[Alchemy]

I have a small question. Why has American history erased the first 7 presidents from its History? I know that your constitution did not exists prior to George Washington but is this any reason to erase the first 7 presidents from History? More importantly why do you teach your children that he was the first president?

[Far-Right Sage]

What in God's name are you talking about?

[Alchemy]

What in God's name are you talking about?

I rest my case.

[MistyTiger]

That's it? No contradictions?

[Alchemy]

How about John Hanson (1781-1782), Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) THEN George Washington?

[MistyTiger]

Hmm...I'll do a check of those. So next time if you don't answer the question, I'll use a ?

[Alchemy]

Hows the checking going?

[Potemkin]

"First President" claim
Main article: John Hanson (myths)

The origin of the claim that Hanson is the "forgotten" first President stems from a 1932 book by Seymour Wemyss Smith titled John Hanson - Our First President. Nevertheless, officially Hanson was the third presiding officer of the Congress of the United States, and he considered himself a successor to the first two men to hold the office, Samuel Huntington and Thomas McKean, who themselves were successors to prior Presidents of the Second Continental Congress. Nor was the office an executive position like the office of President that was created under the Constitution; and unlike the office of President created under the Constitution, the Presidents under the Articles of Confederation were not commander in chief. (The Second Continental Congress had already, in 1775, years before the Articles of Confederation, appointed George Washington commander of the combined militias of the colonies; Washington continued to serve as commander after the Articles of Confederation took effect, until the Revolutionary War had ended.)

Hanson was, however, the first to serve a full one-year term, and the first to formally use the title President of the United States in Congress Assembled. Also, he was the first to use the shortened title President of the United States on official documents.

Hanson was also the first person to be chosen to the office of "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" after the British surrender in America's Revolutionary War. This, coupled with his being the first to use the title in government correspondence and ceremony, is very likely one of the prime reasons some have viewed him as being differently situated than Samuel Huntington (who already held the office of Continental Congress President when the Articles were adopted) and Thomas McKean (who was the first to begin the office pursuant to a new election held under the Articles, but prior to the surrender of the British).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson#.22First_President.22_claim

[Alchemy]

Hanson was also the first person to be chosen to the office of "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" after the British surrender in America's Revolutionary War.

Does this not make him the first president?

[Potemkin]

It depends how you define 'President'. By the current definition, no he wasn't. He wasn't the commander-in-chief, for example, and he didn't have the executive powers which Washington and his successors had.

[Alchemy]

I hear what you're saying but according to wikipedia:

Nevertheless, officially Hanson was the third presiding officer of the Congress of the United States, and he considered himself a successor to the first two men to hold the office, Samuel Huntington and Thomas McKean, who themselves were successors to prior Presidents of the Second Continental Congress. Nor was the office an executive position like the office of President that was created under the Constitution

The constitution only came with George Washington. The guys leading up to George washington reffered to themselves as Presidnet Of The United States Of America. Did all states not report to them directly. I mean some of these guys mentioned gave certain states independance. Those sound like executive powers to me.

[Potemkin]

The guys leading up to George washington reffered to themselves as Presidnet Of The United States Of America.

Not quite. They referred to themselves as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled", a slightly (but I would submit, significantly) different thing.

[Steven_K]

I'd say extremely significant. The United States of America, as a nation, did not exist when they were presiding over the congress.

[Gletkin]

How about John Hanson (1781-1782)

THANK YOU. I've been trying to remember that name, but could never recall!

[The Immortal Goon]

Washington was the first President of the United States.

The preceeding "Presidents" would be better defined as "President of the Senate" which still exists in the US as the Vice President.

The President as a distinct head of an Excutive Branch didn't come until later.

-TIG

[Monkey Angst]

The office of the President of the United States was established with the Constitution. It's a technicality, to be sure. To refer to these previous Presidents as "Presidents of the United States" would be on par with calling Julius Caesar "Roman Emperor."

[Zagadka]

"President" under Articles of Confederation != :President" under the Federal Constitution. They share the same name, but not much else.

[kami321]

Interesting find, but calling Hanson the first president of USA in technically not correct. United States did exist as a nation, but it was more like in a form of present day European Union. The executive powers excercized by it were rather weak and the difference in naming here is not just a coincidence - you wouldn't want to equate the "President of European Commission" with "President of Europe" (if such office will ever come into existance).

[Alchemy]

Please provide a source next time or more post will get edited.-TAL

[The American Lion]

Have a source for god sakes please! Before I delete your post.