Posted on 06/22/2024 8:28:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
None of the United States Presidents in the first 61 years of the nation’s existence were actually born in the country they led. The reason for this is simple enough: The first seven U.S. Presidents — George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson — were all born before 1776, and therefore before the United States was an independent nation.
The first President who could actually claim to have been born a U.S. citizen was the country’s eighth President, Martin Van Buren. Van Buren was born in 1782 in Kinderhook, New York, which also makes him the first native of the Empire State to be elected to the presidency.
Before becoming President in 1837, Van Buren served as Vice President under Andrew Jackson (who himself was born in 1767 in a territory disputed between the British colonies of North and South Carolina). Jackson’s endorsement helped elevate Van Buren to the nation’s highest office.
However, his presidency was marked by a severe economic downturn, which sunk his bid for a second term. He was defeated in his campaign for reelection by William Henry Harrison, who was born in Virginia in 1773, making him the last U.S. President to come into the world a subject of the British Empire.
Martin Van Buren may have been the first President born in the United States, but his first language wasn’t English — it was Dutch. His family’s roots in Kinderhook, New York, extended back before the nation’s founding, and even before New York was a British colony. Van Buren could trace his heritage to Dutch immigrants who settled in the Kinderhook area in 1631, when New York was known as New Netherland. Even after control of the colony passed from the Dutch to the English, Kinderhook remained an overwhelmingly Dutch community, and the young Van Buren grew up speaking the Dutch language until he learned English in school, and became fluent in his teens.
The history of US presidents blows away the NBC kooks here at FR and their silly claims about Natural Born Citizenship.
Kooks.
Indeed twice slow learners tend to stay in same ruts.
Read the the 7th President, Andrew Jackson post, where I address your question, which I had anticipated would pop up. 🙂👍
"The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law."
Absolutely wrong. "Citizen" is not a British term for someone born with allegiance to a nation. The British term is "Subject", and you will find "natural born subject" all throughout British common law, but you will not find "Citizen" in it at all.
Our usage of "Citizen" comes from Switzerland, which at the time was the only nation in the world that used the word "Citizen" to mean a member of a nation.
The word "citizen" was little used in the English of the time, and when it was, it meant "City Dweller", not member of a nation.
Subject is the only word the British ever used, and guess what? "Subjects" were required to have perpetual allegiance to the crown, and could not become "citizens", or even "subjects" of any other nation.
It was absolutely forbidden, according to both British Common Law and Statute law.
"Citizen" does not mean "Subject". "Citizens" are from Republics, and "Subjects" are from Monarchies.
The founders tossed out the British common law model when they adopted the Swiss "Citizen" model.
For voters it was likely then as simple as it is today, just being present. All an immigrant has to do at the federal level today is sign a statement under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen. No proof is required.
With that, many (dem?) states claim if an immigrant has satisfied federal requirements "who are we to disagree".
Hell of a way to run a country. Yes, there have been suits in the past and pending even today.
"Subjects", not citizens. Citizens are from a Republic. "Subjects" are from a Monarchy.
You can also see my post #57 where I went into even greater detail. 🙂👍
Bottom line here is, 4 of the Presidents were involved in the crafting of the Constitution, and they certainly would not have eliminated themselves from being President or Vice President of the nation they had played a continued role in their creation in its infant years.
Busy afternoon - until I get to the links let me say re your "bottom line" - they provided very well for their Constitutional qualifications; it was enough that they were citizens, NBC simply didn't apply to them.
Thus, they were Natural Born Citizens, as defined by the Constitution. 🙂👍
You can argue all you want, but history proves you wrong. For the Constitution stipulates that only a Natural Born Citizen is eligible to hold the office of President & Vice President. Since they were among the Founders of this new Nation, they had to obvious be Natural Born Citizens as written in the Constitution. Four of the first 7 presidents participated in the crafting of that Constitution. All 7 were considered Natural Born Citizens of the United States of America, even though the landmass had come under different leadership, as well as, a name change. Citizens before & after the process that had taken place, and all 7 were born within that landmass, before & after the process.
Would a British citizen who came after the landmass became a nation named the United States Of America have been considered a U.S. citizen?
Of course not, they had to go through the naturalization process. Once they became citizens, any of their offspring born after their naturalization process would be considered NBC citizens, while the children born before their becoming officially recognized citizens, were not considered to be NBC but rather naturalized along with their parents.
“...well then George, show us the sign....” LOL
And it’s not far from where Geantvspent his final days. Area is rich in history.
Yes, hell of a way to ruin a country.
True. The founders were born subjects of the King but considered themselves to be natural born citizens of their respective States hence the language in the Constitution.
There is explicit language in the Constitution to cover the case of someone born before the founding of United States, and it does not leave it wide open. This is why Alexander Hamilton did not qualify to run for president.
The answer then is none of the three.
Had hoped for an informative exchange, but you are too well-written to have accidentally misread the Constitution so badly; with that piece of intellectual dishonesty, we are done.
They used the term “natural born citizen" so you don't have to call anything into question.
Except he wasn’t. He was born in Braintree, Massachusetts. The part of Braintree where he was born was split off and became Quincy some time later.
+1
"Citizen" was brought to America by Emerrich de Vattel. English people didn't use the word much, but the founders reading Vattel is why Americans started using the word "Citizen."
It was always "Subject" prior to "Droit des Gens" arriving in America.
If we were following "Common Law", we would have stuck with "Subject", but what many people today want to do is combine the framework of "Subject" with the usage of the word "Citizen", and it is an unnatural fit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.