I've reviewed the most recent work on Sir John A. Macdonald's political thought, thinking that perhaps there I would find his views on "freedom of expression and the press" (FOE&TP) praised as among his achievements in the @MLInstitute birthday letter.

I did. But oh my.

1/ https://twitter.com/stillots1/status/1349565407573782529

That work is by an excellent intellectual historian, Michel Ducharme. It's an essay on Macdonald's idea of liberty, published in a fine collection edited by one of the signatories to the @MLInstitute letter.

In Ducharme's essay, there is exactly one reference to FOE&TP.

2/

Ducharme (p153) lists FOE&TP as one of the rights Macdonald "referred to during his career," noting that "he did not make too many references to them."

Ducharme's source at note 51 is Macdonald's campaign literature for the 1861 election. The "campaign literature" is a 180 page compilation of excerpts from older speeches and comments on various opposition complaints.

Read it yourself at http://Canadiana.org .

The press freedom remark is on page 8, from a platitudinous address to party faithful at Brantford (undated.)

General context: JAM says he's been successful in politics because he belongs to a great party, full of principled men like y'all in this room.

Ducharme spends much of the essay on Macdonald's defense of property rights. On those rights, JAM was militant and active. One of the landmark constitutional cases of his life, Ontario Rivers and Streams disallowance, hinged on property rights. Those, he actively championed.

On #SirJAM's relation to newspapers, I am completely in agreement these comments from @HaroldBerube, who is currently doing major research on the history of newspapers and journalism: https://twitter.com/HaroldBerube/status/1349700819692777474?s=20

Macdonald was no Joe Howe.

Professing platitudes doesn't make one a champion of freedom of the press.

I'm banging on about this because it looks to me as though one of the claims about "what we shouldn't forget about Macdonald" in the @MLInstitute letter looks to me to be imaginary. But I'm open to info.

I'm sorry to see some historians I respect among the signatories to that letter.

I'm sure they wanted to signal commitment to some general values, not endorse every claim.

But ouch. Finding present day virtues in the past isn't more admirable than finding present day vices.

Ha. Got carried away and forgot to number tweets 3 to 9. A short thread in comparison to my usual 18-tweet behemoths.