Nope! I wasn't yet born....but I sure can read what folks of the era wrote....and understand what they meant. For instance....here's an Act passed by Congress in 1790 which most assuredly defines the term Natural Born:
snip: "And the children of citizens (plural) of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens"
Congress defining the term in "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (3,26,1790.
24 years later....here is what "Chief Justice Livingston" had to say in the decision of "The Venus- 12 U.S. 253 (1814)":
snip: "As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court quotes "The Law of Nations" directly and provides the definition.....born of parents who are citizens!
So....for you to say the folks of the late 18th century (early 19th) did not know the definition of the term.....is so much hogwash.
I see your comment a lot and I finally think it should be commented on.
Citizens (plural) could describe all the citizens(pleural) of the US, not all the parents(pleural) of the children.
For example there are "Children of Veterens Tuition Grants". Verterens (plural) doesn't describe a requirement for a child to have two veteren parents. It instead is plural to describe all the veterans who have children.