There are problems with the list. Washington was the first president of the United States. Randolf was only head of the congress. Much like how the VP is “President of the Senate”

As for #2 the Book of Mathew mentions “Wise Men”

Simple research can rip this list to pieces.

There are problems with the list. Washington was the first president of the United States. Randolf was only head of the congress. Much like how the VP is “President of the Senate”Â?

No, this is referring to the Continental Congress, the governing body under the Articles of Confederation. That was the United States back when the term was first being used. So Peyton Randolph’s claim to being the first “president of the United States” is quite legitimate. Washington was the first president under today’s Constitution, but the United States existed as an entity well before the Revolution.

Saying a rich man was “tall”Â? because he was taller than the average man is inside, especially for a country where most of the population is starving. One might similarly say that this or that Rwandan general could not have a “lean, hungry look”Â? because he was fatter than the average Rwandan

I think it’s more accurate to say that military leaders tend to be taller than the average person, particularly if you’re going back to the cavalry era. A 5’7” general would be short for a general no matter how well-nourished the population happened to be.

What sort of insane, it didn’t happen unless it’s in a treaty, view of history is this? Really? What the heck?

It’s correct. The US didn’t officially have independence until Britain pulled out. If the sole criterion was writing a declaration of independence, then we would have many more independent countries on our hands today (e.g. the Conch Republic).

Regardless, in the United States our basic Laws””?and not Britain’s beliefs “”?are the supreme law of the land. US law takes precedence over international agreements.

Treaties have legal force equivalent to a congressional statute. Congress can supersede a treaty by passing a contrary bill later on, but unless that happens, all treaties signed by the US are part of the supreme law of the land. Crack open the Constitution to Article VI, Section 2 if you don’t believe me. (Note that executive agreements without Senate consent are inferior to statutes, but still have the force of law if there are no statutes to the contrary.)

But that’s besides the point: this wasn’t the case in 1776. The United States started out life as a separatist group operating in what was universally acknowledged to be British territory. It could make “laws” if it wanted to, but the British were still in charge, and their laws were the ones being enforced. On July 5, 1776, despite the Declaration of Independence, the United States were still administered by the British and were both a de facto and de jure part of the British empire, albeit in open rebellion.

We might as well cite the moment that the majority of states recognized the United States (so it could be a norm), or say sometime in the middle 19th century (so it would be a custom).

Foreign recognition is not a criterion for independent statehood. If it were, Taiwanese people would have a really hard time traveling on their ROC passports.

What I’m talking about is the moment that the United States government actually controlled its territory, which is the main practical and legal factor in determining whether a state is independent. That’s why the Chechens and the Basques are not treated as independent, but the Taiwanese and Palestinans are.

Customs and norms are just political tomfoolery. When people fight for independence, they’re fighting for the right to govern themselves in peace, not the right to have embassies.

Joe,

Your first paragraph is obvious. So what?

Your second paragraph is bizarre. I’m not sure why you give the London government’s view of reality preference over Philadephia’s—why you say one is de jure correct and the other isn’t. As for de facto control, that would vary by region (some areas were under Philadephia, others under London).

Your third paragraph is odd. You use Taiwan as an example, but Taiwan is a case where a warring party in a civil war refuses to recognize the other. You said that the US did not exist until the US’s parent—the UK —agreed that it did. Would you thus agree that the People’s Republic of China does not exist, because that state’s parent—the Republic of China—does not recognize it?

Your fourth paragraph appears to reject legalism and de jure requirements, ebcasue you are “talking about… the moment” of Americna control over America. Under this definition, it would seem that the date of a treaty is irrelevent, because mere diplomatic agreement would not equal actual control.

Your fifth paragraph is quixotic and irrelevent.

PS: Thanks for your civility, Joe. I am happy you haven’t told me to go fuck myself with an almanac today. Be proud of that!

Curzon weighs in:

2-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-20. Interesting, and fair enough.

On the other points:

13., in re Napoleon: as I’ve understood it, British Imperial and French units of measurement were different, and Napoleon was 5’2’’ by French standards despite being 5’7’’ by British/Modern standards, which was above average. But the 5’2’’ figure was used in propaganda in Britain, and since we read English history, that is what has stuck in our collective conscious.

9., in re Nero: that Nero “fiddled” has two meanings: he played his lyre, and he did nothing to help the poor populace of Rome. No one with a rudimentary understanding of Roman history really believes that Nero was out playing his Lyre while the city burned… or do they?

6., in re American Independence: what’s wrong with this? The war DID rage for seven years; heck, there wasn’t even a president until 1989. You guys all outraged should reread the paragraph, nothing in there necessarily counters the fact that America was independent on 7/4/1776, but just argues for a less simplistic view of history. And certainly the author is correct that most Americans are ignorant of these facts.

4, in re Columbus: Part of this is true: the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth before Christ was born. But that Columbus never visited the American mainland is meaningless. And “almost nobody” believed the Earth was flat is certainly untrue; rather, the upper and learned classes may have believed that, but it was not confirmed; and many sailors were just as afraid of falling off the edge of the Earth as they were of the Kraken.

1., in re George Washington: interesting, I hadn’t though about this before and didn’t this. But I would again ask you guys getting outraged to reread the original paragraph. The author is merely saying “this isn’t strictly the case.” My bigger complaint is with the final sentence: “Washington himself became America’s first popularly elected President”—actually, the popular vote wasn’t even taken in most states until the 1820s, and by any measure the first popularly elected president was Andrew Jackson.

Mommmmmm! Dan won’t share the comment section!