Jefferson’s
Rebels
Published
“A little rebellion now and then…is a
medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter
to James Madison, 1787, 3rd U.S. President (1743 -
1826)
Bloggers on UndeadRevolution.Wordpress.com now state they have found documentation from the
revolutionary era that proves the framers of our Constitution used Vattel’s
writings to define the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” — a hotly
debated issue. UR is a group of university historians–not your average blogger,
so their research is important. They plan to publish the results of their
research either in a professional journal or perhaps a book.
When the link opens, scroll down to the
June 18, 2010 comment. If you haven’t already read the column from start to
finish, this would be a good time to do so. If you search Jefferson’s Rebels,
you will find numerous articles on this topic. Use either the keywords “vattel”
and/or “natural born citizen.”
UR
folks…
Any progress on locating additional historical documents that
show the “natural born citizen” to Vattel link?
Allegedly, there exists some Adam’s
family, and Lee family papers that have not been seen by the general public,
that prove the framers got their definition and understanding of a natural born
citizen from Vattel’s work.
When might they, or other documents,
be published?
The country is devolving by the day
now.
We need relief from the usurper and
his cronies.
Yep. We have the definitive proof of the
Vattel link to the Constitution straight from historical
documentation.
Via Undead Revolution
These Are The
Times That Try Mens Souls
The time may ere long arrive when
the minds of men will be prepared to make an effort to recover the Constitution,
but the many cannot now be brought to make a stand for its preservation. We must
wait a while.
N.Y. Historical Society’s
Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III,
1873
I have the Honor to be with great respect Sir, Your Most Humble
and Obedient Servant. – George Washington
OVERVIEW
There were three
types of citizens at the time of the signing of the
Constitution:
1. Those who
pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of
Independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects
became citizens of a sovereign America.
2. The children,
their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born
citizens of the new nation.
3. A person
naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and
renunciation to any former allegiance.
We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let
us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national
objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us
no longer act a farce by pretending to
it.
George Washington, letter to James Madison, November 30,
1785
INTRODUCTION
The scope of this writing is to focus on
the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States as it
pertains to the clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No
person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.
This study explores the historical,
legislative and judicial areas for factual evidence that defines the intent
behind the clause. While it by no means gives the bulk of the research justice,
for that would require a book, it should provide a sufficient template that
destroys the theory that the definition was allegedly an ambiguous or an
otherwise unanswerable question. Breaking it down into the three aforementioned
parts, we are able to see a contiguous pattern that is easily digestable using
the credibility of those who were living and present during those eras. It is
crucial to set the stage during the American Revolution, for we find that it was
the experience drawn from this event that provides the foundation from which
everything else is drawn that embodies the spirit of the Constitution
itself.
In GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS,
165 U.S. 150 (1897), the court advocated, as well as over 100 other courts who
similarly advised, to look to this period for direction when
applicable:
“… and
while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for
such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of
which the former [The Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the
spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence.”
So we start at this point in history and
provide a historical review of the events that shed light on the intellect that
manifests itself later into the Constitution and subsequent legislation and
jurisprudence.
HISTORICAL
We pick up events after the French and
Indian War1 where King George III attempted to tax the colonists in
an effort to recoup his losses incurred by the war. This event also gave the
king the excuse he needed to gain control over the now flourishing and
prosperous States. America was no longer a band of menial pioneers who struggled
through long winters and devastating plagues with little to no help from the
distant Crown. It was now a fully functional, vast community of largely,
self-sufficient States, rich in resources with the potential of becoming more
powerful and independent by the day. The king seized the post-war opportunity to
call for reining in that power and wealth for the benefit of the mother country.
The colonists objected, having no representation in Parliament; a violation of
the often ignored, yet existing, constitution2 between them. By 1775,
the conflict from a series of levies by Parliament and resistance by the
colonists had come to a head. Shocking intelligence revealed that the king was
actually intending to utilize the Hessians (Germans) as mercenaries in
conjunction with his own army to crush the Americans by force. The plan
threatened imminent doom for America as they knew it. Despite the colonists
hopes, the long-awaited resolution was not to come and an Act was passed by
Parliament throwing them out of the king’s protection. Dr. David
Ramsay3, notable historian, physician, one in service to the
Continental Congress and president in the Senate, wrote:
Though new weight was daily thrown into the scale, in which the
advantages of independence were weighed, yet it did not preponderate till about
that time in 1776, when intelligence reached the colonists of the act of
parliament passed in December 1775, for throwing them out of British protection,
and of hiring foreign troops to assist in effecting their conquest.
4
The colonists were now faced with the
prospect of seeking aid themselves or facing up to the possibility of being
crushed by an onslaught that was stacked in Great Britain’s favor. Where that
aid might materialize from was not evident. What was clear was that the colonial
States together with England, had just gotten over participating against the
French in a seven-year long conflict that spanned throughout Europe. While
tensions with France weren’t as nearly as bad as that of England, it certainly
wasn’t optimal or trusting. In addition, there were many other obstacles to
overcome. Word of the king’s plan needed to be conveyed to the people. They
needed to arrive at a decision for independence and then declare it. This was so
that, in the eyes of the law of nations, their sovereignty would demand
recognition. Otherwise, they would be viewed as a people engaged in a civil war
that other nations would be loathe to get involved in. Dr. Ramsay further
explains,
While the public mind was balancing on this eventful subject,
several writers placed the advantages of independence in various points of view.
Among these Thomas Paine in a pamphlet, under the signature of Common
Sense, held the most distinguished rank.
5
An important impact from Thomas Paine’s
Common Sense was the suggestion that no government could be instituted with the
blessing from Heaven, that revealed,
…
convincing proof, that Great-Britain had thrown them out of her protection, had
engaged foreign mercenaries to make war upon them, and seriously designed to
compel their unconditional submission to her unlimited power. It found the
colonists most thoroughly alarmed for their liberties, and disposed to do and
suffer any thing that promised their establishment.
6
With the realization of Great Britain’s
plan against the people and pondering the oppressive ramifications of
subjugating themselves to it, the colonists declared their independence. On that
day, July 4, 1776, millions pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred
honor for the sake of liberty and freedom and rejected “lusting after kings” to
rule and provide over them; embracing republican ideas instead. These millions
of former British subjects became the first citizens of a sovereign America and
are included in the Constitution as being a party to it at the time of its
execution. This was the cornerstone ideology of the new nation to come and
deserves clarification in the history books; that what was on the line was far
more serious than just taxation without representation. It was about a power
grab at its core.
However the conviction of the colonists
may be measured, it was still no match for the sheer logistical numbers of the
British troops and their mercenaries. France was keenly aware that it was in her
best interests to support the independence of the United States rather than have
England continue to dominate. Dr. Ramsay records the pivotal
events:
The news of the capitulation of Saratoga reached
France, very early in December, 1777. The American deputies took that
opportunity to press for an acceptance of the treaty, which had been under
consideration for the preceding twelve months. The capture of Burgoyne’s army
convinced the French, that the opposition of the Americans to Great Britain was
not the work of a few men who had got power in their hands, but of the great
body of the people, and was like to be finally
successful.7
It
was therefore determined to take them by the hand, and publicly to espouse their
cause. The commissioners of Congress were informed by Mr. Gerard one of the
secretaries of the King’s council of State, that it was decided to acknowledge
the independence of the United States and to make a treaty with them. That in
the treaty no advantage would be taken of their situation to obtain terms which,
otherwise, it would not be convenient for them to agree to.
…
That his
most Christian Majesty was fixed in his determination not only to acknowledge,
but to support, their independence. That in doing this he might probably soon be
engaged in a war, yet he should not expect any compensation from the United
States on that account, nor was it pretended that he acted wholly for their
sakes, since besides his real good will to them, it was manifestly the interest
of France, that the power of England should be diminished, by the separation of
the colonies from its government.
Marquis de la Fayette8, a
French soldier who was enamored with the American cause and despite the order
for his arrest on account of it, had already joined the Revolution in June of
1777 of his own accord. He was among the first to receive news of a treaty and
alliance between France and America signed on February 6, 1778. However, the
caliber of dedication in comparison to de la Fayette’s character was striking.
These French counterparts to the cause varied from obliged volunteers, to
demanding stipulations for pay, then advanced pay and ultimately rank within
Washington’s army. When the latter was assumed, a morale disturbance and upset
was felt among the American troops. The situation was summed up best by George
Washington’s numerous letters addressing the subject
directly:
“You are
not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a
wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington,
Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July,
1775.
Here we see the first seeds of nativity,
connections to the country and residency as being the fundamental criteria of
fidelity. Then later, adding to the list, Washington’s preference for natives
who own property. In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in
1777, in a publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following
passage occurs: –
“You
will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have
them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my
preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction
between them and foreigners.”
The same is promulgated in Washington’s
subsequent General Orders, where we see Washington raise the bar again to
include verification. In Commander Washington’s General Orders of July 7, 1775
given at Head Quarters, Cambridge by Horatio Gates, Adj. General to
Parole-Dorchester, Countersign-Exeter:
“The General has great Reason; and is highly
displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have
placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not
acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed
to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife,
or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be
consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at
their peril.” - 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day.
9
Sound reasoning existed behind what may
seem a harsh edict at first glance to those without any military experience.
However, the explanation is contained in Washington’s many pleas to Congress
expressing what was being experienced on the battlefield as justification for
his actions. There was a morale problem and there was an abuse problem affecting
the operations of Washington’s military. The problem was so severe, the tone was
reflected in literally hundreds of letters, speeches and essays, all the way
through to his infamous Farewell Address.10 Some of his direct
misgivings are noted in the following examples.
Regarding the morale problem noted on May
7th, 1777 at Morristown:
“Dear
Sir: I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects I am to do with the
many foreigners that have at different times been promoted to the rank of
field-officers, and by their last resolve two of that of colonels? These men
have no attachment for the country further than interest binds them. Our
officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have toiled in the service and
have sustained many losses, to have strangers put over them, whose merit perhaps
is not equal to their own, but who effrontery will take no denial. It is by the
zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must be supported, and not by
the few hungry adventurers. I am, &c., GEO.
WASHINGTON.”
Regarding the frustration, future
reflections and regret; a letter to Gouverneur Morris, Esq., White Plains, July
24th, 1778:
“Dear
Sir: The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of very great
importance to the well-being of these states, much more so than will appear at
first sight – I mean the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high
rank and trust in our service.
The
lavish manner in which rank has hitherto be bestowed on these gentlemen, will
certainly be productive of one or the other of these two evils, either to make
us despicable in the eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon
us like a torrent, and adding to our present burden. But it is neither the
expense nor the trouble of them I most dread; there is an evil more extensive in
its nature and fatal in its consequence to be apprehended, and that is, the
driving of all our officers out of the service, and throwing not only our own
army, but our military councils, entirely into the hands of foreigners.
…
The
expediency and policy of the measure remains to be considered, and whether it is
consistent with justice or prudence to promote these military fortune-hunters at
the hazard of our army. Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his
inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be productive of much
discontent. In a word, although I think the Baron an excellent officer, I do
most devoutly wish – that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the
Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon very different principles from those which
govern the rest.
Adieu. I
am, most sincerely yours, GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
Regarding the abusive greed fostered by a
lack of personal resolve. A letter of George Washington to Gouverneur Morris.
White Plains, 24th July, 1778
“…
The officers, my dear sir, on whom you most depend for the defence of this
cause, distinguished by length of service, their connections, property, and, in
behalf of many, I may add, military merit, will not submit, much if any longer,
to the unnatural promotion of men over them, who have nothing more than a little
plausibility, unbounded pride and amibition, and a perseverance in application
not to be resisted but by uncommon firmness, to support their pretensions; men,
who, in the first instance, tell you they wish for nothing more than the honor
of serving in so glorious a cause as volunteers, the next day solicit rank
without pay, the day following want money advanced to them, and in the course of
a week want further promotion, and are not satisfied with any thing you can do
for them.” 11
With the success and security of the
country in mind, it became incumbent and necessary to review this portion of
history that lays down the initial rules and conditions required from the
direction of the first Commanding Officer. It encapsulates how fidelity was
identified, measured and enforced in order to secure the objectives of liberty
and freedom. The evidence begins with the Revolution as it illustrates the
evolved requirements in leadership that take shape as a matter of course and
experience. It illuminates the criteria set in choosing those worthy and
trusting of rank; that being: A native-born American, who has verifiable
connections and family who reside and hold property within the
country.
This sets the stage for the legislative
review of the second section which further developes this criteria in the same
vein as George Washington, the “father genius” of the Revolution and framer of
the Constitution of the United States of America.
“His last scene comported with the
whole tenor of his life. Although in extreme pain, not a sigh, not a groan
escaped him; and with undisturbed serenity he closed his well-spent’life. Such
was the man America has lost — such was the man for whom our nation
mourns.
‘Cease, sons of America, lamenting our separation.
Go on and confirm, by your wisdom, the fruits of our joint councils, joint
efforts, and common dangers; reverence religion; diffuse knowledge throughout
your lands; patronize the arts and sciences; let liberty and order be
inseparable companions. Control party spirit, the bane of free government;
observe good faith to, and cultivate peace with, all nations; shut up every
avenue to foreign influence; contract rather than extend national connections;
rely on yourselves only; be Americans in thought, word and deed. Thus will you
give immortality to that union which was the constant object of my terrestrial
labors; thus will you preserve undisturbed, to the latest posterity, the
felicity of a people to me most dear; and thus will you supply (if my happiness
is now ought to you) the only vacancy in the round of pure bliss high Heaven
bestows’.
Methinks I see his august image,
and hear falling from his venerable lips these deep-sinking words“;
–
Recollections of George Washington by
Henry Lee in Washington’s funeral oration before the House of Congress on
December 26, 1799.
… to be continued
-Undead
Revolution
————————————–
1. The French and Indian War (Summary) –
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/frenchindian/summary.html
2. The Magna Carta – http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article04.htm
3. Dr. David Ramsay – Princeton
Short-Biography
http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/ramsay_david.html
4. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the
American
Revolution, vol. 1 [1789] pg. 237 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/814
5. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, February
14, 1776, Philadelphia: W. & T. BRADFORD, 1776; and New York: Bartleby.com,
1999 – http://www.bartleby.com/133/index.html
6. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the
American Revolution, vol. 1 [1789] pg. 237 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/814
7. Dr. David Ramsay, The History of the
American Revolution, vol. 2 [1789] pgs. 44-45
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/547
8. Marquis De Lafayette –
http://www.marquisdelafayette.net
9. Image – Commander Washington’s General
Orders dated July 7, 1775: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw3&fileName=mgw3g/gwpage001.db&recNum=10
10. Washington’s Farewell Address –
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
11. The Rover, Vol. 3, Edited by Seba
Smith, New York, S.B. Dean & Co. 1844, pg. 364
Tags:
Constitutional
Backgrounders,
general, natural born citizen //
Send to a Friend
Permalink
Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All those with business before the court
of public opinion will draw near. A bill of indictment has been issued for
Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America. It is a call
for justice from the people of the United States who allege that he is engaged
in the destruction of their nation.
I've been thinking and thinking about the way President Barack Obama
has been taking care of our country. And my emotional reaction has been one of
sadness, anger, shock, disgust, and dismay.
However, ever since the Obamas moved into the White House, we've
heard — with incessant racial-mindedness — something much different. Americans
of all nationalities and ethnicities on the conservative side are not going to
tolerate or embrace the progressives' downtrodden, race-baiting lies being
tossed out in the public arena. We're in touch with the heart of America. The
radical liberals are not. 
Marxists posing as Christians
Deceptive faith
Week after week, we see disaster looming on the horizon. America's
president can't be counted on to tackle an emergency such as the BP oil spill.
It's now become a scandalous nightmare for both man and animal.
President Obama is one of the most articulate we have had
in that office. His ability to deliver a speech or a short talk such as his
first from the Oval Office Tuesday evening is impressive. He knows how to
deliver an address.
Executive Order Gives Interagency Council Control over American Lives
LTC Lakin faces lengthy prison term for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan
And the proven evidence for usurpation grows as the American People are ignored. What a disgraceful country we live in.