[Olog-hai]

Not correct. Many people wanted to establish George Washington as the USA’s monarch after the war of independence was won. There was a prevailing attitude among the Founding Fathers that only Jesus Christ was the USA’s legitimate king, however.

Also, absolute monarchy is the totalitarian form, not the constitutional version. The USA’s war of independence was not fought to disestablish monarchies, especially in the case of where you have those that believe what Romans 13 says. The French Revolution was a different kettle of fish though.

[Texas Fossil]

I don't agree with you.

The only people I have ever met who are defender's of Monarchy as an acceptable form of government are Palio-Conservative Catholics. They are a different lot, as opposed to the far leftist Catholics that inhabit the Liberation Theology sphere.

Talk about opposites.

[Texas Fossil]

Correction:

Palio-Conservative

Should read:

Paleo-Conservative.

—

It has been a very long time since I used that word. For a number of years I read Thomas Fleming’s “Chronicles”. That was back in the days I flirted with Libertarianism. It finally dawned on me what he was actually about and I dropped that crap.

[hinckley buzzard]

You are correct. Among the Founding Fathers there were many who considered a constitutional monarchy to be a viable form of government, understanding the need of a strong leader of central government but with stern limits on power to prevent abuse.

Washington could have had a crown for the asking, but to his credit he abhored the idea.

Democracy in the current "everybody votes" sense was widely distrusted and for good reason, as we have since seen. This was not fully resolved until the product of the Constitutional Convention.