> We have been chipping away at the bill of rights for decades.
I see it as a little more mixed. Some things have gotten stronger, other weaker. The first amendment has mostly gotten stronger: 100 years ago, it was interpreted extremely weakly, to the extent that wide ranges of novels were illegal for containing sex scenes, pacifists were jailed under the Sedition Act for merely speaking out against WW1, you could still be prosecuted for blasphemy in some states, etc. And of course, the bill of rights was interpreted even more weakly if you happened to be black. So I'd have trouble saying things were particularly good for freedom in earlier eras of the United States.
I see it as a little more mixed. Some things have gotten stronger, other weaker. The first amendment has mostly gotten stronger: 100 years ago, it was interpreted extremely weakly, to the extent that wide ranges of novels were illegal for containing sex scenes, pacifists were jailed under the Sedition Act for merely speaking out against WW1, you could still be prosecuted for blasphemy in some states, etc. And of course, the bill of rights was interpreted even more weakly if you happened to be black. So I'd have trouble saying things were particularly good for freedom in earlier eras of the United States.