All that particular part of the Constitution does is to give the criteria for someone to run for the office of Representative.
And it's 'who SHALL be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen'...not 'who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant...'
A representative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.
There is nothing there to prove your assertion that:
" Citizenship was NEVER derived from a state it was ALWAYS granted by the fedgov"
-----
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4 (Congress shall have the power...) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,...
A uniform rule of naturalization was needed in the Constitution because the States has such disparate rules concerning naturalization under the Articles of Confederation:
The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization, has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions.
In the 4th article of the confederation, it is declared "that the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens, in the several States, and the people of each State, shall in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce, &c." There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants, are used in one part of the article; free citizens in another, and people in another, or what was meant by superadding "to all privileges and immunities of free citizens,"--"all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled in every other State to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State; so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself; but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction.
Since the Articles PRECEED the Constitution, the concept of 'State citizen' was established well before the existence of a 'federal citizen'.
The Constitution only refined and expanded on the Articles of the Confederation, it didn't suddenly obliterate the well established legal concepts of an Inhabitant (natural person) citizen (artificial, or 'legal' person),
-----
Amendment XIV makes ex-slaves citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.
No. As I stated in my first post (along with several Supreme Court decisions to substantiate my assertion) the fourteenth Amendment 'freed' no one.....
It enslaved us all.
Perhaps you can point to state authorities swearing in new citizens? It is always by federal authorities. I was not speaking of the rules under the Articles most of which were unworkable hence the Constitutional Convention.
The statement of requirements to hold office makes it clear that there was one type of citizenship, of the United States, the lack of any mention of state citizenship shows its non-existence as a relevent issue. One is not even required to be a "citizen" of a state to be a Senator or a Rep. merely an "inhabitant."
I said nothing about the 14th freeing anyone merely that it granted citizenship upon those freed by the 13th. If you have a problem with the 14th you need blame the source of the problem, the slavers who insisted upon depriving Freedmen of all rights political and human. Had they been properly removed from all political power the 14th would never have been needed.