Final answer:
Americans following the Revolutionary War feared a strong president might accrue too much power, resembling a monarch, which they had fought to be free from. Thus, they sought to create a system of checks and balances and implement an Electoral College to protect against direct election by the masses. Over time, this led to presidents with constrained power, reflecting the enduring wariness of centralized leadership.
Step-by-step explanation:
Americans in the period following the Revolution were concerned about the potential for a strong president to become too powerful and monarch-like, and they had a deep desire for a republic ruled by law rather than by monarchs. The experience under British monarchial rule had led them to be wary of centralized power. Instead, they wanted a government where power was more evenly distributed, ensuring that no single individual could hold too much control or sway over the nation's destiny. This was evident in the checks and balances system that was implemented, requiring a division of powers among the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government.
The fear of giving too much power to one individual was apparent from discussions at the Continental Congress and is well-documented in historical texts like the Federalist Papers. The system of electors was created as a safeguard against the direct election of the president by the masses, whom the founders feared might make rash decisions. Instead, electors would be less prone to corruption and independent of the 'heats and ferments' of the voters.
In later years, the lack of strong mandates from the people made presidents reluctant to venture beyond the interests of their traditional supporters, further underscoring the prevalence of a president with restricted power. Evident throughout American history is the tension between wanting effective leadership but being cautious not to replicate the monarchical system from which the early Americans had extricated themselves.