I read The Hamilton Cult. I particularly enjoyed this essay for two reasons — one, I am a proud (if occasionally wary) member of the Hamilton Cult, and, two, I adore history. I am currently finishing up my minor in history at the University of Georgia and found that this piece addressed many of the qualms that I have with the musical, despite my love of it. Robert Sullivan, the author, discusses Hamilton from the perspective of someone who understands history. He questions whether or not the Alexander Hamilton in Lin Manuel Miranda’s production is a full enough version of the actual man — and clearly decides that the answer is no. He speaks with historian William Hogeland who complains about the musical’s lack of attention to the Whiskey Rebellion and the too-intense focus on romantic entanglements. He does, however, also admit that the theatrical piece is meant to make consumers fall in love with the “$10 Founding Father without a father.” From here, he jumps into a larger discussion about other ways that Hamilton has been portrayed over the years, asking readers to question which version of his history we are seeing and why we are seeing it now.
Voices:
Robert Sullivan, the author of the piece. It’s always important to consider who is writing and why.
William Hogeland, a historian who has written extensively about Hamilton and is bothered by the lack of accuracy of the musical.
The Rockefeller Foundation, funds trips for high school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to see Hamilton on Broadway.
An unnamed high school teacher who talks about his class and his thoughts on the play.
Lastly, I’d say that Hamilton’s voice was carried throughout, simply because of the emphasis on his history and writings. Hogeland uses these things as a way of giving Hamilton, the man, the chance to speak out across time against Hamilton the musical.