He called free speech “the dread of tyrants” and a “sacred right.” The Civil War tested that principle. Did it extend even to supporters of the Confederacy?
In their own words, what was the position of government officials in favor of speech restrictions? My concern is that Free Speech is a principle that is treated as dogma.
In part your question was answered more generally by President Lincoln on April 18, 1864 (essentially exactly a year before he was assassinated by a man who believed in the supposed right of one group of people to viciously and brutally oppress another group of people):
"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."
Southern states also wrote laws criminalizing abolitionist expression.
You've got a point about "Free Speech" being treated like some sort of dogma. On the one hand, for very many it is dead dogma, as John Stuart Mill put it. On the other hand, many others forget that expression is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
Have you read "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation" by Joseph Ellis? It is an outstanding book about some of the personalities and principles that make us the U.S. Ellis answered your question in interesting detail. Even James Madison was involved in repressing expression about slavery. He and many others in Congress opposed even allowing petitions to be presented to Congress related to slavery or abolition. They invoked, in part, the two provisions of the Constitution that blocked regulation of the importation of slaves for 20 years.
You probably could learn a good bit by searching for info about efforts to repress abolitionist literature in 1790's and 1800's.
What did the other side argue?
About what?
In their own words, what was the position of government officials in favor of speech restrictions? My concern is that Free Speech is a principle that is treated as dogma.
In part your question was answered more generally by President Lincoln on April 18, 1864 (essentially exactly a year before he was assassinated by a man who believed in the supposed right of one group of people to viciously and brutally oppress another group of people):
"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated."
Southern states also wrote laws criminalizing abolitionist expression.
You've got a point about "Free Speech" being treated like some sort of dogma. On the one hand, for very many it is dead dogma, as John Stuart Mill put it. On the other hand, many others forget that expression is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
Have you read "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation" by Joseph Ellis? It is an outstanding book about some of the personalities and principles that make us the U.S. Ellis answered your question in interesting detail. Even James Madison was involved in repressing expression about slavery. He and many others in Congress opposed even allowing petitions to be presented to Congress related to slavery or abolition. They invoked, in part, the two provisions of the Constitution that blocked regulation of the importation of slaves for 20 years.
You probably could learn a good bit by searching for info about efforts to repress abolitionist literature in 1790's and 1800's.