“Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents...”
Wrong. As made clear in the extensive quotes in WKA, there had NEVER been a requirement for two citizen parents for anyone born in the USA.
“In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father...”
This is a total false statement. It has no connection with reality. The 1844 case of Lynch discussed the US idea of citizenship at length. It concluded that someone born within the USA, of two alien parents, was undoubtedly a natural born citizen:
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch_v_Clarke_1844
In 1795: “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
I could go on. There is no doubt that the USA has always followed birth within the country as the primary means of being born a citizen, without regard for the citizenship of the father. The father’s citizenship only mattered in certain areas pertaining to international law, such as born on the high seas, or those born in disputed territories.
You are simply totally wrong about the facts.
That is just incorrect. If you automatically became a US citizen by being born in the US then Congress wouldn't have had to pass the 14th amendment to say that all people born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US are citizens of the United States.
The fact that slaves born in the US were not citizens demonstrates that being born in the US did not make you a citizen. It is not until the 14th Amendment was adopted that ius soli came into play. The 14th Amendment was passed specifically to make American citizens out of freed slaves born in the US, because those individuals were not already citizens by being born in the US. Ius soli was introduced to fix that problem.