That is obviously your opinion of what it meant. The prevailing legal opinion is that of US citizens, only naturalized citizens are not natural born. The Constitution clearly only envisions three types of US citizen.
No, what YOU are claiming is YOUR opinion based only on your personal imagination. What I'm talking about is based on exact language from the Supreme Court. The Constitution envisions at least FOUR types of citizens. "Citizens of the United States" in Article I. "Natural-born citizens" in Article II. And citizens "born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. Technically, those naturalized under the 14th amendment is a different type of citizenship from those naturalized prior to the 14th amendment. Second, you're forgetting that this nation was a collection of several states, so each state had its own citizenship laws prior to the 14th amendment that were separate from federal laws. The 14th amendment federalized all those citizenship laws, but it did not modify nor redefine natural-born citizen, which is why the Supreme Court said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Further, even AFTER the 14th amendment, U.S. law has acknowledged the difference in the two classes of citizens at birth here:
"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
Notice the part that is underlined ... it's talking about restoring the citizenship status of "whichever" status existed prior ... thus this language establishes a clear operational and statutory distinction between "native-born" or "natural-born." Here's a link:
link