Young Writers Society

•"I mean, sure, people didn't have many liberties back then, it's true" That's a terrifying understatement. Monarchy system means that the monarch can, at any time, apply laws that can destroy his subjects in ways that he can't necessarily anticipate because he doesn't know what it's like to be in the place of those he destroys.
Most kings are going to use that to their advantage, not because "humanity is naturally evil" or anything, but because it is logically and historically easier to do so.
It can also feel pretty darn good, for those who are into that.

•"when we--That is, the American Government--" Ah, you're American. Have you travelled to a European country and studied history through their lenses? Because if you haven't, I highly suggest you do so. The history of your continent is far, faaaaaar different from mine.

•"We have torn apart the Constitution" A monarchy would tear it apart even more. Even in a constitutional monarchy, a king could create a force similar to Hitler's SS to give himself full power illegally, then create an absolute monarchy with enough wits, wealth and military power. This happened time and time again and is still happening today.

•"We proclaim the Founding Fathers people who did not know what they were doing, And look what it has come to!" That has nothing to do with the institution of democracy, nor would a monarchy make things better. By concept, it puts pressure on a single, solitary being that is forced to surround himself with counselors in order to run a country, which costs money, time and care. A monarchy also means that the monarch's children would have to be trained basically from childhood, and not all children are suited to rule. This makes them very, very likely to turn into inhumane beings.

•"I'm just saying that our nation is corrupt and needs help." Monarchies can be and have been just as, and waaaaay more corrupt. There are authoritarian, monarchy-style governments right now in Africa that can show that to you. Also, what about the rest of the world? America's influence affects everyone else. They're part of the world economy, their reputation actually affects countries around them and their decisions are looked at by thousands of gazes.
I learned English because America's entertainment charmed me. If I learned that they switched to a monarchy, I would never, ever, EVER approach again, and Europeans would cut ties with them very, very fast. That would cause serious chaos.

And even if you don't mean to want a bad monarchy, there's a lot of people around you who definitely would. You can't control them unless you're the monarch yourself.

•"Because America actually had to fight for their freedom then..." Actually, France did. Americans did fight for their freedom, but they were outnumbered, outgunned and outmatched by most of the British military forces — America's main advantage was field knowledge, but their military power and weapons were provided by France. The French did this because A: some Frenchmen volunteered to help them, and B: they really wanted to get in Britain's way because these two countries were bitter rivals at the time, and still kind of are.

•"But now America doesn't have to fight for freedom." So, basically, you recognize that people in America have become complacent, so you want a monarchy so that they remember what fighting for freedom is like?

Well, there are several flaws in that logic, chief among them being that if a monarchy comes into America legally, they won't need to fight for freedom, since the whole point of the system is that, to oversimplify, one guy rules and everyone else obeys. If you don't need to fight for freedom, you don't fight for it: and when you do, it causes death all around you. Look up the French revolution, if possible. You'll get a good idea of what fighting for freedom means, and why it's not all that great compared to being complacent.

•"It puts down its sword, and lays at ease." As does most countries around them. If there's one thing World Wars taught us, is that war is costly, it causes trauma, it murders people and it. Gets. Messy. Peace is annoying, but at least you don't have a death toll of two to six million people. You also don't lose your limbs.

•"We do not fight for our country! For our Freedom! " Good. Less beheading, and less limb-loss. Oh, and less traumatized soldiers ready to overthrow the government just to stop fighting, then imposing taxes that'll make everyone poorer and ready to starve to literal death.

•"Instead we fight for our own profits, for our own benefit." That is... literally... What monarchy does. I'm not even insulting you, I'm serious: the whole point of monarchy is that a king rules and can do a lot of things he can get away with. Literally all of them, even the actually good ones, used their position for their own benefit. Humans do that as a whole. Not all of them, but still. No matter the system, you will always have people that fight for their own benefits.

•"The best kind of government is a Constitutional Monarchy." There is no such thing as a best kind of government, but monarchies as a whole just aren't, objectively. Forcing a family to rule with members not necessarily suited for the job has created monsters, or worse, incompetents. This will always happen eventually.

•"This way, the king has limited power, there are elections, and people have freedom." So... Democracy, then?

•"Doubtful that this government shall forget freedom, if the people are taught in the correct way." Then start by gaining money and inspiring the people of both America and the world to invest in more educational facilities and better teachers. The best way to teach freedom is to educate people into it. There is literally no need to switch back to a monarchy to do that: in fact, something that basically any European would tell you. We've had monarchies for centuries, it took extensive suffering, bloodbaths and genocides to get out of it.

No more of those would be great.