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.
Hadn’t seen that one before. Thanks for that.
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.
You're aware, are you not, that it was opined that Blackstone sold more copies in the new world than in Britain?
In Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65 (1904) at page 69, the Court said:
Blackstone’s Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.
Even the ones who did not speak French were familiar with it.
And then Tucker's Blackstone was published. Tucker's Blackstone; Blackstone, Sir William Tucker, St. George, Editor. Blackstone's Commentaries: with notes of reference to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In Five Volumes, with an Appendix to Each volume, Containing Short Tracts upon Such Subjects As Appeared Necessary to Form a Connected View of the Laws of Virginia As a Member of the Federal Union. Originally published: Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803.
Because English common law was the law of all the colonies, and of all the original states. They did not assume a state of lawlessness upon issuance of the Declaration of Independence.
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Some Founders could read French. The Framers were a younger lot. They all seemed to read English.
The Law of Nations is an outdated term for International Law. International Law is not the domestic law of any nation on earth.
No need to equate NBC with Natural Born Subject. Adams by 1782 had stopped using the latter term.
The two terms are not synonymous. NBC is derivitive from NBS. At the Founding, State constitutions used either NBC or NBS. They eventually settled on NBC recognizing that the People were the sovereigns and not the subjects of anyone.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."