OK, My question is this. Do you think that the combination of what they presented within their use and then removal of the term natural born citizen in the Acts of 1790 and 1795 in describing the same set of conditions gives us a clue as to whether or not location of birth was relevant to the definition? It certainly appears this way to me.
Their failure to use NBC in 1795 is indicative of nothing, except perhaps that they just didn't think it was all that important. After all, it was already safely in the Constitution, and if that Austrian prince Ferdinand Maximilian had tried to run for President (instead of Emperor of Mexico), well, it just wouldn't have been legal!
Even if Congress had meant to redefine the meaning of NBC in 1795, they lacked the power. They would have needed two thirds of their members and three quarters of the states.