Debunked: 'Presidents' before George Washington

Josh Heuer

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Claim: There were 8 presidents of the United States before George Washington.

Examples:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/582763/posts
External Quote:
Who was the first president of the United States? Ask any school child and they will readily tell you "George Washington." And of course, they would be wrong—at least technically. Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress—first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress—was always moderated by a duly elected president. As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents—and he led the seventeenth administration—he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him? The following brief biographies profile these "forgotten presidents."
(The site goes on to list these folks)

Another example:
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1244133512
Which is practically the same thing, almost word for word.

And this:
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
Which has the same message, but isn't directly copied.

So what's incorrect with these claims?
Debunk:
Well, there are a couple key points to keep in mind.

First, the 'United States' was not a nation of united states yet. In it's infancy, it was a confederate nation, which adopted the Articles of Confederation as a sort of agreement between the 13 states, or colonies. It was the original constitution, and it was drafted by the Continental Congress. They were the governing body of delegates that represented each of the states/colonies as an early form of government.

Second, the president of Continental Congress is NOT the same position as president of the United States. That's part of where the confusion comes in. It's like comparing apples and oranges; presidents and prime ministers; different leaders of different types of government.

So these folks were the presidents of Continental Congress, which is not the same as what out current president is (beginning with Washington, who literally was our first president under the new Constitution).

The problem I suppose comes in people's different levels of knowledge concerning early American history. In a typical high school, at least when I went, there was little/no mention of early American history prior to the American Revolution, and this period of time (between then and George Washington becoming president under the new constitution) was not even covered.

Hopefully more people than not realize this claim as bunk without having to do any research.
 
Snopes weighed in on this 7 or 8 years ago, and I must admit, I was a little disappointed by
the Mikkelsons' uncharacteristically simplistic take.

In short, the new Constitution--haggled over for months in Philadelphia in 1787--brought a national re-boot
in 1789. Many find it easier to act as if that's when U.S. history "really" starts. It doesn't.
We were not a coherent "nation" either before 1789 nor after…but it's as good a date as any to draw a line.
Was the name "United States" ever used before 1789? Yes. Was the term "President of the United States"
ever used before 1789? Yes. Was Hanson ever referred to as the "President of the United States in Congress Assembled"
or "President of the United States" for short? Yes.
For these and other reasons, an argument can be made that "Hanson was the first President of the United States"
but whether he was or wasn't is really largely a matter of semantics and when one chooses to believe
that the "United States" became the "United States."
I'm pretty familiar with the history, and don't take a side either way…(as I don't really give a damn)
but I would argue that calling it outright bunk requires making some definitive statements about our
history that I wouldn't be comfortable making. But I pick my battles: whether someone claims
"Washington was the first President of the United States" or that he wasn't, I let 'em believe what they want.
 
External Quote:
The president of the Continental Congress was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress, the convention of delegates that emerged as the first national government of the United States during the American Revolution. The president was a member of Congress elected by the other delegates to serve as an impartial moderator during meetings of Congress. Designed to be a largely ceremonial position without much influence, the office was unrelated to the later office of President of the United States.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Continental_Congress
this is what I was gonna say. the delegates elect their "president", not the public.
 
Josh Heuer said:
Claim: There were 8 presidents of the United States before George Washington.

Examples:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/582763/posts
External Quote:
Who was the first president of the United States? Ask any school child and they will readily tell you "George Washington." And of course, they would be wrong—at least technically. Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress—first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress—was always moderated by a duly elected president. As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents—and he led the seventeenth administration—he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him? The following brief biographies profile these "forgotten presidents."
(The site goes on to list these folks)

Another example:
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1244133512
Which is practically the same thing, almost word for word.

And this:
http://www.constitution.org/hist/first8pres.htm
Which has the same message, but isn't directly copied.

So what's incorrect with these claims?
Debunk:
Well, there are a couple key points to keep in mind.

First, the 'United States' was not a nation of united states yet. In it's infancy, it was a confederate nation, which adopted the Articles of Confederation as a sort of agreement between the 13 states, or colonies. It was the original constitution, and it was drafted by the Continental Congress. They were the governing body of delegates that represented each of the states/colonies as an early form of government.

Second, the president of Continental Congress is NOT the same position as president of the United States. That's part of where the confusion comes in. It's like comparing apples and oranges; presidents and prime ministers; different leaders of different types of government.

So these folks were the presidents of Continental Congress, which is not the same as what out current president is (beginning with Washington, who literally was our first president under the new Constitution).

The problem I suppose comes in people's different levels of knowledge concerning early American history. In a typical high school, at least when I went, there was little/no mention of early American history prior to the American Revolution, and this period of time (between then and George Washington becoming president under the new constitution) was not even covered.

Hopefully more people than not realize this claim as bunk without having to do any research.
Click to expand...

Some peopl would argue that your figure is also wrong because there is again another USA that is more recently been formed and some of the Presidents of that corporation are included in your list.

External Quote:
There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it's territories. Others may can give you specific references and explain this further. Here is an outline of the concepts.
http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm
 
Gary Cook said:
Some peopl would argue that your figure is also wrong because there is again another USA that is more recently been formed and some of the Presidents of that corporation are included in your list.

External Quote:
There are 2 United States, one formed in 1787, the collection of the several sovereign states of the union, and another separate and different one formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it's territories. Others may can give you specific references and explain this further. Here is an outline of the concepts.
http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm
Click to expand...

The only thing the Organic Act of 1871 did was to consolidate the towns of Georgetown and Washington with Washington County under one local government to form the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is a territory similar to the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico in that they have a locally elected government but no representation in congress, just a non-voting observer. The Organic Act of 1871 established a new territory not a new country. The District of Columbia is "incorporated" the same as any local government is a "municipal corporation" that basically makes it a legal entity, it does not mean Corp. USA. It is a "body corporate for municipal purposes". I think any lawyer would get a good laugh over the Act of 1871 conspiracy.

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/2215/
 
solrey said:
The only thing the Organic Act of 1871 did was to consolidate the towns of Georgetown and Washington with Washington County under one local government to form the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is a territory similar to the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico in that they have a locally elected government but no representation in congress, just a non-voting observer. The Organic Act of 1871 established a new territory not a new country. The District of Columbia is "incorporated" the same as any local government is a "municipal corporation" that basically makes it a legal entity, it does not mean Corp. USA. It is a "body corporate for municipal purposes". I think any lawyer would get a good laugh over the Act of 1871 conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of opinion. Lawyers would laugh because people often laugh to dismiss something. Regardless if it is true or not. Anyway I am not supporting that information just saying that its what some people believe. Although I think it is somewhat warranted. A corporation is a corporation. Even if it wants to be known as a "corporate sole". And if the government is not a corporation it would be the only organisation that was incorporated but not a business. Judging this "conspiracy" just based on this one element is taking it out of context. It seems to be some kind of franchise. Even the Australian government is a registered business in America and has a different emblem than the original government there. That's not a conspiracy. Its a fact.

http://www.hangthebankers.com/are-corporations-masquerading-as-government-in-australia-world-wide/

Extracting the parts of the claim of the global government conspiracy and extracting the part about America and calling it false in its isolation is literally taking it out of context.
 
Last edited:
Government as a "corporation"....hmmm. Interesting concept to ponder...

I'm not an attorney and maybe this has been explored already?
 
Gary Cook said:
It is a matter of opinion. Lawyers would laugh because people often laugh to dismiss something. Regardless if it is true or not. Anyway I am not supporting that information just saying that its what some people believe. Although I think it is somewhat warranted. A corporation is a corporation. Even if it wants to be known as a "corporate sole". And if the government is not a corporation it would be the only organisation that was incorporated but not a business. Judging this "conspiracy" just based on this one element is taking it out of context. It seems to be some kind of franchise. Even the Australian government is a registered business in America and has a different emblem than the original government there. That's not a conspiracy. Its a fact.

http://www.hangthebankers.com/are-corporations-masquerading-as-government-in-australia-world-wide/

Extracting the parts of the claim of the global government conspiracy and extracting the part about America and calling it false in its isolation is literally taking it out of context.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of legal definition. They don't understand what a 'municipal corporation' actually means. Nearly ALL cities and towns in the US are municipal corporations. It's the logical fallacy of; I don't understand therefore... conspiracy!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Municipal+Corporation

And please stop exaggerating what was said, I did not say a word about any alleged broader conspiracy, I simply addressed some falsehoods around the Act of 1871. Having said that, of course other countries like Australia are legal entities for the purpose of conducting business with both the public and private sectors, that does not mean they are a "registered business". :rolleyes:
 
solrey said:
No, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of legal definition. They don't understand what a 'municipal corporation' actually means. Nearly ALL cities and towns in the US are municipal corporations. It's the logical fallacy of; I don't understand therefore... conspiracy!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Municipal Corporation

And please stop exaggerating what was said, I did not say a word about any alleged broader conspiracy, I simply addressed some falsehoods around the Act of 1871. Having said that, of course other countries like Australia are legal entities for the purpose of conducting business with both the public and private sectors, that does not mean they are a "registered business". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Do unincorporated areas pertain to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area
 
solrey said:
No, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of legal definition. They don't understand what a 'municipal corporation' actually means. Nearly ALL cities and towns in the US are municipal corporations. It's the logical fallacy of; I don't understand therefore... conspiracy!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Municipal Corporation

And please stop exaggerating what was said, I did not say a word about any alleged broader conspiracy, I simply addressed some falsehoods around the Act of 1871. Having said that, of course other countries like Australia are legal entities for the purpose of conducting business with both the public and private sectors, that does not mean they are a "registered business". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They are a registered business if they are incorporated. The telling thing is that when you go to court you face the registered version of the business. It is good you know what a Municipal corporation is but that doesnt mean the government isnt a corporation. One that has different rules of governance than the one in the original charter.

It may not seem like a big thing to you but somebody who has had to face this entity in court would disagree.

Legal is just semantics as its only opinion. So legal definitions have little bearing on this. The two entity's even have different names.

External Quote:
Corp. USA

Under The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, "The District of Columbia", was formed. It trademarked the names "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT", "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America". It should be noted that this corporation was not simply a reformation of the municipality as its Organic Act was chartered in 1808. Without amending that municipality's charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, "The District of Columbia" (hereinafter "Corp. U.S.") owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia. In said, Act Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national Constitution's 13th Article of Amendment and the national Constitution's 14th, 15th and 16th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in their constitution.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177519
Anyway it is only a point of contention. As something as a potential thing. I am not saying OP is wrong as such. Its just the definition may also be incorrect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
deirdre said:
of course!
Click to expand...

Here's another thing to consider about the idea that a corporation is a "person" (I'm referencing claims made in the past by certain American politicians).

A person who commits manslaughter is subject to criminal prosecution. Ergo, if a "corporation" is shown to have contributed, however tangentially, to the death of a human, then is not that "corporation" (if defined as a "person") also liable??

I'm just free-balling here. Let's see if this ever hits the headlines, eh??
 
WeedWhacker said:
Here's another thing to consider about the idea that a corporation is a "person" (I'm referencing claims made in the past by certain American politicians).

A person who commits manslaughter is subject to criminal prosecution. Ergo, if a "corporation" is shown to have contributed, however tangentially, to the death of a human, then is not that "corporation" (if defined as a "person") also liable??

I'm just free-balling here. Let's see if this ever hits the headlines, eh??
Click to expand...
it/they are held liable, but its kinda hard to lock up a made up entity. but the peoples who make up the person (the corp) cant be held personally liable unless they are proven personally negligent ( I think ) .

either way George Washington was the first US President.

edit added: http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/study/features/11peopleVoneil.pdf
CAN A CORPORATION BE GUILTY OFMURDER?
 
deirdre said:
of course! otherwise they might be personally liable for their actions. ;)
Click to expand...

It is fiercely debated. With good points on both sides and I cant claim to know the answers myself but there are merits for the "conspiracy".

Anyway like I said. It is only a point of contention with the number of Presidents in the debunking but the debunker above has debunked the original number in the claim to be fair.
 
Gary Cook said:
It is fiercely debated. With good points on both sides and I cant claim to know the answers myself but there are merits for the "conspiracy".

Anyway like I said. It is only a point of contention with the number of Presidents in the debunking but the debunker above has debunked the original number in the claim to be fair.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'm seeing where a 'conspiracy' is. here. I don't think people arguing semantics is a conspiracy. or is it?
 
deirdre said:
I'm not sure I'm seeing where a 'conspiracy' is. here. I don't think people arguing semantics is a conspiracy. or is it?
Click to expand...

Some "debubkers" would say that there is a big difference between having a registered company and being the registered company. I agree with that to a degree but then again in my experince governments claim to be a "corporate sole", certainly in the UK. Which is a corporation but not a corporation. If this is not all semantics I dont know what is.

Not digressing away from the original thread claims. Just contenting the amount of presidents. Prob is its a complicated issue. Beyond me to be honest.
 
Gary Cook said:
Some "debubkers" would say that there is a big difference between having a registered company and being the registered company. I agree with that to a degree but then again in my experince governments claim to be a "corporate sole", certainly in the UK. Which is a corporation but not a corporation. If this is not all semantics I dont know what is.

Not digressing away from the original thread claims. Just contenting the amount of presidents. Prob is its a complicated issue. Beyond me to be honest.
Click to expand...
yea men disagree on all sorts of stuff. just wondering what the 'conspiracy' associated with this is.
 
I want to add, to relate to the first OP:

The term and definition of "President" of the United States is defined by the Constitution. Written several years after the "Revolutionary War", or aka the "War of Independence".

The U.S. Constitution is, however, a 'fluid' document, in the sense that it can be interpreted and even amended.

This is what makes it "imperfect" at the same time, co-incidentally, one of the best 'outlines' for a democratic government yet devised by Humans.

There exist other great documents of course.
 
deirdre said:
yea men disagree on all sorts of stuff. just wondering what the 'conspiracy' associated with this is.
Click to expand...

Basically that government is a corporation and has no right making laws etc. But there are a few. Like, government is a corporation and people are its product.

I would say its all semantics. Its both correct and incorrect.

I LOL'ed about the men comment. We let our egos supersede our critical thinking sometimes. Biological reasons maybe.
 
WeedWhacker said:
I want to add, to relate to the first OP:

The term and definition of "President" of the United States is defined by the Constitution. Written several years after the "Revolutionary War", or aka the "War of Independence".

The U.S. Constitution is, however, a 'fluid' document, in the sense that it can be interpreted and even amended.

This is what makes it "imperfect" at the same time, co-incidentally, one of the best 'outlines' for a democratic government yet devised by Humans.

There exist other great documents of course.
Click to expand...

Some people would argue that President of America and President of a corporation is the same thing. I dont really have an opinion on that related to the thread but like I said I would contend the semantics of the number of presidents in a, 'can we be sure' -kind of way.

Yes it was almost perfect. Hence why America was one of the best nations on Earth for awhile. Too convoluted still but thats a story for another forum perhaps. :p
 
Last edited:
deirdre said:
yea men disagree on all sorts of stuff.
Click to expand...

Hence why some (hetero) men HATE the idea of a Matriarchal society arrangement. ;)

Frankly, I'd enjoy a " Drag-Queen-'archal' " (Is that a term? I made it up) arrangement because, well....it would be Fabulous!

:D

 
WeedWhacker said:
Hence why some (hetero) men HATE the idea of a Matriarchal society arrangement. ;)

Frankly, I'd enjoy a " Drag-Queen-'archal' " (Is that a term? I made it up) arrangement because, well....it would be Fabulous!

:D

Click to expand...


That is not a bad point in terms of balancing the male and female archetypes in society better but I think we may get told off for going off-topic again and as per usual I seem to be the ring-leader. =)
 
Gary Cook said:
...we may get told off for going off-topic again...
Click to expand...

Every now and then, maybe a little digression can be allowed? When it is all in good fun.

Back to topic: I believe the notion of "8 Presidents before..." is largely moot, when considering the Constitution. Of course, this off the top of my head, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Gary Cook said:
External Quote:
Without amending that municipality's charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, "The District of Columbia" (hereinafter "Corp. U.S.") owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.
Click to expand...
Are there any examples of this?
 
Pete Tar said:
As in, them conducting business under martial law?
(ie. the purpose of the definition)
Click to expand...

Not meaning to be a jerk but thats too off-topic. I would suggest on replying to the original poster or if anybody address' my contention and link supporting then we focus on the entity of government itself and if it was the same entity in question. Although that is about the strength of the info I have. what I have already presented.

I would be happy to answer that question elsewhere but I dont have any examples immediately to hand.
 
Gary Cook said:
A corporation registered in Delaware.
Click to expand...

Gary, in the USA most corporations tend to register their articles of incorporation in the State of Delaware. It has to do with specific tax statues in that State. Again, I am not an attorney, but this is something I've seen referenced many times. I suppose a bit of online research will help illuminate this fact?

ETA: The USA can seem confusing, with the various laws that are applied within a state, versus the "federal" statutes...I live here, and it is ALWAYS a "battle" of conversation!!

ETA2: I just finished watching the movie "Wolf of Wall Street" and...although I understood the "point" of selling "bad" products under the guise of claiming they are "good"? I tend to think that this is very, very common in Human history. The circus "Carny", as one example. This is why ALL claims that we may encounter, whether online or on 'TV', should be given a "fact check and shake" each and every time!!
 
Last edited:
WeedWhacker said:
Gary, in the USA most corporations tend to register their articles of incorporation in the State of Delaware. It has to do with specific tax statues in that State. Again, I am not an attorney, but this is something I've seen referenced many times. I suppose a bit online research will help illuminate this fact?
Click to expand...

Doing some research now. Of course it can be argued if I set up a corporation would I then be a corporation myself? Or course not. But If I was paid by the corporation I would technically be an agent of the Corporation. Apparently there is more than one constitution too. As in the above claims about it.

Although, I am not sure the record I included was the registration in question. there are others there too that look legit like the incorporation of the CIA and IRS but they look more legit than the one for the USA. That could be a corporation just with the same name, I guess.

I think I would like to wait for the OP of the thread to reply before I do again otherwise it just seems like an assault or battle of attrition.
 
The whole underlying theme of my OP is that there is some sort of 'they're not telling you everything, it's there buried in the history books but it's covered up/being buried for X purpose' mentality when it comes to this particular claim.
I think the one thing to take from this all is, if you are interested in this sort of topic (American history specifically, or in whatever topic it may be in similar cases), then just take the time to learn! If someone says something off the cuff like 'yeah, there were 8 presidents before Washington...' then take the time to break it down and find whatever truth there may be in that.
 
Josh Heuer said:
The whole underlying theme of my OP is that there is some sort of 'they're not telling you everything, it's there buried in the history books but it's covered up/being buried for X purpose' mentality when it comes to this particular claim.
I think the one thing to take from this all is, if you are interested in this sort of topic (American history specifically, or in whatever topic it may be in similar cases), then just take the time to learn! If someone says something off the cuff like 'yeah, there were 8 presidents before Washington...' then take the time to break it down and find whatever truth there may be in that.
Click to expand...


I like and appreciate your attitude. Keeping a "sharp eye" is important, and is certainly the duty of any citizen in a free society.
 
NoParty said:
...edited... is really largely a matter of semantics and when one chooses to believe that the "United States" became the "United States."
I'm pretty familiar with the history, and don't take a side either way…(as I don't really give a damn)
but I would argue that calling it outright bunk requires making some definitive statements about our
history that I wouldn't be comfortable making. But I pick my battles: whether someone claims
"Washington was the first President of the United States" or that he wasn't, I let 'em believe what they want.
Click to expand...

But, in most declarations and conversations such as this, (Washington wasn't reallythe first), isn't context as important as "technicalities?"

I believe you are correct, the varying opinions could be laid in the arms of semantics - meaning either side could claim to be correct.

But, in the sense of context, there would seem to be ample evidence the President of the Continental Congress was not the same position as President of the United States. Even though the latter title was laid to the office prior to the birth of the Constitution, I think the debunk should be accepted because I would imagine the person being asked would see the question relative to the Constitution's President of the United States - not as one of those bar bets where you have to consider all the tricky angles before replying. ie. I can stick out my tongue and touch my nose - can you?

Just sayin'

GA
 
GA Anderson said:
...could be laid in the arms of semantics - meaning either side could claim to be correct.
Click to expand...

Of course, though....when science is brought in...only "ONE" (side) will be shown to be correct. (N'est pas?)

(So long, and THANKS! for all the fish!!)
 
Last edited:
WeedWhacker said:
Of course, though....when science is brought in...only "ONE" (side) will be shown to be correct. (N'est pas?)

(So long, and THANKS! for all the fish!!)
Click to expand...

Thanks for commenting on my very first post here... but, I am at a loss to see where science has any place at all in this question. So no, it isn't so.

GA
 
Josh Heuer said:
First, the 'United States' was not a nation of united states yet.
Click to expand...
It was indeed a nation. Confederation of States means exactly the same thing as United States. The primary reason for the Constitutional government was to empower the new nation to raise revenue and regulate commerce between the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nemon
“Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets" established by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
2 3
Replies
80
Views
5K
Ben Harris
Ben Harris
Jay Reynolds
Florida State Government now captured by chemtrail believers
Replies
12
Views
611
Jay Reynolds
Jay Reynolds
Giddierone
Claim: "They're eating the dogs" - Trump / Harris Presidential Debate '24
4 5 6
Replies
227
Views
10K
deirdre
deirdre
Eburacum
November 13 2024 Congress hearings
3 4 5
Replies
179
Views
12K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
flarkey
UAP incursion at Pantex Nuclear Facility (coaxial drone?)
Replies
1
Views
409
Trailblazer
Trailblazer

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top