This is just wrong!
BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest.
As you can see it was universally understood prior in the early days of the Republic that the BoR applied only to the fedgov.
As to the "incorporation". Well, even during the heyday of the Warren court it never went as far as to claim that the entire BoR was incorporated and applies to the states. Surely you don't want to be in the same league with "Wild Bill" Douglas ;-).
Not true. There was quite a bit of opposition to Barron & the 'states rights' position..