John Hanson President Of United States

The painting in the Capitol rotunda doesn't lie. 1781. First president. But walk into certain history forums, scroll through certain Facebook groups, or ask a particularly enthusiastic trivia night teammate, and you'll hear a different name: John Hanson. Day to day, george Washington, first president of the United States, 1789. Case closed.

Except the case isn't closed. It's not even open. It's a category error dressed up as a fun fact.

What Is the John Hanson Claim?

The claim goes like this: John Hanson, a Maryland delegate, was elected "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" on November 5, 1781. Because of this, he was the first* president of the United States. Washington was merely the first president under the Constitution*.

Technically, the first part is true. Hanson was elected president of the Continental Congress — the governing body operating under the Articles of Confederation — on that date. He served a one-year term. In practice, he signed official documents with the title "President of the United States in Congress Assembled. " His correspondence bears that header.

But the leap from "president of the Congress" to "president of the United States" is where the history gets slippery.

The Title Sounds the Same. The Job Wasn't.

"President of the United States in Congress Assembled" is a mouthful. They drop the last five words. People shorten it. And suddenly a legislative presiding officer becomes a chief executive.

That's not how it worked. Also, the Articles of Confederation created a confederation* — a league of sovereign states. There was no executive branch. No president in the sense we understand the word today. The "president" of the Congress was a presiding officer. Day to day, he chaired meetings. He signed letters. He handled correspondence. He had no veto power, no command of armies, no cabinet, no authority to enforce laws. The states retained almost all meaningful power.

Hanson's role was closer to Speaker of the House than to Commander in Chief. Consider this: executive? Ceremonial? On the flip side, largely. Important? Which means yes. Not in any meaningful sense.

Why It Matters / Why People Care

This isn't just pedantry. We teach the Revolution. The Hanson claim persists because it taps into something real: the Articles of Confederation period (1781–1789) is the forgotten middle child of American history. Practically speaking, we teach the Constitution. The eight years in between get a paragraph, maybe two.

People want* there to be a president during those years. Practically speaking, it feels wrong that the United States existed — declared independence, won a war, ratified a governing document — and had no "president" for nearly a decade. The Hanson narrative fills that gap. Think about it: it gives the period a face. A name. A "first.

But filling a gap with a misunderstanding doesn't serve history. It obscures what actually happened: a bold, flawed, fascinating experiment in radical decentralization that nearly collapsed before the Constitution saved it.

The Real Stakes

If Hanson was "president," then what were Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKean, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock (again), Nathaniel Gorham, Arthur St. In practice, they all held the same title before or after him. Fourteen men total served as president of the Continental Congress under the Articles. Clair, and Cyrus Griffin? Some served multiple non-consecutive terms.

Are they all "forgotten presidents"? Or was the office simply... not a presidency?

How It Worked: The Articles of Confederation Government

To understand why Hanson wasn't "president" in the Washington sense, you have to understand the machine he was a cog in.

No Executive Branch — By Design

The Articles created a unicameral legislature: Congress. Also, each state got one vote. On the flip side, nine of thirteen states needed to agree for major decisions. Amendments required unanimity — a formula for paralysis.

There was no separate executive. Congress handled everything: war, diplomacy, finance, disputes between states. On the flip side, no judiciary. It appointed committees to do the actual work. The "president" was simply the guy elected to preside over Congress's sessions.

Hanson's Actual Term: November 1781 – November 1782

Hanson took office just as the war was ending. Day to day, the British were effectively beaten, but the peace treaty wasn't signed until 1783. Yorktown had fallen in October 1781. States weren't sending their requisitioned funds. Soldiers hadn't been paid in years. The country was broke. The army was mutinous.

Hanson's Congress dealt with:

• Pressuring states for money (mostly failing)
• Managing the peace negotiations in Paris
• Trying to prevent the army from marching on Congress (the Newburgh Conspiracy happened after* his term, but the pressure was building)
• Establishing the first federal departments: Foreign Affairs, Finance, War — each headed by a secretary*, not the president

Hanson corresponded with Washington. He wrote a lot of letters. He signed the credentials for the peace commissioners. He presided over a body that struggled to function.

Continue exploring with our guides on quotes of the boston tea party and why is osama bin laden bad.

That's the job. Presiding. Corresponding. Signing. Not governing.

Common Mistakes / What Most People Get Wrong

Mistake 1: "He Was Elected by the People"

No. Even so, he was elected by Congress — by the state delegates. Because of that, the Constitution's Electoral College didn't exist. Plus, the public had no direct vote. The Articles' "president" was chosen by his peers in the legislative body he presided over.

Mistake 2: "He Served Before the Constitution, So He Counts"

The United States as a constitutional federal republic* dates to 1789. In practice, the Articles created a "perpetual union" of states, but it was a different legal entity. The Constitution didn't amend the Articles — it replaced them. The Preamble says "We the People... In real terms, do ordain and establish this Constitution*. " Not "we the states continue the confederation.

Washington was the first president of the United States under the Constitution*. That's the office that exists today. Hanson led a different institution under a different charter.

Mistake 3: "The Title 'President of the United States in Congress Assembled' Proves It"

Titles are tricky. Because of that, the "in Congress assembled" part does the heavy lifting. That's why the president of a university isn't either. "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" describes the role: president of the United States in Congress assembled. The president of a bank isn't the president of the country. It locates the authority in the assembled body*, not in the man.

Mistake 4: "History Books Cover This Up"

They don't. Still, s. history textbook. Consider this: he's not erased. So open any standard U. He's just correctly categorized. Hanson gets a mention — usually a sentence — in the Articles of Confederation section. The "forgotten president" narrative is internet folklore, not suppressed scholarship.

Practical Tips / What Actually Works (For Understanding This Period)

If you want to actually understand the 1780s — not just win a bar bet — here's what helps:

Read the Articles Themselves

They're short. Worth adding: you can read them in twenty minutes. Pay attention to Article II ("Each state retains its sovereignty...") and Article IX (the powers of Congress).

no power to tax, and no power to enforce laws. Now, the Articles were designed to be a leash, not an engine. If you read them, you realize the "President" wasn't a leader; he was a clerk with a gavel.

Distinguish Between "Head of State" and "Head of Government"

In modern terms, we think of a President as both the ceremonial figurehead (Head of State) and the chief administrator (Head of Government). That said, under the Articles, Hanson was neither. Even so, he had no executive authority to command the military or enforce treaties. He was a presiding officer—a moderator of a debate—not the commander of a nation.

Watch for the "Great Man" Fallacy

History often tries to simplify complex eras by attaching them to singular figures. We want a hero to lead the way, even when the legal structure of the time didn't allow for one. When you see a narrative that claims a "lost" leader was actually the true founder, ask yourself: Does the legal framework of the time actually support that level of power?* Usually, the answer is no.

Conclusion: The Lesson of the Articles

The confusion surrounding the "first president" is more than just a pedantic debate over titles; it is a lesson in the fundamental evolution of American governance. The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was not a mere rebranding—it was a total structural overhaul.

Understanding the distinction between the presiding officer of the Confederation Congress and the President of the United States under the Constitution allows us to see the true magnitude of the constitutional convention. We move from a system of "coordinating states" to a system of "governing a nation.Think about it: " By stripping away the internet myths and looking at the legal reality, we gain a much deeper appreciation for why the Founders felt the need to scrap the old system entirely. They didn't just need a better president; they needed a different kind of government altogether.