You've skimmed over all that led up to that, without regard to what was actually occurring. It was on the basis of documents submitted by South Carolina that demonstrated their citizenship laws extended to Mr. McClure, and by virtue of that he also acquired American citizenship. It required the efforts of A Supreme Court Justice and a Congressman from South Carolina to get James Monroe to write that letter. (After having been shown the proper paperwork.)
You further overlook the fact that Ambassador Armstrong was a Congressman in 1787, and very close in the circles of George Washington. He was no fool, and he would know as well as any man who was meant to have American citizenship because he was one of the members of Congress who voted on it. You also overlook the fact that he was supported in his actions by President James Madison. Had your theory been correct, Ambassador Armstrong would never have Proclaimed James McClure a non-citizen. If your theory had been correct, President James Madison, and Secretary of State James Monroe would have sent word to secure his immediate release.
You are simply failing to look at this issue objectively, preferring to skip over all the detail and get straight to the end without bothering to understand what actually happened.
While we're on the topic, perhaps you have seen this letter from James Monroe when *HE* was ambassador to France, and dealing with the same problem?
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.
If all that is required is birth within the United States, Why does Monroe say that isn't enough in the circumstance of Mr Eldred?
Why does your theory have these holes in it?
No, that is NOT “dealing with the same problem.”
That letter (assuming it’s genuine, and at this point I don’t trust a birther for one second) was written in 1795, 19 years after the American Revolution, regarding someone who had been born in America BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.
At the time of the Revolution, those who had been born in America BEFORE THE REVOLUTION (and EVERYONE born in America BEFORE THE REVOLUTION had originally been born a British subject) were divided up into two groups: Those who were going to remain subjects of Britain, and those who were going to be citizens of the new United States.
Having had the OPTION to be either British or American, it was clear, NINETEEN YEARS LATER, that a COLONIES-BORN person who had been in England at the time of the American Revolution, and who had remained in England for the NINETEEN YEARS SINCE THEN, was NOT a United States citizen, because he had elected NOT to be a United States citizen.
Actually, I’m glad you made this defense, because it’s a good example of the fundamental bias or dishonesty of birthers. You produce a situation that is completely different from the one at hand, and claim it’s exactly the same. But it’s obvious that it isn’t. It’s completely different.
As far as Ambassador Armstrong goes... it’s too bad that you go on about him, because it is only an example of you publicly making a fool of yourself yet again.
This is yet another great example of the quality of birther work. They used to say “good enough for government work.” I recommend that phrase be updated. It ought to be “good enough for birther work.”
You claim that I:
“...overlook the fact that Ambassador Armstrong was a Congressman in 1787, and very close in the circles of George Washington. He was no fool, and he would know as well as any man who was meant to have American citizenship because he was one of the members of Congress who voted on it. You also overlook the fact that he was supported in his actions by President James Madison.”
General John Armstrong was indeed a Congressman in 1787, and he was a friend of George Washington.
General John Armstrong SENIOR.
The General John Armstrong who made the initial decision regarding James McClure was General John Armstrong JUNIOR, the son of the aforementioned Congressman and friend of George Washington.
JUNIOR is known in history for having been someone who questioned the authority of General Washington, who evoked distrust in those around them, who gained only tepid support, and who had such great judgment that even after it became clear that the British intended to invade the capital of the United States, he made absolutely no move to defend the city of Washington, DC, leading to the only instance in the entire history of the United States in which our capital city was invaded and the White House itself was sacked and burned.
As you might imagine, his resignation followed shortly thereafter.
As for Madison supporting him, I might have missed it, but so far I see no evidence of any such thing. In fact, the Madison administration directly overruled Armstrong’s sterling judgment.
Oh, and by the way: In 1776, when the American Revolution took place, John Armstrong JUNIOR was about 18 years old.
By the way, JUNIOR “suffered from a reputation of indolence” (that is, LAZINESS). Rather interesting. The writer of the 1811 letter tells us, “Gen. Armstrong would not interfere in [McClure’s] behalf.”
But then, why should the guy who couldn’t be bothered to save the city of Washinton, DC, exert himself to save James McClure?