Slaves were also unknown to the common law. Neither did they inherit through Vattel's natural law. That is why they weren't citizens, and that is why there had to be an amendment passed to make them into citizens.
But Rawle was arguing that the Common Law applied to Slaves back in the 1790s. He lost all those cases. Every one of them.
So what are we to make of a "common law" with several millions of exceptions?
I will point out that the Vattel definition doesn't have millions of exceptions. Using it, Slaves and Indians fall outside the category called "citizen" because they have no national character to inherit from their fathers.
Also, the Children of British subjects born in America after 1776 were another large group of exceptions. (I've seen varying estimates between 15,000 and 100,000) They retained their Allegiance to England, rather than being forced into US Allegiance because they were born on US Land.
Your theory would force them into US Allegiance against the wishes of their parents. It certainly worked that way in England. Now tell me again how we followed the English Law rule?
This is unmitigated specious crap.
Slaves weren't denied recognition as citizens because of Vattel. It was because of racism that denied them the same rights as white persons. That's why there was a Civil War. Only after that war was it possible to enact an Amendment granting equal protection of the laws to blacks and others.
Again, if you want to demonstrate that the rule of law operated under a Vattel principle, then show a WHITE person who was born here to an alien father who was described or held to be still an alien at birth. Your appeal to slave cases proves only there was racism. Duh, no kidding.
But Rawle was arguing that the Common Law applied to Slaves back in the 1790s. He lost all those cases. Every one of them.
That's not true. He won a case concerning the children of a negro slave named "Letty" who were born in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania had a statute on slavery in effect in 1780. I've previously asked you for citation to the supposed "case" where Rawle based his argument on the common law and lost. You've been devoid of proof. Methinks this is another instance (like with James F. Wilson) where you were reading on some Birther website and came to the wrong conclusion).
So what are we to make of a "common law" with several millions of exceptions?
We make the same as we make of a Declaration of Independence stating that "all men are created equal" and "endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," that then denied that equality and that liberty to those same millions.