Why did America think it was a good idea to trade stable Monarchy for unstable Democracy? Did they honestly think those presidents that retarded voters voted for every 4 years would treat them better?
>>18525761What virtues are intrinsic to monarchy?
>>18525797Higher executive efficiency ceiling and lower tolerance for infighting, but this is true of any autocratic system
>>18525761Real power laid with the British parliament at the time so this question is nonsensical.
>>18525801None of that is intrinsic to a monarchy >Higher executive efficiency ceilingEntirely dependent on what you're comparing it to, a republic could have laws or stipulations that allow one person as much executive authority as any dictator or king for any arbitrary period of time. >lower tolerance for infightingAlso relative and not intrinsic to it. A monarchy can have as much or as little as you can imagine and both be equally tolerated depending on the circumstance, time and state being talked about. >but this is true of any autocratic systemI think you have an idealized version of governing systems in your head and you're confusing that with what is essential and inseparable from them
>>18525761>stable MonarchyKing George was insane and overidden by Parliament >>18525804 bro
>>18525801>lower tolerance for infightingautocratic regimes are filled with infighting, if anything its often encouraged since it makes it much harder for organized powerblocks to form to challenge glorious leader
>>18525761>stable monarchyThere wasn't much stability in the British monarchy, let alone European ones.
>>18525761Some of them didn’t:>It is remarkable that the Constitution was little trusted or admired by the wisest and most illustrious of its founders, and that its severest and most desponding critics were those whom Americans revere as the fathers of their country. Washington explained, in a conversation which Jefferson has recorded, his fears for the permanence of the new form of government…He said "that he did not like throwing too much into democratic hands; that if they would not do what the Constitution called on them to do, the government would be at an end, and must then assume another form." He stopped here, says Jefferson, "and I kept silence to see if he would say anything more in the same line, or add any qualifying expression to soften what he had said, but he did neither." There was one superior to Washington among the statesmen who surrounded him—Alexander Hamilton; and his prognostications were still more gloomy. He said: "It is my own opinion that the present government is not that which will answer the ends of society, by giving stability and protection to its rights, and it will probably be found expedient to go into the British form." "A dissolution of the Union after all seems to be the most likely result." Later in his life he called the Constitution a frail and worthless fabric, and a temporary bond. The first President after Washington, John Adams, said "he saw no possibility of continuing the Union of the States; that their dissolution must necessarily take place."The Founding Fathers would genuinely hate how much American worship the Constitution and muh freedumbs. Probbaly hate the average American too
>>18525881By the late 1700s, the British monarchy was incredibly stable. As the 1800s and 1900s show, Great Britain was the most stable of any country, monarchy or democracy, in Europe.
>>18525761>Retard thinks there was any meaningful difference between a monarch and a president for the common man's daily life in colonial America The King was some figure thousands of kilometers away in an age with no radio communication and where it took 6 weeks to cross the Atlantic ocean, you really fucking think the "stable monarchy" had any kind of meaningful role in life for Americans before independence? If anything it was a destabilizing force explicitly because every British conflict in Europe would spread to being a British conflict in the Americas >>18525898Didn't Jefferson support redrafting the whole Constitution every 20 or so years too? Hilarious to think he'd be crucified as a liberal transgender communist nowadays
>>18525876I said, "lower" not no. No matter what, there's less infighting and squabbling than a system wherein debate is the standards practice.
>>18525936>Didn't Jefferson support redrafting the whole Constitution every 20 or so years too? Hilarious to think he'd be crucified as a liberal transgender communist nowadaysYeah, that's legitimately a retarded idea.
>>18525939except again thats false since autocrats love the idea of others within the system being to busy bickering with each other, why else do you think so many of these autocratic regimes just have multiple offices that conflict with each other, or have multiple different military orgs that compete with each other for resources and influence
>>18525761>a stable monarchy>that answers to a parliament in London>which is trying to wreck your economy to make Britbongs richer1776 is why Americans aren't thirdies today, look at how shit a job Britain did everywhere else. Even the settler colonies like Canada only got decent treatment from Britain because they were afraid of American Revolution 2.0
>>1852594220 years is definitely too short, but desu doing a revision once a century might be in order. There's blatant BS we're stuck with right now (e.g. only 435 Reps since the 1920s despite substantial population growth since then) because amendments are impossible to pass
Monarchies are horrifically unstable compared to modern systems. They were in a state of constant rebellion, civil war, succession crisis’, and other assorted shittyness. The only reason they were the default is that systems like Representative Democracy are way more complex and require much more technologically and socially advanced polities to get started, whereas any Bronze Age tribe of yahoo's can understand "Do what man in fancy hat says".
>>18525951>1776 is why Americans aren't thirdies today, look at how shit a job Britain did everywhere else.yeah, that's uh... that's the only difference between america and former british colonies like jamaica and india, nothing else
>>18525761The English were objectively right and justified in the revolutionary war. The Founding Fathers were evil people who wanted power for themselves and rejected the King's rightful authority. Their successors browned America and invited micks and dagos instead of keeping America Anglo Saxon and look at the embarrassing mess America is now. Our last 3 presidents have been a Irish halfbreed Negro, a obnoxious recent German immigrant married to a Slovenian, and a demented Irishman. George Washington would forsake his demonic rebellion if he knew the consequences God save the King
>>18526064>magic skinexplain Argentina/Chile/Uruguay then(and those even had nominal independence in the 19th century - not that it did much for them, between colonial elite mentalities and how much Britain dominated them economically)also explain how Britain fucked up Newfoundland so badly
>>18525761>Did they honestly think those presidents that retarded voters voted for every 4 years would treat them better?No, that is why they neutered the president and added two other branches and a bunch of checks and balances while making it fairly easy to kick a president out of office.
>it's another 'democracy bad because something something trannies' episode
>>18526093>shit nobody cares about enthusiasthey, I didn't know chud was interested in the US constitution!
>>18526100I'm going to constitute you if you know what I mean
>>18525761Most Americans were pro-Monarchy. It was a quasi-aristocratic landowning Elite, who supported the Revolution and was responsible for radicalizing them towards Independence.
>>18526258>Most Americans were pro-Monarchy.Nope. Toryism was synonymous with pro-crown during the Colonial Era and most colonists were anti-Tory on the grounds of wanting a separation of Church and State (which back then was more about not wanting the state to influence the Church)
>>18526270Nope. Only a tiny minority of people ever supported the "Patriots" and an even more tiny minority fought for them.
>>18526273>t. The Church of England basically had no power in the Colonies. Tories literally had to form secret societies to have any hope of winning against WhigChads. Most American colonists were not "pro-Monarchy" no matter how much of your personal headcanon wishes they were. The Patriots were disorganized and ill-prepared at he beginning of the war but this is not evidence most colonists were pro-crown. The population of British North America/Modern Day Canada (where all the pro-crown colonists fled to) was only around 370,000 people in 1800. Compare this with the estimated 5.3 million Americans during the same time period.
>>18525761Why was Massachusetts split in 2 like that? The north part is what would become Maine right? What's the story there.
>>18525761>why did colonies made up of people who literally went there to escape the periphery of the crown fight against monarchy?What a stupid fucking question. If they weren't anti-Monarchy they wouldn't be there to begin with. Dumbass
>>18525902yeah monarchies are so stable and the late 18th and early 19th century is the exact moment you look at to realize this
>>18525902because the British monarchy was castrated by Parliament after the English Civil War and didn't run shit
>>18526281Massachusetts was the dominant power in New England and didn't want to let New Hampshire (which didn't get its own governors until 1741) go either. Plymouth, modern Southeast MA, was initially a separate colony too, and there was an alliance called the New England Confederation which incorporated Plymouth before absorption along with Connecticut and New Haven.Rhode Island was from day 1 a designated dissident zone for people who found Massachusetts too strict though, so they didn't try to take it over.
>>18525761Well, look at the state of Britain right now vs. the USA. I'd say they made the right choice.
With a monarchy the people are in danger of being very slowly and painlessly anally raped, like in a colonoscopy exam, while a smiling man flashes his brilliant straight teeth on TV and says "Everything is alright!" and the patriotic Yes Chads sit back relaxing on their couch comforted by the TV man, meanwhile a few brave Norwood chuds hunched over their Thinkpads start researching crime statistics and they feel the anaesthesia start to wear off, and they start feeling a little uncomfortable sensation down there, it's getting worse, but no matter how many normgroids they redpill it's hopeless because the monarchy has set up such an effective propaganda system that the chuds cannot even redpill the mere 3% of the population required for a full scale bloody revolution
They were considering the worst case scenario. The absolute worst way the country could turn out. When a monarchy goes to shit, the monarch tenses up and he tries desperately to cling to power and you have scores of Phyrigian capped patriots dying in the streets and ruinous factions of communists and anarchists smashing each other on the head with fragments of 500 year old marble statues. The disgusting freakish unwashed masses realize they must Zerg rush the capital and burn it all down if they want any change. When a democracy goes to shit, nothing happens. If people's lives suck, they just sit around until the next election so they can vooote for the blue man instead of the red man this time, and things will change by 1%, they may even get worse but at least they'll change, and that's enough to satisfy the black-skinned dasa cattle. Why did they have such a gloomy outlook for the US? Because they were race realist chuds and realized there simply weren't going to be enough elite human capital 130IQ Puritan Anglo immigrants arriving to form like a giant sized Venetian republic. They were going to get Scotch Irish, Irish, Bavarian, Quaker, Gallic salt-of-the-earth podunks, and they prepared accordingly
>>18525804>>18525872Not a defense of democracy. If your explanation was sufficient they would have had an aristocratic Senate
>>18526289History is littered with examples of tribes exiled from monarchies who left to establish their own monarchy. In fact that describes roughly every single human expansion before America
>>18527929>exilesThe colonists weren't exiled anon, they chose to be there
>>18527943Did I say they were exiled?
>>18527924You know senators were originally appointed by the governors of each state right and that it was only around the 20th century that people decided that every political office had to be elected because they thought that the more democratic the process the better
>>18525761stablility is not a good thing; you get locked in dysfunction. the world is changing anon.
