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?
The often quoted Madison statement from the William Smith trial, the one where he said in the US the most certain criteria for allegiance was place of birth also contains his additional thoughts:
"I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connexion with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature, but capable of substituting a new form of Government in the place of the old one, which they had, for special considerations, abolished. Suppose the State of South Carolina should think proper to the subject, revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of Government: surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being, then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government; and if afterwards he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that Government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor."
"If it be said that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must, therefore, pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain, were of two descriptions— minors or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter, nothing can be inferred, with respect to them, from the decision of the present case; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties; whether this was a matter of right or not, is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith's, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us, they violated their allegiance, and opposed our laws ; so, then, there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connexion, who can be affected by the decision of the present question. The number, I admit, is large, who might be acknowledged citizens on my principles: but there will very few be found daring enough to face the laws of the country they have violated, and against which they have committed high treason."
When he was finished Congressman Jackson spoke against Madison's ideas:
"I differ widely from the gentleman from Virginia on the subject of allegiance and the social compact, and hold the principles advanced by him exceedingly dangerous to many of the States, and, in particular, to the one I have the honor to represent. The situation of America, at the time of the revolution, was not properly to be compared to a people altering their mode or form of Government. Nor were there two allegiances due, one to the community here, another to that of Great Britain. We were all on a footing; and I contend the principle is right, in some degree, of a total reversion to a state of nature amongst individuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchal authority, where the heads had families dependent on them; the former, or individual, pursued that line which appeared right in his own eyes, and the cause which he thought just; and, in the latter case, the children follow the will of the father, who chose for them, as the person who brought them into life and whose fortunes they were to inherit."
Ramsay v. Smith Trial in Congress
Of course in the end Congress agreed with Madison.
DL: "I have no doubt that James McClure's documents were legitimate when they were presented to John Armstrong."
His documents got him a passport from the London Minster. So you have two different ministers - one in London , one in Paris saying two different things.
We know from the September, 1807 Armstrong letter that McClure was in Madrid and Armstrong was suspicious of his and Aaron Vale's actions.
Was he looking for any excuse to have him arrested?
DL: "I personally think that John Armstrong regarded McClure as a British Agent, even if he accepted McClure's documents as legitimate."
I don't see that as much as Armstrong saw him as a land speculator work for himself and Vale."
DL: "That is not a fact in evidence."
According to Publius - "Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States . He is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim."
DL: "Again, if proof of birth in South Carolina was all that was necessary, James McClure would never have been held captive."
Unless of course, Armstrong and Madison were looking for a way to keep McClure out of the Florida picture.
DL: "I would very much like to find that letter Armstrong wrote to McClure on March 16, 1810. I wonder if it exists anywhere?"
And the affidavits sent with the Monroe letter to Joel Barlow.