Good point.
However the original intent of civil citizens vs that of federal citizens was quite clear.
Citizens of the United States were those born in the federal enclave, every one else was a Citizen of their respective State.
This is why, today, we no longer have 'rights' but privileges dictated by government.
The only civil citizens are politicians and the only natural persons are illegals.
US Citizens are what were referred to in Rome as Latins:
Among the Romans, the libertini, or freedmen, were formerly distinguished by a threefold division.‡
They, sometimes obtained what was called the greater liberty, thereby becoming Roman citizens. To this privilege, those who were enfranchised by testament, by the census, or by the vindicta, appear to have been alone admitted:
sometimes they obtained the lesser liberty only, and became Latins; whose condition is thus described by Justinian: "They never enjoyed the right of succession [to estates] .... For although they led the lives of free men, yet, with their last breath they lost both their lives and liberties; for their possessions, like the goods of slaves, were detained by the manumittor.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the statement "like the goods of slaves, were detained by the manumittor." sound an awful lot like probate?
It gets complicated. One of the great advances of the city was when they recognized private property, and in particular the right to pass ownership to the next generation within a family--the right of inheritance. The Kelo decision seems to have been a recognition that the personhood of the corporation is superior to the personhood of a citizen, although the rank of the citizen may have a bearing on this, which might prove interesting if a city attempts to displace an anchor baby so a shopping mall might be built.
--- the original intent of civil citizens vs that of federal citizens was quite clear.
Citizens of the United States were those born in the federal enclave, every one else was a Citizen of their respective State.
You've written another unsupported opinion, which cannot be sourced within the Constitution.
In 1787, much of US territory was not under any States control. Most people born within those territories were "Citizens of the United States", not of a " federal enclave".
Can you provide an actual constitutional source for your idea that there were a "new class" of US Citizens [other than ex-slaves] created by the 14th amendment? -- You claimed:
"-- The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship under the auspices of the federal government. It also changed the Founders original 'Citizen of the United States' from being a civil Citizen of a State to meaning a statutory Citizen of the federal government. --"
What, in your view, was the citizenship status of settlers born in US Territories prior to ratification of the 14th?
For instance, was there a difference in citizenship status of a child born in Colorado in 1867 vs 1869?