It sounds to me like there was disagreement back then too. They start by stating the most stringent view. Everybody agrees that those people are natural born citizens, but then what about other categories (one citizen parent, born outside the USA, born here with no citizen parent)? But as they said, they didn’t have to answer that because the plaintiff belonged to the former group, so they didn’t.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.I disagree. If we look at the bold text in context what they are saying, IMO, is that the "court" can not ascertain what also might qualify as an NBC but they went to say we are certain that a child born here to parents who are citizens there is no doubt. So from that date to present there has been no other definition offered so we are still working with the one mentioned.