After Rawle died, his eulogy was published in a 45-page book. He was honored as a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety."Of course, if you believe DiogenesLamp, he was a "liar."
Or the evidence.
This response is more for the purpose of providing salient information to 1rudeboy (and any other OBJECTIVE person) than you. You are just going to be my whipping boy in this narrative.
You will note that in his Eulogy to which you refer, that WILLIAM LEWIS was one of his Co-Counsel arguing that Case before the High Court of Errors and Appeals. (Which they lost)
Once again, I will point out that William Lewis
WAS a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature that Ratified the US Constitution. I will further point out that Samuel Roberts (the guy who published that book you hate regarding the English Statutes still in effect.) received his legal apprenticeship from WILLIAM LEWIS.
Lawyers taking on Apprentices was the Common practice for training new lawyers, during this era, and Samuel Roberts learned about American Law under the Auspices of William Lewis.
Given that it is inconceivable that Samuel Roberts could so badly have been led astray by his mentor regarding the Vattel-Natural-Law basis for American Citizenship, and given that William Lewis was in a far better position to know the ACCURATE understanding of the Legislators who ratified the US Constitution, and given that the same Principle is expressed in the Original Constitution of Pennsylvania created by Franklin, Wilson, et al, and given that the Position of William Lewis/Samuel Roberts/ Pennsylvania Constitution is so contrary to the position of William Rawle that the notion of a simple misunderstanding is highly improbable, the only remaining conclusion to which a reasonable person can come, is that William Rawle deliberately advocated a position that he knew to be contrary to better informed people.
In other words, he lied. Deliberately.
There is no way that Rawle could have missed that book Published by Samuel Roberts. There was no way ANYONE in the Legal Profession in Pennsylvania at that time could have been unfamiliar with the book "Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force in Pennsylvania".
Law books were exceedingly rare at this time (which is why Rawle wrote one himself) and that particular book by Roberts was the result of the Pennsylvania Legislature ORDERING THE SUPREME COURT to determine which English Statutes remained in effect in Pennsylvania.
There simply was not so much stuff going on in Pennsylvania that anyone in the Legal Profession could have missed the order by the Legislature, nor could they have missed the Report of the Judges. The book resulting from this was WIDELY Used in Pennsylvania for at least the next forty years after it was Published. (Second Edition, 1847)
So now, I think i've made a pretty good argument that William Rawle lied. (or deluded himself and thereby misled others) But the question remains why, in Jeff's words, "a Christian gentleman of "the most devout and exemplary piety", might LIE about the Vattel-Natural-Law basis for American citizenship.
Simple. The small evil of lying, is far outweighed by the potentially greater good to be obtained by doing so. Men eventually shed much blood to end slavery. What is lying compared to this?
The English Common law basis for Citizenship meant that slaves were "citizens", because they were born on our soil. The Principles of Vattel require that a citizen be the child of a citizen, something which puts a slave beyond any hope of this legal argument. If sufficient numbers of people could be convinced that the English rule is, and ought to be followed, the legal system would have to recognize slaves as "citizens" and thereby emancipate them. A similar strategy worked in the State of Massachusetts. Slavery was ended there when a court agreed with various plaintiff's that Slaves were entitled to the rights of a citizen.
It failed in Pennsylvania, and it failed unanimously. Those Judges that ruled against Rawle's lawsuit (mentioned in the Eulogy above) were Rawle's close personal friends and associates, and yet even that could not induce them to side with his position.
Rawle lied, but he lied in a good cause. His argument was never accepted though, and it took the 14th amendment to finally achieve the objective which he sought in making it.
I will further point out that Samuel Roberts (the guy who published that book you hate regarding the English Statutes still in effect.) I don't hate Roberts' book. I think you're projecting your own emotional investment in a PARTICULAR outcome onto me.
It wouldn't matter to me whether the truth was A, or whether it was B.
The fact is, though, the truth is A. And if the truth is A, then that matters.
Telling the truth may not matter to you, but it matters to me.
So to the extent I have any feelings about Roberts' book at all, I think it's a generally good work done in order to answer a need that a particular guy recognized.
He saw a need, he took action to meet the need, that's entrepreneurship.
That doesn't mean it's perfect in every detail. That doesn't mean that Roberts was correct in his comment regarding the status of children of aliens born in the United States.
Because he wasn't. That's the simple fact.
His view, which is completely unsupported by anything other than his own opinion, is absolutely contradicted not only by Rawle but by virtually every other real authority ever to speak on the matter throughout United States history.
Once again we are back to the nature of birtherism.
Birthers reject every authority that doesn't agree with their claims (which is virtually all authorities who've ever spoken), and they lionize any authority, no matter how minor, who even seems to share their fringe point of view.
We see this again in your attempt to make Rawle, one of the most respected and authoritative figures of early American law, out to be a "liar."
This is a man who was extremely close to multiple core Founders. He knew at least 6 of the Signers of the Constitution. He was the consultant on immigration to Franklin's Society that met to prepare for our Constitutional Convention. He was universally praised for his character. And no one ever stood up and said he was wrong in his comments on citizenship.
And yet, according to you, Rawle was just a "liar."
...that particular book by Roberts was the result of the Pennsylvania Legislature ORDERING THE SUPREME COURT to determine which English Statutes remained in effect in Pennsylvania.
Yes, it was - in the sense that if the PA legislature hadn't ordered the PA Supreme Court to determine which English statutes remained in effect, Roberts would never have written his book.
But contrary to your repeated claims (birthers are never open to being corrected on the facts, are they?), if one reads the Preface, it's clear that the book was Roberts' own work. It was in no way represented as being done at the behest of, or even having the approval of, the PA Supreme Court.
In fact, if you read the Preface, Roberts presumes to know how the members of that court felt. This is a pretty good indication he wasn't in close contact with them regarding his work.
So once again, we are back to Roberts' opinion, unbacked by anything else.
One man expresses his opinion, another man expresses his. The two conflict.
You pick the one that you like and call the other man a liar.
I pick the man who was in the best position to know, and say the other man was well-intentioned, but simply didn't understand the law as well as his contemporary.
Which is only understandable. Because Roberts had no national authority, no national responsibility in regard to the law, and no known direct connection with the Founders or Framers at all. Rawle had all of these.
And Rawle wasn't the only one in such a position to know.
If he had been wrong, one of the other heavyweights would've corrected the matter. They didn't.
On the contrary, St. George Tucker noted that people born within a State were "natural born citizens" of that State - no mention whatsoever of their parents. It was irrelevant.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story noted that no principle was better established in the common law (and he referred here to the common law of both England and the Colonies and the United States) than that people born in a country, as long as their parents are there in obedience to that country (citizens or not), are born citizens:
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
So all of the major authorities are in agreement.
Once again: You don't start with a theory of what you think the Founders and Framers "would have" done.
You look at the historical records and consider all the sources, to see WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID.
You give more weight to the more authoritative and credible sources of information, and less weight to the less authoritative and credible sources.
And you don't determine whether a man is credible by whether you like what he said.
You determine it by what his contemporaries thought of him, and by his position and responsibilities, and by the degree to which he was in a position to know, and by the authority that history accords him.
And then you adjust your CONCLUSIONS based on the weight of the evidence.
You don't start with your conclusion and then go through history declaring major authorities to be "liars" because they disagree with your pre-determined conclusion.