Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Good point. Cognitive dissonance in action.
Cheers
“I note also that you do not quote all of the 1779 Virginia law. While it does recognize parentage in the part you quoted (specifically for children not born in Virginia) that is not how it begins. Its first qualification (which you inexplicably edited out) was actually that “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth ... shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2450158/posts?page=1319#1319
Leaving off the grandfather part:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and
all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act.
It reads:
All white persons born within the territory of the commonwealth.
AND
All who have resided therein.
Two years before the passing of this act.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed
Citizens of This Commonwealth
May 1779Papers 2:476—78
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and
all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate
into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that
they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants
wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or
who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither
without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in
manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be
deemed aliens.
Hey DT check out these posts too. WiggOut is getting outed on this thread.
WiggOut's original post. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=257#257
It gets slammed good by Danae: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=292#292
And Wigg's and Danae's posts get contrasted side by side in the same post here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=302#302
BFLR
You were correct:
“Translated from the French. Volume I: London: Printed for J. Newbery, J. Richardson [et al. ], 1760; Volume II: London: Printed for J. Coote, 1759. Two volumes in one. Quarto (10” x 8”). Contemporary calf, rebacked in period style with raised bands and gilt-stamped title. Moderate rubbing and some scuffing to boards, corners worn, hinges cracked but secure, front free endpaper detached, upper corner clipped from front free endpaper and title page. Volume I title page, with small copperplate vignette, printed in red and black, woodcut head and tail-pieces. Toning to text, faint dampspotting to preliminaries and a few other leaves, internally clean. * First edition in English, Volume I a reissue of Coote’s 1759 edition with a cancel title page. First published in French in Neuchatel with a false London imprint in 1758”
Shaking the dust off an old thread.
Ping to post
Thanks, Danae.
I keep that one tucked away for special occasions!
;)
Can you tell me where you found your excerpt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.