*****************************************************************

“Regarding Buchanan, I said that NO ONE can find any record of his naturalizing. Not just me. People who get paid to look for it cannot find it. You can claim you have a drivers license, but absent any proof, you are considered to be without one.”

You're still trying to say, that if you personally can't find something, then it never existed.
Then you claim, some other un-named entities also can't find that something, without saying who they are and without providing any link to their research which you must have, otherwise, how could you know what they found or didn't find.

To resolve this I got in touch with Aaron McWilliams, an Archivist, for Pennsylvania State Archives.

Aaron McWilliams | Archivist
PHMC | Pennsylvania State Archives
350 North Street | Hbg PA 17120
Phone: 717.787.8953 | Fax: 717.787.4822
www.pastatearchives.com

She responded:

Section 42 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provides for naturalization of foreigners (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp). We are not aware of any law specifying the process of naturalization under this section of the constitution.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

SECT. 40. Every officer, whether judicial, executive or military, in authority under this commonwealth, shall take the following oath or affirmation of allegiance, and general oath of office before he enters on the execution of his office.
THE OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE
I do swear (or affirm) that I will be true and faithful to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania: And that I will not directly or indirectly do any act or thing prejudicial or injurious to the constitution or government thereof, as established by the-convention. -
THE OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE
I-do swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of for the of-and will do equal right and justice to all men, to the best of my judgment and abilities, according to law.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
___________________________________________________________________________________

So in 1776, there is no specifications on how this oath is to be applied, who it's going to apply it, who it's going to be applied to or When it's going to be applied, other than to “Every officer, whether judicial, executive or military, in authority under this commonwealth.”
There is no indication that Buchanan Sr. was in the military, court system or any of the executive branches of the state government of Pennsylvania.

So if you and your so-called experts were looking for a written oath of affirmation from Buchanan Sr. in 1776, your not going to find it, because it ain't there. The oath was oral.

Then Aaron Williams, an Archivist, for Pennsylvania State Archives, writes:

“However, given that the following year a law was passed requiring all male adults 18 years and older in Pennsylvania to swear an oath of allegiance to in order to experience the privileges of citizenship, we can probably assume the process would have been the same. Under the 1777 law, adult males swore an oath before the local justice of peace, who would issue a certificate to the individual acknowledging his taking the oath and maintain a register of said individuals. The justice of the peace was required at least once a year to submit a list of those who took the oath/affirmation to the county recorder of deeds to be recorded by him in a book. (See www.palrb.us“Statutes at Large” for the acts)”
_____________________________________________________________________________
This is the law:

ACTS OR DOCUMENTS IN STATUTES AT LARGE VOLUME
Volume 9 - Regular Session of 1777
General Laws:
Year 1777
Page 147
Act 675
Supplement to the act entitled "An act obliging the male white inhabitants of this state to give assurances of allegiance to the same and for other purposes therein mentioned."
(See www.palrb.us“Statutes at Large” for the acts)
_______________________________________________________________________________

And we know the law was enforced, because:

Educating the Youth of Pennsylvania:
Worlds of learning in the age of Franklin
The American Revolution in Pennsylvania was highly divisive. The state’s new constitution, adopted in the 1770s, was the most radical in the colonies, allowing the vote to all taxpayers, including blacks, but also imposing an oath of loyalty to the state constitution, which applied equally to teachers. Quakers who refused to take the oath were deported to Virginia, and some teachers were fined for non-compliance. Schools in Philadelphia were closed temporarily by public order in 1776, and the city was occupied by British troops in 1777-78.
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/benjaminfranklin300/10revolutionary_visions.cfm
____________________________________________________________________________

It's interesting to note that this law applied to the citizens of the state. The state has no authority to require a non-citizen of the state to take an oath of affirmation to the state. The very fact that they needed to take an oath meant that they were a citizen.

If they didn't take the oath, they were fined or put in jail until they did take the oath. If they absolutely refused to take the oath, they were deported from the state.

That means if a person remained in the state, it's a because they took the oath.

Then Aaron Williams, an Archivist, for Pennsylvania State Archives, writes, in answer to my question:
"If James Buchanan Sr. took on oath of allegiance back then, would there be a record of it today?"

Aaron Williams, an Archivist, for Pennsylvania State Archives, reply's:

“Maybe. You could try the county deed books. We have some oaths of allegiance in our Record Group 27. If there is a record, it would most likely only contain his name and date of oath.”

So, the oath of allegiance was taken orally. It is not a swore statement.
You've wasted a lot of time looking for a written record that never existed.

Aaron Williams, an Archivist, for Pennsylvania State Archives, writes:

“adult males swore an oath before the local justice of peace, who would issue a certificate to the individual acknowledging his taking the oath and maintain a register of said individuals. The justice of the peace was required at least once a year to submit a list of those who took the oath/affirmation to the county recorder of deeds to be recorded by him in a book.”

First you need to know what justice of the peace he swore the oath before.
Then you have to know what county Buchanan Sr. was living in at the time he took his oath and the date he took it.

With that, you could track down the specific book in the county recorder of deeds.
Then, more than likely, you'll have to take a road trip to Pennsylvania, because, not all of those books are on-line and the different books may be stored in different parts of the state.
Yet, after all that, there may only be his name and date.
So you'll have to know the reason for the existence of the book you looking at, other wise it's just a name and a date..

So now I've given you another avenue for your search. If you still wish to maintain that Buchanan Sr. was not a citizen of Pennsylvania, you can find the record of the fine he paid for refusing to give the oath.
Of course, if he still refused, he would have been deported, since he wasn't, that would be a pretty good indication that he did.

You could look up Buchanan Sr.'s arrest record. Because, if he refused to take the oath and wasn't fined he would have been put in jail, until he did.
Of course if he still refused, he would have been deported which he wasn't which indicates that he did.

Then it occurred to me, that there is an easier way to resolve this.
While looking into the history of Pennsylvania, I came across a number of famous Pennsylvania revolutionary heroes.
Since these people are famous, especially in Pennsylvania, there's a lot of research done on them already. The most famous is Benjamin Franklin.

So it might be easier to look up their oath of affirmation.
If you can't find theirs, then you'll have to maintain that none of them, were Pennsylvania citizens.
That would be a very big surprise to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

In fact you could look up any citizen of the time and see if you can find any of their oaths of affirmation.
If you and your experts can't find anybody's oath of allegiance in Pennsylvanian, then you've discovered that Pennsylvania became a state without any citizens.
That would be surprise to everyone!

But, not to you of course.

Here's the list you can get started with:

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
George Clymer (1739-1813)
Thomas Fitzsimons (1741-1811)
Jared Ingersoll (1749-1822)
Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800)
Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816)
Robert Morris (1734-1806)
James Wilson (1742-1798)


Here's another Supreme Court case that acknowledges and quotes directly from Vattel's Law of Nations.
This is just 24 years after the last state ratified the Constitution and some of the founding fathers are still alive.
______________________________________________________________________
The Venus
12 U.S. 253 (1814)

1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.
______________________________________________________________________________

In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles. The question whether the person to be affected by the right of domicile had sufficiently made known his intention of fixing himself permanently in the foreign country must depend upon all the circumstances of the case. If he had made no express declaration on the subject and his secret intention is to be discovered, his acts must be attended to as affording the most satisfactory evidence of his intention. On this ground it is that the courts of England have decided that a person who removes to a foreign country, settles himself there, and engages in the trade of the country furnishes by these acts such evidence of an intention permanently to reside there, as to stamp him with the national character of the state where he resides. In questions on this subject, the chief point to be considered is the animus manendi, and courts are to devise such reasonable rules of evidence as may establish the fact of intention. If it sufficiently appear that the intention of removing was to make a permanent settlement, or for an indefinite time, the right of domicile is acquired by a residence even of a few days. This is one of the rules of the British courts, and it appears to be perfectly reasonable. Another is that a neutral or subject, found residing in a foreign country is presumed to be thereanimo manendi, and if a state of war should bring his national character into question, it lies upon him to explain the circumstances of his residence. The Bernon, 1 Rob. 86, 102. As to some other rules of the prize courts of England, particularly those which fix a national character upon a person on the ground of constructive residence, or the peculiar nature of his trade, the Court is not called upon to give an opinion at this time, because in this case it is admitted that the claimants had acquired a right of domicile in Great


The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."
A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html

Next time a cop stops you, tell him you have no drivers license document because since you swore an oral oath to someone, you are licensed to drive. When he asks you who took your oath, tell him there is no record, he will just have to take your word for it.

As to your list of others, Ben Franklin, Governeur Morris, etc, they were born here. Buchanan did not arrive in this country until after the Treaty of Paris, in 1783. I'll bet you never mentioned that to your PA people.
Buchanan was a British subject and a foreigner.

Your a moron.
The state of Pennsylvania set up the procedure for collecting and recording the oath of affirmation. It was good enough for them, but, not good enough for you.

That's pretty damn arrogant on your part.

"My people," as you call them, are the Archivists who are charged with, and paid by the Pennsylvania State Archives, to keep the actual records of the history of Pennsylvania.

I included their contact information.
Why don't you call them and tell them that you post blogs on a political forum.
I'm sure that they will be very impressed.
Then tell them that they have no idea what their doing and that they should listen to you.

Aaron McWilliams | Archivist
PHMC | Pennsylvania State Archives
350 North Street | Hbg PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-8953 | Fax: 717-787-4822
www.pastatearchives.com

James Sr. was foreign born (Irish) who came to Pennsylvania in 1783.

"Buchanan did not arrive in this country until after the Treaty of Paris, in 1783."
And what, if anything does that have to do with anything?

____________________________________________________________
According to Vatel:
The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93.

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."


British common law:
The question whether the person to be affected by the right of domicile had sufficiently made known his intention of fixing himself permanently in the foreign country must depend upon all the circumstances of the case. If he had made no express declaration on the subject and his secret intention is to be discovered, his acts must be attended to as affording the most satisfactory evidence of his intention. On this ground it is that the courts of England have decided that a person who removes to a foreign country, settles himself there, and engages in the trade of the country furnishes by these acts such evidence of an intention permanently to reside there, as to stamp him with the national character of the state where he resides. In questions on this subject, the chief point to be considered is the animus manendi, and courts are to devise such reasonable rules of evidence as may establish the fact of intention. If it sufficiently appear that the intention of removing was to make a permanent settlement, or for an indefinite time, the right of domicile is acquired by a residence even of a few days. This is one of the rules of the British courts, and it appears to be perfectly reasonable.
_____________________________________________________

So one this one point, Vattel and British common law agree that, a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there, creates a "domicile," and that person, becomes a member of the new society.


"right of domicile is acquired by a residence even of a few days
So James Sr. could have been a citizen of Pennsylvania, in a matter of a few days, according to English Common Law. You know, Blackstone's laws, the guy you keep promoting.

James Jr. wouldn't be born until 1791. That's eight years into the future.
In the meantime, America had a revolution that resulted in a constitution that was ratified by the last state in 1790 and it states:

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

James Sr. could have run for the presidency of the United States of America under Article I, Section I, Clause V.

"Next time a cop stops you, tell him you have no drivers license document because since you swore an oral oath to someone, you are licensed to drive. When he asks you who took your oath, tell him there is no record, he will just have to take your word for it. "

This whole bit here is just ludicrous on your part.
It just shows how you absolutely have no critical thinking, common sense or even any simple intelligence, at all.

If I was stopped by a cop in Pennsylvania, he would know all about the oath of allegiance, because as a citizen, he would have had to take the oath himself.

He would have known that, as a citizen, he had to go before the justice of the peace, where he would give an oral oath and that his appearance before the judge would be recorded with his name and the date, in a book.

But, because he was an officer of the court, he not only had to take the oath of allegiance, but, also an oath of office and that was handled the same way.

But, maybe he forgot that he gave, not one, but two oral oaths.
So, I'd be charged by the district attorney.

Who is also an officer of the court and a citizen. So he would have also taken the oath of allegiance and the oath of office. So no one would have to explain it to him.
Unless of course he forgot that he gave two oral oaths just to get his job, never mind his duties as a citizen before that.

Then I'd be hauled before the Judge, who is also a citizen and an officer of the court. To get his job, he would have also had to give an oath of allegiance and an oath of office, but maybe he too didn't remember that he also had to give two oral oaths of office, that were recorded in a book.

But, wait! ........... I'd have representation, by an attorney that was also a citizen and a officer of the court.

But, I guess he'd forget as well, that he is a citizen and wouldn't remember taking an oral oath of allegiance, even though if he didn't, he would be fined, thrown in jail or deported out of the state.

There is no record of any oath, sworn orally, written or anything else. Had you read the link I provided, (or more than likely, had someone read it to you and explain the big words ), you would know what the Treaty of Paris "had to do with it." Once more, there is a difference between those who were born in PA, and a British Subject who came here after the cessation of hostilities and the Treaty of Paris. There is no record of Buchanan Sr, taking any such oath, and records were kept. The people you contacted gave you the correct answer to the wrong question.
I'm trying to make allowances for your obviously limited intelligence and gnat-like attention span, but do try and keep up. I never said Buchanan was not a citizen, I said it had never been proven. I don't know how I can dumb down that statement any further. If it is STILL beyond your comprehension, get someone who specializes in explanations to the conceptually challenged. One more thing; it's you're, not your. You see, one is a contraction of a phrase indicating a state of being, and the other is a personal pronoun. I'm probably already over your pointy head. Tell you what; you don't call me a moron and I won't call you a clueless fucking peckerhead.

If the record of the oral oaths still exist, they exist in the books that were kept for that purpose. To find them will probably mean talking a road trip to examine the actual county deed books. So, get going.



Pennsylvania was founded in 1681 by William Penn.

The French and Indian War (7 year war) began in 1754 and ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

The Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789 in three incarnations
The 1st Continental Congress was a convention of delegates called together from the Thirteen Colonies which became the governing body of the United States (USA) during the American Revolution.

1774 Articles of Association

The Second Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from the Thirteen Colonies that started meeting in the summer of 1775, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The declaration of Independence 1776

Pennsylvania constitution was written in 1776.
Pennsylvania didn't write the statute for the oath in the constitution until 1777.

Articles of Confederation, 1777–1781

James Buchanan Sr. was foreign born (Irish) who came to Pennsylvania in 1783.

The Treaty of Paris, 1783 ended the War of the American Revolution.

Constitution came into force in 1789

A British Subject who came here after the cessation of hostilities and the Treaty of Paris, would have to naturalize, to become a citizen.

James Buchanan Sr. came to Pennsylvania after the Declaration of Independence (1776) where all ties with England were broken and the citizens of all the colonies declared themselves free and independent, but, six years before the Constitution came into force in 1789 and when it did the grandfather-clause came with it.

So, James Buchanan Sr. immigrated to Pennsylvania and settled into a fixed residence, with an intention of always staying there and naturalized.



§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.


§ 218. Settlement.

Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.


§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.

Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.(60) — 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,1 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man's obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.

2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable to every duty — in a word, between the internal, and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences, after having derived considerable advantages from them; and this is the case of every citizen, with respect to his country.

3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a time of danger, and seek to secure themselves, instead of defending it, they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting parties engaged to defend themselves in a united body, and in concert; they are infamous deserters, whom the state has a right to punish severely.2