Is it? Then why did it include the clause, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Since that was already part of the BOR, what would have been the point of repeating it?
To make sure that the chuckleheads in the state courts knew that "This MEANS YOU." Seriously, discussions of the 14th Amendment are important, and require quite a bit more bandwidth than I will be able to supply here. Believe me when I say that I sure could find a way to make the BOR apply to the states without the 14th Amendment (Supremacy Clause and various other parts of the Constitution). After consideration, I just don't believe that to be the intent of the founders. Subsequent to the 14th Amendment, no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I only wish that judges would act that way. They do not, and we now have a mess called "partial incorporation" on our hands. I do note the difference between a) the plain language of the document b) the intent of the founders (or in the case of amendments the Senate) and c) how judges actually rule in the case law.