Molasses to Rum (1776): why?

I never saw it as being ant-slavery. I always felt he was simply saying, "This is the way things are, this is our business, this is how we survive, don't mess with the status quo. " I think it less a social commentary and more an economic commentary.

I always thought he was pointing out the North's hypocrisy, given how much they benefitted from the institution of slavery as well. He's telling them to get off their high horse.

ETA: dramamama beat me to it.

Updated On: 5/3/15 at 12:43 PM

For the record, James Barbour delivered my favorite rendition of this song during the most recent Papermill production. Holy mackerel was he good.

It is interesting that while Rutleldge did exist - and he was very much against independence and refused to sign the Declaration of Independence...he did ultimately wind up fighting on the American side and became quite an honored war hero.

And no, 1776 is not entirely accurate and many "characters" are composites of a number of real life peoples and some events have been recreated to give the most dramatic representation possible. But it's still probably one of the more realistic theatrical representations of American history ..and does give IMO a pretty good idea of what went on.

Some of the little facts that are incorporated into the musical are entirely true - such as the letters that John and Abigail wrote to each other, the fact that John Adams WAS disliked, New York abstaining from voting and not taking a stand on anything, cancer not stopping one representative from dragging himself to Philadelphia from his deathbed to sign the Declaration and John Adams envisioning fireworks to celebrate our independence.

I think you're a little hung up on your own calculation as to political effectiveness. The fact is Routledge WINS his point and slavery is not condemned in the Declaration of Independence (an irony that has haunted this country for 250 years).

If you need motivation for the more gut-wrenching portions of the song, may I suggest what others have implied: Routledge is saying, "Open your eyes to the reality of your own involvement and stop talking in terms of pious ideals."

For subtext, if you need more, one might conclude with Best12 that Routledge enjoys slave auctions a little TOO much and reveals his own sadism in those passages. But remember that YOU have to argue FOR your character (if you are playing the part), and allows the play's comment on Routledge to stand for itself.

I mean -- it is a good political strategy. Rutledge takes out all of the leverage of Adams and Jefferson, who are coming at slavery with the obvious moral arguments. But of course, Jefferson has slaves that he's, you know, going to free -- later. Adams' has the leg up of not owning slaves, and attempts the superiority of being from the North, where slavery was not as proliferate. Except the North was in fact enabling and profiting from the whole trade. He's cutting Adams' entire argument out from under him by highlighting in the most explicit possible terms how deep the hypocrisy of the North is.

I always roll my eyes at the "historically accurate" naysayers. First of all, there is no known historical or "true story" drama (musical or non) that is entirely historically accurate.

"1776" is surprisingly accurate. Sherman Edwards, who initiated this musical and wrote the music and lyrics, was a history major, not a music major, at NYU. He was also a history teacher.

Yes, there are consolidated characters, plot points, etc., as there are in ANY drama. You can't cover a subject in 2 hours without doing that. So pointing it out is like saying there is music in a musical. It's kind of obvious that you're right.

Probably the biggest historical inaccuracy is using Martha Jefferson as a "conjugal visit" to inspire Jefferson to write the Declaration. I was always sad to learn that she died so young (at 33), just 6 years after these events in the musical took place.

One of the surprising accuracies in the musical is the relationship between Adams and his wife. Much of what they say and sing is taken directly from their letters, including the saltpeter pleas, and even "Yours, Yours, Yours," where Edwards discovered a letter Adams had written to her filled with a page of his writing the word "Yours" over and over again. I find that fascinating and very romantic, too.

As for Rutledge, he was the youngest member of congress, at 26 and youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence. He had a huge influence on the South's solidarity to have the slavery clause stricken from the Declaration, and after it was removed, he did sign it and fight on America's behalf, becoming a war hero after being imprisoned by the British for almost a year.

Updated On: 5/4/15 at 06:30 AM

Fan123, we see something quite similar everyday in current political discourse.

There is a complaint about a social ill. And those bringing up the complaint are typically identified, rightly or wrongly, as coming from a particular group of people (let's call them Group A). There is another group (let's call it Group B) which is widely seen, rightly or wrongly, as being to a great extent responsible for promoting the social ill.

Someone from Group A (an "Adams") speaks up against the social ill and perhaps even proposes curative actions.

Someone from Group B (a "Rutledge") prefers the status quo, things remaining as they are.

"Rutledge" responds by pointing out that 'the other side" is equally blameworthy in promoting the evil at issue.

This accomplishes several objectives.

A) It's a grand distraction from a real discussion about what's just and moral when what's just and moral is seen as being inconvenient and or can only be accomplished at great sacrifice.

B) It gives political cover to Side B and gives political will to all to continue inflicting the evil.

C) It shows the hypocrisy of Side A (the other side) in being at least complicit and often a huge beneficiary - perhaps even an active exploiter - of the social ill.

D) It might throw "Adams" and supporters off his/their game by getting him/them focused on who's most to blame instead of being focused on actually ****ing doing something about the problem,

E) It reminds many in Camp A what side their bread is buttered on and keeps them from supporting Adams (at least in any effective way), and most importantly

F) it adds to a mounting general sense of inertia and helplessness, prime ingredients for the powers that be and the public at large to permit bad things to go on.

Sides A and B in 1776 are, respectively, the North and the South, both of whom made a great deal of money out of slavery.

Today, Sides A and B are typically the two major political parties in the U.S. Which - while they have many important differences (as, of course, did the North and the South) are all too often at least comparably corrupt when it comes to a great many crises of consciousness.

This kind of mental gymnastics keeps pundits juggling, keeps politicians and the public perpetually distracted in the blame game and all to often keeps things exactly the way they are.

If you turn on cable news right now, chances are you'll see someone - either a Republican or a Democrat or an "embedded journalist" - who's mastered Rutledge's playbook.

Cool, cool consideration survives.

Updated On: 5/5/15 at 08:23 AM

Yes, the scene in congress that happens after "The Lees of Old Virginia" and before "But, Mr. Adams" is actually over 30 min. long without any music or songs.

And it's an exciting scene with so much going on in it. We had to work very hard on the pacing of it, though, since if you drag it along, a "book" scene that long will kill a musical. So keeping the energy up was critical.

But it was really fun to play.

It's almost a play within a musical. And the trick is to make the audience forget that there hasn't been any singing for over half an hour.

That shows you how strong the book is.