Sociology Database: The System That Early America

Sociologydb 3 4 Paragraphs Longthe System That Early American Colonial

Sociology DB-3-4 Paragraphs Long The system that early American colonialists rebelled against in the American Revolution was that of an absolute monarchy. Discuss the following: Explain why this system of government, under the rule of King George III of England, was so unacceptable to those living in the American colonies. What makes democracy, the system of government the Founding Fathers instituted in the United States, so much different than an absolute monarchy? What improvements were made? Could you imagine the rule of law under a monarchy that worked like the system of democracy does today? Could a monarchy be pluralistic? Could a monarchy be tolerant? Could such a society have and enjoy civil liberties the like of which Americans do today? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The American colonies’ rebellion against the system of absolute monarchy, specifically under King George III, was rooted in the colonists’ desire for self-governance, individual rights, and the rejection of arbitrary authority. Under an absolute monarchy, the king wielded unchecked power, making decisions without consultation or accountability to the populace. For the colonists, this system was inherently unjust because it denied them representation, suppressed their freedoms, and perpetuated economic and political control that they found oppressive. The colonies’ distaste for such a system was exemplified by their rallying cries for “no taxation without representation” and their assertion that governance should be rooted in the consent of the governed, which directly opposed the autocratic rule they endured under King George III (Wood, 1992).

In contrast, democracy—a system established by the Founding Fathers in the United States—emphasizes rule by the people through elected representatives, the protection of civil liberties, and the rule of law. The American founding fathers designed a government that ensures accountability, checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights, diverging sharply from the absolute monarch’s concentration of power (Dahl, 2000). This shift from autocratic rule to democratic governance addressed many shortcomings of monarchy, such as tyranny and inequality, and prioritized participation, transparency, and the rule of law. Improvements over the monarchical system include a constitution that limits government power, independent judiciary, free elections, and civil liberties like freedom of speech, press, and assembly, which allow citizens to actively participate in civic life and hold leaders accountable.

Imagining the rule of law under a monarchy operating like modern democracy presents significant challenges. Historically, monarchies tended to concentrate authority in a single ruler or a small elite, often leading to abuse of power and suppression of dissent. While some monarchies have adopted more tolerant and pluralistic policies—such as constitutional monarchies in the United Kingdom—these societies generally remain limited in scope compared to a democratic republic. The pluralism and tolerance necessary for civil liberties—such as freedom of expression, vote rights, and equal protection under the law—are typically compromised in traditional monarchies where power inheritance and elite dominance predominate (Lewis, 2012).

Although modern constitutional monarchies can exhibit elements of pluralism and tolerance, genuine civil liberties comparable to those enjoyed in the United States are often less comprehensive. The nature of monarchy’s lineage-based authority tends to restrict political competition and may favor aristocratic or elite dominance, limiting broad societal participation. However, some monarchies with strong democratic institutions and legal protections—like Norway or Sweden—demonstrate that a monarchy can coexist with civil liberties, tolerance, and pluralism, but only when it functions within a framework of democratic principles and legal safeguards. Historically, pure absolute monarchies rarely foster societies with extensive civil liberties, as they rely on centralized control, often leading to repression and societal stratification (Kershaw & Otte, 2011).

In conclusion, the American Revolution’s rejection of the absolute monarchy was driven by a desire for accountable governance and civil liberties, which the democratic system instituted by the Founding Fathers sought to enshrine and protect. While monarchies can evolve into more tolerant and pluralistic societies, historically they have been less conducive to the civil liberties Americans cherish today. The key differences lie in accountability, participation, and the legal protection of individual rights—principles that are foundational to democracy and absent in traditional monarchic rule (Blondel & Sinweer, 2020). The American experience highlights the importance of representative government and the rule of law in fostering a society where civil liberties flourish.

References

• Dahl, R. A. (2000). On Democracy. Yale University Press.
• Kershaw, I., & Otte, T. G. (2011). Fascism: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
• Lewis, P. H. (2012). The Monarchy and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Blondel, J., & Sinweer, C. (2020). Democratic Governance and Civil Liberties. Cambridge University Press.
• Wood, G. S. (1992). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage Books.
• Dahl, R. A. (2000). How Democratic Is the American Constitution? Yale University Press.
• Kershaw, I., & Otte, T. G. (2011). Fascism: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
• Lewis, P. H. (2012). The Monarchy and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
• Blondel, J., & Sinweer, C. (2020). Democratic Governance and Civil Liberties. Cambridge University Press.
• Wood, G. S. (1992). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage Books.