_On_ ALLEGIANCE.
Writers on law divide allegiance into two kinds, _natural_ and _local_.
"Natural allegiance iz such az iz du from all men born within the kings
dominions, immediately upon their berth. For immediately upon their
berth, they are under the kings protection; at a time too when (during
their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural
allegiance iz therefore a det of gratitude, which cannot be forfeited,
cancelled or altered, by any change of time, place or circumstances; nor
by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An
Englishman who remoovs to France or to China, owes the same allegiance
to the king of England there az at home, and twenty years hence az wel
az now. For it iz a principle of universal law, that the natural born
subject of one prince cannot by any act of hiz own, no, not by swearing
allegiance to another, put off or discharge hiz natural allegiance to
the former; for hiz natural allegiance waz intrinsic and primitiv and
antecedent to the other, and cannot be devested, without the concurrent
act of that prince to whom it waz first du. Indeed the natural born
subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by
subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it iz hiz own act that
brings him into theze straits and difficulties, of owing service to two
masters; and it iz unreezonable that, by such voluntary act of hiz own,
he should be able at plezure to unloose thoze bands by which he iz
connected to hiz natural prince."[147]
[147] Blackstone Com. Vol. I. 369.
I mistake much, however, if the natural born subject would be so much
_entangled with hiz straits and difficulties_, az lord Coke, Hale and
Blackstone, would be, to support their assertions and obviate the
absurdities of their reezoning.
It iz astonishing to observe how slowly men get rid of old prejudices
and opinions. The feudal ideas of allegiance, which make _fidelity in
the subject an obligation or grateful return for the protection of the
prince_, stil prevail, and are made the basis of all modern reezoning on
the subject. Such ideas in the dark ages, and in the days of feudal
despotism, are not to be wondered at. Every baron waz a tyrant on hiz
manor, and az hiz only safety consisted in hiz castle and hiz vassals,
it waz necessary to bind hiz subjects to him by oaths and superstition,
az wel az by a demand upon their gratitude. But wil our sage writers on
government and law, forever think by tradition? Wil they never examin
the grounds of receeved opinions? Let me enquire.
What iz the real ground of _allegiance_? Iz it not _protection_? Not at
all. We may just az wel invert the proposition, and say, that
_allegiance_ iz the ground of _protection_. A prince iz the
representativ of a nation or state, so that allegiance to him, iz merely
allegiance to a state or body politic.[148] According to our ideas,
allegiance to a king, and fidelity to a state, are the same thing; for
detach a king from all connection with a nation or state, and he becumes
a private man, and entitled only to the rights of such. This at leest iz
the opinion of an _American_, whose mind iz not biassed by personal
attachments to a sovereign.
[148] Blackstone remarks that allegiance iz applicable, not
only to the political capacity of the king, or regal office,
but to hiz _natural person_ and _blood royal_. I would ask
then what _blood royal_ there can be in a man, except in hiz
_kingly capacity_?
What then iz the ground of fidelity to a state? The answer iz eezy; the
_moral law_, which haz for its object the _good of society_. This iz the
basis of all obligations in a state, whether express or implied; yet
writers on this subject hav hardly mentioned it. Blackstone indeed takes
notice of an implied, original allegiance, antecedent to any express
promis; but seems rather to consider it az a return for the duties of
the sovereign, which he owes before coronation, than az an obligation
arising from the very constitution of society.
Taking the moral law or the good of society for the ground of all
allegiance, we discuver two species of duties to be performed by every
man; the _moral duties_, which exist at all times and in all places; and
certain _political duties_, required by the municipal laws of eech
state. The first are the basis of natural or perpetual allegiance; the
last, of local allegiance. The first or moral duties create an
obligation upon every man, the moment he iz born, which cannot be
cancelled or discharged by any act of an individual, or by any agreement
between prince and subject; the last, or political duties, impoze an
obligation upon every member of a state or body politic, the moment he
steps within its jurisdiction, to submit peaceably to such positiv
injunctions of that state, az hav been judged necessary for its welfare.
Now to maintain that an oath of allegiance wil bind a man to perform all
the last class of duties, or the positiv duties enjoined by a particular
state, and not required by the general laws of society, when the man haz
perhaps become a member of another state, three thousand miles distant,
iz to defend the wildest notions that can possess any man's brain. Every
man iz bound always and in all places to _do right, and avoid doing
rong_; and this with, or without taking an oath of fidelity to any
state. This iz implied allegiance, universal and perpetual; and I deny
that there iz any other ground of this allegiance, except the universal
principles of right and rong.
Should it be said, that a man may bind himself _by oath_ to perform the
positiv or political duties required by a state, altho he may remoov and
become a citizen of another state; I answer, this wil involv him in the
_straits_ and _difficulties_ mentioned by Blackstone; for the political
duties of the two states may interfere with eech other. The truth iz, a
man haz no right to take such an oath, nor haz a state any right to
require it. He may swear, when he enters into any kingdom or state,
that he wil be a good citizen, and submit to all the laws of the state,
_while he iz a member of it_; and further, that he wil observe the moral
law in hiz conduct towards that society, after _he haz ceesed to be a
member of it_. Further than this, he haz no right to swear. Az to every
duty, not required by the laws of society in general, but only by the
municipal laws of a state, a man's allegiance commences when he enters
that state; and ceeses the moment he leeves it.[149] The doctrin of a
perpetual allegiance iz wholly a feudal idea; inculcated, when every
lord waz at war with hiz nabor; and waz compelled by self preservation
to attach hiz vassals to himself by oaths, the penalties of perjury and
the forfeitures of treezon.
[149] Except the case of Ambassadors or other agents.
Blackstone says, in the passage already quoted, "that natural allegiance
iz a det of gratitude," because the subject iz under the kings
protection while an infant. He might just az wel say, _protection iz a
det of gratitude_ du from the prince, because the subject iz born in hiz
dominions. On this principle of gratitude, a child iz obliged to obey
and serve hiz parent, after he haz left hiz family, and while he livs.
This det, according to the same author, cannot be cancelled, but _by
"concurrence of the legislature."_ How in the name of reezon, can an act
of the legislature dissolv a _natural tie_? How can it _cancel a det of
gratitude_? Common sense looks with disdain on such week and futile
reezoning. But if there iz such a thing az natural and perpetual
allegiance, an Englishman, who remoovs to France, cannot take arms to
defend France against an invasion from England. Is this agreeable to the
laws of nature and society, that a man should not protect himself and
hiz property? It wil be said that the man iz within the English king's
liegeance, and entitled to hiz protection. But the king cannot protect
him; it iz beyond hiz power, and the Englishman iz not obliged to leev
France and seek protection in England. Hiz estate and hiz family may be
in France, and if he chooses to reside there, it iz hiz unalienable
right and duty to defend both against any invasion whatever. Every war,
except a defensiv one, iz a breech of the moral law; but when a natural
born subject of England, haz become a citizen of France, he iz subject
to the laws of France, and bound to assist, if required, in defending
the kingdom against hiz natural prince.
No. XXVI.