I'm just reading the newspaper article (Alexandria Herald) linked in the piece by Mr. Donofrio.
"No, The law written by Thomas Jefferson was a jus sanguinus law."
But both laws use the same language adjusted for the thirteen year time difference.
1779:
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed”
1792:
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth, all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under former laws, and all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in the manner hereinafter mentioned."
So it would appear they made an adjustment for non-natives and removed the father has to be dead requirement for children born outside of Virginia. But beyond that, the two acts appear to be substantially the same.
I read through some of it, but I didn't finish it. I'm at a point right now where I can only catch a snatch of time here and there.
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed”
I believe I mentioned it was hard to read, but now that you have pointed it out to me it does appear to cite that as a distinguishing characteristic which is separate from the other qualifiers. It includes both jus soli and jus sanguinus components, but it does so in an either/or fashion rather than requiring both.
So it would appear they made an adjustment for non-natives and removed the father has to be dead requirement for children born outside of Virginia. But beyond that, the two acts appear to be substantially the same.
Yes, I agree. I was wrong earlier. After looking at it further, I also assumed you were talking about this 1783 Virginia law defining citizenship rather than the 1792 law of which I was unfamiliar.