Skip to comments.1775-76 The NY Farmer & Vattel (DrCon barf alert)
Posted on 10/31/2010 12:11:57 PM PDT by patlin
As usual, DrCon lifts my research then lies about it...
Monday, October 25, 2010 4:16:48 AM · 2,124 of 2,837 only excerpts per JSTOR rules The American Journal of Legal History, Vol 18
Americans inherited a complex set of ideas relating to membership, community, and allegiance along with their status as English subjects, and they would adjust, affirm, or repudiate elements of the intellectual whole at different times and in response to varying practical and theoretical concerns. From piecemeal changes and partial modifications, however, a clear line of development emerged as Americans first experienced, then sought to articulate the meaning of their transformation from subjects to citizens.
Responding to the controversies and confusion that surrounded the accession of James I to the English throne, Sir Edward Coke in 1608 in Calvin's Case propounded an explicit set of principles and formulations respecting the nature of membership and community that would dominate English law for the next several centuries. His central conclusion was that subjectship involved a personal relationship with the king, a relationship rooted in the laws of nature and hence perpetual and immutable. The conceptual analogue of the subject-king relationship was the natural bond between parent and child.
The intellectual premises from which Coke derived his conclusions were those of a man standing midway between the eras historians categorize as medieval and modern, and those premises were destined to fade before the century was out. New conceptions emerged that saw society and government as the product of individual consent and compact, and Coke's quasimedieval ideas that social and governmental organization grew out of natural principles of hierarchy and subordination became increasingly anachronistic.
Americans responded to the problem of conflicting loyalties by developing the doctrine of the right of election. The states by no means moved in unison, but all would eventually agree with one lawyer's conclusion that, In revolutions, every man had a right to take his part. He is excusable, if not bound in duty to take that which in his conscience he approved.40 The personal choice of allegiance had to be made within a reasonable period of time, and once the decision was made it could be considered binding. But the initial concession was clear. Citizenship in the new republics was to begin with individual consent.
The status of American citizen was the creation of the Revolution. The imperial crisis of the pre-war years and the separation from the mother country formalized in 1776 stimulated the articulation of at least some of the major principles that were to shape and define the new status. Despite some initial confusion, Americans came to see that citizenship must begin with an act of individual choice.
Then later that day DrCon posts this...
Indeed, it is very, very unusual to see Emerich de Vattel cited favorably on the topic of American citizenship. For example, in James Kettners 1978 scholarly work, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870, de Vattel is not mentioned a single time!
To which I respond with this..........
The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 18 The Development of American Citizenship in the Revolutionary Era (1974)
Thoughtful loyalists and patriots alike questioned the legitimacy of demanding allegiance and coercing loyalty from individuals who were unwilling participants in the struggle for independence. Few, perhaps, considered the question as carefully as did Peter Van Schaack, who retired to his New York farm in the winter of 1775-76 to reread Locke, Vattel, Montesquieu, Grotius, Beccaria, and Pufendorf before taking his stand on Independence.
Dr. CON, another day, and you are caught in another lie.
He can’t get away from this one either, he is totally BUSTED!
But how does it change the argument if there's one very peripheral or marginal reference to Vattel in a 400 page book?
If one little-known patriot read 6 authors before taking a stand in 1776 and one of them was Vattel, it shows that Vattel had at least one reader and Kettner was able to find him, but does that really alter anything?
My family were unthoughtful people in Saratoga County who thought that the Crown supported Massacre, Rape, and Mayhem on subjects of the Crown by outside agents.
A better “gotcha” would be finding scholarly works that support what you say about Vattel.
If there were one marginal legal reference your point might have relevance. Besides John Jay, John Marshall, Joseph Story, ... Alexander Hamilton, in one of many letters to George Washington, this one on September 15, 1790, in which Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury was advising Washington, refers to the wisdom of the legal philosophers whose thoughts were the foundation of the new republic. Remember, this was a brand new nation, violently breaking from a monarchy/oligarchy with its centuries of arbitrary common law, including citizenship statutes which were often modified to address a specific problem with some member of the royal family. Hamililton ran down the opinions of the other great legal minds of the time, Pufendorf, Barbeyrac, Grotius and finished with an observation not controversial to Washington, upon whose desk in New York Vattel’s Law of Nations was the first reference:
But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these different opinions.
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1785
The first Question is settled by Vattel in the following Paragraph, viz— “Among the modern Institutions for the utility of Commerce...
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1786
To evince the contrary let us recur to the writers on the laws of Nations on the subject.] (Vattel, vol. i. p. 105. book 1. chap. 21. sec. 260
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]
MADISON Wednesday June 27. in Convention
Mr L. Martin contended at great length and with great eagerness that the General Govt. was meant merely to preserve the State Governmets: not to govern individuals: that its powers ought to be kept within narrow limits; that if too little power was given to it, more might be added; but that if too much, it could never be resumed: that individuals as such have little to do but with their own States; that the Genl. Govt. has no more to apprehend from the States composing (the Union) while it pursues proper measures, that a Govt. over individuals has to apprehend from its subjects: that to resort to the Citizens at large for their sanction to a new Governt. will be throwing them back into a State of Nature: that the dissolution of the State Govts. is involved in the nature of the process: that the people have no right to do this without the consent of those to whom they have delegated their power for State purposes; through their tongue only they can speak, through their ears, only, can hear: that the States have shewn a good disposition to comply with the Acts, of Congs. weak, contemptibly weak as that body has been; and have failed through inability alone to comply: that the heaviness of the private debts, and the waste of property during the war, were the chief causes of this inability; that he did not conceive the instances mentioned by Mr. Madison of conpacts between Va. & Md. between Pa. & N. J. or of troops raised by Massts. for defence against the Rebels, to be violations of the articles of confederation—that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho’ the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not: that the States like individuals were in a State of nature equally sovereign & free. In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers—Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender
[Note 3: 3 See June 28 note 2.]
Page 438 | Page image
their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]
KING Wednesday 27. June
Martin I think that the proposed Reform of the confederation must rest upon the State Govts: the reform ought to be for yr. safety and protection—whatever is of an external & merely general nature shall belong to the US. Whatever is internal and existing between the separate states & individuals shall belong to the particular States. if there shall be occasion for farther powers being given to the US. a future convention may propose ym. if you give more than enough, it never can be reclaimed—It is said if the Genl. Govt. legislates for individuals & not for States, the Govt. is not federal—but if the object of this Legislation is of an external nature, the Govt. is federal—Our Reform must be federal—The States are equal & must have equal Influence and equal votes—I will proceed on first principls. every man out of society is equal, in Freedom, & every other quality of man—Lock, Vattel, & others prove this position—
YATES Wednesday, June 27th, 1787
The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle. This principle of equality, when applied to individuals, is lost in some degree, when he becomes a member of a society, to which it is transferred; and this society, by the name of state or kingdom, is, with respect to others, again on a perfect footing of equality—a right to govern themselves as they please. Nor can any other state, of right, deprive them of this equality. If such a state confederates, it is intended for the good of the whole; and if it again confederate, those rights must be well guarded. Nor can any state demand a surrender of any of those rights; if it can, equality is already destroyed. We must treat as free states with each other, upon the same terms of equality that men, originally formed themselves into societies. Vattel, Rutherford and Locke, are united in support of the position, that states, as to each other, are in a state of nature.
As far as scholars....well, lets see there's Kent, Story, Tucker, Wilson, de Tocqueville; Pres. Wilson (law professor); Pres. F. D. Roosevelt; Pres. T. Roosevelt; B. Obama (adjunct law lecturer, see the NY Times, they posted his course study packet info & it included Vattel's Law of Nations) & the latest hot off the press (2010 1st addition) & aqcquired from Oxford in GB...America & the Law of Nations 1776-1939 by Janis (Prof Law @ Mich & Fellow of Law @ Oxford)...want me to go on?
Dr.Conspiracy has stated on his blog that he has been banned here without ever posting a comment. It seems only fair to remove the ban if there is a thread concerning him.
Dr. CONspiracy is BS'ing. He posted here alright, and he was banned for being an Obama troll. Here is Dr. CON rewriting history in this recent post.
And in April of this year, Dr. CON admitted to posting on FR and was banned for being a TROLL.
Not only in this post, Dr. CON has admitted numerous times for being banned at FR that I suspect his bragging about it was an advertising gimmick to get FR rejects to post at his website. He has succeeded because his website is full of former FR trolls.
Many Founders read Vattel..how do you think..they obtained the idea to form the 13 states into the United States.
Vattel gave the idea to the Founders a republic can break away from the King.
Vattel gave the Founders the legal means to self defense. Hint..the 2nd Amendment.
Vattel’s words were printed on pamphlets and distributed to the Colonists...
After the ratification,,,the natives were Americans..White Europeans and their descendents. The only people who became citizens or natives were the descendents of White Europeans.
No other race played a part in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Vattel said (1758)..the natives are those born in a country whose parents are citizens.
The Obamaconspiracy website is all foam and no beer.
Dr. Conspiracy October 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
DancingRabbit: There are so many Founders quoting Vattel during the Convention I cannot list them all
Given that de Vattels name is not mentioned once in the records of the Constitutional convention, I think this pretty much ends the toleration of your lies on this web site.
The research goes on, see ya’ll on the other threads. I have some good stuff coming out of Janis's book soon, not today, but soon.
who is funding the web site..who is paying jamese777 to post on FR...who is paying the Obots.
Yeah, I noticed CON’s BS attempt to hide all your comments from the old thread to start a new one.
Likely all Soros Money.
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.