I'll be honest. I didn't actually read the whole thing, primarily because I think you got off to a false start. I'll try to go easy on you, but I'm also going to be blunt. The whole thing seems like one giant straw man of pragmatism. At least it starts out that way.

I'm a hard-core pragmatist. But I'll confess, I've never read any James or Peirce. That's because in my view pragmatism is dead simple. It's also an unbeatable philosophy. Here it is in a nutshell: Use the best ideas. That's it. Use the best ideas. Everything else derives from that pragmatic principle. It is dead simple. And it's also unbeatable.

Why is it unbeatable? Simple. Whenever you have two ideas in conflict, pragmatism always supports the better one. So, if you have a bone to pick with pragmatism, and you propose a better idea, then pragmatism automatically supports that idea, and you're not actually arguing against pragmatism, but FOR it. Pragmatism's simplicity makes it flexible and adaptable. Any effort you spend debunking some derived triviality in favour of a better idea, automatically 'upgrades' pragmatism to include that better idea.

Pragmatism, in my mind, is more like a meta-philosophy. It's a way of choosing between ideas, rather than a fixed idea in itself. Thus, the whole framing of the article 'Evidentialism vs. Pragmatism' is mistaken. If evidentialism is any good, it will be part of pragmatism, but pragmatism will not be limited by evidentialism's limitations if there are better ways of overcoming those limitations. Those better ways will also be part of pragmatism.

Here's a way you can sum it all up in a simple question. Whenever someone points out some supposed 'weakness' in pragmatism, just ask them: "You got a better idea?" If they do, great! It's supported by pragmatism. If they don't, then their critique is empty, and pragmatism stands undefeated. Either way, pragmatism comes out on top.

The only real alternatives to pragmatism are forms of epistemological nihilism, the idea that we can't really know anything at all. I'm not talking about new-age emo 'nihilism', which is little more than dressed up and confused anarchism. I'm talking the real deal: Knowledge is not really possible, literally nothing can be known. Pragmatism is essentially a rejection of epistemological nihilism. It says, Yes in fact we can know some things, and furthermore, we can attain better and better knowledge.

Again, I'm speaking out of my ass. I've never really read the so-called pragmatist philosophers. Frankly, you don't need to, and many of their ideas may be out of date. That does nothing to diminish the core principle of pragmatism, which is to use the best ideas. The old pragmatist philosophers were simply presenting the best ideas they had at the time. Pragmatism per se is not limited by any weaknesses in their conceptualizations or arguments.

Now, with that preamble out of the way, I'll directly address your post:

This quote by you, is a mischaracterization (straw man) of this quote by James:

James did not say that we are free to choose in whatever way, he said we shouldn't limit ourselves with strict rules which prevent us from acknowledging real truths. The key concept here is that there are truths, which are real, which are excluded by the rule. The rule is therefore too strict.

The rest of your post appears to flow from this core misunderstanding (straw man).

The following quote is more or less accurate:

Whereas this following quote is a strawman misinterpretation:

The pragmatist does not make such a claim in the first place. They do not claim that 'a belief unsupported by evidence is always more beneficial than a suspension of judgment'. Nor do they claim that 'a belief unsupported by evidence is not, in fact, sometimes much more detrimental'. You are putting words in the pragmatist's mouth and then saying that they fail to prove the straw man case.

I will give you one case to counter your straw man, and that is the case of expert intuition without supporting evidence. A seasoned firefighter chief is in a burning building with his team. He suddenly gets a feeling of danger. He doesn't know exactly why, but he decides to go with his intuition. He says, "Hey guys, let's get out of here right away!" The team exits the room just in time. The floor has collapsed behind them.

The chief later realizes that a subconscious cue had triggered his intuition. Although he was not consciously aware of it, he had felt his feet get warmer. That meant there was likely fire directly underneath them, which apparently is a very dangerous situation for firefighters. It was only later, after thinking about it that he realized what cues his subconscious mind had detected to trigger his intuition. There was no clear evidence known at the time to support his decision. Needless to say, if he hadn't trusted his unsupported intuition, he would be dead.

Expert intuition can be very useful (key word in pragmatism), even when there's insufficient evidence to support a concrete action by evidentialism. Therefore, I hold the position that the following quote by Clifford is shown to be wrong:

Pragmatism supports expert intuition under certain circumstances where evidentialism would not. It is clear to me that pragmatism wins in this case. If you disagree, I simply ask you, "Got a better idea?"

Lastly, in regards to so-called 'pragmatic' arguments for belief in god, such as pascal's wager. Poppycock. These are not pragmatic arguments, for they do not use the best ideas. One idea in particular, which is extremely useful, and therefore strongly supported by pragmatism, is the principle of Occam's Razor. It slices, it dices. Even after cutting though Zeus and Thor and Yahweh and piles of hardened and caked-on bullshit, it can zip through a deist god as though it had never been used. As sharp as the day it was made. Only 6 easy payments of $19.99.

The key to understanding pragmatism is understanding a pragmatic conception of truth. Truth is like an arrow. If it hits a target reliably, it's true. If it doesn't, it's not true. Truths are about predictions. A pragmatic truth can be used to make good predictions. If it can't make good predictions, it's not true, pragmatically speaking. Belief in god makes no useful predictions. In contrast, trust in an expert intuition (under certain circumstances) can make useful predictions. There are no 'pragmatic' arguments for god-belief. All arguments for god ignore dozens and dozens of pragmatic ideas such as Occam's Razor. Succinctly, they do not use the best ideas.