>>Out of sheer curiosity, are you a U.S. citizen?
>>
>>You mean how could I possibly consider that the Republic could have been "avoided," as if it is something distasteful? ;-)
>>
>>The point I'm making is that the entitled English could have kept almost all of their privileges had they not insisted that their system and its benefit for them was some sort of natural right not to be shared with grasping impertinent colonials. That behavior led to them losing it all, just as "let them eat cake" thinking led another set of entitled rich to the guillotine. Somebody else here said it is "moronic" to repeat the same behavior expecting a different result. ;-)
>
>No sure if I want to jump in here but I would like to interject one point. The revolutionary leaders were entitled English gentlemen and they risked everything for a chance at further freedom from tyranny. Their beef was with the idea of distant rule by a central monarchy, which is why they established this republic with a profound focus upon individual and states rights as opposed to centralized, distant rule.

The founders specified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights strong protections for individual and states' rights, true. They also specified a centralized structure with considerable power -- President, two federal legislatures, and a federal judiciary (Supreme Court). This is the whole concept of "balance of powers." Personally I think they did a brilliant job of it.