[aruanan]

...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively

You emphasized the wrong parts. That is, you're overlooking the 3 operative phrases, without which your emphasis becomes a pretty good example of the fallacy of emphasis.:

...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, [1] founded on the nature of regal government, [2] in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, [3] inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively

This means that all rules of common law and statutes of England that do not fall afoul of these three qualifications were not absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively.

[philman_36]

...a pretty good example of the fallacy of emphasis.:...
Would you say that my use of emphasis at reply 450 was a good or bad example of proper emphasis?

[philman_36]

...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, [1] founded on the nature of regal government, [2] in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, [3] inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively

Your snippet comes from @Tucker's Blackstone: Note E
OF THE UNWRITTEN, OR COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND; AND ITS INTRODUCTION INTO, AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE UNITED AMERICAN STATES.

The whole paragraph...

And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
And then there are the conclusions... From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.
Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.
Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

Snippets don't cut it.

[DiogenesLamp]

You emphasized the wrong parts. That is, you're overlooking the 3 operative phrases, without which your emphasis becomes a pretty good example of the fallacy of emphasis.:

...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, [1] founded on the nature of regal government, [2] in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, [3] inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively

I did not erase the references to monarchical laws, I just regarded them as yada yada for the purposes of the point I was trying to make. (That the common law regarding citizenship was displaced.) In any case, In a subsequent posting, I emphasized the Regal Law aspect of the quote.

This means that all rules of common law and statutes of England that do not fall afoul of these three qualifications were not absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively.

No argument here. The nature of citizenship is at the heart of it a deviation from the Monarchical concept of subjectude.

That's it for me folks. I'm done for now.