Talk:Heads of State in 1776
Hi Moncrief,
I agree with your point that he was not the head of state until 1776. That's why I didn't list him on the 1775 page (or previous Presidents of the Continental Congress on earlier years).
Nonetheless, he did hold the office of President of the Continental Congress from 1775 to 1777. The date range on the page is closely associated with the title of the office; more closely, in my opinion, than with the title of the page. Therefore, I think it is misleading to say "President of the Continental Congress (1776-1777)".
Of course, I also think it's misleading (in a different way) to say "1775-1777". But I think that "1776-1777" is significantly more misleading.
That being said, if you want to change it back to 1776 again, please feel free, and I'll gladly consent.
Rwv37 05:17, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I see your point. As a compromise, what do you think about putting from July 4, 1776 in italics next to the entry for John Hancock, while mainting 1775-1777 in parantheses. This would indicate (at least to me) that he was the President of the Continental Congress from 1775 but served as US head of state only from that date in 1776 (some reference that his service as "Head of State" did not encompass all of 1776 should me made at any rate, I think). Moncrief 07:28, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll do that now. -Rwv37 07:30, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
- The deeper question is: was the President of the CC in fact the head of state? -- Decumanus | Talk 05:23, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If he wasn't, no one was. I've seen people say the PoCC was the "head of government" but not "head of state", but frankly, I think this is (at best) splitting hairs.
Rwv37 05:33, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you about the "no one" possiblity. I think it's quite possible to argue for that, given that it was a Confederation at the time. Would Hancock and the other PoCCs have been received in Paris under the protocol of Head of State, had he gone there? I tend to think not. It's a very interesting question. I don't know enough about the Articles of Confederation to say for certain. -- Decumanus | Talk 05:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps the governors of the individual states ought to be listed? john 05:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, possibly, but ask anybody when the USA's Bicentennial was, and you're never going to get the answer "March 4, 1989".
April 30, my friend. At any rate, the United States of America certainly existed from 1776, but they were not a single unified country until the Constitution went into effect. At any rate, it's rather crazy that you all were arguing over that when there weren't any actual heads of state listed on the page, besides the questionable US case and the Afghanistan thing...I've tried to add some of the more important ones (mostly European). john 06:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- April 30 was when Washington was inagurated. The Constitution went into effect March 4. -Rwv37 06:36, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
I thought it went into effect well before then - with the adhesion of New Hampshire in 1788? john 06:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- New Hampshire ratifying it meant that it was going to go into effect, not that it went into effect immediately. There was a transition period, and (formally) the Constitution went into effect on March 4.