[Lurking Libertarian]

If that were the case, the framers of our Constitution would not have had to put "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" in Article II section I. There would be Zero need to do so, if they thought that having British citizenship at birth themselves...but later U.S. citizenship via the Declaration of Independance meant they still meet the NBC clause.

They needed that clause not because they were dual citizens at birth, but because they were only British citizens at birth-- the U.S. didn't exist as a legal entity until 1776.

[rxsid]

"They needed that clause not because they were dual citizens at birth, but because they were only British citizens at birth-- the U.S. didn't exist as a legal entity until 1776."

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were:

1) Born in the colonies..not G.B. (most if not all anyway).
2) British citizens AT birth
3) U.S. Citizens.

they needed it because the were only citizens of the U.S. who also happened to have been British citizenship at birth. Obviously, the declaration in 1776 didn't give them Natural Born status.

[nominal]

“They needed that clause not because they were dual citizens at birth, but because they were only British citizens at birth— the U.S. didn’t exist as a legal entity until 1776. “

The Constitution wasn’t adopted until 1787, and it says “Citizen of the United States” in the Constitution, not British citizens.