ruling power. The phrase is used in the
Constitution of Maryland in 1776—and no
doubt the framers of that Constitution in sep-
arating from Great Britain and dissolving
the tie of allegiance they had acknowledged
to George III, deemed it necessary that there
should be a supreme authority to which alle-
giance should be due—and they substituted
the State of Maryland for George III in the
oath of allegiance. And although the Con-
vention of 1850, composed of able men, re-
tained that phrase, they retained it in the
form in which it was adopted in 1776, of
allegiance to the State of Maryland and not to
the Constitution and laws of Maryland.
With reference to this whole subject, to
show that the term allegiance is inapplicable
to our system of government, I beg leave to
read a synopsis of the doctrine as contained
in the argument of three eminent counsel; ln-
gersoll, Dallas and Du Ponceau, in 3 Dallas.
" With this law, however, human institu-
tions have often been at variance; and no in-
stitutions more than the feudal system, which
made the tyranny of arms the basis of society ;
chained men to the soil on which they were
born; and converted the bulk of mankind
into the villeins or slaves of a lord or supe-
rior, From the feudal system sprung the
law of allegiance; which pursuing the nature
of its origin, rests on lands; for when lands
were all held of the crown, then the oath of
allegiance became appropriate: It was the
tenure of the tenant or vassal, [Black. Com.
366.] The oath of feality and the ancient
oath of allegiance was almost the same;
both resting on lands; both designating the
person to whom service should be rendered;
though the one makes an exception as to the
superior lord, while the other is en obliga-
tion of fidelity against all men. [2 Black.
Com. 63, Pal, 140.] Service, therefore, was
also an inseparable concomitant, of fealty, as
well as of allegiance. The oath of fealty could
not be violated without loss of lands; and as
all lands were held mediately or immediately
of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of
allegiance was in fact a voluntary submission
to a state of outlawry. Hence arose the
doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance
When however the light of reason was shed
upon the human mind the intercourse of
men became more general and more liberal
the military was gradually changed to commer-
cial state; and the laws were found a
better protection for persons and property
than arms. But even while the practical ad
ministration of government was thus reform
ed, some portion of the ancient theory was
preserved; and among other things, the doc
trine of perpetual allegiance remained with
the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crow
to support it. Yet, it is to be remembered
that whether in its real origin or in its arti-
ficial state, allegiance as well as fealty rest
upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so
30 |
with respect to citizenship which has arisen
from the dissolution of the feudal system;
and is a substitute for allegiance, correspond-
ing with the new order of things. Allegiance
and citizenship differ indeed in almost every
characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of
compact; allegiance is the offspring of pow-
er and necessity. Citizenship is a political
tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citi-
zenship is the charter of equality; allegiance
is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is con-
stitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizen-
ship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citi-
zenship is communicable; allegiance is re-
pulsive, Citizenship may be relinquished;
allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inap-
plicable to a system of citizenship, which it
can neither serve to control nor to elucidate.''
One would suppose that if there was any-
place in which this doctrine of allegiance
could be found, if it was in accordance with
the intent of the framers of the Constitution
of the United States, it would be in the Con-
stitution itself.
Is there any requisition in any oath of of-
fice, that any officer shall bear allegiance to
the Government of the United States or to the
people of the United States? for that would
be more appropriate. If allegiance is due at
all to any party except the individual State
of which the party is a citizen, it is due to
the whole people of the United States, upon
the very doctrine and authority which the
gentleman insisted upon, that the Constitu-
tion originates in the will of the people of the
whole United States, as one homogeneous mass
and not of the people of the several States.
If that doctrine be true, then allegiance or
obedience being due to the paramount au-
thority, it is due to the people of the United
States. Look at the requisitions which are
made in the Constitution of the United States.
What is the oath which the President is re-
quired to make? It is to preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.
What is the oath that is required of all civil
and judicial officers of the several States, to
secure fidelity from them to the supreme law
of the land? It is that they will support the
Constitution of the United States. That is
what the framers of the Constitution deemed
to be the extent of the obligation, as they
made it the solemn form of the oath, to sap-
port the Constitution of the United States-
There is therefore nothing in the Constitution
of the United States to justify the idea con-
tended for in this article. There is no claim
in the Constitution to paramount allegiance.
I most respectfully submit to any gentleman
who has read the debates in the Convention
that framed the Constitution of the United
States or who has read the debates in the
several Conventions of the States that consid-
red and adopted the Federal Constitution, if
anywhere, from the first page to the last, he |
