradually immersing them in a more expansive and complex engagement with the genres, voices, and perspectives that circulated during Hamilton’s lifetime. The basic logic of the course is this: excerpts from Chernow’s biography familiarize students with the details of Hamilton’s life and provide a general, initial overview of the specific historical, social, and political contexts within which he moved. Chernow’s work also provides an accessible corrective to some of Miranda’s more imaginative representations of Hamilton’s life and character. This historical infrastructure supports students as they engage with Hamilton’s own writings, political and private correspondence, essays, and other publications. From a basis in these core works, the class increasingly incorporates texts that, while not directly connected to the musical or to Hamilton himself, provide students with a richer perspective on the latter half of the eighteenth century and, in particular, the questions surrounding the emergence of an American political and cultural identity. Finally, several of the course units also include contemporary critical work that helps students better understand the primary sources they encounter and their specific cultural, literary, and political contexts. In order to situate students’ understanding of the class in relation to the disciplines of literature and history, we begin with an in-depth analysis of the musical itself. Some students arrive in class unfamiliar with the musical, while others are drawn to the course by their existing enthusiasm for it. A number of students have read historical and biographical material on their own or immersed themselves in the musical’s internet and social media presence. In order to help all students become conversant with the musical and to

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

155

establish the disciplinary focus of the course - literary analysis, rather than historiography - students first engage with the musical’s repeated query about the power of perspective and the inescapability of interpretation: “Who tells your story?” By listening to the soundtrack (available early on as a CD or via streaming services) multiple times and reading through the full lyrics (available with the CD version and also online), students confront broad questions about narrative, interpretation, ideology, and the cultural uses of historical figures--all key themes of the musical. Whatever their prior knowledge, students quickly become acquainted with the particular narrative Miranda has created around Hamilton’s life and familiar with the themes and interpretations central to Miranda’s vision of Hamilton. Reading the lyrics from the two acts as “literature,” students trace the rise and fall of Miranda’s hero, identifying themes and patterns and “close reading” the lyrics to consider how, within the genres of song and hip hop, Miranda constructs his story at the formal and aesthetic levels.3 These sessions help to foreground immediately the literary skills of interpretation and close reading essential to an introductory class and thus situate our work clearly within a literary studies model. They also center our work on reading the musical itself as an interpretation, rather than as the “truth” of Hamilton’s life story.4 Their interest in Hamilton’s life story—both Chernow’s historical narrative and Miranda’s creative version—gives students a point of entry from which to consider the key events, issues, and questions of eighteenth-century America; their interest in Hamilton “himself” (a construct that varies from student to student and often relies heavily on Miranda’s version of Hamilton as brilliant

3 The film version of the musical wasn’t released until Summer 2020, after the most recent iteration of the course had concluded. Prior to that, students relied on YouTube video clips, other performances of musical numbers (early on, at the White House; at the Tony Awards on June 12, 2016). Many students enjoyed peripheral offerings spawned by the musical, including Howard Ho’s “How Hamilton Works” YouTube videos that discuss how the show’s musical elements produce expectations, develop character, and reinforce themes and connections. See https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list =PL9MYwDhBFHO96nJtv0RyRfeaFZ96Kg8yv. 4 Students are often surprisingly resistant to acknowledging the musical’s fictional and interpretive elements, perhaps believing that since Miranda drew on Chernow’s biographical work, the show must therefore be “true.” Other students approach their enthusiasm for the show by learning all sorts of facts about Hamilton and his life, which they then insist are the inarguable “truth.” Both perspectives figure prominently in class conversations--especially after the musical achieved cult status—and each presents its own challenges and opportunities to help students develop a more nuanced view of our relationship to historical facts, historical narratives, and the acts of interpretation and representation.

156

Chapter 8

and tragic iconoclast) motivates them to learn more about his life. Among Hamilton’s own writings, students read from the Federalist Papers and other political essays, his private letters, and the famous “Reynolds Pamphlet”. Having encountered the historical Hamilton, students then broaden their sense of his world through political and literary works from Hamilton’s contemporaries including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Phillis Wheatley, Timothy Dwight, J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Jupiter Hammon, and Judith Sargent Murray. The course directs students’ attention to the “cultural work” these works, both the explicitly political and the conventionally “literary”, performed; that is, how they not only reflect the values of their era but also actively participate in shaping their world. As Jane Tompkins notes, even works that are ostensibly outside the political realm “provid[e] society with a means of thinking about itself, defining certain aspects of a social reality which the authors and their readers shared, dramatizing its conflicts, and recommending solutions.”5 Such an approach asks students to consider the political valence of literary works, complicating their existing notion of a distinction between history and literature as disciplines and giving them a richer sense of the generic fluidity that characterizes the writing of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Following our initial discussion of the musical and its themes, the bulk of the course material is divided into a series of seven units, sketched out here in terms of key themes and issues, with a sampling of course readings. As we move beyond the early focus on Hamilton’s own biography, our course units expand in length and complexity, to allow for the inclusion of more literary texts and additional voices. Each unit is accompanied, as mentioned, by chronologically relevant excerpts from Hamilton’s biography as found in Chernow’s book. Unit 1, “‘I am not throwing away my shot!’: Immigrant Beginnings,” introduces students to Hamilton’s family situation, early life, and early Revolutionary War career. Students generally read his early writings (“Account of a Hurricane,” published in the Royal Danish American Gazette on Sept. 6, 1772, and a private letter to his cousin Edward Stevens written from St. Croix on Nov. 11, 1769) seeking the heroic immigrant Miranda constructs, and find in these texts ample evidence of Hamilton’s irrepressible ambition and his flair for rhetoric. Students confront the limited prospects of a young orphan from the Caribbean in Hamilton’s era even as they consider the prevalence of slavery in the Americas and Hamilton’s own experiences with the slave trade.

Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction, 1790-1860. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 200.

5 Jane Tompkins.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

157

Students are delighted that Hamilton concludes his letter by saying “I wish there was a War,” a line famous from the musical that attests to the potential for social mobility armed conflict provided to white men without property. Hamilton’s Revolutionary War experiences serve as a backdrop for Unit 2: “‘This is not a moment, it’s the movement!’: Revolution.” Students interrogate revolutionary texts like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and the Declaration of Independence alongside the bitingly satirical “King George III’s Soliloquy” by patriot, poet, privateer, and British prisoner-of-war Philip Freneau. Students explore how form, genre, and rhetoric functioned in both literary and political arenas, as well as how literary works–and their authors– deliberately intervened in political conversations or even, as in Freneau’s case, military action. Unit 3, “‘The notion of a nation we now get to build’: Confederation and Constitution,” begins with some of Hamilton’s most famous writings, including the Federalist Papers, which articulate his vision and values for a new nation. In its emphasis on the political, economic, and legal aspects of nation-building, this unit introduces students to the social and cultural elements essential to producing American national identity–a topic explored further in Unit 4, “What is an American?” a question made famous by J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer (1782). Students compare how various writers and thinkers envisioned “Americanness,” not only politically, but also socially, culturally, and racially, grappling with questions like these: How did these authors consider the limits of the body politic, and which criteria would determine full inclusion in the American experiment? Which mechanisms–legal, political, practical, and ideological–enabled one to become, or to understand oneself as, an American? Unit 5, “...until those in bondage have the same rights as you and me,” focuses students’ attention more specifically on the issues of race and slavery in the era of the Founding and beyond, and asks them to consider how the exclusion from full citizenship of significant portions of the population– women, enslaved persons, free Blacks, and Native Americans–became an accepted reality. Readings that include excerpts from Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia and poetry by Phillis Wheatley deepen the discussion begun in the previous unit, providing students with greater insight into discussions of race, citizenship, and identity in the new nation and a more nuanced – albeit not necessarily a more positive – conception of how the US grappled with racial injustice even as it articulated ostensibly universal values of equality and freedom. Unit 6: “Best of wives and best of women” centers on issues of gender, courtship, and the social and political roles of women, and includes correspondence between Hamilton and his wife, Eliza, and sister-in-law,

158

Chapter 8

Angelica Schuyler Church. Judith Sargent Murray’s essay “On the Equality of the Sexes” and Hannah Webster Foster’s novel The Coquette extend our discussions beyond Hamilton’s immediate experiences, and allow students more room to interrogate the gender roles and interactions of the period. Students respond eagerly to a set of letters exchanged between Aaron Burr, his wife Theodosia Prevost Burr, and his daughter, Theodosia Burr, which further illustrate the complexities of gender expectations and relationships in the period and offer a powerful challenge to the musical’s historical portrait of Hamilton’s antagonist. Primed by the musical to see Burr as an unmitigated villain, students find their assumptions challenged by his witty, loving correspondence with his wife and daughter and by his early championing of Mary Wollstonecraft’s work. In contrast to Hamilton’s often-paternalistic attitudes toward Eliza, Burr’s correspondence with his wife provides ample evidence of his respect for her intellectual and personal qualities. And, of course, no discussion of gender relations in the era, in Hamilton’s life, and in the musical, would be complete without Hamilton’s Reynolds Pamphlet. Students who expect sordid details are often surprised by the pamphlet’s focus on Hamilton’s political and fiduciary reputation, and by the way he ties his candor regarding his sexual dalliances with Maria Reynolds to his explicit attempt to restore his public persona. On the one hand, students realize, Hamilton wishes to preserve his reputation for probity and intelligence; on the other hand, he wants to shift the blame for the affair onto the Reynoldses, whom he clearly considers beneath his own station. Unit 7, “...an itemized list of thirty years of disagreements” revisits eighteenth-century expectations about masculinity and the political efficacy of dueling as a public manifestation of manly character. Students read from Hamilton’s correspondence regarding Burr and the election of 1800 as well as the actual correspondence they exchanged leading up to their duel. An excerpt from Joanne B. Freeman’s Affairs of Honor helps students understand the way that eighteenth-century political capital functioned in relation to expectations of masculinity and provides cultural, social, and political context for what seems to students to be the inexplicably foolish culmination of Hamilton and Burr’s long-time relationship.6 Hamilton’s perverse–to twentyfirst century eyes–refusal to appease Burr’s wounded pride is rendered legible by a context in which such a public display of honor was essential to his

6 Joanne B. Freeman. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 167.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

159

continued ability to “serve the public good” while “prevent[ing] a rival from bolstering his reputation at Hamilton’s expense.”7 “Pick up a pen, start writing”: Course Assignments As with the course readings, the coursework and assignments ask students to engage with a combination of primary sources, interpretive and critical work, and contemporary responses–although not, of course, all at the same time. Assignments are designed to promote the careful reading, sensitive analysis, and effective writing characteristic of English Studies, to represent a range of tasks and situations, and to include opportunities for creativity and fun. The course includes the following graded assignments: 1) a short context presentation (10 minutes), done in pairs, drawing on the assigned reading from Chernow, highlighting significant historical or biographical events. The assignment also requires the presenters to develop three open-ended questions that connect the context to our day’s primary reading and to pose them to begin our class discussion; 2) two short (2-3 pages) textual analyses or “close readings” of primary material. While at least one of these analyses must focus on an eighteenth-century text, the second may focus on a section of lyrics from the musical; 3) an annotated edition of a historical letter, discussed in detail below; 4) the revision or creation of lyrics for a musical number suitable for inclusion in Hamilton; 5) a researched group presentation on a relevant topic that enhances our understanding of the eighteenth century; 6) an individual essay (5 pages) that draws upon that group research to make an individual argument. Because the course functions as a seminar and relies on student participation and conversation, it is essential that students take ownership of the material and feel comfortable speaking up in class. The course addresses those needs, and the explicit course learning outcome of “Improv[ing] your skills in oral presentation, in both informal and formal settings” by assigning pairs of students to present a brief recap or overview of each session’s assigned Chernow chapter(s). In these 10-15 minute presentations, students review what they consider the most essential historical or biographical events from the reading and generate three relevant, open-ended questions to begin the day’s conversation. This assignment is extremely successful; students produce elegant PowerPoint presentations, dramatic recreations, or clear handouts to accompany their contributions, and are encouraged by their leadership roles to participate more avidly in class. The assignment further

7 Ibid.,

166.

160

Chapter 8

reminds students that Chernow’s work, while supported by evidence, nevertheless presents a particular interpretation of events that is not necessarily shared by historical figures or other contemporary scholars. Preparing the class discussion questions encourages students to connect the historical background and context to the day’s primary political or literary texts, and shapes the conversation in relation to their interests and ideas. One pair of students, for example, were extremely interested in military strategy, and incorporated information and discussion of American military strategy into their presentation on several of Chernow’s chapters dealing with the Revolutionary War. As a requirement for the English Studies major and minor, student learning outcomes for this class also include “Develop[ing] your skills in literary analysis of primary texts (close reading) and the interpretation and application of secondary and tertiary materials” and “Improv[ing] your writing of interpretive, analytical, text-based arguments.” These goals are addressed through two literary “close reading” exercises–conventional, thesisdriven literary analyses in which students construct interpretive arguments supported by the analysis of detailed textual evidence. Along with developing students’ conventional literary-analytical skills, a key goal of our course redesign was to give students hands-on experience with the primary historical materials that inform Miranda’s musical. Assignments that incorporate primary sources offer unique opportunities to enrich student learning, promote alternative pedagogies, and develop information literacy skills. As noted by the Literatures in English Section of the Association of College & Research Libraries, literary scholarship emphasizes an “iterative process of inquiry” that “centers interpretive meaning-making” and requires the negotiation of a variety of interdisciplinary tools, methods, and practices.8 Such scholarship increasingly takes place in a “hybrid ecosystem” in which researchers must make use of both print and digital media.9 Our goal in designing these research-based assignments was to introduce students to knowledge practices, resources, and research methodologies essential to scholars in the discipline of English. For students of literature, engaging

Association of College and Research Libraries Literatures in English Section, Research Competencies in Writing and Literature. (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2018), 8, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xBoRqvfDfJOVUVseT4NoDTtB5Yhltu 00-8uXK1j5Dys/edit?usp=sharing. Prepared in alignment with the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education (ACRL 2016), these guidelines have informed our learning objectives and accompanying library sessions to support research assignments in this course. 9 Ibid., 2. 8

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

161

directly with the primary sources and contextualizing them through research provided valuable insight into the personal, social, political, and structural contexts that shape creative work and offered opportunities for students to become cognizant of their research strategy as they honed analytical and interpretive skills. The library assignments showcase Katy’s expertise in familiarizing students with effective research habits and practices and her creativity in designing ways to engage students with the challenges and satisfactions of research. For their first library-integrated assignment, students conduct an analysis of a historical letter written by or to one of the figures from the musical. In order to prepare them for this work, we spend a class period discussing the various functions and expectations of letters in Hamilton’s lifetime. Students raised in a digital era often think of handwritten letters as obsolete and as intensely private–love letters, say. In preparing students to work with a specific historical letter, we introduce them to some general considerations surrounding the writing and circulation of letters: questions of authenticity, credibility, and the rhetorical construction of the self; the cultivation and demonstration of social savvy; the documentation of historical events, both private and public; the gendered differences in the production and reception of letters, which often functioned as a conduit for women’s political engagement, such as in Abigail Adams’s famous entreaty that her husband “Remember the Ladies” and “not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands.”10 That said, students’ familiarity with the simultaneously private and public status of social media gives them a way to understand how letters were composed, read, and circulated in the eighteenth century.11 After discussing the function of letters in general, students work together to decipher a manuscript letter written by Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Schuyler Church on December 6, 1787, which references a vexing comma that is reimagined in Miranda’s Hamilton musical number “Take a Break.”12 The musical’s lyrics are saturated with a great number of such historical “easter eggs” and using Miranda’s source material in the activity allows us to further draw students into the primary documents and ask questions about access

Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776, in Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241. 11 This awareness is further useful in later conversations about the epistolary novel The Coquette and in the creative assignment students complete. 12 Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Schuyler Church, Dec. 6, 1787, Box 1, Folder 7, Hannah Farnham Sawyer Lee autograph collection. Massachusetts Historical Society. Boston, Massachusetts. http://www.masshist.org/collection-guides/view/fa0320. 10 Abigail

Chapter 8

162

and interpretation. To identify the letter in question, Katy started with the lyric annotations for Hamilton found on Genius.com, an online platform where users annotate and deconstruct songs with other fans and creators.13 The annotations for “Take a Break” link to a transcription of Hamilton’s letter to Angelica from Founders Online, which includes a few contextual footnotes as well as the location of the manuscript letter.14 While a great deal of the Founders’ correspondence is digitized and accessible online, including a vast collection of Hamilton’s papers at the Library of Congress, we were not able to locate a digital facsimile of Hamilton’s letter to Angelica that was already available. The physical letter resides at the Massachusetts Historical Society in Boston, where we were able to request a facsimile copy for use in classroom instruction. While this acquisition took some advance effort on our part, we chose this letter for the transcription activity because of its connection to the musical and the opportunities it affords us to model enthusiasm and tenacity in the research process and to discuss challenging aspects of historical and textual research. When we share this process with students they become more aware of the ways in which information sources vary greatly in content, format, and availability, whether they are easily accessible in a digital archive or exist in a special collection that a researcher must physically visit. This letter also helps students further interrogate Miranda’s telling of Hamilton’s story and compare it to existing primary source evidence. In Miranda’s dramatization of Hamilton and Angelica’s relationship, he suggests a mutual romantic longing that is reinforced lyrically in “Take a Break” when Angelica sings: In a letter I received from you two weeks ago I noticed a comma in the middle of a phrase It changed the meaning. Did you intend this? One stroke and you’ve consumed my waking days

Although Genius.com’s annotations for Hamilton and other songs are largely usergenerated, Lin-Manuel Miranda has been an enthusiastic and active supporter, even posting his own annotations and interacting with fans on the site. At one time these annotations were also embedded on Atlantic Records’ official website for the Hamilton cast album. 14 rosefox, “The line is almost certainly a reference to an actual exchange between Hamilton and Angelica...” Annotation on Miranda, “Take a Break,” Genius.com, 2015, https://genius.com/7873012. The annotation appears by clicking on Angelica’s line “I noticed a comma in the middle of a phrase.” 13

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

163

It says: “My dearest Angelica” With a comma after “dearest.” You’ve written “My dearest, Angelica.”15

Figure 8.1: Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Schuyler Church, Dec. 6, 1787, Page 2. Box 1, Folder 7, Hannah Farnham Sawyer Lee autograph collection. Massachusetts Historical Society. Boston, Massachusetts. http://www.masshist.org/collectionguides/view/fa0320

Miranda. “Take a Break,” disc 2, track 3 on Hamilton: An American Musical, with Phillipa Soo, Anthony Ramos, Lin-Manuel Miranda & Renée Elise Goldsberry, original Broadway cast recording, Atlantic Records, 2015, compact disc.

15 Lin-Manuel

164

Chapter 8

These lyrics reference the exchange documented in Hamilton’s letter on December 6, 1787, although in the historical letter it is Hamilton who teases Angelica over the comma’s placement. Hamilton writes, “There was a most critical comma in your last letter. It is my interest that it should have been designed; but I presume it was accidental. Unriddle this if you can. The proof that you do it rightly may be given by the omission or repetition of the same mistake in your next” and cheekily ends the letter with “Adieu ma chere, soeur.”16 Through transcribing this historical letter, students are introduced to a new method of reading and interpreting a text and are able to check their work for accuracy against the authoritative transcription from Founders Online. Working in groups, students find the attempt to decipher Hamilton’s handwriting both challenging and engaging; this brief exercise also helps make the historical Hamilton and Angelica come alive in a playful exchange outside of Miranda’s recreation, especially as they realize how Miranda’s adaptation of the comma conundrum differs from the historical record. Having worked with the manuscript letter during class, students are primed for the next step. Each student selects a letter from transcriptions we make available and is assigned to produce a “scholarly edition” of that letter, including a formal, introductory headnote and explanatory annotations, similar to what might be found in a literary anthology.17 Rather than toss students into the deep end of this correspondence, we intentionally curate the selected letters to feature different voices, perspectives, and relationships among the figures in the musical, as well as references to individuals, events, or themes that students will be invested in exploring. The selection of letters includes documents from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Maria Reynolds, John Laurens, and others. Additionally, we seek to highlight relationships that are not featured in the musical, such as that between Washington and Lafayette or between Aaron Burr and his wife, Theodosia Prevost Burr. We also want to provide students with references to issues and events surrounding those of the musical (for example, John Laurens’s plan for

Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Church, Dec. 6, 1787, in Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0172. 17 All transcriptions for the letter annotation assignment were identified and retrieved using Founders Online (https://founders.archives.gov/), an open-access project from the National Archives, which makes thousands of historical documents of the Founders freely available online. For the fundamental outlines of this assignment, we’re indebted to our colleagues Professor Tiffany Aldrich MacBain and Archivist and Librarian Katie Henningsen, who developed a similar assignment for a different course at the University of Puget Sound. 16

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

165

the creation of a regiment of black soldiers or the crafting of Washington’s Farewell Address) while opening up opportunities for further exploration. The curated selection of letters ultimately presents students with opportunities to follow a variety of research interests while also keeping their attention on the editorial goals of the assignment. The task requires students to conduct research using tertiary and secondary sources as they work to provide contextual details about the author, recipient, and text of their chosen letter. In addition to locating biographical information on these figures, students must identify references to additional people, events, and issues raised in the letters, familiarize themselves with those contexts, and decide how best to synthesize and present that information to make it accessible to non-specialists. This assignment is a high point of the course for us and for the students: having selected a letter that interests them, students feel an immediate sense of ownership in understanding and sharing it with others; identifying unfamiliar references, events, or persons mentioned in the letter creates an engaging puzzle for the student to solve through research and a clear motivation for doing so; creating an introductory “edition” of the letter for their peers provides a tangible sense of audience and purpose that helps them decide on the format, scope, and extent of their annotations. The “letter assignment” creates specific intellectual and practical problems for students to solve through their research and writing: how much biographical detail does their audience need? Which terms, references, or allusions need to be explained? How much historical context is required for readers to fully appreciate the letter? Should the “editor” attempt to address every element of the letter, or focus more narrowly on a specific set of related details? How can the “editor” acknowledge their sources while creating a readable edition of the letter? To prepare students to address these questions and begin contextualizing their chosen letter, Katy offers an interactive library session in which students practice skills for reading and evaluating the primary source materials and are introduced to relevant search tools and resources available through the library. Using an example letter from Angelica Schuyler Church to Thomas Jefferson on November 19, 1788, Katy leads students in a group discussion about evaluating primary sources and the class collectively develops a list of criteria and elements that might warrant an annotation or further research.18 Working in small groups, students read through Angelica’s letter and select key components to investigate. While many students note the importance of including biographical information in their annotations, as well as a

Angelica Schuyler Church to Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 19, 1788, in Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-14-02-9002. 18

166

Chapter 8

discussion of the relationship between the letter’s author and recipient or contextual details for additional references to people, events, or issues, they are also encouraged to think beyond what is explicitly stated in the text of their chosen letter to add depth to their analysis. Additional elements that students consider for their annotations include dates, places (both setting and proximity of the letter writer and recipient), language (spelling, definitions, and usage), allusions and quotations, rhetorical gestures, purpose, and tone. After students develop a list of topics to investigate, Katy uses the example letter and students’ suggestions to demonstrate how to select and use appropriate research tools.19 Though not substantial in length, our example letter from Angelica to Jefferson includes a rich variety of both direct and indirect references to topics worthy of investigation, from mutual acquaintances like the painter Maria Cosway to the ratification of the United States Constitution, the national debt, and Britain’s Regency Crisis of 1788. To fully contextualize this letter, and eventually their own selection for the assignment, students must assess where and how to search for different types of information. For example, to find biographical information about Angelica, Jefferson, and the acquaintance Maria Cosway, we look to biographical sources such as the American National Biography and the Dictionary of National Biography.20 For chronological and contextual information about events and issues, such as the ratification of the constitution, we turn to subject-specific tertiary sources such as the Dictionary of American History, The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War, Daily Life in the Early American Republic, 1790-1820, and more. Language considerations, allusions, and quotations require additional sources. Close reading is an essential component of the assignment, as students often depend on small, contextual clues to identify references and search for additional information. In our example, Angelica does not mention King George III by name or the term “Regency Crisis” in the text of her letter (nor would an experienced researcher expect her to); she writes, “Kings are not usually very wise; ours is afflicted by the greatest scourge of heaven. He is quite mad, and often fancys himself

19 Recommended

starting points for research are compiled on an online research guide for the course, developed by Katy, and include a variety of discovery tools, print and electronic resources: https://research.pugetsound.edu/hamilton. 20 In class, when the ANB yields no results for Cosway, it becomes apparent to students that another source is needed to discover relevant details about this Italian-English painter. Because of Cosway’s English heritage, it is necessary to instead look for her in the DNB. Modelling this search process, and explicitly focusing on distinctions in content and purpose of these research sources, proves useful when students eventually face search challenges in investigating their own letters.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

167

General Washington. Parliment meets to day, undecided what is to be done in this exigency.”21 To unriddle what Angelica is referring to in this statement, students need to rely on their own knowledge of the period to identify the “King” and contextual clues (the date of the letter, the allusion to “madness”) to frame their search. They are delighted when a search for “King George III” and “madness” in an electronic database leads us to an entry on “‘Royal Madness’ and porphyria” in the Oxford Companion to Medicine, which identifies the Regency Crisis of 1788.22 They can then use this term to search for additional information. This activity helps students conceptualize their own research strategy, how they would identify or develop search terms, select search tools, and build upon their results. Having spent time with the example letter and explored the available resources, students use the remainder of this library session to begin researching their chosen letter for the assignment. In order to determine an appropriate scope for their investigations, they must match their information needs and strategies to suitable search tools, persist when faced with challenges, and adjust their approach based on their findings. Balancing the provision of explanatory background information and developing an original interpretation of their letter proves challenging for some students. Although many begin by looking for biographical information about the letter writer and recipient, the most successful students also branch out to place the letters into their historical, social, and political contexts by introducing ideas and issues important to early Americans and linking the letters back to class readings and discussions. Captivated by the musical’s portrayal of lesserknown historical figures (John Laurens and Maria Reynolds), or otherwise compelled to investigate individuals who received little more than mention in Miranda’s tale (Theodosia Prevost Burr), some students initially struggle to overcome the limited availability of information about their lives compared to more well-known counterparts; however, this assignment also provides opportunities for students to negotiate authentic research challenges and interrogate power and privilege in the historical record. Those who choose to work with these more obscure letters often follow a broader scope of inquiry and produce an analysis that includes discussions of race, class, and gender,

Angelica Schuyler Church to Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 19, 1788, in Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-14-02-9002. 22 Stephen P. Lock, “‘Royal madness’ and porphyria,” in The Oxford Companion to Medicine, ed. Stephen Lock, John M. Last, and George Dunea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), https://www-oxfordreference-com.ezproxy.ups.edu:2443/view/10.1093/ac ref/9780192629500.001.0001/acref-9780192629500-e-434. 21

168

Chapter 8

compared to students working on more straightforward topics. Appendix A includes a very successful sample assignment by student Yuki Morgan. Morgan provides biographical context for Burr’s letter of February 16, 1793, to his wife Theodosia, and focuses much of her commentary, in the headnote and in her annotations, on Burr’s clear commitment to women’s education– including the education of his own wife and daughter.23 Citing details from academic sources, Yuki characterizes Burr’s correspondence here as depicting “his thoughts on topical literature as well as glowing praise for his favorite philosophers and rights advocates” (Morgan, Appendix A, 1). Her research incorporates additional information on women’s education, including prominent thinkers on the topic who would have been familiar to Burr and his wife (see, e.g., Morgan 2, footnotes 4 & 5). Morgan observes, as well, the Burr family legacy around literacy and reading, hearkening back to Burr’s own mother, Esther, and her reading journal (Morgan 2 ft. 3). Morgan’s work stands out in a sophomore-level course for the clarity and elegance of the headnote, which provides extensive information on Burr’s daughter Theodosia and the outcome of her education as well as the biographical basics for Burr and his wife. The annotations, too, are clear, crisp, informative, and unified around the central theme of women’s literacy; they offer the letter’s reader a quick overview of the state of women’s education and educational theory within which to situate Burr’s enthusiasm for Wollstonecraft. The document overall, consisting of the headnote, letter and footnotes, and works cited, creates a unified interpretation of the Burr family’s commitment to women’s intellectual development, and to the implications of that belief for their daughter, Theodosia. Students return to the library for the final assignment of the course, which consists of a researched presentation by a group of students on a topic of mutual interest and an individual short essay arising from that collaborative research. Unlike the annotated letter assignment, which provides distinct and narrow parameters for students’ research, this project asks students to define and develop their own focused research questions in relation to the course, to identify relevant primary and secondary sources to respond to their questions, and, ultimately to forward an independent argument. The accompanying library sessions introduce students to subject-specific research

23

This is one of the letters discussed on pages 8-9 of our essay as part of the unit focusing on gender relations. Yuki’s work on the letter was completed long before her class discussed this letter as part of the larger Burr family correspondence. The expertise and insight she developed in producing this annotated letter then contributed significantly to the class conversation later in the term.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

169

databases, primary source collections (both in print and online), and other resources of particular value to historians and literary scholars, in addition to focusing on developing students’ understanding of their research process. Each group designs a research plan around their general topic of investigation and develops strategies for finding relevant background information, primary and secondary evidence, considering any interpretive approaches they might explore. While the open nature of this assignment allows students the freedom to select and explore their own topics, it also introduces several practical and metacognitive challenges for them to negotiate. For example, the ability to critically evaluate sources for relevance and determine an appropriate scope for their investigation is indispensable for students as they navigate the vast amount of material and scholarship available on the Founders, the revolutionary era and early republic. While many groups begin with a broad or ill-defined topic, such as “women in the Early Republic” or “African Americans and the American Revolution,” students are encouraged early on to focus more narrowly on one key person, event, issue or idea that offers insight into that broad interest. In the library sessions, students are asked to identify a few monographs or significant research articles on their topic (using subject databases, published annotated bibliographies, or subject encyclopedias). They then deconstruct or mine each in terms of its sources, in order to identify what primary and secondary sources those scholars have used to investigate their topic. This exercise helps students identify relevant source material for their projects and provides opportunities for students to refine their research questions and situate their ideas within the existing scholarly conversation. Students have produced informative, engaging, and richly researched presentations for their peers; one successful presentation, for example, focused on the Shays’ Rebellion of 1786 in order to enrich conventional histories of the revolution, which focus largely on men of status and property by centering the plight of the working poor in the revolutionary era. Another successful presentation grew out of students’ interest in Maria Reynolds’s life; this group of students explored the different educational opportunities available to women, from the upper classes to the poor. Having collaborated extensively on the research and construction of their class presentation, students have a wealth of material on which to draw while crafting their final individual essays. Alison was initially concerned that students might feel constrained to reproduce their presentations in their individual work; instead, students have embraced the opportunity to reshape the material from their collaborative work to better fit their own interpretations and interests. Students often return to research sidelines that didn’t make it into the group presentation, or delve further into an individual interest. The process of differentiating their individual paper from the group presentation requires students to think productively about how to articulate

170

Chapter 8

an interpretive argument, how to contextualize their specific claim, and how to (re)frame evidence to support it—all crucial aspects of successful academic writing in multiple disciplines. In keeping with our desire for students to approach the course material from multiple positions and through different lenses, students complete a creative assignment in which they create their own lyrics for a “new” song for the musical. They must avoid duplicating a relationship or topic already addressed in the show, and are asked instead to envision a number that might be performed by a secondary character, or one that addresses a moment or an issue absent from the show. Students are asked to draw specifically on their new knowledge of Hamilton and his era in crafting their lyrics, and they thoroughly enjoy the chance to address what they see as gaps or inaccuracies in the musical’s representation of Hamilton’s life or the lives of those around him. Many students find it satisfying to add a number that more directly engages with the endurance of slavery or the hypocrisy of a Revolution framed as a rebellion against tyranny, generally via the character of John Laurens or Sally Hemings. Others allow Maria Reynolds to voice more fully her own experience of her affair with Hamilton or to lament the circumstances that denied her full agency in her sexual or romantic life. Other students offer the Marquis de Lafayette a chance to introduce himself and his exploits more fully.24 In the selection we’ve included, “Don’t Elect, Just Protect” (Appendix B), Sam Watters makes the animosity between Hamilton and Burr even more explicit by serving Burr some additional “Hamiliation”—wordplay of which Miranda himself would surely approve. Watters draws expertly on the musical’s rap idiom and familiar themes: Hamilton’s immigrant status, the parallel paths he and Burr have followed, a touch of profanity, and the explicit references to rap battles (“That’s why I be out here at the mic straight cursin’”). Watters goes well beyond the musical, though, incorporating material from a wide selection of class readings and primary source material from the period of 1800-on, including some of the most egregious insinuations that circulated about Burr. And he cleverly draws upon those additional texts, making reference to the novel we had read earlier, The Coquette (While Foster was working to write The Coquette…”). Watters’s work may not conform so readily to conventional academic expectations as Yuki Morgan’s letter annotation discussed earlier in this essay; the strength of this particular assignment, however, is that it invites students to think both creatively and analytically about the course material by foregrounding their

24

Students were also allowed to write their lyrics in a more conventional eighteenthcentury voice, if they preferred.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

171

contemporary interests. Watters’s “Reasons of the Rhyme” provides a (required) reflective and analytical gloss on his creation, situating it in the context of his own familiarity with hip hop music, his experience with Miranda’s musical, and his deepening appreciation for the historical figures involved, especially his sense that Miranda may have underplayed the toxic animosity of Hamilton and Burr’s final correspondence. Both his lyrical creation and his reflection on it demonstrate the essential skills and knowledge essential to the course: familiarity with the historical material, a careful attention to language, and a sophisticated consideration of the relationship between form and context. The variety of assignments in the course, along with the disparate readings and materials, invites students to work across different discursive registers and to incorporate their contemporary skills and knowledge as they increase their awareness of scholarly genres. Moving among different styles and forms of writing helps to illuminate for students their historical, situational, generic, and disciplinary differences; as students navigate the different assignment parameters, they begin to recognize the continuity and transferability of skills like close reading and literary and rhetorical analysis. Such opportunities for creative work energize those students who might struggle to stay engaged in the eighteenth century; they also allow different students to shine. We devote several class periods to allowing students to share their compositions with each other, and these are some of the most lively and satisfying sessions each term. “History Has Its Eyes On You”: Contemporary Implications Having immersed themselves in the historical and biographical Hamilton and in his literary and political culture, students return at the end of the course to the musical and contemporary discussions of it, with an eye to connecting the issues of Hamilton’s world to today’s concerns, and vice versa. These classroom discussions are framed in part through the provocative essays in Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter’s edited collection Historians on Hamilton, which allow students to retain their affection for the musical itself even as they develop a greater critical awareness of its political and historical limitations. Having interrogated through primary texts the subservience of eighteenth-century women, especially but not exclusively Black and enslaved women, students are better prepared to reflect upon Catherine Allgor’s “Remember…. I’m Your Man: Masculinity, Marriage, and Gender in Hamilton,” which provides insight into the musical’s male-centric narrative— a narrative that reproduces the very factors that defined and circumscribed the lives of early American women. Lyra D. Monteiro’s “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton,” argues that notwithstanding the celebratory rhetoric with which Hamilton’s multiracial

172

Chapter 8

cast was initially received, “the play is nonetheless yet another rendition of the ‘exclusive past,’ with its focus on the deeds of ‘great white men’ and its silencing of the presence and contributions of people of color in the revolutionary era.”25 Monteiro’s work provides a vocabulary and focus for the discomfort students feel but sometimes struggle to articulate regarding the difficulty of reconciling their enthusiasm for Daveed Diggs’s charmingly louche Thomas Jefferson with the racism expressed by the historical Jefferson in our earlier readings from Notes on the State of Virginia, or with Jefferson’s sexual exploitation of the enslaved and extremely young Sally Hemings. These contemporary essays also foreground formal elements of the musical, offering students a way to consider how literary “close reading” of texts is analogous to and compatible with the kinds of detailed analysis performed in other disciplines; Monteiro points out, for example, that the “racialized musical forms” Miranda deploys, which range from “‘white’ sixties Britpop” to “traditional Broadway” to “the more ‘black’ genres of R&B and rap,” intersect with the racial identities of the initial cast–something many white students, especially, might fail to notice.26 Patricia Herrera’s “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton” offers additional context for Miranda’s choice to depict Hamilton’s life through hip hop vernacular, which “originated as a form of resistance and protest amplifying the struggle of urban realities and acknowledging the value of Blacks, Latinxs, and other disenfranchised communities.”27 At our predominantly white institution, Monteiro’s and Herrera’s essays provide a needed corrective to what for many students appears to be Hamilton’s seamless marriage of popular musical forms to a historical narrative that centers their perspective and the exploits of those with whom they have long identified–now embodied in progressive, but readily consumable, racial modes. In the final weeks of the semester, students (re)consider the real economic, social, and political consequences of the nation’s early racial politics, and debate whether Hamilton’s continued erasure of the violence that has always existed in the U.S. toward Black and Brown bodies undermines its ability to function as a genuine means for addressing or rectifying that past. Students

25 Monteiro, “Race-Conscious

Casting,” 59. Monteiro, 60. Historian Annette Gordon-Reed also puts Hamilton’s somewhat tepid anti-slavery stance, a key element of the musical’s redemption of him, in clearer perspective in “Hamilton: “The Musical: Blacks and the founding fathers.” (https:// ncph.org/history-at-work/hamilton-the-musical-blacks-and-the-founding-fathers). 27 Patricia Herrera, “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton,” in Historians on Hamilton, ed. Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. (Rutgers NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018), 265. 26

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

173

tend to agree with Herrera, who argues that any solution to racial inequity must be based in recognition and acknowledgement of the costs of our collective history, not in the visual substitution of diverse bodies in the same old representational roles. “Hamilton is a reminder,” Herrera concludes, “that the sonic and visual harmony of diversity is not the destination, but it is the beginning of a journey toward seeing and listening to the racial dissonance. We must reckon with America’s racist past in order to manifest an equitable and inclusive present and future.”28 For students who have now spent a semester grappling with the primary evidence of that racist past, these essays offer opportunities to think through the problems and the possibilities the musical inhabits—and to confront the relationships between our past and our present. The course concludes on a note of cautious optimism as students discuss Renee C. Romano’s essay, “Hamilton: A New American Civic Myth,” which suggests that the musical “offers a civic myth for Americans that does not require allegiance to a white version of the past.”29 Instead, she reads the show as an “invitation to take a sense of ownership over the American project.”30 Armed with their new familiarity with the origins of that project, students are now better able to feel that “ownership” and to participate in shaping an American future that confronts and addresses the nation’s past. Students continue to respond with interest and energy to the literary, historical, and contemporary intellectual demands of this course. We trace much of that enthusiasm to the chronological and generic hybridity of the course materials and assignments, and to its collaborative genesis; we have found that our shared pedagogical commitments and complementary specializations enrich the possibilities for immersing students in primary materials, thereby engaging them more fully in the world of early America; at the same time, our ongoing attention to the musical helps students experience for themselves the relevance of that earlier era and its continuities with today’s world. Our pedagogical partnership has been rewarding for us both as educators and provides, we hope, a useful model for collaborative teaching and research among faculty and librarians. For faculty who provide content expertise and theoretical frameworks for students in similar courses, librarians can offer suggestions for scaffolding information literacy skills within assignments, advise on the availability of resources, and help students develop and negotiate potential research topics. For the librarian, having an

28 Herrera, “Reckoning,” 29 Renee

274. C. Romano, “Hamilton: A New American Civic Myth,” in Historians on Hamilton,

314. 30 Romano, “New American Civic Myth,” 315.

Chapter 8

174

opportunity to engage deeply with the course’s development and its contents helps establish more meaningful connections with faculty and students, and expands opportunities to provide tailored and targeted support. At the center of our work, of course, are our students: we have found that students benefit immensely from experiencing this partnership in action, collaborating with peers, and recognizing research as a creative process arising from genuine interest that need not necessarily be a solitary endeavor. The “letter assignment” channels students’ enthusiasm for the characters of the musical into an inquiry into the lives of their historical antecedents. As Yuki Morgan’s “Annotation of Burr-Theodosia Letter” demonstrates, students begin to see the real people behind the dusty curtains of history. That same enthusiasm propels the research they do in the course, engaging and investing them in a more energetic, attentive, and comprehensive process of discovery; they become the experts on their letter and its author, and that ownership leads to a more genuine research process and greater tolerance for the inevitable setbacks. These skills, and more conventionally literary-historical academic practices, are further reinforced throughout the course in the short analyses, group presentation, and final essay. At the same time, Hamilton’s creative and contemporary vitality offer students additional ways to engage and reflect on Alexander Hamilton’s era and our own, as Sam Watters’s “Don’t Elect, Just Protect” rap makes clear. As they explore Hamilton’s unique combination of past and present and consider its implications in the fraught world of U.S. politics, students confront the continuities and the differences between earlier eras and our own. Bibliography Adams, Abigail. “Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adam s/04-01-02-0241. Association of College and Research Libraries Literatures in English Section. Research Competencies in Writing and Literature. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2018. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xBoRqvf DfJOVUVseT4NoDTtB5Yhltu00-8uXK1j5Dys/edit?usp=sharing. Brands, H.W. “Founders Chic.” The Atlantic, Sept 2003. https://www.theatlan tic.com/magazine/archive/2003/09/founders-chic/302773. Church, Angelica Schuyler. Angelica Schuyler Church to Thomas Jefferson. November 19, 1788. In Founders Online, National Archives. https://found ers.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-14-02-9002. Freeman, Joanne B. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. Gordon-Reed, Annette. “Hamilton: The Musical: Blacks and the founding fathers. National Council of Public History. April 6, 2016. https://ncph.org/ history-at-work/hamilton-the-musical-blacks-and-the-founding-fathers.

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

175

Hamilton, Alexander. The Essential Hamilton. Edited and with an Introduction by Joanne B. Freeman. NY: Penguin/Library of America, 2017. Herrera, Patricia. “Reckoning with America’s Racial Past, Present, and Future in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton, 260-76. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 2018. Lock, Stephen P. “‘Royal madness’ and porphyria.” In The Oxford Companion to Medicine, edited by Stephen Lock, John M. Last, and George Dunea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. https://www-oxfordreference-com. ezproxy.ups.edu:2443/view/10.1093/acref/9780192629500.001.0001/acref9780192629500-e-434. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic Records, 2015, compact disc. Monteiro, Lyra D. “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton.” In Historians on Hamilton, 58-70. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Romano, Renee C. “Hamilton: A New American Civic Myth.” In Historians on Hamilton, 297–323. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 2018. Tompkins, Jane. Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction, 1790-1860. Oxford University Press: 1986.

Chapter 8

176

APPENDIX A Yuki Morgan 2-23-19 Burr-Theodosia Letter Annotation Headnote Aaron Burr was born in Newark, New Jersey on February 6th, 1756. His father, also named Aaron Burr, was a theologian and second president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University); his mother, Esther Burr (née Edwards), was an avid reader and journaler (“Burr, Aaron,” “Burr, Esther Edwards”). Orphaned before he turned three years old, Burr was raised by his uncle Timothy Edwards, during which time he received tutoring from a future judge of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Burr himself would choose a similar path, switching from studying theology to law after his graduation from College of New Jersey in 1772. In 1775, however, Burr put his studies on hold to join the American army in the Revolutionary War. During his time as a soldier he climbed the ranks, proving himself to perform well under pressure and skillfully discipline his troops (“Burr, Aaron”). In March of 1779, Burr resigned from the American army due to poor health. Although Burr and Washington butted heads early on in Burr’s military career, Washington valued Burr as “a good officer,” a testament to Burr’s consistent professional conduct despite personal disputes (“Burr, Aaron”). After completing his legal studies, Burr was admitted to the New York Bar in 1782. Around this time he also married Theodosia Bartow Provost, and the pair had a daughter. Due to her own history of poor health, however, Theodosia Burr would pass away in 1794. Burr moved to New York City in 1783, where he competed with fellow lawyer Alexander Hamilton for renown in the legal sphere. Much like he had in the Revolutionary War, Burr set about climbing the ranks: this time, within government. At the peak of his political career, having established himself as a Democratic Republican, he ran for president against Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. As the runner-up, he served as Jefferson’s vice president (“Burr, Aaron”). Education and literary criticism were incredibly important to Burr. Letters between him and his wife include his thoughts on topical literature as well as glowing praise for his favorite philosophers and rights advocates. Burr ensured that his daughter, named Theodosia Burr after her mother, received an education “as good as any boy’s.” Her curriculum expanded beyond French and music, spanning arithmetic, Latin, Greek, and English composition (“Burr, Theodosia”). Father and daughter exchanged frequent letters, with his replies

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

177

containing critiques and corrections. With her mother’s early death, Theodosia became the lady of the family’s lush New York estate at the tender age of ten. Armed with her extensive education, she was able to take on acting as hostess to the distinguished guests her father’s political career brought into their home. Staggeringly savvy and well-educated compared to her peers, Theodosia became well-known as “one of the belles” of New York City (“Burr, Theodosia”). TO MRS. BURR. Philadelphia, 16th February, 1793[1]. A line of recollection will, I am sure, be more acceptable than silence. I consider myself as largely in your debt, and shall of necessity remain so. You have heard me speak of a Miss Woolstonecraft[2], who has written something on the French revolution; she has also written a book entitled “Vindication of the rights of Woman.” I had heard it spoken of with a coldness little calculated to excite attention; but as I read with avidity[3] and prepossession every thing written by a lady, I made haste to procure it, and spent the last night, almost the whole of it, in reading it. Be assured that your sex has in her an able advocate. It is, in my opinion, a work of genius. She has successfully adopted the style of Rousseau's Emilius[4]; and her comment on that work, especially what relates to female education[5], contains more good sense than all the other criticisms upon him which I have seen put together. I promise myself much pleasure in reading it to you. Is it owing to ignorance or prejudice that I have not yet met a single person who had discovered or would allow the merit of this work? Three mails are in arrear; that of Tuesday is the last which has arrived. I am impatient to know how writing agrees with you. Pray let me hear, from day to day, the progress of your cure[6]. Most affectionately yours, A. BURR.

[1]

Two years earlier, Burr had been selected for the U.S. Senate. He served one term (1791-1796). [2] Mary Wollstonecraft, later Godwin, was a well-known author and women’s rights activist in the late 1700s. Denied the conventional schooling offered her older brother, Wollstonecraft’s education was self-taught and hard-won. She addresses the limitations on women’s education and opportunities in Vindication of the Rights of Woman. This book was a follow-up to her previous Vindication of the Rights of Men, a scathing

178

Chapter 8

response to critics of the French Revolution that is likely the other work of hers Burr mentions (“Wollstonecraft, Mary”). [3] Burr is not the only zealous reader in his family. His mother, Esther Burr, kept a journal in which she recorded her “critical reflections” on books she read as well as sermons she heard (“Burr, Esther Edwards”). [4] Émile, or, A Treatise on Education was written in 1762 by French writer and philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the “father” of the French Revolution (“JeanJacques Rousseau”). The book functions as a guide to stripping away the innate selfinterest of man, or “denaturing education,” in order to make them better individual members of collective society. [5] In the late 1700s, restrictions on women’s access to education began to soften. Educational institutions above the elementary school level began allowing girls to enroll, leading to increased female literacy. Intellectual pursuits were, however, still thought of as exclusively masculine. Heidler and Heidler note that, although it became acceptable for “educated single women” to earn a living as a teacher, this was only because the job was “often seen as too unprofitable for men” (42). [6] Theodosia was probably used to receiving well-wishes regarding her health, especially from her loving husband, given her medical history. This letter was written to her a year before she passed away in 1794 (“Burr, Aaron”).

Letter Interpretation Two things struck me upon reading this letter: first, it was clear Burr deeply cared about his wife, and second, it was clear Burr highly valued and greatly enjoyed the discussion of literature. I decided to focus on this second point, digging into Burr’s family’s education, his life choices, and the education of his children. Starting with Burr himself, it was interesting to see how his desire to accrue knowledge showed itself in many aspects of his life. His appreciation of education was likely instilled in him at an early age as a result of his childhood tutelage. Instead of following a rather linear path through college, focusing on one primary subject, he explored theology before deciding it wasn’t for him, moving on to study law. Burr also gained a litany of experiences during his time with the American army, rising from one position to the other and fighting courageously at the Battle of Monmouth. Early in his political career, too, Burr made an effort to remain neutral, avoiding siding with any one political camp (he would eventually align himself with the Democratic Republicans). It is easy to see how the outspoken Alexander Hamilton, who had to fight tooth and nail for any opportunity he got, would view Burr as hesitant and unforthcoming. Considering Burr’s curiosity and passion for

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

179

knowledge, however, it makes perfect sense that the man would be slow to set his opinions in stone. In this letter, Burr praises writer and women’s rights advocate Mary Wollstonecraft. An incredibly educated woman who had to teach herself many of the languages and skills she acquired, Wollstonecraft was a huge proponent of extending traditionally male education to women as well. While education and professions of an intellectual nature, such as teaching, were becoming more and more available to women, the views expressed by Wollstonecraft and other feminist authors were ahead of their time. Despite the prevailing societal expectation that women ought to put homemaking first, Burr connected with Wollstonecraft’s argument, likely because he recognized his own values being reflected in her work. Burr was obviously influenced by Wollstonecraft: he made sure his daughter, Theodosia, was given access to a strong education in the same way he was. Along the veins of both Burr’s personal belief of the importance of knowledge and the growing call to include women in educational pursuits, I was delighted and unsurprised to discover Burr’s mother was just as invested in reading and analysis as Burr himself was. Esther Burr kept a journal where she recorded her thoughts on books and sermons: in much the same way, I imagine, as Burr lovingly describes Wollstonecraft’s book to his beloved wife. Burr “promis[es] himself much pleasure in reading it” to the currently ill Theodosia. This phrasing lays out, without a doubt, how much the acquisition of knowledge has shaped Burr. In his mind, the greatest show of love he can bestow upon his wife and upon his daughter is to give them access to the books he loves and the skills that have paved the way for his career. Bibliography “Burr, Aaron.” American National Biography. Edited by John. A Garraty and Mark. C Carnes. Vol. 4, Oxford University Press, 1999. “Burr, Esther Edwards” American National Biography. Edited by John. A Garraty and Mark. C Carnes. Vol. 4, Oxford University Press, 1999. “Burr, Theodosia” American National Biography. Edited by John. A Garraty and Mark. C. Carnes. Vol. 4, Oxford University Press, 1999. Heidler, David S., and Heidler, Jeanne T. The Early American Republic, 17901820. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004. Print. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” Gale Contextual Encyclopedia of World Literature. Edited by Anne Marie Hacht and Dwayne D. Hayes. Vol. 3, Gale, 2009. “Wollstonecraft, Mary.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Vol. 59, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Chapter 8

180

APPENDIX B Sam Watters English 234 21 April 2019 Don’t Elect, Just Protect - M.C. Smoked Ham ft. The Festering Feds I had to tell the Feds that Jefferson’s preferred, So they won’t suffer when they get Aaron Burr’d While Foster was working to write the Coquette, Burr was out here getting 80,000 in debt And that’s the part that I find so funny, You say you’re a man, but you can’t handle your money You talk to these girls and can’t make a decision, How can you run the country if you ain’t got a vision? You’ve always opposed the Fed administration, So, I’m about to serve you some Hamiliation (hype man goes WOOOOOAH) You wanna use the most unfit and most dangerous men? (Essential Hamilton, 332) What’s mightier than the sword? Guess what it’s the pen! I write these rhymes to show them that you suck, I’m an immigrant, man, I don’t even give a f*** Back in school, I thought you were my mate, But it turns out you’ll do anything to better your fate After I’m done, all that’ll be left is your myth, Is that why you pursue every girl you sleep with? I like to say you aim for Supreme power in [your] own person, (Essential Hamilton, 335) That’s why I be out here at the mic straight cursin’ You’ve always been for a Large construction of the Executive authority, (Essential Hamilton, 336) But guess what Burr, that destroys the majority

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

181

You said to me, Les grands ames se soucient peu des petites morceaux, (Essential Hamilton, 339) And that right there, Burr, is why you’re my eternal foe If you fail, we all must share in the blame and disgrace, (Essential Hamilton, 340) Give up now, Burr, you ain’t winning this race I’ll still try my best to protect this American world, Even if the only reason I got here was cuz a hurricane swirl’d I hope I’ve convinced you not to vote for Burr, Cuz at the end of the day, you can’t even call him a sir. All in all, Burr you’re such a tool, What you gonna do about it, ask me to duel? (oh s***) Works Cited Hamilton, Alexander. Burr Has No Fixed Theory. Received by James A. Bayard, The Essential Hamilton, The Library of America, 16 Jan. 2017, 335–340. Hamilton, Alexander. Confidential. Received by John Rutledge Jr., The Essential Hamilton, Library of America, Jan. 2017, 331–333. Hamilton, Alexander. Confidential - A Burr. Received by N/A, The Essential Hamilton, Library of America, Jan. 2017, 333–335. Hamilton, Alexander. Mine Is An Odd Destiny. Received by Gouverneur Morris, The Essential Hamilton, The Library of America 2, 29 Feb. 2017, 340– 341. Reasons of the Rhyme What I found most inspiring for a dis-track was the tensions between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton following the presidential election of 1800. Hamilton finds himself in a tough position as Adams is clearly out of the race and it seems to be coming down to choosing either Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr. Based on each letter Hamilton writes to the Federalists before the election, the main idea he wants to get across is not to elect Burr to presidency. From that, I really wanted to create a modern day dis-track by M.C. Ham in an attempt to recreate the stab Hamilton takes to Burr’s personal and political life. By mixing together both sides of Burr’s history, Hamilton not only points out Burr’s personal flaws as a man, but also alludes to how poorly the country would be controlled if Burr finds himself in office. I was lucky enough to actually watch the musical a few years ago, and while I wasn’t necessarily as educated on Hamilton at the time as I am now, I was already aware of the poor relationship Burr and Hamilton had. But the

182

Chapter 8

musical, in my opinion, didn’t place enough hatred in the slander each man gave to the other. I wanted this new rap to sound like Hamilton was overtly attacking Burr, going right up in his face as they battle it out on stage. After reading the letters Hamilton published, I could easily imagine Lin-Manuel Miranda performing these lyrics if the musical had been more aggressive. But the point of this track isn’t to discredit Miranda or any of the cast’s effort into crafting such a fantastic musical. As I said, the addition this rap gives to the musical is a more aggressive, modern take on the dispute Burr and Hamilton found themselves in after Burr’s failed attempt at presidency in 1800. Thematically, this track is about Burr’s poor political skills and his questionable life choices that Hamilton wanted to make sure the public knew about. Burr’s poor financial status following the election, rumors of him sleeping around with many girls, and assumptions on the types of men he’d employ while in power are all main points Hamilton creates when writing these letters. The financial dis Hamilton hands Burr was especially exciting since monetary value in the 19th century said a lot about a man’s thriftiness. Hamilton knew it’d create quite the reaction when read by his Federalist friends and I’m sure he showed no hesitation to write it in his list of Burr’s flaws. After picking up on all the ideas Hamilton uses throughout the four letters, I thought they’d work just as effectively in an underground rap verse when paired with the fact that the two men strongly dislike each other. Historically, I went with a much more general feel to the song while keeping with the theme of hatred. While the majority of the song isn’t directly quoted from the letters, lots of the lines paraphrase what Hamilton was writing over 200 years ago. Since Hamilton knows John Adams isn’t going to have any chance at presidency, he not only goes against Burr, he also promotes Jefferson as the better of the two. It’s important to note, however, that Hamilton doesn’t like either of the men, he just dislikes Burr more than Jefferson. In Hamilton’s style, the fact that he was an immigrant brought to America by chance, the seventh verse is his way of saying to Burr, I’m an immigrant and I can still make your life miserable; a sort of power play Hamilton throws in to scare Burr away. On a more political side, Hamilton writes, “It is a fact which I have frequently mentioned that [Burr] was generally for a large construction of the Executive Authority,” (Essential Hamilton, 336). As heard in the lyrics of this song, Hamilton uses this element of Burr’s bad politics to warn the Federalists of his overpowering style of controlling the population, which, in Hamilton’s opinion, can and will take away the peoples’ power. Creating a new track to the Hamilton musical lineup was never something I thought needed to be done until I read the letters by Hamilton after the 1800 presidential election. The boldness Hamilton shows in writing these letters is what I hope shines through at the end of the song; the idea that no matter what,

“In the [Class]room Where It Happens”

183

Hamilton is not going to see Burr as president of the United States. Even if some of the subjects he writes about might not be any of his business, Hamilton still writes about them, and that, to me, is why this rap in particular is so aggressive and insulting. I guess you could say Hamilton went out with a bang.

Chapter 9

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”: Using Place to Teach about Alexander Hamilton and Early America Julie Richter William & Mary

In the opening lines of “Alexander Hamilton,” the first song in Hamilton: An American Musical, Aaron Burr informs members of the audience that Hamilton boarded a ship to leave “a forgotten spot in the Caribbean” and journeyed to New York City where he could “be a new man.” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s words alert listeners to the importance of place in Alexander Hamilton’s life and, during the musical, cast members sing and rap about locations including the Common where Hamilton got his start as a political leader, “a little place in Harlem” where he and Eliza lived with their children, the Schuyler Mansion in Albany, the Yorktown National Battlefield, and Philadelphia.1 In addition to listening to lyrics, viewers—whether in the audience at the Richard Rogers Theatre on 46th Street in New York City or, thanks to the Hamilton (2020) movie, at home—see Miranda’s depiction of Hamilton’s life performed on stage in settings that “suggest, evoke, imply” the eighteenthand nineteenth-century places that Hamilton saw during his lifetime. The stage, with its two-part turntable, adds energy and motion to each scene. Costumes and props, including the tankards that Hamilton, the Marquis de Lafayette, John Laurens, and Hercules Mulligan hoist as they toast each other during “The Story of Tonight,” the books and papers scattered across George Washington’s desk, and Hamilton’s quill, papers, and inkwell, help twenty-first century men, women, and children to imagine eighteenth- and nineteenth-

“Alexander Hamilton” and “A Winter’s Ball,” in Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton: An American Musical.

1

186

Chapter 9

century spaces in the Fraunces Tavern in New York City, in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, and at Federal Hall in New York City.2 People recognize these well-known landmarks because they are part of the story of our country’s creation and national identity. Founding Fathers met in these spaces to debate, seize, and secure independence with the establishment of the federal government in the United States Constitution. As one who fought in the Revolution and helped to draft the Constitution, Hamilton is one of the men whose story is connected to these historic sites and battlefields. The Hamilton phenomenon extends past the stage and screen, reaching the places that Hamilton inhabited during his lifetime. Inspired by the lyrics, costumes, and sets in the musical, Hamilton fans have visited historic sites and battlefields to see and connect to places where Hamilton studied, served in the Continental Army, helped to create a new system of government, established the country’s financial system as the first Secretary of the Treasury, and lived with his family.3 Print and online guides highlight Hamilton’s ties to buildings, landscapes, and battlefields and help visitors as they plan trips to historic sites.4 Travel to historic sites, both in-person and virtually, gives individuals the opportunity to connect to and explore the physical spaces they saw depicted on stage and described in Miranda’s lyrics.5 These visits also can function as a starting point for people who want to learn more about the time in which Hamilton lived. Historic places—homes,

Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, Hamilton: The Revolution. Being the Complete Libretto of the Broadway Musical, with a True Account of Its Creation, and Concise Remarks on Hip-Hop, the Power of Stories, and the New America (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016), 38–39, 59, 133–135. 3 Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, “Introduction: History is Happening in Manhattan” in Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter, eds. Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America’s Past, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2018), 1. 4 Guides to Hamilton sites include B. L. Barreeras, Where Was the Room Where It Happened? The Unofficial Hamilton: An American Musical Location Guide (2016); Ann Mah, “Hamilton’s New York Haunts” The New York Times, 3 May 2017, https://www.ny times.com/2017/05/03/travel/alexander-hamilton-new-york.html; Rocío Lower, “Where to Retrace Hamilton’s Act 1 in National Parks,” https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/ blog/where-retrace-hamiltons-act-1-national-parks; and Rebecca Watson, “Where to Retrace Hamilton’s Act 2 in National Parks,” https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/ blog/where-retrace-hamiltons-act-2-national-parks. 5 Joseph M. Adelman, “Who Tells Your Story? Hamilton as a People's History” in Romano and Potter, eds. Historians on Hamilton, 292; Anne Lindsay, “#Virtual Tourist: Embracing Our Audience through Public History Web Experience,” The Public Historian, Vol. 35, No. 1 (February 2013), 67–86. 2

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

187

public buildings, and landscapes—can be analyzed and interpreted as spaces that served as stages for men, women, and children who lived in the past.6 This historic stage was crowded; Hamilton and other Founding Fathers depicted in Miranda’s musical were not the only actors who used buildings and landscapes as the settings for their actions and the decisions they made. These historic actors included women, people of color, enslaved Blacks, Native peoples, children, impoverished laborers, and immigrants. However, the actors did not inhabit or use these places and spaces equally. Men, women, and children knew that their gender, race, and status determined which places they could enter in a building, what they could do in specific spaces, and whether they could use the material objects they saw.7 During his lifetime, Hamilton worked to gain access to spaces and places that he believed would help him to “rise up” and become a “new man.” Miranda’s lyrics include references to historic stages—King’s College, the Common, the Fraunces Tavern, the Yorktown Battlefield, the Schuyler Mansion, Independence Hall, Federal Hall, Congress Hall, and the Grange— that Hamilton used to make connections to important men and gain prominence. An assessment of the ways in which Hamilton used spaces and places provides insight into the ways in which these locations shaped his life and how the actual locations differed from their depiction in Miranda’s musical. In addition, an examination of these places provides information about the lives of everyday people who also used these spaces.8 At first, thinking about New York City as a historic landscape and trying to imagine the city’s appearance in 1772 is daunting. In the twenty-first century,

6

Rhys Isaac, “Frontmatter” and “A Discourse on the Method: Action, Structure, and Meaning,” in The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), i–xxiv, 323–358. 7 Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, and Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1993); Cary Carson, “Architecture as Social History” in Cary Carson and Carl Lounsbury, eds., The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press in association with The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2013), 12–28. 8 Historians criticize Miranda for his use of history and the way in which the musical provides a celebratory account of the Revolutionary and Early National Eras. See Joanne B. Freeman, “How Hamilton Uses History: What Lin-Manuel Miranda included in his portrait of a heroic, complicated Founding Father—and what he left out,” Slate, 11 November 2015; David Waldstreicher and Jeffery L. Pasley. “Hamilton as Founders Chic: A Neo-Federalist, Antislavery Usable Past?” in Romano and Potter, Historians on Hamilton, 137–166; and Lyra D. Monteiro, “Race-Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Hamilton” in Ibid., 58–70.

188

Chapter 9

New York City is a place full of motion, people, and noise. These characteristics also defined life in Alexander Hamilton’s New York City, the second largest urban area in Britain’s North American colonies. Although most of the buildings that stood in Hamilton’s New York City are gone, we know that he saw a busy, bustling city of nearly 25,000 people when he arrived in late 1772.9 As we see at the beginning of Act I, Hamilton walks off a ship anchored in New York Harbor and becomes part of the crowd.10 Once in New York City, Hamilton would have become part of the crowd making their way past storehouses, taverns, and coffee houses in the lower end of Manhattan Island. Church spires and ship masts formed the city’s skyline. This multi-racial crowd included people from around the world, speaking many different languages, and individuals from all levels of society, from the city’s wealthiest residents at the top of the social order, to middling tradesmen and women, and down to poor whites, native peoples, and enslaved men, women, and children. Hamilton determined that education was the way he would “rise up” and, by the fall of 1773, he could tell Aaron Burr and others that he was a student at King’s College even though the school was not part of the scene on stage.11 Attending classes at King’s College instead of the College of New Jersey (Princeton) put Hamilton in a place where he heard both sides of the debate concerning the actions of King George III and Parliament. Discussions among students spilled out of the campus and into the Common (present-day City Hall Park), just a block east of King’s College.12 The Common is the place where New York City residents protested the Stamp Act in 1765, and it again served as a gathering place on the eve of the Revolution. The musical gives us a view of the Common as a place of action and ideas in “The Schuyler Sisters” and, if they had been in New York City instead of their home in Albany, Angelica, Eliza, and Peggy could have joined the men, women, and children— white, Black, and native—who gathered at the Common to hear speeches on the eve of the American Revolution. Though John Laurens noted “Let’s get this guy in front of a crowd” in “My Shot,” we do not see Hamilton give a speech at the Common as we know he did.13

Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979). 10 Miranda, “Alexander Hamilton,” in Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic Records, 2015, compact disc. 11 Miranda, “Aaron Burr, Sir,” in Hamilton. 12 Miranda, “The Schuyler Sisters,” in Hamilton. 13 Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), 50, 55-56, 67, 73, 75, 77, 197; “My Shot.” 9

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

189

Instead, Miranda shows Hamilton thinking critically about the “new ideas in the air” and joining conversations in New York’s taverns, including the Fraunces Tavern at the corner of Broad and Pearl Streets.14 These debates included men from all levels of the city’s social order; as a result, Hamilton and other men had places and spaces where they could meet for heated debates and discussions about British rule, taxation without representation, and independence. Several cast members are seen reading books in the background during “Aaron Burr, Sir” which hints at the depth of the discussions in the city’s many taverns. Hercules Mulligan, a tailor, could join “the rebellion” and love running with “the Sons of Liberty” because social distinctions did not prevent men from spending time in New York City’s many taverns as they did in many colonial cities.15 As Hamilton tells John Laurens, Hercules Mulligan, and the Marquis de Lafayette during a conversation in the raucous tavern, “I am not throwing away my shot” to advance in colonial society.16 Words, whether spoken inside taverns or outside at the Common, helped Hamilton become a new man who was ready to join the fight for independence. Being in New York City in 1775 and 1776 was crucial to Hamilton; he thought critically about the ideas expressed by people who were loyal to King George III and Parliament as he assessed the statements of men who questioned British authority over the North American colonies and who wanted Britain to stop taxing the colonists “relentlessly.”17 Once Hamilton decided to join the cause of the Patriots, he acted on his convictions and gained a reputation as one who dared to help steal the cannons from Fort George at the Battery and move them to the Common. As we learn in “Right Hand Man,” Hamilton’s actions during the clashes between American and British forces in New York City caught the attention of George Washington and the Commander of the Continental Army asked Hamilton to serve as his “Right Hand Man.” After realizing that service on Washington’s staff would help him to “rise up,” Hamilton became an aide-decamp to the general in January 1777.18

14 “The Schuyler Sisters,” “My Shot,” and “The Story of Tonight” in Hamilton; Fraunces Tavern Museum (https://www.frauncestavernmuseum.org). 15 “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)” in Hamilton; Benjamin L. Carp, Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 62–98; Benjamin L. Carp, “Walking the Streets of the Revolutionary City” Journal of the American Revolution, 10 March 2014, https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/03/walkingthe-streets-of-the-revolutionary-city. 16 “My Shot” in Hamilton. 17 Ibid. 18 “Right Hand Man” in Hamilton.

190

Chapter 9

Although working alongside Washington as his right-hand man enabled Hamilton to rise, he longed to take part in a battle against the British forces. As Hamilton tells us, Washington “dismisses me out of hand” and rejected Hamilton’s repeated requests to be given a command and men whom he could lead.19 By early 1781, Hamilton feared that he would not return to action on a battlefield where he hoped to earn glory and to continue to advance his social standing. After confronting Washington at his headquarters, Hamilton declared “If you give me a command of a battalion. A group of men to lead, I could fly above my station after the war.”20 Hamilton left the general’s headquarters without a command and resigned from Washington’s staff in March 1781. However, Hamilton continued to push Washington for a command and finally, on 31 July 1781, he received an appointment as the commander of a battalion of light infantry companies from New York’s 1st and 2nd regiments.21 By 26 September 1781, Hamilton was part of the 16,000 members of the Continental Army who were encamped in and around Williamsburg. Though no longer part of Washington’s staff, it is possible that Hamilton spent time in Williamsburg and joined discussions in which Washington and French commander Rochambeau planned the upcoming siege. When Hamilton and his men arrived on the outskirts of Yorktown on 28 September, they found a city devasted by the defensive lines constructed by the British Army; these soldiers tore down fences and buildings as they prepared for the siege.22 Although today’s Yorktown National Battlefield is a quiet expanse with reconstructed earthworks, Hamilton saw thousands of acres of land filled with Continental Army soldiers—white, Black, and native; free and enslaved— waiting for the fighting to begin. The opposing forces included enslaved men and women who hoped to gain their freedom promised by Lord Dunmore, Virginia’s last royal governor, by fighting alongside British soldiers. On the night of 14 October, Hamilton led his men, bayonets affixed to their weapons, in a successful attack on the British forces at Redoubt No. 10 that is depicted on stage during the singing of “Guns and Ships.”23 Hamilton’s bold actions helped the Continental Army move closer to the British line and secure a more advantageous position for the cannons that would be fired against British soldiers. Three days after Hamilton’s charge on Redoubt No. 10,

Alive” and “Ten Duel Commandments” in Hamilton. Me Inside” in Hamilton. 21 “Guns and Ships” in Hamilton. 22 Yorktown National Battlefield Park, https://www.nps.gov/york/index.htm. 23 “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)” in Hamilton. 19 “Stay

20 “Meet

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

191

Cornwallis requested a cease-fire and surrendered on 19 October. Though the world had been “turned upside down,” Americans tempered their celebrations because the British army still controlled New York City and in early November, the Continental Army marched back to New York. Although Miranda uses “Non-Stop” to tell us that “after the war,” Hamilton “went back to New York,” we do not hear details about why he made this choice or where he lived.24 Hamilton did not have many options because, as he noted in an early January 1780 letter to John Laurens, “I am a stranger in this country. I have no property here, no connexions…”25 Soon after writing to Laurens, Hamilton became reacquainted with Eliza Schuyler whom he had briefly met two years earlier during a dinner in Albany, not during a winter’s ball as we are told in “Helpless.”26 Hamilton, as a member of Washington’s staff, had the social status that allowed him to court and marry the daughter of one of New York’s most prominent residents after receiving the blessing of Eliza’s father, Philip Schuyler, as we see on stage. We do not see the two-story Schuyler Mansion where, on 14 December 1780, Alexander Hamilton and Eliza Schuyler married in the southeast parlor of the impressive brick structure. Hamilton’s marriage to Eliza Schuyler gave him “connexions” as well as social and economic standing in New York. Using the Schuyler Mansion as his base after he left military service in March 1782, Hamilton studied law, received authorization to practice law, became a citizen of New York, served New York in the Confederation Congress, and used his connection to Philip Schuyler to “rise up” in Albany, the state capitol, and throughout New York State.27 During their time in Albany, Hamilton and his family lived in Eliza’s childhood home, a dwelling in which enslaved men, women, and children completed domestic labor each day. Enslaved individuals held by the Schuyler family also tended the orchard, formal garden, and farm on the eighty-acre property on the banks of the Hudson River. Recent research provides documentary evidence that indicates the Hamilton family also included an enslaved woman whom

in Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton, Morristown, New Jersey, to John Laurens, 8 January 1780, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-0568. As Hamilton notes in “Helpless,” “Eliza, I don’t have a dollar to my name / An acre of land, a troop to command, a dollop of fame. / All I have’s my honor, a tolerance for pain, / A couple of college credits and my top-notch brain.” 26 “A Winter’s Ball,” “Helpless,” and “Satisfied” in Hamilton. 27 Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, New York, https://parks.ny.gov/historicsites/schuylermansion; Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 148. 24 “Non-Stop” 25

192

Chapter 9

Hamilton purchased soon after he married Eliza. This unnamed woman helped Eliza as she ran a household for the first time on her own.28 The Hamiltons remained at the Schuyler Mansion until late 1783 when they moved to New York City. Upon their arrival, they found a city that needed to be rebuilt after the destruction caused by the British Army during the seven years that they held Manhattan. Although we do not see the house at 57 (later 58) Wall Street that Hamilton rented, it is no surprise that its location placed him near the center of action in lower Manhattan, which we see in “Non-Stop.” Hamilton did indeed work “Non-Stop” as he established his law practice, spent time in the city’s taverns and coffee houses to stay informed, helped to establish the Bank of New York, became a founding member of the New-York Manumission Society, served as a trustee of Columbia College, and became a supporter of the moved to create a stronger central government for the United States.29 Hamilton’s ability to gain access to prominent spaces and the people in these places in New York and his connection to the Schuyler family resulted in his appointment as “a New York junior delegate” to the Constitutional Convention which he gleefully announced in “Non-Stop.”30 Hamilton and the other delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia to debate revisions to the Articles of Confederation government.31 The presence of George Washington sitting in an armchair reminds viewers of the chair in which Washington sat in the Assembly Room in Independence Hall as he moderated debates during the Constitutional Convention. These debates began on 25 May and quickly shifted to focus on the creation of a new form of government for the country. The musical’s staging reflects the work of the delegates in the Assembly Room as they debated ideas for the federal government, the writings of men who drafted sections of the Constitution, and movement of delegates who left Philadelphia because they believed that the convention exceeded its authority. Hamilton and the other men who continued to work in the Assembly Room in Independence Hall sealed the windows shut during meetings and pulled the heavy drapes closed to maintain secrecy. Delegates pushed their way through crowds as they entered and exited the building. In 1787, Philadelphians gathered outside Independence

28 Jessie Serfilippi, “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing’: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, 2020, https://parks.ny. gov/documents/historic-sites/SchuylerMansionAlexanderHamiltonsHiddenHistoryasa nEnslaver.pdf. 29 Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 185, 186, 204. 30 “Non-Stop” in Hamilton. 31 Independence National Historical Park, https://www.nps.gov/inde/index.htm.

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

193

Hall to demand information as the city’s residents did in the years before the American Revolution.32 Hamilton disliked the unsettled nature of the crowd, especially men from lower levels of society. When the Constitutional Convention ended on 17 September 1787, Hamilton was the only delegate from New York to sign the Constitution. After adding his name to the document, Hamilton left Philadelphia for New York City and worked to ensure the ratification of the Constitution. As we learn at the end of “Non-Stop,” Hamilton joined “forces with James Madison and John Jay to write a series of essays defending the new United States Constitution entitled The Federalist Papers.” On stage, Hamilton sat at his desk, held at an angle by cast members to convey the fact that he wrote like he “was running out of time” as he authored fifty-one of the eighty-five essays.33 Hamilton did not slow down after the ratification of the United States Constitution and no doubt thought about ways in which he could help create the new federal government as the first Secretary of the Treasury. Although we do not see government buildings on the stage at the beginning of Act II, Hamilton would have seen the renovation work taking place at the New York City Hall from his house on Wall Street as white and Black men transformed this structure into a building fit to house the new federal government. On 4 March 1789, the first session of the new United States Congress convened in building that had been renamed Federal Hall.34 As the first Treasury Secretary, Hamilton might have walked to Federal Hall to attend sessions of the House of Representatives; these men met on the first floor of Federal Hall and their deliberations were open to men and women who wanted to listen. Senators met in closed sessions on the building’s second floor. Hamilton no doubt talked about governmental matters with Washington at his residence—the Osgood House at 3 Cherry Street and the Macomb House at 39 Broadway—which, as we see during “Cabinet Battle #1,” served as stages for cabinet meetings and battles. Hamilton’s status also meant that he attended social events hosted by George and Martha Washington. New York residents of lower social and economic standing would have seen Hamilton as he arrived at levees on Tuesday afternoons and Friday evenings as well as dinners on

Rebels Rising, 172–212. in Hamilton. 34 Federal Hall National Memorial, https://www.nps.gov/feha/index.htm. 32 Carp,

33 “Non-Stop”

194

Chapter 9

Thursdays. Once inside these homes, Hamilton sat in rooms cleaned by enslaved women and girls and ate meals prepared by enslaved cooks.35 As Hamilton established the Treasury Department, he also wrote a report on public credit that Congress requested. Hamilton submitted his “Report on Public Credit” to the House of Representatives at Federal Hall on 9 January 1790 and, five days later, a member of Congress read the plan in the first-floor chamber of Federal Hall. Debate on Hamilton’s report began on 8 February and New Yorkers filled the public galleries to listen. On 11 February, James Madison gave a speech in which he attacked Hamilton’s plan. Although Jefferson missed Madison’s 11 February speech, he shared his fellow Virginian’s concerns about Hamilton’s economic plan. With the assistance of Robert Hemings, his enslaved body servant, Jefferson left Monticello and moved into a boardinghouse, possibly the establishment operated by Mrs. Dunscomb at 22 King Street on 21 March. Jefferson began his service as the first Secretary of State the following day and quickly learned about what he had missed during the time he served as Minister to France.36 That spring, discussions among Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton would have reflected the tensions between the two secretaries that Miranda highlights in “Cabinet Battle #1” as Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton “engaged in a battle for our nation’s very soul.”37 Hamilton worked to gain support for his economic plan and Jefferson, with the help of Madison, looked to create a network of people who opposed the Treasury Secretary. On 2 June 1790, Jefferson moved to a house he rented on Maiden Lane and the space in this dwelling allowed him to host dinner parties and to speak privately with his guests.38 Today, a historic marker notes that the dining room at 57 Maiden Lane was the “Room Where It Happens” for Jefferson as he worked to oppose Hamilton and his economic plan. Hamilton, no doubt, felt “presidential pressure to deliver.” If Hamilton did indeed meet with Jefferson

Carol Borchert-Cadou, “Presidential Residency in New York,” Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclo pedia/article/presidential-residency-in-new-york; Cynthia Kierner, “Levees (Receptions),” ibid., https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/l evees-receptions. 36 Rebecca Bowman, “New York City,” Jefferson Encyclopedia, October 1998, https:// www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/new-york-city; “What’d I Miss?” in Hamilton. 37 “Cabinet Battle #1” and “What’d I Miss?” in Hamilton. 38 Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 62–104. 35

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

195

and Madison over dinner, as the musical’s staging indicates, to discuss his plan to assume state debts and the need to establish a permanent capital for the country, he too would have seen this space as a place where things happened.39 Robert Hemings or any other man who served meals to Jefferson and his guests would have heard the dinnertime conversation and gained information about politics and gossip about government officials. As Washington reminded Hamilton in “Cabinet Battle #1,” he needed “to convince more folks” and “to find a compromise” with Jefferson and Madison. Compromises concerning the assumption of state debts and the location of the country’s capital made it possible for members of Congress and Senators to approve the Residence Act.40 This bill designated Philadelphia as the temporary capital for ten years and approved the purchase of a ten-mile square piece of property on the Potomac for the permanent capital. Congress completed its work at Federal Hall on 12 August 1790 and prepared to resume business in Philadelphia. Hamilton returned to Philadelphia and rented a house on Third Street, which placed him a few blocks from Congress Hall which stands a short distance from Independence Hall, near the intersection of Chestnut and Sixth Streets. This building was constructed in 1787 as one of two buildings earlier planned for the State House Square. When Congress resumed business on 6 December, the House of Representatives met on the first floor, in a chamber with simple furnishings including mahogany desks and leather chairs for the representatives. The Senate convened on the second floor in a more elaborate space which included heavy red draperies hung at the windows, a fresco of a bald eagle and a medallion in the shape of a sunburst with thirteen stars on the ceiling, and a carpet decorated with the shields of each of the original states.41 Hamilton enjoyed political success on several historic stages in Philadelphia; in 1791, Congress approved his plan for the establishment of a National Bank and Washington signed the bill. At cabinet meetings held in Washington’s private study in the Presidential Home on Market Street, Hamilton and Jefferson presented their views for the country’s future and worked to gain the president’s support.42 As “Cabinet Battle #2” details, Hamilton persuaded Washington that pursuing neutrality in the conflict

Room Where It Happens” in Hamilton. Battle #1” in Hamilton. 41 Congress Hall is part of Independence National Historical Park, https://www.nps.gov/ inde/index.htm. 42 The Presidential House Site is part Independence National Historical Park, https:// www.nps.gov/inde/index.htm. 39 “The

40 “Cabinet

196

Chapter 9

between England and France was the best path for the United States. The words in “Cabinet Battle #3” are important to consider in an examination of Hamilton’s actions in Philadelphia. Near the end of the lyrics cut from the musical, Washington states “I’ve heard enough, gentlemen. You can go. Slavery’s too volatile an issue. We won’t get through it.”43 As Hamilton, Washington, other members of the cabinet, and Congress worked to implement the Constitution and argued about the meaning of the words “We the People,” freedom, and citizenship, Washington lived in a house in Philadelphia in which enslaved men, women, and children labored as did Jefferson. After his 31 January 1795 resignation from his position as Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton and his family returned to New York City. Hamilton did not “have an acre of land” until August 1800 when he “got a little place in Harlem.”44 He purchased fifteen acres of land in Harlem Heights that had a view of the Hudson River on the west and the Harlem and East rivers to the east. In addition, Hamilton also bought an adjoining parcel of twenty acres. Hamilton hired New York architect John McComb, Junior to design the house which originally stood near the corner of present-day 143rd Street and Covenant Avenue.45 The Hamilton family left lower Manhattan and moved uptown to the Grange soon after its 1802 completion.46 It is likely that the Hamiltons did not have a quiet life uptown as visitors to the Grange might assume when their footsteps echoed when they walk through the only home that Hamilton ever owned. In addition to Alexander and Eliza Hamilton, the Grange was home to seven of their eight children. The household also included individuals described as “servants” who labored at the Grange and helped Eliza to run the household. Recent analysis of Hamilton’s records indicates that this group of servants included enslaved men, women, and children.47 Hamilton intended this house to be a place where he could welcome friends and family members. The large entrance hall opens two spacious rooms—the parlor and the dining room—that the Hamiltons used as entertaining spaces for guests. The Hamiltons decorated the first floor of their home—the public

Battle #2” and “Cabinet Battle #3” in Hamilton. in Hamilton. 45 Myron Magnet, The Founders at Home: The Building of America, 1735-1817 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014), 266-300; Hamilton Grange National Memorial (https://www.nps.gov/hagr/index.htm). In early July 1804, Hamilton wrote a list of his assets and liabilities which included debts of $55,000 most of which was spent on the construction of the Grange. Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 693. 46 Hamilton Grange National Memorial (https://www.nps.gov/hagr/index.htm). 47 Serfilippi, “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing,’”, 14-28. 43 “Cabinet

44 “Helpless”

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

197

spaces—with expensive furniture, floor coverings, and mirrors to impress their visitors. The scene depicted in “It’s Quite Uptown” does not convey the opulence of the Grange because of its focus on Alexander and Eliza Hamilton’s grief and sorrow following the death of Philip Hamilton. The staging of Hamilton’s office does not tell viewers that it was also on the first floor of the Grange. The placement of Hamilton’s office is an indication that he did not intend to leave politics; its location enabled him to meet with friends and political leaders as they entered his home. Hamilton continued to look for ways to shape New York and the country, often through the letters and essays that he wrote. As Thomas Jefferson reminded both Burr and Madison, “Hamilton is a host unto himself. As long as he can hold a pen, he’s a threat.”48 During the time that the Grange was built, Hamilton helped found the NewYork Evening Post, wrote a series of eighteen essays—“The Examination”—in support of the 1801 Judiciary Act; and agreed to have all of the Federalist essays published in book form. A letter that Hamilton wrote to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney on 29 December 1802 revealed his feelings about politics. Hamilton opened his letter to Pinckney by observing, “A Garden, you know, is a very usual refuge of a disappointed politician. Accordingly, I have purchased a few acres about nine miles from town, have built a house, and am cultivating a garden.” After this opening, however, Hamilton turned to the true reason for his letter to Pinckney and wrote “Amidst the triumphant reign of Decomocracy, do you retain sufficient interest in public affairs to feel any curiosity about what is going on?”49 In addition to curiosity about public affairs, Hamilton had a law practice, and he chose to continue to work in his law office in lower Manhattan. In 1803, Hamilton moved his law office to 12 Garden Street (present-day Exchange Place) from its previous location, 69 Stone Street; he also had a small apartment at 58 Partition Street (present-day Fulton Street). The following year, Hamilton rented a different apartment, 54 Cedar Street, to use when he finished his business too late in the day to return to the Grange.50 The absence of Hamilton’s law offices helps to keep members of the audience focused on Hamilton’s impact on national politics and his animosity towards Aaron Burr.

48 “The

Adams Administration.” Alexander Hamilton to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 29 December 1802, Encyclopedia Virginia, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/letter-from-alexander-hamilton-to-cha rles-cotesworth-pinckney-december-29-1802. 50 Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 484, 665. 49

198

Chapter 9

In “Your Obedient Servant” we see Hamilton seated at a desk, perhaps in his office at the Grange, as he writes a series of letters to Aaron Burr. When these men failed to settle their dispute through written words, they determined that they should face each other in a duel to maintain their personal honor.51 The last scene that highlights Hamilton’s writing is “Best of Wives and Best of Women” and it is staged very early in the morning, at the Grange. When Eliza asked her husband if he would return to bed, he replied “I just need to write something down.”52 However, Hamilton’s correspondence does not place him at the Grange just before his duel with Aaron Burr. As part of his preparation for his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton left the Grange on 9 July and went to lower Manhattan. He wrote his will at his townhouse at 54 Cedar Street and spent 10 July at his law office on Garden Street. Eliza Hamilton, having received financial assistance, remained at the Grange until November 1833 when she sold the house and property.53 Hamilton fans who listen carefully to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s lyrics know that Hamilton’s story and the story of America’s beginning is anchored in places where decisive events took place and men met to declare independence and create a new form of government for the country. Miranda visited historic sites as he wrote a musical about Alexander Hamilton because the experience of being in these spaces helped him to envision the events in Hamilton’s life that he depicted in the musical. The importance of being in “The Room Where It Happens” extends to the staging of Hamilton. The use of historic places and locations as the setting for scenes from Hamilton’s life adds to the musical’s appeal. The scenes on stage pull audience members into the story being told and viewers make an emotional connection to the Yorktown Battlefield, Independence Hall, Federal Hall, and other places in Hamilton’s life. So….“What Comes Next?” How can a Hamilton fan, with Miranda’s lyrics and images of the musical’s scenes in their mind, learn more about Hamilton and American history by visiting historic sites? How can someone from the twenty-first century engage with history as we are encouraged to do in “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story”? When you arrive at a historic site, take time to look carefully at the landscape and to think about the place as it appeared to people who lived during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This is where it is important to use your imagination to block out twenty-first century intrusions on a historic landscape. First, if possible, stand so the historic building is in front of you and picture the setting without cell

Affairs of Honor, 159–198. of Wives and Best of Women” in Hamilton. 53 Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 723–731. 51 Freeman, 52 “Best

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

199

phone towers, traffic, and people talking on their phones. Next, imagine what was on the landscape in the past. The missing pieces of the puzzle might be other buildings that no longer stand, individuals walking along dirt paths, enslaved people laboring in fields, or animals grazing. It can be tricky to imagine sounds of the past but give it a try. When you stand in front of a building, imagine the hustle and bustle of people constructing a house, a church, or a courthouse. Although handheld tools were (and still are) quieter than electric drills and saws, they made sounds that others heard. Consider the smell of food cooking and how the aroma of food cooked over an open fire filled a room or house in a way that food heated in a microwave does not. Think about the impact of light on the work and daily activities of people of the past. Once you are inside a building, look for “The Room Where It Happens” and, once you are in this part of the structure, be ready to think about what you see. Where is this room located? Is it in a public part of the building or is it a public space? What happened in this space? Who was allowed to enter and use the room? How did one’s status and gender influence the way an individual thought about what happened in the space? What objects are displayed in the room? How do these material items help to tell a story about the past? If you visit a historic district or battlefield, ponder the setting. How did the landscape shape the ways in which people interacted with each other, whether they met to talk or to engage in a battle? As you assess the physical space, look for the place where the action occurred and use contemporary images, written descriptions, and objects to think about the ways in which people used these spaces. When Hamilton fans visit historic sites and spaces they know from Miranda’s lyrics, they can make a tangible connection to the past. Being able to enter Independence Hall, the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, the Hamilton National Grange Memorial, and other locations enables people to see the ways in which Hamilton entered, used, and moved through these physical spaces. Seeing historic buildings and landscapes as stages also challenges twenty-first century visitors to consider who else was part of the story that took place at these locations. The historic stages that Hamilton used were also places where he saw and interacted with people whose names are not part of the story of the founding of America. Hamilton moved through spaces and places with many others—male and female; enslaved and free; white, Black, and native—as they lived their lives. Historic sites and places provide the setting for men, women, and children to ask questions about all of the people who helped to shape the new country, not just Hamilton and other Founding Fathers. Answers to these questions will provide a deeper, richer historic context for those who want to know more about the range of people who lived in Hamilton’s America and help us to gain a fuller understanding of life in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century America.

200

Chapter 9

However, the stages at historic sites and battlefields are often quiet, still places of commemoration; this quality makes it difficult to imagine Hamilton or any other historic actors moving in these spaces. The feeling of action that is part of Miranda’s lyrics and the movement of the actors as they use their twenty-first century stage is absent.54 Independence Hall, Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, and the Hamilton Grange National Memorial include static exhibits designed to evoke the establishment of the federal government and the lives of the Schuyler family and Hamilton’s family, respectively. Visitors see immaculate desks, George Washington’s chair, blank paper, and unused quills at Independence Hall and tables set for dinners at the Hamilton Grange National Memorial. Barriers keep visitors from touching eighteenth- and nineteenth-century objects and using them. Visitors to historic sites also see that these buildings have rooms and hallways that placed limits on action and movement; it would have been hard, even for Hamilton, to be in constant motion in the spaces we know that he used. The stillness of exhibits serves to put Hamilton and other Founding Fathers on pedestals where they can be admired as George Washington tells us in “Right Hand Man.” Miranda’s George Washington encourages us to take him off of his pedestal and this action pushes people of the twenty-first century to see the General, his “Right Hand Man,” Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and soldiers in the Continental Army as men who did not know that their decision to declare independence would be successful. At the end of Hamilton, George Washington poses several questions to the audience: “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story?”55 Men, women, and children who remember these lyrics when they visit historic sites will be ready to be active learners and to ponder the objects in the static exhibits that they see, think about historic figures as people who did not know what would come next, and to see historic places as stages for the actions and movements of the many peoples of the past, not just our country's Founding Fathers.

54

In practical terms, the musical’s stage cannot include realistic representations of the many places in which Hamilton moved, acted, and thought. As a result, the depictions of key buildings and locations have an openness that allows the actors to move quickly from one scene to the next Miranda and McCarter, Hamilton: The Revolution, 38–39. 55 “Right Hand Man” and “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story?”

Thinking about “The Room Where It Happens”

201

Bibliography Barreeras, B. L. Where Was the Room Where It Happened? The Unofficial Hamilton: An American Musical Location Guide (2016). Borchert-Cadou, Carol. “Presidential Residency in New York.” Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/ digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/presidential-residency-in-newyork. Bowman, Rebecca. “New York City.” Jefferson Encyclopedia, https://www.mon ticello.org/site/research-and-collections/new-york-city. Bushman, Richard L. The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, and Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Carp, Benjamin L. “Walking the Streets of the Revolutionary City.” Journal of the American Revolution, 10 March 2014, https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/ 03/walking-the-streets-of-the-revolutionary-city. Carp, Benjamin L. Rebels Rising: Cities and the American Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Carson, Cary. “Architecture as Social History” in Cary Carson and Carl Lounsbury, eds., The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press in association with The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2013. Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Freeman, Joanne B. Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Freeman, Joanne B. “How Hamilton Uses History: What Lin-Manuel Miranda included in his portrait of a heroic, complicated Founding Father—and what he left out,” Slate, 11 November 2015, https://slate.com/culture/2015/ 11/how-lin-manuel-miranda-used-real-history-in-writing-hamilton.html. Freeman, Joanne B. “Will the Real Alexander Hamilton Please Stand Up?” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Summer 2017): 255–262. Isaac, Rhys. The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. Kierner, Cynthia. “Levees (Receptions).” Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digitalencyclopedia/article/levees-receptions. Lindsay, Anne. “#Virtual Tourist: Embracing Our Audience through Public History Web Experience.” The Public Historian, Vol. 35, No. 1 (February 2013): 67–86. Lower, Rocío. “Where to Retrace Hamilton’s Act 1 in National Parks,” https:// www.nationalparks.org/connect/blog/where-retrace-hamiltons-act-1-natio nal-parks. Magnet, Myron. The Founders at Home: The Building of America, 1735-1817. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014. Mah, Ann. “Hamilton’s New York Haunts” The New York Times, 3 May 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/travel/alexander-hamilton-new-yo rk.html.

Chapter 9

202

Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Atlantic Records, 2015, compact disc. Miranda, Lin-Manuel and Jeremy McCarter. Hamilton: The Revolution. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2016. Nash, Gary B. The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979. Romano, Renee C. and Claire Bond Potter, eds. Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America’s Past. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Serfilippi, Jessie. “‘As Odious and Immoral a Thing’: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver,” Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, 2020, https://parks.ny.gov/documents/historic-sites/SchuylerMansionAlexander HamiltonsHiddenHistoryasanEnslaver.pdf. Watson, Rebecca. “Where to Retrace Hamilton’s Act 2 in National Parks,” https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/blog/where-retrace-hamiltons-ac t-2-national-parks. Historic Sites Federal Hall National Memorial, https://www.nps.gov/feha/index.htm. Fraunces Tavern Museum, https://www.frauncestavernmuseum.org. Hamilton Grange National Memorial, https://www.nps.gov/hagr/index.htm. Independence National Historical Park, https://www.nps.gov/inde/index.ht m; this National Park Service unit includes Independence Hall, Congress Hall, and The President’s House Site. Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, New York, https://parks.ny.gov/ historic-sites/schuylermansion. Yorktown National Battlefield Park, https://www.nps.gov/york/index.htm. Letters Alexander Hamilton, Morristown, New Jersey, to John Laurens, 8 January 1780, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-0568. Alexander Hamilton, New York City, to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 29 December 1802, Encyclopedia Virginia, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/en tries/letter-from-alexander-hamilton-to-charles-cotesworth-pinckney-dece mber-29-1802.

Epilogue: Hamilton and Disney Chloe Northrop Tarrant County College

When summer 2020 brought continued lockdown to a pandemic-weary populace, a surprise announcement that the streaming service, Disney+, would be releasing a live recording of the hit musical Hamilton in early July made headlines.1 This broadcast reached weary musical enthusiasts as a welcome distraction from the news concerning cases of COVID-19, and, for musical lovers starved since Broadway’s closing, as a chance to revel in the delights of the stage, albeit filmed, once again.2 Originally scheduled for theatrical release in fall 2021, the Walt Disney Company performed a coup and snagged the musical for streaming at a reported $75 million price tag.3 Hamilton seemed worth the price as it dominated social media in the weekend of its release.4 Although some of the trending conversations focused on the dribble of saliva from the actor Jonathan Groff, who played the soonto-be ailing King George III, more robust criticisms arose. While opening the door for further criticism, it seemed to be worth it for Disney. According to Bloomberg.com author Christopher Palmeri, “Hamilton” was one of the top trending conversations on social media over the weekend of its release.5

The creator of Hamilton: An American Musical, Lin-Manuel Miranda, has a long history with the WDC. He has notable collaborations with Disney including his performance in Mary Poppins Returns (2018). Further, he has written songs for the feature films Encanto (2021) as well as Moana (2016), garnering an Academy Award Nomination in the process. See https://d23.com/7-times-lin-manuel-miranda-joinedthe-worlds-of-disney. Hamilton debuted on July 3, 2020 on Disney+. 2 The stage version, which has three “F” swear words in the original production, only included one on this family-friendly streaming service. 3 Christopher Palmeri, “Disney+ Downloads Climb Following Debut of ‘Hamilton’ Online,” Bloomberg.com 7/6/2020. Walt Disney Company is also known as “Disney,” and will be referred to as “Disney,” or “WDC,” in this chapter. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 1

204

Epilogue

Around the nation, marches and rallies erupted, and conversations around race also dominated social media. The Black Lives Matter movement found new potency due to the conversations around the killing of unarmed black Americans. In the United Kingdom, there seemed to be a reckoning concerning monuments erected depicting slave traders.6 The idea that a musical lauding the lives of America’s Founding Fathers, many of whom owned enslaved persons, seemed out of place and the once hailed musical seemed diminished in the wake of this historical reevaluation. As seen in the Introduction, artists have routinely used their pieces to criticize those in power, and this musical did not seem to fit that mold. Indeed the optimistic view of this era portrayed in Hamilton might be seen through the lens of “Disneyfication” that has plagued Disney productions.7 Furthermore, the union of Disney, a massive entertainment industry, and a Broadway musical focused on the founding era of the United States of America might appear a curious combination at first, but this alignment is not without historical precedent.8 Disney’s foray into historical investigation and presentation is one that is fraught with misfires, backlash, and some begrudging praise. Walt Disney (1901-1966), the founder and creator of the Walt Disney Company, was himself an enthusiast of American History.9 During his life he praised certain values that he connected with American patriotism, which have been more recently correlated with imperialistic trends.10 His early and most famous animated figure, Mickey Mouse, became the icon of Disney productions. Mickey exemplified the ideals of the “American West” including hard work, thrift, and a strong moral fiber. Disney upheld these ideals to be an important part of “Americana” and displayed them in full force both in his productions and in his theme parks. During World War II, another Disney favorite, Donald Duck, taught allegiance through the

6

“Edward Colston statue: Protesters tear down slave trader monument,” June 8, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52954305. 7 For more on “Disneyfication,” see Jonathan Matusitz and Lauren Palermo, “The Disneyfication of the World: A Grobalisation” Perspective, Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 11:2 (2014), 91–107. 8 Disney Theatrical Productions has produced dozens of Broadway musicals, beginning with Beauty and the Beast in 1994. These have been based both on animated and liveaction films, with several still in the works. 9 See Steven Watts. “Walt Disney: Art and Politics in the American Century.” The Journal of American history (Bloomington, Ind.) 82, no. 1 (1995), 84–110. 10 See Steven Watts, The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life (Columbia, MO: Univ. of Missouri Press, 2006).

Epilogue

205

examination of war bonds, the draft, and patriotism.11 Although both Mickey and Donald did their part to instill values in their viewers, Disney also appreciated early American history. Particularly, Disney enjoyed the Revolutionary and Founding Era of the United States. Many of his works aimed to instill civic virtues in his popular productions. Some of his early broadcasts unfolded a certain glimpse at life in eighteenth-century America. Several television series specifically focused on the years of the American Revolution and presented to his viewers Disney’s own ideas about heroes, villains, and the role of history in crafting an “American Identity.”12 Simon P. Newman argues that these depictions of the American Revolution had a much larger role in shaping everyday American’s perspectives of this era than did the work of historians.13 This makes the lack of scholarly attention on these interpretations curious. The role Disney had in shaping the historical memory for these formative years looms large but is surprisingly absent in scholarly works. Disney began this foray into this era with three productions concerning the American Revolution in the 1950s that range from a short cartoon to multi-episodic sagas of the years surrounding the American Revolution. “Ben and Me” (1953), Johnny Tremain (1957), and The Swamp Fox (1959), all debuted in the decade following World War II and presented a masculine-driven narrative about the Revolutionary years that instilled ideas of great men, fraternity, and virtue.14 During the early Cold War years of the 1950s, the contestation concerning ideas of patriotism permeated American culture. “Ben and Me,” while not containing the scope or depth of the other two contemporary pieces, demonstrates a desire to portray complicated history through a popular and

11 Bethanee Bemis, “How Disney Came to Define What Constitutes the American Experience,” January 3, 2017, Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag. com/history/how-disney-came-define-what-constitutes-american-experience-180961 632. 12 For more on non-Disney productions regarding the American Revolution, see Andrew M. Schocket, “Hamilton and the American Revolution on Stage and Screen,” in Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past, edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018). 13 Simon P. Newman, “Disney's American Revolution,” Journal of American Studies 52:3 (August 2018), 685. 14 As of March 2021, the entire productions of Johnny Tremain and The Swamp Fox are not available for streaming on Disney+. Clips from Johnny Tremain appear before “Ben and Me” in a presentation entitled “The Liberty Story.” According to https://www. disneyplus.com/movies/the-liberty-story/76x3TaZfAl6q, it has a running time of 48 minutes.

206

Epilogue

easily-consumable medium. This charming short is available to stream on Disney’s streaming service, Disney+, along with some clips from Johnny Tremain. Based on a 1923 children’s book, it focuses on a mouse named Amos who traveled with the inventor Benjamin Franklin.15 While devoid of much political nuance or historical interpretation, it examines the inventions and career of Franklin through the lens of his trusty mouse, sidekick, and real inventor, Amos. This Oscar-nominated short is combined with scenes from Johnny Tremain entitled “The Liberty Story,” (1957) and Walt Disney introducing these scenes of American valor and history. Opening in a studio with Disney introducing this production he unfolds his own collection of memorabilia connected to the Revolutionary years and introduces this “Liberty Story.” As a Sunday evening, family-friendly event, this live-action and animated combination is part history lesson, part advertisement for the expanding Disneyland in California. Disney places this work within the context of Frontierland, a section of his amusement park, and then introduces the two books upon which this production rests as “Frontiers of Liberty.” Disney then focuses on the figure of “Robin Hood,” to compare the motives of the folk hero with the Sons of Liberty. Comparing the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by the English King John to the deeds enacted by the Sons of Liberty in relation to King George III, this comparison makes for a tidy history lesson in the brief introduction of this short film. Identifying the participants of the Sons of Liberty as those who “rob the rich to feed the poor,” provides an entertaining introduction, but does not delve into the issues or complications that characterize the years leading up to the American Revolution. Disney then connects these themes to his Disneyland theme park expansion. Lauding Disneyland as a “monument to the American way of life,” he unfolds plans to create a “Liberty Street,” that would ultimately find a home in his newer and larger theme park, Disney World Magic Kingdom. According to Newman, historical television shows were rarely part of the programming in the 1950s and early 1960s. Disney filled a gap through works like Johnny Tremain.16 These shows helped shape how viewers related to early American history. Families joined together to watch these productions, which shaped

Robert Lawson, Ben and Me: A New and Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin As Written by His Good Mouse, Amos, Lately Discovered, Edited & Illustrated by Robert Lawson (Boston: Little, Brown, 1951). 16 Newman, “Disney's American Revolution,” 683. Disney’s Johnny Tremain is based on the Pulitzer-prize winning book by Esther Forbes. See Esther Forbes, Johnny Tremain: A Story of Boston in Revolt (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018). 15

Epilogue

207

perceptions of the Revolutionary past. Newman asserts: “Historians have largely ignored these Disney productions, regarding film, television and theme park depictions as distorted representations of the historical record, more focused on fictional dramatic storylines and heroic figures than the complicated and nuanced historical record.”17 In the vignettes shown in “The Liberty Story,” Disney narrates the clips from the longer film. When depicting the Boston Tea Party, he compares the participants to “Harvard Pranksters,” who just wanted to have a little fun, and then made sure to clean the ship and leave it pristine after disposing of the tea. All orderly and sanitized, this portrayal of the pre-Revolutionary years contrasts with other representations, notably the 2008 mini-series John Adams.18 Gone are the orderly song and parade marches around Boston, and in their place emerges the violence that often accompanied such demonstrations.19 Similarly, the television show Turn: Washington’s Spies presents a more nuanced view of these tumultuous years.20 This aligns more with more recent publications, like Holger Hoock’s 2017 Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth.21 Current viewers expect a more complicated view of the Revolutionary years, which helps to explain the popularity of Hamilton.

17 Newman, “Disney's

American Revolution,” 683. Tom Hopper, Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, David Morse, and David G. McCullough, John Adams (New York: NY: HBO Home Entertainment, 2008). 19 Further, according to Newman, in this production there is a “scene from Johnny Tremain of Bostonians singing beneath the Liberty Tree then cut to a close-up of a medallion bearing the words “SONS OF LIBERTY” and an image of the Liberty Tree, before panning out to show that the medallion was in Disney’s hand. Speaking to viewers, Disney made the dubious claim that these medallions were ‘the secret identification badge of the Sons of Liberty’, and during the movie Johnny Tremain’s friend Rab showed Johnny just such a badge. Disney was standing beside sketches of the Liberty Street area he proposed to add to Disneyland. When Liberty Square was later added to Disney World, the illuminated Liberty Tree functioned as a visually impressive centerpiece, yet as in Johnny Tremain the radical significance of this symbol had been submerged in a generic symbol of liberty” (Newman, “Disney's American Revolution,” 698). 20 “Turn: Washington’s Spies” aired on AMC from 2014-2017. There were forty episodes total. This series was based on Alexander Rose, Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring (New York, New York: Bantam Books, 2007). 21 Holger Hoock, Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth (New York: Crown Publishing, 2017). As Newman posits, these television shows “reflect more nuanced and subtle attempts to represent the past, and build upon a half-century of historiography that has transformed academic understanding of how the American War of Independence affected and was affected by all in North America—African Americans, Native Americans, rich and poor and men and women” (711). 18

208

Epilogue

While Johnny Tremain had connections with the upcoming displays and destinations at Disney’s amusements parks, The Swamp Fox is less recognizable to Disney fans today. Beginning in 1959, this eight-part series was popular enough to have reruns in subsequent decades. Although not available on Disney+, curious observers can purchase a DVD copy of the show. Focusing on the life and career of Francis Marion, this program pivots the focus from Revolutionary-Era Boston to South Carolina.22 Also introduced by Disney, The Swamp Fox placed Marion in the context of a “Robin Hood” versus evil tyrants. Focusing on the life of one white American hero, this portrayal, while not entirely accurate, demonstrates Disney’s desire to shape popular perceptions of American history that extended outside of the studio and into the amusement parks. These locations are still accessible and have traces of the nostalgic and sanitized version of American History that Disney presented to American audiences with “Ben and Me,” Johnny Tremain, and The Swamp Fox. This particular form of history creates a false impression of an easy narrative that mythologizes figures, particularly white men, and leaves little room for a more nuanced vision of the past. Beyond the silver-screen depictions of the Revolutionary Era, Disney crafted a sensorial barrage in their amusement parks.23 By crafting a world through the lens of Disney, this allowed, as Scott Schaffer argues the designers “to set up representations of the world in the way that Disney would have wanted to see it – an allegorical representation of the power of the United States.”24 Originally slated for Disneyland, Liberty Square found its home in Magic Kingdom at the Florida theme park Walt Disney World. Its opening coincided with the Bicentennial celebrations around the United States, and presented a view of eighteenth-century America through replica portrayals of a Liberty Tree, Liberty Bell, and a sharp-eyed observer can see the iconic lanterns beckoning Paul Revere to begin an immortal ride. One of many “themed lands,” Liberty Square takes up less acreage than the more popular and widely-known areas like Fantasyland or Frontierland. Guests entering Liberty Square are greeted with a plaque: Past this gateway stirs a new nation waiting to be born. Thirteen separate colonies have banded together to declare their independence from the 22 “Walt Disney Presents: The Swamp Fox: The Birth Of The Swamp Fox (TV),” https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=john&p=579&item=T82:0393. 23 See Mike Wallace, Mickey Mouse History: And Other Essays on American Memory (Philadelphia : Temple University Press, 1996), 133–159. 24 Scott Schaffer, “Disney and the Imagineering of Histories,” Postmodern Culture 6:3 (1996), 1.

Epilogue

209

bonds of tyranny. It is a time when silversmiths put away their tools and march to the drums of a revolution, a time when gentleman planters leave their farms to become generals, a time with tradesmen leave the safety of home to become heroes. Welcome to Liberty Square!25 One of the highlights of Liberty Square includes the Hall of Presidents, which opened in 1971.26 For many, this attraction provides respite from the Florida humidity and heat in the long summer months. This section built upon the technology present in “Moments with Mr. Lincoln” from Disneyland, with an addition in 1973 with real and replicated artifacts from American history.27 These displays in the lobby area from historical presidents and first ladies sets the stage for the main event. In order to bring a more historical perspective, noted Columbia University Historian Eric Foner assisted in writing the script for the updated show.28 This added a much-needed element of historical complexity to the short show.29 In 2006, Pulitzer-prize winning author Doris Kearns Goodwin assisted with revising the presentation.30 This demonstrates a desire for Disney to portray an accurate version of American history in the theme park. While the goal is entertainment, these scholars assist in grounding this show in a historically-based and accessible modality. Such collaborations are also present in Hamilton, which lauds the popular author

25 https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Liberty_Square 26 Shannon McMahon, “A Brief History of Disney’s Polarizing Hall of Presidents,” November 7, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/11/07/disney-worldhall-of-presidents. 27 According to Brittany DiCologero, “A more noticeable detail that guests usually notice as soon as they enter the pre-show area is the Great Seal of the United States woven into the rug in the center of the room. The only other place that displays the Great Seal is the White House, and Disney had to get permission through an Act of Congress to display the seal in the attraction.” Red, White, and Disney: The Myths and Realities of American History at the Walt Disney World Resort (Theme Park Press, 2018), Kindle, 455. 28 In 1994, The Chronicle of Higher Education acknowledged the venture: “There is evidence that Disney has a new appreciation for historical accuracy these days. Recently, for example, it responded to criticism—by the noted Columbia University historian Eric Foner—of the monologue delivered by a figure representing Abraham Lincoln in a display at Disneyland (where Lincoln failed to mention either slavery or blacks). Disney asked Mr. Foner to help revise its exhibits in the Hall of Presidents at Walt Disney World. Other historians give high marks to the new Foner-Disney exhibit,” Otis L. Graham Jr., “Disney vs. History” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 14, 1994, 41, B2. 29 DiCologero, Red, White, and Disney, 427, 441. 30 https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2011/02/celebrating-presidents-day-at-thehall-of-presidents-at-disneys-magic-kingdom.

210

Epilogue

Ron Chernow as a consultant for the production.31 Not unlike Hamilton itself, Liberty Square presents an easily-digestible mix of Americana and history that leaves the viewer untroubled with complicated issues in American history and free to treat in the other entertainment options, while feeling satisfied with their experience.32 To indulge in more nostalgic representations of American history, one only has to go from Magic Kingdom to Epcot, also part of Walt Disney World. This park is home to eleven pavilions in the “World Showcase” portion, which features food, entertainment, and architectural representations from various countries. “The American Adventure,” is the colonial-themed homage to the United States of America.33 This further illustrates Disney’s fascination with the colonial era and particularly with presenting a tangible, relevant, and yet uncontroversial version of American history. In the twenty-eight-minute show, viewers are taken on a fast-paced journey through America’s founding and history. Narrated by Benjamin Franklin (sans Amos) and Mark Twain, audiences learn about important historical moments. For many spectators, this introduction to history will be unique. With guests arriving from around the globe, this portrayal is perhaps the version of historical events that will linger beyond the funnel cakes and firework displays awaiting them at the rest of the park. However, this short show cannot provide the background with the nuance needed to begin to grasp controversial issues, and might leave the observer with a notion of an uncomplicated past with “good guys” versus “bad

See Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, Hamilton: The Revolution (NYC, NY: Melcher Media, 2016); Renee Romano and Claire Bond Potter, Historians on Hamilton How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2018). See also Eric Medlin’s chapter in this volume for more on the historiography regarding Alexander Hamilton. 32 The Hall of Presidents is not without controversy. When unveiled, park guests were alarmed by the appearance of Donald J. Trump. Although with the voice of Trump, to many critics, the likeness did seem to resemble the personage of Trump. In 2017, a park guest was allegedly removed from Magic Kingdom for yelling “lock him up,” during the show. As of writing in April 2021, it is closed for refurbishment to add the 46th president, Joseph R. Biden. Gabriel Bell, “This man screaming ‘lock him up’ at Disney World's Trumpbot is all of us,” December 30, 2017, https://www.salon.com/2017/12/29/thisman-screaming-lock-him-up-at-disney-worlds-trumpbot-is-all-of-us. 33 See Andrea Stulman Dennett, “A Postmodern Look at EPCOT’s American Adventure” Journal of American Culture 12, no. 1 (1989), 47–53; Ady Milman, “Guests’ Perception of Staged Authenticity in a Theme Park: An Example from Disney’s Epcot’s World Showcase” Tourism review (Association internationale d’experts scientifiques du tourisme) 68, no. 4 (2013), 71–89. 31

Epilogue

211

guys,” where the “good guys” ended up winning. With the theme song “Golden Dream,” permeating through the halls, such a view is not surprising. While these portrayals of Americana are still operating in Disney theme parks, other attempts have been less successful. Notably, the attempt in the early 1990s to establish an amusement park in Manassas, Virginia resulted in condemnation from both scholars and the public alike. “Disney America” was met with fervent backlash by historians. Over thirty celebrated historians joined together in a group called “Protect Historic America” to protest the planned expansion. Censuring this venture for several reasons, the core issues emerged with two main concerns. Prominent Civil War expert Shelby Foote spoke out against this project pointing out that Disney was in the entertainment business, and that “the park in Virginia promises to ‘simplify’ and ‘sentimentalize’ history on a painfully large scale.”34 Others noted the proposed Disney's America theme park in suburban Virginia [to be a] “desecration” of Revolutionary and Civil War landmarks.”35 While the criticism of historical interpretations, or “Distory,” as Schaffer terms it, is not new to Disney, the backlash from the general public was one that could not be overcome.36 According to Shaffer, “Given the colonizing effects of the messages that Disneyland, as well as Disney’s other products, most notably the animated film features, it is not surprising that people who lived near Manassas, Virginia, were up in arms about Disney’s America theme park that it wanted to build.” The local inhabitants were “afraid of losing the actuality of the lived history of the Civil War—a heritage that lived on in the area, though not in the same fashion as history in most of the rest of the world—to the dehistoricizing effects of ‘Daddy Disney.’”37 Attempting this endeavor demonstrates the commitment of the Walt Disney Company to both engage with early American history, and entertain through its presentation to the public, albeit unsuccessfully in this case. Other controversial attempts to engage with early American history through entertainment in the 1990s include the animated feature film Pocahontas (1995). By blending together actual historical events, including the founding of the first English permanent settlement, Jamestown, with extra-historical features, Disney faced mixed praise and backlash. While the musical performances and the inclusion of indigenous characters represented a step

34

Graham, “Disney vs. History,” B1.

35 Anne Groer, “Historians Go To War

Against Disney's Virginia Theme Park,” May 12, 1994, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-05-12-9405120278-story.html. 36 Schaffer, “Disney and the Imagineering of Histories,” 15. 37 Ibid.

212

Epilogue

forward for many critics, the vast historical inaccuracies overshadowed the small gains. Newman views this combination as a mixture which “misrepresent[s] history in a heavily stylized and formulaic fashion, applying templates that guarantee success and profit.”38 Although set before the Revolutionary years of Hamilton, this willingness to engage with early American history through entertainment demonstrates the commitment that Disney has to this genre. Therefore, the acquisition of the Hamilton musical should not be terribly surprising to those who have traced the timeline of Disney’s engagement with the American historical past. While Pocahontas attempted to blend real events with fantasy, the Princess and Frog (2009), based on a fairy tale, did not have to reckon with historians in the same manner. Featuring a black female princess for the first time in Disney history appeared to critics as an attempt to atone for some of the past missteps. Criticism arose over the erasure of a black character through the movie’s focus of her time as a frog, rather than a human.39 This coincides with arguments made by scholar Richard M. Breaux: “While some critics and audiences may argue that Disney made good on eliminating the most overt representations of sexism and racism” in their animated films like The Princess and the Frog, “others may argue that the company likewise failed to counter Michael Wallace and Henry Giroux’s (1999) claim that Disney films and theme parks render history as a Norman Rockwell painting where ‘there are no strikes, no history of labor unrest; no history of attacks on immigrants; no history of slavery and segregation; no Red scare; no McCarthyism; no atomic bomb.’”40 This criticism re-emerged with the Disney+ launch in November 2019.

38 Newman,

“Disney's American Revolution,” 687. See also Richard M. Breaux, “After 75 Years of Magic: Disney Answers Its Critics, Rewrites African American History, and Cashes In on Its Racist Past,” Journal of African American studies (New Brunswick, N.J.) 14, no. 4 (2010), 398–416; Marc Silver, “Pocahontas, for Real,” U.S. news & world report 118, no. 24 (1995), 61; Gary Edgerton Kathy Merlock Jackson, “Redesigning Pocahontas: Disney, the ‘White Man’s Indian,’ and the Marketing of Dreams,” The journal of popular film and television 24, no. 2 (1996), 90–98. 39 According to Disney Hidden Secrets Tumblr site, the character Tiana spends forty minutes of the movie on screen. This includes twenty-three as a human and seventeen as a frog. See https://disney-hiddensecrets.tumblr.com/post/976549894/tiana-is-on-screenfor-roughly-40-minutes-of-the. Similar criticism appeared for the 2021 Pixar movie “Soul.” See Namwali Serpell, “Pixar’s Troubled ‘Soul,’” The New Yorker, January 24, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/pixars-troubled-soul. 40 Breaux, “After 75 Years of Magic,”339.

Epilogue

213

With the establishment of the new juggernaut streaming service, Disney released an avalanche of productions that included offerings both new and old. Curious about the past productions that contain uncomfortable characters and racial stereotypes, fans wondered if some of the “masterpieces,” might be left in the vault. Disney launched a preemptive plan to address these issues in the website “Stories Matter,” which emerged before Disney+ was released to the public.41 With an impressive Advisory Council, this site indicated Disney’s desire to atone for past missteps, while still offering beloved, yet outdated classics. Questionable content would now have an “Advisory,” which states: This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe. To learn more about how stories have impacted society, please visit www.disney.com/StoriesMatter42 For some critics, this hardly addressed the key issues in Disney’s repertoire. Furthermore, the lack of disclaimers before Pocahontas (1995) or Aladdin (1992) could indicate that Disney might only be willing to acknowledge certain aspects of their past racial insensitivities. Unsurprisingly, some of the more controversial films, like the Academy Award-winning Song of the South (1946), were not available on the platform. The movie, set in Reconstructionera South, has been plagued with allegations of racist depictions. However, the popular ride Splash Mountain, which opened in 1989 in Disneyland and 1992 in Tokyo Disneyland and Magic Kingdom is based on the stories and features songs from Song of the South. In the wake of the racial reckoning in summer 2020, Disney announced a change in the format of Splash

41

https://storiesmatter.thewaltdisneycompany.com. This website breaks down the negative depictions in several films, including Aristocats (1970), Dumbo (1940), Peter Pan (1953), and Swiss Family Robinson (1963). See https://abcnews.go.com/Business/ wireStory/disney-adds-disclaimer-racist-movie-stereotypes-67020903. 42 Ibid.

Epilogue

214

Mountain.43 Rather than depict Brer Rabbit, the ride would focus on The Princess and the Frog.44 Furthemore, as many businesses scrambled to address the sentiments troubling that nation in summer 2020, Disney joined with their own statement regarding racism in America. Following the May 25, 2020 killing of George Floyd, businesses and institutions posted statements of support for the Black Lives Matter movement, and Disney was no exception. On May 31, Disney posted on their various social media accounts: We stand against racism. We stand for inclusion. We stand with our fellow Black employees, storytellers, creators and the entire Black community. We must unite and speak out.45 Slated for a theatrical release in October 2021, the news that the originalcast live recording of Hamilton would be available for streaming on Disney+ reached theater aficionados like a balm in this uncertain time of COVID-19 quarantine. Disney’s Chairman Robert “Bob” Iger tweeted: “In this very difficult time, this story of leadership, tenacity, hope, love and the people of people to unite against adversity is both relevant and inspiring.”46 The news delighted many, and also opened the criticism that had been simmering under the praise and adulation for the blockbuster musical. Summer 2020 saw record demonstrations in the wake of the killing of unarmed black men and women in the United States. Hamilton now seemed to be part of the “Disney” treatment of history, where the problematic issues are stripped away for a more positive and non-confrontational outlook. The news that Disney was

43 https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/06/new-adventures-with-princess-tian

a-coming-to-disneyland-park-and-magic-kingdom-park. This news broke in summer 2020, but neither Magic Kingdom nor Disneyland have commenced official refurbishment as of fall 2021. 45 Matthew Soberman, “Disney Takes A Stand Against Racism Across Social Media Channels in Light of Protests,” May 31, 2020, Walt Disney World News Today, https:// wdwnt.com/2020/05/disney-posts-that-they-stand-against-racism-across-social-medi a-channels. 46 Robert Iger, Twitter post, May 12, 2020, https://twitter.com/robertiger/status/1260 182745617018880?lang=en. 44

Epilogue

215

going to move up the date for streaming Hamilton came at a time when the upheaval and conversations concerning race, history, and Black Lives Matter were at a fever pitch. Although the news dropped that the early release of the musical came as early as May 12, the timing appeared fortuitous.47 With the controversy over the past films, theme park rides, and working conditions for park employees simmered, the press became easily diverted through this unprecedented announcement.48 After the initial shock subsided, new questions emerged. Particularly, with the conversations surrounding race in America appearing in different forms in 2020, the new question emerged: how “woke” is Hamilton? Disney might have felt like the $75 million price tag would atone for their past grievances, but many critics, both professional and amateur, appeared. Historians and scholars have engaged critically with Hamilton since the musical debuted in 2015.49 Mainstream disapproval grew as the accessibility flourished with the streaming availability on Disney+. Those who did not, or could not, see the musical live were no longer limited to pirated versions on sites like Youtube, but could now see a professional production in the comfort of their own homes. This accessibility proved to be double-edged for Hamilton. #CancelHamilton began trending online, and it seemed that Disney’s investment might not reap the benefits that they desired in their acquisition. Some demanded that Disney+ remove Hamilton from its streaming service. The criticism revolved around the musical’s incorporation of BIPOC actors to portray white imperialist slave owners, and the lack of criticism of these individuals.50 Miranda responded to some of the online opponents stating on Twitter that such engagements were “fair game” and that he did his “best” with the time allotted in this musical.51

47 Lin-Manuel Miranda tweeted “It’s only a matter of time... Our Hamilton film. THIS July 3rd. On Disney+,” Twitter post, May 12, 2020, https://twitter.com/lin_manuel/sta tus/1260181905909129216?lang=en. 48 Nicole Lyn Pesce, “Disney heiress ‘livid’ after speaking with workers from her family’s theme parks,” July 23, 2019, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/disney-heiress-lividafter-going-to-one-of-her-familys-theme-parks-undercover-2019-07-15. 49 See Historians on Hamilton for an excellent overview of some of these critical engagements. 50 BIPOC stands for “Black, Indigenous, and people of color.” Katherine J. Igoe, “The “Cancel Hamilton” Backlash, Explained,” July 9, 2020, https://www.marieclaire.com/ culture/a33261974/hamilton-canceled-explained-lin-manual-miranda. 51 Lin-Manuel Miranda, Twitter post, July 6, 2020, https://twitter.com/Lin_Manuel/sta tus/1280120414279290881.

216

Epilogue

Disney attempted to address these issues in “Hamilton: History Has Its Eyes on You,” which brought together cast members, historians, and was hosted by ABC’s Good Morning America broadcaster Robin Roberts.52 Placing this musical with the context of the 2020 protests allowed the musical to update their message and include Annette Gordon-Reed, Harvard historian and professor who acknowledged the historical inaccuracies in this special, and argued that the balance between the good and bad is part of the historical process. The conversation itself is the important part of the development. She shared her incredibly limited screen time with the cast members and director of the Original Broadway Cast. Director Thomas Kail stated that the musical has not changed since its debut, but the conversations surrounding these issues have. This poses both challenges, and in Kail’s assessment, opportunities for continued relevance. The actors recognize that the positivity they felt in the debut of the musical during the Obama era has eroded somewhat during recent events. Furthermore, they also contended that the groundbreaking nature of the musical that was present in the initial production will seem quaint in years to come as younger generations take this story to another level.53 The critics seemed to be in the minority in the end, as the movie swept through the nation and received both positive reviews and accolades.54 Disney’s engagement with American History has been precarious, and yet their desire to portray aspects of a conservative past, while taking some risks has been a hallmark of their portrayals since Walt Disney’s early productions. Hamilton, while appearing to be a more progressive musical, still has many of the elements familiar to those who are Disney fans. Like the productions of the past, it focuses on a male-driven narrative with clearly defined characters who exude valor and patriotism. The unsavory traits of these leading figures are not dealt with in these “Disneyfied” portrayals. As the authors in this book

52 “Hamilton:

History Has its Eyes On You,” Disney+. Disney companies continue to grapple with allegations of systemic racism. In early 2021, longtime “Bachelor” host Chris Harrison stepped down from his role after twenty-five different iterations of the show. His defense of a contestant’s participation in a 2018 plantation-themed party, along with other allegations concerning racial insensitivity caused this hiatus. ABC, which airs “The Bachelor,” is owned by the Walt Disney Company. “Chris Harrison briefly ‘stepping aside’ from ‘The Bachelor’ in wake of racist controversy,” February 13, 2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/chris-harri son-briefly-stepping-aside-bachelor-wake-racist-controversy-n1257878. 54 Hamilton (2020) received many award nominations including the Screen Actors Guild Awards, Golden Globes, NAACP Image Awards, and many others. The movie won awards from the Emmys, People’s Choice Awards, Producers Guild of America Awards, and Critics’ Choice Television Awards. 53 The larger

Epilogue

217

have convincingly shown, Hamilton has sparked fresh interest in the founding era of the United States with both scholars and the general public. With the accessibility of Hamilton streaming on Disney+, this trend will hopefully continue. Although the pandemic in 2020 slowed down archival research in many institutions, the easing of restrictions will hopefully allow for further engagement with primary sources that will allow for more characters to emerge, coupled with new or more nuanced interpretations of this era. As the chapters in this book have demonstrated, there are myriad ways to pursue research and educational opportunities involving Hamilton and American History. These authors present unique perspectives and clear scholarship that contribute to this ongoing conversation. Particularly, the students who emerge from the classrooms of these educators will hopefully continue their training and continue this conversation with varied and nuanced possibilities. The Hamilton Phenomenon will “fan this spark into a flame” for other works to continue to flesh out these themes, while highlighting figures who have remained in the archives, and challenge us as scholars and educators to continue to question our own firmly-held beliefs about the past. Bibliography Bell, Gabriel. “This man screaming ‘lock him up’ at Disney World's Trumpbot is all of us,” December 30, 2017, https://www.salon.com/2017/12/29/thisman-screaming-lock-him-up-at-disney-worlds-trumpbot-is-all-of-us. Bemis, Bethanee. “How Disney Came to Define What Constitutes the American Experience,” January 3, 2017, Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithso nianmag.com/history/how-disney-came-define-what-constitutes-americanexperience-180961632. Breaux. Richard M. “After 75 Years of Magic: Disney Answers Its Critics, Rewrites African American History, and Cashes In on Its Racist Past.” Journal of African American studies (New Brunswick, N.J.) 14, no. 4 (2010): 398–416. “Chris Harrison briefly ‘stepping aside’ from ‘The Bachelor’ in wake of racist controversy.” February 13, 2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/ pop-culture-news/chris-harrison-briefly-stepping-aside-bachelor-wake-rac ist-controversy-n1257878. Dennett, Andrea Stulman. “A Postmodern Look at EPCOT’s American Adventure.” Journal of American Culture 12, no. 1 (1989): 47–53. DiCologero, Brittany. Red, White, and Disney: The Myths and Realities of American History at the Walt Disney World Resort. Theme Park Press, 2018. Kindle, 455. Forbes, Esther. Johnny Tremain: A Story of Boston in Revolt. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018. Graham Jr., Otis L. “Disney vs. History” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 14, 1994, 41, B2.

218

Epilogue

Groer, Anne. “Historians Go To War Against Disney's Virginia Theme Park,” May 12, 1994, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-05-129405120278-story.html. Hamilton: History Has its Eyes On You, (Disney+, 2020). Hoock, Holger. Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth. New York: Crown Publishing, 2017. Iger, Robert. Twitter post, May 12, 2020, https://twitter.com/robertiger/status/ 1260182745617018880?lang=en. Igoe, Katherine J. “The ‘Cancel Hamilton’ Backlash, Explained,” July 9, 2020, https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a33261974/hamilton-canceled-expla ined-lin-manual-miranda. Lawson, Robert. Ben and Me: A New and Astonishing Life of Benjamin Franklin As Written by His Good Mouse, Amos, Lately Discovered, Edited & Illustrated by Robert Lawson. Boston: Little, Brown, 1951. Matusitz, Jonathan and Lauren Palermo. “The Disneyfication of the World: A ‘Grobalisation’ Perspective,” Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 11:2 (2014), 91–107. McMahon, Shannon. “A Brief History of Disney’s Polarizing Hall of Presidents” November 7, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/11/07/di sney-world-hall-of-presidents. Milman, Ady. “Guests’ Perception of Staged Authenticity in a Theme Park: An Example from Disney’s Epcot’s World Showcase.” Tourism review (Association internationale d’experts scientifiques du tourisme) 68, no. 4 (2013): 71–89. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Twitter post, May 12, 2020, https://twitter.com/lin_ma nuel/status/1260181905909129216?lang=en. Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Tweet, July 6, 2020, https://twitter.com/Lin_Manuel/ status/1280120414279290881. Miranda, Lin-Manuel and Jeremy McCarter/ Hamilton: The Revolution. NYC, NY: Melcher Media, 2016. Newman, Simon P. “Disney's American Revolution,” Journal of American Studies 52:3 (August 2018): 682-715. Palmeri, Christopher. “Disney+ Downloads Climb Following Debut of ‘Hamilton’ Online,” Bloomberg.com, 7/6/2020. Pesce, Nicole Lyn. “Disney heiress ‘livid’ after speaking with workers from her family’s theme parks,” July 23, 2019, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ disney-heiress-livid-after-going-to-one-of-her-familys-theme-parks-underc over-2019-07-15. Romano, Renee and Claire Bond Potter. Historians on Hamilton How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America's Past. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2018. Schaffer, Scott. “Disney and the Imagineering of Histories,” Postmodern Culture 6:3 (1996): 1-34. Schocket, Andrew M. “Hamilton and the American Revolution on Stage and Screen.” In Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past. Edited by Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018, 167–186.

Epilogue

219

Soberman, Matthew. “Disney Takes A Stand Against Racism Across Social Media Channels in Light of Protests,” May 31, 2020, Walt Disney World News Today, https://wdwnt.com/2020/05/disney-posts-that-they-stand-againstracism-across-social-media-channels. “Stories Matter,” WDC, https://storiesmatter.thewaltdisneycompany.com. Wallace, Mike. Mickey Mouse History: And Other Essays on American Memory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996. Watts, Steven. “Walt Disney: Art and Politics in the American Century.” The Journal of American history (Bloomington, Ind.) 82, no. 1 (1995): 84–110. Watts, Steven. The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life. Columbia, MO: Univ. of Missouri Press, 2006.

About the Authors Chloe Northrop is a Professor of History at Tarrant County College on the Northeast Campus. She received her Ph.D. in History with a Minor in Art History from the University of North Texas. She focuses on the exchanges of fashionable goods in the eighteenth century British Atlantic World.

Kade Ivy is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Notre Dame. His dissertation undertakes a literary history of closet drama in America before 1865.

Kristin Leadbetter is a Ph.D. candidate at UC San Diego in the Department of Theatre and Dance. Originally from Rochester, NY, she has practiced, studied, and taught theatre on both coasts of the United States. She specializes in intersections of acting techniques and communication studies with particular attention to pedagogy and theatre as a liberal art.

Kerry Goldmann is currently a Lecturer of History at the University of North Texas and has previously taught in the university’s Theatre Department. She received both her BA and MA both in historical studies with a minor in Theatre from the University of North Texas and received her PhD in Interdisciplinary Humanities from the University of Texas, Dallas. She teaches courses in her areas of specialty including U.S. history, U.S. cultural history and performance, Jewish American history, and race. Her work on race and theatre has previously been published in the Texas Theatre Journal and the Journal of California History.

Eric Medlin is an instructor at Wake Technical Community College in Raleigh, North Carolina. His work focuses on intellectual history and the history of North Carolina. Eric's first book, a history of Franklin County, North Carolina, was released in October 2020 by The History Press. He is currently at work on several projects, including a history of the North Carolina furniture industry. Eric lives in Raleigh.

222

About the Authors

Larissa Knopp completed her Ph.D. in Modern World History at St. John's University in New York. She has always been interested in historical fashions and her research focuses on gender and business in the fashion industry during the twentieth century. She currently works in resource development at a small non-profit in Washington state.

Kaitlin Tonti is a Visiting Assistant Professor of English at Hollins University. Her specialty is in early American literature, though most of her research is centered on early American women’s life writing and poetry. She has been published in Teaching American Literature and Women’s Studies and is the current recipient of the Omohundro Institute’s Mount Vernon Digital Collections Fellowship. She is also the past recipient of the Lilian Gary Taylor Fellowship in American Literature at the University of Virginia and a Rare Books and Archives Fellowship at the New York Public Library.

Shira Lurie is an Assistant Professor of United States History at Saint Mary’s University. She is writing a book on liberty poles and debates over dissent in the early republic. Her work on politics, history, and memory has been published in the Journal of the Early Republic, The Washington Post, The Toronto Star, and Inside Higher Ed. She has a lot of brains, but no polish.

Katherine Curtis is a Humanities Librarian at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington where she provides instruction and research support as the liaison to several departments including English. Her professional interests include information literacy and instructional design, critical pedagogy, zines, and using digital humanities methods and tools with undergraduates. She has previously presented on using university archives to teach information literacy at the 2019 Association of College & Research Libraries Conference and on zines as liberatory pedagogy at the 2018 Race & Pedagogy National Conference.

Alison Tracy Hale is Professor of English at the University of Puget Sound where she also teaches in the Coolidge Otis Chapman Honors Program. Her scholarly and research interests include the early American novel, the American gothic, and women’s education. Her work has appeared in Early American Literature, and her recent publications include an essay on Maria Susanna Cummins’s The Lamplighter (1854) in Saving the World: Girlhood and Evangelicalism in the 19th Century, ed. Allison Giffen and Robin L. Cadwallader.

About the Authors

223

A graduate of Smith College and William & Mary, Julie Richter has always enjoyed visiting museums and historic sites to see places where people lived and to learn about material objects that they owned and used. After working in the Historical and Architectural Research Departments at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, she began to teach classes for the National Institute of American History & Democracy, a cooperative program between Colonial Williamsburg and William & Mary that focuses on Material Culture and Public History. Richter’s classes focus on American History, Women’s History, Public History, and the ways in which historic sites and landscapes shaped the ways in which peoples lived their lives and key events in American History. Currently, Richter is the Director of the National Institute of American History & Democracy and a Lecturer in the Harrison Ruffin Tyler Department of History at William & Mary.

Index

A

B

Aaron Burr, 14, 32, 60, 111, 120, 131, 146, 158, 164, 176, 180, 181, 185, 188, 189, 197, 198 “Aaron Burr, Sir” number, 61, 131, 188, 189 Abigail Adams, 6, 18, 19, 161, 174 abolitionism, 77, 86 abolitionist, xv, 39, 80, 114 African Americans, 49, 51, 169, 207 Alexander Hamilton “Report on Public Credit”, 194 “Reynolds Pamphlet”, xix, 156, 158 biography, xiii, xvii, 26, 72, 73, 76, 133, 152, 154 slavery, 40, 77, 157, 192 “Alexander Hamilton” number, 111, 185 Alien and Sedition, 141, 142, 148 Amanda Gordon, xv American Psycho, xvi, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 American Revolution, xvi, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 21, 23, 55, 62, 63, 67, 80, 130, 131, 132, 135, 138, 140, 145, 148, 149, 150, 169, 188, 189, 193, 201, 202, 205, 206, 218 Angelica Schuyler Church, xviii, 18, 32, 37, 63, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 134, 136, 138, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 174, 188 Annette Gordon-Reed, 78, 85, 88, 172, 216

Bank of the United States. See First Bank of the United States Barack Obama, xii, 109, 137, 142, 144, 145 Battle of Yorktown, 17, 79, 81 Ben and Me, 205, 206, 208, 218 Benedict Arnold, 10 Benjamin Franklin, 16, 85, 86, 91, 132, 156, 206, 210, 218 Best of Wives and Best of Women, 198 Biggie. See Biggie Smalls Biggie Smalls, 32 Black Lives Matter, viii, 60, 109, 204, 214, 215 Brandon Victor Dixon, 14, 71, 146 Broadway, vii, viii, ix, x, xx, 4, 5, 14, 16, 22, 25, 26, 32, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 67, 72, 81, 89, 109, 116, 117, 125, 131, 143, 146, 150, 151, 163, 172, 186, 193, 203, 204, 216 “Burn”, 33, 37, 118, 121, 123, 125, 132

C “Cabinet Battle #1” number, xiv, 39, 138, 193, 194, 195 “Cabinet Battle #2” number, 117, 125, 195, 196 Caribbean, x, xi, xii, 60, 76, 141, 156, 185 Cato, 7

Index

226

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 197, 202 Civil Rights Movement, 64 coloniality, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 64 colorblind casting. See RaceConscious Casting color-blind casting. See RaceConscious Casting color-conscious casting. See RaceConscious Casting “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, 120, 157 Congress Hall, 187, 195, 202 Constitution. See The Constitution of the United States Constitutional Convention, 78, 192 consumer capitalism, 30, 43 consumerism, 26, 28, 41 Continental Army, 11, 135, 186, 189, 190, 200 coronavirus. See COVID-19 costume, xvii COVID-19, vii, xx, 18, 22, 53, 57, 203, 214 creole, x

D Daveed Diggs, ix, 116, 137, 172 David W. Blight, 87 Deborah Sampson, 135, 150 decolonial, xvi, xvii, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 65, 66 Democratic Republican, 176 Democratic-Republican. See Democratic Republican Disney. See Walt Disney Company Disney+, vii, xix, 203, 205, 206, 208, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

Disneyland, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213 DMX, 32 Donald Trump, viii, 15, 23, 31, 44 drama therapy, 51, 53, 58 dress, xvii duel, 9, 158, 181, 198 dueling, 122, 134

E EduHam, 72 eighteenth century, xvi, xix, xx, 5, 15, 76, 109, 111, 112, 119, 120, 123, 138, 141, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 161, 170, 171, 205, 208, 221 Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson, 119, 124 Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, 76, 81, 110, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 134, 136, 139, 196, 197, 198 enslave. See slavery Eurocentrism, 47, 49, 51, 67

F fanfiction, 29, 133, 149 fashion, xvii, 28, 31, 211, 212, 222 Federal Hall, 186, 187, 193, 194, 195, 198, 202 Federalist Papers, 133, 156, 157, 193 Federalist Party, 73 First Bank of the United States, viii Founders Chic, xviii, 4, 6, 23, 24, 130, 132, 133, 134, 141, 143, 148, 149, 150, 153, 174, 187 Founding Father, ix, xiii, xiv, xv, xviii, 47, 55, 56, 61, 72, 85, 86, 88, 110, 114, 132, 133, 137, 140, 186, 187, 199, 200, 204

Index

227

Frantz Fanon, 51, 57, 65 Fraunces Tavern, 186, 187, 189, 202 Frederick Douglass, 83, 87, 89, 91

G gender, xvii, xviii, 110, 116, 130, 134, 136, 141, 157, 167, 168, 187, 199, 222 George III, viii, 8, 19, 52, 157, 166, 188, 189, 203, 206 George Washington, xiii, 11, 18, 19, 32, 62, 73, 77, 81, 85, 116, 139, 140, 143, 147, 148, 164, 167, 176, 185, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 200, 201 Gilder Lehrman. See Gilder Lehrman Institute Gilder Lehrman Institute, ix, xviii, 122, 123, 125, 129, 148 Grange. See Hamilton Grange National Memorial Grant. See Ulysses S. Grant Grant’s. See Ulysses S. Grant “Guns and Ships” number, 12, 190

H H. W. Brands, 153 Hamilton critiques, xiv, xvi, 21, 48, 73, 134, 140, 144, 177 historical accuracy, 40 ticket prices, 42, 57 Hamilton Grange National Memorial, xi, xii, xx, 187, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202 Hamilton Mixtapes, xiv, xx Harry Potter, 151 “Helpless” number, 116, 118, 121, 125, 191, 196

Hemings. See Sally Hemings Henry Cabot Lodge, 73, 74 Hercules Mulligan, 138, 185, 189 hip hop, 3, 4, 29, 32, 59, 61, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 133, 143, 155, 171, 172 Historians on Hamilton, xii, xiii, xiv, xx, 3, 4, 5, 22, 23, 24, 32, 39, 46, 48, 63, 65, 66, 110, 124, 125, 131, 132, 134, 138, 140, 141, 148, 149, 150, 152, 171, 172, 173, 175, 186, 187, 202, 205, 210, 215, 218 historical memory, xvi, xvii, xix, 47, 49, 53, 59, 61, 62, 63, 110, 112, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 140, 142, 144, 145, 147, 205 historiography, xiii, xvii, 20, 72, 73, 76, 133, 152, 155, 207 “History Has Its Eyes on You”, 146, 216 Horatio Alger, 61, 67 Howard Zinn, 75, 80, 83 Hugh Henry Brackenridge, 10

I immigrants, 35, 37, 44, 49, 59, 60, 61, 141, 142, 147, 187, 212 immigration, 37, 59, 77, 79, 81, 86, 130, 134, 141, 142 In the Heights, 50, 143 Independence Hall, 186, 187, 192, 195, 198, 200, 202

J James Madison, 17, 60, 78, 79, 90, 132, 193, 194, 200 Jessie Serfilippi, xv, 39, 138, 192 Joanne B. Freeman, 3, 4, 122, 158, 175, 187, 194 John Adams, 16, 161, 174, 182

Index

228

John Adams (2008), 130, 207 John André, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22 John Brown, 115 John Jay, 193 John Kander, 144 John Laurens, 13, 22, 80, 81, 91, 164, 167, 170, 185, 188, 189, 191, 202 John McComb, Junior, 196 Johnny Tremain, 205, 206, 207, 208, 217 Joseph Addison, 7 Joseph Ellis, 73, 85 Judith Sargent Murray, 156, 158

K Kaphar. See Titus Kaphar Katniss Everdeen, 151

L Les Misérables, 41, 42 Leslie Odom Jr., 120 Letters from an American Farmer, 157 Lin-Manuel Miranda, viii, 6, 8, 29, 39, 45, 46, 47, 50, 54, 57, 62, 63, 65, 66, 75, 79, 80, 81, 86, 89, 90, 109, 116, 129, 131, 133, 137, 141, 143, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 162, 163, 182, 185, 186, 187, 198, 201, 210, 215 Lyra Monteiro, 48, 86

M Macbeth, 17, 32 Manhattan. See New York City Margaret Schuyler Peggy, xviii, 119, 188

Maria Cosway, 166 Maria Reynolds, 118, 135, 136, 158, 164, 167, 169, 170 Marquis de Lafayette, 5, 32, 37, 76, 79, 123, 137, 164, 170, 185, 189 Martha. See Martha Washington Martha Washington, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 119, 139, 193 Masculinity, 110, 124, 134, 148, 171 “Meet Me Inside” number, 12, 190 Mercy Otis Warren, 6, 7, 23 Mike Pence, 14, 71, 89, 146, 148 Miz Martha, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Moses, 32, 54, 60 “My Shot” number, 26, 32, 54, 59, 60, 116, 131, 138, 188, 189

N National Museum of American History, 115 National Organization for Women, 27 National Park Service, xii, 202 Nevis, x New York City, xi, xii, xvi, 10, 25, 26, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 57, 75, 116, 120, 121, 141, 176, 177, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202 New York’s Manumission Society, 77 New-York Evening Post, 197 New-York Manumission Society. See New York’s Manumissions Society “Non-Stop” number, 26, 32, 79, 90, 191, 192, 193 Notes on the State of Virginia, 157, 172 Notorious B.I.G. See Biggie Smalls

Index

229

O Ona Judge, 139, 147, 148

Ron Chernow, xiii, xv, 6, 26, 61, 63, 65, 72, 75, 77, 83, 84, 90, 132, 133, 152, 154, 188, 210

P

S

Patrick Bateman, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45 Patriot, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 73, 121, 130, 131, 157, 189 patriotism, vii, xviii, xx, 8, 14, 111, 130, 132, 204, 205, 216 Perry Miller, 33 Philadelphia, 7, 10, 18, 22, 23, 113, 119, 124, 132, 139, 149, 177, 185, 186, 192, 195, 208, 219 postmodern, 26, 27 Puerto Rican. See Puerto Rico Puerto Rico, 49, 65

Sally Hemings, xiv, 62, 67, 85, 88, 170, 172 “Satisfied” number, 120, 121, 123 “Say No to This” number, 32 Schuyler family, 143, 191, 192, 200 Schuyler Mansion, xv, xx, 39, 40, 46, 138, 149, 185, 187, 191, 192, 200, 202 Schuyler Sisters, xvii, 36, 37, 119, 120, 122, 123, 136, 188, 189 settler colonialism, 137, 147 1776, 5, 16, 17, 21, 23, 130, 189 slavery, xiii, xiv, xv, xviii, 16, 18, 19, 38, 39, 49, 53, 54, 60, 62, 64, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, 109, 110, 115, 116, 130, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 147, 156, 157, 170, 171, 172, 187, 188, 190, 191, 194, 196, 199, 209, 212 Sons of Liberty, 131, 136, 138, 189, 206, 207 sound bites, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 St. Croix, xii, 77, 156 “Stay Alive” number, 121, 190 Stephen Sondheim, 144

R race, xviii, 35, 48, 51, 52, 85, 110, 115, 116, 130, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 147, 157, 167, 187, 204, 215 Race-Conscious Casting, 4, 22, 29, 39, 42, 46, 48, 52, 54, 66, 110, 115, 125, 138, 141, 149, 152, 171, 175, 187 Regency Crisis, 166 Renée Elise Goldsberry, 120, 138, 146, 163 repertory archive, xviii, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 122, 123 Republican Mother, 135, 136 Revisiting the Founding Era, 122, 123, 125 “Right Hand Man” number, 32, 143, 189, 200 Rip Van Winkle, 15 Robert Hemings, 194, 195

T “Take a Break” number, 32, 135, 161, 162, 163 “Ten Duel Commandments” number, viii, 122, 146, 190 “That Would Be Enough” number, 121 The 1619 Project, viii, 130, 140

Index

230

The Adulateur, 7, 8, 9, 21, 24 The Constitution of the United States, ix, xiii, xviii, 73, 76, 79, 142, 148, 157, 166, 186, 192, 193, 196 The Patriot, 5, 130, 131 “The Reynolds Pamphlet” number, 135 “The Room Where It Happens” number, 80, 90, 195 “The Story of Tonight” number, 146, 185, 189 The Swamp Fox, 205, 208 Theodosia Burr, 158, 176 Theodosia Provost Burr, 176 Thomas Hutchinson, 7 Thomas Jefferson, xiii, xiv, 16, 17, 37, 39, 60, 62, 73, 74, 79, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 110, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 148, 156, 157, 164, 165, 166, 167, 172, 174, 176, 180, 181, 182, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201 Titus Kaphar, xiii, xiv, xx, xxi Twitter, xv, 118, 125, 143, 146, 149, 214, 215, 218

U Ulysses S. Grant, 72, 82, 83, 84

W Walt Disney Company, vii, xix, xx, 40, 58, 65, 88, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219 Washington. See George Washington West Indian. See Caribbean West Indies. See Caribbean Whiskey Rebellion, 81 “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story” number, 17, 39, 63, 118, 121, 198, 200 William Dunlap, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 Women Also Know History, 122, 126

Y “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)” number, 37 Yorktown Battlefield, 187, 190, 198 “You’ll Be Back” number, 8 “Your Obedient Servant” number, 198