As a historian I am always fascinated to look at the family trees of others (my own is impossible as there are no records, and any that existed were destroyed in a civil war), and see if there are any patterns, perhaps a Soul reincarnating into the same family over and over for a reason? However, we must be realistic about things, and when we do choose to reincarnate we pick out the favorite characteristics that we wish to have, and also how we look, even though that maybe genetically defined. Then the question arises as to whether descendants have any right to decide over what their ancestors may or may not wish for when something is questioned in retrospect, particularly when it involves a scandal or a dubious act. Would they want a previously unknown child to have their name, a mistress to have access to the family, or to apologize for an act on their behalf? It’s not their Soul, but on the physical plane, a descendant is considered to have some moral claim or rights by way of the bloodline, or do they? Is that something we assume or have created as a right here on the physical plane?
This issue has arisen in several cases I have looked at, and in particular the Salem Witch Trials. The descendants of the victims who were not exonerated did follow up and pursue this in the courts for their ancestors. Many felt it was their duty to dos so and as the cases were proven to be biased and unfair trials, there is no evidence to prove that any of them were witches. I am sure the Souls of those who were killed are grateful to their descendants, but what if those Souls had reincarnated themselves and not into the same family line to help the process along in any case? Wouldn’t they have more of a right to have a say in justice? Perhaps they did fight, and no one knew. Souls find a way, either through reincarnating in the family line, or in a position where they may have more of a say, maybe a journalist or a judge?
The fact is, in our prior lives we will all have had some instances where we were cruel, unkind, deceitful, unfaithful, and more than likely have harmed another physically and mentally. We need to accept that harsh truth, and that our ancestors were probably not perfect and did some bad things too. I did a reading for someone once, and suggested that the Soul whom they were trying to assist wanted to face their alcoholism, and thus they may meet people in this incarnation to learn from it. Thus by helping another Soul it could help the Soul in spirit to come to terms with the addiction as a mirroring effect. It was a plausible theory, but it also showed me that the sitter didn’t want to hear or accept that their ancestor had been an alcoholic, and thus that broke the link. At times, Souls may ask descendants to help them release adverse karma, as this is one way if they have been stuck, but a Soul must accept that their ancestors had flaws. If they don’t, they cannot assist them, and any link is usually weakened as a result.
On a personal level, when I was told in a prior life I had ordered the death of a Soul who is now a relative of mine, I didn’t want to believe I could do such a thing. However, once that memory was triggered, I knew it was true and I acknowledge that a ruthless part of me still exists. That’s the important thing to remember about past lives; we must accept the bad things we did as well as the good. As a child I was ruthless in a practical manner, but kind at the same time, and is a trait I still carry today. I don’t go around ordering people to be beheaded, but when I worked in recruitment I never hesitated to fire people who lied or I knew were lazy. That’s just being practical, and perhaps a toned down version of what I was before. I accepted I made errors in the past, and now I act with a little more empathy. I give people a chance now, but there is no second chance, and I make that clear.
Recently, an alleged ancestor of Alexander Hamilton wrote a response regarding the Broadway show Hamilton: An American Musical, condemning it and threatening to sue for defamation (you can’t sue for defamation of a deceased person!). However, another descendant wrote that they enjoyed the show and thought it was excellent. The simple fact is that no one truly knows what Alexander Hamilton would have thought, but the descendant who claimed to want to sue for defamation to protect the family reputation is very misguided and ill informed if they are an actual descendant (it’s only defamation if it can be proven to be untrue, and it can’t because Hamilton admitted he had an affair). Often people wish to put their ancestors on a pedestal, but there will be unknown skeletons that have been buried, and humans are naturally flawed. A descendant has a right to express an opinion like each of us, but no right to determine what their ancestor would have thought, or what action they would wish to take unless it is exoneration. Having read a considerable amount on Alexander Hamilton, most people agree that he would have been honored to have a show in his name, and as a fighter for justice and rights, he may well have suggested that the stage be used as a platform to express the current concerns that the Americans face. The play honors and celebrates Alexander Hamilton’s life and highlights the problems he faced, and with all heroes, there will be character flaws, and Hamilton was human.
Theoretically the Soul has the right to protect its own reputation, and if need be a way will be found; perhaps reincarnating as a lawyer, or maybe in a position of power that can rebalance any injustice from a prior life. Alexander Hamilton was an extraordinary man who overcame many things in life from having no named father, and then becoming an orphan. He had probably seen many injustices, and the kindness of others helped him gain an education, where he as a lawyer helped Loyalists, the very people who were against the Union. I feel the strength of his reputation and honor of his character speaks for itself still to this day, and he simply doesn’t need any of his descendants to speak on his behalf.
The Soul always retains the rights to decide how they wish to address an incident or event, but that may not be so clear to see for all. Descendants have limited rights on the physical plane, and in Hamilton’s case there are hundreds if not thousands of descendants by now, and which one has the right of any at all? The person who posted on Reddit appeared quite right winged, and while people harp on about the Sedition Act that Hamilton signed, as a historian one must look at what context it was signed in, and it was an era where immigration was not controlled (unlike today where you must apply), and thus they needed some means to expel troublemakers. One can defend their ancestors, but can one be impartial? Can the descendants of Hitler or Stalin defend their ancestors in any way that a sane, logical and rational person would accept?