No you are not. You are trying to push a bunch of sophistic double talk in an attempt to make your argument look less stupid.
George Washington was a Natural Born Subject of His Britanic Majesty George III. You keep trying to bullsh*t him into being a "natural born citizen" of the United States, which wouldn't exist for another 44 years.
And those who were born here in the Colonies, had an allegiance to those Colonies and to their fellow-citizens of those Colonies. They also had an allegiance to the king.
The Colonies did not exist as Nations. Citizenship heretofore was a NATIONAL designation. It was not provincial or even municipal. Collectively, they BECAME a nation, but till that point the term "citizenship" was not utilized for an entity so small as a province or municipality.
Before the Revolution, there was no conflict between those two allegiances. After the Revolution, those allegiances were in direct conflict, and each person had to choose one or the other.
And here you contradict your own argument. What is "natural born" if you have a choice? Having a choice makes it subjective, not objective.
Again, I can't help the fact that you have no understanding of the history of law, but imagine that you do.
And of course, the obligatory and childish ad hominem.
I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.
Let's go over that, word by word.
James Madison, Father of the Constitution.
The topic was CITIZENSHIP.
And Madison, the Father of Our Constitution, says:
EVERY PERSON (that is, every person born on American soil prior to the Revolution)
...who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community;
So here Madison clearly says, just as I have just said, that EVERY PERSON BORN IN AMERICA BEFORE THE REVOLUTION HAD TWO ALLEGIANCES.
He had an allegiance "TO THE PARTICULAR COMMUNITY IN WHICH HE WAS BORN."
And he had an allegiance "TO A BRITISH SOVEREIGN."
And what does Madison say happened when we split from England?
He says that such people WHO RETAINED THEIR PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN WERE ABSOLVED FROM A SECONDARY ALLEGIANCE THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY OWED TO THE KING.
What ELSE does he say happened?
He says that SUCH PEOPLE RETAINED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT.
And WHAT WAS THAT BIRTHRIGHT?
Remember that he is speaking in the context of Smith's eligibility, due to his CITIZENSHIP.
IT WAS THE BIRTHRIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP, BY BIRTH (REMEMBER THE WORD "BIRTHRIGHT?") IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN.
In other words, such people were MEMBERS, or CITIZENS of those communities IN WHICH THEY WERE BORN.
Their PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE was TO THOSE COMMUNITIES.
Their SECONDARY ALLEGIANCE was to the King.
Thus their PRIMARY BELONGING was to those communities WHICH BECAME THE UNITED STATES.
James Madison, the Father of Our Constitution, says you're full of it.
People such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, born on American soil, retained their membership in the communities they were born in, which became the United States of America.
Because of this, they were considered NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States.
And if you look at the reason WHY, historically, the grandfather clause was passed, it seems to be generally agreed that it wasn't for the sake of these people.
It was for the sake of folks like Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson.