Did the USA have a chance at being a constitutional Monarchy instead?

what did i just read
t. american

>>2886096

For what purpose? So we can taxpayer fund a small core of glorified welfare recipients?

>>2886101
-t, Illiterate tard
Despite what you might think some people did honestly expect Washington to take the mantle as some sort of ruler ala Napoleon before Napoleon, some were shocked when he actually just retired and wanted to enjoy the rest of his life after a long ass war.

>>2886096
Yes. Washington turned it down.

>>2886110
You realize the British royal family generates more revenue for the UK than it recieves? If anything the royals are a good thing.

>>2886096
Hamilton's constitution meant that the President would for practical purposes be a constitutional monarch, but it was rejected as being too similar to the British.

>>2886096
No

Ignoring the fact that declaring themselves a monarchy would have been against all the literature and philosophy of the time, it would have fucked them over. (I mean seriously, why would they fight a massive war for sovereignty against the crown for them to make another crown?) no one in Europe took the USA seriously when they declared themselves independent. By declaring themselves a Monarchy, it would establish the USA as sort of rivals to the traditional monarchies. There is a reason Napoleon called himself an emperor and Cromwell called himself Lord Protector

>>2886127
Related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)#Hamilton.27s_plan

File: 86734835deb49019ec5ce959a1a219ce.png (532KB, 492x610px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 492x610px

>>2886111
Why are you so suddenly upset?
Napoleon was a fucking idiot, idiot
and it's pretty dumb to just expect something like that, you want the newest country too adopt an ideal that is dying as said country is being formed, i think you are the retard, retard.

>>2886129
>a massive war for sovereignty against the crown
In the lead up to revolution, they liked the king. They appealed to him directly many times prior to the Declaration of Independence. It was parliament they hated. It was parliament that jacked up taxes and sent occupying troops and passed laws without the representation or consent of the colonies. Unsurprisingly, many revolutionaries were fine with monarchy and wary of a legislature.

>>2886149
Except that a republic like the USA was formed like was barely heard of in the western world. I'm glad all you could muster up is calling me names instead of making an actual argument.
Ignorance of history, especially of your own country is not an excuse.
Also see the chaos that was the United states government during the war and the articles of Confederation, it almost collapsed and Washington could have without any doubt took power as a constitutional monarch just in the same way Napoleon did years later.

>>2886172
>jacked up taxes
>paid 4% of what british paid

>muh representation even though i live in the most prosperous part of the empire and british laws almost never effect me
>even when they do we just ignore them
>waaah why won't the british let us persecute natives and catholics
>w-why do i have to theoretically shelter my own soldiers who have protected me from the french and spanish
>m-muh freedom!

Honestly fucking Americans are ridiculous

>>2886126
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of that money from tourism? If so, why would people care about the us monarchy?

File: 1481345948834.png (333KB, 592x681px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 592x681px

>>2886175
You started it, seriously.
No this isn't about monarchies, what makes you think a monarchy would fix anything?
The euro countries started to go too shit while they had monarchies, I blame france's downfall on Nap and you come to me saying teh better leader of the two would have been better off in a monarchy, why?

>>2886189
Not him, but monarchies are aesthetic. There is something to be said about a living monarchy with living traditions and its place in western society, both today and historically speaking. Monarchy provides a solid link to the past that republics don't really have. Either form of government can be perfectly functional and democratic and whatever, but I think that monarchies have everything that a republic has and more.

>>2886227

>Giving our money to a small core of people who are basically just glorified welfare recipients makes our nation so much better!

You could literally just give out the money randomly in a compulsory national lottery and that would be a better system.

>>2886234
>monarchies never make any of their own money

Taxes are paid to the monarch by definition anyway, it's no different from paying taxes anywhere else. It's also no different from anyone else who is born into privilege.

File: 9347d700ec62079b86fe669a50dbb9bf_thinking-man-png-clipart-man-thinking-transparent_361-277.png (86KB, 361x277px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 361x277px

>>2886238

So why is this specific group of rich people arbitrarily more important? Niggers who make millions playing basketball deserve more respect, and I mean that with complete sincerity. At least they fucking did something.

>>2886256
>So why is this specific group of rich people arbitrarily more important?

It's not arbitrary at all, they're usually at the centre of the constitution. Monarchs have diplomatic duties, members of royal families often serve in the military (in Canada's case I can tell you that Elizabeth II, Philip, Harry, William, and Charles have all served in the military.) They do a lot of things that the president in a parliamentary republic would do anyway. Symbols are important, I like something that is long-lasting and has good aesthetics like monarchy instead of a random guy who gets replaced every few years.

>>2886270

>members of royal families often serve in the military

So? Members of non-royal families ALSO often serve in the military. But this one rich asshole does it and it is arbitrarily more meaningful than all the rednecks and niggers that do the same fucking thing for less money?

>>2886227
>deciding politics by aesthetics
get out, pseud.

>>2886203
I get the TES aspect, but what is this referencing? Did Glenn Beck do something like this irl?

>>2886110
is this a joke

>>2886314

Definitely not.

>>2886313
I honestly don't even know, i just like the pic and connsidering TES/his memes are so rare i just saved it, lol

>>2886305
>monarchy
>politics

Monarchy is above politics you goon

>>2886317
bruh what do you think corporate deregulation is

>>2886313
Just Beck being slightly more insane that usual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIKhr158cD4

>>2886096
It would need a completely different group of people running the revolution.

Washington did not overthrow George III so he could be George I.

>>2886362
Not really, the President could have potentially been elected for life.

>>2886288
Their ancestors owned the land therefore they get to reap the benefits, or do you want everything you own to be taken and given to the government instead of your kids/family?

>>2886288
>moving the goalposts this hard

You initially claimed that they do nothing, so I showed that they do indeed do things other than sit there and take MUH MONEY

1. Leaders get paid
2. Monarchs own their own shit

>>2886182
>muh representation even though i live in the most prosperous part of the empire
The life expectancy in America at independence was 35. The only people who were overly prosperous there were plantation owners.

>tfw we didn't end up a constitutional monarchy
Feels bad.

>>2886385

Which is why Washington couldn't be the central figure, he didn't want to be King George I, or even President for more than 2 terms.

>>2886426

They don't do anything that isn't also done by other people of much lower status.

>>2886407

>WE WUZ KANGZ AND SHIT

>>2886326
>a political system is above politics!
this your brain on pure aesthetics

>>2886101
>what did i just read
>read
>t. american
Something isn't right here
t. another American

>>2886642
>>WE WUZ KANGZ AND SHIT
They wuz and still iz

>>2886227
>Monarchy provides a solid link to the past that republics don't really have.
didn't expect to read such a retarded post on /his/ of all places

>>2886407
Yeah I'd actually be ok with a reasonable inheritance tax

>>2886985

>I don't have any actual power but I'm still a king!

No, you're a glorified welfare recipient.

>>2886203
>mfw I don't support monarchies.

>>2886096
Yes one of them wanted to invite a Prussian noble
But then the opposition passed a law saying only people born in America could be president thus preventing a personal union of crown and office

>>2887017
And figurhead of the state, diplomat, tourist attraction, revenue generating land owner and a cultural center of your national identity

>>2886096

No.

>>2886126
>You realize the British royal family generates more revenue for the UK than it recieves?

Renting out 'crown land' that would be public land anywhere else to "generate revenue", so noble of them lol. It's an extension of the broken window economic fallacy. You have a small group of elites living an extravagant lifestyle on the taxpayers behalf, nothing more.

>If anything the royals are a good thing.
There are arguments to be made for having a constitutional monarchy, but them 'generating revenue' isn't one of them.

A benefit of having a royal family, I think, is having a fallback if politics gets all fucked up. If the government is full on broken and the public outcry to reform everything gets great, if the king were to dismiss the current government and hold elections/assemblies for a new one, the people will let it happen.

The benefit of Royalty is that they are not politicians, and they always are there, so its a stabilizing force if the royals stay popular. And they stay popular by being benevolent public figures but stay out of day-to-day politics, so they stay out of the mud.

>>2889132
>Renting out 'crown land' that would be public land anywhere else

Wrong. It would just be the privately held land of a not-monarch, rather than public land. Unless you go full communist.

>>2891032
>It would just be the privately held land of a not-monarch

The vast majority of the land being wilderness/rural areas would more than likely be public. Since this is the model that nearly all western nations follow, we can assume the same would have been true in the UK.

But even if it weren't, the land being divided up among multiple smaller landowners all renting it out would still generate the same amount of revenue, just divided more evenly among the local economy. The idea of a monarchy 'owning' land exists only as long as the people are willing to believe they can. It's a construct.

>>2891901
>moving the goal posts so much you become a communist

>>2891901

No. You don't understand. Its land that private property that happens to belong to the monarch. You can't take that away the same reason you can't take anybody else's property away. Assuming you believe in property rights.

I propose that we ban alternate history.