Is Hamilton Racist?

solomon_hamilton_otu

 
Of course Hamilton the founding father was racist; the question is whether the musical is. Historian Lyra Monteiro makes the case for thinking so. She argues that casting back actors in the role of the white founding fathers is a way to erase said founding fathers racism, as well as the narratives of actual black people who lived at the time.

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other…mainly because I still haven’t seen the musical. I did read the Ron Chernow Hamilton biography on which the musical is based, though. So when a friend posted the link on Facebook and asked for comment I weighed in. I thought I’d reprint my thoughts here (with a little editing and tweaking), in case readers were interested.
_________

It sounds like Monteiro makes good points; the biography pushes pretty hard on the idea that Hamilton was anti-slavery. he seems to have been in abolitionist societies, and didn’t own slaves himself. It wasn’t at the center of his politics though, probably.

I don’t know if the musical talks about this, and Monteiro doesn’t, but Hamilton was racialized himself, at least sometimes. We don’t really know who his father was, and given his childhood in the Caribbean, there’s a non-negligible chance that he was part black. His enemies certainly made much of the fact that he might be part black; he was referred to as a Creole on more than one occasion, and attacked as a foreigner, which I think then (as now) had some racial overtones.

So you could see Hamilton’s story as being about the possibility of black assimilation, which is in part what it sounds like the musical’s about too—black people claiming the Founding Father’s story as their own. The problem is that of course black people haven’t been allowed to assimilate, really, and that Hamilton’s assimilation is contingent on him not having been black (he certainly didn’t live as a black man in America.) And similarly the assimilation of the cast to the Hamilton story means losing blackness as a historical phenomenon, at least to some great degree.

So…the politics of it sort of depend on the politics of assimilation, which seem like they’re fairly complicated. On the one hand, racism in the US is in large part about black people not being allowed to assimilate. On the other hand, assimilating to whiteness means identifying with the oppressor, which is arguably also racist. The alternative would be telling a story about the oppressed—but of course many black commenters have talked about how sick they are of seeing black people only in the role of the oppressed, because it’s dreary and disempowering to constantly be portrayed as dreary and disempowered.

To me, overall, it seems like Hamilton the musical offers a kind of representation that isn’t often seen in the media—that is, black performers explicitly playing white people, rather than playing roles in which their blackness isn’t supposed to be recognized or acknowledged (which happens quite often.) Monteiro makes a good case that this representation isn’t perfect, but no one representation is going to be perfect, and more representations, more kinds of representations, and more jobs for black actors all seem like good things.

Alexander Hamilton Was an Authoritarian Jerk

This first ran in Splice Today.
__________

Back in high school, my AP History teacher presented American government as one long argument between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. On the one hand, federal centralization and unity; on the other, decentralization and liberty. Two great thinkers thinking great thoughts, founding our national discourse as founding fathers will.

What my history teacher didn’t tell us was that Alexander Hamilton was a paranoid, war-mongering loon.

In the late 1790s, when Britain and France were locked in war, the Federalist President John Adams was desperately trying to maintain neutrality and not drag the US into a massive conflict for which it was ill-prepared. Hamilton, on the other hand, was thrilled at the prospect of war. In part, this was because he hated the French Revolution, and its attack on central authority and monarchy. But it was also because he figured he could use the war to attack the pro-French Republicans led by Jefferson, a man who he later denounced as “an atheist in religion and a fanatic in politics”. Placed at the head of an army raised to repel a possible French invasion, Hamilton got it into his head that Virginia was arming against the central government, and almost marched on the state. Dissuaded from starting a Civil War, he turned instead to infringement of civil liberties. After some initial hesitation, he supported the notorious 1798 Alien and Sedition acts to limit immigration and punish dissent. Then, when Adams managed to secure peace with France, Hamilton was so upset that he wrote a 50 page diatribe denouncing Adams and concluding that the President had lost “the respect of friends and foes” alike.

So, to sum up, Hamilton was bitterly partisan, eager to engage in avoidable wars, and prone to using the machinery of government to stifle dissent and persecute his enemies, real and imagined. He sounds, in other words, remarkably like Dick Cheney.

What’s interesting in comparing Hamilton to Cheney is that, while the behavior seems consistent, the political terms don’t quite match up. Hamilton was a statist big government anti-revolutionary who wanted to increase centralized federal power. Cheney was…what? In theory the Republican party doesn’t like big government. But in practice Cheney was all for everything that Hamilton was all for — militarization, civil liberties infringement in the name of crushing internal enemies, the works.

People often talk as if inter-party tension is worse now than it ever was, but as far as I can tell Hamilton was actually more scurrilously partisan than Cheney. There are Republicans who will insist outright that their opponents are traitorous scum, but they don’t tend to be leaders; even Cheney was at least somewhat circumspect in this regard. But Hamilton, one of the most influential Federalists, pretty much came out and said that the Republicans would betray us all to the French regicides.

The difference, then, isn’t so much the partisanship as the fact that with Hamilton and Jefferson, the partisanship made more sense. Maybe it was because the battle lines were new back then, or maybe it was because the revolutionary anti-government libertarians just hadn’t ever been in power yet, or maybe it was because everything got scrambled when the U.S. became an imperialist superpower.

In any case, the point is, in those early days, when America was America and men wore wigs, the pro big intrusive government authoritarians were pro big intrusive government authoritarians. They didn’t demand enormous armies on the one hand and bewail the power of centralized government on the other. They were pseudo-monarchists and proud of it. And, similarly, the radical anti-government folks like Jefferson were really anti-government; they were radicals who supported the French Revolution even on up to (in Jefferson’s case) the Terror. Jefferson declared he would rather see, “half of the earth desolated; were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is.” When he said he believed in liberty, he meant he believed in liberty for everybody. Except the slaves, of course.

In short, back then we had a clear choice between naked paranoia and open hypocrisy. Now, alas, in these decadent times, it’s hard to tell which is which.

 

large_rsz_alexander-hamilton