The term "natural born citizen" found in a number of Naturalization acts of Massachusetts between the times of the United States Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) and the ratification of the United States Constitution by all thirteen original states (May 29, 1790).
February 28, 1785
Nicholas Rousselet & George Smith
"natural born citizens"
Massachusetts. Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1784-85. Boston: Reprinted by Wright and Potter, 1890 or later, from Adams & Nourse, 1784. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=_X8QAAAAYAAJ 124-5.
February 7, 1786
Michael Walsh
"natural born citizen"
Massachusetts. Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1784-85. Boston: Reprinted by Wright and Potter, 1890 or later, from Adams & Nourse, 1784. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=_X8QAAAAYAAJ 507-8.
July 7, 1786
Jonathan Curson & William Oliver
"natural born citizens"
Massachusetts. Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1786-87. Boston: Reprinted by Wright and Potter, 1893, from Adams & Nourse, 1786. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=n4AQAAAAYAAJ. 53-4
October 29, 1787
Bartholomy de Gregoire & others
"natural born Citizens"
Massachusetts. Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1786-87. Boston: Reprinted by Wright and Potter, 1893, from Adams & Nourse, 1786. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=n4AQAAAAYAAJ. 571-2
November 21, 1788
Elisha Bourn & others
"natural born Citizens"
Massachusetts. Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1788-89. Boston: Reprinted by Wright and Potter, 1894, from Adams & Nourse, 1788. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=M4EQAAAAYAAJ 38-9.
That shows that the term “natural born citizen” was in use before the drafting of the Constitution, but I don’t think that is in dispute. What is in dispute is what “natural born citizen” was understood to mean at that time, and these naturalization acts provide no guidance as to that issue.
I think we’ve established that there were at least two definitions of “natural born citizen” extant at the time (assuming for the sake of argument that Vattel’s “naturel or indigenes” was understood at the time to translate to “natural born citizen”). There was the English common law definition, as explained by Blackstone, and there was Vattel’s definition, which was probably derived from French law at the time.
I’ve yet to see any conclusive evidence that one definition or the other was more generally accepted in the United States in 1787. Absent such evidence, it seems far more likely that the English common law definition was used, since virtually all other American law was based on English, not French, law. Also, from what I’ve seen of the early Supreme Court cases that cite Vattel, Vattel was used primarily as a source on international, not domestic, law.
The law of nations; or Principles of the law of nature: applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns
by Emer de Vattel
English
1787
New York : Printed for Messrs. Berry and Rogers, no. 35, Hanover-Square.