3 Unchanging Principles for Handling Criminal Cases

I spent 8.5 years of the last 10 years of my judgeship handling felony cases in the Criminal Division of the Rock Island County Circuit Court.

In the 18 years since, I have written only once about the business of my old court to show the difficulties facing the judge in a particular highly publicized case.

Two things have now moved me to write about the handling of criminal (felony) cases here in Rock Island County.

First, it seems that there are daily news accounts of shootings in our Illinois Quad-Cities.

Second, in visiting with people I trust, who spend a lot of time around the county criminaldivision, I have been told:

— It now takes a year to dispose of a case;

— The circuit court judges don’t want to be assigned to the criminal division;

— Nobody wants to try cases; they want to negotiate the cases instead.


Before writing this, I decided to verify what I had been told. I did so by checking the dispositions of cases filed in January of 2018, the first 97 cases filed in 2018.

From past experience (in checking dispositions of my own cases), I felt that checking all the cases filed in the first month of 2018 would given me a fair representative sampling.

Of the 97 cases filed in January 2018, here’s what I found:

1. One case is stayed until the defendant is restored to “fitness.”

2. 36 cases still were pending/undisposed of as of Dec. 20, 2018.

3. 10 were dismissed — without any other dispositions on other counts.

4. 14 cases utilized more lenient “alternative dispositions;” i.e., judgments were withheld, or where defendants were placed in an offender initiative program.

5. 36 cases ended with a plea of guilty to at least one count. Of those 36 cases, 14 ended with probation, 13 ended with conditional discharge (probation without a probation officer) and nine ended with a prison sentence.


As I studied the computer printout of the criminal cases filed in January 2018, certain facts stood out:

1. Not one of the 97 cases appears to have gone to jury trial or bench trial.

2. 36 out of 97 cases are still pending — nearly a full year after they were filed!

3. The 36 cases disposed of by pleas of guilty all appear to be the results of negotiated pleas.

So based on the foregoing, what concerns do I have based on my experiences?

Principle No. 1: If a judge starts the year with 100 cases on his docket, he wants to end the year with 100 or less cases on his docket. If 100 new cases are filed each month, the judge must dispose of 100 (new or old) cases each month.

If on Jan. 1, you have 100 cases on your docket, and 100 more are filed in January, if you dispose of only 64, on Feb. 1, you will have 136 cases on your docket.

If that pattern holds (you fail to dispose of 36 cases each month), by April 1, you will have 208 cases on your docket, and by year’s end you will have 532.


Principle No. 2: Getting an acceptable negotiated plea requires that judges and prosecutors be able and willing to take/force cases to trial. If the defendant makes bond, why would any defendant or his attorney care if the case ever gets to trial?

If defense counsel knows that the prosecutor is unable or unwilling to try his case, what incentive is there for the defendant ever to seriously negotiate or plead guilty?

Defendants plead when they know that the prosecutor is ready and willing to try the case, and the client may get hammered by the judge if the defendant is found guilty at trial. Without these two realities, why would any competent defense counsel ever plead his client guilty — unless the plea results in the prosecutor effectively “giving away his case?”


Principle 3: It is up to the judge to move the cases on his docket. Defense counsel has no incentive to force his defendant’s case to trial, unless his client is sitting in jail, and will spend more time in jail awaiting trial, than he is likely to get if he pleads guilty.

And if the prosecutor is allowing his own case load to increase by 36 a month, why is there any reason to believe that he will be sufficiently diligent to do the judge’s job as well as his own?


My next two op-eds will deal with the role of the judge in the disposition of cases.

Posted: QCOline.com   January 3, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

At Christmas, Thank God you're an American

My dad was born two years into the 20th century. One day, late in his life, before his death in the 1980s, dad told me he lived in mankind’s best times.

He said when he was born, the horse was the common mode of transportation, and that within a few years of his birth, the automobile became the universal mode of transportation in America.

Oil lamps were replaced by electricity. The telegraph and telephone provided instant communication. Flight grew from nothing to a great industry. Radio and television were invented and soon became common to every American home.

Wood heating changed to coal, then to oil and then to natural gas and nuclear energy. Central heating replaced fireplaces and stoves.

Supermarkets replaced small stores. Air conditioning became an essential in every home. And America put men on the moon.


As I have reread the histories of Jamestown, the Plymouth colony, and the French at Quebec, I marvel at how far we in America have come.

When Cartier made his second voyage to the St. Lawrence River (1534), he and his men had none of the things that Americans had when my dad was born.

That winter at Quebec, when the snow hit and the river froze, the French were trapped in their huts. Scurvy broke out. Twenty-five men died, and only three or four remained healthy enough to care for the dying.

An Indian saved those on death’s door with a “tea” (from the Aborvitae?) that provided the vitamin needed to ward off the scurvy. There were no stores, doctors, or efficacious medicines. What little food they could find came from the few animals hunted and from the river. Shelters were barely heated.


Dad didn’t live to see the computer come into common use. There were no cable networks. No email. No cellphones. You couldn’t go on FaceTime and see your daughter as you talked. You couldn’t download an app and watch virtually every Notre Dame sporting event from your phone or computer. He never knew of the internet, which today we take for granted.

The advanced batteries that we now have to power our cars hadn’t been invented in his time. The treatments for cancer and other illness that we take for granted today, didn’t exist.


There is a simple truth involved in all of this. There’s something wonderful we should be thankful for this Christmas.

We live in America. Whether we are Bill Gates’ rich, or on welfare, we still live in the greatest country in the world.

People from all over the globe opt to come here; not to Russia, China, France, Venezuela, or Cuba. Not even Sweden.

Here you can practice the religion of your choice without government interference. You can travel from Florida to Washington, from Maine to Arizona, anytime you want without a passport or government permission.

If you are arrested, you get all the rights set out in our Bill of Rights. You are presumed innocent, the government must prove your guilt to a jury of your fellow citizens (not other government officials) beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you hate the president, you can call him all sorts of vile names without fear of being imprisoned or sent to indoctrination or re-education camps. (Some 800,000 Muslims in China are presently in indoctrination/re-education camps.)

There is no nation in the world where you could enjoy greater freedom of religion, speech, association, and press.

You are free to work and grow rich. If not, there’s the social safety net. Think about it. Today, the people on welfare in America live better than virtually anybody did before the beginning of the 20th century — including kings!


Kings might have had gold, and lived in palaces. But did 19th century kings have the range of foods anybody can find in an American supermarket? The medicines? The doctors? The sanitation systems? Central heating? Air conditioning? Cell phones? TVs? Computers? Internet? Cars? Trains? Airplanes?

Were their subjects free to denounce the king on the street corner or in print? Free to practice the religion of their choice? Our country is not perfect. But it’s the best so far.


This Christmas, thank your God that you’re an American.

Posted: QCOline.com   December 21, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Time for North Korea to Vote itself out of Existence

North Korea came into existence in 1945 at the end of WWII. The Japanese had occupied Korea during the war. Upon Japan’s defeat, Korea was divided into U.S. and U.S.S.R. zones of occupation along the 38th parallel.

It has been a communist state for 73 years. Europe, which was also divided into Western and Soviet zones of occupation with the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republics in 1990-1991, has ceased to be divided.

So, why does North Korea continue to exist? Why, if socialism works, does North Korea remain an economic failure?

North Korea has operated under its own ideology since 1955 — “Juche.” It emphasize the centeredness of North Korea. It embodies the so-called “wisdom” of Kim Il-sung.

North Korean leadership claims it provides “a complete answer to any questions that arises in the struggle for national liberation.” It has three core principles: economic self-sufficiency, military self-reliance and an independent foreign policy.

It was originally described in North Korean propaganda as a “creative application” of Marxist-Leninism, but more recently, it has been re-described as “the only scientific thought ... and most effective revolutionary theoretical structure that leads to the future of communist society.”

In the 1980s, references to Juche eventually replaced Marxism–Leninism references. The 2009 North Korean Constitution dropped all references to communism and focused instead on the regime’s military-first policy. It also confirmed the position of Kim Jong-il. Nevertheless, today, the North Korean constitution still retains references to socialism. Today Juche provides the justification for North Korea’s spartan economy, poverty and discipline demanded by its totalitarian government.

The only reason I can see for North Korea continuing to exist is to provide Kim Jong-un, his relatives and his henchmen, with positions of power and wealth. If it’s no benefit the starving populace; there is a much easier and quicker way to get the job done. But that would involve the North Korean leadership giving up its privileged positions of wealth and power. It would involve uniting with South Korea.

The GDP of South Korea is currently estimated at 36.7 times that of North Korea. In 2013, the North Korean GDP was estimated at $33 billion. The South Korea GDP at $1.19 trillion. The per capita South Korean GDP was estimated at $33,200, but only $1,800 in the North (as per CIA World Factbook.)

South Korea’s trade volume in 2013 was $1.07 trillion. North Korea’s was $7.3 billion. North Korea runs a huge trade deficit. The opposite is true of the South. South Korean brands are known worldwide. They include Samsung, Hyundai and Kia.

North Korea does not produce enough food to feed its population. Chronic food shortages have resulted in undernourishment among the North Korean people. As a result, North Koreans tend to be smaller than South Koreans. North Korean life expectancy (69.2 years) is lower than South Korea’s (79.3 years). The infant mortality rate in South Korea is 4.08 per 1,000 live births; in North Korea it’s 26.21 per 1000 (2012 figures).

Contrary to the rules in South Korea, North Korea prohibits its citizens from freely traveling and immigrating abroad, and from using the internet. According to the 2014 Press Freedom Index, South Korea ranks 57th; North Korea, 179th.


The bottom line is this: If the North Korean leaders gave a damn about their people, the would vote North Korea and its leadership out of existence, and vote to unite with the South. Starving people can’t eat ICBMs.


The U.S.S.R. came into existence in 1922 and dissolved on Dec. 26, 1991. Its promises of a socialist utopia failed miserably. When it did, Eastern Europe, which had been dragged into communist socialism, repudiated its great “gift” from the U.S.S.R.

North Korea has existed four years longer than the U.S.S.R., and has produced even worse results. The regime’s legacy is totalitarianism and malnutrition. How much more suffering is the leadership willing to force upon its own people?

The time has come for North Korea to follow the lead of the Soviets and dissolve itself. 

And for all who want the U.S. to become a socialist utopia, take a trip to North Korea — if you can get in — and live there a while. Of course, you may not be able to get back out!

Then again, it might be safer to take a shorter educational trip to Venezuela.

Posted: QCOline.com   December 13, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Where's Coverage, Outrage over Muslim Terrorist Attacks?

Attacks by Muslim militants around the world have become so commonplace that scant mention of them is made in our local papers.

Indeed, only passing reference is made of them even on CNN, Fox, NBC, etc. Obviously, all Muslims are not terrorists. But it is equally obvious that some are.

Here are two recent examples of barbaric terrorist attacks. Were you aware of either of them?

The first was reported by Crux, a Catholic organ, on Nov. 24, as follows: “48 people died during an attack on a Catholic cathedral in the Central African Republic last weekend. The death toll from the Nov. 17 attack on Alindao Cathedral, had originally been put at 37, which included two priests.

“The bishops in the Central African Republic ... have placed the blame for the attacks on militants from the ... UPC — former members of the Seleka, a Muslim militia that briefly took over the country in 2013. Christians make up about 80 percent of the population of the Central African Republic; Muslims about 15 percent.”


The second, credited to the Washington Post, reports:

“Afghanistan reeled from an attack [in Kabul] on the nation’s highest religious body. The assault on a gathering of Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics Tuesday killed 55 people and wounded 94 .... More than 20 of the wounded were reported to be in critical condition.

“Hundreds of delegates from the Afghan Ulema Council and their followers were commemorating the birth anniversary of the prophet Muhammad when a suicide bomber, who had infiltrated the assembly, detonated a vest packed with high explosives, shattering an opening recitation of Koranic verses.”


So is the threat of terrorism from radical Islam real? Or is it just imagined? And if real, why is it largely ignored by the news media?

In the wake of two recent incidents of terror in Australia, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made clear he believes the threat to be real.

On Nov. 9, an attack occurred in Melbourne. It was perpetrated by a Somali-born Australian immigrant. Hassan Khalif Shire Ali terrorized Bourke Street, setting his car on fire, stabbing three bystanders, and stabbing to death a well-loved restaurant owner.

Speaking after the incident, Morrison dismissed mental health explanations as an excuse for the deadly actions. “He was a terrorist. He was a radical extremist terrorist who took a knife to another Australian, because he [Shire Ali] had been radicalized in this country.”

In the hope of preventing other such incidents, the PM called for a roundtable discussion with Muslim leaders to discuss what the Muslim community could do to help the Australian authorities prevent further attacks.

The Australian grand mufti responded by denouncing the PM for inferring “that the [Muslim] community is collectively culpable for the criminal actions of individuals.” He complained that the PM’s remarks expressed “the very sentiments that the Muslim community considers to be invalid and divisive.”

The Australian PM shot back, “I won’t cop the excuses. For those who want to stick their head in the sand, and for those who want to make excuses for those who stick their head in the sand, you are not making Australia safer. You are giving people an excuse to look the other way and not deal with things right in front of you.

“If there are people in ... an Islamic community, that are bringing in hateful, violent, extremist ideologies into your community, you’ve got to call it out.”


Some 10 days later, a second attack in Australia was foiled. Three Australian citizens, inspired by the Islamic State, were charged with planning a mass-casualty attack in Melbourne. All three earlier this year had had their passports canceled on suspicion that they intended to fight with extremists overseas.

According to Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton, “Whilst a specific location was not finalized, there was a view toward a crowded place,” where they could kill more victims.


So, who is right? The prime minister or the grand mufti? Obviously, all Muslims are not terrorists. But clearly, some are.

So, is the prime minister overreacting? Do terrorist attacks by radicalized Muslims remain a bona fide threat? If worshipers are being murdered in a cathedral, and scholars while at prayer, where is the outrage?


Where is the wall-to-wall coverage given to the murder of the Turkish journalist Jamal Khashoggi?


Posted: QCOline.com   December 6, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

How Did Behar Pass 7th Grade Civics?

Some of you who read my column probably wonder why I so often write about our U.S. Constitution.

I do so simply because so many people in places of influence who should be thoroughly conversant with our Constitution all too often display a woeful ignorance as to what it says, and why it says it.

On Nov. 7, Matthew Dowd, an ABC political analyst, appeared on The View, to give his analysis of the just-completed 2018 mid-term election.


Dowd: “In 2016 we had a split decision. Trump takes the Electoral College — geography; Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote. Last night was an even bigger example of that. Democrats won the popular vote last night by eight million votes. They lose U.S. Senate races in “red” areas because ...”


Joy Behar: “(Interrupting) Gerrymandering ...”


Now, if you don’t realize that Behar’s interruption displayed abject ignorance as to how U.S. senators are elected, you need to take a remedial class in U.S. government or civics.

Sister Pancratia taught us civics during the second semester of seventh grade. She taught us that the U.S Constitution divided our national government into three branches: the legislative, the executive and the judicial, and that our legislative branch was bicameral, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

She also taught us that each state’s representation in the senate was equal. Each state had two senators. Representation in the senate was not based on population.

In the House, on the other hand, each state’s number of representatives was based on population.

The arrangement is known as the “Great Compromise.”

When the convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, Edmond Randolph of Virginia, proposed a two-house legislature with membership in both houses set in proportion to its population.

The Virginia Plan was favored by the states with large populations. The less populous states feared the Virginia Plan. They feared that if voting was based on population, big states would control the new government, and the votes of all the smaller states would be irrelevant and meaningless.

To protect small-state interests, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral legislature, with each state having an equal vote.That, of course, would have allowed the little states to out-vote the bigger states, and was unacceptable to the bigger states.

The deadlock was finally broken when Roger Sherman and Oliver Elsworth, both of Connecticut, proposed the Great Compromise.

It called for a bicameral legislature, with representation in the House to be based on proportional representation according to the number of free inhabitants in each states, and with each state having equal representation (one) in the Senate.

The Great Compromise essentially blended Randolph’s Virginia Plan and Patterson’s New Jersey Plan. In further discussion, the Sherman/Elsworth plan was modified to provide that each state would have two senators (rather than one), and that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person to determine population for the purpose of representation in the House.


This compromise, together with a second compromise that left the issue of slavery to the states, made possible the adoption of the new proposed Constitution. Without these compromises, it is likely that the North and South would have gone their separate ways.


It is also certain that the large states would never have agreed to each state having an equal number of votes in Congress, and the small states would never have agreed to proportional representation.

Behar’s notion that Democrats lost Senate races in red states due to gerrymandering is evidence of an utter lack of understanding as to how U.S. senators are elected.

Senators are elected statewide. They are  not elected from "districts" that are susceptible to gerrymandering. It is only possible to gerrymander "districts" within a state. Where the election is statewide it can’t be gerrymandered.


Two other points:


— Article V of the Constitution says “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”


— The Electoral College, Dowd to the contrary not withstanding, plays no part in electing U.S senators or representatives.




John Donald O’Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 29, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

This Thanksgiving, Be Thankful the US Isn't Socialist -- Yet

Can socialism work in the United States? I suppose your answer will depend on how you define work.

If you mean it will work as well as it did in the USSR, or as it is presently doing in Venezuela, then you can fairly say it will work in the United States. But do you really want to live in a 21st century USSR? Venezuela?


The Union of Soviet Social Republics came into being in December 1922, and lasted nearly 70 years, until December 1991. The USSR had its beginning in the 1917 revolution when Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Provisional Government.

The country became a one-party state, governed by the Communist Party. Following Vladamir Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin came to power.

Stalin committed the USSR to socialism (communism), a planned economy, the abolition of private ownership, rapid industrialization and forced collective farming. Famine followed; millions died.

Those landowners who survived were sent to forced labor camps. Under Stalin, communism became totalitarianism. The “Great Purge” followed.

According to declassified secret police records, more than 1.5 million people were arbitrarily arrested in 1937 and 1938; some 600,000 of them were shot.

Atheism became the state religion. Church property was confiscated. Personal professions of religion were not officially banned, but participation was stigmatized by the government and its controlled press. Certain professions were closed to religious believers.

The government undertook to control and use the Russian Orthodox Church. During the first decade of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed some 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.

Most seminaries were closed, and the publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941, only 500 churches remained open while 54,000 where open prior to World War I. For 68 years, the communists (socialists) ruled without opposition. In 1991, the USSR collapsed.

If the one-party socialist government couldn’t succeed in the USSR where all opposition (churches, unions, opposing political parties, capitalists) had been crushed, why is there any reason to believe that the socialists will succeed here?


In 1999, oil-rich Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez, a communist-socialist to power. His successor is Nicolas Maduro. When the opposition won control of the National Assembly, Maduro caused its abolition. Constitutional rights have been suspended.

Chronic shortages of food, medicine and even toilet paper are rampant. For 2018, the inflation rate is projected at 1,000,000 percent. Savings of $100,000 on Jan. 1, 2018 will be worth 10 cents on Jan. 1, 2019.


Why do U.S. socialist believe they can do any better than USSR or Venezuelan socialists? Are things so dire in the U.S. that we are willing to entrust our economy (and perhaps our rights) to “economic experts,” like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?



In the Acts of the apostles, we find that the early church adopted socialism. The faithful placed all their property into the hands of the Apostles. Squabbles ensued almost immediately over the use of the donations.

The Greek Christians complained their widows were getting less than was given to the Hebrew Christian widows. A committee (the deacons) was appointed to fix the inequality. Suddenly, we hear no more of the early Christian socialist experiment.


The Pilgrim’s tried socialism at Plymouth Plantation. They nearly starved. “Communal stewardship” failed. It was only after each man was allowed to plant corn on his own parcel of land that the colony began to prosper.

Gov. William Bradford tells us that prior to allowing each man to have his own plot of land, the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of injustice. And this among “godly and sober men”!

The industrious were forced to subsidize the slackers. The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. In other words, the productive members of the Plymouth Plantation objected to being plundered by the less productive.

They objected to sharing the hard-earned fruits of their labors with those who failed to make equal effort. The 2017 Gross Domestic Product per capita in the capitalist United States, after adjustment for “purchasing power parity,” was 54,225 US dollars — 305 percent of the world average. Adjusted in comparable dollars: “Germany: $45,229; France: $38,606; United Kingdom: $39,753.


In the USSR, the workers told a bitter joke: “The government pretends to pay us; we pretend to work.”

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 20, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

When Righteousness Gave Way to Cannon Fire

In May 1856, Sen. Charles Sumner, a Republican and abolitionist from Massachusetts, delivered an impassioned speech in the U.S. Senate, entitled “The Crime Against Kansas.” It denounced Southern efforts to bring Kansas into the Union as a slave state.

The historians Morison, Commager and Leuchtenburg write that Sumner’s speech “contained some unpalatable truths, much that was neither truthful nor in good taste, and some disgraceful political invective against Senator Andrew Butler (D) of South Carolina.”

During the course of his speech, Sumner criticized two fellow U.S. senators, Andrew Pickens Butler and Stephen A. Douglas, D-Illinois. Both were principle authors of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

That act organized the region into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and adopted the rule of “popular sovereignty,” which left the people of each territory to decide whether it should enter the Union as a slave or free state.

That latter provision repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which barred slavery in the territories north of 36º 30’. The anti-slavery forces regarded the Missouri Compromise as settled law, and its repeal as betrayal.


Sumner began by claiming that the goal of the slave-holding South was to extend slavery throughout the free states.

“But the wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it. ... It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave State, the hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the National Government. ... When the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, ... here in our Republic, ... FORCE ... has been openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power.”

Sumner excoriated Butler, saying,

“The senator from South Carolina has ... chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery. ... Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea ... is all surpassed.

“The asserted rights of slavery ... are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. If the slave States cannot enjoy ... full power in the national Territories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block — then ... the chivalric senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight! Exalted senator! A Second Moses come for a second exodus! “

Sumner accused Butler of labeling abolitionists as fanatics when, in fact, he and his fellow Southerners in their embrace of the crime of slavery were the true fanatics.

Sen. Douglas, shocked by Sumner’s words, turned to a colleague and said, “this damn fool Sumner is going to get himself shot by some other damn fool.”


Abolitionists understood Sumner’s remarks as attacking Butler’s position on the immorality of slavery. But Rep. Preston Brooks construed Sumner’s remarks as a personal attack upon his cousin.
Three days later, as Sumner sat at his desk in the nearly empty Senate chamber, Brooks assailed Sumner with a gold-headed cane, nearly beating him to death.

The episode exposed the growing polarization in America. Abolitionists viewed Sumner as a martyr; the South hailed Brooks as a hero.

The Cincinnati Gazette wrote, “The South cannot tolerate free speech anywhere, and would stifle it in Washington with the bludgeon and the bowie-knife, as they are now trying to stifle it in Kansas by massacre, rapine, and murder.”

The New York Evening Post asked, “Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters? ... Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?”

The Richmond Enquirer expressed the Southern view that Sumner should be caned “every morning,” praising the attack as “good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences” and denouncing “these vulgar abolitionists in the Senate” who “have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission.”

Sumner and the abolitionists were right. Slavery was an unconscionable moral wrong. The South was right. The Constitution had been born of a compromise without which there would have been no Union — a compromise that left to each state whether it would be slave or free.

The voices of “righteousness” on each side became more shrill, until they were drowned out by roar of muskets and cannons.

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 8, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea