We don't have to "omit" the requirement "for an Emperor, Ruler or oligarchy", because there is no such requirement. You made it a requirement by using a false definition.
And by the way, a monarchy is not necessarily a form of an oligarchy. An oligarchy is defined by being a degenerate/deformed aristocracy, often a rule of a noble group or the nobility as a whole in the form of a dictatorship. A monarchy is defined by being a rule of one person or dynasty in any possible form, not giving any inclination towards the kind and quality of the rule.
Nobody was talking about "traditional empires". We were talking about "empires" per se. And the US is very well considered an empire. I don't know why you choose to repeatedly ignore what I said. I am a scholar of history and I studied empires in my research about the differences between Sparta and Athens and the differences between Rome and Carthage.
There are different definitions according to the subject matter. As there are for example different definitions of the term "war". There are "hot wars" like World War II and "cold wars" like
the Cold War or there are the so called "big wars" like the third Gulf War (or second US-Iraqi war) and the so called "small wars" like what the US likes to call the "war on terror". But all of these terms have definitions and are bound to one superordinate definition of "war". It's the same thing with the term "empire". And the US, though not a "traditional empire" in the specific, narrow sense like Rome was for example, is very well a proper empire in the superordinate, broader sense like Russia was for example.
I assumed that you're biased because of the vocabulary you used. For example did you fail to acknowledge, that an empire can be ruled in the form of an aristocracy or a democracy. Instead you chose to stress the forms of rule that have mostly negative connotations in the US like "oligarchy". Also you refused to accept that per definition the US is an empire. You rather change the definition by making your opinion the definition over the scholarly stated definition.
I never said otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that English is universal
today (not "British", mind you, and not 250 years ago) and far more people speak American English than British English. Considering that, by making this point once again, you jump to the "there wouldn't be America without Britain" point. But to stay true to your argument you would have to acknowledge that there probably wouldn't have been a British empire without the Roman empire or the Spanish empire before that. But that conclusion from your own point you refuse to make, because then you would have to admit that your seed/planter analogy defeats your own point.
While you are certainly right about the "we can never know", you are also wrong about the British colonizing the US. The North American continent was not colonized by the British. The British government snatched a large part of the area, that had already or was just being colonized, and put it under it's rule. There is a huge difference. That the British were the ones that started colonizing the area later known was the 13 states is a historical myth still propagated by many American school history textbooks today. There were British settlers, of course. But most of them settled there because they wanted to leave Britain. And there were settlers from many other countries and not to forget the Natives as well.
Again, you are the one repeatedly attacking the "seperate empires" approach with your seed/planter analogy, which just doesn't hold water in case of the US. The only part of the analogy that fits is the part where the planter is the motherland and the seed is the colony. But, as I said, you have to seperate "empire" from "imperialism". The seed has long outlived the planter.
I don't see where I have to win this discussion. First of all, I am a historian and thus belong to the ones that say that you have to look at empires seperately, and second of all, I repeatedly said that you have to seperate empires. So I don't know where you think you are finding fault in my argument.
And of course there is an US exceptionalism. The US itself promulgated this idea through it's politics and it's early historical writing (for example by George Bancroft) and thus has become a prime example for the "sense of mission" or the belief in the own exceptionalism many scholars of history attribute to empires or at least aspiring empires.
I know the history of the US very well, thank you.
And I know that while forming the nation and it's constitution, the early Americans threw out more of the British antetype or model as you will than they kept. The separation of powers for example is a crucial point in which the American presidency and the English monarchy could hardly have been more different. But there is nothing to discuss about your point.
I wouldn't be the man I am today if it hadn't been for my father and the many things about him I swore I'd never emulate. Same thing goes for the US and Great Britain from almost 250 years ago to today. The US is not so much the US of today because of it's emulation of the great accomplishments in Great Britain (and there certainly have been great accomplishments like the Bill of Rights for example), but because it tried not to emulate the perceived mistakes, faults and flaws of the British system.
