In the Wong Kim Ark case, the appellant, Mr Wong, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, Justice Gray cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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.That's dicta, of course. But it proves that Justice Gray could not possibly have thought the decision he was rendering could have defined "natural born citizen" differently than as specified above. How can this be? It's because the precedent the court was setting had nothing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen," and only concerned itself with whether a person born in the US to non-citizen parents was a native citizen of the US (note: "native citizen" is not the same thing as "natural born citizen.") To prove me wrong, you need to find language in the Wong Kim Ark decision that specifically defines "natural born citizen" as meaning "anyone born in the US" (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats, of course.)
You won't be able to do that, because the decision says no such thing.
Nor did the decision say that those born in the US would be eligible to be President. It does say they have the same rights as other citizens, but serving as US President is not a right, it's a privilege reserved by the Constitution to those who meet specific requirements: A President must be 35 years of age, must have resided in the US for 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. So clearly, not all citizens qualify for the privilege of serving as President.
The evidence I have provided regarding Chester Arthur is irrefutable. That no one asked Arthur about the citizenshp status of his father proves that few knew the essential facts, and those that did know decided to keep quiet for reasons that should be obvious. The fact that no one bothered to ask could have many explanations, not one of them setting any legal or de facto precedents. The fact that article I referenced was written and published at that time, in that journal, proves irrefutably that a) the idea that "natural born citizen" must be born in the US of US-citizen parents was a well-founded and well-accepted legal position (the quote from the Wong Kim Ark case does the same,) and it proves that few, if any, readers would have realized, when reading the article, that Chester Arthur's Presidency was called into question by what the article said.
Thus, you are refuted.
You apparently missed this line (see highlight):
"The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’"
Let me repeat it for you and highlight it again in case you missed it a third time "if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
As to Arthur, according to this theory, the voters in 1880 were much, much dumber than voters in 2011. That is the only possible explanation given what we know about the political environment in 1880: Arthur had many enemies who had ample motivation to bring him down. He was widely regarded as politically corrupt and his enemies as early as 1880, doubted that he born in the was U.S. Voters in 1880 also knew in 1880 that his father was Irish born and that his father had lived in the country long enough to become naturalized prior to Arthur's birth.
Yet, despite intensely strong motives and reasons to be skeptical of anything Arthur said, these same Americans were too stupid and clueless to even ask, or challenge, him about his father and, equally, were too stupid and clueless, to investigate same.
I have much more respect for the voters of 1880 than you apparently do. IMHO, they were on average better informed and more politically skeptical of their leaders than they are today.
The more obvious explanation is that asking the question didn't enter their minds because they, including his many, many enemies, didn't think the status of his father was an issue.