English Editions of the Law of Nations (1760,1787,1793,1797)

Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.

There is no modern edition of The Law of Nations, but facsimiles of the popular nineteenth-century editions by the London barrister Joseph Chitty have appeared in recent times. These annotated editions (first in 1834) and their reissue with further notes by Edward Ingraham (first in 1852) were based on the 1797 London edition. Chitty helpfully identified the notes that distinguished the 1797 edition from the earlier English translation. He sought, however, to add much more to the text, as he explained in a preface written in Chancery Lane in November 1833:

Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition upon which any care was bestowed, was published in ad 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established. The object of the present Editor has, therefore, been to collect and condense, in numerous notes, the modern rules and decisions, and to fortify the positions in the text by references to other authors of eminence, and by which he hopes that this edition will be found of more practical utility, without interfering with the text, or materially increasing its size.

In consequence, Chitty’s text is overloaded with legal citations based on the case law of the sea that emerged in the Napoleonic era. Vattel’s work had become a textbook for law students in both Britain and North America.

Some of Chitty’s notes remain useful and have on occasion been incorporated into the editorial apparatus for this edition. The present edition includes new footnotes, elucidating dates, events, works, and persons referred to by Vattel. Posthumous additions to the French edition of 1773, which were then translated in the edition of 1797, are identified as such in the new notes. Translations of Vattel’s Latin citations have come from the best modern editions, particularly from the Loeb Classical Library. For each translation, reference to the edition used can be found in the bibliography of authors cited. In cases where no translation could be found, or where the context of Vattel’s work required an amended translation, the editors undertook the translation, and this is signaled in the text by “trans. Eds.” All of the preceding new material has been added to the 1797 text as numbered notes or as double square-bracketed inserts within Vattel’s original notes.

Chitty lamented in 1833 that “he proposed to form an Index, so as to render the work more readily accessible; but, in that desire, he has been overruled by the publishers.” The present edition adds bibliographical and biographical details of authors cited in the text, following up Vattel’s own sometimes obscure references. The bibliography of authors cited includes and explains the short titles employed by Vattel in his footnotes.

Page breaks in the 1797 edition have been indicated in the body of the text by the use of angle brackets. For example, page 112 begins after <112>.

The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ

Same author...4 years later...

The royal dictionary English and French and French and English: extracted from the writings of the best authors in both languages
Author: Abel Boyer
Publisher: printed by John Mary Bruyset, 1768
Original from the Complutense University of Madrid

Thank you rxsid. And thank you for posting the Luke White edition.

This version you posted is the Dutch edition. It was translated more closely to the 1760 version printed in London.

The version in the Library of Congress is the 1787 edition printed in New York. To my knowledge, the edition is not available online, nor available digitally in the United States. At least, I have not located it here.

Danae said:

Very well argued. Mr. Rogers is a devout believer in there being no difference between Natural Born Citizen, and Citizen. Clearly that is not a correct interpretation. However, it is the one he steadfastly holds to.

Much appreciated.

Mr Rogers most likely believes they are the same because he is probably a dual citizen and believes he is entitled to all the rights every natural born citizen has, including being eligible for president. Or he may know someone he knows personally in this situation. That's what I have observed anyway.

If anything citizen and subject have been "synonymous" phrases for centuries. But as with all synonymous, they are similar, but not the same. And we also know Citizen of the Unites States and Natural-Born Citizen are different because:

The eligibility for senators and representatives do not require Natural Born citizenship
The Article I clause distinguishes between Natural Born citizens and Citizens of the United States

Anyone attempting to equate the two would be misunderstanding their meanings.

Mr Rogers said:

If Putin came here, had a son he abandoned, and the son was raised by the American mother and American grandparents, then in what sense does the child owe squat to Russia?

Let's use a better example:

If Pol Pot came here in 1973, had a son he abandoned, and the son was raised by the American mother and American grandparents, then in what sense does the child owe squat to Cambodia?

There are three problems with your limited view of international immigration:

Pol Pot and Cambodia were enemies of the United States
Cambodia recognized that all children born to Cambodian men were citizens of Cambodia
All dual citizens at birth were and still are required to have allegiance to the 2 (or more) countries to which they are citizens
Dual citizenship was and still is not recognized by Cambodia. Therefore they can, at their disposal, require any citizen born to a Cambodian to be under the juridiction of the government of Cambodia regardless of any other birthright claim

Many countries do not recognize dual citizenship, even if the U.S. does. In those countries they have the right to claim their natural born citizens just as much as America does theirs. The framers knew this. That is why they wanted to make sure no president would serve two masters, especially when one of the masters is an enemy nation.

Thank you Spaulding for that excellent synopsis.

There is one key item with regards to the Law of Nations as a whole that many are just not educated enough to understand, and that is “law of nations” means international law.

It is apparent some of the “trolls” you are referring to are attempting to move us away from the current issues in the White House.

But I believe it goes a little deeper. Americans in this nation are typically proud and are frequently ignorant to their surroundings, a problem the framers knew quite well. Americans do not understand international treatise (nor do they care), and therefore they believe that the laws of the United States are indeed universal. This flawed belief that Citizens of the United States are autonomous is dangerous and foolish. If other nations are to honor our laws of citizenship, we must reciprocate and honor theirs. Otherwise diplomacy fails and we will find ourselves cut off from the rest of the world.

That being said, we as a nation need to safeguard certain government positions from usurping foreign governments. The only true way to ensure other nations can not lay sovereign claim to the United States is to ensure our highest diplomat is immune to this foreign threat. There are certainly no 100% guarantees, but I doubt highly our brilliant leaders who crafted the laws for the greatest republic in the history of the world would allow a man with two masters to run the helm.

Cambodia is NOT a better example, since Obama’s father was a citizen of the UK here by permission of the US government. However, if he had a child while here, Pol Pot’s son, raised an American and living in America, could be President. At least, the Supreme Court indicated so...

For Senator, the Founders were content with someone who had lived here 9 years. For President, they wanted someone born here.

Mr Rogers said:

For Senator, the Founders were content with someone who had lived here 9 years. For President, they wanted someone born here.

Why is Cambodia not a better example? According to the very documents you posted with regards to Supreme Court decisions, the justices state that the framers based Natural Born Citizen with Natural Born subject. In that synopsis, one can clearly see that enemies to the United States are clearly not citizens. Therefore they are not Natural Born citizens regardless of where they were born.

You continue to ignore my first question. How can a person be a natural born citizen (or subject) when his allegiance is shared between two nations?

According to your deduction, we can simply ignore international law and claim we are American Citizens at birth and therefore do not have to answer to the laws of any other nation. The State Department would definitely correct you if you were in this position. They would specifically tell you that you must abide by the laws of both nations because your allegiance is to both nations. Let us take this a step further and say that if a president were born a dual citizen, they too would have to abide by the laws of both nations, even if those laws conflict with each other.
Would this not impede the diplomatic prowess of a leader and subject them to bribery, blackmail, and deportation? We can never assume enemies of this nation would never attempt a sovereign "power grab" against their citizens who hold positions of public power. This has occured in the past and will occur in the future.

How is someone a natural born citizen of two nations when one of the two nations doesn't recognize dual citizenship at birth? Your responses clearly have not answered this question. The answer can be found in the fact that every nation has laws in place to accomodate differing nations. The United States has these statutes, and they are there to protect citizens from being placed into a position of conflicting allegiance, a concept many Americans appear to be failing to grasp.

“How can a person be a natural born citizen (or subject) when his allegiance is shared between two nations?”

If a person never acknowledges the other country, then he doesn’t have an obligation to it. Remember the War of 1812? The British claimed that once a NBS, always a NBS - and we rejected their claim, and fought a war to back it up. And we won.

Someone born in the UK who becomes a US citizen is no longer a British citizen. And Obama has never claimed UK citizenship, never traveled there by choice, and frankly shows a lot of signs of hating the British. So your idea that he is a secret subject of Queen Elizabeth is just STUPID, and Congress and the Courts agree.

"Mr Rogers most likely believes they are the same because he is probably a dual citizen and believes he is entitled to all the rights every natural born citizen has, including being eligible for president. Or he may know someone he knows personally in this situation"

I have noticed that as well. Those who find that they or a loved one is actually not able to run for POTUS has an interesting affect. The first is disbelief, the second is the rush to try and make it not so.

Determining a man's (or woman's) loyalty is a difficult and highly subjective thing. There are few ways to make that determination in as objective a manner as possible. The founders correctly determined that the best way they could make that determination, was to make it so that only a child of Citizens, born upon that soil and more or less raised upon it would be the most loyal to the Nation. Is it fair? No, it isn't. The founders weren't trying to be fair, they were trying to defend the republic to the best of their abilities, and that must come first.

Our freedom is something we take for granted too much today. So much so we are about to lose it due to ignorance. This is a terribly sad sad thing.

Mr Rogers said:

Someone born in the UK who becomes a US citizen is no longer a British citizen. And Obama has never claimed UK citizenship, never traveled there by choice, and frankly shows a lot of signs of hating the British. So your idea that he is a secret subject of Queen Elizabeth is just STUPID, and Congress and the Courts agree.

Obama could never "claim" UK citizenship because it was never his to "claim".

According to British Citizenship law, Obama was a British Citizen at birth, regardless of where he was born. He could not choose if he "wanted it". This follows the natural path of sovereign British citizenship law by birthright dating back as far as the 11th century (probably earlier). If you are born in the land, or born to a citizen, you are automatically a citizen. This was to ensure the King would expand his sovereign allegiance and power across the world without ever having to send an army out to retrieve it.

The only thing Obama could have done to eliminate his British citizenship would have been to renounce it to a British consulate on or after his eighteenth birthday. He had admitted he let his Kenyan citizenship lapse, but failed to admit he renounced his British birthright citizenship bestowed upon him at the time. In 1961, Kenya was still a British colony. Based on the Kenyan Constitution, all children not residing within the borders of Kenya at the time of its ratification were dual citizens until their 21st birthday. At that time, the citizen would be forced to renounce all other citizenship or lose their Kenyan citizenship altogether.

Looking at this scenario, would the framing fathers allowed a citizen of two or three nations to sit in the Oval Office? Based on the limited information received by our sitting president, that is exactly what we are seeing now. While you are correct in the fact that the War of 1812 was fought over dual citizenship, you did not mention that the British government failed to recognize the sovereignty of the United States. This is no longer the case. That being said, you do raise an interesting point with regards to dual citizens, and this is the very reason why the Natural Born Citizen clause is there in the Constitution to begin with.

Rogers, You have finally devolved into the realm of 100% pure opinion. A misguided one at that.

It is irrelevant whether or not the person ever acknowledges that second Nation. In the case of Britain, Obama’s Daughters can claim British citizenship, because it decends to the second generation. Obama Sr.’s grandchildren.

This is NOT meant to be a FAIR thing. Natural Born Citizenship is not meant to be FAIR. It is meant to protect the republic. The British were right, they honor NBS status. They have as much right to their own citizens, and the ofspring of those citizens as do AMERICANS. Those citizens who decend from both can CHOOSE which to hold to.

Anyone capable of making that choice is NOT and never can be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States. How Britain sees that subject is up to them. For us, it is what the Natural Born Citizen clause was designed to prevent for the person aspiring to the command of our armies. You cannot ever have the possibility of another citizenship AT BIRTH, holdng it throughout life, and be a Natural Born Citizen. You can ONLY have one, American, with no fudging, no maybes, no equivocating, no prevaricating, American. Period. Thats it. That is what the founders intended. That is why the Clause is in the Constitution. It is there to prevent an Obama.

Like it or not, it is what it is. No, its not fair, it was never meant to be fair.

So, even if someone was born in the United States, has two U.S. citizen parents, and has lived his whole life in the United States, that person is still not a natural born citizen of the United States because British law says so? Basically, you are saying that the British or any other country can unilaterally determine who a natural born citizen of the United States is and neither that person nor the laws of the United States have any say in the matter. So much for U.S. sovereignty, eh?

I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the most retarded things I've ever read on this forum.

Well considering you misread what I wrote I can see why you feel that way.

A child born to TWO parents who are Citizens of the United States born on our soil is a Natural Born Citizen. Of course. I did not say anything otherwise.

A person who has a father who is a British Citizen is born with British Citizenship, and MAY have another citizenship if born on our soil. That person, even with an American Mother, could not be a Natural Born Citizen. A citizen, yes. A Natural Born Citizen, never.

“Natural Born Citizenship is not meant to be FAIR. It is meant to protect the republic.”

Then the Founders used the wrong term. They should have written “born of citizen parents” - 4 words - instead of “natural born citizen” - 3 words with an established legal meaning that included the kids of aliens.

I’m sorry to hear you think the Founders were stupid. I don’t think they were.

Actually, you did say otherwise. Here's what you said:

In the case of Britain, Obama’s Daughters can claim British citizenship, because it decends to the second generation. Obama Sr.’s grandchildren.

and

You cannot ever have the possibility of another citizenship AT BIRTH, holdng it throughout life, and be a Natural Born Citizen.

Obama's daughters are the children of two U.S. citizens. You assert that (a) they can claim British citizenship, and (b) that one who has the possibility of another citizenship at birth cannot be a natural born citizen. That can only mean that, according to you, Obama's daughters cannot be natural born citizens of the United States, even though they were born to two U.S. citizen parents, because the laws of another country grant them citizenship in that country at birth.

I don't see how I'm misreading that. Perhaps that isn't what you meant, but that is what you wrote.

I'll reiterate that the idea that the laws of another country concerning who that country claims as citizens has any bearing on who is or is not a natural born citizen of the United States is both silly and contrary to principles of American sovereignty. We determine who our natural born citizens are, not the British.

Obama's daughters CAN apply for British Citizenship and get it. Thats British Citizenship law. They are decedent from a British Citizen within the two generation rule they use. Forgive me for being confusing, I chose my words poorly.

They can apply for British Citizenship. I believe they would have to renounce their American citizenship to do so, I am not certain on this, I have not recently read current British law on the subject, it has been some time as I have been concentrating more on what was valid at the time Obama Jr. was born. There is a process, and those within two generations can apply and expect to get it. Sasha and Malia are the second generation. Their children will not be able to use this descending in order to apply for British Citizenship. No more than I could.

Obama Jr.'s daughters were NOT born British, unless Obama himself formalized his British Citizenship after reaching legal maturity, and there is no indication he did so, BUT he also never renounced any claim to British citizenship. As a matter of fact, he cannot do anything about the condition of his birth. It is what it was. He was at the instant of his birth British and American (assuming he was actually born on Hawaii and can prove it (I don't think he can prove it)). Because of this he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. Is he an American, by all appearances, yes. Therefore his daughters are Natural Born Citizens of the Untied States, they were not born Dual Citizens as he was.

This is NOT to be confused with being BORN British, they were not. There is a difference.

Obama inherited his father's citizenship as a CONDITION of his birth, just as he inherited his fathers genes. Both are a condition of birth. You are confusing the citizenship issues which are existent at birth with those existent at adulthood. It is ONLY the condition at birth which matters when determining Natural Born Citizenship Status. If a person takes up the nationality other than what he/she was born with, they will lose that status, and it cannot be regained. Naturalized citizen status, yes. Natural Born status can never be regained once lost.

These are our laws.

Boy, you sure do read a lot into things... that aren't actually there.

The founders were expressing a common knowledge fact. I am sure it did not occur to them that people would one day forget what a Natural Born Citizen IS. Like you apparently have. So I would be careful with slinging the ‘stupid’ moniker around if I were you.

By far, I believe the founders were far wiser than todays average American. Far far wiser. They were being deliberate in every word they wrote. They understood the semantics, they understood the ramifications. If they failed at all, it would be in underestimating just how complacent and ignorant Americans would become.

It's up to us to live up to the promise they gave us. Right now we are failing. People like you still refuse to believe what they wrote, and why they wrote it. It is you Mr. Rogers, who consistantly argues that anyone born on our soil is a Natural Born Citizen, in the face of obvious and clear evidence that this isn't the case. Are you alone? No, but for damn sure that doesn't make you right.

Slinging stupid... I think you might have made up a new FR term.

“It is you Mr. Rogers, who consistantly argues that anyone born on our soil is a Natural Born Citizen, in the face of obvious and clear evidence that this isn’t the case.”

If the Founders were thinking about the common law term NBS when they wrote NBC, then yes, they wanted someone born of alien parents on US soil to be eligible for the Presidency after the child reaches 35. The exceptions would be for foreign armies and ambassadors.

The reasoning behind that is spelled out at length in WKA. No, you don’t like it. Tough. If the Founders had used the term “native”, they might have been following Vattel. They did not, and were not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.