By Grace Griggs
As pointed out in “A Singularity in Blue” Hamilton paints a fairly rosy picture of the Founding Fathers. Hamilton’s purpose is more to reframe the narrative of the American Revolution than it is to show an accurate version of the revolutionaries themselves. To this extent, the events and characters of the show should be taken, like anything “based on a true story”, with a grain of salt. Regardless of this, it is inevitable that a certain segment of the audience will take it for granted that Hamilton is completely historically accurate so it is important to pay attention to how characters are portrayed.
One questionable portrayal is that of General Charles Lee (below), who is introduced in “Stay Alive” with the line “I’m a general! Wheeee!”. Lee is presented as not only “inexperienced and ruinous”, but also as childish. Given Lee went on to slander Washington and damage the revolutionary cause, it makes sense that a story told from Hamilton’s perspective would view Lee this way. However, prior to the Battle of Monmouth fiasco, the historical Lee was a successful and well respected general. He was in the running for Washington’s position as Commander in Chief, but was turned down, in part because he wished to be compensated for English property he gave up when he joined rebellion, whereas Washington would work for free. This is clearly not the General Lee we see in Hamilton and it is not made clear whether the character is supposed to be the historical Lee or Lee as seen by Hamilton.
In comparison, the bias of the narrative is made explicit in “Say No to This” where the story is being told solely from Hamilton’s perspective. All of Maria Reynolds’ lines are preceded with an attributive from Hamilton like “she said”. The historical record of the events between Alexander and Maria is based entirely on Hamilton’s version of the events, where he painted Maria as a seductive caricature in order to absolve himself of guilt. It is clear that this is not supposed to represent Maria herself, but the way history views her through the lens of Hamilton’s writing.
While both of these depictions could be considered uncharitable at best, Maria’s characterization never strays into questionable territory because it is explicitly a biased caricature of the actual Maria Reynolds. Lee, on the other hand, is portrayed as a buffoon, without that same explicit purpose. It would be incredibly easy for an audience member to come away viewing the historical Lee as the caricature presented in the show. So, do the creators of a work like Hamilton have a responsibility to accurately and charitably represent historical figures? Are the legacies of the long dead worth protecting at the expense of artistic liberties? For figures like Lee, who is relatively obscure and became disgraced before his death, does it matter if his reputation is further tarnished 200 years later? I can’t answer these questions, but it seems important that they get asked.