The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
This argument was rejected because Virginia Minor fit the court's definition of the Constitutional term in Art. II, Sec I - "natural-born citizen" - born in the country to citizen parents.
Actually if you read the decision, the court ruled that Mrs. Minor had no voting rights at all, citizen or no citizen. And the type of citizenship made no difference.
This argument was rejected because Virginia Minor fit the court's definition of the Constitutional term in Art. II, Sec I - "natural-born citizen" - born in the country to citizen parents.
So are you saying that had she not fit the court's definition of the Constitutional term in Art. II, Sec I - "natural-born citizen" - then the court would have ruled that she would have been able to vote?