Replies

So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive and doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny. After all, can one legitimately argue that the phrase “natural subjects of the Prince” doesn’t convey the idea that they were born in a kingdom with fealty to the Prince of that kingdom?

I am a huge fan of Mr Rogers, and have seen an awful lot from him that is just SPOT ON.

That said, DoctorBulldog, I do believe you have at least a small point here. (See, I'm not totally one-sided!)

I would have to side with DoctorBulldog on this and say that a reasonable translation of "sujets naturels," in English, would be "natural born subjects." So technically well, a point for DoctorBulldog.

That said...

I have just searched the French text of Vattel's book. The sentence you mention is the ONLY time he mentions either "sujects naturels" or "sujet naturel" (the singular form) in the entire book.

Aside from that, the ENTIRE POINT, the ENTIRE CLAIM of birthers is that "natural born CITIZEN" is (against all reason and sense) something totally different from "natural born SUBJECT."

And Vattel NEVER mentions "citoyens naturels" (plural) or "citoyen naturel" (singular). Not once.

And he ONE time he mentions "sujets naturels," he shows no sign at all of talking about his his "natives," or "indigenes."

So even Vattel, it appears, knew the difference between a "natural born subject," and "natives, ou indigenes."

Point: DoctorBulldog. Next point, game, set, and match: Mr Rogers.

Yes, I agree.

Vattel didn’t use “sujects naturels” in the section on indigenes and natives. And, that seems to be the one section EVERYONE thinks they’re an expert on.

However, I’ve studied the whole damn book! Read it in the original old-style French, backwards and forwards. It’s certainly an interesting book and well worth reading.

And, I’m fairly confident that I’m more of an expert on that little book than most birthers or after-births.

So, it just gets my dander up whenever someone who obviously hasn’t read the entire book regurgitates the deceptive statement that Vattel never used the the phrase “Natural Born Subjects.”

Anyway, thanks for awarding me that point! LOL!

Cheers!

"I am a huge fan of Mr Rogers, and have seen an awful lot from him that ~~is just SPOT ON~~ agrees with me. "

Fixed it for you.

This is not an academic point. There is an official treaty with France written in 1781, in which the term "natural born citizen" was translated into French as "sujets naturels."

ARTICLE III
Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

I have beaten Mr. Rogers over the head with this point a half dozen times, yet he persists in ignoring it. This is one of the reasons I don't bother arguing with him. Another is that he has very personal reasons for wanting Article II to be interpreted in a specific way. He is an interested party, not an objective bystander.

That you were obviously unaware of this usage of "sujets naturels" also calls into question your contention that you have read everything I have had to say on the subject. Obviously you have not.

And Vattel NEVER mentions "citoyens naturels" (plural) or "citoyen naturel" (singular). Not once.

The words "citoyen" and sujet" are synonyms with the usage "sujet" being the more common. At the time, the only form of government in existence was Monarchy.

A word search of "Droit des Gens" reveals 42 usages of the word "citoyen" and "100" usages of the word "sujet."