The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
We know that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” by parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
In the centuries subsequent to the 1795 Act "natural born citizens" have continued to occur.
What other persons have parental US citizenship? Quite obviously those who are not "born beyond sea", i.e. those born within the US.
Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Should we conclude that in 1795 Congress was no less deliberate when that distinction was removed?
Right. And I have never said anything different.
Congress in 1790 deliberately distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". Should we conclude that in 1795 Congress was no less deliberate when that distinction was removed?
That is why I say that it may well be that the 1795 Congress intended to remove Presidential eligibility from such persons. Because there was, in fact, a change in the wording.
But I simply don't believe that the successive Congresses throughout US history intended the same thing. Since the general understanding of everybody was that citizen at birth = natural born citizen, I believe that those Congresses, starting with the 1802 one, were passing laws that they believed established Presidential eligibility for children born abroad to US citizens.
The legal experts in the 1830s obviously agreed with me. Bayard was crystal clear that such persons were eligible, and a bunch of legal experts including Marshall, Story and Kent, and others, read his book and said he was good to go.
You obviously don't agree with this, and to that extent you seem to disagree with the most prominent giants of the legal world of the early United States. I don't. I agree with them. And so do the great majority of legal scholars of today.