AK has a tendency to leave things out....He also has a problem bringing things into the 20th c.<quoted text>
I am a bit behind is reading all of these posts, so this may have already been said, but you just proved Rose's point...
"those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Of course, the correct language now would be "...condition of their parents...", since mothers have the same rights as the fathers.
1. The preceeding sentences to his quote from Venus are:
"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."
Note the "parents" in the second sentence. And, of course, in the 19th c., woman had minimal legal rights, so the for the courts to mention "father" may have no meaning other than they weren't used to phrases such as " father and/or mother".
2. However,(and I'm sure he'll dismiss the following, but):
When it came to the citizenship of children, when a child was born from the union of a slave and freeperson (that is "mixed-citizenship") , the law of "partus sequitur ventrem" was the law of the land. Meaning, the legal status of the child was confered on it by the legal status of the mother, not the father.