Mixing
Was the “natural born citizen†requirement for the President inserted into the US Constitution by Alexander Hamilton's enemies?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Having recently read the biography of Alexander Hamilton, it occurred to me that there is a possibility that the requirement, written into the Constitution, that the President be a "natural born citizen" was inserted by Alexander Hamilton's enemies to prevent him from rising to the office as a hero of the revolution, despite his West Indies roots? I've seen little discussion in the Federalist papers regarding the intent of the founders.
united-states us-constitution hamilton
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Having recently read the biography of Alexander Hamilton, it occurred to me that there is a possibility that the requirement, written into the Constitution, that the President be a "natural born citizen" was inserted by Alexander Hamilton's enemies to prevent him from rising to the office as a hero of the revolution, despite his West Indies roots? I've seen little discussion in the Federalist papers regarding the intent of the founders.
united-states us-constitution hamilton
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
1
What research have you done? What do Wikipedia and Google say? Isn't the question explicitly addressed in that biography? (please cite biography to prove me wrong).
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
I would caution that The Federalist Papers (largely written by Hamilton, btw) were more a work of mass marketing in favor of the freshly-minted Constitution than an impartial historical record of the actual primary rationale behind things. Sometimes, how things were being sold when people were voting on them is exactly what you'd like to learn (eg: if you are a legal professional doing research). However, if you want the real historical reason, they can sometimes be (intentionally) misleading.
– T.E.D.♦
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Having recently read the biography of Alexander Hamilton, it occurred to me that there is a possibility that the requirement, written into the Constitution, that the President be a "natural born citizen" was inserted by Alexander Hamilton's enemies to prevent him from rising to the office as a hero of the revolution, despite his West Indies roots? I've seen little discussion in the Federalist papers regarding the intent of the founders.
united-states us-constitution hamilton
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
Having recently read the biography of Alexander Hamilton, it occurred to me that there is a possibility that the requirement, written into the Constitution, that the President be a "natural born citizen" was inserted by Alexander Hamilton's enemies to prevent him from rising to the office as a hero of the revolution, despite his West Indies roots? I've seen little discussion in the Federalist papers regarding the intent of the founders.
united-states us-constitution hamilton
united-states us-constitution hamilton
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
edited 1 hour ago
Mark C. Wallace♦
22.6k871108
22.6k871108
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
asked 1 hour ago
Bruce James
3,11011845
3,11011845
1
What research have you done? What do Wikipedia and Google say? Isn't the question explicitly addressed in that biography? (please cite biography to prove me wrong).
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
I would caution that The Federalist Papers (largely written by Hamilton, btw) were more a work of mass marketing in favor of the freshly-minted Constitution than an impartial historical record of the actual primary rationale behind things. Sometimes, how things were being sold when people were voting on them is exactly what you'd like to learn (eg: if you are a legal professional doing research). However, if you want the real historical reason, they can sometimes be (intentionally) misleading.
– T.E.D.♦
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
What research have you done? What do Wikipedia and Google say? Isn't the question explicitly addressed in that biography? (please cite biography to prove me wrong).
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
I would caution that The Federalist Papers (largely written by Hamilton, btw) were more a work of mass marketing in favor of the freshly-minted Constitution than an impartial historical record of the actual primary rationale behind things. Sometimes, how things were being sold when people were voting on them is exactly what you'd like to learn (eg: if you are a legal professional doing research). However, if you want the real historical reason, they can sometimes be (intentionally) misleading.
– T.E.D.♦
5 mins ago
1
1
What research have you done? What do Wikipedia and Google say? Isn't the question explicitly addressed in that biography? (please cite biography to prove me wrong).
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
What research have you done? What do Wikipedia and Google say? Isn't the question explicitly addressed in that biography? (please cite biography to prove me wrong).
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
I would caution that The Federalist Papers (largely written by Hamilton, btw) were more a work of mass marketing in favor of the freshly-minted Constitution than an impartial historical record of the actual primary rationale behind things. Sometimes, how things were being sold when people were voting on them is exactly what you'd like to learn (eg: if you are a legal professional doing research). However, if you want the real historical reason, they can sometimes be (intentionally) misleading.
– T.E.D.♦
5 mins ago
I would caution that The Federalist Papers (largely written by Hamilton, btw) were more a work of mass marketing in favor of the freshly-minted Constitution than an impartial historical record of the actual primary rationale behind things. Sometimes, how things were being sold when people were voting on them is exactly what you'd like to learn (eg: if you are a legal professional doing research). However, if you want the real historical reason, they can sometimes be (intentionally) misleading.
– T.E.D.♦
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
No, because it wouldn't have had any effect. The relevant clause reads "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." Hamilton would have been a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
2
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
First off, it should be mentioned that the provision would not have excluded Hamilton at any rate, since it explicitly does not apply to anyone who was a US citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. That, in and of itself, does not of course mean that his enemies weren't the ones who pushed for its inclusion, just that if they were then they did not do so with an eye towards excluding Hamilton (unless, of course, they were just really stupid).
With that said, it is worth noting that Hamilton himself had included such a requirement in a draft proposal he submitted to the Constitutional Convention. The committee that was responsible for the proposal that eventually did make it in to the adopted Constitution indeed included some people who disagreed with Hamilton's preference for an expansive, powerful central government (most notably George Mason and especially Elbridge Gerry) and so could perhaps be called "enemies," but even those disagreements did not necessarily expand to personal enmity (Gerry would later support Hamilton's central-banking plan, for example).
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
No, because it wouldn't have had any effect. The relevant clause reads "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." Hamilton would have been a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
2
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
No, because it wouldn't have had any effect. The relevant clause reads "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." Hamilton would have been a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
2
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
No, because it wouldn't have had any effect. The relevant clause reads "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." Hamilton would have been a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
No, because it wouldn't have had any effect. The relevant clause reads "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." Hamilton would have been a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted.
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
answered 1 hour ago
jamesqf
797168
797168
2
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
2
2
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
Not only that, but it looks like this particular bit was in fact proposed by Alexander Hamilton. I suppose this might qualify, if you're one of those people who hold the opinion that the man was his own worst enemy. But more likely it was specifically written that way by Hamilton to ensure that he was eligible.
– T.E.D.♦
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
First off, it should be mentioned that the provision would not have excluded Hamilton at any rate, since it explicitly does not apply to anyone who was a US citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. That, in and of itself, does not of course mean that his enemies weren't the ones who pushed for its inclusion, just that if they were then they did not do so with an eye towards excluding Hamilton (unless, of course, they were just really stupid).
With that said, it is worth noting that Hamilton himself had included such a requirement in a draft proposal he submitted to the Constitutional Convention. The committee that was responsible for the proposal that eventually did make it in to the adopted Constitution indeed included some people who disagreed with Hamilton's preference for an expansive, powerful central government (most notably George Mason and especially Elbridge Gerry) and so could perhaps be called "enemies," but even those disagreements did not necessarily expand to personal enmity (Gerry would later support Hamilton's central-banking plan, for example).
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
First off, it should be mentioned that the provision would not have excluded Hamilton at any rate, since it explicitly does not apply to anyone who was a US citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. That, in and of itself, does not of course mean that his enemies weren't the ones who pushed for its inclusion, just that if they were then they did not do so with an eye towards excluding Hamilton (unless, of course, they were just really stupid).
With that said, it is worth noting that Hamilton himself had included such a requirement in a draft proposal he submitted to the Constitutional Convention. The committee that was responsible for the proposal that eventually did make it in to the adopted Constitution indeed included some people who disagreed with Hamilton's preference for an expansive, powerful central government (most notably George Mason and especially Elbridge Gerry) and so could perhaps be called "enemies," but even those disagreements did not necessarily expand to personal enmity (Gerry would later support Hamilton's central-banking plan, for example).
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
First off, it should be mentioned that the provision would not have excluded Hamilton at any rate, since it explicitly does not apply to anyone who was a US citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. That, in and of itself, does not of course mean that his enemies weren't the ones who pushed for its inclusion, just that if they were then they did not do so with an eye towards excluding Hamilton (unless, of course, they were just really stupid).
With that said, it is worth noting that Hamilton himself had included such a requirement in a draft proposal he submitted to the Constitutional Convention. The committee that was responsible for the proposal that eventually did make it in to the adopted Constitution indeed included some people who disagreed with Hamilton's preference for an expansive, powerful central government (most notably George Mason and especially Elbridge Gerry) and so could perhaps be called "enemies," but even those disagreements did not necessarily expand to personal enmity (Gerry would later support Hamilton's central-banking plan, for example).
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
First off, it should be mentioned that the provision would not have excluded Hamilton at any rate, since it explicitly does not apply to anyone who was a US citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. That, in and of itself, does not of course mean that his enemies weren't the ones who pushed for its inclusion, just that if they were then they did not do so with an eye towards excluding Hamilton (unless, of course, they were just really stupid).
With that said, it is worth noting that Hamilton himself had included such a requirement in a draft proposal he submitted to the Constitutional Convention. The committee that was responsible for the proposal that eventually did make it in to the adopted Constitution indeed included some people who disagreed with Hamilton's preference for an expansive, powerful central government (most notably George Mason and especially Elbridge Gerry) and so could perhaps be called "enemies," but even those disagreements did not necessarily expand to personal enmity (Gerry would later support Hamilton's central-banking plan, for example).
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
answered 14 mins ago
Kurt Weber
212
212
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Kurt Weber is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48876%2fwas-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement-for-the-president-inserted-into-the-u%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
What research have you done? What do Wikipedia and Google say? Isn't the question explicitly addressed in that biography? (please cite biography to prove me wrong).
– Mark C. Wallace♦
1 hour ago
I would caution that The Federalist Papers (largely written by Hamilton, btw) were more a work of mass marketing in favor of the freshly-minted Constitution than an impartial historical record of the actual primary rationale behind things. Sometimes, how things were being sold when people were voting on them is exactly what you'd like to learn (eg: if you are a legal professional doing research). However, if you want the real historical reason, they can sometimes be (intentionally) misleading.
– T.E.D.♦
5 mins ago