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.
If the General and accepted rule was Jus Soli, what possible use could his father's naturalization papers serve?