I hadn’t heard the Sam Houston story. Thank you.
Are you sure that persons born in Louisiana, Hawaii, California, etc. prior to annexation were deemed to be “citizens from birth” by federal law? at the very least, such designation would have been limited to persons who were residents of those territories at the time of annexation. In the case of Puerto Rico, Spanish subjects who resided in Puerto Rico on a certain date in 1899 (when the transfer of Puerto Rico from Spain to the U.S. pursuant to the Treaty of Paris went into effect), and their descendents subsequently born in Puerto Rico, were deemed to be “nationals of the United States” (the status held by American Samoans to this day) commencing on such date; under a federal law adopted in 1917 (the Jones Act), those same Spanish subjects and their descendents became U.S. citizens effective on that (1917) date. However, the U.S. citizenship conferred upon Puerto Ricans was not back-dated to their birth. I would be willing to wager that the citizens of the Republic of Hawaii who were conferred U.S. citizens in 1900 were deemed to have become U.S. citizens in 1900, not at birth, and that it was limited to Hawaiian citizens who resided in Hawaii on some specific date in 1898.
As long as we are agreed that we’re talking about a hypothetical, these people seem to be in an in-between place, not being naturalized, but having a birth-right citizenship transferred to the U.S. upon an annexation. Since, to my satisfaction, the rights of natural born citizens are exactly the same as those of naturalized citizens, except for eligibility for U.S. President, I don’t think the issue has been adjudicated. I don’t think we’ll find out the answer any time soon.