In 1856 Chief Justice Roger Taney, Scott v. Sandord, described the rights of free men:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

Now I grant that the scope of the rights of free men were subject to debate. a debate which Taney did not resolve.   However I hold that the description of the rights of free men in 1856 was not a topic of debate.  Taney was simply describing accepted rights.  So while in 1856, the population which exercised the rights of free citizens was more limited, the rights themselves were more expansive.

Now move the calander forward a century and half.   Liberals are in opposition to every right Taney articuluted.   Liberals oppose, the right to travel, the right of free speech and the right to carry arms.   Taney to his limited credit at least believed that white men had legal freedoms.  Today liberals don’t believe any person has any freedom.