The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795) There's that word "Subject" again. Seems like someone wasn't up to speed.
Like Madison's assessment,
Which he tossed on the ash heap in the case of James McClure.
Swift's description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.
We have no doubts as to where he got the idea, the question is whether it was an aspect of English law that the founders intended to keep, or to jettison because of it's incompatibility with the natural law philosophy under which they asserted a right to independence.
And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.
So adoption of the term "citizen" was somewhat gradual.
As in those not in the know taking awhile to catch up to what the founders had done.
It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift.
In the scope of a Nation's history, it was an instant. The first official document of the Independent States uses the word "Citizen." The word "Subject" (in a form analogous to citizenship) is not used.
Jefferson deliberately chose to use the word "Citizen."
It was an explicit rejection of the English law based relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
And yes, it was a paradigm shift. The creation of the nation was a paradigm shift. The only other government in the world that was similar was Republique des Suisses.
There's that word "Subject" again. Seems like someone wasn't up to speed. Or, rather, like many who lived in that period, Swift better understood than you do that "subject" and "citizen" were largely just interchangeable terms, both simply designating a person's membership in the political society. In this regard, he anticipates Justice Waite (an opinion you've cited):
There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165, 166 (1875)
It's time you give up your silly "he didn't get the memo" line. There are SO many exceptions you end up having to explain away by that lame rejoinder (like, e.g., an entire state legislature) that the better view is that there was no "memo" to start.
Which he tossed on the ash heap in the case of James McClure.
The case which was resolved when Madison had James Monroe send a letter explaining McClure was a citizen by virtue of having been born in South Carolina -- while making NO mention at all about his father's status? This is supposedly some great example of the importance placed on father status?
Give it up. It's a feeble argument.
the question is whether it was an aspect of English law that the founders intended to keep,
In the absence of any clear statement of what they intended on this point, we are left primarily to go by what words they utilized. "Natural born citizen" (the Constitutional term at issue) is recognized as deriving from its ECL counterpart "natural born subject." Had the Framers had Vattel in mind, the appropriate term would have been indigenes, because that's the term Vattel used, and the English translations up through 1787 all retained the English cognate "indigenes."
or to jettison because of it's incompatibility with the natural law philosophy under which they asserted a right to independence.
Do you need another lesson on how John Locke spoke of natural law and the right of revolution? You continue to beg the question by assuming there's only one natural law philosophy in view here espoused by only one person.
(And, btw, I once asked you if Southern State secession in 1861 was licit given your premise that our Nation was founded upon Vattel's theory of a perpetual union of states. You never answered. It's slightly off-topic, but far less so than the gay marriage question you asked me (which I answered). So I'm asking again.)
And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.
And neither were any of the persons you cite (like Samuel Roberts). And no one who was a convention delegate or member of a state legislature can be demonstrated to support your view to the exclusion of the alternative. The best you've managed is to show that Vattel was mentioned in the state ratifying debates. But he wasn't mention on citizenship, so big whoop.
In the scope of a Nation's history, it was an instant. The first official document of the Independent States uses the word "Citizen." The word "Subject" (in a form analogous to citizenship) is not used.
An earlier draft contained a sentence in which "subject" was initially penned and later changed to "citizen." Jefferson's initial instinct was to choose "subject," but then upon reflection realized "citizen" was the more appropriate term (see Waite above). So the association between the terms is proven even there.
It was an explicit rejection of the English law based relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
Or, rather, it was a recognition that with the republican form of government "citizen" was simply the more appropriate term and the change put needed psychological distance between the King and the new society.
But the point remains that come 1787, "natural born citizen" bears a linguistic similarity to the common law "natural born subject" in a way it does not to what Vattel had penned. Bear in mind that by 1787 seven states had adopted common law reception statutes (NY, PA, MA, VA, DE, and NC). The common law nomenclature was part of the legal and statutory parlance. It's fatuous to conclude that "natural born citizen" was understood outside that common law context, when it was the ONLY context in which the term "natural born" had previously been utilized.