Theater has a major influence on how people perceive the both the present and the past. Playwrights of history often have to choose between authenticity and dynamics when telling a historically-based narrative, and this is not an easy decision to make. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton has been one of the most popular versions of early American history since 2016, and as the musical has infiltrated the minds and hearts of the American public, it has changed the views of history drastically. However, because of Hamilton‘s popularity, it has also come under strong criticisms for the details it lacks, which is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of Hamilton actually is. Hamilton is a transformative work of historical fiction that uses a truth-based narrative to fuel its fundamental idea of shaping the past in order to create the future.
Many critics of Hamilton argue that the musical is historically misleading, and does not accurately reflect Revolutionary War-era America. Besides the obvious argument that the Founding Fathers were not people of color, the world of Hamilton is a decidedly liberal one. Miranda creates a “… usable version of political tradition…” (Yglesias) that erases the most controversial part of Hamilton’s politics to modern-day audiences: class discrimination. In “Cabinet Battle No. 1”, Hamilton and Jefferson argue back and forth in such a way that puts Hamilton on the side of the abolitionists and the “little guy”, and Thomas Jefferson on the side of slavery. While Hamilton was vocally against Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, he was still an elitist, and did not actually use an anti-slavery argument in his rebuttal of Jefferson’s position against assumption. Miranda’s Hamilton argues that the Southern states’ “… debts are paid cause you don’t pay for labor… we know who’s really doing the planting” (Miranda). Historically, however, an argument for accumulation on the opposing side of the exploitation of black people would not have resounded with Washington, himself a slave owner, from whom Hamilton was seeking support. Hamilton’s musical argument may not be historically accurate, but it resonates far better with a more modern, liberal audience, which are the people Miranda is attempting to resonate with.
Moreover, Hamilton is a musical, not a biography. While it does revolve around a historical figure, Hamilton the man is merely a narrative figure, used to move the story along. According to Miranda, Hamilton naturally has an interesting story to tell, and it helps to stick close to the facts in order to create a fully-fleshed character and story (Delman), which is why Hamilton stays so true to history. Miranda connected with Hamilton because of his background as the son of an immigrant, and that is the aspect of Hamilton he chose to focus on. As a character, Hamilton is dynamic and driven, and the narrative Miranda forms around him is as well. Hamilton is essentially fanfiction, in which the canon of the story (in this case, American history) is modified to represent a demographic that the canon does not (in this case, people of color). Fanfiction often features people of color and those of the LGBTQ+ community (Romano) because of their lack of representation in mainstream media. As fanfiction, Hamilton achieves its purpose; it takes a story in which people of color are misrepresented, and changes it in order to fit them in.
Many journalists looking to critique or defend Hamilton first question what the story is really about. R. B. Bernstein, a Jeffersonian historian, says that Hamilton is not really about race or slavery: “‘It’s about how hard it is to do politics… to work together to create a constitutional enterprise…’” (Schuessler). Other sources claim that the musical reflects “… the overarching significance of who tells your story to determining what stories get told” (Ygelsias). The American musical is written in such a fashion as to tell the audience exactly what the story is saying, and Hamilton is no different. In its finale, the musical wraps its story of legacy and reputation into one message: “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story”. This song reveals the true story of Hamilton, which is not one of history, but about who gets to tell it.
In order to explore this topic more, I looked for more information on the historical accuracy of Hamilton and, in comparison, other famous works that represent the American Revolution. One of these is John Trumbull’s painting, The Declaration of Independence. This painting may be one of the most famous depictions of a notable Revolutionary scene, and was even included in a song that was cut from Hamilton during previews called “No John Trumbull” (Sneff). This song, which was later recorded by The Roots and included on The Hamilton Mixtape, presents an alternate version of the painting, saying that “The reality is messier and richer, kids/The reality is not a pretty picture, kids/Every cabinet meeting is a full-on rumble/What you ‘bout to see is no John Trumbull” (Miranda). This song speaks to the major concern of many historical critics of Hamilton; that Miranda left out critical parts of Hamilton’s personality, particularly his focus on the well-being of the elite, and that classrooms using the musical as a learning tool would be misinformed. Miranda is very aware of the choices that he makes in order to create his dynamic musical, and he is prepared to defend them (Delman). Hamilton shows its self-awareness in this song, and recognizes that history was not the rose-colored world that some people think the musical is portraying because of its lack of actual black historical figures, and its idealizing of the Founding Fathers. Despite this particular song being cut, Miranda’s Hamilton is not claiming to be a carbon-copy of the real Alexander; he is merely portraying the story in the way Miranda wants to tell it, and the way he feels is the most applicable to modern audiences.
This may be the case, but it is also true that the message of Hamilton is not the idea that the Founding Fathers were actually hip, liberal, and black. The idea behind the musical is that legacy is created through one’s effect on others, and a strange twist on the common saying “history is written by the victor”. Hamilton’s life ends at the losing end of a duel with Aaron Burr, and yet Burr is “… the villain in [our] history” (Miranda), showing that it was Hamilton’s actions and devotion to his country that created his legacy. He was not the victor in the duel that cost him his life, but in the other aspects of his life, which were ultimately more important. As Miranda says, the seeds planted by Hamilton are what grew his legacy, and what allows the musical version of his story to be so engaging with audiences.
Ron Chernow, author of the biography of Alexander Hamilton that the musical is based on, believes that Miranda is “… [telling] the story as it is—and not how it ought to be” (Black). He believes that Hamilton leaves a deep impression because “… it is changing the way people see significant figures and events in U.S. history”. Chernow was a part of Hamilton from the beginning, and says that it is much more than just a historical musical: “This show is the best advertisement for racial diversity in Broadway history” (Schuessler). Hamilton was not written in order to glorify the Founding Fathers, but to argue that the white-washed versions of history that are so often portrayed in media are lazy examples of history, and prove that racial diversity can be financially successful in competitive business circles such as Broadway—if the Founders of our country can be loved as people of color, there is no reason that every other character cannot be. The musical effectively argues that white audiences, who are the main consumers of the Broadway scene, can and will be able to relate to shows that feature people of color, and that the reluctance to put on these shows stems from the underlying racism and prejudice that still has sway on Broadway today.
In fact, this prejudice could be why Hamilton is being scrutinized by historians when past representations of American history have not been given such strict consideration. John Trumbull’s painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence is one of the most well-known depictions of Revolutionary America, yet it has some major historical inaccuracies. For instance, the painting does not show the events of July 4th, 1776, as many believe, but rather June 28th, when the Committee of Five (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman) presented their draft of the Declaration to Congress (Sneff). Trumbull also took major creative license, only including “… forty-two of the original fifty-six signers, as well as several men who did not sign”. Most of these portraits were painted from the actual historical figures, but some were copied from pre-existing paintings. The portrait is featured on the back of the two-dollar bill, but this version has had even more of the truth cut from it, with seven figures missing and two unidentified men added into the crowd. Samuel Adams Wells wrote to Thomas Jefferson when the painting was first published, saying “The painting… representing the Congress at the Declaration of Independence will… have a tendency to obscure the history of the event which it is designed to commemorate” (Sneff). This is an extremely well-known depiction of American history, and has been for years, yet historical critics do not seem to have the same concerns about this painting misinforming its audience. Musicals are as much of an art form as paintings are, and though the unprecedented popularity of Hamilton has brought new concerns of historical accuracy to critics, it is no more guilty of historical inaccuracy than an image that is featured in almost every American history textbook.
In terms of musicals, this lack of historical criticism can also be seen with Hamilton’s notable predecessor, 1776. This typically all-white show has not undergone any major scrutiny in the five decades since its first premiere. Reviews in the New York Times all praise 1776 for its ingenuity and historical detail, while not making any real critiques on its accuracy until 2007 (Schuessler). Peter Stone, the book writer of 1776, uses the same compressions of time and characters in order to tell the story that Lin-Manuel Miranda does, yet his work does not come under the same criticisms that Miranda’s does for the same techniques. Of course the Founding Fathers did not have rap battles during cabinet meetings, but they also did not spend minutes at a time ending words with the -ly prefix in order to convince Richard Lee into helping them sway Congress, as seen in 1776.
Hamilton may not have the accuracy of a historical documentary, but that is not its function as a text. It is a transformative work that serves as a vessel to promote works by marginalized writers and performers, and give them a spot in a white-washed musical narrative. It takes a lesser-known version of a well-known story, and uses the power and genius of Alexander Hamilton to subvert the expectation that history has to be told from a white perspective in order to be recognized. Though Hamilton does not rigidly conform to historical fact, it should not have to in order to be respected as an artistic work, and lauded for what it does do; ensures that people of color and immigrants are recognized and given a chance to create their own legacies in the minds and hearts of the American people.
Works Cited
Black, Jamie. “Author Ron Chernow Discusses Hip-Hop Musical ‘Hamilton’”. Cornell Chronicle, March 22, 2016, news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/author-ron-chernow-discusses-hip-hop-musical-hamilton. November 2018.
Delman, Edward. “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History”. The Atlantic, September
29, 2015, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/09/lin-manuel-miranda-hamilton/408019/. November 2018.
Romano, Aja. “Hamilton is Fanfic, and Its Historical Critics are Totally Missing the Point.” Vox, July 4, 2016, www.vox.com/2016/4/14/11418672/hamilton-is-fanfic-not-historically-inaccurate. November 2018
Schuessler, Jennifer. “Hamilton and History: Are They in Sync?”. The New York Times, April 10, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/theater/hamilton-and-history-are-they-in-sync.html. November 2018.
Sneff, Emily. “Unsullied by Falsehood: No John Trumbull”. Declaration Resources Project, June 27, 2016, declaration.fas.harvard.edu/blog/trumbull. November 2018.
Ygelsias, Matthew. “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Taught Liberals to Love Alexander Hamilton”. Vox, April 20, 2016, www.vox.com/2015/11/27/9771784/hamilton-cabinet-battle-debt. November 2018.
← Back to portfolio