In the original version of the song having the Farewell address, Miranda mentioned that Madison wrote the first draft genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-one-last-ride-lyrics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jd4A7KWpVMM.html
You beat me in seeing the video, Mr Beat 😝 Great job, I agree with the general criticisms, and agree that it is still a great musical. Lin Manuel Miranda is amazingly talented. I also agree had he worked with different sources instead of the novel he mostly used, it might have saved it from some of the more inaccurate details, including the larger deep systemic issues you brought up. My newest favorite history RU-vid dude brings up many of these points in his Hamilton react videos of individual songs. His channel is Social Stud.
Indeed. I remember when I wrote a report on WWI for my writing class. I had sources covering the lead-up to the conflict, the conflict itself and the aftermath, as well as lessons learned (and reinforced 20 years after the fact) in the works cited page. Excluding that page, my paper was 10 pages long. Hamilton could've benefitted more if historians were present to clear up the misconceptions, but still I wouldn't call it all bad.
Dude! As a foreigner who moved to America and a student of history; ALL of American history is built on history! Ironically colonies that benefited from a war to oust their rivals from sections of the continent, while systematically co-opting and annihilating the indeginous people's of the land, then balk at being taxed to pay for all the gains they had been given! Idolizing a black man for shattering the myth of Aryan superiority in Nazi Germany, while that black man had more rights and freedoms in 30s Berlin, than in the 30s US! Idolizing Historical people is juvenile and are always susceptible to reality checks because (newsflash) people are complex and fallible! Our ideals should stand despite history! However, false equivalency is still a thing! Just because the entire US (and the preceding colonies before it) was built on an immoral system like slavery, doesn't mean that the North wasn't on the more moral side of the American Civil War! Just like the US was on the moral side of WW2 against the Nazis despite still having Jim Crow laws at that time!
Girls When They Travel Back In Time: HI, I'm your granddaughter Boys When They Travel Back in Time: Gladiator games, so awesome! Someone pass the popcorn Historians When They Travel Back in Time: Eliza, slowly step away from the flame and hand me the letters. You too, Martha.
Connie Willis has several novels about the time traveling Historians of Oxford. Early on, it was discovered that bringing objects from the past was impossible. Then, they realize that objects destroyed in the past could be rescued, if snatched in time.
I've always thought if I had a time machine I'd travel back to interview Sophocles, video record his shows, rescue his lost works, etc. Perhaps the greatest playwright in all of human history yet we know almost nothing about him and have perhaps 10% of his output. Such a huge loss.
It's also funny, since they cut out a major immigrant from this story: Prussian general Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. He actually moved to the US and became an American citizen after the war. Not to mention his actual impact on the American military.
I learned about General Von Stueben while in JROTC, and again while in basic training, never did care if he was fat or not, just cared about getting the D&C correct.
They also left out Pulaski, a polish officer who died in the war. He founded the american cavalry and saved the continental army on at least one occasion
This musical is in many ways less accurate then some of the most infamous historical films I've seen. But it does not cause the historian in me to go on a rant, because it makes up for its inaccuracies by presenting its good parts in a unique, cohesive and respectable manner like nothing that has ever come before.
Well, yeah, but 1) that was a special case of very convincing outright deception about the realities of the history, and 2) he didn't go into as much detail as with films. Also, didn't he include a disclaimer in that video not to expect that to be a regular occurrence? Personally, I'd love to see him cover the John Adams miniseries and the miniseries Gunpowder (about Guy Fawkes' plot). But I don't expect it will ever happen.
TLDR Lafayette’s immigration status is a complicated no, rather than a simple no. Hi cypher, I want to comment on the question of Lafayette’s immigration status and explain where some of that misconception comes from. I have two B.A.s one in History and the other in screenwriting from Chapman university. Lafayette’s citizenship status was the subject of my undergraduate thesis, where I used it as a lens to analyze American concepts of citizenship for white men prior to the Dread Scott Case. For my sources I relied on the letters of Washington, Lafayette, his wife Adrienne, the diplomatic papers of Ambassadors Jefferson, Mourris, and Monroe, and revered to the biographies by Gottschalk and Spaulding (who covered Lafayette’s prison stay). Let’s get to that question. Ok Was Lafayette an immigrant? No, almost certainly not, but he very much wanted to be in the 1790s. But the misconception comes from his largely ambiguous citizenship status. In 1784, the Maryland General Assembly conferred citizenship to Lafayette in recognition for his service I the American Revolution. If you interpret the definition of immigrant to be anyone who had dual citizenship but not living in that country then Lafayette has an immigration case. But there’s several disputes on what that Maryland declaration actually meant. Under the Articles of confederation states largely had the right to confer citizenship to whomever, but that citizenship did not necessarily confer to being a citizen of the United States after the 1789 constitution. There were not many legal cases born out of that period. Lafayette was captured by the Austrian military in 1792 after he fled his post in the French military (he feared the French would arrest him and try him for many things including the champ de mars massacre.) Lafayette appealed to the American government to seek his freedom. After France stripped him of his citizenship, Lafayette relied on Maryland’s declaration that he was one of their citizens, and therefore he could not be held as a POW from a country that was not at war with Austria. Austria was not convinced, and the most the American government intervened was to facilitate the transfer of his wife and daughter from a French prison to Lafayette’s Austrian prison Olmutz. Lafayette made his claim at a time when many French veterans of the revolution made dubious American citizenship claims. James Monroe, the American Ambasador at the time, got in trouble for allegedly disseminating American passports to French citizens to escape. Lafayette has a serious claim to citizenship for a French man, but America never claimed him. In 1797 Lafayette was released due to Napoleons victory over Austria. Lafayette immediately sought to immigrate to America, but his wife was too ill for a journey. When she recovered Lafayette spent a year petitioning Washington (though it was The Adams admin) for passage. But by that time the French relationship with America was so poor that Washington advised him that the journey would spark a diplomatic incident. Then Washington died. So there we have it. Lafayette tried very hard to emigrate, but it never stuck. For what it’s worth the American media very rarely (I found one instance in the library of Congress) revered to him as an American. The newspapers more often referred to him as a “Friend of America.” In 1824 Maryland conferred honorary citizenship to Lafayette, which would have been 1 unconstitutional at that point(but this is still prior to Dred Scott.) and 2 moot if he was already considered a citizen. If he was a citizen he definitely lost it after Dred Scott, but America finally made him an honorary citizen during the Bush Admin. So to your point cypher, you are correct, nobody other than the State of Maryland considered him to be an immigrant and even their case for it is shaky and was never acted upon.
If memory serves, Washington made a suggestion that Lafayette be extradited to America rather than France, only to have this be reconsidered because it would cause a diplomatic incident, as you say above.
I read about Lafayette’s imprisonment in Chernow’s Washington book too. Although he didn’t mention Napoleon, he instead only mentions the diplomatic conflicts between France and the US during the Washington Administration following the Jay Treaty. The book also followed how he went from prison to prison from Prussia to Austria for 5 years until he was freed. Ultimately, he ended up flat broke, wandering In countries like Hamburg, Holstein and Holland with his family. But my book is considered “Founder’s Chic” tho so I don’t know maybe it’s not true. Maybe I wasted money for nothing. I should take another hobby since historians bicker too. >.>
Ben Vivas I don’t think any biography is a waste necessarily so long as it’s a springboard to more academic or at least public biographies, as opposed to Chernow pop. For example, I started my journey with Lafayette with the Harlow Giles Unger biography, which is a lot more pop and finds it’s trappings in founders chic. It got me interested in his life enough to make him the subject of my thesis. If I hadn’t read that pop book, I likely wouldn’t have pursued further research. When it came time to research him seriously I looked at Lloyd Kramer’s historiography (a historian who focuses on post French Revolution Lafayette with Emphasis on the polish wars for rebellion), and I got a lay of the land for what gaps on Lafayette were still to fill. I found that there was only a single book that delved significantly into his prison stay (Spaulding’s happened to be at my school library luckily). And Then I noticed that Spaulding was comprehensive on the stay but did not cover much of the responses of American diplomats or address Lafayette’s citizenship claims in full detail, and I knew where I could contribute something to the understanding there. On The subject of Napoleon, he was the general in charge of the Directory’s military, and it was his defeat of Austria that lead to the treaty of Campoformido, which had a provision for his release.
Hamilton reminded me of Disney's Hercules: both are popular projects via Disney, both have a lot of inaccuracies when it came to history (or mythology when it comes to Hercules), BUT the curiosity about fact vs. fiction is what inspired people to do their own homework to learn the truth. Honestly, I remember finding out as a kid that the story of Hercules was HIGHLY inaccurate in the Disney version. That sparked my interest in Greek mythology because I decided to read up on it. The same can be said about Hamilton because how many people were REALLY interested in studying U.S. history until it came out in hip hop/rap form? *Yes, I know Hamilton was a VERY successful Broadway project, but A LOT of people online have said they wished they got into it during its original run prior to it coming to Disney+
@@donalny oh you mean like the "real" Frozen, Tangled or basically ANY Grimm Fairy Tale? There are several channels on RU-vid that breakdown the REAL stories and they are dark as hell!
In ten more years we will finally have a trap musical about Woodrow Wilson, portrayed as he was always meant to be, a proud african-american fighting for democracy and social justice.
@@oaa-ff8zj I doubt people will try to redeem Wilson's legacy. A better example IMO would be TR (big disclaimer: I am only loosely familiar with TR historiography) who is portrayed in a lot of media as a macho man of the people, which while not inaccurate completely ignores his imperialist sensibilities which would be pretty appalling by today's standards. He has more in common with a safari cap-wearing "great white hunter" than a Wild West cowboy even though he had phases of both. Also, he was not nearly as pro-common person as he's portrayed. Yeah, Taft went too far to the right for him, but he split the Republican vote, not the Democratic one. And that's how we got Wilson as president.
@@TheAlexSchmidt "By today's standards," so? Everyone does good and bad (some downright evil) and TR did a lot of good on top of this Imperialist tendancies, he broke up monopolies and created the National Parks, and I'm pretty sure he taught his daughter how to be a badass (I may be remembering that part wrong though).
I personally love the musical and it got me more interested in early American history which I only knew the basics of before. The main thing is never get all information from one source and examine if the sources are meant to teach, persuade, or entertain. I think it's a good starting point, but don't take it as gospel.
The same happened to me,and i am not even from America,...our Basis was: Columbus discovered it, they killed sone natives, pushed tea in water and by that gained independence, had slaves, had no more slaves, had segregation. Saved the world twice(ww1 and ww2) and are the super power of cold war...oh and the marshal plan saved us. End of us history for us germans
Exactly, not 100% accurate by any means, but it gets at the core of what makes history so much more rich and interesting than you generally get from your watered down history classes in school.
I keep forgetting how young most of the Founders were. It really makes sense they acted like a bunch of high school Mean Girls with lots of booze and no adult supervision. One of my favorite stories of political history is when Adams and Jefferson hired newspaper editors to trash each other and Jefferson's guy called Adams a hermaphrodite.
He didn't actually call Adams a hermaphrodite; what the pro-Jefferson writer Callender (who as far as we know wasn't told by Jefferson to do so) actually said was that Adams had "hermaphroditical character;" i.e. he had an erratic temperament that wasn't manly or womanly. It would probably be equivalent to him being called bipolar or wishy-washy today.
I’ve gotten into arguments with family over this point. He “immigrated” from one British colony to another. That’s like moving from Nebraska to Illinois and calling it immigration- HE NEVER LEFT THE FUCKING EMPIRE! And more importantly, his dad (legally) never gave up his Scottish citizenship, The only thing that changed was his address.
@@TheSlasherJunkie Well Miranda's family moved from PR to New York so I guess they NEVER LEFT THE FUCKING EMPIRE so is Miranda just a big damn liar for presenting himself as a voice for immigrants? And can you really be coloniser if you are moving to a community that had been established over 100 years before?
Got a like from brother. I'm black man who's a big fan of the musical and I thought you did a great job in explaining both sides. For myself and many others the play was a inspiration and caused me to look into the real-life history behind the events . Regarding the show, I think LMM does a good job at showing that the Founders weren't ideal with the lead being a dogmatic status-checker, others being bigoted hypocrites, or in Washington's case complacent to all the misdeeds going on around them. Truthfully will always be a mixed bag and two-hours is not enough to detail a man's ( let alone a nation's) history. That said something like Hamilton can hit people in a way that history lessons at school can't and cam inspire people to seek out their own answers
Fun fact: america is the only form of this kind of constitutional federal democratic republic left. They all invariably collapse into despotism in short order. The strong Presidency is absolutely dangerous and needs to be abolished. I.e., I am surprised America still exists.
@@EmeraldLavigne there were a lot of things for the founding fathers to consider and put in place during the drafting of the constitution, though notable areas were left to interpretation and it's led to very troubling events in American history. The Constitution is far from a diamond perfect document, but it is an important one. Honestly, as chaotic as some moments have been, it could've been markedly worse. The real surprise is that most events in American history have large gaps in between them. Imagine the whiplash if it was wall-to-wall commonplace. That's one wealthy group of chiropractors, I tell you what!
@@EmeraldLavigne Could you please inform me which kind of constitutional federal democratic republic is Germany, and why apparently it is in some kind of different category to the United States? And why abolishing the presidency in its current form is more desirable than the media going back to actually informing the public rather than just entertaining them? Do you not see that a media which did its job would have meant that the countless years King Donald the First wished to reign would have never been a possibly, because he would never have been elected in the first place? Do you not see that the separation of powers in the US system of government is pretty solid, if only it is allowed to operate as it is supposed to?
@@neilpemberton5523 I think he is against the presidential system. But you're right, Germany is a constitutional federal democracy and other countries could also be mentioned. I'm assuming that he supports the parliamentary system and got confused with the terms.
@@petitnicollas I would suggest the most obvious reform would be splitting the presidency into two offices to divide its current powers if that is indeed what is required. In Germany and France the Chancellor / Prime Minister is head of government and the President is head of state. I'm not sure that going back to the old Jeffersonian states rights system is an answer. Allowing secession as a lot of people are talking about just leads to the 1860 problem again, i e after a particular election loss the losers are so sore they want to quit. I think the real answer is to grow up as citizens and address the issues without putting on blue liberal hats and red conservatives hats. Surely the best presidents wear invisible purple hats.
Hamilton WAS thought of as an immigrant by some, being half-Scottish and half-French and from the islands. Thomas Jefferson once referred to him as "that foreign bastard."
Going through all the inaccuracies in the musical Hamilton is exactly what I have wanted to see. Thank you so much for this. And even when you know so much of it is inaccurate, I still think it's just incredible and an excellently crafted piece of art.
It was originally planned for Adams to make a cameo and they also had a song about his administration. To cut time, they removed that part, but they kept all of the "in jokes" in the musical ("Everybody knows John Adams doesn't have a real job anyway.")
There just wasn't really any time for him. If they were going to put him in, he'd have to really be in it A LOT, and the play is already pushing 3 hours with many characters to keep track of.
Excellent play; subpar scholarship. In the same way I have no problem watching any of Shakespeare's many "Henry" plays, I have no problem watching Hamilton. But, then again, I am keenly aware that there are serious historical issues all around.
Interesting comparison. Another one that's come to mind is Tarantino's WW2 film Inglorious Basterds. Good art, great entertainment, obviously not 'accurate' (nor meant to be).
@@TimpanistMoth_AyKayEll I was thinking about many of his historical plays recently, because they're all classics while also being purposefully revisionist to suit the monarchy of the time. They're unquestionably excellent, but what does that admission mean in the wider context of historical fiction?
I think in the play when Washington said that he lead his men into a massacre, he's referring to the battle of Fort Necessity where he was forced to surrender to a force of French and native troops. That's what I gathered from that line.
@@antifagoat6591 A. Ham was the least known of the FF so this was the first time many heard anything about him. However most know that the Founders weren't POC rapping to a tribe called Quest
I still can't believe people would actually think that. Like, wow, you're telling me the cabinet meetings WEREN'T like rap battles? Pfff, next you're gonna say they didn't even dance before the duels... Maybe I'm just a musical noob, but the nature of the medium alone made me not believe a single thing before checking it later.
I think your video is kind of perfect because it is a bridge. So, Hamilton was great in the sense it really did get many young persons very interested in history. However, you're right, when presented with ugly truths or complex timelines otherwise explained, it really can be a stop gate and discouraging. History is a lot to take in and process, so having videos like this with the important details mirroring what you're critiquing makes it really easy to understand and appreciate. As someone who has learning challenges and loves world history I think more commentary like this is needed.
As a 1st gen Puerto Rican born on the mainland, this musical helped me connect with American history is a way I hadn’t before. I always saw it was “their” history, not mine. Thank you fir not trashing it while still outlining the historical inaccuracies. I knew while watching that it was probably NOT accurate but was too engrossed in my own representation as an American to care. Thank you 🙏
Was Benjamin Franklin more of an abolitionist than Hamilton? I know he owned two house slaves and later became the president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery, did he do that because he genuinely believed slavery was wrong or just to vindicate him from his past as a slave owner?
Franklin freed his slaves later in life as well. He was an abolitionist by the end - he just couldn’t get anything done because of Washington and Jefferson’s charisma; and because of his age
In the interest of accuracy, young Hamilton actually went to work for Beekman and Cruger, New York merchants. Not his mother's ex husband. He moved in with the Thomas Stevens family. And befriended Edward Stevens, a year older. Who also moved to New York in adulthood. They were noted to have a strong physical resemblance. In New York, Hamilton started a militia group with some of his "scholarship" money. They stole British cannon and became an artillery group. The King sang "when you're gone I'll go mad." It was foreshadowing. Not a reference to his current condition. I liked Chernow's book but have read others on Hamilton.
The biggest flaw of the musical is obviously that, while they could put Lafayette in New York in 1776, they didn't put Kościuszko anywhere, even in mentioning. I'm kidding of course, but only a little. ; )
Miranda himself is not a neoliberal even if he incorporated many neoliberal ideas into his work. He campaigned with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez for example in 2020. I do have to say you bring up good points and it’s honestly kind of sad to me that I can’t argue with them. I really enjoyed the play and loved the fact that it was finally a piece of popular media that depicted this period without portraying these men as gods. Although I now realize it fell victim to many of those same traps. I think I agree with your final conclusion: Miranda meant no ill will with this play and could’ve made it better if he used more sources. Makes me feel bad that I allowed some of its misconceptions to influence me though as a staunch progressive.
As a non-American fan of the show who had barely heard of Alexander Hamilton before the musical (he came up in economic editorials sometimes, so I was aware he had something to do with creating the banking system, and maybe that he was on some bill or other, I'd probably read about the duel at some point but forgot about it), I had absorbed nearly all of your lightning round inaccuracies through engagement with the fandom, including by reading lengthy works of fan fiction (yes, really). My experience has been that Hamilton fans LOVE to discuss all this stuff... but maybe that just reflects my own media and internet habits. And of course this video would have been very unlikely to come up in my RU-vid recommendations unless I'd become interested in Hamilton specifically and the FFs in general because of the musical. I will continue to enjoy the musical 'Hamilton' much as I enjoy Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. And interesting critiques of those works of art!
It's true, you do learn a lot of stuff through fanfiction, as stupid as is sounds. For Hamilton I almost exclusively read modern AUs (don't care for historical figures and powdered wigs), and I still picked up a lot of details. Sometimes I even learn about some historical event, like Washington apparently once going on a fishing trip with Hamilton and Jefferson, and I'm like "Oh dang I thought the fanfic made that up, no idea that really happened... the orgy probably didn't, but still, interesting..."
Miranda is a New Yorker. His parents were born in Puerto Rico, but LMM is a second generation immigrant. This makes him less of an immigrant than Alexander Hamilton, Chris Hemsworth, Michael J. Fox, Audrey Hepburn, or Natalie Portman.
Hamilton was considered a Creole. Someone of dubious heritage, even though he was quite white. Puerto Rico? Belongs to the USA, of course. Life is all right in America. If you're all white in America.
Puerto Ricans themselves are full-fledged citizens of the US. So, when Miranda's parents moved to Manhattan, it was essentially like moving from New Jersey for them. Mainly because the flight from San Juan is probably quicker than trying to cross the George Washington Bridge in the 1970s. Puerto Rico the commonwealth *coughcolonycough*, has a lot of problems due to its status.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: As a Non-American (filthy socialist Nordic European sort), while the musical itself is very entertaining, there is a clear streak of American exceptionalism in the show. Listening to the Schuyler (spelling?) Sisters song about equality, when so many other countries gave women full suffarage before the US? Yeah... that song doesn't hold much water. And characters like Hamilton talking about how they came from the bottom of society when really they had more privilege than most in their time. I still enjoy the musical (I've gotten so many laughs out of my friends singing "You'll be Back" and "Wait for It" is a great emotional song), but I won't hold any illusions of it being historically accurate. It's about as accurate as The Pirate Queen and less accurate than Elizabeth.
I just watched your pop history recently which is a great companion to this. Hamilton is entertaining and does do a lot to talk about the politics (pretty squabbles) of the founding fathers. As said in the video and Mr Beat's comment it suffers from using one source as it's basis. Of course Lin Manuel Miranda is not a historian so we can forgive for that because he does push some important messages about history through a popular piece of entertainment. I really enjoy the perceptive on it placing in the neoliberalism beliefs that dominate politics today. I think 2020 is really challenging neoliberalism from a variety of angles so I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 or so years people (on the "left") will widely hold this view. Another excellent and thoughtful video!
Heh. I say that "Burn" is the song that makes historians cry for the exact reason of all those primary sources lost. But yes, I absolutely love how they incorporated historiography into the play here and there. My favorite songs include it in spades. So many people out there hold the belief that history doesn't change or that history is written by the 'victors.' While the latter is true if you widen the scope of what you consider a 'victor,' the former has never once been true in all of human history. We will always be finding and losing primary sources, then reinterpreting that information through the current lens of the present.
After the war, the US was deeply in debt and the economy was in ruins. Hamilton favored Britain because the trade was key to his financial plans. I actually love Chernows new book on Grant. The revisionists ruined his reputation which was not fair. When Grant was elected president and he created the Justice Department to crush the first KKK because the sheriffs and juries wouldn’t convict in the south. He also made sure the 14th and 15th amendments were passed to give black people the right to vote and made them citizens. He also pushed for Reconstruction where black people were elected and able to be educated with the push for public schooling. He kept the country together after winning the war (he was also unfairly categorized as a butcher when he had the lowest casualty rates while Lee was held up as a god afterward by southerners when he had the highest rates). Afterward they made deals for votes to undo everything he did and then the southern “lost causers” pushed untrue facts (like they were fighting for “states rights when Lee’s lieutenant most trusted Longstreet said the whole war all he heard was they were fighting for slavery but that didn’t “sound good”) to ruin his historical reputation.
I love the video and watched it twice. I had some slight issues with it and fleshed out some others with my different view... Reality: Hamilton didn't go to work for his mother's ex-husband. He worked for New York/St Croix merchant Nicholas Cruger. Hamilton's half-brother got their mother's belongings since he was the only legitimate son. Scholarship: I think people should read from a wide range of books. Founders chic, or dad history as it's often classed now, isn't all bad. Chernow is terrible because he forms crushes on his book subjects and kisses their butts often with wrongly assumed narratives, the blaming of bad actions on other "characters" and "facts" that might appear to be true but if researched even a little bit, aren't true or aren't exactly true. He can tell an engaging story but it's more biographical fiction than its history. Inaccuracy: 1). Hamilton tried to get into Princeton but wasn't accepted on an independent study. He got into some words with admissions but no fighting. That section was added so that they could have Hamilton say punch the bursar (punch the burr sir wordplay). Afterward is when Ham went to Kings College. Big problems: Immigration: Hamilton wasn't an immigrant in the way we look at it today but the different parts of the British empire were considered different. Hamilton had lived most of his childhood on two Dutch islands and New York many moons back was a Dutch Colony, so it was the perfect place to move. Hamilton was multilingual and looked decidedly Scottish. Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton all had red hair and complexion. But the fact that Hamilton wasn't from the US did come up. Jefferson 1792: "I will not suffer my retirement to be clouded by the slanders of a man whose history, from the moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty of the country which has not only recieved and given him bread, but heaped it’s honors on his head." founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-24-02-0330 Hamilton 1995: "To see the character of the Government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot puts my heart to the Torture. Am I then more of an American than those who drew their first breath on American Ground?" founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0170 John Adams in 1798: "Hamilton is not a native of the United States but a Foreigner, and I believe has not resided longer at least not much longer in North America, than Albert Gallatin" founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3021 Hamilton on immigrants just to contextualize your quote a bit. Hamilton June 1798. Right before the Alien acts passed at the start of the Quasi-War: "If an alien Bill passes...The provisions in our Treaties in favour of Merchants ought to be observed & there ought to be guarded exceptions of characters whose situations would expose them too much if sent away & whose demeanour among us has been unexceptionable... founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-21-02-0276 Hamilton 1802 when Jefferson was deciding his immigration policy post Quasi-War: "Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of at least a probability of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of at least five years ought to be required." -The Examination Number VIII founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0282
Wood's Empire of Liberty is where i first fell in love with Hamilton. My favorite snippet is how Hamilton wasn't originally writing the financial plan for debts -- that was a congressional task force --- but the task force knew hamilton was going to review and make his own so the two went to him that summer and were like "homie do you just wanna do this?"
22 - I believe the landslide they are referring to is the 36th ballot in Congress, where after being deadlocked for the first 35 ballots, Jefferson accumulated 10 votes to Burr’s 4.
@ 3:32 For those wondering what the quarrel was between Washington and Hamilton: apparently, Washington wanted to speak to Hamilton. Hamilton, who was apparently a bit overworked, said he'd tend to him. However, he ended up running into Lafayette on his way and spent too much time chatting with him. He found Washington fuming, and was told he was 10 minutes late, and that this is disrespectful behavior for an aide. Hamilton replied that he hadn't realized that, and that Washington's remark induced him to quit. Washington told him if that was what he wanted, he wouldn't stop him. Hamilton stormed off. Lafayette talked to Washington about this (feeling a bit guilty he contributed to this--clearly a decent fellow, but not his fault), and Washington agreed to try and smooth things over. Hamilton, however, wouldn't take it. That's the quarrel. Yes, it's stupid. He could have simply apologized for what was clearly a mistake: he fucked up, and Washington was just doing his job. Having said that, Washington probably shouldn't have replied to Hamilton's offer that way.
I don't think that being a great theatrical piece excuses falsifying history. There's long record of such in the US, particularly in film, and I don't think anyone should be excusing them either.
Hamilton is just modern Julius Caesar, tells the story of a historical figure as a young and ambitious man, whose cunning military prowess has him rise above the ranks quickly, the protagonist continues to have sky high ambitions, he has an affair, and then said protagonists’ prideful actions lead to his downfall at the hands of his closest friend
For the next Based on a True Story, could you do the John Adams HBO series? I find it incredible how historically accurate it is, even if it does get some of the minor stuff wrong.
For those looking for great entertainment and some interesting history along the way, Hamilton is totally the way to go, but the one that take the cake for historical accuracy is 1776. I love Hamilton, but historical accuracy just isn't its forte.
Before going into Hamilton, I knew before hand it wasn't going to be accurate. Our school textbooks aren't accurate, and Hamilton is a form of entertainment, so obviously, it's not going to be even halfway as accurate. That being said, when I finished Hamilton, the show itself gave me the impression that Alexander Hamilton was a greedy POS, nothing more, nothing less.
@@shelbystevens5621 LMM himself said that he didn't write Hamilton to glorify Alex nor the founding fathers. The show is supposed to make them human - they had a lot of flaws and made mistakes. As historical figures that lived centuries ago, we often can't relate to these people, but the characters in Hamilton felt a little relatable. In that sense, Lin did his job.
I'm not sure I'd define Hamilton as greedy, but he sure as hell was both arrogant and conniving...er, "excessively fond of intrigue". He had an ideology beyond his own self-interest, for sure, but it was sectarian, unempathic, and definitely doesn't age all that well historically. I think what it is possible to do, though, is to give him credit for being a tireless advocate for centralization and a more unitary state; without Hamilton, it's entirely possible the U.S. would have wound up much more of a confederation than happened in practice.
What about Fort Necessity Cypher?! WHAT ABOUT FORT NECESSITY???!!! And Lin and cast addressed a lot of the inaccuracies too for the sake of narrative like you said haha. 😆
After walking from Wisconsin to NYC in spring of 2018, I had the honor of viewing Hamilton at the Rogers Theater. I thoroughly enjoyed the musical, but at the same time I had a good understanding of history. Personally, I don't think it's historical inaccuracies detract from the enjoy-ability of the musical, but I also don't think the musical should be taken as a historical work.
Hamilton historiography is interesting. He was attacked by old progressives who preferred Jefferson and disliked his nationalism, and now there’s an up and coming far-right libertarian series of attacks on his centralizing nature
The DiLaurenzo hack who hates Lincoln also hates Hamilton. For the wrong reasons. Pining for Jefferson, man of the people, looking down on the yeoman farmers from his bankrupt slavedriving estate.
@@kmaher1424 I actually have quite the soft spot for southern traditionalism, despite an overall Hamiltonian view of things, but dilorenzo’s interpretation is pretty flawed. His books exist to attack the other rather than defend a position. Jeffery Hummel’s civil war histories are far superior from a libertarian point of view.
I can understand Miranda tho, he was moved by the book about Hamilton so much he wanted to write an album about it. And he did included on his music the subjective nature of history.
I simply love Hamilton, but as any reasonable person I did not expect for it to be historically accurate. In fact when I did some research it surprised me that it had that much actual history in it.
I am really enjoying the biographies you lament, and perhaps it may be helpful for folks to hear your further critiques of McCollugh's John Adams or Washington by Chernow.
As somebody who isn't American (and knows very little about the founding of the US), I went into the musical just assuming that every single good thing they said about those people was probably wrong somehow. Just knowing how Americans usually talk about their country and its founding. The inaccuracies (which I later read up on) didn't actually bother me much, the patriotic vibe was much worse. I do love the music greatly, and I've watched it countless times. Still, on some lines I can't help but cringe at this level of _Americanism_
I have to disagree with your statement that Hamilton "stayed aloof" during the election of 1800. In fact, he wrote a pamphlet that was highly critical of Adams, "Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States", which most likely hurt Adams' election chances, and made the Federalists appear to be divided.
As a huge Hamilton fan, I loved your video! It picked out things, that I often thought and you gave them the "historian blessing" haha. I have one and a half questions: I heard of a lot of theories, that Hamilton and Laurens had a gay relationship. As well as the theory of Hamilton and Angelica having feelings for each other. Yet you say, that this is often a misconception due to the heavy correspondence and that being normal at the time. But how do we (or better you, as in "the historians") know, that there was no connection between the heavy correspondence and feelings? And: What do you think of the "Sappho and her friends" meme? :D Thanks for the good work, keep it up! :D
It's the type of correspondence, not the amount of it. The romantic style was commonplace and did not demonstrate physical relationships, otherwise just about everyone writing at the time would be banging everyone else - an obviously incorrect conclusion
2:07 were the "Islanders' sins" slavery itself (that was my first thought, but then who has the wealth and the pull to get him educated in the Caribbean but Caribbean slaveowners)? or absentee landlords / bigotry of European-born white people against American-born white people / bigotry of white slaveowners against mixed-race slave owners? or was it something specific like a mismanaged harvest or being too nice to slaves or something else random? (can't think of what those sins would have to be.)
In trying to drive an agenda about immigration, the musical informs us more about the present than the past. Slavery in the Caribbean was as bad as it was in North America. Hamilton was a wannabe elite, and he succeeded in his ambition by owning and managing slaves. As a match the play was a good match, struck against the Culture Wars, and igniting a fire under interest in the founding fathers but, it cannot be the only source of facts. Primary sources take precedence whereas when we can find them and interpret them correctly.
You expressed every problem(and more) I had with this from me watching ten minutes of this on Disney plus and I didn't make the Obama connection til I read his book last week.(That's probably why it got greenlit) Hamilton is one of most romanticized founders...Thank you sir...Great video...
One book I read remarked on the reputations of Jefferson and Hamilton and how they have varied over time. Jefferson was romanticized much longer and is not looking well now. Both men made contributions but neither is perfect.
Even though I've had a year to think about this and have seen your neoliberalism episode (which I consider to be the weakest video of your political polarization series, although not a bad one by any means), I still don't quite understand how neoliberalism inherently atomizes individuality and makes us incapable of seeing the larger systems at play in the world. I don't quite get how an economic ideology that favors deregulation, privatization, and free trade breeds that mentality. Could you please explain it better, Cypher? I am interested in your thesis there and I do think that Americans in particular have the issue of being so hyperfocused on the individual that they lose sight of the "common good," but, again, I don't quite see how neoliberalism inherently creates that. PS: I like your videos, particularly your historiography ones, and I hope you keep up the good work.
Hamilton isn't and shouldn't be approached as an accurate history text. It's a foundational myth, the American Aeneid or Illiad, and in that regard it works pretty damn well
It was an inoffensive form of progressive as long as you never look past skin deep. While Trump's no saint, I still love how he got a lot of flak for the detention centers started two years before he took office. Could he have gone in there and cleaned the place up a bit? Hell yes, among other things.
10:48 - "... and a two-party system" - this is true only if he was instrumental in establishing single-member legislative districts elected by first-past-the-post - because _that_ is what generates a duopoly, mathematically, regardless anyone's intentions. Similarly, multi-seat legislative districts (or at-large) elected by proportional representation generate a number of parties related to the percentage of the vote required to win a seat. The fact that so few people understand _why_ we have a "two-party system" is why _nobody_ realizes that, mathematically, _we do not currently have one_ - what we have instead is a mosaic of one-party districts in which _there is no _*_second_*_ party_ and all that's missing is an organization with the ability to fill that gap. Say, the kind of organization capable of making Bernie Sanders and "the Squad" happen. But to do all that under their own banner and on their own platform.
Dont know why this hasn't crossed my mind before but wow A what if on the timeline where the US and France worked together during the revolution. Like would just be to put down the Revolution or would it be to help them against the declarations of war from the rest of Europe during it? They already handled themselves relatively well during the Napoleonics (yeah, whole lot of asterisks there I know)
I don't know if you've read into preceding's of the AHA because you brought up the cultural shift in historiography in the 1980s, but there was a former president of the AHA who gave a speech complaining about the "overly-emotional nature" of historians who got their degrees following passing the GI bill.
The musical lost me early on when they said the War for Independence was about freeing the slaves (or something vaguely along those lines). BTW, Adams has a cameo late in the play, but that is pretty much next to nothing. Yes, I bought Historians on Hamilton, but too many people want to take the play as fact. I would like people to examine this topic, but most people won't IMO.
I LOVE Hamilton. It is the ONLY reason I developed an interest in history and the only reason I’m here binge watching your videos lol I get that it feels a little icky to address slavers as anything other than despicable but I can see why these things weren’t included entirely. The story isn’t meant to be about slavery and racism, that’s an important story but not the story of Hamilton. Lin is deeply woven into the fabric of every word in this play. You can hear his own personal voice in so many places. The style of hip hop, the inclusion of pro-immigration language, and the decision to hire an entire cast of only racial minorities were an elegant and gentle way to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Lin was inspired by the battle of wits and the barbarism of the time. None of the founding fathers in his depiction were without flaws. If he had focused too much on accuracy, the story would have been clunky and boring at times. I think he told this story with people like us in mind. People who know that we have a horrible, messy history and just want to watch a story that makes us feel pride for our country in the present moment that we’re watching it. We know the founding fathers sucked but these incredible people of color in front of us telling us their crazy story makes me emotional to even think about. I learned a lot of valuable history lessons despite the creative liberties taken. The musical is truly an amazing work of art. I really hope that people don’t try to vilify it.
"Manumissionist" as far as I'm aware meant buying slaves so you could set them free. So, one would expect a bill of sale for this type of abolitionist, of course one would. If we only have a bill of sale, then we have no proof either way.
@@gentlerat Jefferson ended the US participation in the Atlantic Slave trade yes (but this seems to have been a commercial thing rather than a liberal-freedom thing)
It's funny, since if you want the actual man of the people, you don't want Alexander Hamilton, you want Aaron Burr. That's part of the reason they fought so often. Hamilton was elitist and anti-immigrant, while Burr was a lot more open to the common people, being an early feminist and anti-slavery/pro African integration, pro-immigration, and more. I'd say Aaron Burr is a lot more interesting as a historical figure and I would love something to fully focus on Burr.
And? Alexander Hamilton also owned slaves and married into a very prominent slave owning family, helping them buy and sell slaves all the time, while Burr inherited his slaves from his parents, trying to educate them for better lives, and his daughter fell in love with someone, and married him. Aaron didn't make his daughter marry him.
@@munromister777 Aaron Burr’s initial slaves may have been inherited from his parents but his will, written on the eve of his duel in 1804, clearly shows that he was buying slaves as late as 1804. And Aaron Burr arranged his daughter’s marriage, the daughter of one of his friends said that he thought Burr married his daughter to the plantation owner because he was deeply in debt and her husband was extremely rich. Women in the eighteenth century did not exactly have much of a choice in who they married. He may have been a benign slave owner but he was still a slave owner. Hamilton was no better and saying that Burr was not particularly anti slavery is not a defence of Hamilton.
So maybe I read to much into this but if the problem with the immigrant angle that Hamilton was from a different British territory so it does not count as immigrant then Miranda being from PR decent also would not count as immigrant because PR is part of the USA but from the way you presented his background was implying he is of immigrant decent. Although I guess if you argue culturally it’s different then that’s something but then you could agregue there are different cultures by regions of the USA and just make a rabbit hole that has no answers.
