A HUGE issue was made, including most notably by Hinman, of the entirely FALSE claim that Chet was born in Vermont.Yet Chet’s true vulnerability was his father’s foreign citizenship at birth.
The monkey poo flung by the 19th century birthers was first that Arthur had been born in Ireland, and only when that claim was shown to be absurd, did they move on to claim he had been born in Canada.
The claim of birth in Vermont was never proved false by Hinman, or anyone else. The claim of birth in Ireland was proven false.
The Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society, Autumn 1970 Vol. xxxviii No.4, pg. 292:
The public got its first real glimpse of Arthur's background in a campaign polemic by General James S. Brisbin, a lively volume published shortly after the Garfield Arthur nominations. Within a 23-page sketch of Arthur's life it was noted that he had been born at Fairfield, Franklin County, Vermont, October 5th, 1830. Shortly, during the summer and fall of 1880, rumors spread of evidence that Arthur had been born in a foreign country (first it was Ireland, then Canada), was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the Vice Presidency. Much attention was paid to these stories after Garfield's assassination, an act which the assassin said publicly was designed to put Arthur into the White House.The story of an Irish birthplace was clearly false and was not pursued by investigators, but Arthur's alleged Canadian origin attracted a concentrated inquiry. The Sun, a leading New York newspaper long associated with the Democratic Party, conducted an investigation in the summer of 1881, while Garfield lay mortally wounded, and concluded that the rumors were unfounded.
On the other hand, Samuel Tilden the scholarly leader of the Democrats in 1876, said, in April, 1882, that he was convinced by the evidence that Arthur had been born in Canada and was illegally occupying the Presidency. A New York attorney named Arthur P. Hinman published a book in early 1884 entitled How a British Subject Became President of the United States.
As I noted, Attorney Hinman pursued the meritless argument of Arthur's father's foreign citizenship and was informed by Senator Bayard that it was legally meritless. Attorney Hinman was informed that, "the term "natural born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S." Attorney Hinman was informed that if Arthur was a native of the U.S., he was a natural born citizen. Thus, attorney Hinman attempted to show that Arthur was not a native of the U.S.
The non-existent citizen parent argument has been failing for centuries.
As I already provided:
Hinman was hired by the Democrat party and Senator Bayard was a democrat. Arthur became Vice President on March 4, 1881 and he became President on September 20, 1881. In January 1881, the author of the book was already working on that citizenship crap.New York, January 7th, 1881.Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator
Dear Sir:—What is the construction of Article II, § 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States—that "No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc, shall be eligible, etc." * * *
Yours respectfully
A. P. HINMAN
Hinman asked, Bayard answered.
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881A. P. Hinman, Esq., New York
Dear Sir:—In response to your letter of the 7th instant—the term "natural born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD
Yet Chet’s true vulnerability was his father’s foreign citizenship at birth.
As attorney Hinman was informed by Senator Bayard, neither Chester Arthur, nor anyone else in history born in the United States, was vulnerable to birther bullcrap based on parental citizenship. The legal basis of this claim was known to be nonsense in 1881 and before. Creative fiction writing does not change that well documented fact.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.
In other words, I’m right. Nobody suspected his father’s foreign citizenship at his birth.