.
It was the early 19th century, and the court was comprised of all founders but one.
The reason that you don’t hear much about it is that it ruled that it was because the Father was a US citizen.
No happiness from the feminists.
(Recent ruling says there is no difference between the Father and Mother WRT citizenship.)
Minor vs Happersett 1875
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Under the common law, according to the court, "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."
-Chief Justice Morrison Waite
Writing the Minor v. Happersett opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court...1875
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Born in country, to citizen parents (plural)