itizens of that State, what can be its
operation on the citizens of the United States?"

If the act of Virginia affects Ballard's citizenship so far as
respects that State, can it touch his citizenship so far as
regards the United States? Allegiance to a particular State is
one thing; allegiance to the United States is another. Will it be
said that the renunciation of allegiance to the former implies or
draws after it a renunciation of allegiance to the latter? The
sovereignties are different; the allegiance is different; the
right, too, may be different. Our situation being new,
unavoidably creates new and intricate questions. We have
sovereignties moving within a sovereignty.

Judge Cabell, also of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,
alludes to it briefly in the case of Murray _vs._ McCarty, 2
Munford, 398. He says: "But although the Constitution of the
United States has wisely given to the citizens of each State the
privileges of a citizen of any other State, yet it clearly
recognizes the distinction between the character of a citizen of
the United States and a citizen of any individual State, and also
of citizens of different States," etc. Or, if a still further and
later authority be desired, we have it in the language of
Chief-Justice Taney, who says, in the Dred Scott case:

In discussing this question we must not confound the rights
of citizenship, which a State may confer within its own
limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the
Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all
the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he
must be a citizen of the United States.... But if he rank as
a citizen of the State to which he belongs, within the
meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then,
whenever he goes into another State, the Constitution
clothes him as to the rights of person, with all the
privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the
State. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a
State, and of the United States, they would be entitled to
all of these privileges and immunities in every State, and
the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these
privileges and immu