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.
When the Founders said a 'Citizen of the United States', they were talking about State Citizens, NOT federal ones.
The concept of it meaning otherwise DID NOT OCCUR until the 14th Amendment. Until then, there was no such thing as a federal Citizen of the United States, or what we call a 'US citizen'.
The Supreme Court of the United States as well as other courts have said as much REPEATEDLY.
--------
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226
--------
"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99
--------
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
--------
"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) --------
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
--------
"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
--------------------------------------------
Gee! I guess the Founders and all our Judges are SO much stupider than justshutupandtakeit! THEY think 'State Citizenship' is a viable legal concept! ( /major dripping sarcasm)
Just because you refuse to believe that the federal government ISN'T all-powerful doesn't change the WELL documented LEGAL FACT one bit!