…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience,…
1 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)
The first thing to understand is that, when one decides to argue our side of this issue, in public spaces and on social media in particular, (s)he had better be well-prepared and in accord with the spirit of my epigraph. This is because the other side is always lurking and looking to pounce on what they at least perceive to be (y)our greatest weaknesses. Needless to say, if their perceptions are in fact correct, then they will be successful in painting our arguments as being without merit and foolish, and us as ignorant fools. All of that said, allow me to offer would-be defenders of the initiative a few basic pointers.
A common talking point of our detractors on this issue, and the one they are most likely to resort to at the very outset, or very early on at least, is the idea that:
In the debates around the 14th Amendment, the only persons discussed as not “subject to the jurisdiction” were foreign diplomats and “Indians not taxed.”
This is a demonstrably false assertion, but the problem our side too often runs into when it comes up (and it definitely will come up, so be prepared for it) is our side’s general lack of familiarity with the content of the debates alluded to. I will demonstrate that this argument is false below, but I highly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the debates in their entirety as well.
Now, there is not a strict “written-in-stone” order to this; the order the arguments come at you in is of little or no importance; the important thing is your familiarity with their arguments, and the answers to them. Also, I humbly recommend that you take a defensive posture when arguing our side of the question. Meaning, let (y)our opponents follow their natural impulses to be the aggressors, and let it be their choice whatever angle and in what order best to attack you from and with. If you’re prepared, none of that will matter anyway, as already iterated. The other thing is to resist the urge to anticipate every angle they are going to hit you from, and to answer it all in one long diatribe. Oftentimes, “less is more,” so don’t give away too much information at one time as you answer their objections.
The answer to the assertion above-mentioned is that it is simply not true, and we can begin the process of demonstrating this by quoting Senator Howard of Michigan in his introductory remarks, introducing Section I to the full Senate fresh out of Committee. He said, in part:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Herein lies the wisdom undergirding the “less is more” approach. Not being familiar with the actual contents of the debates themselves in most cases, but more relying on their own circle’s talking points instead, our interlocutors will almost invariably resort to attacking our interpretation of Senator Howard’s statement, saying that his words, “foreigners,” and “aliens,” do not mean what we think they mean, with reasons given. Again, it is important that we allow our opponents to have their say on the matter, before we proceed to deconstruct their narrative.
There are several but equally effective ways of answering these charges, but I will share only one that I use from time to time for brevity’s sake: without citing any sources of my own (i.e. keeping them in reserve for the time being), I will sometimes answer their objections by way of asking them to cite their sources, and patiently awaiting their citations. At this point, they are likely to cite Blackstone, and English Common Law, and that sort of thing. And this is when I will point out that members of the 39th Congress were, well, Americans, and that, as such, they relied heavily on distinctly American definitions of the terms in question. E,g., Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language (more on this later), as well as established American usages, and institutions, etc.
At some point in the discussion, it becomes expedient to “slam dunk” your earlier assertion declaring their continued mistakenness, by the introduction of new (to them) quotation(s) from the debates. Remember, they don’t know these statements are in the debates; they’re relying on, as I said above, the talking points incessantly repeated back and forth within the “academic” circles they fly in. In any case, I will usually cite Senator Trumbull at this point, who said:
The provision is that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to complete jurisdiction thereof.”… What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. (emphasis added)
My approach to this is to let the implications of the contributions of Senators Howard and Trumbull sink in, before I pull out the ultimate “slam dunk,” citing Senator Johnson of Maryland. To wit:
Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power – for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. (emphasis added)
“Parents.” As in the plural. “Who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” Now you know why Obama’s citizenship, “natural born” or otherwise, was always a big issue with the “birther” community. But that’s another matter entirely. Or is it?
I see that I am already running dangerously close to exceeding the minimal word count parameters I have set for myself for one article, and that I cannot possibly finish without far exceeding the upper limit (1,500 words), so I beg your indulgence to allow me a second part. We’ll get into why e.g. Webster’s original dictionary, etc., has an important bearing on the issue in part II, but in the meantime I will leave you with Jefferson’s hostility towards reaching back past the American founding to Blackstone et al, in search of answers to internal disputes:
I fear nothing for our liberty from the assaults of force; but I have seen and felt much, and fear more from English books, English prejudices, English manners, and the apes, the dupes, and designs among our professional crafts. When I look around me for security against these seductions, I find it in the widespread of our Agricultural citizens, in their unsophisticated minds, their independence and their power if called on to crush the Humists of our cities, and to maintain the principles which severed us from England. I see our safety in the extent of our confederacy, and in the probability that in the proportion of that the sound parts will always be sufficient to crush local poisons. In this hope I rest, and tender you the assurance of my esteem and respect.
God save the Southland!
