Miranda and Chernow both lack in their ability to show Hamilton's faults politically. There is no denying Hamilton is a political genius for multiple reasons, from the national bank, the establishment of the US mint, and laying out the architecture for America's economic system. His innovations still impact government systems today, and that is important to address. Hamilton was not politically perfect; he often was stuck in his ways and was unclear in his arguments. Though many of Hamilton's ideas for what American government should become did foster what our government is now, other political figures had interesting thoughts and ideas of what our government could become. Chernow and Miranda make a mockery of others’ ideas and plans, while
…show more content…
In Annette Gordon Reed’s article Hamilton: The Musical: Blacks and the Founding Fathers, she address the issue with Miranda’s betrayal of Hamilton perfectly by saying, “He is depicted as an ardent abolitionist, which he was not.” She goes on to address how he owed two enslaved people, though he may have sold them to others, he still participated in slavery. As Reed states, he “certainly did not believe that the colonists would “never be free” until people in bondage had the same rights as everyone.” Though Hamilton was not as involved with slavery as the majority of the founding fathers, his participation in the system of slavery still needs to be addressed. Yet Miranda and Chernow mainly hero him as an abolitionist, despite the fact that he did little to actively fight against slavery. Also, most of the people surrounded Hamilton where all slave owners, this topic is addressed by Chernow, but forgotten by Miranda. Chernow writes how most of the founding fathers and friends of Hamilton had slaves. While Miranda fails to every mention that major characters within the show like Washington and the Schuler Family had slaves. The only characters Miranda addresses clearly as a slaveholder is Jefferson, the only character that can most easily be classified as a villain. Miranda uses slavery as a tool to show who the audiences should root for and against. Though using slavery in this manner may help convey Hamilton and his friends as better people, it fails to address the massive issue and impact slavery had during this time
In Annette Gordon Reed’s article Hamilton: The Musical: Blacks and the Founding Fathers, she address the issue with Miranda’s betrayal of Hamilton perfectly by saying, “He is depicted as an ardent abolitionist, which he was not.” She goes on to address how he owed two enslaved people, though he may have sold them to others, he still participated in slavery. As Reed states, he “certainly did not believe that the colonists would “never be free” until people in bondage had the same rights as everyone.” Though Hamilton was not as involved with slavery as the majority of the founding fathers, his participation in the system of slavery still needs to be addressed. Yet Miranda and Chernow mainly hero him as an abolitionist, despite the fact that he did little to actively fight against slavery. Also, most of the people surrounded Hamilton where all slave owners, this topic is addressed by Chernow, but forgotten by Miranda. Chernow writes how most of the founding fathers and friends of Hamilton had slaves. While Miranda fails to every mention that major characters within the show like Washington and the Schuler Family had slaves. The only characters Miranda addresses clearly as a slaveholder is Jefferson, the only character that can most easily be classified as a villain. Miranda uses slavery as a tool to show who the audiences should root for and against. Though using slavery in this manner may help convey Hamilton and his friends as better people, it fails to address the massive issue and impact slavery had during this time