As to the facts of his case and his holding Gray never called him a Natural Born Citizen he called him a Native Born. If Gray had no doubts he would have declared him a Natural Born Citizen but he did not do that.
As I have just recently wrote. The US Supreme Court in about a half dozen cases call all persons Native Born instead of using the phrase Natural Born to differentiate that their parents were citizens of other countries. The only time the Supreme Court used the phrase 'Natural Born Citizen' when it was clearly that the parents were citizens of the United States and the person in question was born on US soil. see Perkins vs. Elg 1939.
SCOTUS words in the facts of the case and their holdings mean a hell of alot more than their dicta. Dicta should support their judgments, but sometimes it doesn't support their argument or opinions...for whatever reason they keep to themselves.
And yet, you are willing to proclaim that something said in the middle of the opinion from the Slaughterhouses cases trumps Wong.
Whether you like it or not, the term , “subject to its jurisdiction” was decimated in Wong over and over again. It is the operative phrase when trying to answer many questions including Natural Born questions. Slaughterhouse used the word “citizen” in your quote. They were discussing “subject to it’s jurisdiction” and stated that the main purpose of that phrase was to establish citizenship of a Negro.
It is interesting to note what Justice Gray had to say about Chief Justice Waite and all the same lawyers on the bench except for one (Chase who died)when it came time for the Minor case. I am sure you understand that Chief Justice Waite was involved with the Slaughterhouse cases which makes his comments in Minor interesting when he decided to NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE.
Also, the dissenting opinion in Wong also has an opinion about the Slaughterhouse cases in that he doesn’t insist that the point is definitely disposed of:
“I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughterhouse Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. “
So you have all of the Supreme Court in Wong indicating that the Slaughterhouse cases essentially did not definitively answer the question.
It doesn’t matter what you think of Wong...THAT IS THE CASE UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE - NOT YOUR CASE YOU ARE QUOTING.