Typing in all caps, with bolded letters and colored fonts won’t strengthen your incorrect argument. Nothing in what you quoted said that place of birth made McClure a citizen. Instead it cited applicable laws. If what you and other Obots believed were true, then there would have been no need for the 14th amendment ... and further, the Wong Kim Ark case wouldn’t have had to cite page after page of English common law trying to build a justification for declaring Ark to be a citizen (note: he was NEVER declared a natural-born citizen). Had McClure been born in England, he couldn’t have been a U.S. citizen. They had to establish birth on U.S. soil AND then look at the applicable laws (which is what your own quote says) to see if he was a citizen. The Treaty of 1783 applies here because McClure’s father naturalized and became loyal to the U.S. Had he stayed loyal to the crown, McClure, even if born on U.S. soil would have been recognized as a British subject. This principle was affirmed in Shanks v. Dupont and Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.
We could keep arguing this, but you'll only keep denying it. Not only did the government letter state explicitly that McClure was a citizen by reason of his PLACE OF BIRTH, that's the ONLY reason they gave for his citizenship.
And that’s obvious and undeniable to any honest person who can read.