A brief post-script to post #31.
One more source, that was referenced by Mary Stoughton Locke: "A sketch of the laws relating to slavery in the several states of the United States of America", by George M. Stroud—
On page 143, mention is made of how in Pennsylvania, "the birth place of efficient hostility to negro bondage, the highest judicial tribunal of the state, has pronounced as the result of its solemn deliberation on a similar article of her constitution, that slavery was not inconsistent with it." The corresponding footnote follows, which spills over to page 144:
On various previous threads, you've stated the following (bold is emphasis mine):
"William Lewis was William Rawle's co-counsel in Negress Flora vs Joseph Grainsberry, where Rawle tried to float his English common law theory, and was shot down unanimously."
"William Rawle was the man who wrote a book that caused the most damage to American's understanding of the meaning "natural born citizen." He was an English lawyer that came to Philadelphia after the Revolutionary war to practice law. He became president of the abolition society of Pennsylvania, and at the time, other states were having success abolishing slavery through court decisions declaring slaves "free." He set about to replicate this in Pennsylvania courts. A case he took on was Negress Flora vs. Joseph Grainsberry. (Not sure I spelled that right) He lost. It went to the Pennsylvania Supreme court and he lost unanimously. He put forth his claim that because English common law declared anyone born on the soil to be a "citizen", slaves could not be slaves, because they were "citizens." The Pennsylvania Supreme court rejected this argument."
"The trouble is, it was not true, as the Pennsylvania Supreme court had made clear to him on more than one occasion. Rawle was deliberately lying, and he *KNEW* he was deliberately lying. He was trying to make the argument that slaves were citizens too, and therefore could not be slaves, and so he misled everyone in an effort to free the slaves through the back door of citizenship law. He had been trying this tactic since the 1790, and the courts kept rejecting him. His efforts to free the slaves has only caused the rest of the nation to be confused about what the framers intended in 1787 when they insisted on "natural born citizen.""
"He spread the idea that "natural born citizen" is based on English Common Law, and he did this despite the fact that he was unanimously rebuked in this view by the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1801,(I think) in the case of "Negress Flora vs Joseph Gainsberry"."
Etcetera.
If the details of this case are not on any surviving books of reports, and the only declaration from the Pennsylvania court can be paraphrased as 'slavery is not outlawed by Pennsylvania's constitution' (with no commentary regarding citizenship by birth or otherwise), how can you justify any of the claims you've made?
how can you justify any of the claims you've made? On the basis that they are consistent with his behavior throughout his life. Why else would he lie about citizenship following English law when that very famous lawbook in Pennsylvania citing the report of the Judges clearly contradicts this view?
Also, "William Lewis" was the mentor of Samuel Roberts. In those days, lawyers mostly learned their trade by being mentored by Senior lawyers.
Samuel Roberts would not have gotten the idea that Citizenship was based on Vattel without William Lewis having told him that it was.
I think William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature at the time they ratified the US Constitution.
In any case, this appears to be the understanding of the legal community of Philadelphia, which as I said, ought to have more weight than anyone else anywhere else.