Our forgotten presidents

As we approach Presidents’ Day, we can expect to see a familiar parade of images—Abraham Lincoln, the occasional John F. Kennedy and, above all, George Washington.

We were probably taught that Washington was our first president, just as we were once taught that Columbus discovered America and Pluto was a planet. All of those lessons require a bit of refinement.

Washington was the first president under our current Constitution, but he was not the first president of the United States. In fact, he was the fifteenth. Before the Constitution, the country operated under the Articles of Confederation, and under those Articles there was a presiding officer titled “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.”

Those presidents served one-year terms and functioned far more like a modern Speaker of the House or President of the Senate than a chief executive as we understand the role today. Nonetheless, they were presidents of the United States.

The first to hold that office was Peyton Randolph of Virginia in 1774, followed briefly by Henry Middleton of South Carolina. True continuity did not arrive until John Hancock assumed the role in 1775 and held it through the fall of 1777. During Hancock’s tenure, the Declaration of Independence was signed. As presiding officer of Congress and first signer of the Declaration, Hancock placed himself squarely at the top of Britain’s list of traitors—an unenviable position if the revolution failed. That fact alone makes his presidency more than a ceremonial footnote.

Hancock was followed by figures such as Henry Laurens, John Jay, Samuel Huntington, and Thomas McKean. It was John Hanson of Maryland who held the office when the Articles of Confederation were formally ratified, which has led some historians to refer to him as the nation’s “first” president. Others rightly push back, noting that the office itself was fundamentally different from what followed. Both views can be true.

Under the Articles, the national government was intentionally weak. States retained near-total sovereignty, raised their own taxes and maintained their own militias. Congress handled diplomacy and coordination, but there was no independent executive branch. The president of Congress was a chair, not a commander—first among equals, armed with a gavel rather than authority.

That distinction is significant, and historians are right to recognize Washington as the first president under our present Constitution. Still, the differences do not justify erasing the men who held the earlier office. They presided during war, uncertainty and genuine personal risk. They did not know whether they would be remembered as founders or hanged as rebels.

Washington’s sacrifices were real and monumental, and history has honored them accordingly—with monuments, memorials, and a permanent place in civic memory. His predecessors fared less well. Aside from a few statues and place names, the thirteen years between independence and the Constitution are largely glossed over.

That’s unfortunate. Understanding the failures of the Articles of Confederation is essential to appreciating the Constitution that replaced them. If the Articles sought a “perfect union,” the Constitution aspired—more modestly and more successfully—to a “more perfect” one.

As we honor the great and not-so-great holders of our highest office, we should remember those who came before Washington. They were not failed presidents; they were pioneers working without a roadmap. Their second attempt at nation-building gave us the Constitution we still rely on today, and that alone makes them worth remembering.