I said when I first started posting it that i'm not sure if I was spelling it right because it had been awhile since I had need to reference it. The case had become increasingly difficult for me to find, so I contented myself with the fact that if someone went to the trouble of looking it up, they could simply point out that I didn't spell it right, and now here we are! :)
All of these sources cited point to Rawle's argument being rejected not because of his arguments regarding "natural born citizenship", but rather that the very status of "slave" was not inconsistent with Pennsylvania's own constitution. In fact, the matter of who is and is not a "natural born citizen" is not mentioned even once.
Irrelevant. Rawle was trying to argue slaves were "born here" and were therefore "citizens", because this is the English law rule. Since Rawle appears to be the man most responsible for spreading the idea that English law governs American Citizenship, his acts and motivations are important in understanding why he spread something he knew to be false.
He was doing it for what he saw as a good reason.
Thus, I must ask: what evidence do you have supporting your repeated contention that the Flora v. Graisberry case can be construed as a rejection of the common law understanding of "natural born citizen"?
Because it is a virtual certainty that Rawle made the same arguments in 1803 that he made decades later, and for the same reason. He was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens.
I have read a lot about Rawle around a decade ago. If you want a better understanding of him, you should read more about his role in the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.
My overall point was that, with the records of the case no longer being extant, how could you possibly know what his arguments in the case were?
Because it is a virtual certainty that Rawle made the same arguments in 1803 that he made decades later, and for the same reason. He was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens.
Unless you actually have something which shows Rawle saying 'I argued for X', your virtual certitude here is impossible. All extant sources remarking on this case indicate that Flora's counsels argued that slavery itself was incompatible with the constitution of Pennsylvania based on the following clause: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
This clause fell under the heading "A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth or State of Pennsylvania."
This clause does not mention citizens.
To assert, as you have, that Rawle "was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens", insofar as this case is concerned, is not supported by the available evidence.