“I hate to be dense here, but I don’t grasp where any of that has anything to do with the word “Citizen.””
It has everything to do with the word, Citizen. To make a very long story very short, burgher, burgess, burg, buhr borough, township, city, city, citizenship, and an array of related word forms are closely related to each other in their definitions and usage, despite having etymology derived from Original Teutonic, Old English, Middle English, Old French, Late Latin, Latin, and translation from Greek. It would require a dissertation or a book to flesh out all of the details, which is far beyond the scope of a forum post. Suffice it to observe the varied word forms represent some common elements which were incorporated into the concepts of citizenship established in the United States of America in 1776 and afterwards.
“The word “Citizen” is from French, and it’s usage as describing a member of a Nation-State began in the late 14th century. As near as I can tell, it was used in the Swiss Charte des prêtres of 1370.”
The word, citizens, was already in use in England no later than 1314 with the spelling “citiseins” to describe members of a community. This was preceded by a variety of Anglo-French and Old French spellings: citesain, citesyn, etc. The Anglo-Norman possessions, Angevin Empire, Burgundy, and other French territories using a Northern French dialect used varied spellings going back into the Old French (9th-14th Centuries). Because most official documents were recorded in Late Latin until the emergence of the non-Latin languages in such documentation, the Late Latin and Latin variations of the word “civitas” were used to denote citizens and citizenship alongside the parallel Original Teutonic word, burger, borrowed into a Latin and late Latin form of the word. The origins of all of these related words and word forms tended to focus on membership in communities located in fortress towns, towns, townships, cities, and city states extending back to the city-state of Ancient Athens and earlier.
The word “citizen” was in use in the American colonies along with the establishment of the English and Swedish colonies. See for example the Swedish usage in 1626 and the English usage in 1682:
Charter of Privileges which Gustavus Adolphus Has Graciously Given by Letters Patent to the Newly Established Swedish South Company; June 14, 1626
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_014.asp
Duke of York’s Confirmation to the 24 Proprietors:
14th of March 1682
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj09.asp
“My point here is that the founder’s usage of the word did not come from England. They used the word in the meaning used by the Swiss.”
The Founders made a revolutionary expansion of the class of citizens, which were quite novel in some respects. However, the more recent example of New Netherlands, New Amsterdam,, and the Dutch Republic were very influential to their thinking. many of the Founders and/or their associates had a Classical education in Latin, Greek, and/or French literature; so they were acquainted with the Greek and Roman concepts and experience with republicanism and democracy, in addition to the works of the Enlightenment scholars. I would have to argue the Founders variously took their inspiration from no one or small group of sources as their sources of inspiration and example. Vattel, on the other hand, did provide an inordinate number of citations in later U.S. case law, so it may be argued his works were of substantial influence in establishing new U.S. standards of citizenship. It may never be possible, however, to attribute the new U.S. standards of citizenship to only Vattel’s works.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_014.asp
I looked at your link. You can't use an English translation to prove he used the word "Citizen." You have to use the original Swedish.
Duke of York’s Confirmation to the 24 Proprietors: 14th of March 1682
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj09.asp
This is better, because at least the native language is English, but in looking through it, all examples of the usage of the word "citizen", refer to members of a city, not members of a nation. For example:
"Thomas Cooper, citizen and merchant taylor, of London;"
"William Gibson citizen and haberdasher, of London; "
"Clement Plumstead, citizen and draper, of London; "
I see no references to "Citizen of England". This is what I mean. The English usage of the word only refers to members of a City. The word is never used to refer to the members of a Nation, at least not in England.
Usage to refer to members of a Nation appear to be a Swiss thing.
The Founders made a revolutionary expansion of the class of citizens, which were quite novel in some respects.
For people descended from English. It is not novel at all for people descended from Switzerland, in fact it was the norm for them. That is my point.
Instead of using the obviously English word "Subject", they chose to use a "novel" interpretation of the word that was abnormal for English usage of the time, but was completely consistent with Swiss usage. They did so because their idea for using it was derived from it's usage by Vattel.
The word "Citizen" is proof that Vattel was the root of it, because the founder's usage of it was the same as Vattel's usage of it, and that usage was contrary to English language norms of the time period.
It may never be possible, however, to attribute the new U.S. standards of citizenship to only Vattel’s works.
One can only compile proof. I've looked through Shakespeare's complete works. The word only describes members of a City. I've looked through Blackstone's works. The word is used to describe members of a city. I've looked through the King James version of the Bible. Only once did it appear that the word was used outside of the context of members of a city.
The word does not appear in any English Law dictionary I have found that existed prior to 1776. (And I have found four of them.)
The evidence that our usage came from Vattel is the body of written usage of the word before and after Vattel wrote "Droit des Gens". There appears to be no English usage of the word in English law, and therefore it is nonsensical to argue that our meaning for the word derives from English law.