President Trump is incorrect.
There was a large group of US manumitted blacks ("Free Blacks") that had children. Manumitted blacks were not slaves, but were not citizens. So that's one category besides slaves.
Then there's free blacks that immigrated to the US, many from Haiti after the slave revolts. Sometimes called "free people of color", they also were not slaves, but were not citizens. That was another group that were not slaves.
Then there's children born of male slaves and free (or indentured) white women. Called "mulattos" at the time, they were also not slaves but not citizens. In this latter group, because the children were the descendants of African slaves on the father's side, they could not be considered US citizens once Dred Scott v. Sandford. So a third group that were not slaves.
All three groups had children, yet were not considered slaves under Federal law. All three groups had children that would become citizens immediately after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
The question revolves around indians.
Being as indians were foreigners of their respective tribes, the 14th amendment did not grant them citizenship.
So Trump is in fact correct. The 14th amendment is just a black people amendment and nothing more.(respectfully)
The question revolves around indians. Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction therof of the U.S. government.
Indians were subject to the tribal council of Cherokee, of Seminole, of whomever the tribe happened to be.
Each tribe was considered foreign. The 14th’s authors said it simply, they said it succinctly, and the plain-letter text of the 14th Amendment honored this distinction for basically a half century.
Indians. Even the textualists cannot escape this no matter how hard they try. Indians.
Indians. Yep.