And no one shall make them afraid. They'll be safe in the nation we made.

I'm really intrigued by your thoughts (and thanks for sharing them!). The inclusion of those lines is indeed both gorgeous and disconcerting.

I think it's worth noting (and I think the creators of Hamilton have said this time and again) that the people being remembered in this show were people of a certain time—not that that makes their actions any more or less excusable. Yet in hindsight, it's also important to recognize that at the same time these founders were holding slaves, they were also literally writing the language and laying down the bedrock that would, albeit decades later, lead to emancipation. Your description of "One Last Time" representing a "full circle" I think is totally astute. Hamilton certainly doesn't shy away from the morally reprehensible activities of these characters (see "We know who's really doing the planting" ), but it would be too easy to vilify and demonize these people without honoring the work they ultimately did. It's just one small part of why I think the show is such a layered masterpiece.

Updated On: 5/25/18 at 08:32 PM

The more powerful moment is, I think, actually in the final number.

Washington steps forward as Eliza sings "I raise funds in DC for the Washington monument (She tells my story!)"

And then she sings "I speak out against slavery - you could have done so much more if you only had time" and Washington bows his head to her, in shame and in respect for how she spoke out when he failed to do so. It was Jackson's choice, if I remember correctly, and it's such a moving moment. In that moment, Eliza is better than America's first president, because she spoke out.

RicardoMagon said: "That's a beautiful moment as well. Thank you for bringing it up. Yes I did hear it was Christopher Jackson's choice to do that and what a great choice it was. On the character of Eliza, I've always found her to be the heart of the whole show. She's the glue that holds it all together. Phillipa Soo was masterful in her interpretation of Eliza. It's the one lead role in the show that is not very flashy and the character has so many subtle and genuine moments throughout the show that pay off in a big way at the end of the show. I think the character is definitely one of the more trickier roles to play.

One of the themes of Hamilton ( in my opinion) is that the women are stronger than the men in almost every way. Ironically of course knowing the roles women had to play in the 1700s especially during the war."

Because the show is called “Hamilton,” in a way Eliza is a title character.

RicardoMagon said: "On the character of Eliza, I've always found her to be the heart of the whole show. She's the glue that holds it all together. Phillipa Soo was masterful in her interpretation of Eliza. It's the one lead role in the show that is not very flashy and the character has so many subtle and genuine moments throughout the show that pay off in a big way at the end of the show. I think the character is definitely one of the more trickier roles to play."

Absolutely, all of this.

Bumping this thread for Hogan because I'd like his thoughts on the topic. But also because I've been thinking about this issue and I don't think I see George Washington as an American Hero from my perspective.

George Washington did not treat his slaves well. Making them work in harsh conditions, though overall George Washington had conflicting feelings about slavery (he'd never admit that publicly however). Eventually he decided that slavery would need to end to save America but that didn't stop him from punishing slaves who tried to escape.

Though during the revolutionary war when slaves did escape, sometimes they went over to the british side for safety. The British had outlawed slavery at that point and refused to give slaves back to their owners because of fear that the slaves would be executed. Which makes me question who I should be rooting for during this war........nonetheless George Washington never fought to get the slaves back, which explains his conflicting feelings for slavery.

In the end, he just kicked the can down the road. It was someone else's problem....

Can I also say that starting now I won't be referring to slaves as "slaves" anymore. They weren't slaves. They were enslaved people. Calling them slaves rips them of their integrity and their life.

Updated On: 6/2/18 at 08:34 PM

OlBlueEyes said: "Few would deny that Washington was the greatest of the Founding Fathers. As a history major, I assume that you have actually read Chernow's Hamiltonand perhaps McCullough's 1776and gotten your knowledge of Washington from them. Washington had little to no personal ambition and was continually dragged away from Mount Vernon to lead the pitiful Revolutionary army, to chair the Constitutional Convention, to be the first, precedent-setting President and then again to run for re-election.

He had no role in the filthy political campaigns of thoses times. There is some controversy about how he treated his slaves, but on his death he freed all the slaves that he had the legal power to free and set aside a fund to care for the elderly and children. OK. The latter not at all justifying the slave ownership.

If I were looking for an overrated Founding Father, I think that I would look in the direction of Monticello.

The slave-owning plantation owners needed their slaves to survive, or so they felt. Put yourself in their position. To voluntarily, by freeing the slaves, lose their land, wealth, status. Can you be sure that you would have done so when there were so many rationalizations for slavery around to choose from?

It's also a mistake to blame just the South for slavery. The northern economies were not dependent on slavery, yetmany of them retained slavery until well into the 19th century. New York and New Jersey, for example. After slavery was abolished, the northern states continued to practice segregation and discrimination for another hundred years.

More to the point, the North's participation in the slave trade brought great wealth to many northerners and the areas surrounding them. I can't rank slave trading, where hundreds of African Americans were imprisoned under terrible conditions in the holds of ships, to be less evil than owning the slave.

The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James DeWolfmay have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved.

http://www.tracingcenter.org/resources/background/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade/

I don't mean to diminish the significance of that quotation from Washington and the guilt that it throws on him. But I do mean to defend Washington a bit for his relationship to slavery compared to his peers. Slavery was a very complex institution. Even the great Emancipation Proclamation was largely a cynical political document. Slavery was abolished in the South, to help Lincoln in the coming election with the Abolitionists, but slavery was retained in the Union slave states of Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky to help Lincoln win those states."



I have read both books. I won't put myself in the slave holders position. I actually think you have to put yourself in the enslaved people's position. Many African Americans ( and Mexicans) fought in the revolutionary war to defeat the British, even though the Americans were carving and torturing African Americans. The people enslaved who did escape went over to the British side because they knew the British wouldn't harm them.

I think you have to look at this war through the eyes of people of color in this instance. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were heroes for white people I'm sure. But my ancestors weren't Americans at that time. We were the "other". We didn't get to shine in the glory of "Freedom for America". When George Washington sings: no one shall make them afraid. they'll be safe in the nation we made.

He's not talking about everyone. One thing I don't think people understand is, when people sit down at a performance of HAMILTON, African Americans and Hispanics are seeing a completely different show than what white attendees are seeing.

America looks at figures like George Washington and Hamilton and Jefferson with rose colored glasses on. It's a bit more complicated for people who look like me.

I also think you're simplifying Washington's relationship with slavery. It is true Washington wanted his slaves free when he died, but it has also been mentioned by historians that he had no problem watching them be whipped.

I've always thought Andres and Benedict have interesting parallels in history. When Andres was found out to be a spy, he gained a cult following from the Americans. American soldiers thought he was the definition of a gentleman and emulated what they would call "bravery" even though they knew full well he was a spy. On the flip side, they reacted much more negatively to Benedict's betrayal. The handsome British spy is more beloved than the american Benedict lol I've always thought that was interesting. I also think Benedict Arnold is one of the most interesting figures in all of american history. Alot has been written about him but not much theater or art has been about him which is sad

Back to Washington, It is said he didn't do anything about slavery because he wouldn't have gotten the support and the nation was already very fragile at the time because of the war. I'll never forgive him for kicking it down the can. I don't have it in me to make excuses for him or anyone in that time period who did nothing. But I digress.

You brought up the civil war. To this day, it still has such a hold on america. People see it as many different things. Some see it as a redemption epic, some as an origins of the modern states. There's so much to analyze.

Back to Washington, It is said he didn't do anything about slavery because he wouldn't have gotten the support and the nation was already very fragile at the time because of the war.

Respectfully, Washington would not have cared if you forgave him. He did not seek forgiveness. He was a man of his time, a man of action. He accomplished great things but sought no public acclaim or honors. He was not a god and could not take apart slavery even if he wanted to. The time was not yet ripe.

Benedict Arnold, it has been said, if he had not turned traitor over frustration with the lack of recognition of all he had done, would have been proclaimed the second greatest hero of the Revolution after Washington.

In school in the sixties and seventies we were only taught Arnold the traitor. Not a word about Arnold who captured Fort Ticonderoga, paving the way for its artillery to be hauled all the way to Boston where it would force the evacuation of the British from Boston. The hero of Saratoga, the turning point of the war because it brought in the French. I know you know all this and more. We have read many of the same books.

History is my favorite reading subject, coming in just before the novels of Henry James and Jane Austen. But history by historians trained to search for the truth in so far as they are able. History in the hands of those who seek to abuse it by using it to support their own current politically motivated use is abysmal and is the cause of the conservatives seeking to cut funding for public broadcasting.