Very good. Now let me point out to you the SALIENT aspect of what you have posted.
Virginia, Va. Code §§ 1-200, 1-201, www.state.va.us/cmsportal3/government_4096/codes_and_laws.html § 1-200. The common law. The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
Since jus soli definition of subjectude is explicitly based on Monarchical law, it was thrown out with the rest of Anti-Republican Doctrines contained in English Common Law, and repudiated further by this Nation's behavior and casus belli in the War of 1812. Again, I direct you to what James Madison had to say about this:
The great mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen & Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance. . . . What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
For evidence that jus soli was SPECIFICALLY REJECTED as establishing one's citizenship during this period, I direct you to this Newspaper article from 1811, ostensibly written by James Madison himself.
You may not realize this, but during this period of history, the United States was STILL dealing with British Loyalists who remained in the United States. They regarded themselves as British Subjects, and so did the United States government. They didn't become Americans just because they were born here. Allegiance was the issue, and if they didn't have it, they weren't considered American.