And what did the court mean by usage of the word "Native" in say, 1875?
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Funny, their definition of the word "native" corresponds to OUR definition of the word "natural born" but not yours. How did the Justice Waite every become Chief Justice without understanding the meaning of this term "native"?
It's a mystery! Obviously the 1875 court is wrong, not you.
You left out significant sections of the Minor v. Happersett holding which help explain why it has not been successfully applied to Obama eligibility actions.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”