<P> Jurist William Blackstone wrote in 1765 that "Natural - born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England". Blackstone added that offspring who are not inhabitants may also be natural born subjects: </P> <P> But by several more modern statutes...all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural - born subjects, are now natural - born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain . </P> <P> In 1775, however, Blackstone reversed his opinion and explained that the children "are now deemed to be natural - born subjects" rather than "are now natural - born subjects ." Similarly, Francis Plowden (barrister) initially explained that an early English statute made foreign - born children of English parents "in fact and law...true native subjects" and that the eighteenth century British statutes made persons natural born subjects by statute law just as others were natural born subjects by the common law . However, after further consideration he also reversed his opinion and concluded in 1785 that the statutes did not make the children natural born subjects--rather, there remained a "relict of alienage in them ." Prior to Blackstone, Edward Coke offered a narrower opinion in Calvin's Case . According to Coke: "(I) f any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural - born subjects, and yet they are born out - of the King's dominions ." </P> <P> The term "natural born" has often been used synonymously with "native born". The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson wrote in 1756 that the word "natural" means "native," and that the word "native" may mean either an "inhabitant" or an "offspring". </P>

Who was the last president that had not been born within the united states