In the early part of this country’s history, Indians were considered members of their own nation, not Americans. That’s why Indian treaties were viewed as engagements with another nation. (Not that we usually paid much attention to the treaties for long.)
Various Indians became American citizens as a result of these various treaties, because they were born off the reservations, or for other reasons. By 1924 about 2/3 were citizens, and the law of that year made the remainder citizens.
On second thought, I agree with you. An amendment or law recognizing new groups as citizens could not retroactively add natural-born status to them. So I guess they came in as a variant of naturalized citizen.
Although if the Dred Scott decision could decide, in defiance of history and logic, that African-Americans were not and never could be citizens, then it would be no less illogical to have a ruling that they always had been citizens and if born here NBC. Their citizen and NBC status had just been illegally denied for a long time.
It is my argument that the 14th Amendment is nothing but a naturalization amendment, and was never anything else. I keep coming back to this statement by Chief Justice Waite:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
What does it mean when the 14th amendment plainly says this?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...
Could he possibly mean that the 14th amendment does not say who shall be "natural born citizens"?