The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 12 Jan 2024 | Joseph DeMaio

[CDR Kerchner]

(Jan. 12, 2024) — Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”

Really? Where to start, where to start?

First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added) Alterian, Inc.

Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added) Like the caveman said in the Geico commercial from the 1980’s, “Yeah, next time, maybe do a little more research.”

Second, the author of the NY Post article, one Emily Crane, although a journalist for some 15 years with a B.A. degree in “Communications Studies” from Western Sydney University (yes, Virginia, in Australia…, not the United States), does not claim to be a U.S. Constitution scholar. Instead, she relies for her assertions on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.

Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article ...

[DiogenesLamp]

As my grandma would say, "That and a nickel will get you on the subway".

She probably also said "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Irrelevant. Rawle was trying to argue slaves were "born here" and were therefore "citizens", because this is the English law rule. Since Rawle appears to be the man most responsible for spreading the idea that English law governs American Citizenship, his acts and motivations are important in understanding why he spread something he knew to be false.

My overall point was that, with the records of the case no longer being extant, how could you possibly know what his arguments in the case were?

Because it is a virtual certainty that Rawle made the same arguments in 1803 that he made decades later, and for the same reason. He was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens.

Unless you actually have something which shows Rawle saying 'I argued for X', your virtual certitude here is impossible. All extant sources remarking on this case indicate that Flora's counsels argued that slavery itself was incompatible with the constitution of Pennsylvania based on the following clause: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

This clause fell under the heading "A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth or State of Pennsylvania."

This clause does not mention citizens.

To assert, as you have, that Rawle "was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens", insofar as this case is concerned, is not supported by the available evidence.

[DiogenesLamp]

I refer you to Zephaniah Swift's 1795 treatise cited in post #39:

Looked him up. He doesn't seem to have been a member of the Constitutional convention, but he might have been a member of Connecticut's ratifying convention.

I guess some people didn't get the word.

More like than not, the distinction between Vattel's definition (which was what they intended) and the English law version, was insignificant in the early days of the Republic, because one was not likely to be here unless one's parents intended to be citizens.

The distinction was not likely discussed, and everyone just presumed they knew what was meant, even thought they may have had differing opinions on the topic.

That we ejected the monarchal rule of England in favor of a constitutional republic in no way implies nor necessitates that the common law system in use (along with how terms were understood) was likewise rejected.

Everything that was in conflict with American principles of law and government was rejected. See that book by Roberts based on the "report of the judges."

Corruption of blood was rejected. Debtor's prison was rejected. Church of England was rejected. Numerous and sundry aspects of English law were rejected because they were seen as incompatible with American principles.

So in other words, you would discard American legal/judicial precedent and commentary that's been around for the majority of our country's existence.

If you mean I don't let other people do my thinking for me, but instead prefer to look at original documents and first principles to arrive at my own conclusions, then yes, I discard American legal/judicial "precedent."

"Precedent" is just a dressed up fallacy known as "Argumentum ad antiquitatum." (That's the way we've always done things." :)

(This would, naturally, render you unable to use the arguments of anyone after 1868 that is arguing in favor of a "natural born citizen" definition that fits your desires.)

Well it's tainted by Rawle, isn't it?

And your evidence that the author, Michael D. Ramsey, is a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" is...what, exactly?

A likely guess. Turned out to be wrong, but most of the time you can bet anyone defending Obama, is on that side of the spectrum.

Since you have given me a better idea of his background, I might actually take the time to read his 46 pages of argument, so long as he argues from first principles and original intent. If he starts down that "precedent" road, i'm gonna bail.

You miss the point of the whole paragraph, then: namely, that 'natural born subjects' and 'natural born citizens' were used interchangeably by many in the early years of America, insofar as legislative, judicial, or legal purposes are concerned.

And in 99.9999% of the cases, that works fine. But in the one case where it matters, it doesn't. The English law definition does *NOT* solve the loyalty problem. The Vattel definition *DOES* solve the loyalty problem.

Why did the founders want the "natural born citizen"? To guarantee loyalty.

"Magic dirt" does not make loyalty. Upbringing does.

Hence why I think your attempts at arguing 'no, the judicial, legal, and common law precedents going back over two centuries are all wrong!' is an exercise in futility.

Well this is true. Idiot courts are going to do what idiot courts are going to do. You might be surprised to learn that I have a rather derogatory view of courts in general, and not just on this issue. I regard our entire court system as incompetent at best, and corrupt at worst.

We have examples like Derick Chauvin being convicted of Murder from a piece of human trash dying of a drug overdose.

Yeah, our legal system is very broken and dysfunctional.

If you want Vattel's understanding of "natural born citizen" to take hold in America, you will need a constitutional amendment to codify it as thus.

You just need the media-liars brainwashing the public for decades. That's all you need. The herd mentality courts will eventually follow.

Now just for kicks and grins, i'm going to toss you this bit of information that you may not know about.

This was allegedly written by James Madison when he was president.

Monday, October 7, 1811

https://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf

Whoever "Publius" is, he certainly knows details of the case that President Madison would know, but unlikely that anyone else would know. The case of James McClure is a fascinating case. General Armstrong (Ambassador to France under Madison) treated him exactly as if he had been British instead of an American.

Don't these people just know that being born in the US made you a citizen? For some reason they thought it didn't count in the case of James McClure.

Madison had to have his arm twisted before he sent orders for our Ambassador to France to use his office to secure McClure's release from the French Prison where he was being held as an English prisoner.

It took Congressmen and a Supreme Court justice getting involved to pry Madison loose off of McClure. Madison really really really did not want McClure released from that French prison. :)

Woodpusher is a good researcher. Perhaps he can find the correspondence between Ambassador Armstrong and President Madison which I never could find.

I found the order form Madison to secure McClure's release, but I never found much in the way of correspondence between Armstrong and Madison.

[DiogenesLamp]

My overall point was that, with the records of the case no longer being extant, how could you possibly know what his arguments in the case were?

You can't know, but you can make a pretty good guess from the preponderance of the evidence. I think it's a virtual certainty that Rawle made this, and every other argument of which he could think, in an effort to secure the freedom of Flora.

I read a lot about Rawle at the time I was researching all this, so I may have reasons for my impressions that I can no longer find the supporting material to cite. It's been about a decade since I was looking at Rawle.

In fact, looking at some of my old research, it was in 2013.

Unless you actually have something which shows Rawle saying 'I argued for X', your virtual certitude here is impossible. All extant sources remarking on this case indicate that Flora's counsels argued that slavery itself was incompatible with the constitution of Pennsylvania based on the following clause:

A good lawyer puts forth more than one argument. With three of them on this case, and one of them being Rawle, who asserted in the future that Citizenship is given by birth, it is reasonable to believe this argument was made in 1805.

In any case, Rawle was around when that Digest of Select British Statutes was published and promulgated throughout the Pennsylvania legal system, and so he knew that his view was wrong according to everyone else in the legal system in which he worked.

See? Here I am arguing for your "precedent" idea, in the Pennsylvania court system of the 1800s.

To assert, as you have, that Rawle "was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens", insofar as this case is concerned, is not supported by the available evidence.

Read more Rawle. You can start with this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=X_w_AAAAYAAJ&pg

[Ultra Sonic 007]

In any case, Rawle was around when that Digest of Select British Statutes was published and promulgated throughout the Pennsylvania legal system, and so he knew that his view was wrong according to everyone else in the legal system in which he worked.

Again, you assert this without evidence: nothing available indicates that Rawle tailored his anti-slavery arguments with regards to citizenship, instead of regarding more fundamental ideas regarding all men being born "free and independent."

and one of them being Rawle, who asserted in the future that Citizenship is given by birth

One does not tie into the other. Even an overview of Rawle's 1825 work "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" does not display any indication that he held slaves to be citizens due to being born in America (at least none which I've been able to find). One can believe that slavery is immoral, and that the slaves deserved freedom, without then claiming they therefore qualified as citizens.

See? Here I am arguing for your "precedent" idea, in the Pennsylvania court system of the 1800s.

You've not even gone that far, because you haven't actually provided any precedents of Rawle's to look at to support your assertion.

Even the document you linked to was a eulogy delivered about Rawle after his death; it does not intimate whatsoever that Rawle's ideas about birthright citizenship were tied or influenced by his opinions about slavery. As a matter of fact, the eulogy itself states the following on page 24, providing a motive for Rawle's efforts as an abolitionist (bold is emphasis mine):

"For such devotion there can be but one motive, and that is, humanity; there can be but one recompense, and that is the blessing of the bleeding and broken heart, upon which the soul shall be wafted to the bosom of its God. His doctrines upon this subject, which were the doctrines of Franklin, of Lafayette, of Rush, of Wilberforce, may be scoffed at by some—condemned by others—they may not have been safe doctrines to live by, but they were safe to die by; and, for my single self, I should ask no prouder inscription for my humble tomb, than - HERE LIES THE FRIEND OF THE FRIENDLESS AFRICAN."

Again, as previously supported by other sources cited: Rawle's animus against slavery was seemingly tied to more fundamental beliefs about the common man. Nothing cited by you or myself supports the contention that his ideas about birthright citizenship were motivated by his anti-slavery fervor.

[A strike]

Leaving aside the actual irrelevance of your 2007, 2008 economics reference (UNIPARTY subprime mortgage crisis),
your flippant disregard of real Constitutional requirements ALLOWED disqualified taqiyya muslim America destroyer BHusseinOsama.
Even if PenceofSchiff McCain or PenceofShiite Willard had been blown out of the water, boss madame killary could never have done as much damage to the nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

One can believe that slavery is immoral, and that the slaves deserved freedom, without then claiming they therefore qualified as citizens.

What else would they be?

You've not even gone that far, because you haven't actually provided any precedents of Rawle's to look at to support your assertion.

You mistake my meaning. I am referring to the Courts declaring Vattel the correct source of natural born citizen, and the lawyers of Pennsylvania should have followed that. Instead, Rawle chose to buck "precedent."

Nothing cited by you or myself supports the contention that his ideas about birthright citizenship were motivated by his anti-slavery fervor.

I've already told you that I did this research 10 years ago, and I no longer have a ready reference to all the stuff I found. I found enough to convince me, and at the end of the day, I'm the only one *I* feel the need to convince of anything.

The Notion that Rawle deliberately wrote English common law as the source of citizenship ties in neatly with his efforts to abolish slavery.

Is this not how slavery was abolished in England? I am certain this is *THE EXACT* argument that made slavery illegal in England.

So wouldn't it be natural for Rawle (British trained lawyer) to apply this same idea in America?

But on a different subject, I started reading your Ramsey, and he makes perfect sense on one point.

Not only does the previous conventional wisdom rest on surprisingly thin scholarly foundations, it faces daunting textual and historical challenges. If anyone born a U.S. citizen is eligible to the presidency, the word "natural" in the Eligibility Clause seems superfluous. To give it meaning, there should be some "born" citizens who are not "natural born." Further, in General in eighteenth-century legal language, "natural" meant the opposite of "provided by statute." Natural law was the opposite of positive law; natural rights were rights that predated codification. The most obvious meaning of "natural born Citizen" thus is not a person who claims citizenship from a statute, but rather a person whose citizenship comes from the natural state of things.

This is exactly correct.

And then here, he goes off the rails.

Modern U.S. law generally grants citizenship at birth to persons born abroad with either a U.S. citizen mother or a U.S. citizen father. If foreign-born citizens deriving citizenship only from their mother are eligible to the presidency, it cannot be because the American Framers adopted the English rule in effect at the time of the founding. Rather, it is because the Framers conveyed to Congress, through the Naturalization Clause, the power to define “natural” citizenship.

Absolutely incorrect and wrong. Congress has no such power. You cannot turn a man into a woman by creating a law. So too you cannot make a "natural" citizen out of a naturalized citizen.

"Naturalization" is an adoption process. It is not a direct descendant by birth process.

This is where I lose any enthusiasm I may have had for reading his opinion. You can't get this so very wrong and then conceivably produce anything reasonable thereafter.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I am referring to the Courts declaring Vattel the correct source of natural born citizen

Which Courts declared Vattel to be the "correct source" of natural born citizen?

So too you cannot make a "natural" citizen out of a naturalized citizen...This is where I lose any enthusiasm I may have had for reading his opinion. You can't get this so very wrong and then conceivably produce anything reasonable thereafter.

Precisely because he demonstrates (with sources) the historical instances of the British Parliament doing just that with regards "natural" citizenship. The connection with the common law is essential to that understanding (your incredulity notwithstanding).

[DiogenesLamp]

Which Courts declared Vattel to be the "correct source" of natural born citizen?

The Pennsylvania Supreme court. I would think that was obvious in the context.

Precisely because he demonstrates (with sources) the historical instances of the British Parliament doing just that with regards "natural" citizenship.

He just explained earlier that in the 18th century, "natural" meant without positive law. Parliament creating a statute is the very opposite of "natural."

And at some point we need to get into Calvin's case. I think you need to look at *WHY* Calvin's case was decided as it was, and then maybe you will understand why English "Subject" law is repugnant to US Citizenship.

And while we're at it, i'll throw out this little jewel.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

That old newspaper citation is worthy enough of citing in full (italics and punctuation as in original, brackets are added by me for clarification as needed; underline is emphasis mine). Quote:

----

FROM THE RICHMOND INQUIRER.

CASE OF JAMES McCLURE.

The Case of this man has made a good deal of stir in the U[nited] States—and has lately been revived by a letter, from a Mr. John Rodman, dated Paris, 4th July 1811, and addressed to the Editor of the "United States Gazette." The facts appear to be these:

James McCLure was born in the U.S. on the 21st of April 1785—some months after his birth (that is on the 20th Feb. 1786), his father was duly naturalized under the laws of the State of South Carolina. The son remained in the U.S. until the year 1795 when he was sent to England for his education. He has not since returned to this country; but resided for some years in England, and then made a trip to Holland and other parts of the continent.—His father also left the U.S. and returned to his country; G[reat] Britain.—Some time in the year, 1807, Mr. James McClure dispatched from England, the famous ship Horizon destined to Lima: which was wrecked on the rocks of Morlaix, and as is generally known, was the very first case in which the Berlin Decree was put into execution against the U.S.—Mr. McC[lure] went to France to reclaim the property of the ship; carrying with him a Passport from the American Minister in London confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S. On the 12th April 1810, an order was issued by the Minister of War, directing, "that in consequence of information to (him) from the minister of general police, and which he has received from the Minister plenipotentiary of the U. States", Mr. J[ames] McC' should be detained in France "as an English prisoner of France." Accordingly he was arrested at L'Orient——sent under parole, and placed under surveillance at Tours. Gen. [John] Armstrong [Jr.] would not interfere on his behalf——on the 16th of March, 1810 he writes him that the certificates of his father's naturalization, and of his own birth and baptism, were not sufficient; they only provide that his father is an American Citizen, and that he himself was born in the U.S. and that "the evidence that will reach the case & substantiate (his) claim is a certificate copy of the act of S[outh] Carolina, naturalizing (his) father, provided that act naturalizes also the children of (his) father born before its own date."

Mr. Rodman afterwards met with Mr. McClure at Tours, and being touched with his situation, determined to intercede with Gen. A[rmstrong] on his return to Paris. The general was however about to leave France—and Mr. R[odman] thought fit to address himself to Mr. Russell, Charge d'affaires at Paris. In reply, Mr. [Jonathan] R[ussell] tells him that "Mr. McC' must claim to be a citizen of the United States either under a law thereof, or under a law of the state of S. Carolina; that Gen. A' not considering the law of the U.S. to embrace the case of Mr. McC', required that he should show himself be within the provisions of the state statute: that the words if dwelling in the U.S. appear to occasion the whole difficulty deciding on the rights of Mr. McC'. "Is this dwelling (continues Mr. R[ussell]) to be at the time of the naturalization of the father; at or after passing the law, or the time of claiming to be considered a citizen? Gen. Armstrong, it seems, decided against the first, and the two last are conclusive against Mr. McClure. As I act under Gen. A' in this legation, it is not competent in me to admit appeals from his judgment." Mr. Rodman also applied to Mr. [Alexander] McRae, our consul in Paris, to whose department the granting of passports had been transferred—their correspondence went off upon a subordinate point, which it is not necessary to state—It is certain, these applications did no good to Mr. McC', who yet remains perhaps under surveillance at Tours.

In my Judgment, however, our minister has erred in his decision—& Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what it is——If the case of Mr. McClure comes within any of the U.S. Acts, it is the 4th section of the Act of April, 1802—which is in these words: "The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the U.S. may have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parent's being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the U.S. be considered as Citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the U.S. be considered as citizens of the U. States: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the U. States, &c. &c."

And now, what is the case of James McC'? His father was citizen of the state of S. Carolina, before any act was passed by the United States "on that subject." James McC' is then the child of a naturalized citizen—he was "under the age of 21, at the time of his naturalization"—So far his case is within the law. The only doubt is, as Mr. Russel says, as to the expression "if dwelling in the United States." When must he have dwelt in the United States? To what period of time, does the section point?—If to the the time of "passing the law," the expression would not have been so vague—Congress would have put in some definite phrase, as "at this time" or "now," as they do immediately after in the same section.—If to the "time of claiming to be considered a citizen," then is the party both a citizen and not a citizen; a citizen in the United States, but not one out—in which case, the citizen father has greater rights than his citizen son, because the father has all the rights of one, both within the United States and elsewhere.—By the same rule it is, that if a man were to be naturalized for 20 years, and then to marry and have a child, that child could not dwell in a foreign country without an absolute forfeiture of his rights. It is doubtful whether the legislature of the United States have ever contemplated such a state of things—for, by this rule, thousands who are now considered citizens would really cease to be such.

To my eye, the spirit of the act appears to be this—that the child should be with the parent, dwelling in the United States with him at the time of his naturalization—thus distinguishing between those children who are with him at that time, and those whom he has left behind him in his native country. The law naturalizes the former with him by saying grace once over them, as Dr. Franklin said: presuming that as they are here at that time, they will remain here for life; but the same grace does not extend to those who have remained behind. Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, "all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth," is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen—but the U. States' act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.

If it be said the law is defective, we shall not dispute the point. We shall not say, but that it ought to deprive every naturalized foreigner of the privileges with which it had clothed him, provided he returns for a certain series of years to that native domicile he had abandoned.—And again, might there not be an[sic] United States' expatriation law? For, as we permit a man to enjoy the rights of a freeman to move from his country at the call of his own interests, we ought also to permit him to snap the ties which bind him to that country. Thus, if found in arms against us, would he not be treated as a rebel, instead of a prisoner of war?

These ideas are suggested with a considerable diffidence——The case of James McClure is clearly a nice one——and even if I had not the best reasons to ascribe the purest motives to General Armstrong in this transaction, still there is dubious complexion in the case which might lead me to think, that a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with me on the occasion.

PUBLIUS

----

End quote.

So here are the facts of this particular series of events.

James McClure [hereafter McC] was born in South Carolina in 1785, when the Articles of Confederation were still the governing document of the United States; not the Constitution. His father was subsequently naturalized; however, according to an act of the United States (namely, the Naturalization Act of 1802), the following provision would have applied: "Sec. 4 . And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may-have become citizens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States : Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen, as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed."

James McC, to pursue his education, left this country in 1795 at the age of 10. As far as is known from this record, he never returned to America between 1795 and 1807.

James McC, at the age of 22 in 1807, leaves England to claim property from a shipwrecked vessel that had been interred in France. However, due to the mentioned decree of Berlin passed in 1806 by Napoleonic France, the following articles applied to the vessel "Horizon" as a result of the blockade placed on Great Britain: "No vessel coming directly from England, or from the English colonies, or having been there since the publication of the present decree, shall be received into any port. Every vessel contravening the above clause, by means of a false declaration, shall be seized, and the vessel and cargo confiscated, as if they were English property."

James McC, in 1810, is arrested in France as an English prisoner. (Undisclosed: the reason for the gap between 1807 to 1810, or why the passport issued by the American minister in London [who from 1803 thru October 1807 was James Monroe; his successor as ambassador, William Pinkney, did not officially become ambassador until February 1808; however, he had worked alongside Monroe in a co-ministerial position as early as 1806, so McClure's passport would have been issued by either Monroe or Pinkney) was rejected by the French authorities; any potential concerns regarding diplomatic conflicts with Britain and/or France in light of the ongoing Napoleonic Wars is also left unmentioned.)

Publius then recounts the attempted appeals by one John Rodman to both John Armstrong Jr. (America's then-ambassador to France), Jonathon Russell (the 'Charge d'affaires', i.e. the diplomatic chief of mission acting in lieu of the ambassador, as Armstrong's successor, Joel Barlow, had not yet arrived; this likely explains why Russell claimed he could not "admit appeals" to Armstrong's judgment, as the ambassador outranked him), and finally Alexander McRae, the acting American consul at Paris.

Now, it should be said: before going into his rationale, the pseudonymous Publius first states outright that General Armstrong had erred in his decision, and that James McClure should have been recognized as a citizen.

That being said, regarding the section you specifically highlighted, wherein Publius rebuts Mr. Rodman on the matter of James McClure's birth in the United States to be sufficient on the matter of birthright citizenship: he does not absolutely deny his claim, but distinguishes based on state. As Publius noted: had Mr. McClure been born in Virginia (where "an alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen", since "Virginia considers him as as son of the soil"), then he would have been a citizen of the United States solely on account of birth. However, the laws of other states (such as South Carolina) were, apparently, not so liberal with regards to "jus soli"; hence why Mr. Rodman's claim was not universally true for all states, but only for some.

Lastly, based on Publius's final remarks, and given the facts regarding James McClure's life (after leaving the country at the age of 10 in 1795, he did not return whatsoever between then and 1810, where he was 25 years of age; it is not disclosed in this newspaper record if James McClure ever returned), it is not unreasonable to consider whether his actions constituted voluntary expatriation (i.e. a voluntary renunciation of his American citizenship).

Overall, this case is not as open-and-shut as you seem to imply (as Publius himself admits, it comes with "dubious complexion"), since it involves, among other things: differences in state laws regarding citizenship, the actual difficulties with regards to timing of who is and is not a citizen given the switch from British colonies to American states (per Publius: "It is doubtful whether the legislature of the United States have ever contemplated such a state of things—for, by this rule, thousands who are now considered citizens would really cease to be such."), apparent defects wrought by ambiguous terminology in promulgated Congressional legislation, whether the person in question had de facto voluntarily renounced his American citizenship, and potential intrigue involving foreign powers then at war with each other (one of which we would end up declaring war with not even a year after John Rodman's letter was published in the United States Gazette).

/but overall, it was well worth transcribing

[woodpusher]

[Ultra Sonic 007] One can believe that slavery is immoral, and that the slaves deserved freedom, without then claiming they therefore qualified as citizens.

[DiogenesLamp] What else would they be?

They were considered a form of property. The 14th Amendment was necessary as they could not be naturalized. They could not be naturalized because they were not aliens. They had no municipal status whatever.

[woodpusher]

[DiogenesLamp] I am referring to the Courts declaring Vattel the correct source of natural born citizen

[Ultra Sonic 007] Which Courts declared Vattel to be the "correct source" of natural born citizen?

The DiogenesLamp Court of the Imagination™. In that court, whatever he imagines the law should be is instantly transformed into actual law. It is usually detached from reality, but no never mind.

[woodpusher]

Woodpusher is a good researcher. Perhaps he can find the correspondence between Ambassador Armstrong and President Madison which I never could find.

I found the order form Madison to secure McClure's release, but I never found much in the way of correspondence between Armstrong and Madison.

https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm022747/

James Madison to John Armstrong, December 29, 1813. Notes on General McClure. 4 pp.

- - - - -

https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm022724/

James Madison to John Armstrong, January 14, 1814.

- - - - -

https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm022727/

James Madison to John Armstrong, September 18, 1813.
View 5 images in sequence.

- - - - -

https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm022728/

James Madison to John Armstrong, October 8, 1813. Extract.

- - - - -

https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm022730/

James Madison to John Armstrong, October 11, 1813.

[Political Junkie Too]

An interesting footnote on who is or is not a citizen in the early days of the country is the case of Thomas Paine.

Paine was born in England in 1737, and emigrated to the United State in November 1774. As a Founding Father, Paine held several prominent positions in the newly formed United States:

1. During the Revolutionary War, Paine served as an aide-de-camp to General, Nathanael Greene.
2. In 1777, Paine became secretary of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs. Paine was expelled from the Committee in 1779.
3. In 1781, Paine accompanied John Laurens on his mission to France.

During his time as secretary of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs, Paine accused Delegate Robert Morris of Pennsylvania of profiteering from the Revolutionary War. Morris was cleared by the Continental Congress and Paine eventually resigned as secretary of the committee. Morris himself was born in England in 1734 and emigrated to the United States in his teens. Morriss would eventually become a Senator from Pennsylvania in the first United States Congress in 1789.

A close friend of Morris in the Continental Congress was Gouverneur Morris (no relation) of New York. This would become a factor later in Paine's life

In December 1793, Paine was in France and was arrested by Robespierre as a foreign conspirator during the Reign of Terror. The Minister of the United States to the French Government just happened to be none other than Gouverneur Morris, who declined to rescue Paine from prison stating that he was not an American citizen. Paine was eventually released after James Monroe replaced Gouverneur Morris as the American Minister.

Fast-forward to May 1807, Thomas Paine was denied the right to vote in the New Rochelle NY election by local election official Elisha Ward, who cited the refusal of Gouverneur Morris to "reclaim" Paine when he was imprisoned in France. Paine wrote a letter to former New York Governor and now Vice President George Clinton asking for relief, accusing Ward and three other people of being Tories who supported the British during the Revolutionary War who eventually became election inspectors in New Rochelle.

Ultimately, Paine got no relief, likely because he pissed off so many people during the post-Revolution and French Revolution periods. It is interesting to see how "fragile" American citizenship was in the early days. When you compare Thomas Paine to Robert Morris, they were born within a few years of each other, both emigrated to the United States (Morris as a teen, Paine as an adult), and both served in the Continental Congress, Morris served in the United States Senate. Yet it was Paine's citizenship that was questioned and ultimately rescinded, if not legally then by politically by ostracization from powerful people.

Here is the full text of the letter that Thomas Paine wrote to George Clinton. It mentions the subject matter in the original post.

---

To George Clinton May 4, 1807

NEW YORK,

RESPECTED FRIEND:

Elisha Ward and three or four other Tories who lived within the British lines in the Revolutionary war, got in to be inspectors of the election last year at New Rochelle. Ward was supervisor. These men refused my vote at the election, saying to me: "You are not an American; our minister at Paris, Gouverneur Morris, would not reclaim you when you were imprisoned in the Luxembourg prison at Paris, and General Washington refused to do it." Upon my telling him that the two cases he stated were falsehoods, and that if he did me injustice I would prosecute him, he got up, and calling for a constable, said to me, "I will commit you to prison." He chose, however, to sit down and go no farther with it.

I have written to Mr. Madison for an attested copy of Mr. Monroe's letter to the then Secretary of State Randolph, in which Mr. Monroe gives the government an account of his reclaiming me and my liberation in consequence of it; and also for an attested copy of Mr. Randolph's answer, in which he says: "The President approves what you have done in the case of Mr. Paine." The matter I believe is, that, as I had not been guillotined, Washington thought best to say what he did. As to Gouverneur Morris, the case is that he did reclaim me; but his reclamation did me no good, and the probability is, he did not intend it should. Joel Barlow and other Americans in Paris had been in a body to reclaim me, but their application, being unofficial, was not regarded. I then applied to Morris. I shall subpoena Morris, and if I get attested copies from the Secretary of State's office it will prove the lie on the inspectors.

As it is a new generation that has risen up since the declaration of independence, they know nothing of what the political state of the country was at the time the pamphlet Common Sense appeared; and besides this there are but few of the old standers left, and none that I know of in this city.

It may be proper at the trial to bring the mind of the court and the jury back to the times I am speaking of, and if you see no objection in your way, I wish you would write a letter to some person, stating, from your own knowledge, what the condition of those times were, and the effect which the work Common Sense, and the several members of the Crisis had upon the country. It would, I think, be best that the letter should begin directly on the subject in this manner: Being informed that Thomas Paine has been denied his rights of citizenship by certain persons acting as inspectors at an election at New Rochelle, etc.

I have put the prosecution into the hands of Mr. Riker, district attorney, who can make use of the letter in his address to the Court and Jury. Your handwriting can be sworn to by persons here, if necessary. Had you been on the spot I should have subpoenaed you, unless it had been too inconvenient to you to have attended.

Yours in friendship,

THOMAS PAINE.

---

One day earlier, Paine sent a letter to James Madison seeking documents supporting his description of events relayed in the original post.

---

To James Madison May 3, 1807

NEW YORK,

SIR:

When Mr. Monroe came Minister from the United States to the French Government I was still imprisoned in the Luxembourg by the Robespierre party in the convention. The fall of Robespierre took place a few days before Mr. Monroe reached Paris, and as soon as Mr. Monroe could make his own standing good, which required time on account of the ill conduct of his predecessor Gouverneur Morris, he reclaimed me as an American citizen, for the case was, I was excluded from the convention as a foreigner and imprisoned as a foreigner. I was liberated immediately on Mr. Monroe's reclamation.

Mr. Monroe wrote an official account of this to the secretary of state, Mr. Randolph, and also an account of what he had done for Madame LaFayette who was also imprisoned, distinguishing the one to be done officially, and the other, that for Madame LaFayette, to be done in friendship. In Mr. Randolph's official answer to Mr. Monroe's letter, he says as nearly as I recollect the words, "The President [Mr. Washington] approves what you have done in the case of Mr. Paine." My own opinion on this matter is, that as I had not been guillotined Washington thought it best to say what he did.

I will be obliged to you for an attested copy of Mr. Monroe's letter and also of Mr. Randolph's official answer so far as any parts of them relate to me. The reason for this application is as follows,

Last year 1806 I lived on my farm at New Rochelle, State of New York; a man of the name Elisha Ward was supervisor that year. The father of this man and all his brothers joined the British in the war; but this one being the youngest and not at that time old enough to carry a musket remained at home with his mother.

When the election (at which the supervisor for the time being presides) came on at New Rochelle last year for Members of Congress and Members of state assemblies, I tendered my tickets separately distinguishing which was which, as is the custom; each of which Ward refused, saying to me "You are not an American Citizen." Upon my beginning to remonstrate with him, he replied, "Our minister at Paris, Gouverneur Morris, would not reclaim you as an American Citizen when you were imprisoned in The Luxembourg at Paris, and General Washington refused to do it."

I accordingly commenced a prosecution against him last fall and the court will set the 20th of this May. Mr. Monroe's letter to the secretary and the secretary's official answer are both published by Mr. Monroe in his views of the conduct of the executive printed by Benjn Franklin Bache. But as a printed book is not sufficient evidence an attested copy from your office will be necessary.

As to Gouverneur Morris, the fact is, that he did reclaim me on my application to him as Minister, but his reclamation of me did me no good, for he could hardly keep himself out of prison, neither did he do it out of any good will to me.

THOMAS PAINE.

---

-PJ

[Oystir]

It’s amazing. Silly lawsuits are brought everyday. People even sue over “loud” leave blowers. Not a single American citizen, political party, State or organization could bring forth a valid lawsuit (one that the Supreme Court, by constitutional duty, would have been required to hear) along the lines you believe exist. Not even you!

[DiogenesLamp]

/but overall, it was well worth transcribing

Lot of work that.

But *IF* the writer is indeed Madison, then it calls into question his defense of William Laughton Smith when challenged by David Ramsey.

Madison would seem to be on both sides of the issue, depending upon what was in his best political interest. I see the same sort of effect with His participation in the Virginia Ratification committee that drafted Virginia's ratification language which specifically says that Virginia can re assume the powers given up to the Federal government.

40 years later in a letter he said states didn't have a right to secede.

Again, Madison would appear to believe whatever is necessary for his political benefit.

I happen to know why Madison would be so adamant that James McClure not be regarded as a citizen of the US. It's a very interesting story, and someone should write a book about it.

Can you guess why Madison did not want to regard James McClure as a US Citizen? Why he delayed so long in ordering the Ambassador to intervene?

[DiogenesLamp]

They were considered a form of property. The 14th Amendment was necessary as they could not be naturalized. They could not be naturalized because they were not aliens. They had no municipal status whatever.

Not if they were citizens. According to Rawle, birth in a nation makes you a citizen, therefore if he was correct, they could not be property because they were citizens.

Now if you want to say they couldn't be citizens because they weren't born to citizen parents, you've just capitulated on the central argument here.

[DiogenesLamp]

The regular legal system is often detached from reality.

Derick Chauvin anyone?

[Ultra Sonic 007]

But *IF* the writer is indeed Madison, then it calls into question his defense of William Laughton Smith when challenged by David Ramsey

There are three substantial differences:

1) James McClure was born in South Carolina in 1785, after the end of the American Revolution. William Loughton Smith had been born in 1758, well before the Revolution began.

2) Given his father's subsequent naturalization before James left for England at the age of 10, he fell under the auspices of the Naturalization Act of 1802, which rendered James a citizen of South Carolina (and hence the United States) in Publius's estimation (contra Armstrong Jr.), based on the bare text of the Act in question (which did indeed have some defects based on its application).

3) However, Smith actually returned to the United States in 1783, at the age of 25: the precise age at when McClure had been arrested in France in 1810. (We can only speculate as to whether or not McClure would have ever returned to America had the Horizon not shipwrecked on French shores.) In contrast, by the time of the election in 1788, Smith had continuously resided in the United States for five years at least.

Now, with that being said: David Ramsey's objection to seating William Loughton Smith (who had gotten more votes in the recent congressional election; funny how history rhymes...) was his allegation that Smith did not meet the "seven years a citizen requirement" of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2. However, as noted in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1: ". Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..." Given that Smith had been born in South Carolina in 1758 and had only left in 1770, he had resided there for the first decade of his life; that by itself would have met the seven years' requirement.

And, as James Madison himself noted in reply to Ramsey: "It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles. It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain. This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society, but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was of necessity to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place."

But I'm not sure how the case of McClure calls into question Madison's defense of Smith. In both cases (if Publius was indeed Madison), he held that the 'defendant' (so to speak) in question should be held as American citizens, contra Ramsey and Armstrong. If it's the matter of Publius mentioning expatriation in McClure's case and not in Smith's, that's handled by the contingent fact that Smith had returned to the United States in 1783 and been practicing law since 1784. McClure had never set foot back on American shores since he was ten years of age.

Had McClure ever returned to America for any substantial length of time, I doubt the matter of expatriation would have been mentioned.

[Political Junkie Too]

Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...

I would posit that the reason place was the most "certain" criterion of citizenship in the 1790s was that travel in and out of the United States was impossible for most citizens. Only the most wealthy (or ambassadors of the United States) could afford passage on sailing ships to England or France for a six-week voyage under hardship conditions. If someone did manage to obtain such passage, they would stay in Europe for years before returning to the United States.

As was the case with Smith, his lineage to the land was well-known. I would think that to be true of most people in the 1790s; the townspeople of any town in the United States would have known who begat whom through the generations (they used to document that in family Bibles), and so "land" was a proxy for citizenship by parentage, too (the "most certain criterion").

Note that from the quoted passage above:

"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony..."

..."birthright" today is interpreted to mean citizenship at birth (born here), but the rest of the passage cites Smith's parentage as his "birthright;" his "ancestors were among the first settlers."

Given that people didn't travel far distances back then, "land" and "ancestors" were synonymous in practice.

-PJ