You have a unique interpretation of the Minor v. Happersett case. The sole issue before the court in Minor was whether the 14th Amendment granted females sufferage through it's equal protection clause and privileges and immunities clause. The only holding of the court denied females sufferage pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Any language in the opinion regarding citizenship was strictly dicta and has zero precedential value. Frankly, Wong Kim Ark is the case that has been followed by all courts in citizenship cases rather than Minor. In the last century, Minor has never been cited in any type of citizenship case, natural born citizen or not, whereas there are thousands of cases which cite WKA and it's language regarding natural born citizenship. Why does not a single court cite Minor when ruling on natural born citizenship, but consistently cite WKA.
A more recent case that has a good discussion of nbc is Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
Generally, there's nothing "unique" about being correct. The text speaks for itself: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were the native or natural born citizens.
The sole issue before the court in Minor was whether the 14th Amendment granted females sufferage through it's equal protection clause and privileges and immunities clause.
Sorry, but this is wrong. Minor argued she was a 14th amendment citizen and because of that citizenship, she claimed a right to vote. Her citizenship argument and the rejection of that argument is stated explicitly throughout the decision and the syllabus, as well as being acknowledged in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Read and learn:
From the syllabus: "2. In that sense, women, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since."
Waite sums up Minor's citizenship argument, based on language from the 14th amendment: "The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States ..."
Waite rejects the argument for not only Minor, but women as a class of persons: "There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
Waite reiterates that V. Minor's citizenship was NOT due to the 14th amendment: "In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her."
Justice Gray notes that the Minor decision excluded children born of citizen parents from the 14th amendment: "...all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court ..."
Justice Gray notes that V. Minor's citizenship is due to citizen parents: "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....
The last quote from Gray is significant because Justice Waite never explicitly said that Virginia Minor was born of citizen parents. IOW, Gray had no reason to mention this point unless it was pertinent to the decision. And it was pertinent as it provided a definition and a term that Gray could not use for Wong Kim Ark. Ark was NOT a natural-born citizen.
You mentioned Rogers v. Bellei, but this has a lot of mixed verbiage between natural-born and native-born, such as this reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and it of course, ignores that Minor v. Happersett gave a specific definition of NBC.
"Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:
"[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . .
Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization."
Yes, the court said this in Minor, but for some strange reason they omitted the part that said this was in addition to: "Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen." Those who were added by birth were those who were born to the original citizens. Anyone not born to citizens had to be naturalized. It's not until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment that one can be born in the country and be considered a citizen without being born to citizen parents, except where already occurring in certain states, but this is not the same as natural born citizenship because the Court in Minor unanimously told us so.
A quick warning: the birthers among us do not accept that simple fact. They will argue that there is a category of born citizen that is not "natural born" citizen. You will cite decisions that plainly support your point, and they will slice the sentences and paragraphs into little pieces and reassemble them to mean something you won't recognize. At some point you will walk away shaking your head in disbelief, at which point they will declare that they have proven you wrong.
Just trying to save you some time. Engage for fun if you want, but don't expect to get anywhere.