The father of the Constitution
The father of the Bill of Rights and the
The father of the 14th Amendment would all disagree with your opinion:
James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York Octr. 18. 1787:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), Wednesday, June 18, 1788:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
|
Furthermore, had they continued to use the laws of the crown, there never would have been a Deceleration of Independence.
English common law at the time didn't allow for "quitting" the crown. The Law of Nations, however, did allow for that. They clearly began their transition from the crown's law to that of their own (American common law) based in large part on natural law principles.
The part that was inconsistent with the new Republic, they quite rightly threw away.
But on the whole, our cultural and legal heritage stemmed from Great Britain, and not from the Swiss and French world.
Given our vast heritage as long-standing colonies of Great Britain, and the fact (as I posted on another thread) that 85% of our white population (the non-whites were chiefly Indians and slaves) at the time of independence came from Great Britain, whereas something fewer than 3% of the population came from France, Switzerland, etc., it doesn't even make sense to argue that our legal system derived from Vattel rather than Blackstone unless you can produce the quotes to prove it.
And as far as I can see, nobody can.
As far as the quotes go, they're good quotes. But...
Madison also said that place of birth was what applied in regard to citizenship in the United States. He could've chosen to quote Vattel, but he didn't.
Mason's quote does not reflect a wholesale rejection of the common law heritage (why would we throw the baby out with the bath water?).
And Bingham's quotes are very curious indeed. For if what he really meant was citizens, then why didn't he use the term? It's certainly a whole lot less of a mouthful than "owing allegiance to no other sovereignty." Surely by the time of the Civil War, we had citizens.
In fact, earlier speakers used the term citizen dating from the Revolution - close to a century before Bingham's time.
And when you talk about US citizens, do you say "US citizen" - or do you say "a person owing allegiance to no other sovereignty?"