[DiogenesLamp]

John Adams wrote the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 and used both terms “subjects of the Commonwealth” and “citizens of this Commonwealth”.

1780.

What have you got from the 1760s?

[4Zoltan]

The 1760s aren’t what matters. It what the Founders thought after July 4th, 1776. Their usage of the terms shows they considered subject and citizen to be interchangeable. And the same was true for the term natural born subject and natural born citizen.

Even Judge Roberts used them to mean the same thing when he described the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776.

Roberts: “On the establishment of the revolution, these provisions were superseded by a constitutional declaration in the old frame of government, by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estate; and after one year’s residence was invested with all of the rights of a natural born citizen, except he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, until after a residence of two years. ”

But that is not correct. The Pennsylvania constitution said,

“ SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

Even Roberts recognized that the Founders used the two terms synonymously.