I’ve got a question for natural born citizen experts here. The first Republican candidate, John C. Fremont, was born out of wedlock to a American woman and Frenchman living in the United States. He received 33 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1856, carrying 11 states, losing to James Buchanan. At any time, either during the Republican primary or the general election, was his status as a natural born citizen questioned?
Was his status widely known? Chester Arthur’s wasn’t...until 2008.
An interesting, but moot point because Fremont was neither elected nor sworn in as the US President.....
What this does illustrate is that our system for insuring that a Presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements is flawed. (Is there any system?)
Maybe we need a way to verify eligability before a candidate can be put on the ballot......... just saying.....
Pretty sure the status of the child follows that of the mother for an out of wedlock birth. That is, if the mother is a citizen, and the child is born in the country, then the child is a natural born citizen.
http://www.stlgs.org/natProcess.htm
interesting enough the 1856 election Republicans worried about the huge fraudulent naturalization of aliens in Pennsylvania(by democrats) in return for their votes..
see the footnote #10 at page 139 from link below. Some interesting reading about Fremont and the election and his birth controversy
As for why American’s in 1856, may or may not (you’ve given no sources) have questioned his status...the obvious answer would be, you’d need to ask them. As was already pointed out, it’s a moot issue as he wasn’t elected POTUS. Anyone, even a resident alien green card holder, can run for POTUS. There is no Constitutional requirement that one must be NBC in order to run for office.