Our forgotten presidents

As we approach Presidents’ day, we will very likely be bombarded with images of Abraham Lincoln and the occasional Jack Kennedy, but we can be sure that the image we see the most will be that of George Washington. You were probably told that George Washington was our first President, but the people who gave you that information also taught you that Columbus discovered America and Pluto was a planet. Well, they were arguably wrong about George Washington too.

Yes, ole George was the first President under our current Constitution, but few acknowledge that there were United States Presidents before him. George wasn’t even a close second. He was actually our 15th president. Why? Under the Articles of Confederation (and Perpetual Union) that preceded our Constitution, presidents were elected for a term of one year, and given the chaotic nature of upstart, outlawed insurrections, not all completed their terms.

Even among the 14 who preceded George, we have a choice of “firsts.” Peyton Randolph of Virginia was the very first “President of the United States in Congress Assembled” and held that office for an entire 47 days in the fall of 1774. His successor, Henry Middleton of South Carolina took his place, but for only four days. Randolph then returned for an additional 14 days as our third president, but we didn’t have stability in that position until John Hancock held the office through the fall of 1777.

During Hancock’s term of office, the Declaration of Independence was signed. That’s when he famously left a signature substantially larger than those of other delegates, saying “There, John Bull can read my name without spectacles.” “John Bull” was a term used at the time as a personification of Britain much like our own “Uncle Sam,” but various accounts of his commentary use John Bull and King George interchangeably. What we know for sure is that as President of the Congress and as the first signer of the Declaration, Hancock put himself at the top of the list of traitors who would “hang apart” if the revolution did not succeed. Having presided over the Declaration, could Hancock be considered our “real” first President?

Hancock was followed by Henry Laurens of South Carolina, John Jay of New York (author of the Federalist Papers and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), Samuel Huntington of Connecticut and Thomas McKean of Delaware, but it is John Hanson who held the office when the Constitution (ie. Articles, not the later document) was ratified. For that reason, many historians and political scientists consider John Hanson of Maryland to be our first President (not to be confused with my friend and former landlord, John F. Hanson, who was only a boy at the time).

Hanson was followed by Samuel Huntington of Connecticut, Thomas McKean of Delaware, John Hanson again (1781-1782), Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania, Richard Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee of Virginia, John Hancock again (1785-1786), Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Arthur St. Clair of Pennsylvania and Cyrus Griffin of Virginia, who served as our last president under the Articles of Confederation in 1788.

Historians have ample reason to recognize George Washington as our first president and to reject the notion that the earlier presidential office was anything at all like our executive branch. No argument here. Our government under the Articles of Confederation, if you can forgive the gross oversimplification, was similar to the current European Union in that each state was truly sovereign and joined forces with the other states only for limited purposes (foreign relations, trade, etc.). Like the current EU, each state formed its own government, collected taxes and fielded its own independent military force. Centralized power was intentionally minimized.

Another gross oversimplification, but a fair one, is that our earlier presidential office was analogous to that of a British Prime Minister. The President was “first among equals” and wielded power only with a gavel, rather than the strong executive branch of the government that we know today.

The vast differences between the offices are evident, but do they warrant forgetting our first presidents entirely? In many ways, I have a bit of a soft spot for those guys. They risked their lives and put their fortunes on the line, and most likely spent more than a few days wishing that they hadn’t. They didn’t know what the outcome would be. They could be imprisoned, publicly shamed, or hanged, but as national leaders, they are not always remembered.

This is not to say that George Washington didn’t make sacrifices and take risks. He most certainly did. He did so in grand fashion and has been rewarded by history accordingly. For him, we built a spectacular monument that is 55 feet wide at the base and 555 feet tall. If you haven’t seen the Washington Monument in person, imagine our Meeker Building (old courthouse) downtown if it were 38 stories tall. It’s a serious chunk of marble, a national landmark and an appropriate commemoration.

The earlier presidents did not fare so well but weren’t entirely forgotten. John Hanson has statues all over Maryland and in Statuary Hall at the Capitol. John Hancock has several statues as well, not to mention an insurance company with a catchy jingle named for him. An old buddy of mine from my Georgetown days grew up in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania, named for Thomas Mifflin and of course, Richard Henry Lee had an even more famous son, Robert, who is not always remembered so fondly.

Otherwise, the thirteen years between 1776 and 1789 are lost on many people. None of the schools I attended did a particularly good job of teaching the Articles, which is a shame. It takes an understanding of the failures of the Articles to truly appreciate the structures put in place under our current constitution, and it almost explains Abe Lincoln’s famously eloquent oxymoron. If the Articles were intended to be our “perfect union,” then one might argue that our current Constitution is “more perfect.”

As we reflect on the many great, and not-so-great holders of our highest office, let’s not forget the people who went before them. Let’s recall that they risked as much and worked as hard and not blame them for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Let’s instead remember their tenacity because it was not their first, but their second efforts that gave us the Constitution we have today, and that alone is worth remembering.