Replies

The subject of whether jus soli or jus sanguinis applies to the United States came up in a debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 1789, when “The Father of the Constitution” Congressman James Madison said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States. It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

While this is what Madison said to get his political ally seated, what he *did* was entirely the opposite. When presented with the case of James McClure by his Ambassador to France, John Armstrong, Madison refused to countermand the claim by Armstrong that though McClure was born in Charleston South Carolina, he was NOT an American citizen because his father had not yet Naturalized when he was born.

Madison let the man languish in French Custody for nearly two years before pressure from a congressman and a supreme court Justice was brought to bear.

There is no mistaking that Madison knew exactly who James McClure was, because he was at the center of one of the most significant diplomatic incidents in US History up to that time. He was the owner of the first American ship ("The Horizon") seized and confiscated in accordance with Napoleon's "Berlin Decree", and the entire US Government was in an Uproar about it. Madison himself wrote several letters on the topic.

Madison may even have gone so far as to pick up his pen and write under his famous Pseudonym "Publis" to argue why McClure shouldn't be recognized as an American citizen. Certainly "Publius" knew things that only someone deep in the Madison government should have been privy too.

So it would appear that Madison had other opinions on the subject when it served his interest.