Talk:President of the Continental Congress

Moved from Talk:President of the United States in Congress assembled

I plan to come back over Christmas as reduce the prominence of this office. Most of the biographies of the men listed have it noted in the first sentence of their entry. While important, it doesn't (IMHO) desrve that kind of prominence. I'll also add a bit here and restructure the end of the article. I've added this note as an advice and welcome comments from any interested parties. Thanks, Lou I 16:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry for the delay. I've been considering what to do with this article, and have finally reached a decision. I will eventually combine this article back into the President of the Continental Congress article. This will become a redirect.

• First I need to expand the biographies of several men listed under each office, before updating the major articles. While doing this I'll usually reduce the prominence now given to this office.
• Most discussion of the full title will go to the Hanson biography, he was the only one that used this as a title, and while frequent, the use wasn't even universal for him. Other letters of his are signed as President of the Continental Congress or President of the Congress of America.
• Some of the style (or the name) of the United States in Congress Assembled discussion needs to go into an expanded Continental Congress article.

As always, discussion is welcome here or on my Talk page. Lou I 19:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I oppose this move. Although similar functions, the two positions had different names and existed under different conditions. Why merge together two different offices? RickK 08:19, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For all practical purposes they were not two different offices. All the elements of government were conducted by the Congress, its standing committees, or its appointed agents, officers, and diplomatic ministers. The expanded title was only used in receiving foriegn diplomats, except by Hanson, who signed lots of letters that way (Pres of the US of A in Congress Assembled). When Congress was out of session he had NO authority to act. I plan to explain this better in a section of the combined article and the John Hanson article. Lou I 08:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

New Discussion

United Colonies v. United States

There acutally is a difference in the concepts, one great enough to break the list into two separate lists on July 2, 1776 and differentiate the two roles of John Hancock. The Continental Congress had no political power, it was only called to discuss the common problems of the colonies, and it wasn't until the actual secession and declaration that it became a unified command for common army of the 13 states. However, being president of that body, with said command, is different from being president of a congress assembled for discussion. -- By user 129.198.241.67.

There are a number of issues involved here. I'd note that the President of the Congress (all versions) never had any unique role in relation to the Continental Army. That army itself was created in June of 1775. Congress (and Hancock) didn't seem to view itself differently before and after July 4, 1776. And lastly, we would be introducing the United Colonies of America as though it were a term with substantial meaning. The topic of the birth of the U.S., and its separation from Britain is already complex. I haven't seen the proposed term (United colonies) used in any histories, and don't think Wikipedia should try to inttroduce things like this. Let's continue talk here before reverting the article again. Comments welcome here or my user page. Lou I 16:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)