Which former US President was renamed an Indian name after the Congress graciously consented to it?

John Hancock was named "Karanduawn, or the Great Tree"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sailracer,

Good job Jenny. They ( 6 nations or Iroquois) also have the oldest democracy in the world, almost 900 years old. see here.

Somewhere in Trivia, possibly History Trivia, I have links to the first written Constitution of North America, which was, I think, the Iroquois Constitution. I'll link to it later.

Jenny, Sorry, I accidentally edited your post; Mea Culpa! Trying to do too much at the same time

However, I don’t recall John Hancock as being a former U.S. President, but since I am reaching “Dorian” age, I forget a lot;

Again, sorry for my error

John Hancock, he of the big signature, was President of the United States, in Congress Assembled from November 23, 1785 until June 5, 1786.

The President of the Continental Congress was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress. He was elected by the delegates to the congress. After the Articles of Confederation were adopted on March 1, 1781, the office was known as the President of the United States in Congress Assembled.

The Articles of Confederation replaced the Continental Congress and imposed a few changes on the office of the President. The formal title of the presiding officer became “The President of the United States, in Congress Assembled”, reflecting the change in the name of the congress to “The United States, in Congress Assembled”. Except for John Hanson, most of the Presidents used this title only for treaties and on the diplomatic credentials for ministers.
***************************
Only historians and faithful readers of AnswerPool Trivia realize that there was a United States before the US Constitution (adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and later ratified by the people in conventions in each state in the name of "We the People" - New Hampshire became the final necessary ninth state to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788. On March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations.), and there were Presidents before George Washington. (In fact, Washington sent a letter to at least one man, John Hanson (November 5, 1781 – November 3, 1782), congratulating him on becoming President. I believe this letter is in the John Hanson Museum in Maryland.)


More on the Iroquois Constitution here on AnswerPool

More on John Hanson here on AnswerPool


(DG sees all, remembers some.)

I defer to the source who was there!!

Peyton Randolph would have been the first US President but he was elected before 1776. Here's a list of the Forgotten Presidents.

Remember that the Presidents of the Continental Congress were not Presidents of the United States. Only those elected after the Articles of Confederation were adopted were rightly styled President of the United States.

BTW, here's Jenny's Source, we both had the same.

Iceland has the world's oldest democracy. The Althing dates from 930CE.

Iceland hasn't being used as a continuous seat of Government by the democratically elected Government of Iceland from that time to the present day. The Greek in that case would win for they had one sometimes in BC.

Ummm, Iceland doesn't agree with you there.
See:

And one has to wonder how one can claim that a non-literate culture has had anything so clearly defined as a democracy for so long a time, though it's a charming notion. A lot of changes happen in a nation over a period of a thousand years.

New Zealand has the best claim (or so Kiwis are eager to say). That's because New Zealand gave women equality with men in voting in 1893, before countries such as the USA (or Iceland, which gave women the vote in 1915 ) did. No true democracy refuses the vote to over half the citizens.

Incidentally, it is not easy to see how Greece could ever claim to be a continuous democracy, if only because, from 1967 to 1974, the country was ruled by a junta of generals which took power in a military coup and , inter alia, suspended the constitution, abolished political parties and chose to govern by edict.

According to Wikipedia , Iceland's parliament disbanded in 1799 and didn't re-assemble until 1845.

The modern parliament, called "Alþingi" (English: Althing), was founded in 1845 as an advisory body to the Danish king. It was widely seen as a reestablishment of the assembly founded in 930 in the Commonwealth period and suspended in 1799.

Note: I don't think the early inhabitants of Iceland were non-literate; most apparently spoke Old Norse, which was almost identical to what is now called Old Icelandic.* In the 9th Century, Old Norse was spoken parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland as well as Iceland. I am not sure when it changed from a Runic writing system to a Latin-based one, but it most certainly was a written as well as spoken language by the time of the Althing's founding. Icelandic has changed little since the 13th Century, which implies that modern Icelandic is much the same as Old Norse.

I also don't think that a culture's non-literacy would necessarily mean that the culture wouldn't or couldn't form and keep a democratic form of government.

*Landnámabók (meaning "The Book of Settlement", often shortened to Landnáma) is an old Icelandic manuscript describing in considerable detail the settlement ("landnám") of Iceland by the Norse in the 9th and 10th century A.D. The remaining copy was written in the 12th Century.

Íslendingabók, Libellus Islandorum or The Book of Icelanders is an historical work dealing with early Icelandic history. The author was an Icelandic priest, Ari Þorgilsson, working in the early 12th century.

"I also don't think that a culture's non-literacy would necessarily mean that the culture wouldn't or couldn't form and keep a democratic form of government," says DG.

Neither do I. What it does mean is that it's hard to demonstrate. A country that is literate and has literate neighbors has less problem.

For example, we can be pretty sure that Spain was a non-democratic monarchy in the 16th century, not only because their oral tradition says so, but that there is a wealth of supporting written evidence from their own and other nations to back it up.

What we have in the oral tradition that Moze has mentioned is an oral tradition that democracy began in the Confederacy at the time of some event in the sky. Some insist that only a full eclipse of the sun meets that requirement!

In addition, we have only the oral tradition that it was a democracy through all those years. What about after the conquest? Did it continue, unbroken, or were there times when the government was disrupted by the activities of the dominant European invaders?

Even with our own tradition of keeping detailed written records, it is hard to get consensus about details of our history.

Sorry, I'm simply an incurable skeptic when it comes to all such claims. Such claims are charming and romantic, but I'm afraid it's like my own family's claim to be of royal descent. I looked for the written records. They were not there. Just plain old peasant descent, I'm afraid.