Seems to me the intention to apply them was de facto resident in Article VI, para 2.
In that the BOR is regarded as part and parcel of the Constitution itself, it is regarded as the supreme law of the land. Therefore, anything in any State constitution which is contrary to the BOR is repugnant. For what are the Bill of Rights, if they are not the rights of the individual? Certainly not the rights of the state or federal government.
The BOR is supreme over the repugnancies of congress (laws congress passes which are not in pursuance to the BOR), over laws based upon treaties, over any court decision, and definitely supreme over any state law or state constitutional provision. The states ratified the federal constitution and agreed to that proviso by their ratification of it.
And if that is not the way it is, it will be the next time around.
They are a list of restrictions on the federal government, not on the states, as Justice Marshall pointed out. Our rights don't come from the Bill of Rights, they come from God. If the supremacy clause applied the BOR to the states, then the Fourteenth amendment would not have been necessary.
Per the Tenth amendment The feds aren't supposed to be able to act outside their enumerated powers, but they have usurped powers they shouldn't have from the states and from the We, the people.