I find it hard to believe you've done serious research into this and can conclude that those who wrote the Amendment were "crystal clear" in intending to make the first 8 amendments to the Constitution applicable against the states...much less conclude that others in Congress and the various state legislatures understood that that was the intent...at very best, its quite unclear what even Bingham himself believed
You state that Fairman and Berger had an interest in slanting their findings so as to reach a conclusion that the 14th Amendment was not understood to incorporate the Bill of Rights. I don't know your basis for that opinion...Fairman's article (unlike those of some of his detractors like Michael Curtis and Akhil Amar) is almost completely based on the documentary history of the 14th Amendment.
One fact that I would think would be pretty persuasive to anyone with an open mind on this subject is that Fairman, in the pages in his article he devoted to covering the debates in the all of the various state legislature debates over the 14th Amendment, found not a single reference to suggest that anyone in those state legislatures believed that the 14th Amendment was to make the BOR applicable to the states. We are supposed to believe that (at least a significant number of...presumably most if, as you say, the Amendment's purpose was "crystal clear") state legislators were ratifying such a monumental transformation of the federalist American system...a transformation that would have made every state law subject to the federal courts' review and, indeed, resulted in many state laws being rendered unconstitutional...and yet, no one even discussed this in any state ratifying debate?
Ridiculous
Making the entire Bill of Rights applicable against the states was a revolutionary change. Whatever one's position might be on the merits of such a proposal, it surely would have triggered a monumental debate. The ratification battles in the state legislatures would have been littered with speeches, either pro or (especially) con, on this subject.
The Blaine Amendment was the result of a wave of anti-Catholicism. Some Protestants didn't want their tax dollars to aid the growing number of Catholic parochial schools. Even so, the amendment failed to pass the Senate, even after a provision protecting Bible reading in the public schools was added. The vote in the Senate was straight down party lines, with the Democrats voting "no" because they opposed any federal interference at all in education.
They said it explicitly, numerous times. I've gone to the primary documents and read them for myself. Before I did that, I too was skeptical of incorporation and bought into the arguments of Berger and Fairman. But when I actually read the primary documents myself, when I saw what they said, I could see that Berger and Fairman were distorting the truth, and Curtis more or less had it right.
much less conclude that others in Congress and the various state legislatures understood that that was the intent...at very best, its quite unclear what even Bingham himself believed
It is quite clear. Go read the documents.
You state that Fairman and Berger had an interest in slanting their findings so as to reach a conclusion that the 14th Amendment was not understood to incorporate the Bill of Rights. I don't know your basis for that opinion...Fairman's article (unlike those of some of his detractors like Michael Curtis and Akhil Amar) is almost completely based on the documentary history of the 14th Amendment.
It's based on quotations ripped out of context. I looked them up for myself. As for Michael Curtis, he also bases his book, "No State Shall Abridge" on documentary evidence. At first I did not believe him, but I went up and looked up his citations. Have you yourself gone to the primary sources, or are you just relying on articles by others?
One fact that I would think would be pretty persuasive to anyone with an open mind on this subject is that Fairman, in the pages in his article he devoted to covering the debates in the all of the various state legislature debates over the 14th Amendment, found not a single reference to suggest that anyone in those state legislatures believed that the 14th Amendment was to make the BOR applicable to the states.
That's because he overlooked them or distorted them.
We are supposed to believe that (at least a significant number of...presumably most if, as you say, the Amendment's purpose was "crystal clear") state legislators were ratifying such a monumental transformation of the federalist American system...a transformation that would have made every state law subject to the federal courts' review and, indeed, resulted in many state laws being rendered unconstitutional...and yet, no one even discussed this in any state ratifying debate?
They did discuss it, Curtis documents it, and I personally verified it at the Columbia University Library.