Of course there was. There were a lot of people who denied that black people born in the United States were citizens by birth (or at all).
Heck the US Supreme Court had even commented that black people weren't citizens and couldn't BECOME citizens! All because of their RACE.
And THAT is why the 14th Amendment was passed,
As for Minor v. Happersett, that's been covered to the point of nausea. The case simply doesn't give any definition of natural born citizen. Even if it did, it wouldn't have been a precedent, because it wasn't on point for that case.
And even if it had been a precedent, it would've been overturned by Wong.
Speaking of which, the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was completely overturned anyway by the NINETEENTH Amendment.
Look, I know I can't convince you of anything. You're a birther.
But I am telling you, and telling you true: You could hardly argue a more wrongheaded position if you were out there trying to convince people the earth is flat and not round.
It wasn't just black people who were denied birth citizenship; Wong Kim Ark wasn't black.
Heck the US Supreme Court had even commented that black people weren't citizens and couldn't BECOME citizens! All because of their RACE.
All this proves is that what you want to believe wasn't true before the 14th amendment. Remember, your Rawle quote said "EVERY PERSON born within the United States ..." Obviously that wasn't true and you've just admitted it.
As for Minor v. Happersett, that's been covered to the point of nausea. The case simply doesn't give any definition of natural born citizen.
Actually it does: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.
Even if it did, it wouldn't have been a precedent, because it wasn't on point for that case.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It cited Minor specifically in as precedent on presidential eligibility in Luria v. United States.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165;Speaking of which, the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was completely overturned anyway by the NINETEENTH Amendment.
Nonsense. It certainly remedied women's inability to vote but it didn't affect the rest of the decision. Minor has been cited by the Court after the passage of the 19th amendment, even on the right of suffrage, such as in Rodruguez v. Popular Democratic Party in 1982:
However, this Court has often noted that the Constitution "does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one," Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178 (1875)Look, I know I can't convince you of anything. You're a birther.
Of course, now we get the typical "birther" copout. If this is so problematic for you, then why respond at all?
But I am telling you, and telling you true: You could hardly argue a more wrongheaded position if you were out there trying to convince people the earth is flat and not round.
Focus, dude. Nobody is making that argument nor anything close to it. Plus you completely dodged my earlier questions, which are of course, fatal to your arguments. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??