My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
Aid to parochial schools was permitted, because the 14th Amendment had not incorporated the Establishment Clause. Congress had passed civil rights laws under its 14th Amendment enforcement power. Those bills protected the freed black slaves but didn't mention imposing the Establishment Clause on the states at all.
Well, I don't think they mentioned imposing the establishment clause because most people didn't believe aiding parochial schools would violate it. In fact, as far as I know, under today's broader interpretation of the clause, aid to parochial schools via vouchers passes muster. Public schools continued Bible readings and prayers well into the 1950's, long after the incorporation doctrine was firmly established in the courts.
Again, I think your problem is with the current interpretation of the establishemnt clause, which I agree is wrong, not with incorporation of establishment.
Bingham did discuss the 14th Amendment during an 1871 debate. He said the eight amendments of the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th made it so.
I'd like to see the citation for that. I remember reading several speaches during the debates leading up to 1868 where Bingham explicitly says the 14th Amendment applies the first 8 Amendments to the states. I will give you references if you wish.
A congressman from Pennsylvania responded that if he had claimed that before ratification the 14th would have been rejected.
Well then, the Congressman was full of it, because Bingham did make this claim during the debates prior to ratification. Citations available upon request.
Indeed, life went on in Congress and in the states after the 14th's ratification as if nothing had happened vis-a-vis religious establishment.
That's because no one thought any states were violating the establishment clause at the time. Again, the clause itself was interpreted much less broadly in those days.
There was no action to get rid of state ties to religion to conform to the new Amendment, no action in Congress to enforce the Establishment Clause against the states, no Supreme Court edicts until many decades later as leftist judicial activism began its rise.
In those days, people were not as concered about establishment as they are today. However, incorporation was revived long before the dawn of leftist judicial activisim. In fact, it was right-wing courts who revived it with the substantive due process doctrine in the 1890's.
Here's the requested citation link. It's the website of a man currently writing a book on Bingham:
http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
I agree that we probably aren't all that far apart. With or without incorporation, the current judicial interpretation of the Establishment Clause is incorrect.