You'll notice, the 14th says nothing at all about "natural born" citizens.
In fact, the father of the 14th amendment, and all those in congress at the time, knew that a "natural born" citizen was one born in the soverign territory to two citizen parents. The authors of the 14th clearly knew there was a difference between a "natural born" citizen and a "native" citizen and their new amendment (the 14th) had zero to do with defining who was a "natural born Citizen."
Somehow in today's world, people believe they know better than our forefathers and what they themselves knew when it comes to these issues.
There was also another type of citizen, specifically mentioned in the Constitution "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
Whatever the Founding Fathers might have believed (and I’m sure you know that they were not of one mind on practically any subject) since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there has been no distinction in law or practice between a born citizen and a natural born citizen. In the modern world they are considered to be one and the same.
As far back as the 1898 landmark US v Wong Kim Ark decision, it was recognized that the 14th Amendment would impact natural born citizen status.
The government wrote in its brief for the Supreme Court: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 against the position of the government.