The Duel of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr

I saw this play last night, and am straining to critique it in terms that will not seem mean-spirited. There is much merit in the idea of considering the consequences of Hamilton's death and examining the question of what his survival might have changed. But, there is only merit in the execution if the man's character (as well as Burr's) is accurately drawn. Mid-way through Act I, I became convinced that the author had somehow neglected to read any history in preparation for writing the script. To allow the character of Burr to describe himself as one of the founding "band of brothers" could be excused as a nod to the real man's arrogance and loose sense of truth, but to let the assertion go uncontradicted in the play--to make a hero, in fact, an *abolitionist* hero, out of the slave-owning, would-be imperialist (see his treason trial for attempting to establish his own country in the western territories)--is unconscionably inaccurate.

And then, there's Hamilton. Truly, an imperfect man, but hardly the rigid, arrogant, blustering, stone wall portrayed in this play. His rise from poverty, bravery in war, brilliance in writing, despair after his son's death, tenderness for his wife and remaining children, and religious objections to duelling are universally ignored. I hesitate to even think of the play's Hamilton as an attempt to portray the man who lived.

In short, an overwhelming disappointment--fictionalized beyond any connection to this great and terrible history.