Not necessarily... Merely that what you claim is not supported by any evidence.
You don't consider extant copies of the "Law of Nations", published in the 18th century as proof of the definition of the term at the time the Constitution was ratified?
You don't consider as proof the fact that the eligibility clause in [Article II; Section 1] of the U.S. Constitution is proof that the requirements for the Commander in Chief were different from other Constitutional offices......and the fact that the framers "sun-setted" it for future generations?
Your argument lacks much credibility.........