Exactly. They were executing the 14th Amendment as written and intended. Trumbull and Howard were quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning in the Congressional Record.
Absolute, total, complete, unmitigated nonsense.
Trumbull and Howard WERE quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement.
They intended to exclude the historical exceptions - children of ambassadors, etc., and Indians in tribes. But THEY NEVER, EVER EXPRESSED ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO EXCLUDE THE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANT PARENTS.
In fact, the discussion in both houses touched upon such persons, and it was generally agreed that THEY HAD ALWAYS BEEN BORN UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
So when others later came along and interpreted their words to exclude such people, THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTELY CLEAR MISINTERPRETATION.
I'm sorry if you don't like that, but historically, that's the way it is.
Your first quote in 139 is from Samuel Roberts, who was a little judge in Pennsylvania who presided over several counties. He had no national responsibility or stature whatsoever, and was completely contradicted by those who did (e.g., Rawle, Tucker, etc.)
As for your second quote - CONGRATULATIONS. You have successfully found someone who declared people born on US soil to alien parents not to be a citizen, prior to 1880. I didn't think any such cases existed, but they do.
They don't very far before 1880 - I think the declaration you referenced was in 1876. And the judge in question wasn't even an American. It was an international commission, and he was the British foreign minister to the United States. But yes, he misread "subject to a foreign power" in the same way that birthers do, and made a (wrong) judgment on that basis.
The fact is, "subject to a foreign power" really did not say what they intended to say, so that same year when they introduced the 14th Amendment, they changed the wording to "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." As far as I can tell, history does not record exactly why they changed the wording, but it seems pretty obvious to me. "Subject to a foreign power," from a straightforward reading of that term, really wasn't what they meant in the first place.
Neither U.S. Secretaries of State nor the International Arbitration Panel agrees with you.
The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens. They DIDN'T meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Two different U.S. Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator have CONFIRMED such.