You need lecture no one on logic. Women were citizens that could not vote, just as Children are citizens that cannot vote. Weren't you the one that invoked "Composition fallacy" earlier?
You have also set up a strawman - I never claimed “law of the land” as there was no clear law on the books at that time on “natural born” - rather it was a continuation of English Common Law, on which much US law is based.
English Common Law was specifically rejected in many particulars, and specifically in the case of the term "citizen" as it was applied in the United States. English law did not recognize "Citizens", but instead invoked the term "subject" to indicate their relationship with their government. The founders explicitly rejected this English Law concept during a little event called "The American War of Independence." You may have heard of it? They also specifically rejected the English Common law during the subsequent war of 1812, during which the British were continuously trying to force us to accept the English Definition of "Subject" in the place of our substitute condition called "citizen."
That some states continued to recognize the left over English law standard of jus soli may add confusion to the federal aspect of citizenship, but it is easily clarified when looking at sufficient quantity of contemporary documents and acts of law.
Posters were discussing insight into the Founders’ idea of Natural Born. I provided James Madison’s clearly stated opinions on Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinus.
No, you provided a little "sound bite" snippet that seems to support your misapplied argument, while ignoring the larger argument he makes and the contemporary manner in which the issue was decided and handled.
You don’t want to accept it? Fine, you can believe that a preexisting book by the Swiss De Vattel is more important than clear statements by the Father of the US Constitution.
And you can believe that a man who says one thing on May 22nd of 1789, yet votes for it's opposite in March of 1790, is a good source of material for your argument, despite the fact that his statement is not supported by contemporary acts nor other statements by other founders. You say Madison is the "Father of the US Constitution", but the Blue print was created by Vattel. You just haven't read enough to learn this.
I am still waiting for you to explain how Slaves and Indians were not citizens under Madison's comment.
You do realize the colonists did not generally reject English Common Law? Rather they objected that the King did not abide by it in regard to the colonies. "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies..."[emphasis added]
Here is what Constitution.org has to say about Common Law as a source of the Constitution:
Blackstone's Commentaries (1765) Considered the book that "lost the colonies" for England. This text delineates the legal principles of common law which ensure the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Blackstone was quoted by the colonists twice as often as they quoted Locke. [emphasis added]See also Magna Carta and Its American Legacy on the National Archive site.