I certainly do.
The definition he cited is the ONLY ONE without doubts.
But not the only one, as Justice Waite stated.
That’s why he used it.
He stated both. He used neither since the question of natural born citizenship was not relevant to the court's decision.
He would have to try to resolve doubts about any other definition, which he never said was possible, but there was no need because there is a definition for which there is no doubt.
Again, completely incorrect. Justice Waite did not say he could not resolve the doubts. He said, "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." The reason being was that Happersett was a voting rights case, not a citizenship case. Naturalized citizenship and natural born citizenship didn't enter into it. Justice Waite could have said only those born with citizen parents were natural born citizens, or he could have said that anyone born in the U.S. was natural born citizen and neither definition would have settled the question because both would have been made in dicta.
The ONLY definition without doubt is the only definition he could use, and it was the definition that he clearly said was used by the framers. Sorry, you don't like it, but he only picked one definition.