“Rawle was a deliberate liar on this point. He wasn’t mistaken.”
Actually, he was an expert in the law. The folks writing your pamphlet were not. And we KNOW the ratifying states considered a natural born subject and a natural born citizen to be equivalent terms, because they used them interchangeably in their laws:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.†in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.â€
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.†in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.â€
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER†in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.†in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,â€shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.â€
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.†in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,â€shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.â€
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.†in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,â€shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.â€
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.†in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,â€shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.â€
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.†in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.â€
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.†in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.â€
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.†in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.â€
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.†in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.â€
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED†in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.â€
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.â€
Notice - sometimes they used NBC, and sometimes they used NBS. Didn’t matter to them which. And since that legislature is one of the RATIFIERS of the Constitution, we KNOW the original intent - and Rawle was right and YOU are wrong.
Actually, he was an expert in the law. The folks writing your pamphlet were not. It isn't a pamphlet. It was a law book based on the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in eliminating English laws which were incompatible with United States law, and meant for every Pennsylvania court. The book was entitled:
A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania
It was so widely used at the time, that they produced a second edition in 1847.
The "folks" writing that report were the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, some of which were DELEGATES to the Pennsylvania US Constitution ratifying convention.
In terms of actual legal knowledge of the intent of the writers of the US Constitution, again, which took place in Philadelphia, they greatly outrank Rawle, who is in comparison, an amateur.
Rawle was the British trained son of the British governor of New York, who set up a law practice in Philadelphia after the war was over. He was not a delegate to either the original constitutional convention, or any subsequent state ratifying convention.
His opinions hold no actual weight other than that obtained by osmosis from having been near people who actually participated in such events.
Rawle pushed his "British Law" theory because it was the only one which would justify freeing the slaves. The Natural law principles articulated by Vattel were useless to this task, and Rawle more or less devoted the last thirty years of his life to the cause of abolition.
His deliberate lie was intended to work mass abolition because his argument that slaves were born citizens of the United States precluded their captivity.
No one agreed with his argument at the time, and he lost all the cases he filed for such purposes. All he did was taint the history and subsequent understanding of what this section of American law was actually based upon.
This situation was not changed until the 14th amendment came along and actually granted such a condition to slaves as Rawle had argued they had all along.
Again, if Rawle's theory were correct, the 14th amendment would have been unnecessary, because slaves would already have been citizens. The fact that we had to create the 14th amendment proves Rawle was in fact, WRONG. Our system was NOT based on British common law, else we wouldn't have had to add the 14th amendment to make it work like that.