Hamilton and Slavery - Unrevivable?

witchoftheeast2 said: "I want to be sensitive towards this, I do, but at the same time I think if we take every single problematic element with every single show, there won't be anything left. No show is perfect."

I definitely agree with this to some extent but Hamilton goes so far as to imply Alexander was anti-slavery. And while I don't need my works of fiction to be documentaries, it does feel like Lin throws that in there because he himself is worried about deifying people who possibly owned slaves...only to still end of deifying a man who owned slaves.

Lin also used to loveeeeee talking about how much research he did for the project which again lends the whole thing this element of "we're doing non-traditonal casting but we know the history" only to discover you don't actually know the history.

And while I would find it uncomfortable even if Alexander Hamilton owned one slave (because again the musical goes as far as implying he was an abolitionist) he in fact was involved in a slave owning dynasty as well as creating banks on the back of slave financing. That's a lot to miss in all your "research."

OMG never mind!

No one is trying to cancel Hamilton I was merely asking if people thought the increased scholarship around his connection to slavery would impact the future of the work. God forbid we discuss the work on a board devoted to theatre.

Considering The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda premiered in 2019 I didn't think this would be the first time any of you heard questions about Hamilton's storytelling.

My bad, I forgot the demographics of the people who frequent this board. Any discussion around race must be an invasion of the woke mob when really it's just a discussion.

Updated On: 1/15/26 at 09:04 AM

Zeppie2022 said: "Ke3 said: "OMG never mind!

No one is trying to cancel Hamilton I was merely asking if people thought the increased scholarship around his connection to slavery would impact the future of the work. God forbid we discuss the work on a board devoted to theatre."

"Hamilton" will probably run another 10-20 years and a revival of it would be at least quarter of a century from now. We have no idea if the issue you brought up will matter to theater goers many years from now.

"

I very well understand that, but let's not act as if this board does not frequently discuss the history and hypothetical future of different works. The only reason I'm getting such a vitriolic response is because I mentioned race. My mistake!

quizking101 said: "witchoftheeast2 said: "I want to be sensitive towards this, I do, but at the same time I think if we take every single problematic element with every single show, there won't be anything left. No show is perfect."

I concur here. Even the most exhaustively researched shows are going to have omissions or dramatic license. It’s not possible to know EVERYTHING, let alone be able to dramatize it effectively.

I tend to nitpick about shows that deal with psychiatric issues because that’s my field of expertise, and that can really grind down my enjoyment if certain things aren’t letter-perfect (see my review in the BUG thread). I’m learning more about how to separate out dramatic license and reserved my distaste for shows that are more egregious in their portrayals (**stares at Dear Evan Hansen**)

I’m sure there are some shows that aren’t “revivable” because of content, but this is definitely not going to be one of them. There are a few Pulitzer Prize winning shows that have elements I’m sure people would probably be inclined to “cancel” as well - namely “South Pacific” (portrayal of Pacific Islanders) and “How to Succeed” (portrayal of sexual harassment/misogyny in the workplace)"

South Pacific is exactly why I found the discussion about Hamilton interesting. I do not think I will see another South Pacific Broadway revival in my lifetime. Or another King and I. The canon is not fixed, it's ever changing. Shows that 30 years people were still doing, they're not doing again.

I don't know that anybody thought the 1999 revival of AGYG would be the last major revival of that work but 20+ years later I think it's safe to say, it's not going to be on Broadway again.

I also think that turning Hamilton into an anti-slavery hero (again, Lin used to claim the man didn't own slaves) is a bit more than dramatic license. It's changing history to make yourself feel comfortable with the work you're doing. Which is fine! I just wonder if it holds up even a decade later, let alone 20 or 30 years in advance.

Especially for a show that really rode the Woke™️ train to glory in its original form.

Updated On: 1/15/26 at 09:34 AM

Again, I'm not "taking an approach" I am looking at the facts and asking a question about those facts. You guys are acting as if I'm calling you bad people for liking Hamilton. Liking or disliking Hamilton is not the point of the discussion.

(However, I do take issue with the idea of there being nuance to Hamilton's (the man) views on slavery. People who were actually anti-slavery did not own slaves or marry into slave owning dynasties. The words of his mouth did not match his actions and words are meaningless in the face of opposite actions)

But again, I am constantly forgetting that no one can even whisper about race on this board without you all getting preemptively defensive.

Ke3 said: "quizking101 said: "witchoftheeast2 said: "I want to be sensitive towards this, I do, but at the same time I think if we take every single problematic element with every single show, there won't be anything left. No show is perfect."

I concur here. Even the most exhaustively researched shows are going to have omissions or dramatic license. It’s not possible to know EVERYTHING, let alone be able to dramatize it effectively.

I tend to nitpick about shows that deal with psychiatric issues because that’s my field of expertise, and that can really grind down my enjoyment if certain things aren’t letter-perfect (see my review in the BUG thread). I’m learning more about how to separate out dramatic license and reserved my distaste for shows that are more egregious in their portrayals (**stares at Dear Evan Hansen**)

I’m sure there are some shows that aren’t “revivable” because of content, but this is definitely not going to be one of them. There are a few Pulitzer Prize winning shows that have elements I’m sure people would probably be inclined to “cancel” as well - namely “South Pacific” (portrayal of Pacific Islanders) and “How to Succeed” (portrayal of sexual harassment/misogyny in the workplace)"

South Pacific is exactly why I found the discussion about Hamilton interesting. I do not think I will see another South Pacific Broadway revival in my lifetime. Or another King and I. The canon is not fixed, it's ever changing. Shows that 30 years people were still doing, they're not doing again.

I don't know that anybody thought the 1999 revival of AGYG would be the last major revival of that work but 20+ years later I think it's safe to say, it's not going to be on Broadway again.

And I think it’s safe to say that’s a relatively ludicrous assumption to make. 25 years without a revival isn’t a sign of anything.

Ke3 said: "
South Pacific is exactly why I found the discussion about Hamilton interesting. I do not think I will see another South Pacific Broadway revival in my lifetime. Or another King and I. The canon is not fixed, it's ever changing. Shows that 30 years people were still doing, they're not doing again."

How well I remember sentiments such as this before the last production of South Pacific. You know, the one that had critics and audiences raving "It speaks as if it were written for us today!"

Updated On: 1/15/26 at 09:59 AM

I think this is an interesting question, and I disagree with some of the genuinely esteemed posters above who seem to suggest it's not worth talking about on a board like this.

I suspect that, if Hamilton is lucky enough to become a true classic that is still important many decades from now, the problem you bring up will be a prominent part of the conversation around the show, but won't prevent it from being respected and revived. It'll be like the outdated treatment of domestic violence in Carousel or the sexual politics of How to Succeed - something to be discussed and debated, but not a fatal impediment to the show's viability.

I'm not sure if the show actually deifies Hamilton much anyway, although that's a much bigger discussion. For example, Hamilton is portrayed as a man who wants a war to happen, any war (he was wishing for one since his childhood in the Caribbean), so that he can leverage it to benefit himself by advancing socially. He's lucky enough to pick the winning side of the war that he eventually fights, and so he can give a 'righteous' cast to his actions in that regard; but the audience has been let in on the truth.

I think to some extent, you're missing the forest for the trees. If you're talking about "in a few decades, will Hamilton be unpalatable," the answer may be "yes, simply because it deifies the founding of the United States." Based on the current political climate, it's entirely possible that in some time, Hamilton will be looked on as if you wrote an aspirational musical about the founding of the Weimar Republic or Soviet Russia.

Fan123 said: "I'm not sure if the show actually deifies Hamilton much anyway, although that's a much bigger discussion. For example, Hamilton is portrayed as a man who wants a war to happen, any war (he was wishing for one since his childhood in the Caribbean), so that he can leverage it to benefit himself by advancing socially. He's lucky enough to pick the winning side of the war that he eventually fights, and so he can give a 'righteous' cast to his actions in that regard;but the audience has been let in on the truth."

Agreed. He's portrayed as a social climbing philanderer. Thematically it deifies tenacity but not the man. Practically it deified Lin-Manuel - but success always does that.