Replies

This is my last reply to you MamaTexan but here is the info you wanted.

English Editions of The Law of Nations

Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.

Source: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2246&chapter=212414&layout=html&Itemid=27

You say: I do find it odd the slip of paper you show not only uses French words in an English translation, but is a piss-poor job of typesetting. Unusual for craftsmanship of the age as books were quite precious.

You say its from the 1760 version, but all I find are the 1797 version which say they’re reprints of the 1758 version.... and they all say natural-born.

(OF COURSE ALL YOU CAN FIND IS THE 1797 VERSION because all prior version dont say NBC and you don’t WANT to find them because then you’d have to face the facts which obviously you don’t want to do. What is it that just doesn’t penetrate your skull?)

Do please provide a link....that isn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth ‘anti birther’ site.

Mama, have you ever read a book from the 1700’s that didn’t look like that? Give me a break. If you want to call the anti-birther posters of that page liars, be my guest. If you show me any translation prior to 1797 that has the words natural born citizen I’ll call them liars as well...Oh, that’s right, you can’t find an edition prior to 1797.

How about this. Show me any FRENCH version of Vattel’s book that contains “Citoyen né naturel” which means Natural born citizen and I’ll come down to Texas and wash your windows.

Since I can’t seem to enclose an image without making every paragraph run together take a look at the next post which is
a copy of the 1787 translation which still doesn’t say Natural Born Citizen. I have to admit those obots sure went out of their way to get these images. If I lived near a class library I’d go check it out myself but I’m assuming that they wouldn’t lie and that it just makes sense to me (AND OBVIOUSLY EVERY JUDGE IN THIS COUNTRY) that the founders went with the commonly known form of citizenship that they lived with for many, many years before the Revolution.