Replies

After canvassing the Ratification materials, Charles Fairman concluded that they confirm that the Bill of Rights was not incorporated in the Amendment. That view is powerfully buttressed by Dean James Bond's recent study of the Ratification debates in Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. It contains striking repetitions of the views expressed by the Framers

The vast bult of the Ratification sources are the newspaper articles and reports of campaign speeches. With the exception of Pennsylvania, Dean James Bond states, the State legislatures kept no records of their debates. The legislative debate in Pennsylvania, he comments, 'reads like a reprise of the six month campaign that preceded it'. There are a few of the Governor's messages, but 'most are quite general'. In the three states on which Bond concentrated, he observes that debate 'did not focus exclusively or even primarily on the first section of the 14th Amendment. The principal issue in those states was control of the national government'. Republicans feared that Democrats would wrest control of the House because with emancipation Southern representation would no longer be limited to three-fifths of the blacks as Article I(3) provided.
(snip)
Speaking in Chicago in August 1866, Senator Trumbull, who had piloted the Bill through the Senate, 'clearly and unhesitatingly declared of the Amendment to be 'a reiteration of the rights as set forth in the Civil Rightst Bill", which did not include any reference to the Bill of Rights. In Indiana, Senator Lane 'affirmed Trumbull's statement concerning the first section'; and Senator Sherman 'endorsed' those views in a speech on September 29,1866. Senator Poland spoke to the same effect in November 1866--Raoul Burger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, pp37-42

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights--PDF File

I would suggest the whole book. It is a PDF file but a good discussion of the Fourteenth and the Bill of Rights. BTW, Poland and Trumbull are two of the men sourced in the article you provided RKV. Seems they didn't mean exactly what your source would have us believe...

You need to read the actual Congressional ratification debates from 1868, some of which are quoted here:

Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights
Address:http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

"-- The first draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment was debated in the House for three days, beginning on February 27, 1866.
Bingham, its author, argued on its behalf that previously "this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States."[28]

Representative Robert Hale of New York saw no need for the amendment, because he interpreted the existing Bill of Rights to bind not just Congress but also the States:
"Now, what are these amendments to the Constitution, numbered from one to ten, one of which is the fifth article in question? . . . They constitute the bill of rights, a bill of rights for the protection of the citizen, and defining and limiting the power of Federal and State legislation."[29]

Bingham responded that the proposed amendment would "arm the Congress ... with the power to enforce this bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today."[30]

Representative Frederick E. Woodbridge of Vermont characterized the sweep of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment as empowering Congress to protect "the natural rights which necessarily pertain to citizenship."[31]

In debate on February 28 on the representation of the Southern States in Congress, Senator James Nye of Nevada opined that the Bill of Rights already applied to the States, and that Congress has power to enforce it against the States.
He stated:

In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated."
... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

Referring to blacks, Senator Nye continued:

"As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."[32]

Similarly, Senator Stewart repeated that the federal Constitution is "the vital, sovereign, and controlling part of the fundamental law of every State," and although the states may repeat parts of it in their own bills of rights, "no State can adopt anything in a State constitution in conflict."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read the actual words of the 14th's framers, billbears, and learn..

The 14th amendment was proposed by a special Joint Committee on Reconstruction that was created by resolutions in the House and Senate in 1865. They made several recommendations for Constitutional amendments that resulted in the adoption of amendments 13-15. In early 1866, a subcommittee was formed, made up of Congressmen Bingham, Stevens and Conkling and Senators Howard and Fessenden. Rep. Bingham presented a proposed amendment that became the 14th amendment. It was approved by the committee and sent to the House for consideration, along with an explanation of its purpose from Bingham. In that explanation, and in the ensuing debate in both chambers, it was made quite clear that the privileges and immunities clause covered, at the very least, the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights. When he presented the amendment to the House for debate, Bingham noted its necessity by pointing out that up to that point, "these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States." He proposed to change that by giving the Federal government the power to enforce the bill of rights against state action with his amendment, and he consistently invoked the bill of rights as representing the privileges and immunities to which he referred:

"Is the Bill of Rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States, a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced...'Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that this very provision of the bill of rights brought in question this day, upon this trial before the House, more than any other provision of the Constitution, makes that unity of government which constitutes us one people, by which and through which American nationality came to be, and only by the enforcement of which can American nationality continue to be...'What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of power which we ask this day?...Gentlemen who oppose this amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights."

He further noted, in later debate over whether the amendment was required to enforce the Civil Rights Bill that was making its way through Congress, "I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath, and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution."

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/05/the_historical.php