A Ton of Ham

I think I've written about this on the blog before, but I've been a certified Alexander Hamilton freak since the third grade. In my memory, we had a very basic set of lessons on US History, which included events like Paul Revere's Ride and the Declaration of Independence. After learning that Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" and that Jefferson owned slaves, I made up my mind that Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite and a bad man. Somewhere in there I learned that Jefferson's arch-rival was Alexander Hamilton. "Well, if Jefferson hated Hamilton, then Hamilton must have been a good guy!" I decided. Over the years I've learned a lot more about both men and the age they lived in, but I think my basic attitude remains essentially unchanged since then.

I recently finished reaching a collection of Hamilton's writings, published by the Library of America. It's a fantastic book, and it was surprisingly cool to actually read the full text of things I've read about but previously only seen excerpts from: the Federalist Papers, his childhood account of the brutal Caribbean hurricane, his proposal for consolidating states' debts, and so on. It's also a very long book: I'd been reading it for some weeks, was surprised to not be too far into it, then flipped ahead and saw that there are over 1000 pages in there! Even this is only a tiny fraction of his collected writings, but it's a good one, a mix of comprehensive sets (as his contributions to the Federalist Papers) and representative samplings (a love letter to Eliza, two letters to Philip, incendiary newspaper articles, notes to statesmen and friends).

Somewhat surprisingly, there is no introduction, no preface, no footnotes. That's very different from most books like this I've read before; thinking over it, that's probably done at least in part to generate new copyrights. I really liked it, though. It can feel distracting to read through something, encounter a footnote, and break up the flow of the text while I dip over to read it, or else skip over it and carry the nagging feeling that I'm missing out on something important. With "Hamilton: Writings", it was a teensy bit like getting into a speculative fiction novel: there's a bit of a learning curve as you adjust to the slightly archaic spellings and idioms and things, but then you're fully immersed, and can just take everything in stride. Of course, it helps that over the years I've read quite a bit about Hamilton's life from Chernow and other writers, so I'm coming to these texts with some pretty full context.

The editors of this volume retained the original spelling and punctuation, and it was kind of fun to see them continue to pop up. Examples included "shew" for "show", as in "I shewed him my mettle." Also "burthen" and "burthensome" instead of "burden" and "burdensome"; it would be interesting to see the original manuscripts for these, I'm curious if he used "Þ" or "th". He also likes œconomy instead of economy and fœderal instead of federal. Interestingly, the book includes a handful of contemporary writings by others (including James Madison's account of Hamilton's proposal at the Constitutional Convention), in which they do use the spelling "federal," making it seem like "fœderal" was more idiosyncratic on Hamilton's part.

One cool (?) new thing I learned was the symbol ⅌. I don't think I've ever encountered this before. It appears in his report on manufactures, where it's used in a few different constructions but most often something like "⅌ Cent". I speculated that it might mean "per", and after some research (which is tricky - how do you look up a symbol you don't recognize?) I learned that it does, though more specifically referencing a ratio. I can see why "%" outcompeted "⅌ Cent"!

Man... there is so much I want to write about here and this will probably end up as a monster post, apologies for that. In retrospect I probably should have done a separate post on each of the major sections of the book, which each are hundreds of pages and contain a lot of fascinating arguments and spark a lot of thoughts. But I waited too long and it's all jumbled up in my head now, sorry.

A lot of this reading is of course colored by living in early 2025, and I often felt a strong feeling of wistfulness and melancholy, reading about how strong systems were established while living through what sometimes feel like their last days. But there's also writing that's just pure fun: Hamilton can be very sarcastic and cutting. Even more is awe-inspiring, and I somehow ended up with even more respect for his intelligence, curiosity, rhetoric, discipline and powers of persuasion. As well as horror at how far off the rails he was capable of going.

Let's start off with a few passages that feel especially resonant today.  In "A Letter from Phocion to the Considerate Citizens of New-York on the Politics of the Day" he writes:

"It is, however, a common observation, that men, bent upon mischief, are more active in the pursuit of their object, than those who aim at doing good. Hence it is in the present moment, we see the most industrious efforts to violate, the constitution of this state, to trample upon the rights of the subject, and to chicane or infringe the most solemn obligations of treaty; while dispassionate and upright men almost totally neglect the means of counteracting these dangerous attempts."

Much later, in a private letter to George Washington that's primarily a rebuttal to arguments against the consolidation of state debts he veers into this "I'm made out of rubber and you're made out of glue" passage:

The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.

[...]

When a man inprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits - despotic in his ordinary demeanour - known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty - when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity - to join in the cry of danger to liberty - to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion - to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day - It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may "ride the storm and direct the whirlwind."

From "Tully III", he argues for a forceful response to the Whiskey Rebellion instead of taking an approach of appeasement, but I think it rings true now too:

If it were to be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a Republic? the answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws - the first growing out of the last. It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty - operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues are prevented form climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny.

This collection includes all of Hamilton's Federalist Papers, which are a lot! They cover a ton of topics, including a lot of writings on tariffs, which was particularly interesting in light of contemporary discussions. It's pretty impressive to see how well people in the 1700s understood how tariffs work: that tariffs result in higher prices for consumers, but that they might be useful in some specific circumstances to promote domestic manufacture, for example. As with reading, like, The Baroque Cycle, it's humbling to realize that almost everything we know about finance and economics is literally hundreds of years old. (Of course Hamilton didn't discover these things himself, he was widely read and familiar with Adam Smith and other earlier writers.)

Alexander Hamilton is such a good writer. I'm reminded that rhetoric and logic were classical areas of study, and it really shows here, especially in the Federalist Papers. carefully constructs arguments towards logical conclusions, and exposes the flaws in arguments against the Constitution. But he can also be really sarcastic and funny; in one paper in particular he mockingly imagines a series of excuses to oppose federal power, shooting each one down. It's a classic straw-man argument but really entertaining. Much later, his diss of John Adams is similarly sarcastic and funny, you can hear his eyes rolling.

The Federalist Papers are filled with smart thinking and strong rhetoric. A few topics feel kind of dated, but a surprising number feel vivid, even more so in 2025 than in 1995. As another example: in writing about the executive, he argues for putting a single person in charge of the executive branch instead of a council, which was a competing argument being made. He points out the big value in being able to hold a single person responsible for errors, poor judgment or corruption, whereas when there is a group of people, everyone blames someone else, responsibility is diffused and it's hard to hold people accountable for their actions. He points to (his) contemporary examples, noting that in New York the governor is mostly the sole executive, except when it comes to making appointments, where it is done in cooperation with a council; and specifically in the area of appointments, everyone agreed that some appointments were corrupt, but disagreed as to who was responsible. Anyways, this makes me think a lot about the high-level sclerotic character of our federal government in recent decades: we usually have divided government, and each party can blame the other party for anything that goes wrong. I increasingly pine for a parliamentary system, where one party is clearly in charge and gets all the praise for what goes right and all the blame for what goes wrong. It seems like Hamilton would have preferred that as well, as he openly admired the British system of government.

You can see why people have been so suspicious of Hamilton for centuries. He's very complimentary of Great Britain; in non-published conversations he would say that the British political system is the best that currently exists. He held backchannel conversations with former British enemies (including the guy who turned Benedict Arnold) in which he made clear that he would rather that the US sign a commercial treaty with Britain than with France. And he was right - the sentiment pointed towards France, but Britain made much more sense as a trading partner. He also made enemies with his maneuvering to deny John Adams votes in the first Presidential election. You can see that his concern was legitimate - he genuinely worried that anti-federalists would promise but withhold votes from Washington, causing Adams to accidentally become president, souring the start of the new country. He openly agonizes over how many to withhold from Adams to avoid that possibility without insulting him. Of course, the thin-skinned Adams became livid when he learned about this years later.

Maybe the best part of this book was getting to finally read the full versions of some of the pivotal documents described by Chernow, especially his "I wish there was a war", his article describing the devastating hurricane, etc. It does not include everything, though: Chernow also included some of his youthful poetry, which covered an interesting expanse between chaste religious fervor and a frank admiration of feminine beauty. I can understand why they weren't included here since they're of much more personal interest than predictive of his political influence. (We do get some of his love letters to Eliza, though, and those are fun to read - he's slightly teasing, brash and assertive more than tender. It's an interesting contrast to his "Cold in my professions" letter to John Laurens!)

Reading these letters rekindles some ancient middle-school civics lessons I've long forgotten. One of Hamilton's complaints is that the original Continental Congress had most of the greatest men in America - he doesn't drop names, but folks like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, etc. But after the Declaration of Independence, most of those great men went back to focus on their state governments, so the later Continental Congress was mostly the B-team: people who were not as smart, as decisive, as energetic, as principled, which in turn contributed to a lot of the agony of Washington's Continental Army. That continued after the war, with most talent focusing on the state governments, leaving ineffectual committees in charge of the Confederation. He grouses about this in a letter to George Clinton, of all people, who would become his greatest political foe.

Jumping ahead a bit, after the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton becomes the first Secretary of the Treasury and issues a series of stunning reports. First up, from "Report on a National Bank":

Nothing can be more fallible, than the comparisons, which have been made between different countries, to illustrate the truth of the position under consideration. The comparative quantity of gold and silver, in different countries, depends upon an infinite variety of facts and combinations, all of which ought to be known, in order to judge, whether the existence or non existence of paper currencies has any share in the relative proportions they contain. The mass and value of the productions of the labor and industry of each, compared with its wants; the nature of its establishments abroad; the kind of wars in which it is usually engaged; the relations it bears to the countries, which are the original possessors of those metals; the privileges it enjoys in their trade; these and a number of other circumstances are all to be taken into the account, and render the investigation too complex to justify any reliance on the vague and general surmises, which have been hitherto hazarded on the point.

This is a pretty astonishingly fore-sighted argument that criticizes the then-prevalent gold-based monetary system, in favor of the modern view that a nation's wealth naturally reflects its productivity rather than how much gold and silver it has in its vaults. It would be nearly 200 years later before the United States finally embraced a fiat currency that decoupled us from the "possessors of those metals".

His economic reports are so amazingly good, I think they're better Econ 101 primers than most things I've seen in my lifetime. The reports give simple and clear explanations of topics like the monetary supply that don't dumb things down and don't get lost in the weeds. 

From the same report:

Nor is this all. The metals, instead of being suspended from their usual functions, during this process of vibration from place to place, continue in activity, and administer still to the ordinary circulation; which of course is prevented from suffering either diminution or stagnation. These circumstances are additional causes of what, in a practical sense, or to the purposes of business, might be called greater plenty of money. And it is evident, that whatever enhances the quantity of circulating money adds to the ease, with which every industrious member of the community may acquire that portion of it, of which he stands in need [...] For whatever furnishes additional supplies to the channels of circulation, in one quarter, naturally contributes to keep the streams fuller elsewhere.

I just love that writing: I don't think I've ever heard of currency "vibrating" before, but it's really a perfect metaphor for its role and behavior. As bank notes leave the Treasury, pass through the hands of merchants and customers, and eventually return in the form of tax payments, they are not idle, but serve to facilitate a vast number of private transactions not involving the government at all. Elsewhere Hamilton gives a great explanation of the fractional reserve system, noting the enormous benefits as well as the risks to be mindful of.

All of this dovetails really well with other finance books I've been reading lately. I'm reminded of Bernstein's "The Birth of Plenty", in which he notes the enormous advantage Britain had over France due to the greater trust British people had in their banks: this led to a virtuous cycle where surplus money was deposited, creating an expanding money supply, encouraging more economic activity, and more money being placed in the banks. Hamilton clearly understood this dynamic and wanted America to be a part of it. I'm also reminded of "Investing in US Financial History", which rightfully praised Hamilton, and showed how the First Bank of the United States would go on to solve the nascent nation's economic woes, which returned after the bank charter lapsed.

I was a bit surprised to see the brutal counter-punching of Jefferson in Hamilton's report on the constitutionality of a federal bank. Obviously I knew that Hamilton and Jefferson were foes - that's why I became a Hamilton stan in the first place. But I'd always imagined that they would just shout at each other behind closed doors in cabinet meetings. Nope! These were big, publicly published airings of grievances and  accusations thrown before the House of Representatives. That in turn reminds me of "The Men Who Lost America". In that book, it is noted that the Prime Minister and Cabinet system were relatively new in Britain at the time of the Revolutionary War: there wasn't really a concept of a unified parliamentary executive, just various high-ranking voices. It seems like at this time the American executive was similar, with George Washington the supreme magistrate but each cabinet member running their own fiefdom. I've been meaning to read "Team of Rivals", I'm curious if those competitions were kept behind closed doors like they (usually) are today or if they were similarly exposed for all to see.

These reports reveal the many big battles occurring in the critical first years of our nation. The conflict between "implied powers" and "express powers" is taken head-on; I'd be mildly curious to read Jefferson's prior report that Hamilton is responding to here. As I know from history, once Jefferson became President he came around to Hamilton's way of thinking; nothing in the Constitution expressly authorizes the government to make something like the Louisiana Purchase, but it was too important an opportunity to let pass.

Hamilton is amazingly fore-sighted. In speeches at the New York ratifying convention, he takes on an argument that the number of voters per House seat should be set at a lower number to increase the representativeness. He confidently looks towards a future where the population will double, treble and more, forecasting at the resulting number of representatives and showing that it would be impossible to get productive work done with such a sizable crowd of legislators. In his report on the public credit, he notes that debt from the United States government currently bears an interest of 6%; but looking at the rates of credit for more mature nations in Europe, he confidently predicts being able to bring down the interest rate to 5% within a few years of the assumption of state debts, and within twenty years to 4%. Of course this would open up opportunities to restructure the debt by taking out new loans at 5% or 4% to pay back old loans at 6%. But those rates will only fall once the US can assure creditors of timely and faithful payments on the debt, which in turn makes it essential to honor those debts and avoid the temptation of, say, only paying the original holders of the securities.

More fore-sight: in his report on manufactures, he notes that America has an overwhelmingly agricultural economy and will remain so for at least a generation; but he still argues that it will be beneficial to diversify into an economy that includes "artificers and manufacturers". He notes the greater productivity, less risk (from bad harvests domestically or superior harvests abroad), overall gains in efficiency and national soft power. It's amazing that he was writing this in the 1700s, before the industrial revolution really took off. Again, he was intelligent and well-read, familiar with both ancient Greek and Roman history as well as the latest developments in Holland and Scotland. I'm reminded of Chernow's overall thesis that Hamilton's vision for the country is the one that came true, not Jefferson's vision of a land of yeoman farmers.

But also, at this stage Hamilton doesn't seem to be as reflexively anti-Jeffersonian as Jefferson seems anti-Hamiltonian. (n.b.: I ought to read more Jefferson to validate this.) Hamilton does have a lot of praise for American agriculture: the nation is very fortunate to be able to produce its own food supply, which gives it great security in all times and especially during war. He notes the primal emotional pull of a man being able to own and work his own plot of land. He sees how the lure of available farmland will help drive immigration from Europe to America. He sees agriculture and industry as complementary, not oppositional: agriculture will help give raw inputs to industry, and industrial tools will improve agricultural efficiency.

One kind of funny, kind of bleak thing is Hamilton enthusing that an advantage of manufacturing is being able to put women and children to work. He approvingly notes how this is happening in England. Pretty far removed from Dickens!

In his proposal for the national bank, he spends a good amount of time on the government of the bank and the process of electing directors. I was surprised to see his proposal of a tiered system of voting: a person owning a single share gets one vote, between two and ten shares gets one vote per two shares, and so on, with an upper cap of I think thirty total votes. This is pretty much exactly the structure that Thomas Piketty proposes in "Capital & Ideology" for ownership of enterprises that have a social mission, such as news and media companies. If a business makes, say, shirts or tractors, then having one vote per share is perfectly fine and benign: owners will just look after their business interests and no harm will result. But founders who want to make a positive difference in the community may rightfully be concerned that, say, a Jeff Bezos or a Patrick Soon-Shiong would buy up shares and subvert the mission or turn it into a propaganda outlet. This tiered system of ownership encourages broad participation and allows wealthy people to invest money without giving them undue control. Anyways, it's been a while since I read that book, but I think Piketty said that these kind of structures were more common in previous centuries. Sometime I'd like to read more about when, how and why that changed.

From the report on manufactures:

The disturbed state of Europe, inclining its citizens to emigration, the requisite workmen, will be more easily acquired, than at another time; and the effect of multiplying the opportunities of employment to those who emigrate, may be an increase of the number and extent of valuable acquisitions to the population arts and industry of the Country. To find pleasure in the calamities of other nations, would be criminal; but to benefit ourselves, by opening an asylum to those who suffer, in consequence of them, is as justifiable as it is politic.

This reminds me that, up until about 2002, official American policy tended to see immigration as an asset to the country. And it was right, as pretty much every economist agrees. Moving immigration from the Treasury department to the Justice department sounds like a minor bureaucratic reshuffle, but it has done profound damage to our national psyche and hastened our economic decline.

One of the amazing things about Hamilton is how he simultaneously has insight into big-picture abstract systems, and also granular nuts-and-bolts understanding of particulars. In the report on manufactures, he lays out the big-picture multi-generational quest for encouraging the development of a domestic industrial sector in the United States, then moves on to how the government can selectively tune specific tariffs to encourage private-sector investment, development and consumption, and ultimately into specific recommendations on specific commodities. In the segment titled "IRON" he notes that iron is useful in the vast majority of manufactures, that local manufacturers are already producing iron nails and spikes, and that Virginia has productive iron mines and mills. He encourages raising the existing tariffs on imports of iron to encourage the further development of local iron and secure independence from foreign sellers. In his segment on "LEAD" he notes approvingly that the existing tariffs on lead seem to be pushing the growth of lead mining and suggests maintaining their current level. In the "COPPER" portion he observes that copper is a useful input to a wide variety of industries, but that America does not have significant copper production, so here he recommends lowering the existing tariffs: making it cheaper will encourage importing more and increasing the overall supply available to secondary industries. Anyways, I feel like Hamilton is every flavor of nerd all rolled into one mega-nerd at the same time.

One point Chernow makes in his biography that becomes very clear here is Hamilton's thin skin.  Washington apparently wrote Hamilton during his first term, pleading with him to patch things up with Jefferson. Hamilton's response is slightly chastened, but still hugely aggrieved, listing various ways in which Jefferson has insulted him, blocked his agenda and interfered with items in his cabinet portfolio. And yet, by this point we've read countless letters and articles in which Hamilton has insulted Jefferson and sought to interfere with State Department business like treaties with Great Britain and France. To me this comes across as a blindness on Hamilton's part, not deception. It's like he's saying "I'm just a smol bean who wants to do good things and never did anything bad to anybody", while firing off page after page of blistering invective.

Hamilton's draft of Washington's farewell address is super-interesting. I want to compare it with what Washington eventually delivered, at least the opening of it does not seem very familiar. It's interesting how Hamilton will write stuff like "Not unconscious at the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications for the station", which I can't imagine Hamilton ever writing about Washington and that he would viciously attack if someone else wrote it about Washington; and yet it's exactly the humble tone that Washington craves, so it's perfectly ghostwritten. In a way their relationship has come full circle, from Hamilton's role as aide-de-camp in drafting most of General Washington's written orders during the independence war to his role as a senior advisor drafting President Washington's major speeches, in all cases anticipating the thrust of Washington's desires. I think you could make a very touching two-hander play just about their relationship, its ups and downs and ups again.

One of the most surprising things from this entire collection is a passage from the farewell address explicitly linking good government with religion:

To all those dispositions which promote political happiness, Religion and Morality are essential props. In vain does that man claim the praise of patriotism who labours to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property for reputation for life if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in Courts of Justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of a peculiar structure - can we believe - can we in prudence suppose that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?

It's very interesting to me to read such a passionate advocation for religious belief in the context of a government with separation between church and state. My immediate thought on reading this passage is that it might have been a swipe at Jefferson and his deistic beliefs. But it's equally odd to hear this coming from the mouth of Washington, who was supremely private about his personal religious faith, and from the pen of Hamilton, who began and ended his life with strong religious beliefs but at this time had not been a churchgoer for his entire adult life. I do wonder if "religion" may have meant something slightly different to the contemporary 1796 audience than it does today; I associate religion specifically with organized and orthodox belief systems, but perhaps at that time it would have meant general spiritual feelings or something else. I guess it may be significant that the address never refers to "God" or "Christ," so maybe it would still fit within a deistic framework.

Pre-posting-edit: I just scanned through the delivered version of the farewell address, and see that here that Washington changed that last sentence to "reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." A lot could be written contrasting "a generally received and divinely authoritative religion" with "religious principle".

The Reynolds Pamphlet is genuinely insane. Everyone says it is, but I didn't fully appreciate it until reading it for myself. It's so tone-deaf, he never apologizes to Eliza and only briefly mentions her a couple of times in passing. He makes himself out to be the victim; the general tone is "This was wrong, and there's no point in belaboring that fact, so let's not dwell on it." He keeps listing all of the original letters he's attaching as appendices, which eventually total in the high 40s. I'm reminded of the classic Stringer Bell quote: "Are you keeping notes on a criminal conspiracy?!" Hamilton's point is that his conduct was never criminal, which is true, but he seems completely blind to the fact that it was still completely wrong.

It is interesting how Hamilton's opinion of Mrs. Reynolds is still ambiguous - even after all these years, he still isn't sure whether she was in on a plot from the start, was brought into it later, or was always who she seemed to be, a woman in a rough situation. He starts off confidently asserting that he's pretty sure the initial encounter was fabricated, but that certainty dwindles by the middle of the story, and he openly weighs the evidence for and against. It's very much in line with Chernow's reading, who is also unsure of the real story but notes that Hamilton had a life-long soft spot for mistreated women, very much due to seeing how his own mother was treated. And I've really enjoyed (while also feeling discomforted by) how this plays out in the musical, with the various actresses portraying Maria occupying various points along the temptress/victim spectrum, and carrying that ambiguity onto the stage.

It's darkly funny that, after the farewell address we get an accelerating sequence of letters and addresses wherein Hamilton opines on the centrality of morality and religion in public life, and then is swiftly exposed as an adulterer. Some things in politics don't change! After his affair comes to light he seems to lighten up on the "morality" language somewhat, but continues hard to hammer home religion, specifically contrasting with Jefferson's "atheism".

Hamilton seems increasingly unhinged near the end of the collection. It's kind of like he's past the boiling point, and all of the obstacles and insults he's encountered over the last fifteen years are instantly repaid with stern fury. Chernow sees this as the evidence of what a powerful (and good!) moderating influence Washington had been on Hamilton, tempering his brilliance with wisdom and tact. Once Washington retires for good, Hamilton has no restraints left, and becomes dangerous to himself and others. In a particularly chilling letter he notes that the recent election in New York has been bad for the Federalists, and so the pro-Jefferson delegation will tip the presidential election in his favor. Hamilton urges the current pro-Federalist assembly to change the rules to cast votes based on the previous session and not the newly-elected one. He admits that this is not lawful, but he's so incensed and terrified at the thought of Jefferson as President that he will take any measures to prevent it. It's so sad to see this ruthless ends-justify-the-means pragmatism from a man who so eloquently created and defended the overall federal framework, the system of checks and balances, the pathways to peaceful transfer of power, who had so recently railed against men who would ignore the law for their own ends.

It's also a little humbling to see the incredibly heightened fears of the time, the certainty that America was doomed if the wrong man got elected. All in all, Jefferson's administration wasn't bad - he kept alive the First Bank of the United States, continued steering a middle course between Britain and France, and oversaw the Louisiana Purchase. The optimist in me wants to say "Things won't be as bad as we think they will be!", while the pessimist/realist in me thinks that sometimes things will be even worse than we imagine.

Hamilton turns into kind a resigned elder statesman near the end. People still write him for advice, he seems to sometimes have a deeply pessimistic outlook, other times a sense that the bad guys are winning but it's important for the good guys to remain honorable and uncorrupted so they will be seen as worthy when the present regime collapses. But he takes solace in being a "farmer" with a larger property outside of the city, and focusing on his private law practice, belatedly building up financial security for his family.

This adds another level of tragedy to his duel ("interview") and death. He didn't want to be a part of it, and does seem to have acquired genuine religious convictions against dueling, yet his sense of honor and pride compelled him to go through with it. He writes to Eliza that he would be unworthy of her if he apologized to Burr and avoided the duel - I somehow doubt she would agree with that, she'd probably much rather have her husband!

The book ends with the sequence of letters between Hamilton and Burr leading up to the duel, then the letters Hamilton wrote the night he died, and closes with two conflicting eyewitness accounts of exactly how the duel went down. The back material includes a timeline of Hamilton's life, including explanations and events that are not directly covered in these writings. It's very terse and encyclopedic. There's also a set of end-notes, which may be of interest to some but I didn't find very useful. They're pretty sparse, and aren't referenced within the text (which I'm glad for), so you wouldn't know to look for them while reading and they're rare enough that you wouldn't want look for one after each piece. There is an interesting but technical discussion of how the text was prepared: unlike earlier collections, they've left most of the spelling and punctuation intact, but they did correct some obvious misspellings and consistently rendered periods. And, that's it!

This ended up being a much longer read than I expected, both in the number of pages and the length of time to read through it all. I have no regrets, though. Like I said up top, it feels especially relevant today; but I suspect that most people turning to these writings over the last 250-some years would also find them meaningful. Somewhat like the Bible, these are foundational texts that have defined the world we live in: they're part of our oxygen, things that are so omnipresent we don't even notice when they're there, but are far more influential than the things we pay attention to. So many things that we take for granted had to start somewhere, and this is where they started. I think our country really lucked out by having so many brilliant people involved in starting things up - yes, our system is a mess, but it's a system that has worked more or less for centuries, and that's no small feat. I'm coming out of these book somehow even more impressed at Hamilton's intellect and vigor, which is no small feat as someone who already held him in the highest esteem to begin with!

Non Stop

I'm addicted!

I got to see Hamilton again this week. This is the third cast that I've seen, and I still enjoy the show dearly: by now I don't think there are many elements that I haven't picked up on before, so I focus more on the individual performances, how each actor's portrayal adds to or changes my impression of a character and the overall show.

This is the new "And Peggy" touring company, which played a series of shows in Puerto Rico to help fund reconstruction from Hurricane Maria and is now focused on a long-term sit-down performance in San Francisco; unlike the first national tour's opening in San Francisco, the next city hasn't been announced yet, so they may continue extending their engagement here while demand remains high. Based on the enthusiasm I've seen for the show and the strength of this performance, I think they may remain for a while yet; there probably isn't the population here to support a run as long as Chicago's, but then again, folks are willing to travel to see the show. I chatted with a family of four who had driven up from San Diego primarily to catch the performance, and talked about how this was the only music all of them could enjoy listening to at the same time in the car.

My literal perspective on the show was different, too. I'd previously seen the first national tour from the center rear of the orchestra and the center front row of the loge, and the Chicago performance from the balcony. This time, I scored tickets in the "F" row, close to the stage right side but only six rows back. It was really cool to be able to see all the facial expressions of the actors in great detail, which adds a great dimension to many encounters; Alexander in particular will often pull a face or perform a little celebration at the end of a conversation. The tradeoff was that I couldn't see the actual floor of the stage and so the turntables were invisible, but of course you can still see their effect; as a result, a lot of the movement seemed more subtle, or else had more of a floating effect.

I mostly want to talk about the actors, so let's do that!

Every cast has a very different Hamilton. Julius Thomas, to me, seemed very relational: You really feel his deep affection for his friends, his love for Eliza, his devotion to Washington. With Michael Luwoye, I kind of felt like Hamilton was sacrificing everything to feed his ambition; not in a manipulative way, but no single relationship was more important to him than achieving his ideal of greatness. With Julius, I felt like it was more reversed: it's his devotion to his newfound friends that thrusts him into the revolutionary cause, his admiration of Washington that convinces him to pursue government. Julius's Hamilton is really appealing as a result, someone I like and don't just admire.

Donald Webber as Burr was amazing, a buttery singer and smooth mover and talker. I should probably stop writing "This actor was good at singing and everything" since that's true for everyone! I felt like this Burr was a little more... hollow, I guess, in a way that was really interesting. It's like he puts up this smooth and charming facade to hide that he doesn't have much going on inside. He emphasized the "Smile More" aspect of Burr, while the other actors I've seen put more focus on "Talk Less"; their Burrs are subtle observers who want to avoid attention, while Webber's Burr is a pleasant participant who skims along the surface and avoids deep entanglements.

The night I went, Morgan Anita Wood was the substitute for Eliza, and I thought she was great. The more I watch this show, the more I feel like Eliza might be the hardest role: as a character she's introverted and deferential, and she doesn't get as many opportunities as Burr to sing to the audience about what's going on inside her mind. She was played with a lot of vulnerability and sweetness, truly helpless under Hamilton's gaze.

As a side note, I think this was the first performance of the show I've seen where the three Schuyler actresses looked like they really could be sisters. I don't think that's at all necessary, obviously; a big part of the show's vision is its reinterpretation of historical people. But I thought that did add a fun visual element to the show, to have a more feasible resemblance among the sisters.

Sabrina Sloan as Angelica was a very different take on the role. I think the other Angelicas I've seen have emphasized the intelligence and independence; they feel emotion, but keep it buried deep. This Angelica does a poorer job at hiding her attraction to Alexander, which was awesome to see: it adds more dramatic tension to his relationship with Eliza, and it was really interesting to see Angelica as a more vulnerable woman with deep longings.

Rounding out the trio, Darilyn Castillo was an almost opposite Peggy/Maria to the one in the first national tour. That Peggy was bold and sassy, while this one is bubbly and sweet: much more the archetypal youngest sister, she's wide-eyed at the world around her and nervous but enthusiastic about participating in it. Likewise, the previous portrayals of Maria had seemed deliberately inscrutable: more sexy, and I was left unsure whether she (the character) was a good actress scamming Hamilton or a desperate woman putting up a strong facade. With Darilyn, though, I didn't doubt that Maria was scared, and needy, and in anguish over the course her life was taken.

(Lots has already been written about this, but the musical's handling of Hamilton's affair really impresses me. It would have been so easy to say "Our hero has been tricked by this wiley woman, what a poor victim he is!" The show doesn't let Hamilton off the hook: it shows the reasons why he did what he did, while making it clear that those reasons don't excuse his action. It really forces the audience to steep in the uncomfortable consequences and avoids giving him a pass.)

One returning face for me was Ruben Carbajal, who reprises his Laurens/Philip role from the first national tour. He was great! Out of all the shows I've seen, this was definitely the best at portraying the unique Hamilton/Laurens relationship; I was looking for it in all of the live performances, and this was the first time I really saw it. I think that's partly because the two actors have great chemistry, and it certainly helps that Ruben has had so many years to hone and perfect the role. His Philip is heartbreaking and sweet, and honestly this was a better physical matchup with Julius than with Luwoye, which visually was kind of funny since that Philip loomed over his dad.

Simon Longnight was also the best Lafayette/Jefferson I've seen yet. Listening to the soundtrack, I thought of this primarily as a role that demanded a fast and talented rapper, but I now think that it demands charisma even more, and Longnight has both in spades. He has a great presence as the Marquis in the first act, and really comes alive as Jefferson, from his splendid entrance through all his comedic business with Madison and his bottled scorn for Burr and his chagrined admiration for Hamilton. Internally, you also get a great sense for the forces driving him; I've previously thought of Jefferson as a dilettante, a guy who enjoys playing the game but doesn't really have any skin in it, but this Jefferson really does care about his home state and his way of life and believes he is battling for a worthy cause.

My visceral favorite character in the show might have been Hercules Mulligan, which is always a fun role but who Brandon Louis Armstrong knocked particularly far out of the park. This version felt especially profane and was a delight to watch, bobbing and bouncing and thrusting, carrying his beat with him wherever he went. (Yet another side note: While the overall lyrics are identical in every performance, there are some vocalizations that vary. In "Right Hand Man," I expect Mulligan to say "B'rah!" in response to Hamilton's statements; here, Armstrong says "Uh!" instead. Very different, and really perfect for this character, who feels simple and direct and fun.) And, like the other Mulligans I've seen, Armstrong manages a complete transformation into Madison in the second act. This version emphasizes the side-kick relationship with Jefferson, which is a fun dynamic; in the first national touring show, Madison almost seemed to outshine Jefferson, and the Chicago version seemed like a toady, so it was great to see yet another possible relationship here.

I'd been looking forward to seeing Isaiah Johnson again. Along with Ruben, he was the other returning actor from the first national tour, and might have been my favorite performer of that cast (alongside Emmy Raver-Lampman). Unfortunately, he was out the night I attended, but his substitute Vincent Jamal Hooper was fantastic. His Washington was more human-sized than the others I've seen; you get the sense of his fear of inadequacy, that he won't be able to accomplish what he needs to do and everything weighing on it. In this show I felt like the Hamilton/Washington relationship was more one of peers, where each man needed what the other offered, than the father/son vibe of other shows. Again, the physical aspect of the actors may have played a part in my impression; I think that in all of the other productions I've seen, Washington has towered over Hamilton, while here they have more similar builds and see eye to eye.

Finally, Rick Negron as King George was a much scarier and more menacing presence than Rory O'Malley had been. Rory's George was mostly comic relief, very expressive and goofy. Negron, though, feels coiled and compressed, dangerous, like an animal about to strike. It's still funny, especially in the later songs, but here the humor cuts the menace rather than the other way around.

Visually, I thought that the ensemble was a lot more varied than before; I'd remarked earlier, how I felt like I was seeing doppelgangers for Betsy Stuxness, Carleigh Bettiol, Thayne Jasperson, and other members of the original Broadway cast. Here, I'm sure the tracks are the same, but the body types and coloring seemed distinct. But I did notice upon reviewing the performance credits that there were quite a few substitutions in the ensemble, so I'm not sure if that's always the case for this cast.

So yeah, I had a great time! When I first saw Hamilton I was mostly concerned about whether the live performance could live up to my sky-high expectations from the original Broadway cast recording. Now, though, I'm going into these shows most interested in seeing all the ways the different casts can pull it off: fresh spins on each character, different moods being projected, reinterpreting their relationships and dynamics. I know this is a big part of what theater is all about, but I'm still astonished at the incredible range of variations you can get while still keeping every word the same. Honestly, I doubt that this will be the last time I see the show, and I think the material is so strong that it will provide even more opportunities for future casts to discover new gems inside.

Hamilton

This is the first of two non-video-game-related posts. But the new Mass Effect comes out next week, so expect a return to form shortly!

I was fortunate enough to catch a preview performance of Hamilton’s national tour, shortly before the official opening in San Francisco. I’ve been fairly obsessed with this show since the cast recording was first released, listening to it a frankly ridiculous number of times. This was my first time actually seeing a staged production, although I’ve devoured tons of info from the original broadway cast including all promotional clips, award show appearances, #Ham4Ham shows, talk show appearances, etc.

While this was officially a preview, it seems to be running really well already. (Which makes sense - I know this cast has been rehearsing for quite a while.) I think there was one point where Burr’s microphone was just a fraction of a second slow in getting turned on. Stuff like that just reinforces to me how crazily tight and intricate this show is - it’s incredibly dense, and while it doesn’t call attention to its technical underpinnings, it’s a huge feat to just keep everything in sync: the sound, choreography, cues, chairs, lights.

Bottom line up front: I loved the show! I couldn’t help comparing it to the OBC, and much of the below post will be my reflections on this. It’s definitely a different beast: the actual lyrics and (from what I can tell) set and staging are identical, but each of the principal characters are owning and remaking their roles anew, which can significantly shift not only the feel but the underlying message of the show.

The most obvious change is definitely the title role. Michael Luwoye is a totally different take on Hamilton from either Miranda or Muñoz. He is INTENSE, raw ambition: he displays a strong hunger to be recognized, to leave a mark on the world. Miranda is a bit like a puppy dog, awed at what he discovers and eager to make friends. Muñoz is the “sexy Hamilton,” charming and gliding his way upward. Luwoye is focused, driven.

One side-effect of this is that the romantic relationships seem paler. I didn’t sense a whole lot of chemistry between him and the various women he encounters. The strongest tie is with Angelica, and you get the sense that that’s driven very much by her wit and prospects, not so much her (substantial) beauty. The encounter with Maria Reynolds is still powerful, but he seems stunned by what’s happening rather than lost or drawn astray. And the Laurens tie seems to have been dropped altogether (which, to be fair, isn’t really present in the script and relies on direction and actors anyways).

On the other hand, I much more strongly felt Hamilton’s tie to Philip here. There’s genuine fondness, and I also think it makes sense if you think of this Hamilton as being primarily obsessed with his legacy: Philip literally is that legacy, the part of him that will continue into the future. Likewise, Hamilton’s tie with Washington felt particularly important here.

Isaiah Johnson as Washington was INCREDIBLE. I enjoyed his first entrance during “Right Hand Man” (which might be my personal favorite song of the show). My initial reaction was, “Huh, he sure has a different voice from Chris Jackson. He’s more raw and powerful, not as polished and smooth as Jackson. It’s still a great voice, just doing something different.” And then, once “History Has Its Eyes On You” started and buttery notes began emerging from his throat, I realized: “Oh! He can sing any way he wants to!” It was really fantastic, and one of the parts that elevated this above the OBC for me - don’t get me wrong, I love Chris, but this was such a cool dramatic tool and journey. When we first meet Washington, he’s desperately trying to keep the country alive and bound together with his pure strength of will and presence, so of course he has a rougher and more commanding voice. Later, as he transitions from soldier to president, he exchanges his military skills for political skills, growing smoother and sweeter. It gets better and better throughout the show, reaching an apotheosis in a jaw-dropping performance of “One Last Time”. I found myself desperately wishing that there was more Washington in the show - for as important as he is in the story, he isn’t actually on stage all that much, and I loved his charisma and voice whenever he appeared.

Another principal who may have elevated the original was Emmy Raver-Lampman. She was an ensemble member in the original cast, and is now the touring Angelica. Keep in mind that Renee was probably my favorite member of the OBC (along with Daveed), so it means a lot when I say that Emmy might be even better than her. Satisfied was… transcendent. I got chills. She nailed her own, new notes, ending in a crescendo that left the whole audience amazed.

One fun part of actually SEEING the musical is coming to realize just how involved everyone is throughout the show. Cast members who do not sing are still present in many scenes: the Schuyler Sisters observe Hamilton and his crew as they gallivant about New York City, and Washington has his eye on Hamilton as he starts agitating against the British. Angelica continues to observe events from across the ocean, and even King George takes note of the Election of 1800.

The one role that felt like a step down from the OBC was Lafayette/Jefferson. There's nothing wrong with the new guy - he's probably a better technical singer than Daveed, and was able to pull off all the raps, including the crazy bars in "Guns and Ships" and "Washington On Your Side." I think Daveed is just a remarkably original charisma, and it'll be really hard to find anyone who compares to that.

I should probably stop comparing everyone one-by-one... in general, I thought everyone was fantastic, trying to do something different and creating something good. Rubén Carbajal was shockingly sweet and believable as little boy Philip. Joshua Henry as Burr and Solea Pfeiffer as Eliza both seemed more introverted than their originators: they both come across as reserved and somewhat unknowable early on, which makes their eventual emotional outbursts all the more striking. Amber Iman was a GREAT Peggy, and also a terrific new Maria; this interpretation is much more clearly a woman in trouble who needs help, not a seductress (which, again, is a much more powerful figure for this version of Hamilton, so much more concerned about his impact on the world than his personal happiness). Mathenee Treco was FANTASTIC, another member who I thought might have elevated the original: his Mulligan is still really funny, but also a lot more slick and charming; his Madison seems more of an equal with Jefferson (albeit still sickly) instead of being a toady. Oh, and I thought Rory was fantastic as King George III - I'd heard some mixed things after he joined the Broadway cast, but he OWNED this role, reliably cracking up the audience and pulling off really funny moves in each appearance.

So: One major aspect of this production, as I keep noting, is how each of the principals were clearly doing their own thing and not just imitating the OBC. This includes their physical appearance: not just body shape and complexion, but also hairstyles; the iconic ponytails from Broadway are nowhere to be found. Given this, I was slightly surprised to see that, within the ensemble, they seemed to be recreating the looks of specific individuals from the original company. You could see clear doppelgangers for Carleigh Bettiol, Betsy Struxness, Thayne Jasperson, and other OG dancers. Same body shapes, costumes, haircuts, etc. Even Emmy, who is now a principal, had her own mini-Emmy. I'm definitely not complaining, just thought that was interesting.

The audience was terrific: rapt during the show, giving enthusiastic applause at the appropriate times but not, like, singing along or anything uncouth like that. (One other small semi-technical thing: I'm pretty sure that they cut out the record scratch after "Immigrants: We get the job done!", or else maybe people were a bit slow in reacting, but the audience response definitely stepped over the next bar or two of lyrics.)

I hung around the stage door after the show. More than half of the principal cast came out, led by Rory. Everyone was very generous, making a real connection with people, answering questions, and gracefully joining in selfies when asked. I was a little disappointed that Emmy didn't make the rounds, since she was the person I most wanted to meet, but still: I got to spend a few seconds with Hamilton and Washington and Peggy and Eliza and George and Philip and a few folks from the ensemble, hooray! (I think one of them was Jennifer Geller, but can't quite make out the signature - whoever she was, she was a particularly great dancer!) There weren't too many people hanging around for autographs; I'm curious if that's just not as much of a thing in SF as in Broadway. Personally, I haven't ever done it before, but was really glad to have stayed and met the actors... it's a different thing, but I think I've been somewhat prepared by my attendance at author signing events, so I now prepare a nice, short, specific compliment for each person. (I was NOT prepared enough to bring a Sharpie, though - fortunately most actors have their own, and other people in the crowd were happy to share theirs.)

So, yeah! This show is awesome. I'll be seeing it at least once more, and expect to pick up on even more the next time around - I'm still struck by just how dense it is, not only lyrically but in staging. Tickets are, of course, ridiculously expensive, but I've been really encouraged to see that they're continuing the tradition of putting on shows for public-school students and also reserving the best seats in the house for $10 lottery winners. I'll be entering daily!

Hamilton Shmamilton

I figure fanatical devotees of Alexander Hamilton are more likely to be reading this blog than anything else, so this is a quick note to let you all know that you missed the two-hour American Experience special on my favorite founding father.

However, not to worry! This being a PBS program, it will be replayed constantly in the near future on your local station. Even cooler, though, is that starting tomorrow (May 16th), it will also be available for free online. It isn't very clear to me whether it's ONLY available on the 16th or any time after that, hence my posting this.

If you're a fan of Hamilton, this should be a good opportunity to dig deeper into his story. If you don't know much about him, tune in and prepare to be surprised by his amazing life story and the enormous impact he had on shaping our country. If you belong to the vast ranks of Hamilton-haters, I beg of you to be open-minded. Hamilton has been slandered for over 200 years, and much received wisdom about the man is simply false. Try to take a fresh look at the man and his actions, and you may be pleasantly pleased at what you find.

Update 5/19/07: It looks like the program is still available via the link above, which is good news. It'd be cool if they kept it up there for a while. And fair, too. After all, our taxpayer dollars paid for those wigs!

My quickie review: this is a good gloss on Hamilton's life. It's a testament to the man's prolific (though tragically short) career that I'm tempted to call it "too short" at two hours, but there you go. If I had my druthers, it would have focused a bit less on his private life and a bit more on his role in founding crucial national institutions: the program barely mentions the National Bank, the creation of the tax and tariff system, the abolition movement, or his role in creating an American industrial sector.

Those are the complaints of a Hamilton loyalist, though. The fact is, anyone who sits through two hours of public television is going to feel disappointed if they don't get a story out of it, and PBS was wise in making the choices they did. The program isn't dumbed down, just a limited view at an extraordinary man. Hopefully people will see this, be impressed, and then pick up Chernow's biography of Hamilton to learn more.