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.
They agreed to seat Smith, who also argued Vattel supported his position. Whether the members supported Smith's position because they thought Ramsey's allegations were just sour grapes, or whether they supported Smith because of their respect for Madison, or whether they supported Smith because Madison's arguments swayed them, or whether they supported Smith because Smith's arguments swayed them, or for whatever reason it was they supported Smith, we cannot accurately say that it was one thing or another.
Apparently Smith and Madison had prior history when they were both in France and Smith undertook the task of performing some services for Madison et al.
I am arriving at the notion that Madison might not have been so principled as we would all wish to believe, and that he would sometimes do what he thought was in his best interests rather than remaining objective. The McClure incident is an example of this. Apparently Madison didn't regard that "place of birth" argument he made on behalf of Smith, as being persuasive in the instance of James McClure.
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.
As I mentioned before, The American Consulate in England wasn't being besieged by false papers, while the one in France was. Likewise, the Diplomatic staff in England wasn't charged with procuring Florida, but the one in France was. They two ambassadors were dealing with very different circumstances.
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?
I believe this to be the case. Armstrong wanted McClure interdicted from interfering with US Acquisition of Florida. I cannot tell you how many letters I have read from both Jefferson and Madison fervently desiring Florida. Florida was simply a prize that they decided they would have.
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."
Good point. From this it can be inferred that this is Rodman's position, but something from Rodman himself would be better. Even so, it is no secret that many people of the time period thought we followed the Jus Soli principle, especially with so many lawyers being trained into British Law and having no knowledge of the Deliberations of the Constitutional Delegates.
I have long argued that the only opinion which counts is that of the Delegates who wrote the law, and the legislators who ratified it. It is also my argument that Vattel was so widely known amongst this group, and his definition so obviously superior to the alternative, that they adopted it without remark because they assumed that learned men of their association knew that was the standard used.
That out of the loop lawyers thought we followed a different standard is perfectly plausible because In the vast majority of cases, a person born here was born to an American Father, or at the least a man intent to be a citizen. The English Principle overlapped with the Vattel principle in the vast majority of practical applications. (It's like Einstein and Newton. I most experiments, their results are virtually identical.)
I don't see that as much as Armstrong saw him as a land speculator work for himself and Vale."
Sure. I can buy that. The point remains, that McClure wasn't working in the best interests of the USA, and therefore was counter purpose to Armstrong.
Unless of course, Armstrong and Madison were looking for a way to keep McClure out of the Florida picture.
Well this is exactly what I think. But the point remains, Armstrong's claims regarding McClure's citizenship could not survive the first test if the Jus Soli principle was the universal standard in place at the time. It would have provoked a massive hue and cry that it is utter nonsense. It would have been roundly denounced by everyone who heard of it. That it wasn't indicates that Armstrong's assertion of the law was widely accepted.
I will further point out something of which I have just thought. If we accepted that McClure carried around his Father's Naturalization papers, it begs the question why?
In a system with a Universal Jus Soli standard the Father's naturalization papers are immaterial. They serve no purpose whatsoever. But in a system that relies on the Allegiance of the Father to establish the Allegiance of the son, those papers are absolutely necessary.
The fact that James McClure carried these papers indicates that he KNEW the standard required having an American Father.
And the affidavits sent with the Monroe letter to Joel Barlow.
Very much so.