On the face, this discussion might seem to be a matter of semantics, but upon closer inspection of the law, the distinction is quite clear. The term "Citizen of the united states" was not defined in the original U.S.Constitution, as that term was commonly understood to mean a Citizen of one of the several states of the Union. This thing surprised me a lot in the whole constitution.
But constant usage arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys.A citizen of anyone of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.
Therefore, prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States," because everyone had primary Citizenship in one of the several Union states. The U.S. Constitution referred to the sovereign state Citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C., or outside the several states, were commonly called "citizens of the United States."In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state Citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.....................
