Are you claiming that because the Founders believed citizenship followed the father, that we should still do so today?
Congress passed a law explicitly addressing this issue in 1922. (If I remember correctly.) Through a piece of legislation called the "Cable act", Congress permitted women to have citizenship independent of their husbands. This ability was expanded even further with the passage of the Women's Citizenship act of 1934. I cite these two laws as the origin of much unintended mischief regarding the "natural born citizen" issue. Prior to 1922, there was no such thing as a child who was NOT a "natural born citizen". ALL children were born to parents (if married) of the same nationality, and therefore ALL children were "natural born."
It was only after the passage of a law which allowed women's citizenship to be different from that of their husbands was it possible for a child to be born of a father of one nationality and a mother of a different nationality, thereby creating a dual national dichotomy which never existed before. It was obviously NOT the intent of congress to tamper with Article II in the Cable Act, but (thanks to the widespread misunderstanding of the 14th amendment) that was the unintended consequence.
The original usage of the term "natural born citizens" had both parents being American citizens, with the wife being automatically derived from that of the Husband if it was previously different. I am not suggesting that the citizenship of a child must nowadays exclusively follow the citizenship of the father, I am saying that Unless both father and mother are American citizens, the child has a dual national taint, which was not possible prior to 1922, but is none the less a violation of the concept of a "natural citizen."
Even disregarding that they felt "born on the soil" was sufficient (usual exceptions) for natural born citizenship, note that "citizenship follows the father" was NOT in the Constitution, so it can be and has been changed by our naturalization statutes.
Definitions of terms such as "We the People," the "right to keep and bear arms" and "freedom of speech" are also not defined in the Constitution because they were considered part of the vernacular of the time, and needed no explicit definition. Very few terms ARE defined in the Constitution. (Treason being among them.)
I would point out that a citizen which is created by statute is NOT a "natural citizen". (Roger v Bellei)
"Citizenship of the father only" certainly can't be held to apply to 1961, and trying that would get you laughed out of court.
Nowadays, getting laughed out of court is no argument against what is the truth. It is an axiom of the conservative movement that the courts are not applying actual law, but are twisting it to fit liberal preferences. I constantly cite common examples of such. (Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Wickard vs Filburn) It is my desire to see the courts stormed and the Liberal Justices thrown from the ramparts. (figuratively speaking.) I, and others like me, have had our fill of tolerating glaring abuses from our Federal Court system, so arguing that a court disagrees with us is of little persuasive value.
Again, the salient point is not the citizenship of the father, it is that both mother AND father must be citizens for a child to have a natural allegiance to this nation.
The key point is that it is not your interpretation which counts. English courts have interpreted it, (as have American courts for "legiance" or jurisdiction) differently. And that is what controls.
So says the courts currently. This state of affairs is transitory. The courts reflect whatever powers are in the ascendency, not what the laws actually say.
You keep talking about "technicalities" which makes it appear you just want everything the way you want it, and don't realize that laws rest on some very technical definitions.
That someone can only barely pass the muster (and even THAT is still ambiguous, for we don't have absolute proof that he was actually BORN in Hawaii.) under the most extreme LIBERAL interpretation possible, is an example of what I mean when I say "technicality." It is a compliance with a very weak interpretation in violation of the intent and purpose of the law. (To Prevent foreign Influence.)
I may not always like the law, I may not like the way it is interpreted or applied, but I recognize that laws are a foundation of our republic. One has to go through a process to change them, or those in power will change them as they desire. We see some of that now to my dismay, but even in these dark days, the law has some constraints on what 0bama can do, what his administration can do. Allow someone to declare it all "technalities" and see what you'd get - much worse.
Interestingly enough, I have seen precious little constraint by law upon the "One." He routinely ignores the law, just as he has during his entire life. Fast and Furious, Solyandra, Inspector Generals, illegitimate recess appointments, graft, corruption, conflicts of interest, and every form of malfeasance which you can imagine are par for the course with this lawless individual. We are in uncharted territory with this guy. This is as close to a dictatorship as we are ever likely to come.
Calvin's Case was 1608. You must have a very long view.