“Rawle was an abolitionist. ...We have to consider whether his postition on slavery colored his view of who was a “natural born Citizen.”
John Jay was also an abolitionist.
New York, March 15th, 1776
Sir,
I have been favored with your letter of the 22d ult., and immediately communicated it to the committee of our society for promoting the liberation of slaves, and the protecting such as may be manumitted. They are taking proper measures on the occasion, and I flatter myself that our Legislature will interpose to prevent such enormities in the future.
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
Whatever may be the issue of the endeavours of you and others to promote this desirable end, the reflection that they are prompted by the best motives affords good reasons for persevering in them.
I am, sir,
Your most obedient and very humble servant,
John Jay
He ended a letter to Benjamin Rush on March 24th, 1785, with,
“I wish to see all unjust and all unnecessary discriminations everywhere abolished, and that the time may soon come when all our inhabitants of every colour and denomination shall be free and equal partakers of our political liberty”
It's just another of DL's numerous fallacies. This one (the claim that Rawle shouldn't be listened to because he was an abolitionist) is so minor I don't think it deserves coverage.
But it shows that DL is so committed to his fallacious Constitutional claims, hey, what's one or two more fallacies?
In for a penny, in for a pound. As the English say.