You’re jumping past the significance of Great Britain claiming every citizen as British subjects, from the founding of this country until the conclusion of the War of 1812, calenel. From the point of view of our own government at the time, the claims were and are specious.
So, no one, to my knowledge, has been President who was acknowledged to have been indisputably born subject to the jurisdiction of another country, since the founders’ era. Unless, that is, you want to make that claim about Chester Arthur, and even his example is not helpful in supporting a liberal interpretation of the natural born citizen requirement. He wasn’t elected President, he was elected Vice President, and became President upon the death of Garfield. Even so, he went to great lengths to conceal any reference to his potential ineligibility, and was never required to address the matter in a court of law. He did have his papers destroyed upon his death, though.
The same cannot be said of Obama. Yes, he’s going to great lengths to conceal anything that might disclose nationality at various stages in his life, but he’s been quite open about admitting he was born a subject of Great Britain.
"dictionary definition" = "liberal interpretation"? Since when? I am not the one creating new definitions here. Show me the place where the alternative definition exists. Why would the FFs use a definition that was neither recorded nor debated over the common one? Others arguing from your position have attempted to cite Blackstone, St. George Tucker, Vettel, etc., but not one of them wrote anything along the lines of what you are claiming, and they (St. George, et al.) often contradict each other. Numerous SC cases have been cited and not one of them used 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' in its decision. Nowhere is there support for the 'on US soil with two citizen parents' definition in any of those decisions or in any law or in the Constitution. And every time I ask for an example the response is [crickets] or a regurgitation of the previous failed argument.
"From the point of view of our own government at the time, the claims were and are specious."
From the point of view of our own government the claims were irrelevant. We didn't go to war over British claims, but over British actions.