Cicero wasn't murdered for any connection with the assassination of Caesar. He was murdered because Marc Anthony personally hated him for having denounced Anthony in a series of speeches known as the Philippics. When Octavian and Anthony were setting up the Second Triumvirate, Cicero's life was one of Anthony's demands.

Before we laud him as a saint, wasn't Cicero the guy who felt the plebian/patrician divide was just and right? My (poor) memory is that he was across the aisle from Caesar under the auspices of "no commoners" as well as "no dictators".

No one is lauding him as a saint. It's an objection to likening the murder of Cicero to censorship by the state.

Cicero was killed because Antony had a personal vendetta against Cicero. Antony's political partner, Octavian, had a good relationship with Cicero and even looked on him as a father figure. Giving him up to Antony was a compromise he was very unhappy to make (but Antony was not flexible on this demand).

Cicero, if anything, is an example of how one can be loud and open with their thoughts and actually get along well with political leaders (and he got on well with Caesar as well, supposedly). His murder is primarily indicative of Antony's pride.

I like how just correcting a falsehood is in your eyes "lauding him as a saint". There are no saints in real life.

Cicero was a conservative in some ways. But I don't think he was particularly prejudiced or classist, for the time. Remember that he was technically a plebeian himself, although obviously a privileged and successful one.

Cicero's father was of the equestrian order, not patrician but definitely not plebeian. Think upper middle class from the midwest who goes to the right schools and ends up in DC.

Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Gaius Marius, Mark Anthony even Octavian (before being adopted by Ceasar) were technically all Plebeian. By mid/late Republic the Plebeian/Patrician distinction had lost almost all meaning, as most Patrician families had died out or were surpassed in wealth and political influence by more successful Plebeian families.

The Equites were purely a social/wealth based class, any Roman citizen could become one if he we satisfied the wealth requirements.

Calling equestrians the upper middle class is not accurate. They were firmly upper class, just the lower portion of the upper class. If the senatorial class was roughly the billionaires, then the equites were the ten and hundred millionaires. Perhaps not as rich as the very top of the upper class, but still a league above the upper middle class.

Yes, calling Equestrians the upper middle class is not accurate. Our classes don't accurately map on to Roman classes; it was just a flip remark. Nouveau riche doesn't work either.

However, the Senatorial class was not an economic distinction either but rather an aristocracy. Even in the Late Republic these were old families who had had Senators and Consuls in their heredity. There were fewer of these clans, 14 at the time of Caesar (of the Julii clan). Cicero by comparison was of Equestrian rank and a New Man, novus homo, in the Roman political world.

Equestrians weren't knights anymore, expected to field a horse, .... The Roman legions had been professionalized by then. There were property and suitability requirements enforced by the Censors.

Technically it was illegal for senators to engage in any commercial activity besides agriculture so they still had to really on the equites who directly exploited the natives in the provinces to give them their cut (tax collection was privatised in the republican period). So it's not unlikely that there were individual equites who were more wealthy than many Senators.

That's fair, since senatores was a political class, not an economic class, and equites was technically the top economic class. I tried to simplify things to make the analogy possible, and I think the spirit of it is instructive even if the details could be more complicated.

The important point is that no one should mistake the equestrians for anything close to even the top end of the middle class.

He openly praised at least the main conspirator, Cassius, in his letters: http://attalus.org/translate/cassius.html#12.1

He loved the Roman Republic and it's senatorial grandeur, and hated Caesar for his illegal arrogation of power.

The historical consensus seems to be that Cicero, while probably amenable to the plot, was a witness only, and not involved with the conspirators until after the deed was done.

Cicero wasn't involved in the murder of Caesar. He was more republican than aristocrat and thus not trusted by the Liberatores. Also he was very anti-Anthony: The Philippics, 14 speeches in 44 and 43 given after the death of Caesar.

Another triumvirate was formed after the death of Caesar with Anthony, Octavian and Lepidus. The proscriptions were from that triumvirate and not just Anthony. Cicero favored Octavian but as future emperor, Octavian favored Octavian. Antony certainly hated Cicero and Octavian didn't find Cicero all that useful and well, that was that.