Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers

I’m in general agreement with your argument, but I’m curious how Vattel managed to write anything after the Constitution when he died on December 28, 1767.

It’s also relevant to remember that Jefferson was not present at the Constitutional Convention.


6 posted on 05/11/2010 6:14:50 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
It’s also relevant to remember that Jefferson was not present at the Constitutional Convention.

Neither was John Jay, but he wrote the letter to G. Washington that seems to have resulted in the term being included in the Constitution's eligibility clause. His concern? The influence of foreigners in the national government, particularly in the command of the national Army.

8 posted on 05/11/2010 6:26:15 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

“I’m curious how Vattel managed to write anything after the Constitution when he died on December 28, 1767.”

The early English translations simply inserted, without translation, the French word “Indigenes”. A translation made after the Constitution was written replaced it with NBC.

From a post on another thread:


El Gato wrote to me earlier, arguing,

“He used two words, “Naturels” and “Indigenes”. The Royal Dictionary from near the period in question, indicates that the two words may *both* be translated as “naturals”, but Naturels may also be translated as “natives”. The way they are used in both the original French and the way the translated terms are used, it’s clear they are being used as synonyms. Thus natives and naturals, but used to refer to the “citoyn” or “citizen” in the previous sentence. Thus “natives or natural born citizens is not a bad translation. It’s certainly better than the one which left “indigenes” untranslated. When it was finally translated in the 1793 edition, it was not translates as “indignious” but, as one would expect from the dictionary, as “natural” born. Our founders did not need the earlier translation. They could read the original French for themselves. Dr. Franklin was particularly adept in French, having found it useful with the French ladies, some of whom were quite well educated, when he was representing the “rebels” there.”

I replied:

Indigenous is defined as

“1. originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.
2. innate; inherent; natural (usually fol. by to): feelings indigenous to human beings.”

Its derivation is...

“1640–50; < L indigen(a) native, original inhabitant (indi-, by-form of in- in-2 (cf. indagate) + -gena, deriv. from base of gignere to bring into being; cf. genital, genitor) + -ous”

Also: “—Synonyms 1. autochthonous, aboriginal, natural.”

So I think a translation of “the native, or indigenous person” is vastly superior to “the native, or natural born citizen” - and certainly reject the idea that NBC is the definitive translation, for legal purposes, of a document that makes one reference to “Indigenes”.


17 posted on 05/11/2010 7:41:12 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson