Replies

Two additional legal sources from the time that state the same definition:

"Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary (1771) was the only law dictionary that James Madison ordered for the Continental Congress. It was one of the most popular comprehensive English dictionaries of the late eighteenth century, and was found in many personal libraries, including those of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It was contemporaneously used by various American Supreme Courts for clarification of legal terms. (Berry, pp.347-8). Under the "Aliens" section of his Law Dictionary, Cunningham defined "natural-born subject" as one who is born within the king's realm, of parents who are under the king's "actual obedience":

All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions. (Cunningham, p.95, in section entitled "Aliens")

Note: Justice Scalia cited Timothy Cunningham’s New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771) in the recent Washington, DC, v. Heller case.[1]

The exact same definition of "natural-born subject" is found in Matthew Bacon's A New Abridgment of the Law, Volume 1, published in 1736. (Bacon, Matthew, p.77).

When the U.S. Constitution was being written, Giles Jacob's New Law Dictionary (1782) was "the most widely used English Law dictionary" (Berry, pp.350-1). Jacob defined "subject born" (an actual natural-born subject) as anyone born within the king's realm, of parents who are under the king's "actual obedience":

There are two incidents regularly that are necessary to make a subject born: first, that his parents, at the time of his birth, be under the actual obedience of the king; Secondly, that the place of his birth be within the king's dominions. (Jacob, p.40)

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

On a related note, both are listed under "Common Law" in the Tarlton Law Library.

1700's natural born Citizen (or subject) = born in country to 2 citizen (subject) parents.

Two additional legal sources from the time that state the same definition:

Good work! This very much reinforces the idea that the English law on citizenship was not simply so cut and dried as being "born there" as many would have us believe. I suspect it is Blackstone that has caused the most problem in this regard. The whole issue begs the question: If the only requirement is being "born there" then why mention parents in the definition?

Would you happen to have images of the original documents? I think the point is more strongly reinforced when people can see the actual print, and the cover page of the book it came from.

You put me onto a lead. I found the pamphlet written by James Otis * called: " The rights of the British Colonies asserted and Proved." (Original 1764) Below is a subsequent reprint.

You might also find this bit of text interesting.

*Otis died suddenly in May 1783 at the age of 58 when, as he stood in the doorway of a friend's house, he was struck by lightning. He is reported to have said to his sister, Mercy Otis Warren, "My dear sister, I hope, when God Almighty in his righteous providence shall take me out of time into eternity that it will be by a flash of lightning".

Link for anyone wanting to read this pamphlet themselves.

Link to an article which demonstrates this pamphlets linkage with Vattel.