I have heard something about their being some presidents before Washington and a guy named John Hanson was really the first. How much truth is there to this claim?
It’s quite true. Before the good ol’ Constitution there was a document called the Articles of Confederation, which also provided for a government headed by the president. Also, the Continental Congress elected some presidents, my details on how they did it are sketchy. Here are (mostly) forgetables who headed up the US under the Articles of Confederation or Continental Congress, with dates of inauguration:
Continental Congress
Peyton Randolph 9-5-1774
Henry Middleton 10-22-1774
Randolph 5-10-1775
John Hancock 5-24-1775
Henry Laurens 11-1-1777
John Jay 12-10-1778
Samuel Huntington 9-28-1779
Thomas McKean 7-10-1781
Articles of Confederation
John Hanson 11-5-1781
Elias Boudinot 11-4-1782
Thomas Miffin 11-3-1783
Richard Henry Lee 11-30-1784
Hancock 11-23-1785
Nathaniel Gorham 6-6-1786
Arthur St. Clair 2-2-1787
Cyrus Griffin 1-22-1788
So while there were presidents before Washington, he was the first under our current form of government.
And the first person to sign the Articles of Confederation was Josiah Bartlett. Sound familiar?
Here’s the snopes take on this one. No need to worry - GW is still the first president of the United States of America.
A valuable as Snopes usually is, in THIS case, they’re on shaky ground (of course, so are the people who claim Hanson as the first president).
Snopes is very reliable when it comes to determining whether there’s any factual basis for a popular legend, and they’re very good at debunking falsehoods that have become widely accepted as true. But John Hanson was a real person, and he DID serve as President under the Articles of Confederation. So, the question of whether that makes him our first Pesident isn’t a simple matter of fact. It’s matter of interpretation.
If you believe “the United States of America” was not a real country until the curent Constitution was ratified, then George Washington was the first. On the other hand, if you thik the Articles of Confederation meant something, then John Hanson was.
Personally, I say George Washington was and is the father of our
country, and was the first real President of the United States. The job Hanson held simply wasn’t the same job George Washington held. But if trivia buffs and guys trying to win barroom bets want to go with John Hanson, I’m not offended.
John Hanson served as President of Congress. That made him a presiding officer, much like the Speaker of the House. There was no executive under the Articles of Configuaration.
Washingon was the first President – i.e., chief executive and leader of the nation. Hanson was not.
RealityChuck is correct. Hanson was the first President of Congress under the Articles of Confederation. That document did not form an actual nation, as the Constitution did, rather it was a somewhat loose conglomorate of mostly sovereign, independant states.
Saying Hanson was the first President of the US is similar to saying Romano Prodi is the President of Europe.
Nobody questions that Jefferson Davis was the first (and only) President of the Confederacy, yet the Confederacy was just a confederation of states similar to the Articles of Confederation. We decided upon a different form of government, one with more central power, enacted the Constitution, and elected a President with a term of four years, but there were (was?) united states of America before Washington. It’s just a matter of terminology.
I’ve heard that myth quite often, barbitu8; however, it’s not true that the CSA was a confederation of states. Heck, the CSA’s constitution even refers to “the State of the Union” when referring to the CSA!
Here’s the preamble to the Congress of the Confederate States of America (bolding mine):
Also from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:
There are other restrictions on the powers of the individual states. Looks to me like the CSA was yet another federal republic, just like the USA.
BTW, this document (available at http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html) is more proof that the Civil War was not about state’s rights.
I do not think a comparison between the CSA and the Articles of Confederation is valid. Though the Constitution of the CSA grants some more autonomy to the states, it is still a centralized republic whose structure is nearly identical to the USA.
Same word, two very different definitions. Here’s what the Articles of Confederation had to say:
The duty of the President of Congress was analogous to that of the Speaker of the House. What seems to be critically absent from the job description is this:
As best as I can tell, the Articles of Confederation did not by default confer executive authority upon its President. The President of Congress was not commander in chief of the armed forces, he did not hold official veto power over legislation, and it looks to me as if any authority he might have held beyond his parliamentary duties would be granted and taken away by Congress.
George Washington and Jeff Davis were executive Presidents; Hanson presided.
Although the CSA Constitution was modeled (even copied) from the USA’s Constitution, it did grant each state a sovereign and independent character, something our Constitution does not. However, I grant that our presidents before GW did not have the tenure or power of Davis.
Although the CSA’s constitution had that verbiage in it, the rest of the document proved that the states were treated in the same fashion as the states in the USA are. You still here today “the sovereign state of Hawaii” and other such comments. Doesn’t make them any more independent. ANAICT, the comment in the CSA’s constitution about each state acting in a sovereign manner merely applied to their decision to accept the CSA’s constitution. Once that was done, they were in and subject to the federal government of the CSA.
Make that “hear today.”
If one accepts John Hanson as President of the United States, then one must also call Don Cheney and Al Gore Presidents of the United States. Hanson and his six sucessors were presidents of the Congress of the United States, but then, currently the Veep is also President of the Senate of the United States.
When did Knicks coach Don Chaney become Vice President? 
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but those guys were the top executive officers of the country, which is arguably not the case with Cheney and definitely was not the case with Gore.
Except that they weren’t executive officers, as Sofa King pointed out.
And of course, I meant Dick, not Don. Oops.
That’s an unsupportable statement. Who knows what would have happened if the Confederation had continued to evolve instead of being replaced? It’s not inconceivable to suggest that the problems that led to the adoption of the much stronger federal government via the Constitution could have also, if the chips had fallen differently, led instead to an accretion of federal power by the government under the Articles, not unlike the one that happened under the Constitution 60+ years ago. OTOH, it’s possible that someone other than Abraham Lincoln would have let the South secede (or would have lost the Civil War), such that the single most significant difference between the Constitution and the Articles – the irrevocability of a decision to join the Union – would not have materialized. The question as to whether the Confederation was an actual nation is one of interpretation just any other considered in this thread. (And what about the independent states that existed from 1776 onward until the Articles? They were governed to some extent by a national body, the Continental Congress; certainly the most pressing issue of the day – the War – was handled by that national government. Were we not then a nation? Maybe you think we weren’t, but I think we were, and neither one of us is absurd.)
–Cliffy
I don’t know what happened 60 years ago; perhaps you mean 140 years ago? The secession of the southern states is a good deal LESS revocable under the Articles than under the Constitution:
The Articles did not create any federal authority; they merely created a framework for individual states to negotiate differences. Certain powers were reserved for the Congress, but it was left to the states (or a committee of their representatives) to enforce its decisions.
Yes, federal power could have increased over the years, but converting the chairman-like president of the Congress into a president of the type we have now would take more than accretion.