| OCR Text |
Show WKoWas tKe First President of the T T 1 United States? f It r i mW .- - Avff? United Wfl H ' Lv 4 1 htotes? 1 $t 2$ Sarnuel 1 ' 1 , 'V'? 0 Nl Thomas John V , , v , y WVr5r-, .iiifTafeV - 4 Samuel (All Pictures, Courtesy Carnegie Institution of Washington.) r By ELMO SCOTT WATSON UAT is it we celebrate on the Fourth ovT of Jy? s "Why, the signing of the Declara-tion Declara-tion of Independence!" you reply. T "But why celebrate that?" you are f asked. "Because it is the birthday of our nation," you answer. And in. both cases, you're only partly right. As a matter of fact, the Declaration Declara-tion of Independence was formally adopted on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Con-tinental congress, but so many mem-bers mem-bers were absent on that day that no effort was made to secure their signatures to the Immortal document. That was not done until nearly a month Inter. On August 2, 1776, the final copy of the Declaration was ready and the members then present (afl whose names appear on it, except two Thomas McKean and William Thornton, who signed later) affixed their signatures, thus giving the document an authority which it lacked up to that time. So It depends upon a matter of interpretation interpreta-tion whether July 4, when the Declaration was formally adopted, or August 2, when It was signed, shall be considered as the "birthday of a new nation." But now that this "new nation" has come Into existence, obviously it must have a head or an executive officer if it is to be a "going concern." Granted? All right I Of course, we all know that the executive officer of this new nation of ours which came into existence 156 years ago is known as the Fresident. So there logically follows the question "Who was our first Fresident?" "Why, George Washington, of course !" you answer. But are you sure of that? For again it's a matter of interpretation. To be absolutely absolute-ly sure that you're right, you should say "George Washington was the first President of the United Unit-ed States." Be sure to put in "of the United States." For there was no such nation as the iunited States and no such office in it until it Iwas created by the Constitution, framed in 17S7 fand adopted in 17SS, and George Washington was the first man to hold the office of President Presi-dent under the Constitution. In recent years attempts have been made to prove that several men who held the title of "President" and presided over the Continental congress were Presidents before Washington. But those attempts have met what seems to be a final and decisive answer, from Dr. Edmund C. Burnett of the division of historical research at the Carnegie Institute of Washington, who has spent 25 years in exhaustive research of the work of the Continental congress during the entire period of its existence from 1774 to 17S1. In a statement by Doctor Burnett, Issued by the Carnegie Institution recently, he says In regard to the "President before Washington" theory : "In this year of exceptional grace, the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and fifty-sixth, when we are celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of George Washington, many old controversies revolving about the character and career of the Father of his Country have been revived controversies which seemed to have been permanently relegated to the realm of tales that were told and several new ones have pushed their way to the front to make their bids for a hearing. "Among the themes which are not precisely new nor yet hoary with old age is one which declares that the first President of the United States was not George Wasltington, but that this distinction belongs to John Hanson, president presi-dent of the Continental congress from November Novem-ber 5, 1781, to November 4, 1782. "Similar claims, although on other grounds, have been put forth in behalf of other Presidents Presi-dents of coDgress. but only that In behalf of Hanson has been pushed with great vehemence or has attained any great vogue. In good time the legend John Hanson, first President of the United States, will also b assigned its appropriate appro-priate niche In the Hall of Myths. "The plain truth of the matter is that not one of the presidents of the Continental congress, from Peyton Randolph to Cyrus Griffin, was ever President of the United States, either in fact, by title of courtesy, or otherwise. The first to hold that office, the first to bear that title, was George Washington ; and all those who seek to bestow the title of first 'resident of the United Unit-ed States upon any president whomsoever of the 'Old Congress' are but chasing shadows, pursuing pursu-ing will-o'-the-wisps. "The Hanson thesis, which has had its own variations in the course of its career, has now assumed substantially this form: John Hanson was the first President of the United States, because he was the first President of congress under the articles of confederation, the first constitution con-stitution of the United States. This is the basic , argument of the Hanson proponents, and it is to this argument that we shall, in the main, devote our examination. "Was John Hanson actually the first President Presi-dent of congress under the articles of confederation? confed-eration? Those articles, it should be recalled, were adopted by congress on November 15, 1777, and two days later were sent forth to the several sev-eral states with a plea for their speedy adoption. adop-tion. Some of the states readily assented, others ratified with certain provisos, while still others, led by Maryland, held back until their views with regard to the disposition of the western lands should be agreed to. "By July, 1778, all the states except Maryland, Mary-land, New Jersey, and Delaware had ratified the articles as they stood, and a few months later New Jersey and Delaware also came forward for-ward with their ratifications; but Maryland stood stoutly by her demand respecting the western west-ern lands (and a most praiseworthy demand it was), and not until her demands had been essentially es-sentially complied with did that state agree to ratify. The final step was taken on the first of March, 17S1, when the delegates of Maryland in congress, John Hanson and Daniel Carroll, appended ap-pended their signatures to the articles of confederation. con-federation. "At the time of Maryland's ratification of the confederation Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was president of congress and had been since September 2S, 1779. There was no new election of a president of the body at that time, but on July 6, 17S1, President Huntington gave notice to congress that the state f his health would not permit him to continue longer in the exercise exer-cise of the duties of the Presidency, and on July 9 congress chose as his successor Samuel Johnston of North Carolina. "On the following day, however, Johnston presented pre-sented his declination, offering 'such reasons as were satisfactory,' whereupon Thomas McKean of Delaware was elected President (July 10). McKean served as President of congress until the election of John Hanson, on Monday, November No-vember 5. "It is to be observed, then, that two Presidents, Presi-dents, Huntington and McKean, had served between be-tween March 1 and November 5, 17S1, and another an-other had been chosen but had declined the office. of-fice. A chief question therefore is, whether the Presidents between March 1 and November 5, 17S1, served under the articles of confederation, or whether John Hanson was the first to serve under and by virtue of that instrument. The question hinges on whether the articles of confederation con-federation were actually in force during that interval." Doctor Burnett declares that they were actually actu-ally in force, ne continues: "To contend, as do the protagonists in behalf of John Hanson as the first President of the United States, that the articles of confederation did not come into force until the first Monday in November, 17S1, is to contradict official record and official interpretation. "As an instance of the lengths to which this contention has been carried, a recent biographer biogra-pher of John Hanson, after asserting that 'the election of John Hanson of Maryland was the first act of congress of the United States, on its first day of existence,' proceeds to lay down this strange doctrine: " 'Between the signing of the articles and this first Monday in November no government was actually in existence, though congress continued to transact business simply because there was a great deal of pressing business to transact." He then remarks that, 'during those few months there was a provisional president called Thomas McKean, . . . who was elected with the definite understanding that he was to retire with the formation of the first government November 5.' "It is scarcely necessary to point out that, aside from the evidences of fact already adduced, ad-duced, the argument that "no government was actually in existence' from March 1 to November Novem-ber 5, 1781, Is fallacious and entirely contrary to long-accepted legal Interpretation. "It is true enough that, prior to the adoption of the articles of confederation, there was no written document accepted as a constitution or ' fundamental instrument of government of the United States, but numerous governments have flourished and do flourish without any such written instrument. It may not be amiss, in this connection, to point out that the congress itself, on the thirteenth of September, 1779, laid down the doctrine that 'these states now are as fully, legally, and absolutely confederated confeder-ated as it Is possible for them to be.' "The articles of confederation, so far as the main essentials of the instrument are concerned, did little more than put into definite written form the principles on which the government of the United States had theretofore been conducted. con-ducted. "At all events, it is not to be gainsaid that, ;ven at the time when John Hanson was elected president of congress, these United States were lating their national existence from the fourth of July, 1776. They have continued to do so, and that assertion respecting the date of the nation's birth has held good both in fact and in law." After discussing the conditions under which Hanson was elected President, Doctor Burnett says : "In any event, John Hanson does have the distinction, if it be a distinction, of being the first president to be chosen for the definite term of one year, beginning on the first Monday of November. But this is very far from making hlra President of the United States. "The evidence, it must be repeated, is conclusive con-clusive that no president of the continental congress, con-gress, by whatever name it may be designated, whether the congress,' as it first called itself, or 'the United States in congress assembled,' as it came later to be called, was ever President of the United States. And this is true for this best of reasons, among others: because no such office as President of the United States existed until it was created by the federal constitution, constitu-tion, framed In 17S7 and adopted in 17S8. "The office of President of the United States which that Constitution created is an office wholly different in character from that of President Presi-dent of the old congress, whether before or after the adoption of the articles of confederation confedera-tion ; so different, in fact, that almost the sole thing In common is the word 'President' In their respective titles. "The president of congress was merely a presiding officer, and he was a member of the body over which he presided ; he neither possessed pos-sessed nor exercised any executive authority. The President of the United States is almost solely an executive officer; he is not a member of the national legislature; and his contacts with the national legislative body, the congress of the United States, are of a definitely limited character. 'There Is therefore only one rational conclusion conclus-ion that can be reached, and that is, that George Washington was the first President of the United Unit-ed States." (( by Western Newspaper Union.) |
