Nontheless, citizens/residents/humans have inalienable rights. Sure there may not be explicit legal protection of them ... but that doesn't mean the states may trample those rights. There were arguments against having a BoR on the grounds that inalienable rights didn't need such blatant protection, that they should & would be protected anyway.
Hence the reason the BoR was required: justified fears that if rights were not enumerated, they would be trampled on with "well, we're not forbidden from doing so!" Would that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to require comparable explicit protection at the state level.
Just because a right is not explicitly protected at state level doesn't mean the right may be trampled.
You're preaching to the choir. I have pointed out many times (too many) that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights retained by the People. It is usually in response to a social conservative writing "I checked my copy of the constitution and I don't see the right to (fill in the blank) anywhere."
Regardless, the point still stands that the states were only bound by their own constitution in regard to respecting individual liberties. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that this all changed.