What was the rationale to have the US Bill of Rights only apply at the federal level, not at the state-level?
<p>Originally, the US Bill of Rights did not apply at the state level; only the federal level. For instance, the right for a criminal to be represented by counsel, granted by the 6th Amendment, did not originally apply to state level criminals. </p>

<p>The process of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights" rel="nofollow">incorporation of the Bill of Rights</a> reversed this and made these rights apply to state level. But why wasn't it this way to begin with? What was the original rationale to have the Bill of Rights only apply to the federal level?</p>

<p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html" rel="noreferrer">Barron v. Baltimore</a> 2 U.S. 243 (1833) explains the rationale:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the
  United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for
  the government of individual States. Each State established a
  constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such
  limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular
  government as its judgment dictated.
  The people of the United States framed such a government for the
  United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and
  best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred
  on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations
  on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily
  applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are
  limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct
  governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.</p>
</blockquote>

us-constitution legal-history bill-of-rights