An Open Letter to Helen Tansey, Director of Article II Super PAC, on the Views of Rep. John Bingham and the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.” — US Representative John Bingham, Congressional Debates, 1862

For Helen Tansey:

I was just thinking about your Article II Super PAC.

I was doing some research today into what Representative John Bingham, who is quoted on your web site, had to say about the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.”

I am wondering where you got your information that is quoted on your site.

I am wondering this because this information cherry-picks and twists the words of Mr. Bingham, and makes his words imply things that clearly do not accurately represent Bingham’s views.

You can tell me for sure, but I suspect that your information must have come from either Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo.

I have gone and researched the claims of both of these individuals to determine whether or not they are true. I have looked up and read in context many of the speeches from the historical figures they quote.

Having done so, I have come to the conclusion that not only are their claims not true; Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Apuzzo have so blatantly and repeatedly cherry-picked quotes and twisted words that any objective person might reasonably conclude that Donofrio and Apuzzo are not simply mistaken in their interpretations of the words of such historical figures. One might instead reasonably conclude that they are actually lying.

Let’s take a look at just one of the quotes from Rep. Bingham. Here is the quote as it appears on your web site:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman [sic] can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

Let’s look at Rep. Bingham’s quote in its context, and with other words spoken by him immediately before he said the bit that is quoted on your site.

First, the context: Mr. Bingham was arguing for a bill that would legally emancipate from slavery all persons of African descent in the District of Columbia. This was during the Civil War; and the year was 1862.

There’s an entire speech there, which you can read, but let me back up just a bit into the paragraph that immediately precedes the one your quote is pulled from. Here’s Bingham:

“I undertake to say, by the decision of your Federal tribunals, that women — that all women of this Republic born upon the soil, are citizens of the United States, though neither entitled to vote nor to hold civil office. All the native-born women and children of the land, though not entitled to vote nor eligible to hold office are citizens of the United States within the judiciary act of 1789, and within the Constitution of the United States, and as such are entitled to sue and be sued in your Federal courts, and to plead and to be pleaded therein.”

So far, Bingham has made clear that all women and children born on the soil of the United States are citizens. He has given no exception to this rule. But in those few sentences he did not (yet) use the words “natural born.” Bingham continues:

“The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen’ occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that ‘Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.’ To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship.”

As other commentators do, Mr. Bingham thus divides people into two categories, and only two: “natural born citizens” and (under the “OTHER” provision) those who are naturalized. This is not yet definitive, but it is suggestive. Bingham continues:

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”

So Bingham here pretty much defines the term “natural born citizens.” It consists of “those born within the Republic.” Period.

Not “those born within the Republic of two citizen parents.”

“Those born within the Republic.”

It is also CLEAR that Bingham does not include any kind of two-citizen parent requirement for natural born citizenship. Why? He very clearly states that black people, born on American soil, are natural born citizens. Nothing of parentage is mentioned.

Were the parents of these natural-born-citizen blacks citizens also? If they were born in the United States, they were.

But what about THEIR parents? If you go back far enough, you will soon reach ancestors who were NOT born on US soil, who were imported here from Africa as slaves, and who were indisputably NOT citizens of the United States at all.

They were neither born on US soil, nor were they EVER allowed any naturalization process to make them citizens.

How could the children of slaves, imported from Africa, possibly be natural born citizens when their parents clearly were not — if Bingham’s claim was that two US citizen parents was required to make a natural born citizen?

The claim is IMPOSSIBLE.

And the plain fact is, Rep. Bingham never made such a claim.

The second thing to observe about Bingham’s words is this: He quite perfectly equates “citizen at birth” with “natural born citizen.” In fact, according to Representative Bingham, a “citizen at birth” and a “natural born citizen” are exactly the same thing. Here’s his quote:

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”

These words, from the exact same paragraph that your cherry-picked quote is pulled from, is never quoted on your site. Why? These are Bingham’s words on the matter.

Rep. Bingham continues:

“There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend on complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”

In order to fully understand what Bingham is saying, you have to understand the American situation in the 1860s, and the context of the Congressional debates.

When our Representatives talked about “owing allegiance to no other sovereignty” and “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” they had reference to one thing and that one thing almost exclusively:

“wild” Indians who were part of their own, pretty-much-autonomous separate “nations”on US territory. These generally were not regulated by US laws and did not participate in United States society.

If an Indian killed another Indian, or stole from another Indian, or raped an Indian woman, the US and state governments were not involved in the matter at all. That was a matter for the Indian tribal government to deal with.

These were separate nations.

From the moment of the Founding of our country, all white, non-Indian persons, at least, whatever the citizenship of their parents, who were born on US soil, were natural born citizens. The child of German immigrants, born in Pennsylvania, was a natural born US citizen. The child of Italian immigrants, the child of Irish immigrants, the child of Swedish immigrants — all, if born here, were natural born US citizens.

This rule quite often was not applied to black people, however. Why? Because they were generally considered, from the legal point of view, to be property and not people. There were apparently some exceptions in some of the northern states where even black people born on the soil (again, whether their parents were citizens or not) were considered natural born citizens.

Again, note Rep. Bingham’s words:

“Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”

NOT “no exception regarding natural-born citizens except for Indians AND non-citizens from other lands.”

Just “no exception regarding natural born citizens, except for the Indians.”

That’s it.

Again, Bingham was crystal-clear that black people born on US soil were “citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”

Now I maintain that the longer quote above contains an error in punctuation. That error in punctuation is clear from the plain meaning of Mr. Bingham’s words throughout the speech, and from the words in that sentence itself. I maintain that a comma has clearly been misplaced by the transcriber of the Congressional record. And the misplacement of that comma appears to change the meaning of Bingham’s words. Here’s the quote as it appears in the Globe:

“All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”

That’s not accurate. It is plain that HERE is what Mr. Bingham actually said, as is clear from the entire context of all of his other words.

“All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons, born within the Republic of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”

Do you see the difference? The comma does not belong after “Republic.” It belongs after “persons.”

You can argue that I am twisting Bingham’s words by moving the comma. I am not. It is clear from all of his other words, that that is where the comma actually belongs.

In addition, the proper placement of the comma is clear from the sentence itself — as the placement of the comma where it was put by the transcriber creates a self-contradiction in the sentence.

Mr. Bingham is talking about two groups of people. The first is “all from other lands.” The second is either “all other persons born within the Republic,” or “all other persons,” depending on where you put the comma.

But “all other persons born within the Republic” (if that’s the correct phrasing) contains within it a statement that the first group of people — “all from other lands” — are also people who are “born within the Republic.”

Since (by definition) not one single member of “all from other lands” can possibly be “born within the Republic,” the second group of people, logically, can’t possibly be “all other persons born within the Republic.”

So the transcriber’s placement of the comma makes the sentence self-contradictory. There’s only one place we can put the comma, where the sentence does not contradict itself.

It’s clear, then, where the comma belongs, and it’s not where the transcriber put it. Let’s read that quote again:

“All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons, born within the Republic of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”

Now this makes sense.

Let’s go on.

Bingham continues to make clear that the ONLY exception he has reference to regarding the general natural born citizen rule is the Indians. He has no reference at all to any exception for non-citizen immigrant parents:

“The reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several Indian tribes were recognized at the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; [sic] and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule.”

Again: the exception is because they have and are under their own, sovereign governments. They are not a part of our society. They are not actually a part of the United States.

I would like to also call your attention to another obvious error in the transcript: in the phrase, “They were treated with as such.” This is in the original, and it highlights the fact that the transcriptionist did not do an entirely, 100% accurate job on recording Bingham’s words. I actually came to the conclusion that the comma in the preceding paragraph had been misplaced by the transcriptionist before I ever even read the erroneous phrase four sentences later. But it is a confirmation of that fact.

Bingham continues:

“I adopt the words of that man whose clear intellect, through a long and laborious life, contributed much that will endure to the jurisprudence of his country — the lamented Chancellor Kent, of New York — who declared that every person of African descent, born in this land, is a citizen of the United States, and although born in a condition of slavery under the laws of any State in which he might be held to service or labor, still he was a citizen of the United States under disabilities.”

We have already heard Bingham say:

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”

He has thus declared black people born in the United States “citizens by birth — natural born citizens.” But does he mean just SOME black people born here are “citizens by birth — natural born citizens?”

Does he exclude from this citizenship by birth, this natural born citizenship, those whose parents were not citizens at the time of their birth? Or is he saying ALL black people born here? Here’s his answer:

“[E]very person of African descent, born in this land, is a citizen of the United States, and although born in a condition of slavery under the laws of any State in which he might be held to service or labor, still he was a citizen of the United States under disabilities.”

EVERY person of African descent, born in this land.

The debate continued, and an objection was raised that the emancipation bill might also introduce political rights for black people — the right to vote and the right to hold office. Mr. Bingham sidestepped that issue, delicate in its day, by saying that women and children were citizens, and they did not have the right to vote or to hold office.

But NOBODY contended, in the entire debate, that Bingham was wrong in asserting that black people, born on US soil, were natural born citizens.

And no one, in the entire debate, ever contended that the children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrant parents were not themselves natural born US citizens.

That is an important point. You ought to reread it.

This has turned into a rather long email. Let’s return to my original point:

The claim that two citizen parents are required to make a natural born citizen is false. It is completely unsupported by the history of the United States from colonial days until now. It is completely unsupported by case law. It is unsupported by reading, in context, the words of those whom Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo quote as being supposedly in support of their arguments. I have given only one example of that. There are many, many more.

You are promoting a false Constitutional theory to the public, under the paradoxical claim of upholding the Constitution.

Because I have reached an absolute conclusion that this theory is false, I would urge you to suspend your promotion of it. You are not thereby upholding the Constitution. You are instead damaging it. You are also harming the political interests of conservatives, by causing people to believe that some of our more attractive candidates, including Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio — who is at the top of everybody’s short list for Vice-President — are not eligible, when in fact they are.

If you would like further information on the falsity of these claims, I am happy to provide further information.

Sincerely,

John Woodman
a lifelong conservative from Springfield, Missouri