Democrat's Vattel denial

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

 

[BULLDOG]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Where did Vattel sign the Constitution? I looked, and can't find his signature.

 

[jillian]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

nice to know you get your information on the constitution from a blog started by a computer consultant from texas.

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Where did Vattel sign the Constitution? I looked, and can't find his signature.

Why are you in such denial of the truth?

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

nice to know you get your information on the constitution from a blog started by a computer consultant from texas.

Of course that's not where I got my information. And you know that. You are simply being disingenuous because you know I'm right.

So where do you think the term of art "natural born citizen" came from?

Can you name any other law book from the period that uses it?

 

[BULLDOG]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Where did Vattel sign the Constitution? I looked, and can't find his signature.

Why are you in such denial of the truth?

What truth? The truth that you are trying to use material that doesn't matter to prove something that isn't true?

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Where did Vattel sign the Constitution? I looked, and can't find his signature.

Why are you in such denial of the truth?

What truth? The truth that you are trying to use material that doesn't matter to prove something that isn't true?

If it doesn't matter then why did the Democrats use it to justify the adoption of slavery? It's right there in the second link. You probably haven't read it because you choose to remain ignorant.

If it doesn't matter why was it the most requested book at the library in Philadelphia during the constitutional conventions? It certainly seemed to matter to them.

Why did Ben Franklin order another copy from overseas if it didn't matter to him?

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author."

Source

It certainly seems like it mattered to the framers of the US constitution. It mattered a hell of a lot to them.



Now if the term of art "natural born citizen" did not come from Law of nations, where did it come from?

I challenge you name another treatise on law from the enlightenment era that uses that term.

Face it, Obama usurped the presidency. People who choose to remain ignorant of the US Constitution and it's origins voted him into office.

 

[Syriusly]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

 

[Syriusly]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

Where did Vattel sign the Constitution? I looked, and can't find his signature.

Why are you in such denial of the truth?

'the truth'?

Birthers keep thinking that they have found the sekrit Constitution written on the back of the Constitution.

And they don't understand why only the gullible and idiotic dozens agree with them.

Vattel was an important philosopher of the era- very influential in maritime law in the United States- and he never mentioned 'natural born citizen'.

Because he spoke French.

And the interpretation

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Now if the term of art "natural born citizen" did not come from Law of nations, where did it come from?

I challenge you name another treatise on law from the enlightenment era that uses that term.

Face it, Obama usurped the presidency. People who choose to remain ignorant of the US Constitution and it's origins voted him into office.

Vattel never used the term "natural born citizen".

I challenge you to find him using that term.

An English speaker used that term when translating Vattel's works.

Face it- Birthers are idiots who came up with an entirely new interpretation of the United States Constitution just because President Obama was elected.

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

Dude, WTF are you talking about? It was interpreted in the 18th century.

Although I'm sure there are some Republicans who are in denial of the truth just as much as the Democrats. Rafael Cruz and little Marco supporters in particular. The truth shows that neither one of them are eligible to be POTUS. However they are a very small minority as evidenced by the tiny number of delegates they got at the RNC convention last week.

 

[Syriusly]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

Dude, WTF are you talking about? It was interpreted in the 18th century.

Although I'm sure there are some Republicans who are in denial of the truth just as much as the Democrats. Rafael Cruz and little Marco supporters in particular. The truth shows that neither one of them are eligible to be POTUS. However they are a very small minority as evidenced by the tiny number of delegates they got at the RNC convention last week.

Dude- it was interpreted into English after the Constitution was written!

Nobody has agreed with the Birther interpretation except a few deluded Birthers.

 

[Muhammed]

[Q
Now if the term of art "natural born citizen" did not come from Law of nations, where did it come from?

I challenge you name another treatise on law from the enlightenment era that uses that term.

Face it, Obama usurped the presidency. People who choose to remain ignorant of the US Constitution and it's origins voted him into office.

Vattel never used the term "natural born citizen".

I challenge you to find him using that term.

An English speaker used that term when translating Vattel's works.

Face it- Birthers are idiots who came up with an entirely new interpretation of the United States Constitution just because President Obama was elected.

You are just conspiracy theorist in denial of the truth. Of course it had to be translated into English because the US constitution is written in English.

I challenge you name another law book from the enlightenment era that uses the term "natural born citizen".

And I'll be waiting for a link to back up your ridiculous claims.

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

Dude, WTF are you talking about? It was interpreted in the 18th century.

Although I'm sure there are some Republicans who are in denial of the truth just as much as the Democrats. Rafael Cruz and little Marco supporters in particular. The truth shows that neither one of them are eligible to be POTUS. However they are a very small minority as evidenced by the tiny number of delegates they got at the RNC convention last week.

Dude- it was interpreted into English after the Constitution was written!

Nobody has agreed with the Birther interpretation except a few deluded Birthers.

Prove that this has anything to do with "birther". You are in denial of the truth.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Now if the term of art "natural born citizen" did not come from Law of nations, where did it come from?

I challenge you name another treatise on law from the enlightenment era that uses that term.

Face it, Obama usurped the presidency. People who choose to remain ignorant of the US Constitution and it's origins voted him into office.

Vattel never used the term "natural born citizen".

I challenge you to find him using that term.

An English speaker used that term when translating Vattel's works.

Face it- Birthers are idiots who came up with an entirely new interpretation of the United States Constitution just because President Obama was elected.

You are just conspiracy theorist in denial of the truth. Of course it had to be translated into English because the US constitution is written in English.

I challenge you name another law book from the enlightenment era that uses the term "natural born citizen".

And I'll be waiting for a link to back up your ridiculous claims.

I challenge you to find a version of Vattel translated into English using the term 'natural born citizen' prior to the writing of the U.S. Constitution

 

[Syriusly]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

Dude, WTF are you talking about? It was interpreted in the 18th century.

Although I'm sure there are some Republicans who are in denial of the truth just as much as the Democrats. Rafael Cruz and little Marco supporters in particular. The truth shows that neither one of them are eligible to be POTUS. However they are a very small minority as evidenced by the tiny number of delegates they got at the RNC convention last week.

Dude- it was interpreted into English after the Constitution was written!

Nobody has agreed with the Birther interpretation except a few deluded Birthers.

Prove that this has anything to do with "birther". You are in denial of the truth.

Birthers created the entire Vattel theory.

Prior to Birthers- no one was making this bizarre claim.

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

Dude, WTF are you talking about? It was interpreted in the 18th century.

Although I'm sure there are some Republicans who are in denial of the truth just as much as the Democrats. Rafael Cruz and little Marco supporters in particular. The truth shows that neither one of them are eligible to be POTUS. However they are a very small minority as evidenced by the tiny number of delegates they got at the RNC convention last week.

Dude- it was interpreted into English after the Constitution was written!

What makes you think the founding father's needed an interpretation? They were not uneducated buffoons. Why would they be frequently consulting Law of Nations if they needed an interpretation?

You're really grasping at straws, truth denier.

 

[yiostheoy]

In 1441 AD, the first slaves were brought from Africa to Portugal.

By 1552 black African slaves comprised 10% of the population of Lisbon.

By then slaves had been imported into Hispaniola (now called Haiti).

Europeans rarely entered the interior of Africa due to fear of disease and the hostility of native Africans.

Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their war captives or criminals to European buyers.

As of 1778, Europeans were bringing about 52,000 slaves to the Caribbean annually.

The Atlantic slave trade peaked during the latter 1700's due to the Kongo Civil War.

Slavery was popular because of a labor shortage at that time, when land was cheap and European workers were hard to find.

Only 6.45% of all slaves from Africa were imported into British North America. The bulk went to Portuguese, British, Spanish, and French Latin America.

By 1778 the importation of new slaves into the United States was made illegal and the new Republic was on its way to the long and bloody process of emancipation.

Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Muhammed]

Those of us who are knowledgeable of American history and the origins of the US Constitution know that Vattel had a HUGE influence on the US Constitution.

When it is pointed out to Democrats that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constiution comes from Vattel's Law of Nations...

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Source

...They scoff at the notion.

However, when pressed, the Democrats cannot come up with any other enlightenment era treatise on law that uses the term "natural born citizen".

They reject that definition simply because it proves that Obama is not eligible to be president.

Yet the Democrat Court cited Law of Nations to justify the slavery of American citizens in 1918. And consequently the Democrats have been using that decision to justify adopting slavery whenever they feel like it. E.g. WWII, the Korean war, and even as recently as Johnson's Vietnam war.

"A just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

Source

So, for the party of slavery it's OK to cite Law of Nations to justify slavery, but not OK to cite Law of Nations to determine who is eligible to be president.

LOL- 'Democrats'?

What Republicans agree with the Birther's interpretation of Vattel?

Any?

Dude, WTF are you talking about? It was interpreted in the 18th century.

Although I'm sure there are some Republicans who are in denial of the truth just as much as the Democrats. Rafael Cruz and little Marco supporters in particular. The truth shows that neither one of them are eligible to be POTUS. However they are a very small minority as evidenced by the tiny number of delegates they got at the RNC convention last week.

Dude- it was interpreted into English after the Constitution was written!

Nobody has agreed with the Birther interpretation except a few deluded Birthers.

Prove that this has anything to do with "birther". You are in denial of the truth.

Birthers created the entire Vattel theory.

Prior to Birthers- no one was making this bizarre claim.

It was simply common knowledge to those of us who are not ignorant of American history.

Are you seriously trying to claim that Vattel did not have a HUGE influence on the US Constitution? That it's just some vast conspiracy theory? That the "birthers" snuck into the Library of Congress and switched Ben Franklin's letters with really good forgeries?

Got a link to back up any of your claims?

 

[Muhammed]

In 1441 AD, the first slaves were brought from Africa to Portugal.

By 1552 black African slaves comprised 10% of the population of Lisbon.

By then slaves had been imported into Hispaniola (now called Haiti).

Europeans rarely entered the interior of Africa due to fear of disease and the hostility of native Africans.

Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their war captives or criminals to European buyers.

As of 1778, Europeans were bringing about 52,000 slaves to the Caribbean annually.

The Atlantic slave trade peaked during the latter 1700's due to the Kongo Civil War.

Slavery was popular because of a labor shortage at that time, when land was cheap and European workers were hard to find.

Only 6.45% of all slaves from Africa were imported into British North America. The bulk went to Portuguese, British, Spanish, and French Latin America.

By 1778 the importation of new slaves into the United States was made illegal and the new Republic was on its way to the long and bloody process of emancipation.

Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you sure you're in the right thread?