[Svartalfiar]

On my phone so I can't html much. But nothing from the Founding Fathers' time implies that anyone born in the US was a citizen. If you read some of their correspondence, they thought the opposite. But the 14th is where much of the murkiness comes from. And here's a quick quote off a Google search: Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

[Lurking Libertarian]

But nothing from the Founding Fathers' time implies that anyone born in the US was a citizen.

I gave you a direct quote from Rawle, who was appointed a U.S. Attorney by President George Washington.