Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Revolution to Constitution to Civil War: US Citizenship in Its Youth

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Frontiers of Equality in the Development of EU and US Citizenship

  • 286 Accesses

Abstract

The first issue dealt with by the newly self-governing Americans was how to define the new citizenship of the United States by contrast to British subjecthood. To define the “nationality” dimension of US citizenship, old ideas of allegiance would be updated for new, liberal models of government. Immigration was a prime concern of the young republic, and thus naturalization (notably, only of free whites) was to be one of the first legislative priorities. The debate in Congress, which gradually became more partisan, essentially dealt with equality: to what extent the same conditions were to apply everywhere to the naturalization process, and to what extent naturalized citizens were to be granted equal rights to hold property and to participate in the political process. However, the rulings of the Supreme Court would also gain in relevance for determining what the continued significance of state naturalization laws was.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. supra Chap. 2 at n. 69.

  2. 2.

    Blackstone 1832, I, p. 77 (paras 49–50); cited in Greene 2011, p. 99 at n. 69.

  3. 3.

    Bailyn 1992, pp. 198–201.

  4. 4.

    Bailyn 1992, p. 223.

  5. 5.

    Bailyn 1992, pp. 205–207.

  6. 6.

    Dickinson 1767; addressed by Adams 1973, p. 122 in a reference to Bailyn 1992, specifically pp. 215–217.

  7. 7.

    Bailyn 1992, pp. 210–214.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Maitland 1961, pp. 306–307; cf. supra Chap. 2 at n. 67, and, as to the fact that this prerogative was later limited, at n. 77.

  9. 9.

    cf. Maitland 1961, p. 302; also cf. supra Chap. 2 at n. 58.

  10. 10.

    Jezierski 1971, p. 102;

  11. 11.

    Blackstone 1832, vol. I, p. 77 (para 107).

  12. 12.

    Blackstone 1832, vol. I, p. 73 (para 103).

  13. 13.

    Adams 1973, p. 124.

  14. 14.

    Schütze 2009, pp. 29–30; Kramer 1994, p. 1557. See also Wills 1992, p. 145.

  15. 15.

    Adams 1973, p. 125.

  16. 16.

    Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett 1875, cited in Roche 1949, p. 4. See also, of course, Jefferson’s choice of the word “citizen” in the Declaration of Independence, supra in Chap. 2 at n. 205.

  17. 17.

    Roche 1949, p. 4.

  18. 18.

    cf. supra Chap. 2 at n. 27.

  19. 19.

    Merrill 1775.

  20. 20.

    cf. supra Chap. 2, at n. 69.

  21. 21.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 176–177, citing Chapin 1964, pp. 29–34.

  22. 22.

    Franklin 1902, p. 302.

  23. 23.

    Journals of the Continental Congress 1789, vol. V, pp. 475–476 (June 24, 1776).

  24. 24.

    Supra in Chap. 2, starting at n. 13.

  25. 25.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 179–184.

  26. 26.

    Hurst 1971, p. 84.

  27. 27.

    Kettner explores dissident opinions in the post-revolutionary United States that reveal just how tenuous this notion of “consent” can be, based as it is on the will of a majority rather than the will of the individual. What of the individual who does not consent to allegiance and also does not wish to move away? Kettner 1978, pp. 187–190.

  28. 28.

    Cf. supra Chap. 2 at n. 96.

  29. 29.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 183–185.

  30. 30.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 186–187.

  31. 31.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 8–10, citing Adams 1851, vol. VII, p. 137, then Adams 1874–1877, vol. I, pp. 49–50.

  32. 32.

    Cf. supra Chap. 2 starting at n. 9.

  33. 33.

    Discussed in depth in Kettner 1978, pp. 199–202.

  34. 34.

    McIlvaine v. Coxe 1808, 280.

  35. 35.

    Kettner 1978, p. 202.

  36. 36.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 289–290.

  37. 37.

    Calloway 1995, p. 292 and generally.

  38. 38.

    Fehrenbacher 1981, pp. 34–35.

  39. 39.

    Kettner 1978, p. 285.

  40. 40.

    The potential exclusion of (non-US) aliens from equality with migrating US citizens—and, remarkably, the potential of inclusion of certain aliens in equality with the sedentary citizens—is made clear by Article IX, which restricts Congress: “The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of […] entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to […]”.

  41. 41.

    Torpey 2000, p. 69.

  42. 42.

    Maryland, in particular, appears to have been one of them. On June 22, 1778, the Maryland delegates moved to strike out the word “paupers” and add the text to the end of the first paragraph “That one State shall not be burthened with the maintenance of the poor who may remove into it from any of the others in this union.” Not a single one of the other states voted for this change, which can be seen as an indication that the provision about “paupers” was already understood to work that way. Journals of the Continental Congress 1789, Vol. XI, p. 631; also referred to by Antieau 1967, pp. 3–4.

  43. 43.

    Schönberger 2005, p. 240 et seq.

  44. 44.

    Schönberger 2005, p. 100 et seq. See also infra in Chap. 2 at n. 12.

  45. 45.

    Antieau 1967, p. 4.

  46. 46.

    Bancroft 1882, p. 118.

  47. 47.

    Franklin 1906, p. 16.

  48. 48.

    Federalist 1788, p. 42.

  49. 49.

    Antieau 1967, pp. 3–5.

  50. 50.

    Grawert 1973, p. 163.

  51. 51.

    Brubaker 1992, pp. 46–47.

  52. 52.

    Federalist 1788, p. 42.

  53. 53.

    1776 North Carolina Constitution, Article XLIII, cited by Kettner 1978, p. 214.

  54. 54.

    Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp, section 42.

  55. 55.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 214–216.

  56. 56.

    Kettner 1978, p. 217.

  57. 57.

    Cf. the way in which some local governments in Massachusetts tried to resist the centralization of state authority, supra at n. 15.

  58. 58.

    Parker 2001, pp. 587–590.

  59. 59.

    Farrand and Matteson 1966, vol. II, pp. 235–237.

  60. 60.

    Roche reads Madison’s statement as a remarkable application of the implied powers doctrine avant la lettre, seeming to reflect Madison’s view that United States citizenship would be directly granted by the Union. However, none of the other Framers save Hamilton would have seen Congress as having that power: it was understood that the uniform rule of naturalization would be set by Congress, but executed by the states. Roche 1949, pp. 7–8.

  61. 61.

    Farrand and Matteson 1966, vol II, pp. 268–269.

  62. 62.

    Cf. supra Chap. 2, starting at n. 131.

  63. 63.

    Farrand and Matteson 1966, vol II, p. 269.

  64. 64.

    Smith 1997, p. 839; Antieau 1967, p. 6.

  65. 65.

    Delaware Court of Chancery , Douglas v. Stevens, 1821, 469.

  66. 66.

    Antieau 1967, pp. 9–10.

  67. 67.

    In a number of modern parliamentary systems in which membership of the executive is constitutionally incompatible with membership of parliament (so-called “dualistic” systems, by contrast to “monistic” systems such as the United Kingdom, where the executive is composed of elected members of parliament), it is constitutionally conceivable that non-citizens can be appointed minister, even prime minister. While citizenship, and the right of passive suffrage that goes with it, is generally a requirement to be elected to parliament, a minister in a dualistic parliamentary system is generally appointed by the head of state, formally at the latter’s discretion, and therefore with no prerequisite of citizenship. One example is Gustáv Slamečka, minister of transport in the Czech Republic from 2009 to 2010, who for at least the first few months of his term was a Slovak citizen—this was not uncontroversial, however, and he did ultimately become a naturalized Czech citizen. (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustáv_Slamečka, last visited on 20 August 2016).

  68. 68.

    Farrand and Matteson 1966, vol. II, p. 367.

  69. 69.

    Farrand and Matteson 1966, vol. II, p. 494.

  70. 70.

    Fennell 1998, vol. III, p. 61.

  71. 71.

    Cf. supra in Chap. 2, at n. 39 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Cf. supra in Chap. 2, at n. 152.

  73. 73.

    Kettner 1978, p. 215.

  74. 74.

    Fehrenbacher 1981, p. 35.

  75. 75.

    Kettner 1978, p. 287.

  76. 76.

    Roche 1949, pp. 6–7.

  77. 77.

    On this Act, see, generally, Kettner 1978, pp. 236–238; Roche 1949, pp. 9–10; and Franklin 1906, pp. 33–48.

  78. 78.

    Annals of Congress 1790, pp. 1147–1164.

  79. 79.

    Annals of Congress 1790, p. 1150.

  80. 80.

    Annals of Congress 1790, p. 1147. Rep. William Maclay of Pennsylvania noted in his journal entry for March 19, however, that it was only due to the reception of the common law of England that aliens were barred from holding property; “all over Europe, where the civil law prevails, aliens hold property”. Maclay and Maclay 1890, p. 218, cited in Franklin 1906, p. 47.

  81. 81.

    Annals of Congress 1790, p. 1149.

  82. 82.

    Annals of Congress 1790, p. 1149.

  83. 83.

    Annals of Congress 1790, pp. 1155–1156.

  84. 84.

    Cf. supra Chap. 2 at n. 129.

  85. 85.

    Annals of Congress 1790, p. 1158.

  86. 86.

    Blackstone 1832, vol. I, p. 131 (para 175), n. 45

  87. 87.

    Supra Chap. 2 at n. 155.

  88. 88.

    Cf. supra Chap. 2, at n. 149 et seq.

  89. 89.

    Foster 1960, pp. 1–24.

  90. 90.

    Roche 1949, p. 10.

  91. 91.

    Kettner 1978, p. 238; Roche 1949, p. 10.

  92. 92.

    Franklin 1906, p. 48.

  93. 93.

    Buckner Inniss 1999, pp. 88, 92–93.

  94. 94.

    For an exploration of the legal-ideological fissures that pervaded the Constitutional Convention, and how these developed into the partisan system, see Scheiber 1978.

  95. 95.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 239–240.

  96. 96.

    Cf. Chap. 2 starting at n. 131.

  97. 97.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 49–53.

  98. 98.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 56–65.

  99. 99.

    Franklin 1906, p. 50.

  100. 100.

    Franklin 1906, p. 70.

  101. 101.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 61–62.

  102. 102.

    Franklin 1906, p. 64.

  103. 103.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 66–67.

  104. 104.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 68–69.

  105. 105.

    Roche 1949, p. 11.

  106. 106.

    United States Congress, An Act to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject. 1795.

  107. 107.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 243–244.

  108. 108.

    Roche 1949, p. 12; Chap. 5 of Franklin 1906, pp. 72–96, provides a detailed account of the legislative process leading up to the passage of the Act.

  109. 109.

    See Blackstone 1832, supra at n. 86.

  110. 110.

    Roche 1949, p. 12.

  111. 111.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 244–245.

  112. 112.

    Franklin 1906, pp. 78–79.

  113. 113.

    Cf. supra in Chap. 2 at n. 173.

  114. 114.

    “any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise” (Section I, Act of 1795); “no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by the act [of 1795, as amended by the Act of 1798]” (Section I, Act of 1798).

  115. 115.

    Roche 1949, p. 13 and Franklin 1906, pp. 78–79.

  116. 116.

    The United States v. Villato 1797; cited by Kettner 1978, p. 250 n. 2 and Roche 1949, pp. 15–16.

  117. 117.

    Kettner 1978, pp. 245–246; Roche 1949, pp. 13–14; and, in detail, Chap. 6 of Franklin 1902, pp. 97–106.

  118. 118.

    Pound 1939, pp. 91–92.

  119. 119.

    Marbury v. Madison 1803.

  120. 120.

    Chirac v. Tenants of Chirac 1817.

  121. 121.

    Chirac v. Tenants of Chirac 1817, p. 269.

  122. 122.

    Supra at n. 48.

  123. 123.

    Supra at n. 44.

  124. 124.

    Counsel in Houston v. Moore 1820, cited by Kettner 1978, p. 250 at n. 6.

  125. 125.

    Kettner 1978, p. 255.

  126. 126.

    McCulloch v. Maryland 1819.

  127. 127.

    McCulloch v. Maryland 1819, pp. 411–412.

  128. 128.

    Osborn v. Bank of the United States 1824, 827; cited in Roche 1949, p. 17. Also Kettner 1978, p. 254.

References

  • Adams J (1851) Works. Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams JQ (1874–1877) Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, comprising portions of his diary from 1795 to 1848. Lippincott, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams WP (1973) Republikanische Verfassung und bürgerliche Freiheit: die Verfassungen und politischen Ideen der amerikanischen Revolution. Luchterhand, [Darmstadt [etc.]]

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (1788) Federalist

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (1789) Journals of the Continental Congress V

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (1790) Annals of Congress I

    Google Scholar 

  • Antieau CJ (1967) Paul’s Perverted Privileges or the True Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. William and Mary Law Rev IX:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn B (1992) The ideological origins of the American revolution, Enl edn. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bancroft G (1882) History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Appleton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone W (1832) Commentaries on the Laws of England: with an analysis of the work. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker R (1992) Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckner Inniss LK (1999) Tricky magic: blacks as immigrants and the paradox of foreignness. DePaul Law Rev 49:85–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Calloway C (1995) The American revolution in Indian country: crisis and diversity in Native American communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin B (1964) The American law of treason: revolutionary and early national origins. Seattle, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson J (1767) Letters from a farmer

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrand M, Matteson DM (eds) (1966) The records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehrenbacher DE (1981) Slavery, law, and politics: the Dred Scott case in historical perspective. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell C (1998) Plymouth Colony Legal Structure: 1 March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster WO (1960) James Jackson, duelist and militant statesman, 1757–1806. University of Georgia Press, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin FG (1902) The legislative history of naturalization in the United States. Annu Rep Am Hist Assoc 1901 I:299–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin FG (1906) The legislative history of naturalization in the United States, from the revolutionary war to 1861. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Grawert R (1973) Staat und Staatsangehörigkeit: Verfassungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Staatsangehörigkeit. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JP (2011) The constitutional origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst JW (1971) The law of treason in the United States: collected essays. Greenwood Publishing Corporation, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Jezierski JV (1971) Parliament or people: James Wilson and Blackstone on the nature and location of sovereignty. J Hist Ideas 32(1):95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettner JH (1978) The development of American citizenship, 1608–1870. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer L (1994) Understanding federalism. (Symposium: Federalism’s Future). Vanderbilt Law Rev 47(5):1485–1561

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclay W, Maclay ES (1890) Journal of William Maclay. Appleton

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland FW (1961) The constitutional history of England: a course of lectures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill I (1775) Letter

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker KM (2001) State, citizenship, and territory: the legal construction of immigrants in antebellum Massachusetts. Law and History Review 19(3):583–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pound R (1939) The formative era of American law. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche JP (1949) The early development of United States citizenship. Ithaca, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiber HN (1978) Federalism and the Constitution: the original understanding. In: Friedman LM, Scheiber HN (eds) American law and the constitutional order: historical perspectives. Harvard University Press, London, p 85

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberger C (2005) Unionsbürger: Europas föderales Bürgerrecht in vergleichender Sicht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2009) From dual to cooperative federalism: the changing structure of European law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DG (1997) The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2: Precursor of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. San Diego Law Rev 34:809

    Google Scholar 

  • Torpey JC (2000) The invention of the passport: surveillance, citizenship and the state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wills G (1992) Lincoln at Gettysburg: the words that remade America. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Franssen Advocaten, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jeremy B. Bierbach

Authors
  1. Jeremy B. Bierbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy B. Bierbach .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bierbach, J.B. (2017). From Revolution to Constitution to Civil War: US Citizenship in Its Youth. In: Frontiers of Equality in the Development of EU and US Citizenship. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-165-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-165-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-164-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-165-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation