I read the mailbag answer on the first president http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mprez1st.html . The answer ends by saying that the country really started with the first president, and the column as a whole minimizes the 8 presidents under the Articles of Confederation. This seems like an arbitrary way to boost George Washington. The country was free from the British for 13 years. If it wasn’t our country what was it?
Of course the first 8 presidents didn’t get to do much, because the Articles of Confederation had a weak presidency. Still, a president is a president, and if we can count Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, or Warren Harding, we should count John Hanson and the other 7 presidents.
I have edited this so the reference to the column is a link. Thanks, beirne, for including it. – CKDextHavn
[Note: This message has been edited by CKDextHavn]
Some clarification is in order regarding the ‘President’ under the Articles of Confederation.
Article IX of the Articles states in pertinent part:
This is the ‘president’ under discussion. Note from a reading of the Articles (see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm ) that there was no specific ‘executive branch.’ Instead, the Congress of the United States did it all, not too surprisingly since the confederal government was basically weaker than feces. Indeed, calling it a ‘national’ government would be a real stretch.
Therefore, calling John Hanson the first President of the United States is really incorrect. He was the first presiding officer of the Committee of the States under the Articles of Confederation. His powers in no way resemble those of the President under the Constitution of 1787.
Or to put it another way, these men were “Presidents of Congress”; George Washington was the first “President of the United States”.
The original mailbag response in question, however, supports a horrible error in both history and law when it says:
The country started on July 2nd, 1776, No if’s, an’s, or but’s. But the office of President of the United States started with Washington’s inauguration in 1789.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Sorry, sir, but no dice. On 7/2/1776, all that happened was that “the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled” declared that
Now one can quibble about the meaning of “united colonies,” but under the rest of the text, it is quite clear that the colonies were acting in a united fashion as a grouping of equals. This is ENTIRELY different from the concept of a Union of states, such as existed from the moment Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation in 1781.
Interestingly, the confederated states tended to continue to be thought of as seperate entities even after that time. In the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the following is the declaration from George III that he acknowledges the freedom of the colonies:
Similar language had been used in 1778 in the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and France, e.g.:
But note that Ben Franklin, among others, in each case acted as the “minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America.”
Note, too, the style of the documents in their declarative clauses:
Declaration of Independence: “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States”
Articles of Confederation: “Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia”
Constitution of 1787: “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I maintain that there was a development of thought about the idea of union during the period 1770 to 1787. In the earliest phases of the period of independence from GB, the colonies thought of themselves as separate states, with all the powers of an independent state, who had decided to band together as a grouping of equals for practicle purposes. The did not recognize at the time that this banding together would create an entity in itself, different from the grouping of states. For a parallel they had the “United Netherlands” with which to compare. The Articles of Confederation added to this idea the sense that there had to be SOME centralized body that co-ordinated the actions of the former colonies, thus the creation in Article X of the “Committee of the States.” By 1787, of course, they had come to realize that, if they were to remain ‘united,’ they had to turn themselves into more than a simple committee of independent states; they had to create a centralized government that itself was a state. Several places in the Constitution of 1787 refer to the United States AND the “several states” unlike prior official documents that talk of the United States AS the “several states.”
Thus, really, the country we now call the United States of America has existed, at best, only from 3/1/1781, when Maryland finally agreed to the Articles.
Washington b. 1732
Adams b. 1735
Jefferson b. 1743
Madison b. 1751
Monroe b. 1758
Adams,JQ b. 1767
Jackson b. 1767
Van Buren b. 1782
Harrison b. 1773
Tyler b. 1790
So, Van Buren was the first president born after the Declaration of Independence, but Tyler was the first president born after GB conceded our independence was valid (1783 Treaty of Paris).
There’s no way you can say “at best” relative to 1781; Confederation-period congressional statutes continued in force under the Constitution.
And the Declaration of Independence, passed by Congress, had, to the best of my knowledge, immediate force of law among all 13 colonies. To my mind, a competent legislature necessarily presupposes a state.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
One of the quirks of international law interacting with domestic law is that the same question about the nationality of the same person may be answered differently in different countries.
Under U.S. domestic law, the United States became independent on July 4, 1776. So, a person born after that date was not a British subject, at least if the issue came up in an American court.
However, under U.K. law, the colonies were not independent as of July 4, 1776. They were British colonies in a regretable state of revolt. For the purposes of U.K. domestic law, the United States became independent only when King George III acknowledged their independence, in the Treaty of Paris of 1783. So, in the U.K. courts, people born after July 4, 1776, up to the Treaty of Paris, were British subjects.
How the question would have been answered by the courts of a third nation in turn would depend on whether that country had recognized U.S. independence as of 1776, or 1783, or some other date in between. For example, France supported the Americans in the war, so French courts would likely have answered that a person born in the United States after 1776 was not a British subject.
The question is not simply a mind-puzzler for lawyers. After the Revolution, there were several court cases in both the U.S. and the U.K. where the courts had to resolve this exact issue. For example, under English common law at the time, real estate in England could only be owned by a British subject. So, it was a question of some importance to determine the nationality of a claimant under a will. There were similar cases in the U.S.
So, to answer the question (which I forgot to do, being carried away with excitement at the prospect of actually being able to post something, unlike my futile attempts in GQ):
Article II, s. 1 requires that the President be either a “natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”
Two implications: first, since it is the U.S. domestic law in issue, the question of “natural born citizen” for purposes of Article II would be decided by the American test. Martin Van Buren was born after July 4, 1776, and therefore was the first “natural born citizen” elected President under the Constitution.
Second, the very phrase “citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” suggests to me that the Constitution itself recognizes that the United States did not begin with the adoption of the Constitution. The United States pre-existed the Constitution, and had the capacity to confer citizenship on its inhabitants.
If that were the case, Zachary Taylor, born in 1784, would be the first president not born a British subject. Tyler was, according to The World Book Encyclopedia, the first president born after the Constitution went into effect (June 1788, with New Hampshire’s ratification of it).
dougie_monty, I’m not sure what leads you to that conclusion. As I noted some time ago when this thread was previously active, Van Buren was the first president elected who had a birth date after the Declaration of Independence. Assuming that the United States of America began as an independent country at that point (as opposed to a loose collection of independent states which did not coalesce into a nation until 1781 upon ratification of the Articles of Confederation), Van Buren was the first President not born a British subject.
If, on the other hand, the 1781 adoption of the Articles of Confederation is the demarcation point, then the first man elected President and born after those dates was John Tyler. However, it should be noted that, when considering which President was the first to have been born a citizen of the “United States of America” and which was the first to be born NOT a British subject, the American viewpoint would be that anyone born after July 2, 1776 in the states was NOT a British subject, regardless of whether the nation now called the United States existed on that date.
Taylor is only the first non-British subject to become President if the British viewpoint is considered. Your post follows the posts of jti, and references his conclusions, so I have to assume you meant by saying, “If that were the case …” that you were applying his conclusion to the situation. Since he concluded that the American viewpoint would probably prevail in the United States courts, the Treaty of Paris was irrelevant to the issue and, thus, Van Buren gets the nod, not Zachary Taylor.
All the same, it was pointed out to us in history texts in the eighth grade (about November 1962) that, ‘although the American colonies had declared their independence [and remember, most of the signers did not sign it until August 6, 1776], they still had to win it on the battlefield.’
Whenever anyone asks, “Who was the first president?”, I always say “John Hanson under the Articles of Confederation”. This invariably prompts the remark, “what idiot considers John Hanson to be the first president?”, to which I reply, “George Washington”. As proof I point to a letter held in the national archives written by Washington to Hanson congratulating him on the job he did as our very first president. If Washington didn’t consider himself to be the first president then who am I to argue?
Washington was the first sident. The guy who came before him was the pre-sident, but the language has degenerated and so an … um … precedent was set. It was incongruous assembled, if you ask me.
I mean, the British burned Washington in 1812, poor man.
Let’s imagine for a few moments that Hanson had not convinced Maryland to adopt the Articles of Confederation. Would there have been United States?
The Colonies declare Independence, start fighting for it, then Maryland splits them right down the middle by not adopting the Articles. What was their motivation for hesitation? Did they think they could go it alone?
Seems like this would be offering a wedge for the British to strike. Anybody have any thought?
BTW - Who was the first President conceived under the American flag?
Maryland held out ratifying the Articles of Confederation until VA, NY, and PA agreed to give up certain land claims to what would mostly become the Northwest Territory. Maryland didn’t want to go it alone, but it also didn’t want to be swallowed up by Virginia or Pennsylvania.
Also, there is no reason to suppose that, had the Articles not been ratified and come into force 3/1/1781, the free colonies wouldn’t have tried to modify the attempt at Union. Given that the movement from loose confederation to more substantial federation came after the war with Britain was over, it is likely that there would have been some reasonably strong union agreed to eventually, in any case.
