(And I'm perplexed why my moniker offends you so greatly. I didn't begin the personal attacks on this thread--and it appears that every one of your comments is rude in some fashion. Why the hypocrisy?)
He was both.
Washington was born in colonial Virginia in 1732.
Figuratively speaking, the King and Kingdom of England, to whom all colonists owed their allegiance, was his father. And the Colony of Virginia was his mother.
When the King and Kingdom of England went through a divorce with the Colony of Virginia, Washington, like all other colonists who adhered to the Thirteen United States, maintained their lifelong allegiance to the communities they had been born in, but severed their allegiance to the King and Kingdom of England.
This is explained by Father of the Constitution James Madison, in his speech on the citizenship of William Loughton Smith. In fact, he described the colonists' allegiance to the King and Kingdom of England as SECONDARY to their allegiance to their own communities, which began as colonies and then became States:
What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.
This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society, but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was of necessity to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
DiogenesLamp, among his other errors, claims against Madison that it's not possible for George Washington to have been a "natural born citizen" of the United States. This simply isn't true.
As Justice Gaston of North Carolina noted (later affirmatively quoted by the US Supreme Court in Wong) the terms "subject" and "citizen" were "precisely analogous."
When we changed "colonies" to "states" and "subjects" to "citizens," all those who were "natural born subjects" of a "colony" were then termed "natural born citizens" of a "State." Not much changed except the term used.
Or in other words, the only difference between a "natural born subject" of a "colony" and a "natural born citizen" of a "State" is that both the person and the political unit he was a part of gained their independence from the King.
All of this is in perfect harmony with the way real historians understand history. DiogenesLamp's wildly erroneous view leads him to conclude that George Washington would have been ineligible except for the grandfather clause. Or, to put it another way, the grandfather clause was REQUIRED in order for Washington, Jefferson, and our other native-born early Presidents to be eligible.
This is simply not the case. As noted above, real historians agree that Washington and Jefferson didn't need the grandfather clause.
When you're done with that "HOLE" in his reasoning, ask him why the 14th amendment was created.
As we've seen, the facts completely destroy DL's claim that there was a "hole" in my reasoning and expose him as either a fool or worse - take your pick.
I don't have time to comment on the 14th Amendment right now. I will try and do so later. Maybe tonight.
Your comment points to message 619. I don't see any mention of Rawle in that comment. It is a bit hard to understand what it is you are asking without giving me a quote or something.
I have done quite a lot of research regarding Rawle. I made a great effort to determine how he came by his claim that English Common law underpinned our citizenship standard when it is so contradictory to the very principle of this Nation's independence, the actual history of our nation, and other evidence from more authoritative people.
At first I thought he (Rawle) was just ignorant of the depth to which the Vattel Revolution had swept the Colonies prior to and during the Revolution, and then I thought he was just stubborn, (I have an example of a court case where he refused to note an argument based on Vattel, though his co-counsel did. ) and then I thought he just might be misleading in a good cause (for the purpose of validating his arguments for ending slavery) and finally I concluded it is likely to be a bit of all three reasons.
Rawle has an outsized influence on subsequent opinions, not because he was in a position to know with certainty regarding the deliberations of the Delegates who discussed and voted on the wording for Article II, but because he wrote a book during a time when there were few law books available, and his book became very influential.
Rawle, is the BEST evidence those who would have us follow "British Common Law", have. He clearly sides with their position, and he was well respected during his life.
(And I'm perplexed why my moniker offends you so greatly. I didn't begin the personal attacks on this thread--and it appears that every one of your comments is rude in some fashion. Why the hypocrisy?)
I am thinking we have gotten off on the wrong foot. I am beginning to perceive that you are actually willing to look at the evidence, and not merely accept the prevailing opinion of the majority just because so many people say it is correct.
There is a massive herd mentality out there that want to take a certain position, not because they have researched it, not because it makes sense, but because there is a majority of people that keep telling them it is correct. (argumentum ad populum/numerum) People, such as myself, who argue the contrary position are constantly being attacked by such people, and the general rule of thumb is that MOST people are going to be against us, especially if they start off attacking us.
This makes us all a bit "trigger happy" because generally when you fire back, you're attacking someone of the contrary position. Reasonable people are simply so rare now.
If I have misjudged your objectivity, I apologize now. Objectivity is now also a rare trait.