Melvyn I agree with much of what you write about the simplicity of golf and the necessity of land fit for the purpose (at least for truly excellent golf.) I also agree, as would anyone I hope, that it really all began with the great Scottish links courses.
But looking at the entirety of J.C. Jones' initial post, he doesn't seem to be setting limits on the discussion so that it only addresses when golf began and the very first courses were marked off. To the contrary, he seems to asking posters to explore the evolution of how golf courses were created. Or to be even more specific, he seems to be focusing on that moment in the history of golf where golf courses ceased to be found and simply marked off and began to be created by the hand of man. Now obviously this didn't happen in one day, and it may be that it was ongoing to some degree or another throughout the history of golf, but surely there was an evolution of how golfers approached the act or art of finding, marking off, laying out, planning, creating, and/or building, golf courses.
At least that is the way I understood the questions posed in the opening post.
I'm not all that interested in the semantic argument . . . you say CBM wasn't the first golf course architect and by my understanding of the term I agree. But I also know that CBM was quite knowledgeable about and respectful of the roots of the game in Scotland, and chances are that if his statement is so incongruent with what seems to be the reality of the situation, then chances are he is using the words differently than we understand them. (As Jim notes, he did not call himself the first golf course architect, he said that the his plan for an ideal golf course in America was the first attempt at golf architecture.)
Rather than getting bogged down with the terminology, I'd just as soon try to figure out what was going on, whether it be in the US, Scotland, England, Ireland, India, or where ever. Given I am in the US, that information is much more readily available, and I dare say that given that some of what was happening the the US was apparently a pretty hot topic overseas, it might even have some bearing on what happened over there. Plus, I think similar things were happening inland and in England and on the continent, although the timing might have been different.
For example, I have read that like the US, England fell into a period where "dark age" or Victorian architecture was favored, at least where the land was less suited for golf. This to me suggests that while golf ought to be simple, and courses ought to marked of on land suitable for the purpose, this isn't the way it played out. And to return to the actual topic, it may sound a bit odd, but I think a strong argument could be made that this wave of Victorian or "dark age" courses was the first attempt at golf course architecture. And by golf course architecture in this instance I mean golf courses primarily planned and created by the hand of man rather than by the hand of nature.
Like I said, I find this notion odd, and I am not sure I agree with it, but when I read about the formulas they had for building and placing hazards and even for routing the holes, it sure sounds like a system man used to create golf courses, no matter how bad I might think they were.
So to me what might have happened with NGLA here (and what perhaps had already happened with great heathland courses) was not the creation of golf course architecture, but rather the creation of a better approach to golf course architecture, one more in harmony with the great links courses, and one where the history of the game and its great courses were held in high esteem and emulated.