His mother had already become a citizen and his father was in the process, delayed only by the need to travel to support the family. In any case, he had appeared before the system (magistrate) to declare his intent.
That was all that was required by the 1790 citizenship law, iirc, 3 years resident and appearance before a magistrate to declare intentions.
If the original language is seen in the constitution, then the original process is seen in the first law passed by congress to codify that intent.
That was all that was required by the 1790 citizenship law, iirc, 3 years resident and appearance before a magistrate to declare intentions.
If the original language is seen in the constitution, then the original process is seen in the first law passed by congress to codify that intent.
This argument I find persuasive. I am not totally sold on it yet, but it seems reasonable. Do you know when his father appeared before the magistrate to declare his intent? Also, do you know of any other supporting founding era documents other than the two I mentioned?
If you haven't done so, you ought to read the debates on the "naturalization act of 1790." It seems fairly clear from them that the founders were very desirous of people coming to the United States to become citizens, because they made every effort to make it easy for them. They were pretty adamant about the intent to declare though.