my fav part of this case is:
If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her, by election, a citizen of South Carolina while she remained in that state. If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country
WHAT? Children follow the nationality of the FATHER? And I thought the unlearned said Story was for feudal law of subjectship known as jus soli? Again, the unlearned steps in it NECK deep! You'd think they would learn, but alas their brains were not programed for truth.
This will be my last example of his errors - I did not say children never followed the citizenship of the father, but rather answered his statement in #444 that "The fact is, the founders simply never ventured into the area of birth as it was common law of all nations(international law) set forth by God, that children follow the nationality of the father." My only comment there was not agreeing this poster was the one to decide what God has set forth.
He also seems to misread what he has posted, since his quote notes that the woman in question was "born in a country and under age in the family of the father." So she was born in that country, still under age, and living with the family of the father - no surprise she is a citizen of that country [United States], and would remain so after leaving the family.