... These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment
"In fact, EVERYONE recognized the fact the bill of rights under the US constitution was not binding against the states."
You left out the rest of Bingham's comment, "until the 14th Amend."
" You will not find Bingham suggesting the first 8 amendments would be made a limitation by the 14th in the year 1866!"
I already did, and posted it to you. Here it is again.
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State of the Union
" Two months earlier Bingham officially said in a non-partisan report and not in a very partisan speech: The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. "
So? Those privileges and immunities contained and embraced in the original Constitution are contained in the Bill of Rights. Again, Bingham:
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ... These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the intent was to apply the protections contained in the Bill of Rights to all lower jurisdictions, and that what was protected, was the privileges and immunities explicitly recognized in those Amends. Is it that you, unlike those at the time that were hypocritical, or simply reacting to the hypocritical intent of others desiring to maintain segregation laws and policies in place, wish to deny the protections contained in the Bill of Rights altogether?
The 14th is quite clear, and so is the intent to protect the rights recognized in the 14th, regardless of the obfuscations of those involved in it's establishment. Art 4 Sec 2 is clear and enforcible. The only reason for the establishment of that element in the 14th, was to apply the protections imposed on the feds by the Bill of Rights, to all lower jurisdictions. That stands regardless of the political BS that flew at the time, involving continued attempts to deny the rights of some US citizens by diverse majorities. Bingham's own State of Ohio enacted discriminatory segregation codes. It's obvious the BS flew and continued to fly, because of the pressures of petty tyrants.