Which is precisely why I stated:
The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.
Back in the 1700's, there really was no such thing (in England or the U.S.) as 1) a wife with a different citizenship as the husband...who (the wife) could pass her foreign citizenship onto their child via the foreign country's own laws...resulting in a child being born with multiple citizenships and therefore multiple allegiances owed. It just didn't happen back then. Additionally, so far as I know, there would have been no such thing as a sovereign military base on foreign soil. Such a base would have been considered conquered territory. Not land that was leased or loaned.
Ultimately, SCOTUS must determined...specifically, if someone born with foreign citizenship and therefore allegiance owed to another country, is a "natural born Citizen" for AII,S1,C5 requirement purposes.
From my research, the framers of both the Constitution as well as the framers of the 14th Amendment would say no.