Perhaps we are talking past one another. I mean that the selective “incorporation” of parts of the Bill of Rights was never understood to be part of the 14th Amendment. That is clear from the language, the legislative record, Cruikshank (1876), the (legal) need for the Blaine Amendment(s), and so on. The “incorporation” doctrine I am talking about was an invention of liberal judges in the 1920s (some say 1897, but the 1920s is a better date IMHO) that gathered steam during the New Deal.
I think I misspoke in a prior post regarding the definitive book on the subject. It is Raoul Berger who is the author, not Paul Freund. Philip Hamburger has an excellent treatment of the “privileges and immunities clause”. Here is a link you may find helpful: http://www.constitution-billofrights.com/problems-today/incorporation-doctrine/
Both the Hamburger and Berger books are mentioned at the end.
And they go on to lament the messy and unorthodox manner in which the 14th was adopted... I think its present legal sense isn’t too far from what was actually being intentionally forced, during this Civil War Reconstruction era. It’s the mistreatment of the freedmen that formed the opportunity. Sin has a way of courting curses.