No. Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese was the editor who oversaw the conclusion of the many Constitutional scholars who created The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, which apparently runs contrary to your so far baseless assumption.
So, the English had natural born subjects in the relevant period.
As were the American colonists who inherited and adapted the British Common Law. So your accusation against me was both false AND irrational.
The American colonists revolted against England, and were particularly chafed by the monarchy. The Founders were known to be highly impressed with The Law Of Nations, it was being cited as early as 1764 by Samuel Adams, John Adams and James Otis, the framers were in possession of it at the Philadelphia Convention, numerous signers of the Constitution quoted it, several quoting specifically from the natural born citizen definition provided therein, and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, was the very person who suggested that the natural born citizen requirement be inserted into the Constitution prior to ratification, and he cited Vattel in his own decisions as Chief Justice.
So, if you prefer to be governed by feudal concepts of citizenship under a monarchy, go right ahead. I'm still a sovereign citizen, natural born of the soil and of two citizen parents, which is the understanding of the term that multiple individuals involved in creating our Constitutional Republic embraced upon the advice of John Jay.
The only mystery and the only vagueness about the term is promulgated and perpetuated by individuals and groups who wish to undermine and eventually abandon the requirement.