Citizenship is a reciprocal relation. The citizen owes allegiance; the government owes protection. When a person is naturalized, he takes the oath of allegiance. Does he got nothing in return? Can a State annul all the rights which the Federal Government has conferred? Then, indeed, would it be better for those who come to our shores to remain citizens of the old nations; for _they_ could protect them, but _we_ cannot. Then, to be a citizen of the United States--a privilege we had thought greater than that of Roman citizenship when that empire was in its glory--is a privilege which any State may annul at its pleasure! The power and position of a nation depend upon the number, wealth, intelligence, and power of its citizens. And the nation, in order to employ and develop its resources, must have free scope for the use of its powers. No State has a right to block the path of the United States, or in any way to "retard, impede, or burden it, in the execution of its powers." For this reason, if a citizen is wealthy enough to lend money to the Federal Government, a State cannot _tax his scrip_ to the amount of one cent. But, if the doctrine contended for by some is sound, then it may take _the citizen himself_, confiscate the whole of his property, blot out his citizenship, and make a chattel of him, and the Federal Government can afford him no protection! Among all the doctrines that Slavery has originated in this country, there is none more monstrous than this. But this is not a question of any practical importance at this time. There is no danger that Slavery will ever be tolerated where it has been once abolished. It may go into new fields; it seldom returns to those from which it has been driven. The institutions of learning and religion that follow in the path of freedom, if they find a congenial soil, are not likely to be supplanted by the dark and noxious exotics of ignorance and barbarism. And besides, as we have already seen, it is our right, as one of the conditions of restoration, to provide for the _perpetual prohibition_ of Slavery within the Rebel States. This, like the Ordinance of 1787, will stand as an insurmountable barrier in all time to come. And the security it will afford will be even more certain. For, while there may be a difference of opinion in regard to the effect of a law of Congress relating to existing Territories, there is no doubt that conditions imposed at the time upon the admission of new States, or the restoration of the Rebel States, will be of perpetual obligation. RIGHTS OF REBEL STATES. On this subject there are two theories, each of which has advocates among our most eminent statesmen.