Talk:President of the Continental Congress

message: This article assumes that 'Continental Congress' is an appropriate umbrella term for the First and Second Continental Congresses plus the Congress of the Confederation. To me, that seems wrong. Opinions, editors? Also, the list of Presidents lacks entries before March 1781, which is the date of ratification of the Articles of Confederation. The first Continental Congress convened in 1774. Are there missing names? WCCasey (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. "Continental Congress" is the umbrella term that modern reliable sources use to describe the First and Second Continental Congresses plus the Congress of the Confederation. At one time, this was apparently not the case, as historian Edward Burnett explained in The Continental Congress in 1941: "Many historians have drawn a distinction between the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, applying the first name to the period before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the later to the subsequent period." (p. viii) Burnett decided to ignore this distinction, since the Congress was essentially unchanged after the ratification of the Articles, and use the term "Continental Congress" as a umbrella term. Scholars since that time have followed his lead. Rakove's scholarly history, and Montross's popular history, for example, use the term "Continental Congress" as an umbrella term. I am not aware of any modern scholarly history that makes the old distinction. —Kevin Myers 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, even more to the point for this article, Jennings Sanders's 1930 book, The Presidency of the Continental Congress, 1774–89, uses the umbrella term, as you can see by the title. He covers all 14 individuals who held the office. Unlike some later amateur historians who tried to promote John Hanson (or others) as the "first President of the United States", Sanders made no distinction between Presidents who held office under the Articles of Confederation, and those who didn't. The ratification of the Articles didn't create a new office; it gave formal sanction to the existing one. —Kevin Myers 03:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The office of Continental Congress President was a much more powerful office than President of the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA).  Continental Congress Presidents presided over a governmental body that could enact binding legislation on the 13 States with a seven state quorum rather than the nine state quorum required by the Articles of Confederation's United States in Congress Assembled government.  Continental Congress Presidents were often part of delegations that numbered one, giving them 1/7th of "crucial" votes in the unicameral government, as opposed to two or more in a nine state quorum required by the Articles of Confederation's United States in Congress Assembled government.  on May 4, 1781 the USCA passed "Rules for conducting business in the United States in Congress assembled" that stripped the President of his power to control the congressional agenda which, as Jennings makes abundantly clear, was a tactic that the presiding officers (especially Henry Laurens) wielded expertly as President of the Continental Congress.   The United States in Congress Assembled rules even went so far as to eliminate the President's prerogative to continue the debate before a motion that was brought to the floor was seconded.  There are numerous other examples on the differences of the two offices ranging from the USCA's Committee of the States experiment to govern by a "Board of Directors" without the President at its head to Hanson's success in championing a USCA resolution that moved the bulk of Presidential correspondence duties to USCA Secretary Charles Thomson. Moreover, the USCA Office of Foreign Secretary, under Livingston and  Jay, took over much of the Presidential duties of entertaining foreign diplomats and dignitaries under the Articles of Confederation.  Your statement that "the ratification of the Articles didn't create a new office; it gave formal sanction to the existing one" is expedient, like using "Continental Congress" for the USCA,  but incorrect especially when the USCA Presidency was formed by an unanimously ratified U.S. Constitution. Stas.klos (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the link, but America's Four Republics appears to be a self-published book. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, such sources are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. See also WP:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship. We can only cite sources that have been "vetted by the scholarly community", which generally means "academic and peer-reviewed publications".  —Kevin Myers 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your participation and information on the source guidelines for Wikipedia.  The work was "vetted by the scholarly community" in a public symposium as evidenced by the Annapolis Continental Congress Festival Speaking schedule.  2012 Continental Congress Festival  The work was published by the ROI.us Corporation,  and its primary sources are next scheduled to be exhibited at Loyola University, in New Orleans where they will be unveiled on the enactment date of the Articles of Confederation.  Even if you dismiss the work "as self-published," it is time for Wikipedia editors to accept the fact – documented by the primary sources linked here -- that the term Continental Congress  1774 Articles of Association names Continental Congress AND Articles of Confederation names United States in Congress Assembled , Primary Sources are from America's Four Republics: The More or Less United States Exhibit  is mistakenly used to identify the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA),  Article II of the Articles of Confederation names new federal government "United States in Congress Assembled,"  from the 1781 Journals of Congress and Journals of the United States in Congress Assembled , from www.uscontinentalcongress.com  a constitutional government established by the Articles of Confederation. Citing the primary sources are, the most scholarly way to correct this misnomer once and for all.  Stas.klos (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

text: He did say "self-published".  All of the google hits regarding your book are advertisements - no scholarly notice worth mentioning (certainly none on your website). TEDickey (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus needed 

message: So who was in charge from Nov 16, 1788 to Apr 30, 1789?
I’m sure it’s somewhere in Wiki, but I can’t see it on any Continental Congress page (and others). MBG02 (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headless Government  

message: Hey, I don't really see how the older table is more concise & user friendly, can you explain? Best Skjoldbro (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; there's no practical reason for having separate start & end columns, as they sort the same, plus the combined start-end format follows the pattern used in other U.S. federal legislative leadership list-articles (speaker of the House & president pro-tempore of the Senate) articles; regarding the colony/state column, as it identifies where the office holder is from, it ought to be next to the column containing the men's names, and also, I found the use of flags to be unnecessarily decorative, as well as anachronistic. Conversely, I did like the added parenthetical mention of YOB & YOD, and note that the states (atleast the first mention of each) could be linked. I hope that this is helpful. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the reply, I went ahead a changed the table again, changing things to fit your notes. Have a look at it, there shouldn't be any issues now, but if there is, let me know or revert it again. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: While we know that the President of the Continental Congress (under multiple names) is significantly different from the current President of the United States, there are more similarities to the current Vice President.
The president of this former congress is the chair presiding over a legislative assembly, and indirectly representing the nation through it (rather that directly as the current president does). This role of chairing a parliamentary body is similar to the vice president being president of the Senate (in some ways also shared by the  president pro tempore of the Senate that somewhat substitutes for the vice president, and the speaker of the House). Notably, this congress, much like the current Senate, has states represented in equal proportions. And the president of this congress has limited role and power (again, much like the vice president); the influence of both positions would come more from the office holders themselves and actions and political skills, rather than from formal powers, as the current article acknowledges about the President of the Continental Congress (cite Morris 1987).
I find it striking that there's such a scarcity of sources comparing the president of this congress to the vice president. After all, it's clear from the Connecticut Compromise and the earlier New Jersey Plan that the Senate would inherit some features of the congress under the Articles of Confederation which includes states having equal representation. So it's reasonable to think that the vice president presiding over the Senate is a spiritual successor to the president of the Continental Congress chairing that body. This gives an explanation as to why the compromise bothered to create a somewhat superfluous position that John Adams and other vice presidents decried.
Nonetheless, I did find a couple of sources. This blog post from The Constitutional Walking Tour of Philadelphia website talks about John Hanson and his importance as the first president of the body to be chosen after it was formalized under the Articles. The blog describes up-front, "Hanson's role as President of Congress was more akin to the present day position of President of the United States Senate (a role fulfilled by the Vice President of the United States)".
This book (also found here and here) also compares the vice president to the president of the Continental Congress while noting some differences:
While subsequent chapters consider the extent of presidential authority, it must be noted that not all presidents have meaningful authority. The Constitution proves as much. The vice president serves as the Senate’s “president,” meaning that he may chair its meetings. Additionally, he may break ties in Senate votes. If the president presided in the manner of the president of the Senate, the Article II presidency would be more about procedures and ceremony than about the exercise of power. The nation’s first “presidents” had more in common with our vice president. As early as 1774, the Continental Congress appointed a delegate to serve as “president.” He presided over deliberations, handled official communications, received and entertained foreign ambassadors, and took ceremonial precedence over other delegates. Despite the office’s narrow scope of authority, the Articles imposed term limits. No delegate could serve as president for more than one year in every three, a curb that likely reflected an acute (and excessive) concern with monarchy.
...
There remains the question of the vice president’s legislative authority. Was his a ceremonial position, or did it give him real power? Under the Articles, the president of the Continental Congress presided over its proceedings and could cast a vote, but could not cast an additional tie-breaking vote, serve on committees, or participate in debates. In some respects, the president of the Senate seems weaker. Whereas the former president of the Continental Congress always had a vote, the Constitution granted the president of the Senate a vote only when there is a tie. Yet in other respects, the Constitution’s failure to bar certain functions suggests a change. For instance, the silence on whether the president of the Senate may participate in debates suggests that he or she may speak freely. The first vice president, John Adams, vacillated about the office’s importance. In an early letter, Adams boasted that “the Constitution has instituted two great offices, of equal rank ...: one who is the first of the two ... is placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislature.” Adams was mistaken, for the vice president does not lead Congress; he merely presides over the Senate. With experience Adams accurately observed that vice president “is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative.” Later still, he despaired that he occupied “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” The last comment went too far. The vice president may play an influential, occasionally pivotal role, as Adams himself demonstrated. Adams frequently lectured from the chair, attempting to influence votes. On the question of designating a grand title for the president, he supposedly “harranged” senators. Adams may have been quite persuasive on whether the president may remove executives (discussed in Chapter 8), for he is said to have convinced one or two senators to support a statute that assumed the president had a constitutional removal power. One senator said that all regarded Adams as “the great converter.” With the conversion of one or two senators to his point of view on removal, the vote stood at 9–9, enabling him to cast the deciding vote. In all, he cast thirty-­one tie-­breaking votes, a record perhaps impossible to exceed. By his second term, Adams had grown more reserved. Today, Senate rules implicitly bar vice presidents from participating in debate. This makes vice presidents less inclined to preside over the Senate, leaving that task to the president pro tempore or some other senator serving as chair. This gag is dubious. If the Senate can muzzle the vice president, someone whom the Constitution makes clear is a participant in Senate proceedings, what is to prevent the Senate from stifling disfavored senators? Legislatures are places of debate, and while there must be some ability to place limits on endless monologues, such limitations cannot go so far as to utterly silence participants. By making the vice president the president of the Senate, the Constitution contemplates that he will have a meaningful role in its proceedings and perhaps hints that he must be able to address matters before that body.
One can also say that the president pro tempore of the Senate has some comparisons to this former presidential position as well, since they are both voting members chosen from within the body. 104.175.78.152 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I intended to start a discussion to get feedback and consensus before editing the article, but since an editor complained about this being too long and "beyond the scope", I'm going to be bold and editing the article right away. 104.175.78.152 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have specific suggestions for improvements to this article? Drdpw (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I already edited 104.175.78.152 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons to the VICE President of the United States