America has plenty of pageantry, the Inauguration and plenty of other protocol and traditions.
Sure, but monarchies tend to be a bit more ... I guess "glittery" is the right word, about it.
However, the really critical difference is fixed term.
America has plenty of pageantry, the Inauguration and plenty of other protocol and traditions.
Sure, but monarchies tend to be a bit more ... I guess "glittery" is the right word, about it.
However, the really critical difference is fixed term.
The imperial presidency is pretty glittery. Monarchy can have a fixed term, if america wanted to call itself a elected constitutional monarchy no one would dispute it, just like no one truly disputes calling itself a Republic. With a strong executive not answerable to a parliament you basically inbetween.
What about France saying: "We support you. But we want you to elect a King we can negotiate with - we don't communicate with you "Continental Congress".
One- Despite a host of people on AH.com who state otherwise, the facts are that Hamilton DID want an elective monarchy, he stated so in his own words, there are sources, use Google.
Sure, but monarchies tend to be a bit more ... I guess "glittery" is the right word, about it.
However, the really critical difference is fixed term.
Well, monarchy or not, the new nation would still have a legislature and judicial branch.
"Hey, we just fought a war against somebody we perceive as a tyrant. Let's give power to someone who has even MORE capabilities than the tyrant."
The American revolt began as a strain of thought over the King not using his powers, many of the founders explicitly wanted the King to act against Parliament in their favour. That's a key reason why the President (aka the "King") is so strong in the American political system, and the legislature so much weaker than a parliamentary one.
The imperial presidency is pretty glittery. Monarchy can have a fixed term, if america wanted to call itself a elected constitutional monarchy no one would dispute it, just like no one truly disputes calling itself a Republic. With a strong executive not answerable to a parliament you basically inbetween.
Second- Adams would never have allowed any such treaties with France or the UK that would have forced us to be a monarchy. Again, we have his letters in his words that he was worried about this, in particular with France demanding it. Jefferson was in France later with Adams, and at this period they were close friends; with young JQA and Mrs Adams having quite a close connection with Jefferson and his daughter; though they disagreed on some topics, Jefferson and Adams would have been united on this point. Franklin... probably would have supported an elected monarchy, but really neither cared to listen to him, he was old, lazy, and ineffectual at this point in life.
America needed French support, they would of agreed to almost any proposal if France wanted it bad enough, lesser of two evils. Without French support our revered founding fathers would of hung as traitors, which they were, they would of been failed traitors -- which they knew.
The idea of a republic is not alien; Holland, after all, is not a kingdom at this time. Why would they say this?
He did it once, no? At the Constitutional Convention? And even there, he never publicly advocated for a hereditary monarchy.
A president for life with strong executive powers is still not the same thing as Washington becoming king, IMO.
False- Adams and Jefferson were both in France and they both were willing to walk away from French support over such a demand. There is empirical evidence from their letters showing that. Instead you use your own beliefs about the founding fathers, you need to use their own primary sources instead. History is about primary sources, not secondary.
Not to say I do not believe you, but you didn't show your primary sources... Second this is kind of moot because we, the usa, wouldn't exist if they had walked away, I like to assume they weren't that stupid. They knew they were up against the greatest empire in the world, and their chances were slim. This I have read about in primary sources, when various people signed the declaration of independence they thought they were signing their own death warrants.
Well, Holland was (and is) only a province, it is not and has not ever been an independent nation, so you're correct. The nation is and always has been the Netherlands. Yes, they were a "republic" though actually more correctly an oligarchy ruled by the wealthiest of the people from the most economically important provinces. They also had an "elected" monarchy, that turned into a hereditary one (similar to how the Habsburgs did in the HRE).
"Holland" is also a colloquial name for the Netherlands. I'm surprised you didn't know that already.![]()