Talk:John Hanson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

John Hanson is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Lutheranism John Hanson is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Correction

In the first paragraph of the article, the word "mistakenly" should be removed for the reasons given below to avoid ambiguity.

Hanson was the first person to be elected to the new post ('president', as created by the Articles of Confederation as opposed to 'president' of the Continental Congress. Samuel Huntington was never elected to this new post. Moreover, the new post had truly executive powers which were specified in the Articles (de jure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.96.142 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First President Arguments:

So who was the first President of the United States?

The answer to this question is not as simple as it may first appear. It depends on how we answer several other questions. When did the United States become an independent country? Was it when we formed our first Continental Congress or our Second? When we declared our independence or when we won it? When we created our first constitution or our second? When the first constitution was ratified, or when the second was ratified? What do we mean by "president"?

A number of plausible arguments can be advanced in support of various "first president" candidates. The argument in favor of John Hanson is by no means weak! Here are just a few additional possibilities:


• President Peyton Randolph

because the first Continental Congress was an American creation, not a body recognized by Great Britain. It was (de facto) the first independent governing body in these United States, and Peyton Randolph was its first president.

• President John Hancock

because he was president of the second Continental Congress when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 creating the "United States of America".

• President Henry Laurens

because he was the first president to be elected to the office after independence was declared.

• President Samuel Huntington

because he was president when the Articles of Confederation were ratified creating the first de jure government of the “United States of America”.

• President Samuel Johnston

because he was the first president to be elected after the Articles of Confederation were ratified establishing the “United States of America”.

• President Thomas McKean

because, although Samuel Johnston was elected to the post, he declined it and never took office!

• President John Hanson

because the Articles of Confederation created the office of “President" and Hanson was the first person elected to this post- "President of the Congress of the Confederation of the United States" as opposed to being elected as “President of the Continental Congress”. This new office was also the first with truly executive powers.

• President Thomas Mifflin

because Mifflin was president when the Revolutionary War was finally won and American independence was recognized by all parties, and by the Treaty of Paris.

• President Richard Henry Lee

because Lee was the first president to be elected after the Treaty of Paris was ratified by all parties, and the United States was recognized as a truly independent nation.

• President Cyrus Griffin

because he was the duly elected President under the Articles of Confederation when the current Constitution was ratified, and when the Congress of the Confederation certified its ratification and passed the Resolution (September 13, 1788) putting the new Constitution into operation.

• President George Washington

because he served as President of the Constitutional Convention when it adopted our current Constitution, and because he was Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army (de facto chief executive) during and after the American Revolution. He was also the first President elected under our current Constitution.

Lee Price

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.96.142 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John Hanson's biography and history contains more vague and inaccurate details that almost any other figure of the revolution. There is also no modern, researched biography for him. Early 18th century accounts, and various genealogy sites contain demonstrable errors and outright fiction. Some of the existing Wikipedia article repeats these. I had hoped to re-write into a clean one, but the trail is cold. I'll wind up doing it in pieces and it will be some time before we can be proud of this article. As changes are made, most deleted elements deserve at least some note on this page or an archive of it. Wish me luck, Thanks, Lou I 07:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Working with all the Hanson data I can find, cross checking it, and then applying reasonability checks makes the process stated above much harder than I had thought. His biography on the U.S. Congress web site even contains inaccuracies. So, I'm going to try a different approach. I'm going to start an article for John Hanson (myths). If I explore (and explode) as many as possible there, this will be a short article but will contain only verifiable facts, and point to the myths article. I'll probably write most of the myth one first to avoid excessive editing here. Lou I 07:04, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

Why does Encyclopedia Britannica say that John Hanson was born on April 13, 1721? Is this another myth? (An unlogged in user).

This is one case where Britannica is just wrong! The 1721 date belonged to his cousin. I'm going with two sources here: 1st is his grave, 2nd is his congresssional biography (link on first page). This is briefly discussed in the myths article as well. Lou I 16:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Annotated Code of Maryland, Title 13, Section 401 ("John Hanson's birthday") says:
"The Governor annually shall proclaim April 13 as John Hanson's birthday and dedicate that day to the statesman."
The state of Maryland seems to be confused about the matter as wellif April 3rd is indeed his birthday. Jacob1207 03:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: Added Note by R. Philip Dean: I think the attribution to his birthday is most probably similiar to Queen Elizabeth of England. She has an "OFFICIAL" birthday and an actual birthday. A state proclamation as to when one will celebrate the birth of a person isn't necessarily the actual date they were born. Similiar in this country to the Washington & Lincoln birthday as well as that of Jesus. We know Jesus (if you believe in Him) wasn't born December 25 nor resurrected on Easter, which is actually governed by a pagan holiday. Just my thought... I could be wrong!

The April 3 vs. 13 confusion might be attributed to the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, which would have occurred in the British Empire during his lifetime. It wouldn't explain the confusion about the year, however.
One should also remember that in those days, when many children were born at home on farms and far from the places where any official records were kept, there might have been substantial delays between a time a baby was born and the birth was recorded. If several children were born in the same extended family at that time, errors or confusion could easily occur.71.131.186.165 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the birth date in the article to the Gregorian Calendar date. His birth records would have listed the date in the Julian calendar. We need to add 10 days to get the Gregorian Date. -- MiguelMunoz 00:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's get a few facts straight. He was born on 3 April 1715, under the Julian Calendar. In the 18th century, the gap between the Julian and Gregorian calendars was 11 days, not 10 days. Hence, under the Gregorian calendar he was born on 14 April 1715 - see [1] and [2]. Why Maryland chose 13 April as the official celebration date is mystery. Maybe they mistakenly calculated the Gregorian date, or maybe it was just an unintentional near-coincidence. But whatever, it was destined to confuse a lot of people, who probably have it fixed in their heads that Hanson was born on 13 April (NS), when in fact he was born on 14 April. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Gregory Column

Can somebody tell me why Dick Gregory at http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/14_washington.html claims that John Hanson was black?

Of course, it also says he was the first President of the United States, which isn't true. He wasn't even the first President of the United States in Congress assembled. -- Zoe

About a third of the referenced column repeats inaccurate or fabulistic history, and it contains almost half of the Hanson errors or myths that are floating around. It also contains one that was new to me, that Hanson was partially black. The Hanson family of his time was mainly English, with some French Heugenots. I think the myth comes from the fact that his grandfater (also John) came to Maryland as an indentured servent. When he arrived he owed six years service to pay for his passage. There is a court record of the sale of his indenture. Lou I 07:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC
There was a John Hanson who was a senator in Liberia, and that may also be a source of misconception that the John Hanson who presided over congress was black. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson_%28politician%29.
I'll try not to split hairs, but Hanson's predecessors presided over Continental Congresses that did not represent thirteen unified states. Once the Articles of Confederation were passed, the thirteen states were recognized by their own ratification as a nation, the United States, however weak the central government might have been. Hanson certainly held the office of president, at the time, whether "in Congress Assembled" or not, and whether or not that office functioned entirely as the current office of president does (which, we agree, it did not). The Congress that Hanson presided over represented the United States, so in turn, does it not follow that he was the nation's president? It seems that most people want to deny that Hanson was the first U.S. president, simply because it is too inconvenient for them to go back and write in the history books that Washington was the first U.S. president under the current constitution. The powers of Elizabeth I don't exactly resemble the powers of Elizabeth II either. Does anybody try to put forth the argument that either Elizabeth I was not, or Elizabeth II is not, the Queen? -- Matt Battison

Why not consider Samuel Huntington and Thomas McKean as president before Hanson as they served under the retified Articles of Confederation? 74.166.66.232 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Grady

[edit] Swedish Origin

There was A Hanson (no relation) involved in Swedish colonial ventures in Delaware, whose son returned to fight with Gustavus Adolphus. The rest of the story, and the relation to this Hanson family were invented in the 1820s. It got picked up and repeated then expanded in other literature, and even engraved on walls. No truth to the story.Lou I 07:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anon editor, 213.216.199.10, has added back in the information about the sweedish origin. I have left a message on users talk page about this and offered links backing this up, but today the user has gone back and re-added the myth to the article and also to the article on Hakkapeliitta. Viper Daimao 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the origins were from Finland, not from sweden unlike it's normally supposed. The Hanson family first moved from Finland to Sweden and then into the States.194.157.18.210 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)