The SCOTUS didn't hold "otherwise" until AFTER the 14th amendment, and they still had to include a domicil requirement to fit the subject clause of the 14th amendment ... so their holding is still clear that place of birth ALONE is NOT sufficient to create citizenship for the children of foreigners. Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
What part of "Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States" are you claiming Publius didn't say?
I didn't make such a claim. Learn to read. I explained that what Publius said was based on the naturalization of the father, not place of birth. You seem to have completely ignored this in spite of that fact that it's in the first sentence of my comment that you replied to:
The error (as explained in the text) is on the basis of the naturalization of the father, not place of birth.
I have read it. I have also seen you take one place where Justice Gray quotes Justice Waite as the end all of the decision, and ignore all the other quotes, as well as the implications of the decision. To paraphrase another poster: Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you think it does. The proof of that is Rogers v. Bellei, WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 U. S. 657 (1927)
The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute;
I should have added a /sarc tag. I read your post. You claim an error, but you have not in any way discredited that Publius thought Mr. McClure should have been judged a United States citizen.