American conservatism circa 1776

I recall many discussions that conservatives want a King. It's the control structure that makes sense to their brains. They essentially crave a King.
- The central tenet of conservatism, whether they're consciously aware of it or not, is a belief in hierarchies. There is a stratification to society that must be maintained, which of course manifests a king or oligarchy at the top.
  Men are above women.
  The rich are above the poor.
  Whites are above everyone else.
  They don't care about religion or nationality except as tools to maintain that hierarchy.
  
  Belief in hierarchies as natural, good and desirable is the definition of right wing, it is literally the first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
- Can we just let them have a pretend king while the rest of us enjoy a nice democratic republic?
  
  That's what celebrities are.
  
  You had one of those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
  
  I say we let the South break off and build a nice big wall to keep them out of the ~~rich~~ blue states. With all the money we'll save by not supporting them anymore, we could develop a kick ass system for taking in refugees escaping from the South.
  
  this is literally what we do in scandinavia, we have a king/queen who might technically actually have fewer rights than regular people (which can of course simply be solved by abdicating) since they can't really do anything "political", and they just go around doing PR.
  Works pretty well IMO, of course it feels a little bit shit that they get all kinds of luxury for being born royal, but hey, it satisfies a lot of monarchists and is otherwise basically meaningless so why not.
- They crave being dominated. Anytime somebody tells you they're a conservative just imagine them with a ball gag and gimp suit, 'cause that's what they really are on the inside.
- Loki is that you?
  
  Its anyone rational who's seen conservatives, really, but I enjoyed the reference.

Always have
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

I don't really mind loyalists. There's not some great moral difference between them and the revolutionaries like there was between unionists and confederates. Both were, deep down, fighting for their own best interests. It's not like the property and slave owning founders were particularly concerned about anybody's oppression but their own.
- I don’t really mind loyalists. There’s not some great moral difference between them and the revolutionaries like there was between unionists and confederates. Both were, deep down, fighting for their own best interests.
  I agree, at least to a degree. There's a right side and wrong side to the argument, but it's not the kind of stark moral contrast the way there is between Unionists and Confederates. It's more of a "Are you really so uncreative as to be unable to see that being ruled without a say in your own governance is some feudal shite?" than a "Jesus fuck you are fighting for the worst institution known to man."
  It’s not like the property and slave owning founders were particularly concerned about anybody’s oppression but their own.
  4 out of the 7 Founding Fathers were staunch abolitionists (Jay, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams). 1 became an abolitionist later in life (Washington). 1 turned against slavery half-heartedly (Jefferson). Only one was an ideological slaver (Madison).
  
  Genuine question as a non American, if they were really staunch abolitionists why didn't they abolish slavery when they created the US?