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.
“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.”
True, but you also did not use the original German, Italian, or Romansch used by the Helvetic Confederacy; example, Bürgergemeinde (citizens), bourgeoisie, Tagwen, Gemischte Gemeinde, and so forth which denote forms of Swiss municipal citizenship from which Cantonal and Confederacy citizenship are derived. The Swiss citizenship is not all that unlike that of the German Holy Roman Imperial scheme of citizenship of the period, the roman Republic and Roman Empire, and more with respect to the usage of a variety of municipal citizenship as the basis for determining cantonal, state, national, and/or imperial nationality or citizenship.
“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.”
That is a misconception. Some members of the society of the United States of America today are not citizens and are not entitled to become citizens, because they are only nationals of the United States. All citizens of the United States of America are nationals of the United States of America, but some nationals of the United States of America are not citizens of the United States of America. The same was true of England and Great Britain, all citizens, burghers, burgesses, and citizens were subjects and/or nationals of the English/British sovereign; but not all such people could be citizens. The same was true in the Helvetic Confederacy. The term, citizen, cannot be used to represent all the forms of citizenship which ultimately were used to signify membership among the inhabitants of citizenship in the Helvetic Confederacy. Then and today we still have a distinction between subjects and nationals versus citizens, whether in the United States or in Switzerland.