Comment: Why haven't you done further

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Okay, (see in situ)

Why haven't you done further

Why haven't you done further research? Aren't you in the least bit curious? It isn't hard to do. You are the one, after all, who is making the affirmative claim that a whole class of American citizens should be banned from the oval office, not me. If you like, I can do your research for you, make a scan of the article and post it. If I did, would it make any difference to you? Please let me know if it would be a waste of time...or have have you already made up your mind?

Let us review. When this "alleged" article appeared in much cited national newspaper it was very early in the 1880 presidential campaign....yet birthers, who like to boast about their historical detective skills, have not presented shred, even a shred, of evidence that it raised ANY red flag among Arthur's political opponents (who were legion).

If you are right, Americans in the 1880s were clueless idiots who couldn't see the nose in front of their collective faces. I would argue that, to the contrary, that Americans had far more respect for the Constitution than most of their modern birther counterparts (most of whom, btw, are warmongers) do. Things may have been "slow" in 1880 but people back then weren't idiots. Any of any Arthur's many critics in Washington, DC, for example, could have easily walked down the street to check out his father's naturalization records but you have not provided ANY, and I mean ANY, reason to believe that a single one of them even contemplated doing so. Heck, you haven't provided a shred of evidence that anyone in the "slow" 1880s thought of doing so during the rest of the nineteenth century!