> but as far as world cocktail historians have found the
> mention of the word was first in American newspapers and we have to
> go with that for now.
By saying 'we have to go with that for now' or 'it is the only thing we have
got' you are trying to make the argument legit. It is not. Finding the word
first mentioned in America does not mean that it is an American invention. It
is only a clue and not a proof. It is not conclusive and there are still open
ends.
Peychaud was only an example. The word Sazerac in relation to a drink is first
(I guess) mentioned in American writings but does that make it an American
invention? Peychaud is an example for a possible non-American inventing the
cocktail. It is also an example about what a real proof should be. The
writings about Peychaud are much more conclusive. We can be reasonably certain
that Peychaud created the Sazerac. Finding the word 'cocktail' mentioned is
not conclusive and it doesn't proof anything. True, writings about Peychaud
are dated later but possibly some other producer of bitters might be the
inventor of the cocktail. It is not uncommon for a bitter to be invented by a
non-American (Orange bitters, Peychaud bitters and Angostura bitters). This
makes that the proof for the inventor of the 'cocktail' should be more
comprehensive in order to negate these open ends.