Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

   A citizen of any one 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 attained, by the exercise of the power

   of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective

   States.

                          [Ex ParteKnowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

                                          [bold emphasis added]

   It is true, every person, and every class and description of

   persons, who  were at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the

   Constitution recognized  as  citizens in the several States,

   became also  citizens of  this new political body;  but none

   other;   it was  formed by  them,   and for  them and  their

   posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and

   privileges  guarantied   [sic]  to   citizens  of  this  new

   sovereignty  were intended to  embrace  those only  who were

   thenmembers of the several state communities, or who should

   afterwards, by  birthright  or  otherwise,  become  members,

   according to  the provisions  of the  Constitution  and  the

   principles on which it was founded.

              [DredScott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

                                               [emphasis added]

... [F]or  it is  certain, that  in the  sense in  which the word

"Citizen" is  used in  the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each

State," and  "Citizen of  the United  States***," are convertible

terms;   they mean  the same  thing;   for "the  Citizens of each

State are  entitled to  all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens

in the  several States,"  and "Citizens  of the United States***"

are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.

                   [44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]

                    [italics in original, underlines & C's added]

   As  it   was  the   adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the

   Conventions of  nine States that established and created the

   United States***,  it is  obvious  there could not then have

   existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the

   United  States***,   or  who   possessed  the   Presidential

   qualifications of  being thirty-five years of age, a natural

   born citizen,  and fourteen  years a  resident of the United

   States***.   The United States*** in these provisions, means

   theStates  united.  To be twenty-five years of age, and for

   seven years  to have  been a  citizen of  one of  the States

   which  ratifies the Constitution,  is the qualification of a

   representative.   To be a natural born citizen of one of the

   States which  shall ratify  the Constitution,  or  to  be  a

   citizen  of   one  of  said  States  at  the  time  of  such

   ratification, and  to have  attained the  age of thirty-five

   years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one

   of the  said States,  are the  Presidential  qualifications,

   accordingto the true meaning of the Constitution.

              [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]

                            [bold and underline emphasis added]

After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

It is  quite clear,  then, that  there is  a citizenship  of  the

United States**  and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct

from each  other and  which depend upon different characteristics

or circumstances in the individual.

                              [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]

                                          [(1873) emphasis added]

The  first  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  made  negroes

citizens of  the United  States**, and  citizens of  the State in

which they  reside, and  thereby created two classes of citizens,

one of the United States** and the other of the state.

                             [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]

                              [(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]

We have  in our  political system  a  Government  of  the  United

States** and  a government  of each  of the several States.  Each

oneof  these governments  is distinct  from the others, and each

hascitizens of its own ....

                                [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]

                                          [(1875) emphasis added]

One may  be a  citizen of  a State  and yet  not a citizen of the

United States.  Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449;  Cory v. Carter,

48 Ind.  327 (17  Am. R. 738);  McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;

In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.

                             [McDonelv. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]

                                        [(1883) underlines added]

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a

citizen of  the particular  state in  which he  resides.   But  a

personmay  be a  citizen of a particular state and not a citizen

ofthe  United States**.   To  hold otherwise would be to deny to

the state  the highest  exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right

to declare who are its citizens.

                               [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]

                                [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

The first  clause of  the fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal

Constitution made  negroes citizens  of the  United States**, and

citizens of  the state  in which they reside, and thereby created

twoclasses of citizens, one of the United States** and the other

of the state.

                              [4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]

                              ["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]

There are,  then, under  our republican  form of  government, two

classes of  citizens, one  of the  United States** and one of the

state.  One class of  citizenship may  exist in a person, without

the other,  as in  the case  of a  resident of  the  District  of

Columbia;  but both classes usually exist in the same person.

                   [Gardinav. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]

                          [48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]

There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**

and citizenship  of a  particular state,  and a person may be the

former without being the latter.

                               [Allav. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]

                              [(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

A person  may be  a citizen of the United States** and yet be not

identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.

                                         [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter]

                                   [61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]

... citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted the

privilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground of

diversity of  citizenship.   Possibly no  better reason  for this

fact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  the

judiciaryarticle  [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.

... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;

but in  any event  a citizen of the United States**, who is not a

citizenof any state, is not within the language of the [federal]

Constitution.

                            [Pannillv. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]

                                                 [emphasis added]

                             #  #  #

Related documents:

“Citizenship for Dummies”

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

Author’s Comments Clarifying “Citizenship for Dummies”

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

Supreme Law Firm Launches Campaign to Amend the U.S. Constitution

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm

"Before and After the Civil War"

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/before.and.after.htm

"BOHICA, Berg and Obama et al.: What are the Feds REALLY Hiding?"

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/bohica.htm

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A PROHIBITION

Berg v. Obama et al. (September 15, 2008 A.D.)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/intervention.prohibition.htm

APPLICATION FOR A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Berg v. Obama et al. (October 14, 2008 A.D.)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/mandamus.htm

PERSONAL PLEA FOR YOUR COOPERATION

to Consul General of Kenya in Los Angeles (October 18, 2009 A.D.)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/letter.to.consul.general.htm

Chapter 11 in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue"

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

Appendix Y in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue"

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-y.htm

More citations in re: two classes of citizens

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nordbrok/jurychal.htm#two.classes

"State Citizens Stop Voting:  An Outline of Legal Reasons"

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/twoclass.htm

"State Citizens Cannot Vote"

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/votingaz.htm

"Juries in Check Around the Nation"

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/jurychal.htm

"Citizenship is a Term of Municipal: A Collection of Research Findings"

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/privilaw.htm

George W. Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/palmbeach/index.htm

"Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan, TheUpright Ostrich (Dec/Jan 1985-86)

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/schwan/sedition.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm