Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/rawle_wm.html
An ardent abolitionist, Rawle became a member of the Maryland Society promoting abolition in 1792 and then its president in 1818; he also argued against the constitutionality of slavery before the state supreme court in 1805.
So he was lying in a good cause. The Vattel definition was absolutely incompatible with his goals.
Sorry, but that's not what "patriot" means.
A patriot is simply someone who loves and supports his country. And in our immediate context, it's someone who respects our Founding Fathers (hmmm, there's that word again) and our Founding Heritage and supports those.
Which doesn't describe you, since you don't seem to give a fig for our Founding Fathers, our historical heritage, or the laws they set up. Unless, of course, you happen to like them.
The most basic root of the word "patriot" derives from "pater" (father), but that's several stages back.
More immediately it comes from Greek patriṓtēs, meaning "fellow-countryman" or "lineage member."
So, back to the question:
You don't give a fig for what our Founding Fathers or early legal experts, the people who actually knew, said.
So what does that make you?
"from patrios "of one's fathers," patris "fatherland," from pater (genitive patros) "father" (see father (n.));
Sorry, but you have no evidence at all that Rawle “lied” about anything.
In fact, we now have Chief Justice John Marshall on record as agreeing that it doesn’t take both birth in US soil and citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
We have NUMEROUS other authorities from early America who all agreed - and this is EVERY SINGLE REALLY AUTHORITATIVE FROM EARLY AMERICA - ALL agreeing that natural born citizen meant “born a citizen” or “citizen by birth” or “born in the United States.”
You have NOT ONE SINGLE SIGNIFICANT VOICE FROM EARLY AMERICA EVER SAYING THAT THEY RELIED ON VATTEL FOR THE DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP, OR THAT THEY PAID THE SLIGHTEST ATTENTION TO HIS IDEA OF CITIZENSHIP WHATSOEVER.
Produce ONE quote from any authoritative figure saying that we adopted Vattel’s idea.
YOU CAN’T. THE QUOTE DOESN’T EXIST. NOT EVEN ONE.
Produce ONE quote from any authoritative figure saying that “natural born” when applied to “citizen” meant something in any way different from “natural born” when applied to “subject.”
YOU CAN’T. THE QUOTE DOESN’T EXIST. NOT EVEN ONE.
Now there’s a very simple explanation for all of this. (It is, incidentally, the only explanation that fits the facts.)
YOUR THEORY IS COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE BS.
No. You want to know what the problem is?
The problem is that I'm NOT stupid, and I know BS when I see it.
Your second problem is that I'm not willing to go along with Constitutional BS.
Now that wouldn't be a problem for you if you actually cared about the truth and what the Founding Fathers actually said and meant.
But since you only care about promoting a bogus theory, well, anyone who's actually attached to the truth, and to the Founding Fathers, is a real problem for you.
"Patriot" ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN "someone who loves the land of his father." By ANYBODY'S definition.
So who's stupid?
I'll give you a clue.
It's not the person who says things that are correct.
It's the person who says STUPID, UNTRUE STUFF.
And long and often. Like I said. God! You're stupid.
I'm not the one saying stupid, untrue stuff - long and often.
We could take our discussions to any mock court, or any group of history students at any university in the country, and sit before any class of intelligent students, leaning in any direction politically - we could take our discussions to Hillsdale College or Liberty University or Oral Roberts University, or Harvard or Yale, doesn't matter - and have the students and the professors judge who "won" the argument, and I would win. Every single time.
And do you know why?
It's because your claims are BS.
It's that simple.
And I can explain the fallacies in every single argument you've made. All of the dozens of them.
And they ARE fallacies. It's all fallacious arguments. It's all BS.
Surely you must understand that at some level. If you genuinely don't get that, then there is really something off with you psychologically.
Natural-born Subjects, within the King's Dominions, of Alien Ancestors, inheritable as if those through whom they make Title had been natural-born Subjects
Whereas divers Persons borne within the Kings Dominions are disabled to inherite and make their Titles by Descent from their Ancestors by Reason that their Fathers or Mothers or some other Ancestor (by whom they are to derive their Descent) was an Alien and not borne within the Kings Dominions For Remedy whereof Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same. That all and every Person or Persons being the Kings naturall borne Subject or Subjects within any of the Kings Realmes or Dominions shall and may hereafter lawfully inherite and be inheritable as Heire or Heires to any Honnours Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments and make their Pedegrees and Titles by Descent from any of their Ancestors lineall or collaterall although the Father and Mother or Father or Mother or other Ancestor of such Person or Persons by from through or under whom he she or they shall or may make or derive their Title or Pedegree were or was or is or are or shall be borne out of the Kings Allegiance and out of His Majesties Realms and Dominions as freely fully and effectually to all Intents and Purposes as if such Father or Mother or Fathers or Mothers or other Ancestor or Ancestors by from through or under whom he she or they shall or may make or derive their Title or Pedegree had beene naturalized or naturall borne Subject or Subjects within the Kings Dominions Any Law or Custome to the contrary notwithstanding.
George II, 1731
From this book.
The Author "Giles Jacob" was quite the publisher of British legal books.
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.
Well done - thank you.
Never forget, the ‘American Revolution’ was in fact a Civil War of Brits (and others) against Brits (and others). So just why would the creators of the new government permit any Brit (or other) clear access to the pinnacle of our governance?
Rogers v Bellei-
“It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time [when Rev.Stat. § 1993 was under consideration] attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso,”
“the heritable blood of citizenship was thus associated unmistakably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship.”
“Foreign Relations of the United States, Pt. 1, 1873, p. 259.”
Thanks to Ray76.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3017061/posts?page=316#316
Vattel mentioned 34 times, Blackstone mentioned 6 times.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cgY9AAAAIAAJ&q=vattel#v=snippet&q=vattel&f=false
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.