You don't get to redefine a term as defined in a law dictionary of that day for the purposes of supporting an argument.
I suggest you consult the same law dictionary for what "native" meant. "Native" and "natural born" were generally taken to be synonymous, although "natural born" is a slightly more expansive term that most likely includes the children born overseas of US citizen parents.
Neither "native" nor "natural" are in the citizenship clause. The latter was specifically omitted for purposes of extending privileges and immunities to corporations.
I didn't.
"Subject" as a noun has a specific meaning in law. That meaning is closely CONNECTED TO, but not 100% analogous to, the meaning of the word "subject" used as an ADJECTIVE.
Or, to put it another ways: "subject" means "obligated to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of somebody else." This definition comes from Bouvier's definition of the VERY closely related word "subjection."
A "subject" is not the only person who is "subject to," or obligated to obey, the law of the United States. Persons who are not citizens (or subjects, if you will) but who are merely aliens, are also SUBJECT TO the laws and jurisdiction of the United States.
So I didn't "redefine" anything.
Neither "native" nor "natural" are in the citizenship clause.
Not of the 14th Amendment. But "natural born" is a key phrase in the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution. I assume that you are yet another birther making the patently false claim that "natural born citizen" means "born on US soil of two citizen parents." If you aren't, then I beg your pardon.