Definition
Natural allegiance is the permanent, perpetual bond of loyalty owed by a person to the sovereign or state of their birth. Unlike other forms of allegiance, it arises automatically at birth — by operation of law, not by agreement — and historically could not be dissolved by the individual's own act without the consent of the sovereign.
In English common law, natural allegiance was the duty owed by every person born within the king's dominions to the Crown. It attached immediately at birth, was considered intrinsic to the subject's legal identity, and persisted regardless of where the subject subsequently lived or traveled.
In American law, the concept carried forward with modifications. Natural allegiance describes the allegiance owed by native-born citizens of the United States to their country. It was extended by analogy to naturalized citizens, who, upon completing naturalization, were understood to owe the same quality of permanent allegiance as the native-born. The defining characteristic in both systems is permanence: natural allegiance cannot be unilaterally renounced without the government's authorization as declared by law.
Common Confusion
Natural allegiance is routinely contrasted with local allegiance, and the distinction matters. Local allegiance is temporary — it is the duty owed by an alien or foreign-born person while physically present within a sovereign's territory and under that sovereign's protection. It ends when the person leaves. Natural allegiance, by contrast, does not terminate with departure. A subject or citizen carries it regardless of physical location. Researchers encountering the term "allegiance" in historical sources without a modifier should determine from context which form is meant; conflation of the two produces significant errors when tracing the rights and duties of aliens versus subjects.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Natural allegiance sits within the broader taxonomy of allegiance recognized in English and early American law:
Natural allegiance — permanent, arising from birth within the dominion; the subject of this entry.
Local allegiance — temporary, arising from presence and protection; owed by aliens during their residence.
Legal allegiance — sometimes used in historical sources to describe allegiance created by oath or naturalization, as distinguished from that arising purely from birth.
Acquired or naturalized allegiance — the allegiance of those admitted to citizenship through the legal process of naturalization. American sources, including Kent's Commentaries, treated this as equivalent in force and permanence to natural allegiance once conferred.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a historical evolution term. Its meaning did not transfer cleanly from English to American law, and researchers working across that boundary will encounter genuine doctrinal divergence.
In English common law, natural allegiance was grounded in the feudal principle that birth within the king's protection created an indelible bond. Blackstone's treatment in the Commentaries (1 Bl. Com. 370–371) is the foundational statement: the allegiance is "intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own." This framing supported the British doctrine of perpetual allegiance — the position that a natural-born subject could never cease to be one — which became a direct source of international friction with the United States in the early nineteenth century, most acutely in disputes over impressment.
American law was ambivalent. Early authorities, including Kent (2 Kent's Comm. 42–49), described natural allegiance as irrenouneable without government permission, tracking the English model closely. But American constitutional and political development moved toward recognizing a right of expatriation, which Congress ultimately codified. Researchers working in the antebellum and Civil War periods will find natural allegiance invoked in debates about expatriation, Reconstruction citizenship, and the status of naturalized citizens abroad — contexts where the English and American understandings pulled sharply apart.
The extension of natural allegiance to naturalized citizens is a specific doctrinal move that American sources make but English sources do not require in the same way. Watch for this when comparing English and American treatments in historical dictionaries: Burrill explicitly includes naturalized citizens; Rapalje & Lawrence, tracking the English formulation more closely, speaks of "natural-born subjects" and their sovereign.
For corpus researchers: the term appears in treatises on constitutional law, international law, and citizenship far more often than in case reporters, because its primary significance was theoretical and diplomatic rather than litigated. Kent's Commentaries is the single most-cited American authority in the historical dictionaries and is the logical starting point.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three historical sources agree on the core: natural allegiance is permanent, arises from birth within the dominion, and is distinguished from local allegiance by its perpetual character. All three cite the same foundational authorities — Blackstone and Kent — and the definitions are substantially consistent.
The most instructive divergence is in scope. Burrill and Black's both extend the definition explicitly to American law and to naturalized citizens, treating the permanence of natural allegiance as applicable to the adopted citizen once naturalization is complete. Rapalje & Lawrence is more conservative, echoing the English formulation ("natural-born subjects") without the American extension. This reflects the dictionary's closer alignment with common-law terminology.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the tension between the doctrine of perpetual natural allegiance and the developing American right of expatriation. That political and legislative evolution is outside their scope but is essential context for any researcher using these entries as guides to period sources.
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine of natural allegiance originated in English common law and was received into American law with modifications. It is not a uniform-law concept and has no meaningful presence in civil-law systems, which approached citizenship and allegiance through different frameworks. Researchers comparing across jurisdictions should not assume the term carries equivalent content in non-common-law sources.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Naturalization and Denaturalization — Congressional Power Over Citizenship (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
Naturalization, Citizenship, and Denaturalization Proceedings (The Law Mind Administrative Law & Government Encyclopedia)