Talk:Cyrus Griffin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Some people consider the Presidents of the Congress to be the predecessors of the Presidents of the United States under the present Constitution. Therefore a link should be noted... -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- But they're wrong. They're distracted by the "bright shiny object" and can't see that there's no continuity of position, because they are fascinated by the superficial resemblance of name. There should be no link that implies succession of a relatively unimportant legislative position by an important executive position. - Nunh-huh 04:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- I disagreee, since the power of the Congress was transmuted into the current constitution as it is today by that very same assembly. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Then that's a point of view (a wrong one, but a point of view). Put it in the article if you must, but don't force that point of view onto us by putting it in a succession box. - Nunh-huh 04:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Very well, nevertheless the link showing the transition should be mentioned since the positions cover a similar title and some historians prefer to consider the Articles of Confederation's presidents the true first 10 presidents. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Similar title, completely different responsibilities. What "historians" would they be? - Nunh-huh 04:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Quite a few actually complain that history books don't recognize that the first 10 Congress Presidents were leaders of the United States at one point. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Name them in the article and attribute that viewpoint to them then, don't oversimplify by sticking it in a box. It would be truer to say Cyrus Griffin was succeeded in his powers by Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, 1st Speaker of the House and John Langdon, first president pro tempore of the Senate than it is to say he was succeeded by George Washington. - Nunh-huh 04:36, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Very well remove then, I just thought it would be useful to show the transition... -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It would be if there WERE a transition. We really shouldn't mislead people into thinking George Washington succeeded Cyrus Griffin: I think the current box isn't anything anyone would disagree with. - Nunh-huh 04:42, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, I just want to make sure we cover all the possible angles for this information... I have undone my change at George Washington as well. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Position is now characterized in the article... not that I technically agree with it anyway, but rather that we should have an NPOV. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the entire concept of the 1st and 2nd continental Congress confusing? In actuality using the period of 1775 to 1781 as the 2nd Contintental Congress is inaccurate. This Congress disbanded and was re-elected several times during this period creating a 3rd, 4th and even 5th Continental Congresses. What you really have is a 1st (Peyton and Middletn) and second Continental Congress (Randolph and Hancock) of the United Colonies that lasted until July 1, 1776. Then you have the Continental Congress of the United States from July 2, 1776 until February 28, 1781. Finally there is the United States in Congress Assembled from March 1, 1781 until 1789. This concept that the 2nd Continental Congress lasted 6 years is incorrect. --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.197.9 (talk)
