Alexander Hamilton had eight children, most of whom survived and had children of their own, so it's no surprise that his direct descendants are numerous. But why is Burr's family represented by a more distant relative? If you look at most documents about his life, they will say he and his wife had one daughter who died as a young adult, and that her only child died before having children of his own.
But there is substantial evidence that Burr had more than one illegitimate child. He adopted a French boy named Aaron Burr Colombe who is believed to have been his natural child. There is also reasonable documentation that he was the father of John Pierre Burr and Louisa Charlotte Burr Webb, the children of his Indian (as in from India) maid. It is an interesting reflection of the development of racial categories in Colonial America that Burr's (presumed) children considered themselves African-American, although their mother is believed to have been born in Calcutta. They became active in abolitionist causes, and Louisa's son was one of the first African-American novelists.
As far as I can find, there has been no DNA testing to confirm Burr's patrimony of these three children. Regardless, if there are likely direct descendants of Aaron Burr, it's interesting that none of them were chosen for this reenactment. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons (Antonio Burr is an experienced reenactor, there were no descendants of John or Louisa willing to participate, etc.), but race may have played a part as well. Would PBS have faced a backlash if Aaron Burr was played by a Black man, even if that man was a direct descendant? Historical representations are often fraught with questions that reflect our own social ills more than those of the past. Personally, I think there was a missed opportunity to highlight the messy reality of race and history in the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment