His opinion coincides with other stronger evidence earlier in History, and it's not just him. There are others, but I would have to go hunting for them again, and then verify them myself with the congressional record. Not really worth the trouble, because the debate on how to grant rights to freed slaves really has little to do with "natural born citizens."
It's sufficient that he proves to be the exception to your rule.
Your claim here was made before and proved to be wanting.
What "earlier sources" have you adduced? Geo. Washington? He says nada about some supposed "citizen parent" rule. Adams? You tried putting him in your camp based on his having a book by James Otis on his shelf. But this was another major gaffe by you when I showed that the portions of Otis you were highlighting were actually summaries of bits of Calvin's Case!. Adams doesn't help you. Bushrod Washington? Nope, he never claims Vattel supplied the rule of law in the United States. John Marshall? Nope. All you have for him is a dissenting opinion, which doesn't even use the term "natural born citizen" and which in any event is a case about domicile, not citizenship.
So all of these supposed sources don't support you at all.
Oh, there is Judge Samuel Roberts. He does in fact cite to Vattel on the point at issue. But Roberts, as previously noted to you, is an obscure figure, historically and legally speaking. The proof is in the pudding: in the great debates on citizenship in the 19th Century (particularly in the 39th Congress and the SCOTUS), Roberts is nowhere referenced, not even by C.J. Fuller in WKA who was arguing for your same rule!
and it's not just [Bingham]. There are others,
Vattel birthers have those two excerpts from Bingham, and little else. Were there others that even hinted of support (even in the same strain-to-make-him-fit style used with Bingham), those would be brandished about as he is.
because the debate on how to grant rights to freed slaves really has little to do with "natural born citizens."
Horse crap. It has much to do with it, particularly when the Congress debating that issue makes explicit that what they are declaring and codifying is the existing law on birth citizenship!. They are simply recognizing (in light of Dred Scott) that the common law, jus soli rule of "natural born citizen" afforded whites was not extended to blacks and others. The Civil Rights Act citizenship clause remedied that, and the 14th Amendment was enacted to assure that no future Congress could readily undo it.
It's sufficient that he proves to be the exception to your rule
How is that sufficient? Without conceding Bingham is at odds (note again his 1869 comment which is clearly harmonious), his lone voice wouldn't impact my argument when the great weight of Congressional voices support my position. That substantial support for the jus soli view of "existing law" puts the lie to your claim that Horace Gray ignored or misread the legislative history. No, he didn't! He was spot-on. You're the idiot here.