The only time Bayard's claim that "It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country." was true was the period between the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.
If Bayard's claim were true the First Congress would never have passed the 1790 Act.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 (emphasis added)The 1790 Act was repealed by the 1795 ActBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Naturalization Act 1795 (emphasis added)Sec 3
And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States
Surely the Father of the Constitution James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Pierce Butler, and President George Washington knew what they were doing when they passed the 1790 Act.
Maybe they had a big party and all got roaring drunk. In the House, AND in the Senate, and in the White House with President Washington. And maybe someone said, "Hey! I know what. Lissen t' thish. Lesh all pass some stupid-ash bill where we don't know wha' the 'ell we're talkin' 'bout."
How about this: President George Washington, and Father of the Constitution James Madison, and all together 40% of the men who signed the Constitution knew exactly what they were talking about when they passed that Act.
Bayard is incorrect.
Marshall, Story and Kent all lent their approval to Bayard's "Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."
What exactly did they approve? From the book's "Advertisement":
...their approbation of the plan of the work, and the manner of its execution; and express their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended.What is the plan of the work? What is the "object for which it was intended"?
To answer those questions turn to the Preface.
What is "the plan of the work"
And indeed the book does closely follow the arrangement of the Constitution
| Chapter | Title | Constitution |
| I | The Preamble | Preamble |
| II | The Legislature | Art. I |
| III | Of The House of Representatives | Art. I § 2 |
| IV | The Senate | Art. I § 3 |
| V | The Powers of Congress | Art. I § 8 |
| VI | Limitations of the Powers of Congress | Art. I § 9 |
| VII | Limitations of the Powers of the Individual States | Art. I § 10 |
| VIII | The Executive | Art. II |
| IX | The Powers and Duties of the Executive | Art. II § 2 |
| X | The Judiciary | Art. III |
| XI | Miscellaneous Subjects | Art. IV, VI |
| XII | The Amendments | Amend. I - X |
What is the "object for which it was intended"?
The book's object is to be a short and simple exposition for young persons so they may have "a more general acquaintance with the Constitution."
It is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. They are not co-authors or proofreaders and, with the exception of Marshall, there is nothing to indicate they read the book.
Marshall does appear to have read the book, although at what level of scrutinty we do not know. His health began declining in 1832 and he died in 1835. As his reading of the book was during his failing health his attention may not have been as focused as during his prime.
In any event, even if each of these gentleman closely scutinized the book it is not law, nor is it presented as an authoritative book useful for "professional men"
From the Preface:
In compiling it, the author has relied principally, upon the Federalist, the Commentaries of Chancellor Kent, the Treatises of Mr. Rawle, and Mr. Sergeant, and the Reports of the Decisions of the Supreme Court.Neither the Federalist nor the Supreme Court define "natural born citizen", Rawle has been previously discussed here as has Kent. I am not familiar with Sergeant (presumably Nathaniel Sargeant of the Massachusetts Supreme Court). Bayard offers "natural born citizen" without any citing any authority, it is his opinion and it is an obvious factual error.
The main point is that it is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. Rather, they lauded the plan and object of the book.
The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”?
Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, those born within the United States - are “natural born citizens”?
Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Why? Was it necessary that they be “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to be “natural born citizens”?
Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are “natural born citizens”.
I. Bayard is contrary to law.
II. To attempt to overcome Bayard's lack of credibility on this point you overstate the comments of Marshall, Story and Kent.
III. The First Congress, many members of which were Framers, tell us who is a "natural born citizen"