Yes, it does go into detail about the War of 1812, I was somewhat confused about the citation given at the link as it listed the speech as being given about 50 years after King died. I thought it would be interesting to show where the quote came from and take it in context, which I think the context shows that it is not about people born in the US, but those naturalized.
The English view of a natural born subject did play a role in why we went to war with them. However, I doubt that 25 years previously they decided to specifically chuck one piece of English common law, while keeping the rest and not even bother to discuss it.
I have a hard time believing that the SC won’t consider the English common law if they ever undertake answering this question. It has to be the starting point for an understanding of many of our laws. There are any number of other factors to consider, but on a subject where there is very little case law that discusses it at all and none directly on point they will look to it. They discuss it at length in one of the closest cases to the issue at hand, Wong Kim Ark.
You could be right that it is to be disregarded totally, but I think any understanding of what the Framers intended by the statement has to take into account the law they were all familiar with at that time. I think even an originalist could easily come to the conclusion that it simply meant born in the US as opposed to naturalized.
Well, that's good, since Mr. Wong Kim Ark was not determined to be a natural-born citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen, and statute was the determining factor. Ipso facto naturalized.
Justice Gray's bloviating, tangential tour of western civilization notwithstanding, of course.