Who Could Be a Citizen? Jews and Rights in 1784 Georgia

There is one other transaction of the last Court which I must take the liberty of saying a few words upon: I shall, I expect, be anticipated, in being supposed to allude to the case between an Indian and a Jew; God forbid I should feel, or be suspected of recommending, the most distant enmity on a religious score against either of these people; I mean to regulate my observations by the rules of policy, as the affair respects the publick, and by the eternal laws of justice and truth, as it concerns the parties themselves. It seems a half-breed man, descended of a white father (who is also supposed to be of the race of Jacob) and a free Indian mother, had brought a suit against a full-blooded Jew; the Jew, ever upon the watch, took an exception against the right of the plaintiff to sue. There was really something so peculiarly droll, in a contest about privilege between two men of this description in a Christian country, that, when I first heard of it, I could not help repeating a very vulgar saying of the pot to the kettle; however, the matter being referred to the Court, two against one decided in favour of the Israelite, and the poor Creekite was ordered to imparl until he could prove red was white. This naturally led me to inquire what were the rights of a free Indian, and what were those of a Jew, in this state. As it appeared to be at least a diverting speculation, I devoted some time to the inquiry, and, if the reader feels the same curiosity I did, he will not grudge a few minutes extraordinary in perusing their respective claims. And now to the point: By the common law of the land the Indian seems to me to enjoy every privilege which the Jew does; and by the local Constitutions, or acts of Assembly, he certainly enjoys several which the Jew does not. To elucidate the former part of this position, it will be necessary to shew in what light these people respectively stood, and to consider whether there was any discrimination between them in England at the time our country was colonized from that kingdom, for I conceive that to be the common law of this land (indeed our Legislature hath declared so) which was the law of England at the time our charter is dated, to wit, on the 9th day of June, 1732. When a free people (say the writers on this head) migrate to a new soil, with intent to settle the same, they carry with them as their birthright all the laws of their mother country then in force, at least so much thereof as may be applicable to their own situation and the condition of an infant colony. This being acknowledged as a postulatum, let us now see what that law was. Judge Blackstone, in his Commentaries (vol 1, page 425), speaking of the protection granted in England even to Negroes who run away from their masters in America, thus expresses himself: “The law of England acts upon general and extensive principles—it gives liberty rightly understood, that is, protection to a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen, as well as to those who profess the true religion of Christ.” So that we see the Jew stands upon a level with the African slave who deserts the employment of his master. Now, surely, we will not suppose a free Indian to be in a situation worse than a man of this description, but rather in a better; and by so much as his situation is better than that of the Negro, in the same ratio does he, from the words of Mr. Blackstone, rise above the Jew. The only difficulty with me is, whether we ought not to consider the Indians within our state, and who are the aborigines of the soil, rather in the light of citizens than aliens. There is no moral obstacle to such a determination in respect to these people, as there is to the Jews, who are not at present considered as citizens in any part of the world but by the special favour and operation of some particular law.