abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

Americans have always been distrustful of monarchy, or the rule by one in the office of king, but never more so than in the days of the founding of the American republic. Not only had the citizens of the 13 states just fought a war to throw off the yoke of English tyranny, a tyranny that was associated in their minds with King George III, but also many of them or their ancestors had suffered under the persecution and oppression of the European monarchs. So when it came time to establish our national government, there was one thing that the Americans agreed on--the United States of America would have no king!

It is interesting in this regard to observe the debates that surrounded the office of president being proposed in the new federal constitution. On the one side you had those who believed that the president was being granted too much power, and would be, in effect, a monarch like unto the kings of Europe. In "Cato" V, it is alleged:

...that the president cannot represent you, because he is not of your own immediate choice, that if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and odious aristocracy or monarchy--that the president possessed of the power given him by this frame of government differs but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great-Britain....¹

"John Humble," in his satirical piece in opposition to the new proposed constitution "To Lick the Feet of Our New Born Masters," says:

And whereas a number of skilful physicians having met together at Philadelphia last summer, for the purpose of exploring, and if possible removing the cause of this direful disease [i.e., The Articles of Confederation], have...in the profundity of their great political knowledge, found out and discovered, that nothing but a new government consisting or three different branches, namely, king, lords, and commons, or in the American language, president, senate, and representatives, can save this our country from inevitable destruction.²

On the other side, there were those who rejected the notion that the new president would be a monarch like unto the kings of Europe. In "Americanus" II, John Stevens, Jr., replies to "Cato" by saying:

The comparison which he has thought to his purpose to institute between a BRITISH MONARCH and a PRESIDENT under the Constitution is surely unworthy of attention. It must excite ridicule and contempt in every man when he considers on one side, the dreadful catalogue of unnecessary, but dangerous, prerogatives, which, in the British Government, is vested in the Crown; and on the other side, takes a view of the powers with which this Constitution has clothed the President.³

In Federalist Paper No. 69, Hamilton addresses the objection that the president will be like unto a king. He states that in no way should it be said that "there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain" and the new office of president,⁴ and argues throughout the paper the difference between the power of the United States president and the British king.⁵

In America in the 1780's, neither the Federalists nor Anti-Federalists wanted a king to rule over them! They all believed that monarchy (especially hereditary monarchy) was dangerous to liberty. The United States Constitution rejected monarchy, and established a federal republic with checks and balances so that no one man or branch of government would have too much power. In American government, there would be no king.

The Constitution is an excellent document in many respects. Yet, it also has some flaws. Its most serious flaw, ironically, is in regard to monarchy--it fails to recognize that America does indeed have a king! This king has a claim to full allegiance by the American people. This king requires submission to His authority by both the people and the magistrates. This king expects His subjects to adhere to His law. This king promises blessing to all who acknowledge Him as supreme Lord and swear an oath of loyalty to Him. This king is the Lord Jesus Christ (Psalm 2).⁶ This king was not acknowledged in our Constitution; no oath of loyalty was given to Him by the people; no recognition of the authority of His rule or of His law was stated. The "King of kings" was set aside for "We, the People." This has brought God's displeasure upon us.

Americans were right to fear monarchy. They were justified in rejecting the office of king and establishing the office of president with carefully circumscribed power. But they were not justified in their failure to officially recognize the Lordship of Jesus Christ over this nation in the Constitution. Christ's kingship is not dangerous to our liberty; rather a submission to Him is the only way to true freedom.

You see, America does have a king! America's king is Jesus Christ, and He was placed over us in that capacity by Almighty God. We failed to recognize that in 1787, and the fruit is the thoroughly secularized American government of today. God will not be pleased with America until we recognize and submit to Christ our king.

Endnotes:

1. The Debate on the Constitution ( New York: The Library of America, 1993), 1: 399.

2. Ibid., 1:224.

3. Ibid., 1:416.

4. Ibid., 2:338.

5. Ibid., 2:338-345.

6. Psalm 2 establishes without question that Jesus Christ is now King of all nations, and all must bow to His Lordship. cf. Ps. 110; Dan 7:13-14; Acts 2:33-36; Phil. 2:10-11; Rev. 1:5; 11:15; 12:5; 19:16.

back to top