Memes aside,would alexander hamilton establishing an american monarchy really be bad thing?

We could also end up being the carthage to russia's rome
Or germany is the carthage to noth america and russia

>Russia is Eastern Rome's successor arguably
>America is the West reborn
>together we combine to form the Neo Imperium Romanum
>together we will conquer the world and bring peace to the human race

God, my body is ready for this. Make it happen.

lost it.

>I don't know what a monarchy is

There will be no peace until one race rules supreme.
Tribalism and racism is an innate part of human nature.

an American monarchy would have likely discredited the nation from the beginning, with the Great Powers of Europe seeing the ruling family as illegitimate at best and an insult to the old royal families at worst.

A monarchy's stability rests on its reputation, with centuries old dynasties already existing such as the Von Hapsburgs, Bourbons, Savoys and Hanovers, an ex-english colonist such as Hamilton or Jefferson claiming their own new dynasty would be taken as a complete joke by the rest of the western world, or an insult, and would be isolated from crucial diplomatic relations the county needed to survive its first few years, namely France.

In a way, the US being a republic was the best course of action to be taken seriously as a nation, a monarchy with no royal ties is seen as nothing more than pretenders to a throne that has no credibility to stand on.

The Clinton dynasty is over, they only have one daughter.

>There will be no peace until one race rules supreme.
>Tribalism and racism is an innate part of human nature.
That's not really true.

Race relations are bad in America because most of the minorities belong to ethnic groups with an average IQ close to mental retardation.

I'm not convinced that racism would exist in a hypothetical society made of culturally homogeneous (cultural homogeneity is important, granted) white and east asian people. I think race mixing would eventually occur.

That's an oligarchy, but you're right that positions of power often end up in the hands of insiders in high places, even the Italian city-republics found the name Medici getting elected again and again.

Those who have power in any form aren't willing to give it up, whether it be as a monarchy or a republic, so family ties and insider nepotism makes sure that the those closest to the ones in power remain in power.

Maybe if it was someone like Jefferson, though the Americans did offer the crown to the Kaiser.

The problem is the crippling poverty and general glorification of violence by American citizens of any race. If drug abuse wasn't rampant and our education wasn't utter shit, we'd likely have a lot less racial conflict. And crime.

Yes. A monarchy would have proven far less stable in the following 200 years.

Yes, even after we take the Civil War into account.

>America is the new Rome
There are only two kind of people in america, retards and jews.

>A monarchy would have proven far less stable in the following 200 years.
Why?
Though, it should have been a kind of federated empire. Multiple kingdoms under an emperor.

Monarchy in the US is completely and utterly opposed to everything the original strain stood for, and I say this as a Brit. It would never have taken off and rightly so.

Rome gave the world Caligula and had Jews in it. It still fits.

> United
> Empire
> of America

>opposed to everything the original strain stood for
Yea? What's that?

"I shouldn't have to pay for my nation's security."

it wouldn't be as efficient