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

To: Danae; DoughtyOne; Red Steel
Danae said:

Interesting.

Welcome to FR!


Thank you. It is good to be here.

Red Steel said:

I tried to get a microfilm, PDF, et al copy of this through the Interlibrary Loan system, but someone would not send me the specific requested 1787 Messr. Berry and Rogers edition. They sent me instead the 1796-97 copy.

Yes they will definitely do that as the books are considered "interchangeable". One visit to the Library of Congress is all that's needed. Rest assured all books after 1760 have similar translations. The Law of Nations was originally translated into English in London. At the time, there was no exact similarity to Natural-Born Subject, as the word "subject" was not a part of the citizenship section in question within Law of Nations.

Regardless, sources like Wikipedia are not correct with regards to this phrase being "missing" from earlier English translations. Natives and natural-born citizens are the same. They are interchangeable. They cannot and should not be separated. It is clear from the 1797 edition that it used various English translations to get the final copy of this definition, which for over 200 years, has not been challenged nor changed.

The world is a very different place than it was during the ratification of the Constitution. However, citizenship has remained relatively constant. The inalienable truth that citizenship is an international term where many countries still confer citizenship to children through the father, not the mother.
7 posted on 02/07/2011 3:49:09 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: devattel; rxsid; Spaulding

Welcome to FR.

“Natural Born Citizen” is firmly planted in plain english in this edition.”

How do you know this? Have you seen the actual 1787 Edition? Reading it on a blog does not make it so.

We know there was manuscript of the 1797 English edition floating around years before the 97 edition was published. Cannot recall the translators name this minute.


8 posted on 02/07/2011 4:18:44 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: devattel

“Natives and natural-born citizens are the same. They are interchangeable.”

Odd. Birthers keep telling me they have different meanings...


10 posted on 02/07/2011 4:25:40 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: devattel

Do you have access to the Library of Congress?

Ooooooo this makes me wonder sonething... I have access to the InterLibrary Loan system through American Military University... I wonder.... nah... well, its worth a try. I will check with our librarians and see what information I can get.. but it sounds as if that might be reinventing the wheel.

In some ways this is a moot point, many of the founders were not only fluent in spoken French, they could read it just fine.


14 posted on 02/07/2011 4:54:25 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais is beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: devattel

The inalienable truth that citizenship is an international term where many countries still confer citizenship to children through the father, not the mother.


And that is exactly the reason there is any question about this topic. NO ONE ever discusses this component in an open manner.


98 posted on 02/09/2011 1:58:01 PM PST by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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