Natural-Born Citizen clause: Obama's not the first

Ever since the controversy over Obama's birthplace first came up two years ago people have claimed that he is the first president or presidential candidate to have his place of birth and natural-born status called into question. This claim is patently false and so I'm posting this thread in the hopes of putting an end to it.

Please note that this thread is not about Obama or his place of birth so let's not turn this into yet another thread about where he was or wasn't born.

Chester A. Arthur, our 21st president, was also accused of being born outside of the US.

Most official references list Arthur as having been born in Fairfield in Franklin County, Vermont on October 5, 1829. However, some time in the 1870s Arthur changed it to 1830 to make himself seem a year younger. His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Lower Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border. There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later.

Source

In an article from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on August 11, 1880, Arthur P. Hinman first made the allegation that Arthur was not a natural-born citizen while Arthur was running for Vice President.

An excerpt from the article:

I have been informed, by good authority, that one William H. Arthur, who was born in the County Antrim, Province of Ulstor, Ireland, came to this country about thirty-five years ago and landed in Canada. From there he went to Franklin County, Vermont, and finally settled as rector of the Baptist Church at Newtonville, near Albany, in this State, where he died on the 27th day of October, 1875.
He was the father of seven children, fiver girls and two boys. The eldest boy was born either in Belfast or Aberdeen, where his mother was visiting at the time and was named Chester A. Arthur, the other son was born in Franklin County, Vermont, or in Canada.

Can this be our Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency? As you seem to be posted on political affairs, will you kindly inform me through the Eagle - for being a Republican voter I do not wish to throw away my vote upon a man who is not eligible to the position on account of birth.
Also the trip recently taken to Canada by Chester A. Arthur with Mr. Dun, of the Mercantile Agency. It looks rather suspicious. It looks like hunting for records.
Yours respectfully,
A. P. Hinman

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, August 11, 1880, Page 2 Column 3 PDF of entire paper

In the response to this letter, the editor references a New York Times article from June 9th, 1879 and states that:

The Times does state that Chester A. Arthur was born in Franklin County, Vermont, in October, 1830

It then goes on to say that if it can be proven that Arthur's parents spent the first years they were married in either Belfast or Aberdeen it would be almost conclusive proof that Arthur was not born in Vermont as claimed. The editor also suggests that there should be people living in Franklin County who can verify if Arthur was born there and that the expect the facts as to his eligibility very soon.

Hinman didn't stop there. He also made it into the New York Times when he was searching for information:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/76cc2650b1d2b86a.png[/atsimg]
New York Times article snippet

After his book "How a British Subject Became President of the United States" was published, there was another article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/7af5ae20e492eaff.png[/atsimg]
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 2nd, 1884, Page 4, Column 1

130 years ago there was debate over whether a Vice President/President was a natural born citizen, and here we are today with people debating the same thing all over again about our current president. When we hear the phrase "history repeats itself", we usually think of wars, natural disasters, etc. We never think of things like this. Yet there it is.

Yep, this is not the first time a president has been questioned over where he was born and Chester Arthur is a prime example of that. Take into mind as well that Fairfield Vermont where he was bornw as a mere 30 miles from the Canadian border so it was possible, but no evidence of him being born off US soil was found, his opponents could not gather anything solid.

There was talk that apparently he burned all his records towards the end of his presidency but again I think this was speculation from the side of his opponents.

Actually, thank you for posting this. I was unaware of this and I assumed that Obama was the only sitting POTUS to have to deal with Birthers.

I think I remember another candidate somewhere down the line who could not prove his citizenship and therefore was not allowed on the ballot, but it's interesting that C. Aurthur was harassed by Birthers of his day.

"Why Obama is not first 'imposter' president and won't be the last "
www.liveleak.com...

Read this today at Liveleak.

This was the gist of it:

Obama's exotic background -- his migratory childhood, having Muslim relatives, coming seemingly out of nowhere to win the presidency -- is difficult to accept for some people who don't "have a high tolerance for diversity," Hanft says.

And then it goes on to deride "conspiracy theorists" and says people are just looking for simple solutions to explain this push for "change".

Maybe this is the media's way of getting people to accept the idea that having an illegitimate president is just "the way it is and has always been"?


[edit on 11-8-2010 by On the Edge]

I had read this same information about Chester a few months ago and agree that Obama was not the first illegal President in the White House. I started following this scandal back in early 2008 when the national media was blowing off the reports as attacks on the president. A number of months later I found one website that was posting the truth, along with the many lawyers suits against the current undocumented worker. What both men have done to this country has been treasonous. This country has been founded on God's principles and is the only reason we have been the longest-continuous form of government on the planet. We have never scrapped our first constitution for another, like so many other nations did. The man or woman that sits in the White House should must have a high moral character. Which Obama and other president's do not have. He is there because the NWO wanted him there. Here's how: Henry Kissinger/Bilderbergs authorize him for presidential candidacy, the Democratic party had cleared him to run for election without proper validation, a number of members of congress along with Nancy Pelosi looked at his statistical record from Hawaii and decreed it to be a birth certificate (wrong), and the Justices of the Supreme Court validate the incorrect finding of Nancy Pelosi. As for Chester, I could see in that day and age that a few people might of had a few problems confirming his birthplace and decided to pass him through. That should not be the problem today in our superior technological wonders. I wonder why no one wanted to listen to Alan Keyes when he made it public during the 2008 election that Obama was not an American? It was probably the same reason why Sean Hannity humiliated him on Fox news. Everyone is scarred, scarred to stand-up to the big bully government. Dictatorship hear we come!

reply to post by john spartan


Well said!

And having a black president gives them the perfect vehicle to foment their racial division and to claim "Racism"" if anyone disagrees with his principles!

Yep,they had it all planned out ahead of time.

reply to post by john spartan


This country has been founded on God's principles and is the only reason we have been the longest-continuous form of government on the planet


Are you sure this statement is entirely true ?

Originally posted by Jenna
Please note that this thread is not about Obama or his place of birth so let's not turn this into yet another thread about where he was or wasn't born.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case for some eager birthers here.

Originally posted by john spartan
I had read this same information about Chester a few months ago and agree that Obama was not the first illegal President in the White House.

Leaving aside this having to do with discussing Obama's eligibility, Chester Arthur was not proven to be ineligible. His opponents who claimed him being born on Canadian soil did not gather any sufficient evidence. Most of the claims made at that time and to this day were speculation at best and nothing more. Originally Hinman tried to attack Chester Arthur over the fact his father was not American born but that did not stick too well either.

Originally posted by john spartan
I had read this same information about Chester a few months ago and agree that Obama was not the first illegal President in the White House.

Honestly? Is that what you learned from the article?

Didn't you notice something else altogether? Like that the 1880's birthers did not have a shred of proof for their allegation? That all they worked on was that Arthur somehow had the feel of "different" and "foreign"?

History truly repeats itself. 130 years ago some Americans (the minority) were so stuck up that they couldn't accept Arhtur as president, because they had different personal standards of what is "American".
Today we have come a bit further. I bet Arthur would be left alone by todays version of the birthers. But damned be the not-100%-white guy who dared to come into preipheral contact with another religion and who has a strange name! OH Noes! He's not really an American. Not real like us real Americans. Yeah right.

Honestly bro you wanna tell me you read all the links and your conclusion is that "Ah... Ok.. Obama is the second, not the first illegal president"?

For god's sakes. Reading skills?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

SG - It happens. As long as the same arguments from both sides aren't rehashed again, I'm happy.

WUK - You're most welcome. You were actually one if the people I had in mind while writing the op. The controversy over Arthur was so long ago, most people don't know anything about it.


I've been thinking about this today, and now I'm wondering something.. Hinman made a claim that Arthur had a brother born a year later with virtually the same name. Arthur is said to have changed his birth year at some point to make himself seem a year younger. What I'm wondering is if maybe Arthur wasn't the oldest after all. Maybe he was the second born, was born in Vermont, but was confused for a brother born a year earlier in Canada who died while still a toddler. Perhaps he didn't change his birth year to seem younger but instead changed it because it was inaccurate. Or perhaps I'm way off base, but it's an interesting thought..

reply to post by Jenna


While it doesn't change my attitude towards birthers at all, (I still think they are a bunch of misinformed morons with the collective IQ's of squid.) It does change my earlier stance that this is only an Obama issue. I have been corrected.

That is a brilliant lesson form history thank you Jenna for bringing it up, well done I had no idea!

If I may, another argument that the birthers have made, and it is gaining in traction a bit I think, is that for a president to be a "Natural Born Citizen" his parents must also have been born in the United States. While this argument is blatantly false, it is interesting to point out that President Obama is the 7th president with parents from another nation.

Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England

Andrew Jackson's parents were both from Ireland

James Buchanan's father was born in Ireland

Chester Arthur's father was born in Ireland

Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in England

Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Canada

and of course,

Barack Obama's father was born in Kenya

Interestingly, every president whom has had parentage outside of the United States, their parents were born in a nation under English/British control.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. They have all been British subjects.. Darn British are trying to take us back over. Thanks for posting that list. I'm actually surprised there aren't more.

As far as someone's parents needing to be born in the US for that person to be natural-born, if that were true we wouldn't hear about 'anchor babies'.

Edit: Yeah, that last part doesn't make sense. Should have said "for that person to be a citizen", not natural-born. That's what happens when I'm distracted while typing. Oops.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Jenna]

My information concerning Chester A. Arthur has come from a very reliable source, WorldNetDaily.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Link: www.wnd.com...

There was an article on Cnn.com yesterday titled "Why Obama is not first 'imposter' president and won't be the last"

www.cnn.com...

The article made no mention of Chester A. Arthur, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I find it sad, but laughable, that some Americans get so bent out of shape because a 1st generation American made it all the way to the highest office in the land....they are just bitter!

Originally posted by john spartan
My information concerning Chester A. Arthur has come from a very reliable source, WorldNetDaily.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Link: www.wnd.com...

Your source here is quite biased, and instead of actually dealing with weather President Arthur was born in the United States or Canada but instead over the dis-proven idea that a president's parents must in fact be United States citizens at the time of the future-president's birth.

World Net Daily has been behind almost all of the ideas and arguments the birther movement has made, and is blatant in their attacks not just on President Obama but of anyone in the Democratic Party.


Anyways to reply to Aggie man: Remember all of the Founding Fathers were by-definition 1st generation Americans!

Originally posted by john spartan
My information concerning Chester A. Arthur has come from a very reliable source, WorldNetDaily.

OMG!

This must be the funnyest thing I've ever read on ATS... Ah, yes, WND, the very definition of a "very reliable source"... LOL .... Man... The delusions people maintain--it's hilarious.

It's no shame and no crime to read totally hopelessly biased sources. But you should at least have the intellectual capacity and honesty to identify them as such.