They didn't want a king, but to have a government where people decide who is to represent them.
The Founding Fathers of America intended for it to be one country, unified, led by the Christian God.
Freedom
No. The Founding Fathers were inspired by Enlightenment ideals and opposed to despots. The Ancient Egyptian system and the contemporaneous Egyptian governates were despotic regimes that opposed almost all Enlightenment ideals. As a result, the Founding Fathers did not use Egypt as inspiration.
The Founding Fathers made a list of the King's grievances.
Who wouldn't be? :) When the founders wrote the constitution, much of it was a direct reflection of abuses by the British, which showed them how damaging a strong central government could be to personal liberty. They had a different (and might I say Superior) plan on how to set up enough of a government to maintain a nation. WIth many reasons why the Founding Fathers were suspicious of a strong centralized government, the most concern was the depletion of individual freedom. Powers wouldn't be separated in a strong central government. An elite group would be formed and they would possibly use their government positions for selfish reasons. Not all were. Alexander Hamilton is probably the best-known among the Founding Fathers for wanting to establish a powerful, centralized federal government. Having not been born in the U.S., he failed to understand the allegiances people held to their home states -- his allegiance was with the union as a whole. But most of the Founders were wary of a powerful government, for the very reason that they had just fought off a powerful government in Britain and were determined not to have the same thing happen here, as they set out to establish a new, representative government of their own.
Technically, no. By definition, all republics are representative in some form, since "republic" means "rule by elected officials", and elected officials are representative of the people who elected them. To use the term "representative republic" is just redundant. While it was used in the past by at least one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, it actually doesn't mean any more than just saying "republic". However, there are many countries that call themselves republics that are actually run by military dictatorships or religious leaders, and do not really have representative government, so the term "representative republic" could be used to emphasize countries that are truly representative.
I guess so everyone could have a say and it would be fair.
The founding fathers were religious men, but that was not their philosophy. Being men of education during their time, they were well read and took their philosophy from the idea of Natural Law. They believed, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal and that their Creator (who they called God) had given all men certain rights which could not justly be taken away. This manifested itself in their view of the use of government being to serve the people and the view that government must not interfere with the rights God had given.
i saw your pleading, im not sure but i can try for u
ordered liberty
That the common man, or the rabble as they were considered would somehow use the power of Democracy to oust the gentry or landowners from their power.
Representative government. Of course, there are many different types of Representative government - for instance, the People's Republic of China, the United States of American, and the United Kingdom all have a form of representative government, though the details (and result) differ greatly.