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

The Online Library of Liberty ^ | 1758 | Emmerich de Vattel

[devattel]

Danae said: Do you have access to the Library of Congress?

All citizens of this country do. In order to access this you must visit the library personally and request special access to this book. As it is in the rare books collection, you must be escorted in to this section of the library via appointment only. I managed to get a peek at this version from a collector back in 2007, which was not in the Library of Congress. The value of this version (as well as many of de Vattel's 18th century copy) is quite high.

There are very few copies of this manuscript still alive today. Let us hope that these don't "disappear" inadvertently.

[Danae]

As God is my witness, I HATE that search engine....

[Danae]

Thats not quite what I meant. I live in Oregon, I can’t hop on over and walk in the door. I meant physical access, I should have been more clear.

I know one was returned to the New York Library, George Washington neglected to return his copy. His estate was in the news about a year ago with regard to the late fee. Interesting no? He considered it valuable enough to not return it. I don’t think for an instant he forgot it.

The tome was a true masterwork. It gave the best of the best in governments the world over. People call America the great experiment, and Vattel’s work is what that experiment is largely based upon.

I agree, this is a tome worth preserving for the ages.

[bushpilot1]

Chapter XIX...

Who translated the 1787 Edition? The title of the 1787 edition is the same as the 1759/60 English translation.

Back to chapter XIX...

It has the 1758, 1759/60 or the 1797 wording..??

How did you get access to the 1787 Edition...it is not that simple.

[Danae]

I have been drooling over this since I found it.. but alas, I do not have the extra cash to purchase it: http://www.find-a-book.com/member/detail.php3?custnr=&lang=&membernr=1661&booknr=364198570

[bushpilot1]

The reason GW kept the Law of Nations..maybe it was the book he used to take his oath and not the Bible.

The book is probably buried with him in the crypt.

[Danae]

LOL

No, his estate returned it last year: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/04/17/2010-04-17_read_it__weep_by_george_prez_racks_up_300g_late_fee_for_two_books.html

“
He may have never told a lie, but George Washington apparently had no problem stiffing a Manhattan library on two books.

Two centuries ago, the nation’s first President borrowed two tomes from the New York Society Library on E. 79th St. and never returned them, racking up an inflation-adjusted $300,000 late fee.

But Washington can rest easy.

“We’re not actively pursuing the overdue fines,” quipped head librarian Mark Bartlett. “But we would be very happy if we were able to get the books back.”

Washington’s dastardly deed went unknown for almost 150 years.

Then in 1934, a dusty, beaten-up ledger was discovered in a trash heap in the library’s basement.

On its tan pages were the names of all of the people who had borrowed books from the city’s oldest library between July 1789 and April 1792.

At the time, the city was the nation’s capital and the library - then located at Wall and Broad Sts. - was the only one in town.

Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay all borrowed books, the ledger shows.

They returned them, too.

The library’s boldest bold-faced name wasn’t as cooperative.

On Oct. 5, 1789, Washington borrowed the “Law of Nations,” a treatise on international relations, and Vol. 12 of the “Commons Debates,” which contained transcripts of debates from Britain’s House of Commons.

Beside the names of the books, the librarian wrote on the ledger only, “President.”

The entry, written with a quill pen, contains no return date.

The books were due by Nov. 2, 1789, and have been accruing a fine of a few pennies per day ever since.

This week, Bartlett and his staff became even more convinced the books were filched when librarian Matthew Haugen stumbled upon the long lost 14-volume collection of the “Commons Debates.”

Sure enough, Vol. 12 was missing.

“It’s hard to know what could have happened,” Bartlett said. “There are as many questions for us as there are answers.”

rschapiro@nydailynews.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can’t remember where the article is that tells of the book’s return. I do remember reading that though.

[Mr Rogers]

Vattel also says it is different in England than where he is - that the King grants the children of aliens natural born subject status. My main point is that birthers tell me native born and NBC are different, because they don’t like the implications of what it means if native born and NBC are the same.

In the end, the Supreme Court has argued that the meaning of NBC is found in the analogous term natural born subject, and not in Vattel. That is a big hurdle to clear if you want a court to rule that someone born in the USA of parents here legally is ineligible.

[bushpilot1]

Washington was sworn in at the location where the book Law of Nations was located..a Bible was not there.

There are conflicting stories how a Bible for the ceremony was obtained.

The idea forming the 13 states into a republic came from Vattel.

The translator of the 1797 English edition passed away..at least 10 years before it was published. He visited the Colonies..and he had a manuscript.

[Mr Rogers]

"A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner."

[Red Steel]

In the end, the Supreme Court has argued that the meaning of NBC is found in the analogous term natural born subject, and not in Vattel. That is a big hurdle to clear if you want a court to rule that someone born in the USA of parents here legally is ineligible.

No they didn't. As usual Ms. Rogers you are wrong. Horrace Gray ignored the intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment, and in noway did he equate Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. Not even close.

[bushpilot1]

Where did you read the book?

[devattel]

bushpilot1 said:

Where did you read the book?

I will repeat what I said before. I did not read the copy of the one in at the Library of Congress. This copy is not the only one in existance. Quite the contrary. There are others available, albeit somewhat rare and often expensive.

The text in the 1787 English version is a translation from the 1777 edition of the Law Of Nations released by Charles Dumas (the original Dumas edition was in 1775). It is apparent Dumas influenced certain "clarifications" in de Vattel's work. The text is nearly the same in the British English edition released in 1793, then again in 1797.

Challenge all you want. However, the greatest challenge is witnessing the text with your own eyes. If you are within driving distance may I suggest a day-long trip to the Library of Congress and make the effort to read it first.

Unlike certain paperwork in this country, this historical work is available to everyone.

[omegadawn]

natural born and native were interchangeable prior to the 14 th amendment. The 14 did in effect create a new class of citizen. A citizen , not natural born ,but still a citizen.

[bushpilot1]

A nation cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born from citizens. A nation should desire this.

Just because a citizen marries a foreigner..has children..before both parents become citizens..does not mean they can change the rules to make their children natural born citizens.

Jefferson wrote...they will come here..and distort our laws..

A lot of distorting going on..to gain citizenship and natural born citizenship.

The corrupt politicians are afraid to say enough is enough.

Subject to jurisdiction...is not limited to foreign diplomats.

[devattel]

Red Steel said:

No they didn't. As usual Ms. Rogers you are wrong. Horrace Gray ignored the intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment, and in noway did he equate Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. Not even close.

According to the Constitution and de Vattel, there is no such thing as a "Native Born Citizen" with regards to a Republican form of government. This term was invented by the courts and certain government officials in the mid to late 1800's.

Even reading the original purist translation based on Latin terminology, there are two types of "natives" to a Republic:

1. Natives
2. Indigenes

Both are equivalent in the eyes of de Vattel. And both are clearly defined:

- Must be born to citizens of the land - Must be born to a father who is a citizen of the land - Must be born in the land

Here is the pertinent question. If de Vattel clarified the difference between natives and citizens, what exactly is a native born citizen? if a natural born citizen is not a native, what is it then? Why would the framing fathers distinguish between a Citizen and a Natural Born citizen instead of using the term "native", which was a common phrase at the time?

Why did de Vattel pen this article to begin with? What is the importance of natives and their perpetuation of a society? What are the advantages of having natives versus foreigners, especially during a time when foreign residents were frowned upon within the colonies?

Even if native born and natural born were the same, according to Vattel who was a revered scholar of our framing fathers, neither Obama nor anyone else like McCain would be considered a native of the United States.

Is native the same as natural born? According to de Vattel, both are one in the same.

[bushpilot1]

We are not challenging you..just asking for clarification..where did you read the book?

Why not take a few photos of this important discovery and post them.

How do you know the book you read is the same as the 1787 edition in Congressional library?

[devattel]

bushpilot1 said:

We are not challenging you..just asking for clarification..where did you read the book?

By all means challenge! But readers should be challenging this by reading it for themselves. I can not take photos of this version because it was read in 2007 and sold shortly thereafter for a small sum of over $10,000.

Had I realized the implications of the time, I would have taken photos of it. Regardless, it was and still is the same edition printed by Messrs. Berry and Rogers of New York. Either the Library of Congress is wrong in its information, or the books are the same.

This should also be the same edition that was permanently borrowed by George Washington in 1789. But it's not. The one in the photos provided by the New York Society Library shows their version was the 1760 edition printed in London. This very same book was checked out by over a dozen framing fathers, including John Jay, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton. But why check this book out instead of using a more frequent edition? Why not choose the 1787 edition when the Federal Government and the New York Library were merely blocks away from MB&R of New York??? They were one of the major printing services for the federal government at the time.

The answer can be found in the history books themselves. Washington was to meet with his staff including Jay and Hamilton to discuss touchy diplomatic affairs with Britain. He checked out Common Debates vol. 12 and the 1760 edition of de Vattel's Law of Nations that very same day. Naturally, the 1760 version was British-centric, and it is clear just by looking at the differences between the British version of 1760, the 1787 edition, and the final edition of 1797.

[Danae]

Wow. Thats interesting. No one had so much as a Prayer Devotional? hum. It’s interesting what history remembers and what it does not, isn’t it?

[devattel]

Mr. Rogers said:

In the end, the Supreme Court has argued that the meaning of NBC is found in the analogous term natural born subject, and not in Vattel. That is a big hurdle to clear if you want a court to rule that someone born in the USA of parents here legally is ineligible.

Both early and recent court decisions have never made the connection between natural born citizen and natural born subject aside from historical reference predating the Constitution. And it's clear the definition as it pertains to Article I has never been clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, you raise an interesting point. What exactly does the phrase "Natural-born" mean? Based on British common law, "Natural-born" is defined as being "born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience" (see American Law by James Kent c. 1836)

This raises another interesting point. How can a child born under the ligeance of two nations be subjects to two kings? In other words, how can a dual citizen be "natural-born" when his allegiance is split between the jurisdiction of two nations?