What’s your take in terms of the significance of this passage in French in the original 1758 volume?This Guy sees that Vattel has singled out the source of citizenship for some 70 percent of current U.S. citizens.
Vattel was dead (d. 1767) before there was a Declaration of Independence or a United States.
Vattel wrote a book about The Law of Nations. That is nothing but the archaic term for International Law. United States citizenship determinations are not made in the Hague, and are not made pursuant to international law. International law does not apply to purely domestic determinations of any state in the world.
Jesus was dead for over a thousand years, but they still mentioned him in the US Constitution.
You’re aware, are you not, that the volume in question had been consumed whole in its original French by every founding father in question, including, most notably, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison.
Mount Vernon recently returned (donated) an original copy to the New York Public Library (it having been determined that Washington’s first administration had borrowed it and never returned it).
Don’t underestimate dead Vattel’s immense influence in the U.S. during the 1770s, 1780s, and onward.
Have you seen this from John Adams by the way?:
___________
From John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 July 1785
To Thomas Jefferson
Grosvenor Square July 24th. 1785—Dear Sir.
I have a Letter from the Baron De Thulemeier of the 19th. and a Copy of his Letter to you of the same date. I hope now in a few Day’s to take Mr. Short by the hand in Grosvenor Square, and to put my hand to the [Tr]eaty. I think no time should be lost. We will join Mr. Dumas with Mr. Short in the Exchange if you please.
I applyed as you desired, and obtained the interposition of the Lords Commissioners of the treasury, and the Commissioners of the Customs for the transhipping of Dr. Franklin’s Baggage. We have heared of the Doctors arrival at Rouen, but no further.1
{The Britons alliens Duty is a very burthensome Thing, and they may carry it hereafter as far upon Tobacco, Rice Indigo and twenty other Things, as they do now upon oil. to obviate this, I think of Substituting, the Words “natural born Citizens of the United States,” and “natural born Subjects of Great Britain,” instead of “the most favoured Nation.” You remember We first proposed to offer this to all Nations, but upon my Objecting that the English would make their ships French or Sweedish or Dutch &c to avail themselves of it, without agreeing to it, on their Part, We altered it to the footing of “Gentis Amicissimæ.[”]2 But if the English will now agree to it, We shall Secure ourselves against many odious Duties, and no ill Consequence can arise. it is true the French Dutch Sweeds and Prussians will of Course claim the Advantage, but as they must in return allow Us the Same Advantage, So much the better.— let me know if any Objection occurs to you.}3
There is a Bill before Parliament to prevent smuggling Tobacco, in which restrictions are very rigorous, but cannot be effected.4 two thirds of the Tobacco consumed in this Kingdom I am told is smuggled— how can it be otherwise when the impost is five times the original Value of the Commodity. If [one] pound in five escapes nothing is lost. if two in five, a great profit is [made.—]
the Duty is 16d. pr. pound and tobacco sells for three pence.— Yet all applications for lowering the Duty are rejected—5
Yours most affectionately
John Adams
__________
By the way, the first use of “natural Born Citizens of the United States” by John Adams that This Guy knows of is from a 1782 draft he forwarded of the Treaty if Paris.
No need to equate NBC with Natural Born Subject. Adams by 1782 had stopped using the latter term. Given his refusal to ape Great Britain, he surely would not breezily have argued for synonymity.
An archival search of “natural Born” with John Adams as author: