If you knew anything about history, female daughters followed the allegiance of their fathers until the got married, and at that point they took on the allegiance or citizenship of their husbands. This about covered the females allegiance to the country until the day they died. You can see this in the first Naturalization Acts of Congress. If a father of a family took the oath of allegiance to the United States after he qualified, his whole family became citizens of the United States. And the naturalized father further renounced his foreign citizenship to include the renunciation of his family and wife. It must have been a very very rare case (to the point of non-existence) if an unattached female from the early 20th century and down through the ages had a different allegiance from her father or later her husband.
Changes to our laws and culture, as should know, begin to happen after when women's suffrage became law winning the right vote. And in 1922, which followed women's right to vote, Congress detached citizenship from her husband, but not to the point if an American women married a foreigner, she would still lose her American citizenship upon marriage to a foreign national. This law lasted about a decade until 1932 when the law was overturned. Super liberal Supreme Court jurist and former ACLU lawyer acclaimed them to be the "Bad old days" where the female citizenship was completely connected to her father and husband. Since women are now liberated and on their own, the two parentS being of the same citizenship (being NBC) is even more relevant today than in yesteryear, since a foreign wife can now bring an inherited foreign and a split allegiances to the children she bears for the family.
Red Steel, that historical information re: allegiance is fascinating. Thanks for posting that. (Are you sure you’re not Mark Levine posting under a Freeper alias? ;)
Did you see the citations re: the original NBC requirement posted on the ‘Only Obama can end the birth controversy’ thread? rxsid posted one of the most intriguing and informative exchanges I have yet read:
“June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.”
70 posted on Friday, January 07, 2011 12:57:42 PM by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
You probably did see it, but it was a first time read for me, and I found it extremely interesting and enlightening.