From the birthers favorite case, Minor:
“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”
But as I have shown already, the term ‘natural born subject’ was, for some years after, used interchangeably with NBC.
From ONE state ... as clerical entries ... although it does appear that subjects is applied more frequently to former British residents while citizen tends to apply more often to former residents of other countries ... and in these citations, the terms NBS and NBC are only used in naturalization cases. So are you arguing these people are eligible for president?? If not, then the examples prove absolutely nothing. It certainly has no bearing on why the framers chose the term NBC for the Constitution nor does it make the dicta in WKA "interchangeable" ... sorry, it's simply connecting unconnected dots.