I know Mr. Rodgers is aware of this but it may be worth sharing it with RegulatorCountry and Tau Food in case they are not.
Between 1785 and 1791 the Massachusetts legislature passed a series of naturalization acts (prior to the Constitution and for a period after it was adopted, states continued to naturalize citizens). These Massachusetts acts all have the same basic format and language. And they all did the same thing - they naturalized foreigners as citizens of Massachusetts. What’s interesting about them is their language. They start by saying that so-and-so has taken the required oath and fullfilled the requirements and is therefore deemed to be a “natural born” - and that’s where it gets interesting because sometimes they “citizen” and sometimes they say “subject”.
Here are several examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
I actually started to add that to my list of indications from early America as to what natural born citizen means.
I think I will.
Actually, they say: and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges OF natural born citizens.
It doesn't say they ARE natural born citizens
That’s amazing. The fact that some were creating “natural born citizens” makes you wonder how crystal clear all this might have been back then.
I’ll suggest that looking into the backgrounds of the authors of these various Acts would be informative, 4Zoltan. This has invariably been the case whenever a jarring, anachronistic use of the term “subject” has arisen past nationhood, to the point that even some fairly early observers took note and attributed base motives and a desire to confuse. Much as today, come to think of it.