I already quoted it from Wong Kim Ark. But there are others too. Shanks v. Dupont says: “All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown.” Being native meant you were either an American citizen or a British subject. It doesn’t say all those who were native or otherwise were citizens AND subjects. Shanks goes on to deny double allegiance: “Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons — an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.”
I’ve already debunked the rational that Ankeny put forth. They undermined their decision by acknolwedging Wong Kim Ark declared no specific person to be a natural born citizen. Second, their decision (and the Indiana Supreme Court’s) to affirm the motion to dismiss was based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,not their infirm interpretation of natural born citizen or any claim of eligibility. That was tacked on nonsense.