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?
By the way, with that I am going to bow out and let you have the last word. Yes, I’ve no doubt you’ll do your best to paint myself and anybody else who doesn’t believe your birther bs as a traitor, a troll, and the spawn of Satan himself.
I simply don’t want to spend my weekend, or even another minute of it, arguing with birthers. It’s just not worth my time.
For anyone who wants the truth, there’s plenty of information out there. This isn’t the first time birther arguments have been taken apart, and it sure won’t be the last.
As for me, I’m going to go and have a nice weekend.
Do you really think someone is willing and able to make up such a well written and elaborate letter? Now who's expressing paranoia and talking about conspiracies?
Believe it or not, the letter was discovered and Linked by Dr. Conspiracy, (in comments about 3/4ths of the way down.) and while I trust his motives not at all, I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter.