Because like expatriation there was not unanimity of thought on citizenship. That’s why you can find different people saying things that are contradictory (Judge Roberts and William Rawle or James Madison and James Jackson).
As you know McClure was given a passport by the American Minister in London that declared him to be a native American. You say it might have been a forgery, but why would he need a forged passport when he could get one under two different theories. Mr. John Rodman for example believed him to being a citizen based on his place of birth. And we know that when Secretary of State Monroe wrote a letter on McClure’s behave he never mentions the father and only says he was born after the Revolution in South Carolina.
Of all the names you've mentioned, only one was a Delegate and Knew of which he spoke. James Jackson appears to have been a congressman post Convention, and I can't say i've heard his name mentioned before.
Do you have a quote from James Jackson which supports your argument?
As for Madison, we have already established that He was okay with leaving James McClure twisting in the wind as a British Prisoner of War. That note (posted above) by Charles Pinckney leaves no doubt that Madison was very much aware of James McClure.
As you know McClure was given a passport by the American Minister in London that declared him to be a native American. You say it might have been a forgery, but why would he need a forged passport when he could get one under two different theories.
You misunderstand my meaning. At this time in history, the American Consulate to France was being inundated with Forged documents attesting to American citizenship and American registry of Vessels, etc. I have no doubt that James McClure's documents were legitimate when they were presented to John Armstrong. My point is, John Armstrong couldn't tell legitimate documents from fake ones, and was therefore naturally suspicious of any documents presented to him.
But that's attempting to color John Armstrong's actions in the most benevolent light. I personally think that John Armstrong regarded McClure as a British Agent, even if he accepted McClure's documents as legitimate. In any case, he was regarded as a serious threat to one of Armstrongs most urgent orders; Getting Florida.
You say it might have been a forgery, but why would he need a forged passport when he could get one under two different theories.
Again, the "John Armstrong is suspicious of forgery" argument was presenting John Armstrong's actions in the most benign light possible. In actuality, I don't think Armstrong cared whether the documents were legitimate or not, I believe John Armstrong regarded McClure as a threat to one of Armstrong's most important mission requirements.
I think Armstrong regarded McClure as a person who may have been technically American, but who had thrown his lot in with the British.
But the point remains, Armstrong immediately labeled him as a "naturalized" American, and this can only mean that Armstrong accepted McClure's documents at face value. Had McClure's proof of birth occurred AFTER his father's naturalization, Armstrong would have had no choice but to refer to McClure as a "native, or Natural born" American. It is telling that he drew the distinction.
Mr. John Rodman for example believed him to being a citizen based on his place of birth.
That is not a fact in evidence. At least not in any evidence I currently possess. I've been trying to find the John Rodman letter to the Gazette, but unsuccessfully so far. All we can safely say is that John Rodman regarded him as an American Citizen and agreed to help him get free of the French. I will further point out that John Rodman was not a constitutional Delegate, and John Armstrong Was. Of the two of them, John Armstrong has the better claim to being an accurate authority on the subject.
And we know that when Secretary of State Monroe wrote a letter on McClure’s behave he never mentions the father and only says he was born after the Revolution in South Carolina.
He says that James McClure is a citizen AFTER a Supreme Court Justice and a Congressman presented him with documentation which establishes his citizenship. Drawing inferences from what he doesn't mention is just speculation. Obviously the term Documents, implies more than one document.
Again, if proof of birth in South Carolina was all that was necessary, James McClure would never have been held captive.
I would very much like to find that letter Armstrong wrote to McClure on March 16, 1810. I wonder if it exists anywhere?