The Founders clearly were not thinking of themselves or others as being “subjects” of any kind.
It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species.
Under the English common law, one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth. Under the American system there was no one individual ruler to owe a personal allegiance to. Hence, the considerable difference between the terms “citizen” and “subject”.
Perpetual allegiance to a ruler (i.e., being a subject) was dismissed in an outright manner.
This is precisely why the 14th Amendment prevents one from defining “natural born citizen” under common law.
One being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is not a condition required under the common law.
Legislatively, the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” This is far from physical location alone.
Further, in roughly 1800, Pickney explained the Presidential eligibility clause this way: “to insure attachment to the country.”
As I have posted previously, I consider “natural born citizen” to be a unique conmbination of citizenship and allegiance.
Bingham also explained earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to another, as the U.S. abandoned the concept of England’s “natural allegiance”.
“The Founders clearly were not thinking of themselves or others as being “subjects” of any kind.”
Maybe that is why the changed the third word to “citizen”?
Read WKA in the above post and you will, if you can read, know that the Supreme Court has already said you are an idiot.