And Madison followed by saying, "...it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other." Place, not citizenship.
It might behoove you actually to go to the congressional archives and read the entire speech by Madison to see what he actually meant before you continue to use cut & paste out of context quotes.
Not a problem. It's in Madison's papers available online here. Or Founders Constitution, located here. Both will take you to the entire speech, which I did, in fact, read. And nowhere in it does Madison contradict the position that I quoted.
But perhaps you'll enlighten us and tell us the in-context parts you're referring to.
From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United States...
This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation...
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. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...
I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature(ties of the parents)...
Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor...
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
You see, if you had actually studied the controversy of Mr Smith, you would know that his parents died prior to the revolution & while Smith was a minor & thus a family member took him in. The society Madison speaks of saw the greatness in the child, thus they paid to have him educated at the best schools in Europe where he studied & apprenticed under Benjamin Franklin before he came back to the US as an adult, educated & ready to serve his country. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!
The descendants of the original citizenry received citizenship as a matter of course.41 The new comers to America, the immigrants who came in after the founding generation, themselves gained citizenship, by means of naturalization under laws enacted by Congress. Children born to them after they became citizens gained citizenship at birth, again as a matter of course. But what about children born to these naturalized citizens before they became citizens, while they were yet aliens?
Here, the answer was provided, clearly and positively, by Congress, as in its first session it enacted the immigration and naturalization “Act of 1790”.42 Immigration and naturalization, as Rep. James Madison then put it, was not a right but rather a “privilege”. In context, “privilege” denoted that Congress might properly limit immigration and naturalization to persons of commitment, to one who “really meant to incorporate himself into our society” and of a character sufficient to add to the “wealth and strength of community”.43 Character as thus stated included republican virtues as opposed to the servile, class-ordered mentalities—the “sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments”—then associated with the old world.44
Upon showing character and commitment, by compliance with the terms of naturalization, immigrants became citizens. And so did children born to them before they were naturalized. The 1790 Act provided that upon naturalization all of their children “dwelling within the United States shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice, these children are not made citizens by means of jus soli: It mattered not whether these children had been born in the United States or abroad. Rather, citizenship was attuned to jus sanguines. It turned on the connection of their parents to the United States, that they had become United States citizens.
____________________________________________________________
41 As explained in a thoughtful opinion:
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution . . . was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. Minor v. Happensett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).
42 Act of March 26, 1790, entitled An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, 1 Stat. 103.
43 I Annals of Cong. 1150 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
44 Id. at1156 (Rep. Sedgwick). Sedgwick later defined republican virtue as “habits of temperate discussion, patient reasoning, and a capacity of enduring contradiction.” 2 Annals at 571. Sedgwick also would exclude exploiters, those seeking short term gain without long-term commitment. Id. The whole debate was consistent with modern notions about political communities. As explained by Michael Walzer, “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be . . . historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 61 (1983).
Yes he does. With the very next sentence. Surprised you missed it because it was IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.
Madison said:
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
So when he says "it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other", and then he immediately investigates Mr. Smith's "birthright" and "ancestry", I do regard that as a contradiction of his own statement. If place is all that matters, why mention his family? Your argument is done with "he was born here." End. Period. Finito. Full Stop.