A
1781 John Jay
Letter about British Subject Mr. Vaughan
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on
BirtherReport.com on February 2, 2015
>>
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02/unearthed-does-this-further-prove.html
<<>>
A
1781 John Jay
Letter to Del Campo about British Subject Mr. Vaughan
John Jay wrote a brief letter on November 3, 1781 to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish court. Jay was writing about an Englishman named Mr. Vaughan who wanted to become a U.S. citizen, and who asked Jay to administer the oath of allegiance. Jay was in Madrid, Spain in 1781 prior to the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by Jay, Franklin and Adams.
The letter to Del Campo indicates that in November of 1781, SIX YEARS before the adoption of the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution, the common law understanding of original birther John Jay and other founders, framers and ratifiers of the constitution about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, and ONLY the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child.
In this case, the citizenship was about the British son, born to a British "subject" father and an American mother (who, by marriage, became a British citizen), who wanted Jay to give him, Mr. John Vaughan, the son, the oath of allegiance to America.
The father was an Englishman, the mother was an American, and their son Mr. Vaughan was considered by John Jay, in 1781, to be ONLY an Englishman who did NOT have dual citizenship. Mr. Vaughan was an Englishman, the son of an Englishman, which made them both subject to the English monarch, and the son of an American mother who was, by marriage, "naturalized" in a sense as a British subject/citizen.
John Jay wrote a brief letter on November 3, 1781 to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish court. Jay was writing about an Englishman named Mr. Vaughan who wanted to become a U.S. citizen, and who asked Jay to administer the oath of allegiance. Jay was in Madrid, Spain in 1781 prior to the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by Jay, Franklin and Adams.
The letter to Del Campo indicates that in November of 1781, SIX YEARS before the adoption of the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution, the common law understanding of original birther John Jay and other founders, framers and ratifiers of the constitution about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, and ONLY the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child.
In this case, the citizenship was about the British son, born to a British "subject" father and an American mother (who, by marriage, became a British citizen), who wanted Jay to give him, Mr. John Vaughan, the son, the oath of allegiance to America.
The father was an Englishman, the mother was an American, and their son Mr. Vaughan was considered by John Jay, in 1781, to be ONLY an Englishman who did NOT have dual citizenship. Mr. Vaughan was an Englishman, the son of an Englishman, which made them both subject to the English monarch, and the son of an American mother who was, by marriage, "naturalized" in a sense as a British subject/citizen.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Jay To Del Campo*
Madrid, November 3, 1781.
Sir:
I have received the letter you did me the honour to write on the 2d instant.
As Mr. [John] Vaughan was favored last spring at Aranjuez with a passport from his Excellency the Count de Florida to go to and reside at Toledo, I omitted to enumerate in my last the circumstances requested in your letter.
The gentleman’s father is an Englishman, his mother is an American; he himself was born I think in England; he means to become a citizen of and to settle in one of the United States, and is by profession a merchant. He has been [...] he brought with him a warm recommendation from Dr. Franklin; [...] He has offered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States before me. [...]
This is a short but very candid account of what I know of this gentleman. [...]
Your most obedient and most humble servant,
John Jay
16th November, 1781
Madrid,
Florida Blanca
* See the original letter here: ( http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html )
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Even
in 1781 my new best friend John Jay was affirming that ONLY the
citizenship of the father determined the citizenship of the wife, AND
the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the
child.
BOTH parents.
The "unity of citizenship and allegiance"—what a 1700s concept that is still applicable to the 2000s because singular U.S. citizenship was the "original genesis original intent" of John Jay and the original intent was that the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was to be perpetual for the posterity of the new nation, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.
BOTH parents.
If the Democratic Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the Repbulican - Independent - Libertarian - Anarchist "MY GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers insist that original birther John Jay was NOT obvious in saying by implicature that a "natural born Citizen" had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born, well, just how do the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers know THAT? If Jay was NOT obvious how do the neo-birthers know that John Jay implied dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
BOTH parents.
The "unity of citizenship and allegiance"—what a 1700s concept that is still applicable to the 2000s because singular U.S. citizenship was the "original genesis original intent" of John Jay and the original intent was that the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was to be perpetual for the posterity of the new nation, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.
BOTH parents.
If the Democratic Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the Repbulican - Independent - Libertarian - Anarchist "MY GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers insist that original birther John Jay was NOT obvious in saying by implicature that a "natural born Citizen" had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born, well, just how do the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers know THAT? If Jay was NOT obvious how do the neo-birthers know that John Jay implied dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jay's
letter was written to Del Campo in November 3, 1781, about five
months after Jay wrote to Ben Franklin about Mr. Vaughan on May 31,
1781*.
* On the Franklin Papers page, click on the date "Thu, May 31, 1781" to read the letter to Franklin from Jay.
>> http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp?ssn=001-66-0009
* On the Franklin Papers page, click on the date "Thu, May 31, 1781" to read the letter to Franklin from Jay.
>> http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp?ssn=001-66-0009
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr.
Vaughan was born in England prior to 1776 so at the time of his birth
both of his parents were British subjects. Is there any evidence he
travel to the US before the Jay letter or supported the Revolution?
If not he would need to go thru naturalization by taking the oath.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here
is my response –
The
point...
Good question William Rawle.
Jay identified Mr. Vaughan in 1781 as being only a singular British subject, only an Englishman, not having dual allegiance, British and American, even though he was born to a British subject and an American mother.
1776 was not a factor in Jay's writing that Mr. Vaughan wanted to become an American citizen by oath. If Mr. Vaughan had dual allegiance to England and America, Jay would not have written that Mr. Vaughan wanted to be come a "citizen" of America.
According to the common law of that era, the 1700s, it is apparent that Jay wrote as he did in 1781 because he understood the common law application, whether British or French or Spanish or American, the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular citizenship of BOTH married parents determined the singular citizenship of their child. Of course, there are nuances, but that is the essence of the common law of that era.
In 1781, Mr. Vaughan, a British subject was asking for and Jay was only acknowledging that Mr. Vaughan was simply asking to be given the oath of allegiance to America, not naturalization by either adhering to the war of independence since July 4, 1776 or by naturalization under the naturalization acts of the U.S. Congress that was not even a glint in the eyes of the 1787 future founders, framers or ratifiers. Naturalization by statute would not be available until the first naturalization act in 1790.
The point is that John Jay's understanding of the common law of the era, 1781, informed his understanding of the common law of 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington. To original birther John Jay, "born" obviously meant ONLY singular citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil (official U.S. jurisdiction came later with the naturalization acts) ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other before the birth of the child.
If THAT was not Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent," my question to the Obama neo-birthers like Dr. Conspiracy and et al, and Cruz neo-birthers and Rubio neo-birthers who visit here at BirtherReport, well, they should explain coherently what THEY think John Jay's original intent REALLY was in 1787 and why it is applicable today. If Jay was not implying ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, Jay must have been implying dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Right?
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com )
No comments:
Post a Comment