You must mean the British crown-sympathizing Hamilton types.
You would be amazed of how many Founding Fathers supported monarchy. At the start of the war the biggest fear amongst the British was that the Patriots were an extension of the Jacobite wars (which advocated the Stuarts divine right to rule).
The Casus Belli of the war, taxation without representation, was caused because Parliament overstepped their bounds. The colonies were the personal dominion of the crown and thus only the King had jurisdiction. That is why there were no colonial representatives in Parliament. The War of Independence wasn't a war against a tyrannical king, but a war against a tyrannical parliament which usurped the rightful ruler. If you don't believe me, you can take the word of a Founding Father:
"You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects'; and we began the quarell which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament." - Rufus King
Is the market place of ideas not a key foundation of democratic thought; why would you want to limit it? And if the people are wise enough to decide their government like democracy argues, then would it not be anti-democratic to deny people a monarchy if that is their wish?
You would be amazed of how many Founding Fathers supported monarchy. At the start of the war the biggest fear amongst the British was that the Patriots were an extension of the Jacobite wars (which advocated the Stuarts divine right to rule).
The Casus Belli of the war, taxation without representation, was caused because Parliament overstepped their bounds. The colonies were the personal dominion of the crown and thus only the King had jurisdiction. That is why there were no colonial representatives in Parliament. The War of Independence wasn't a war against a tyrannical king, but a war against a tyrannical parliament which usurped the rightful ruler. If you don't believe me, you can take the word of a Founding Father:
"You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects'; and we began the quarell which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament." - Rufus King
That sound like more of a you problem.
Is the market place of ideas not a key foundation of democratic thought; why would you want to limit it? And if the people are wise enough to decide their government like democracy argues, then would it not be anti-democratic to deny people a monarchy if that is their wish?
My mistake. Your post read as if you were advocating a continuation of our democratic system.
So if you are not in favor of democracy, monarchy, nor communism... what are you advocating for?