Monarchism in the United States is the advocacy of a monarchical form of government in the United States of America. During the American Revolution a significant element of the population remained loyal to the British crown. However, aside from a few considerations in the 1780s, since independence there has not been any serious movement for an American monarchy.
During the American Revolution, those American colonists who stayed loyal to the British crown were termed "Loyalists". Historians have estimated that between 15 and 20% of the 2,000,000 whites in the colonies in 1775 were Loyalists (300,000–400,000).[1] The revolutionary war officially ended in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. This marked the official end of monarchy in the United States with George III of the United Kingdom being the last monarch.[2][3]
In the 1780s, in the period between the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution, several propositions for creating an independent monarchy were considered.
Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs had sufficient power domestically to resist foreign corruption, yet there was enough domestic control over their behavior to prevent tyranny at home.[12] Hamilton argued, "And let me observe that an executive is less dangerous to the liberties of the people when in office during life than for seven years. It may be said this constitutes as an elective monarchy... But by making the executive subject to impeachment, the term 'monarchy' cannot apply..."[13] His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection.
In his later defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, he often hints that a lifetime executive might be better, even as he praises the system with the four-year term. Political scientist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote that Hamilton "regretted that the United States could not become a monarchy."[14]
Modern monarchism
Since the ratification of the constitution, support for monarchy has possessed a generally low popularity, though it has increased slightly over time. In 1950, 3% of Americans said it would be a good idea for America to possess a royal family, while 93% thought it would be bad. This question was re-asked in 1999, where 11% of Americans answered that in favor of a royal family would be good for the United States & 87% against.[15] A 2013 CNN poll found that 13% of Americans would be open to the United States possessing a royal family again.[16] A 2018 poll asking if America would be better or worse if it possessed a constitutional monarchy had 11% of Americans answering better & 36% answering worse.[17] A 2021 poll by YouGov found that 5% of Americans would consider it a good thing for the United States to have a monarchy (7% support among men & 4% support among women), with 69% answering that it would be a bad thing. In the YouGov poll, African-Americans were most likely to answer positively in favor of a monarchy at 10% support.[18] In 2023 another poll was conducted which found 12% of Americans favored monarchy in the United States while 63% remained opposed.[19]
The Constantian Society, founded in 1970 by Randall J. Dicks, was a political group in the devoted to promoting the system of constitutional monarchy as a superior form of government, though its activities ceased with its founder's death in 1999.[20][21]
The idea of an American monarchy has more recently found popularity within Traditional Catholicism and some conservative circles. Commentators like Taylor Marshall and Michael Knowles have praised monarchism while groups like the New Columbia Movement and The American Royalists have used monarchist imagery and actively promoted Monarchism.[22][23]
^There are multiple disagreements on who would have been the "king of the United States" today if George Washington had become king and passed the crown to his descendants. The general consensus among historians and genealogists would give the title to Richard Washington of Texas.[7][8][9]
^In 1859, Joshua Abraham Norton, a resident of San Francisco, California declared himself "Norton I., Emperor of the United States".[29] He possessed no formal power during his self-declared reign, but citizens of San Francisco celebrated his presence and imperial proclamations regardless. He was never recognized as a valid monarch by the United States government, but King Kamehameha V of Hawaiʻi chose to officially recognize Norton as the valid leader of the United States.[30][31]
References
^Calhoon, "Loyalism and neutrality", p. 235; Middlekauff (2005) pp. 563–564; Thomas B. Allen, Tories: Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War (20176) p. xx
^Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs. "Treaty of Paris, 1783". 2001-2009.state.gov. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
^Hamilton, Alexander (1962). The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Volume 9. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN0-231-08903-1
^Madison, James (2005). Larson, Edward J.; Winship, Michael P. (eds.). The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison. New York: Modern Library. pp. 50–51. ISBN978-0-8129-7517-8.
.svg)
