Your contention would be wrong. When you are born in the United States you are automatically an American citizen.
There was no way “request” recognition. His birth made him a citizen, his birth certificate was proof.
The intentions of the writers of the 14th Amendment don’t mean squat. The plain text of the amendment is crystal clear.
I also added a lot more to defend my contention that in that time he would not have been considered to be a U.S. citizen.
Today, lots of wrong contentions are in place. Such as: that it is being humane to mutilate a person who isn't even an adult because they believe something that isn't true.
I suppose you now side with those claiming that it is being inhumane to deny these children their "right" to be mutilated when they have no clue whatsoever as to what they are agreeing to?
If you do, then you are part of the problem in this country, I'm sad to say.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The Supreme Court has not (yet) explicitly ruled on whether a visitor or illegal alien is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
If Congress did not intend that phrase to have meaning, they would not have included it.