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.
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