What'd 'Hamilton' miss? Utah history professors on the musical's brilliance and blunders

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • AS San Marcos, CA
    April 18, 2018 1:52 p.m.

    @RABNDE - I believe a rap artist just won the Pulitzer Prize for Music. The first non-classical/jazz album ever to win. Some people in the know think rap is music.

    @Husker2 - More than likely, Hamilton did own slaves. There is a reference to his mother owning 2 slaves that were likely passed on to him.

  • Husker2 Apache Junction, AZ
    April 18, 2018 1:37 p.m.

    Frankly, I've been surprised at the success of Hamilton because of the slavery issue. We live in a time when statues are being torn down because of slavery, and although Hamilton never owned slaves he did work in the slave trade and bought and sold slaves. I've been waiting wondering if this would impact peoples support for the show. Evidently not (yet).

  • RABNDE Wilmington, DE
    April 18, 2018 1:29 p.m.

    1. You can't include everything in a two hour musical.
    2. If the show gets people talking and interested in the book, so much the better-- especially for the author who is also earning money from his advisor role as well as from the rights to the material.
    3. Rap will never be music. Just noise by boys instead of music by men.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    April 18, 2018 8:57 a.m.

    Saw "Hamilton" last night. Phenomenal.

    For those who find the rap off-putting, I was surprised at how much traditional music there was. And this cast has some of the best voices I've ever heard on a stage, and I've seen dozens of Broadway shows. If you like traditional musicals, this show will still get you your fill.

    Also saw Dieter and Harriet Uchtdorf at the show last night...