Trinity Church’s $6 Billion Portfolio

trinity-church-secrets-financial-district-alexander-hamilton-NYC-Untapped-Cities-1

Trinity Church in New York City was formed in 1697 by a small group of Anglicans. Alexander Hamilton, Eliza Hamilton, and Angelica Schuyler, three of the stars of the hit Broadway musical “Hamilton,” are all buried in New York City’s Trinity Church.  Alexander and Eliza baptized five of their children at Trinity.  John Jay was also a parishioner.

Today, Trinity Church is very wealthy.  Over at The New York Times, Jane Margolies writes about the church’s real estate investments in the city and its own construction of a $350 million glass tower.  Here is a taste:

While many places of worship are warding off developers as they struggle to hold on to their congregations and buildings, Trinity is a big-time developer itself.

The church has always been land-rich. And it has long had its own real estate arm, which controls ground leases and office space rentals in the buildings it owns. But now it finds itself with a newly diversified portfolio worth $6 billion, according to the current rector, the Rev. Dr. William Lupfer.

After being instrumental in changing the zoning laws in Hudson Square, a neighborhood between West Houston and Canal Streets, Trinity Real Estate has entered into a joint venture that gives it a majority stake in 12 buildings that contain six million square feet of commercial space. A lucrative deal with the Walt Disney Company, valued at $650 million, was signed just last year.

And as it builds its glass tower — which will house administrative offices, public gathering spaces and, yes, commercial tenants — Trinity is also renovating the interior of its historic church, which is expected to cost $110 million.

Trinity has been able to do all this because it’s been a savvy manager of its resources. It is also, as a church, exempt from taxes.

But some wonder about the ethics of a religious institution being such a power player in the world of New York real estate.

Read the entire piece here.

I Knew It! The British are Behind the Mueller Probe!

If Christian Right radio and television host Rick Wiles is correct, this song from the Broadway musical Hamilton explains everything:

That’s right. The British let the colonies go and they are still angry about it.  They are SO angry that they are secretly working to undermine Donald Trump.  (HT: Kyle Mantyla).

By the way, the 1960s “British invasion” is also part of this.

Here’s Wiles:

Do I Feel a Revival of the Virtual Office Hours Coming On?

Maybe it is time to revisit our old You Tube series the Virtual Office Hours.  After watching Seth Rudetsky’s deconstruction of “The Schuyler Sisters” I thought we might be able to revive this series to correspond with my “Age of Hamilton” class in the Fall.  (Of course our videos would be mostly historical rather than musical–I don’t have Rudetsky’s skill).

I should also add that my Pez dispenser collection has grown.

Here are our most watched episodes:

“Age of Hamilton” Course

a0cbb-hamilton

My department chair has assigned me an upper-level “topics” course for the Fall 2019 semester.  I am seriously considering taking advantage of the popularity of the Lin Manuel-Miranda musical by offering a class titled “The Age of Hamilton.”

If you have taught a similar class that draws upon the musical or the soundtrack, I would love to hear from you!

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton Exhibit Will Open in Chicago

hamilton

It is scheduled for November.  Here is a taste from Chris Jones’s reporting in the Chicago Tribune:

“Hamilton,” the phenomenally successful musical written and composed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, brought so much posthumous celebrity to Alexander Hamilton that America’s first secretary of the treasury kept his fragile spot on the front of the 10-dollar bill. But Miranda and his producer, Jeffrey Seller, are not yet done giving their man his shot after shot after shot.

Bowing this fall on Chicago’s Northerly Island: “Hamilton: The Exhibition,” an interactive, immersive, one-of-a-kind, only-in-Chicago attraction designed to tell the story of Alexander Hamilton and the founding of America.

“People want to learn more,” said Miranda in an interview Sunday at Tribune Tower. “It seems that two hours and 45 minutes of a musical were just not enough for them. I know from my Twitter account.”

Read the rest here.

OAH Dispatch: Historians on “Hamilton”

Rutgers UP

The editors of Historians on Hamilton sign books! (From Rutgers University Press Twitter feed)

We are happy to have Julianne Johnson writing for us this weekend from the floor of the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Sacramento.  Julianne is a Ph.D student at Claremont Graduate University and Assistant Professor of History at College of the Canyons in San Clarita, California.  Enjoy!  –JF

Friday morning’s 8am session Historians on Hamilton at the OAH conference was uncharacteristically full.  Scholars Patricia Herrera of the University of Richmond, Claire Bond Potter of The New School and Renee Romano of Oberlin College led a panel discussion surrounding their contributions to a new book from Rutgers University Press titled Historians on Hamilton; How a Blockbuster Musical is Restaging America’s PastRomano and Potter are both editors of, and contributors to, the book.  The panel discussion approached the phenomenon of Lin Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton The Musical by interrogating how the show has been received, how the show is revolutionary, and what historians can learn from the show about how to communicate the past to popular audiences.

All three panelists challenged the audience to consider how Hamilton The Musical does history.  Renee Romano, Professor of History, Comparative American Studies, and Africana Studies at Oberlin, considered Hamilton in the context of historical memory and what she describes as a “new civic myth.”  Romano questioned whether Hamilton The Musical is expanding the circle of “we” for Americans by offering young people of color a sense of belonging and challenging white audiences to accept minorities in the roles of our founding generation.

Patricia Herrera, Professor of Theater at the University of Richmond, told a heartwarming story of her experience listening to Hamilton The Musical with her children while taking a road trip throughout our nation’s national parks.  Her young daughter’s desire to be Angelica Schuyler for Halloween pushed Herrera to interrogate how Hamilton The Musical conflates the historical figure of Angelica the slave owner with the beautiful African American actress playing her on stage.   For Herrera, the national parks and the musical perform a similar function.  The parks represent beautiful democratic vistas and leisure for white Americans on the backs of a tragic narrative for Native Americans.

Finally, Claire Bond Potter, Professor of History at the New School, discussed her interest in Hamilton The Musical and Miranda from a social media perspective.  Her chapter in the book, “Safe in the Nation We’ve Made,” looks at how the musical reaches a large audience on social media, allowing for a more authentic connection and turning fans into cultural investors.

Palpable throughout the panel discussion was the historians’ respect for Miranda’s work and a hope that other historians will use the musical as an entry into teaching and talking about history. At the end of the session, the line in the exhibit hall to purchase the book had the Rutgers staff sweating.  I secured my copy and am happily reading it now.

Ron Chernow’s Latest Biography

GrantHe became famous by writing the book on which the smash-hit musical “Hamilton” was based.  Now Ron Chernow‘s latest book is a biography of Ulysses S. Grant.  The Washington Post has the story covered.  Here is a taste of Karen Heller’s piece:

Ron Chernow’s timing is exquisite, even if it took six years and 25,000 index cards to get to this moment.

As Americans debate the continued reverence for Confederate general Robert E. Lee in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, the biographer of Hamilton — the “Hamilton” who inspired the theatrical juggernaut — delivers his latest brick of a book, “Grant” (publishing Oct. 10), to help rescue the Union commander and 18th president from the ash heap of history.

Ulysses S. Grant, you may recall, won the Civil War. He was the military architect who triumphed on multiple battlefields and vanquished Lee in Virginia after six other Union generals failed.

Yet after the South’s defeat, “Lee was puffed up to almost godlike proportions, not only as a great general, but as a perfect Christian gentleman, this noble and exemplary figure and an aristocratic example,” says Chernow, 68, sitting in his sun-splashed kitchen on the top floor of the 19th-century Brooklyn Heights brownstone where he rents two stories. “The glorification of Lee and the denigration of Grant are two sides of the same coin. We’ve created our own mythology of what happened.”

Read the entire piece here.

How to Build a History Course Around “Hamilton: An American Musical”

hamilton

Reeve Hutson of Duke University explains how to do it.  Here is a taste from his piece at Panorama:

To my surprise, Hamilton proved a wonderful foil for studying the Revolutionary era—because the students love it; because it’s so good as a musical; and not least because it’s so bad as an interpretation of the Revolution. Those of you who have heard or seen the musical know just how many problems are contained in it: the belief in American exceptionalism; the assumption of a natural, already-existing American nation that pre-dated the Revolution; the faith in American national innocence (with the prominent exception of slavery and the subordination of women); the association of American-ness with upward social mobility; the notion that the Revolutionary movement was singular and united; the assumption that the story of the Revolution was the story of the “founding fathers”; the belief that the Federalists embraced what we twenty-first-century audiences would recognize as “democracy” (again, except for the disenfranchisement of women and people of color).

Read the entire piece here.

“A suit of tar and turkey-buzzard feathers”

samuel-seabury-1729-1796-granger

Samuel Seabury

The Monmouth County, New Jersey Committee of Observation and Inspection REALLY didn’t like the pamphlet Free Thoughts on the Resolves of the Congress.  The author of the pamphlet was listed as “A.W. Farmer,” a pen name for Westchester, New York Anglican minister Samuel Seabury.  Some of you recognize Seabury from the musical “Hamilton.”

Here is a taste of the Committee’s minutes from March 1775:

At an early meeting of said Committee, a pamphlet entitled Free Thoughts on the Resolves of the Congress by A.W. Farmer, was handed in to them and their opinion of it asked by a number of their constituents then present.  Said pamphlet was then read, and upon mature deliberation unanimously declared to be a performance of the most pernicious and malignant tendency; replete with the most specious sophistry but void of any solid or rational argument; calculated to deceive and mislead the unwary, the ignorant, and the credulous; and designed no doubt by the detestable author to damp that noble spirit of union, which he sees prevailing all over the Continent, and if possible to sap the foundations of American freedom.  The pamphlet was afterwards handed back to the people, who immediately bestowed upon it a suit of tar and turkey-buzzard’s feathers; one of the persons concerned in the operation justly observing that although the feathers were plucked from the most stinking fowl in the creation he though they felt far short of being a proper emblem of the author’s odiousness to every advocate for true freedom.  The same person wished, however, he had the pleasure of fitting him with a suit of the same materials.  The pamphlet was then in its gorgeous attire, nailed up firmly to the pillory post, there to remain as a monument of the indignation of a free and loyal people against the author and vendor of a publication so evidently tending both to subvert the liberties of America and the Constitution of the British Empire.

Apparently violence was not only directed toward other human beings during the American Revolution.  It was also directed to pamphlets!

Is “Hamilton” the New “1776?”

Yes.

Watch this clip.  It will be stuck in your head all day:

Matthew Rozsa agrees with the title of this post.  Here is a taste of his recent piece at Salon:

It’s a great story, one that both I and many of my close friends ritualistically watch every 4th of July. Yet what about “1776” makes it so resonant? Why does this movie stand out when countless other patriotically themed motion pictures fade into the background?

It’s instructive to first look at another recent musical about our Founding Fathers, “Hamilton.” While it doesn’t pass a lot of tests when it comes to historical accuracy, “Hamilton” works so well because it brilliantly resurrects the philosophical debates that were at the core of America’s founding during the ratification of the Constitution and the administration of President George Washington.

“1776” does the same thing, only with a different moment from American history. It picks apart the debates that occurred between, on the one side, Adams and other revolutionaries who believed America needed to break free from the British Empire, and, on the other, the motley of factions who, for various reasons, felt we should remain loyal to Great Britain.

Read the entire piece here.

“Hamilton” Minus Music?

FreemanYale University historian Joanne Freeman recently released her Library of America volume The Essential Hamilton: Letters and Other Writings.  In a short review at The New York Times, John Williams described it as “Hamilton Minus Music,” or, “a more direct (if less rhyming) way to learn about Alexander Hamilton.”

Over at The Anxious Bench, Agnes Howard of Valparaiso University worries that “Hamilton Minus Music” sends the wrong message.  Here is a taste of her post, “Does Hamilton Have to Sing?”:

My disquiet over Williams’s idiom of praise stems from questions about what Americans ought to know about their country’s history, or really, what they ought to want to know. One can’t know everything, and I have observed enough U.S. history survey courses to see that much over which teachers enthuse falls through the cracks in students’ interest. But still, some U.S. history topics, including Revolution, Constitution-making, and early nationhood, should clear that bar without overmuch enhancement. We should want to know about Hamilton’s career because it’s interesting. It’s also curious, formative, fascinating, and–in a way that Freeman is particularly good at bringing out–full of personalities, some deservedly famous and some stuck obscure, entirely as entertaining as television, often more so, and more significant. Those eighteenth-century arguments, the way they were framed and the way they tilted, shaped the country we all are sitting in.

Read the entire post here.

*Hamilton* in the *Journal of the Early Republic*

hamilton

Over at Professor Park’s Blog, historian Benjamin Park calls our attention to a historian’s roundtable on Hamilton published in the latest issue of The Journal of the Early Republic.

Joanne Freeman, Andrew Shocket, Heather Nathans, Marvin McAllister, Benjamin Carp, and Nancy Isenberg contributed to the roundtable.

Here is a taste of Park’s post:

But is Hamilton historically accurate? Benjamin Carp says that might be the wrong question to ask. Attendees should know that it’s not accurate history–the characters are breaking out into song and dance, after all. Rather than wondering if it is “good history,” we should rather ask, “is it good for historians?” (292) At its best, the play asks intriguing questions regarding how history and myth are constructed. It is left to historians to take advantage of the doors that are opened.

Nancy Isenberg, as you might expect, is not as optimistic. She worries that by merely celebrating the play, historians are abdicating their duty to hold popular memory accountable. She says the historical errors in Hamilton are not peripheral, but “massive” (296). The play distorts Hamilton’s personality and, especially, his commitment to power structures. (I especially enjoyed her discussion of the “faux-feminism” politics in the play [299].) Hamilton is not helping the promotion of accurate and useful history. “Americans ought to feel uncomfortable about their collective past,” she concludes. “We look foolish otherwise, as cheerleaders of American exceptionalism” (303).

Read the entire post here.

Bringing the “Hamilton” Soundtrack to the History Syllabus

hamilton

Framingham State University historian Joesph Adelman has matched every single class period in his “Early American Republic” course with a lyric from the Broadway smash “Hamilton.”

For example, on Friday January 27 the topic of discussion is “Local and National Politics.” Students will read Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Public Credit” and a chapter in Brian Murphy’s Building the Empire State: Political Economy in the Early Republic.  The “Hamilton” lyric for the day is “If we’re aggressive and competitive.”

On Friday April 7 the topic of discussion is “Religion in America.”  Students will be reading a sermon by Charles Finney and an essay on missionaries by Emily Conroy-Krutz. The “Hamilton” lyric for the day is “I take my children to church on Sunday.”

Wow!  Can I take this class, Joe?

Little Steven Defends Mike Pence

Hard Rock Calling 2012 Day 2

Steve Van Zandt of Bruce Springsteen’s E Street band has taken to Twitter to condemn the cast of the Broadway musical Hamilton for the recent statement they made to VP-elect Mike Pence during a recent show that Pence attended.

Read Miami Steve’s Twitter account here.

The tweets were covered by the Asbury Park Press.  Here is a taste of that article:

Steven Van Zandt of the E Street Band, one who is not shy about making pointed political statements, feels the cast of Hamilton: An American Musical bullied Vice President-elect Mike Pencewhen a cast member addressed Pence from the stage at Friday night’s performance.

“It was the most respectful, benign form of bullying ever. But bullying nonetheless. And by the way, human rights must be won, not asked for,” said Van Zandt in a series of tweets on Saturday. “When artists perform the venue becomes your home. The audience are your guests. It’s taking unfair advantage of someone who thought they were a protected guest in your home.”

Read the entire article here.

Annette Gordon-Reed on “Hamilton”

hamilton

Hamilton the musical that is.

In a recently published piece at Vox, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon-Reed argues that the “intense debates” surrounding the Lin Manuel-Miranda’s Broadway smash “don’t diminish the musical, they enrich it.”

Here is a taste:

Hamilton is attractive on numerous levels — and to different audiences simultaneously. There is no wonder that its depiction of the founding generation would have instant appeal among ardent consumers of what journalist Evan Thomas described back in 2001 as “Founders Chic.” That genre celebrates the derring-do and personal characters of a handful of men (with occasional nods to their consorts) who supposedly “made” the Revolution and the Early American Republic.

On the other hand, for the past several decades academic historians have complicated the founding narrative by expanding the cast of characters involved in it: Native Americans, poor whites, blacks (enslaved and free), and women. With this has come a more intense focus on the problematic aspects of that era — Indian removal, slavery, and the construction of white supremacy.

Yet such is Hamilton’s aesthetic merits that I, and other of my colleagues who have been deeply involved in the project of complicating the narrative, have managed to fall in love with the play, despite its groundings in a triumphant founding narrative. Evidently, many of us enjoy feeling good about America too, though we insist on remembering and discussing the tragedy that was every bit as integral to our country’s beginnings as the positive aspects. It makes perfect sense that these two impulses — to celebrate and to complicate — should be a part of discussions of Hamilton’s cultural message and historical accuracy.

Read the entire piece here.

Religion and “Hamilton”

hamilton

In his review of Lin Manuel-Miranda’s Broadway hit “Hamilton,” Peter Manseau, the new curator of American religious history at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, writes: “Miranda’s ingenious retelling of Revolutionary-era U.S. history studiously ignores common eighteenth-century notions of the role religion should play in society, replacing them with the fully privatized faith of today.”

But wait!  Perhaps religion does play an important role in “Hamilton.”  Civil religion that is.

Here is Manseau again:

Yet despite the play’s stalwart separation of church and founding statesmen, there remains something about Hamilton that strikes a religious nerve: namely, the way that its various canny subversions of the popular imagery of the Founding era ultimately reaffirm the American creation myth. The musical’s off-the-charts popularity stems from more than Miranda’s catchy hooks and inventive lyrics. As Hamilton continues to swell into a bona-fide reflection of the zeitgeist, one underlying factor seems most responsible for its rise: Miranda’s fable of the republic’s founding offers a way to take part in the cult of sacred history without the usual birthright credentials and ritual obeisances. This is no mere hip-hopera; it’s an altar call for would-be patriots previously too burdened by ambivalence to fully embrace the American faith.

The favored avatars of this faith may change with the times, but its creed does not. The birth of the nation remains our One True God. The Revolution, the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers serve as something of a trinity establishing the culture’s unquittable cosmology and incontestable truth. Seen this way, Hamilton is less a new vision of the past than a translation of the sacred stories of American civil religion into the vernacular—in this case, the lingua franca of contemporary pop culture, a mashup of hiphop, R&B, rock, and show tune samples. And like any vernacular rendering of a text considered holy and immutable, it is at once radical on the surface and retrograde underneath—the best example in years of how a dominant worldview adapts to survive social change.

Read Manseau’s entire piece at The Baffler.