They abrogated English Common law in many particulars, among them the most prominent was the question of what constitutes an American Citizen. If you will recall, we fought a Second war against the British on this very point. British Common law asserted that the children of a British Subject was also a British Subject. We disagreed. For a more in depth explanation of the difference between American Law regarding citizenship, and British law regarding citizenship, read this.
I doubt you will though.
Wrong. Go read up on it and you'll see English common law said that born on the soil = natural born, no matter the father's status (usual diplomatic exceptions). You'll see it referred to in several of the cases we've been discussing here. But you already know that, don't you?
English Children born anywhere are English Subjects. Of course, *we* disagreed. You did learn about the war of 1812 didn't you?
When they did deviate about citizenship, they were quite specific about it. They never abrogated, (in fact periodically affirmed) jus soli. What they changed was the English idea of "once an English subject, always an English subject." Several justices discuss the right of a citizen to renounce and cease to be a subject or citizen.
English Children born anywhere are English Subjects.
And American children born anywhere are American citizens - or do you disagree? The court has affirmed in Rogers v Bellei that we follow jus soli (with modifications by statute.)