First Ten Presidents of the United States (in Congress Assembled?)

[Revenant]

I read the following article:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/20/me-us-treasury-seeks-dismissal-of-coin-suit/

 

I can't help but wonder, do these men deserve to be honored along with the "other Presidents." I think the Sec of the Treasury is doing the right thing and following the law as written, but I can't help but wonder of an addendum needs to be made as has been done for an 11th year of "statehood" quarters. It can't be denied that these men had historical roles, but as the article points out, the titles might be the same but the positions weren't and the government that these men served ended with the passage of the new constitution (I believe that was 1787 but I'm a little fuzzy on that year at the moment ).

 

[BillJones]

This guy Stanley Klos really makes me angry. Taking this issue to court is total waste of court's time and taxpayers' money.

 

The central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation (pre Constitution period) was so weak that it could not do anything. Most of the talented, prominent men who provided the political leadership during the Revolutionary War period went back to their states where their influence mattered most. The Congress was filled with mediocre to untalented men who didn’t and in fact couldn’t do much at all. The United States was laughing stock in Europe and hardly looked like a country. That’s why the founding fathers got together and hammered out the Constitution. They could either stand by and watch the country divide up and become like Europe or become a nation under a workable framework.

 

These so-called “presidents” had little power and influence and did nothing of historical importance. Their roles were similar to that of the Speaker of the House with little authority to do anything.

 

Klos has now had his 15 minutes of fame, and the time has come for him to stand down and spot wasting our time and money. His argument is without merit. So far as I’m concerned some of the real presidents were so bad that they don’t deserve to be immortalized on a coin. These would be presidents rank even lower than them.

 

[TomB]

These men did not remotely hold the same position as later Presidents.

[rons]

Most of the talented, prominent men who provided the political leadership during the Revolutionary War period went back to their states where their influence mattered most. The Congress was filled with mediocre to untalented men who didn’t and in fact couldn’t do much at all. The United States was laughing stock in Europe and hardly looked like a country.

I had a feeling of deja vu while reading your description.

[Jeffrey Cardona]

Most of the talented, prominent men who provided the political leadership during the Revolutionary War period went back to their states where their influence mattered most. The Congress was filled with mediocre to untalented men who didn’t and in fact couldn’t do much at all. The United States was laughing stock in Europe and hardly looked like a country.

I had a feeling of deja vu while reading your description.

 

Sure sounds like what is goin on today.....

[Revenant]

My revelation came the day I realized that "Do Nothing Congress" and "Democratic National Convention" can both be represented with "DNC."

[RWB]

These men were presiding officers, a completely different concept than President as leader of the Executive Branch of government.

[DavidARay-migration]

Then who says that they shouldn't just make a "Historical Figure" Series. Franklin, Farrow, Rutledge, George Washington Carver, etc. But then that would open doors for jokes like Al Gore.

[cpm9ball]

I don't recall that I ever voted for any of those ten men.

 

Chris

[Revenant]

I don't recall that I ever voted for any of those ten men.

 

Chris

 

Does this mean that you DO remember voting for Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe? Heck I'll be nice and ask about Lincoln. What about him? How old are you?

[rrantique]

I don't recall that I ever voted for any of those ten men.

 

Chris

 

Yeah usually memory is the second thing that goes.

[Conder101]

These so-called “presidents” had little power and influence and did nothing of historical importance. Their roles were similar to that of the Speaker of the House with little authority to do anything.

Of course they had little power. The were the chief executive of a deliberately weak central government. But they still did the best they could with what authority they did have, and they WERE the head of what central government we had between the declaration of Independence and the current Federal government that we have now under the Constitution. It was their experiences that illustrated to the Constitutional Convention what changes needed to be made.

 

That period of our countries history is actually a big mystery to most people, The war and the battles for our independence are familiar, but the background governmental negotiations that eventually lead to the final peace treaty and the treaties with the other European powers. And the four year period between the Treaty of Paris and the Constitution is a big empty space. If we are going to recognize all these other people, would like to see these men recognized for their efforts as well.

[Oldtrader3]

These men may have nominally been called President but they were not even able to raise pay and provisions for the Continental Army during most of the Revolutionary War. I remember reading history in college about most of these men who had little power and limited abilities to influence their own Continental Congresses to pass laws or raise tax revenues to wage the war against Britain. Many Continental Army soldiers were unpaid for extended periods of time, except when Washington, Von Steuben, Lafayette, Greene, Arnold or other commanders in the field actually used their own monies to provision their soldiers. Col. George Rogers Clarke died a pauper after the Fort Vincennes Campaign because the Continental Congress refused to repay him for provisioning and paying his troops for over a year and he won an important victory in the Ohio Valley against overwhelming odds. These "Presidents" had no federal money to spend, could not collect taxes and had no effective legislative powers. They performed no duties even approaching those of Presidents later elected under the powers given to Constitutionally elected Presidents after 1787.

[cpm9ball]

I don't recall that I ever voted for any of those ten men.

 

Chris

 

Yeah usually memory is the second thing that goes.

 

Unfortunately, my $ex life was first.

 

Chris

[BankNote1]

These men "did" hold the title of President of the United States regardless of their duties. I also don't think all of these men were mediocre and untalented like Bill seems to think. I also would consider several of these men founding fathers as well!

 

Politics was played back then just as it is played today.

[RWB]

The "President" of an assembly is simply the presiding officer and had/has no relationship to the duties of the Chief Executive. In an assembly the most influential members are usually the Secretary and the Parliamentarian – together, they control the flow of information and interpret meeting rules. The president merely recognizes speakers and signs (along with the Secretary) approved motions of the assembly. In certain situations the president not only does not participate in debate but does not vote.

[Oldtrader3]

Some of them, like John Hancock, were notable, good people and of course he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. They were not able to given much power however, even while they held the title of President. The problem was; without a working Constitutional document, Continental Congress was afraid that they would just create another King, just like George, 3rd, except American, so they gave these men limited powers.

[astrostu]

My take on that article when I saw it was that we are "honoring" the Presidents of the United States. My understanding is that before our present Constitution, we were the Confederated States of America, or something like that. And the article even says that they were leaders of the government which was called the "United States in Congress Assembled."

 

To me, this was NOT the same ruling body that came with the 1787 Constitution (did I get that year right? ... I didn't look it up). We were also not really the same "country" before then, but rather a loose association of states (hence, the Confederacy ... with the Articles of Confederation as the effective Constitution).

 

Since were were not really the "same country" then as we are now, and since we definitely didn't have the same method of government, I see this as a non-issue no-brainer dismissal of lawsuit.

 

Granted, that was an important time in history, and that was an important government because it proved to 'mericans that we needed a stronger central government (especially with the ability to enforce taxation, I seem to recall), but the legislation for the "Prezzie-Fun-Bucks" was obviously NOT intended to include these 10 folks.

[Zoins]

It would be pretty cool to have a coin for president John Hancock....