Goody for you.
Odd how you pick out that single snippet concerning an obscure state election to harangue over while failing to refute or even acknowledge anything concerning the actual subject of the thread.
-----
And don't get me started how you 'evidence' was a publication from 2009 titled "Deliver Us From Evil"....and you couldn't even access enough to see the footnotes to know where the quotes actually came from.
Guess it's another "take your word for it" kinda thing.
I didn't.
At least, I don't think I know what you're talking about.
I didn't pick Ramsay as evidence. Nor would I have picked Ramsay as any significant evidence, because it's clear that none of our early leaders agreed with him on citizenship.
Except for ONE GUY out of THIRTY-SEVEN, who may well have voted for Ramsay just out of sympathy.
Look. Let's approach this as a theoretical. We would like to know what our early leaders understood about citizenship.
Two opinions on citizenship (don't peek as to what they are) come up before our first House of Representatives.
One of those opinions is supported by the Father of the Constitution, and is approved by 35 out of the 36 remaining members of the House.
The other opinion is approved by only 1 person out of 37 members of the House who voted. And it isn't the Father of the Constitution.
Now you tell me: Which opinion represents the understanding of our early leaders regarding citizenship?
Clue: This is an easy question.
It's a question that only has one possible answer, for anyone who is remotely honest.
And don't get me started how you 'evidence' was a publication from 2009 titled "Deliver Us From Evil"....and you couldn't even access enough to see the footnotes to know where the quotes actually came from.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Maybe you can steer me a bit better here?