The "petitioner" in this instance is not Mr. Smith, but Dr. Ramsey who was challenging that Smith could not be seated in the House of Representatives. He claimed that Smith was not a citizen by EITHER birth or inheritance. When Madison says Smith found his claim upon his birthright, Madison supports that claim by putting the colony of South Carolina ahead of the crown (notice the "petitioner" and this claim are all in a separate paragraph from where Madison talks about the birthright that Smith claimed -- Madison did NOT dispute this).
I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society.
The society of "primary allegiance" in Madison's mind was South Carolina and the "secondary allegiance" was to Britain. Madison is arguing that when South Carolina severed itself (along with the other colonies) from the British, that this changed Smith's primary allegiance from South Carolina to the United States. IOW, Smith was an NBC because of soil and birthright through parents whose primary allegiance was to South Carolina. This shows that the founders considered themselves to be natural born citizens by virtue of both jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria.
IOW, Smith was an NBC because of soil and birthright through parents whose primary allegiance was to South Carolina.
In the same speech:
If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency...Funny, he mentions "natives" but not a word about their parents here. I think he was very clear - place is the most certain and it is what applies in the United States.