Today in Chicago History: Wellington Church joins sanctuary movement to provide safe haven for refugees
Is an important event missing from this date? Email us.
Weather records (from the National Weather Service, Chicago)
1896: James Foulis, a native of St. Andrews, Scotland who became professional at Chicago Golf Club in Wheaton, shot 78-74—152 at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club on Long Island to win the second U.S. Open golf championship. Foulis' prize was $200.
John Shippen, believed to be the first Black and American-born golf professional to play in the U.S. Open, placed fifth.
Foulis lost to Joe Lloyd in the third U.S. Open, which was held at Chicago Golf Club in September 1897.
1982: The Wellington Avenue Church congregation voted to join the sanctuary movement — becoming just the second church in the United States to harbor refugees who entered the country illegally.
The movement, which had roots in the medieval tradition of churches providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution, was aimed at providing a safe haven for Central Americans running from political repression and violence in their home countries. They were refused asylum here because of U.S. support for the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala. About 20 Chicago-area churches became sanctuaries in the 1980s.
1991: Senators voted 31-23 to approve a nearly $1 billion plan to expand McCormick Place exhibition center to more than 1 million total square feet through a mix of convention-related taxes including city levies on hotels and meals within a restaurant taxing district, new fees on Cook County auto rentals and taxes on commercial rides to and from O'Hare and Midway airports. The House later approved the measure 65-44. Gov. Jim Edgar signed the legislation two months later.
In addition to the construction of a South Building, the plan also included revamping Lakeside Center, adding exhibition space to the North Building, creating a glass-enclosed concourse to link the entire complex and rerouting DuSable Lake Shore Drive to create the 'museum campus' — the Field Museum, the Shedd Aquarium and the Adler Planetarium.
Vintage Chicago Tribune: How McCormick Place's Lakeside Center came to be on the lakefrontNot included — a proposed $400 million domed stadium nicknamed 'McDome,' which could have housed the Chicago Bears.
Ground was broken in 1993 and the South Building opened its doors to the International Housewares Show three and a half years later.
The McCormick Place complex now offers more than 2.6 million square feet of exhibition space, 600,000 square feet of meeting space and the 10,000-seat Wintrust Arena.
Subscribe to the free Vintage Chicago Tribune newsletter, join our Chicagoland history Facebook group, stay current with Today in Chicago History and follow us on Instagram for more from Chicago's past.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
As US support for NATO wobbles, France and UK strengthen nuclear ties
Last week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signed the 'Northwood Declaration' committing themselves to 'deepen their nuclear cooperation and coordination.' They announced that 'a U.K.-France Nuclear Steering Group will be established to provide political direction for this work. It will … coordinate across nuclear policy, capabilities, and operations.' The agreement reflects growing apprehension on the part of both leaders that America's commitment to NATO is no longer as strong as it once was, at the very time that Vladimir Putin's Russia poses the greatest security threat to Europe since the Cold War. This fear is explicitly reflected in their respective updated national security strategies. Britain issued its 'Strategic Defence Review' on June 2 and France released its national strategic review on Bastille Day, July 14. Both documents have almost identical language when discussing the Russian threat, both stress the importance of their 'independent' nuclear deterrents to European security and both mention their growing cooperation and reference the Northwood Declaration. This is not the first time London and Paris have committed themselves to work more closely on strategic nuclear matters. As the U.K. review notes, 'The 1995 Chequers Declaration stated that there is no situation in which a threat to a vital interest of one is not a threat to both.' In reality, in the three decades since that earlier declaration, not all that much changed in the strategic nuclear ties between France and the U.K., despite some progress in the 2010 Lancaster House agreements. The reason is that there are fundamental differences between the nature of the two deterrents that are difficult to overcome. The British nuclear deterrent has been closely tied to that of the U.S. since the 1950s. A 1958 mutual defense treaty between the two countries (updated in 2014 and extended indefinitely in 2024) provides for the transfer of classified nuclear information, fissile material and technology from the U.S. to the U.K. and for Britain to use American testing infrastructure. But the history here is complicated. In December 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who in June of that year had called independent nuclear capabilities 'dangerous, expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility as a deterrent,' canceled the air-to-surface nuclear Skybolt missile that Britain had planned to purchase from the U.S. Within days of the cancellation, and fearing that Washington wanted to undermine Britain's deterrent, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan reached an understanding with President John F. Kennedy that British nuclear forces would be based on American submarine-launched ballistic missiles that would carry British nuclear warheads. At that time, Macmillan asserted Britain's freedom to act on its own 'where Her Majesty's Government may decide that supreme national interests are at stake.' Nevertheless, given Britain's dependence on America for so many aspects of its nuclear program, it is not at all clear just how independent London's strategic deterrent really is, even when its 'supreme interests are at stake.' Britain remains constrained by the 1958 treaty should it wish to 'communicate classified information or transfer or permit access to or use of materials, or equipment … to any nation' without U.S. permission. That places significant limits on potential nuclear cooperation with France. France has no such limitations. French nuclear development has a significantly different history. The French deterrent has always been truly independent, to the degree that for decades Paris pursued a 'tous azimuts' or 'in any direction' strategy that, in theory, trained its strategic nuclear deterrent as much against the U.S. as against the Soviet Union. Unlike Britain's deterrent, which is explicitly committed to the defense of NATO, the French nuclear deterrent addresses threats to France itself, though that includes those territories in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and the Caribbean that are considered part of the French state. In light of uncertainty regarding President Trump's commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, Macron has dropped ever-broader hints that France might extend its nuclear umbrella beyond its borders, thereby more closely aligning its strategy with that of the U.K. Notably, Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have announced the creation of a Franco-German security council, which appears to be the first step toward the creation of an extended French nuclear umbrella, though Macron has made it clear that final decision authority would remain with France. Merz has also sought a similar relationship with Britain that goes beyond London's more general commitment to NATO. In that regard, it is significant that both Britain and France deployed their nuclear submarines in response to Moscow's implicit (and on occasion explicit) threats to employ tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. It is arguable that the Kremlin took note of these deployments and as a result toned down its nuclear saber-rattling. Still, neither country is truly prepared to go it alone in the strategic nuclear realm without American support. Their forces are simply too small relative to those of Russia or, for that matter, China. Britain and France are clearly moving closer toward real strategic nuclear coordination, despite the limitation of the 1958 treaty between Washington and London. The Northwood Declaration may indeed yield greater results than previous avowals of cooperation. Their joint deterrents may prove compelling, as they appear to have been in support of Ukraine. Nevertheless, it is America's strategic nuclear deterrent, not those of London and Paris, that continues to undergird NATO. It is therefore crucial that Washington's commitment to support the alliance with its nuclear umbrella remain as strong as it has been since it was first extended in the early decades of the Cold War. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
ICE will soon have nation's Medicaid data: What to know
The personal health information of 79 million people will soon be in the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who will use the data trove to find undocumented migrants in the U.S. amid President Trump's immigration crackdown. ICE plans to use the nation's Medicaid database to 'receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE,' according to an agreement obtained by The Associated Press. Information available to ICE officials will include: Addresses Birthdates Ethnic and racial information Social Security numbers The agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not allow ICE officials to download the data. Instead, officials will be allowed to access the data for a limited period from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, until Sept. 9. Medicaid is only available to noncitizens in emergencies While immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid, every state is required to provide emergency Medicaid coverage for life-saving situations. Some states also make exceptions for children and certain adults. That means, despite not qualifying for the federally funded coverage, some noncitizens' information is still available in Medicaid records. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimated that emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1 percent of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Democrats, advocates slam ICE-Medicaid data disclosure Politicians and immigrant advocates alike have opposed the agreement due to concerns over data privacy and human rights violations. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday on social media that 'the massive transfer of the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients should alarm every American.' Immigration attorney Anibal Romero echoed Schiff's concerns. 'So eventually, what could end up happening is someone might transfer information about … a U.S. citizen, with a Latino name, and all of a sudden, now I have ICE officers in my house, even though I was born here only because my name is Raul Lopez,' Romero told NewsNation. 'So, it's scary. I think it's wrong.' Early this month, a coalition of 20 Democrat-led states sued the Trump administration over the agreement. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said it has 'created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care.' 'We're headed to court to prevent any further sharing of Medicaid data — and to ensure any of the data that's already been shared is not used for immigration enforcement purposes,' he added. In a statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the agencies are 'exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.' The White House has deferred questions about the agreement to ICE.
Time Magazine
18 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The Trump Era of Flattery Diplomacy is Here
'Flattery will get you everywhere.' That line, attributed to the actress Mae West, came to mind Monday, watching NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte cheer as President Donald Trump—for the second time in as many months—announced a 180-degree u-turn in his administration's foreign policy. Trump said the U.S. would sell 'billions of dollars worth' of offensive and defensive weaponry to Europe for transshipment to Ukraine. And he issued an ultimatum to Russian President Vladimir Putin: make peace with Ukraine in 50 days, or face sanctions against your country and those who do business with you. Until Monday, Trump had made no such pledges for Ukraine, and few demands of Putin—certainly none with a clear 'or else' attached. A few weeks earlier, at the NATO summit in The Hague, Rutte beamed as Trump pledged his full-throated support for the alliance. It was another about-face; on the eve of the summit Trump had equivocated on U.S. security commitments to NATO, and his disdain for the alliance was longstanding. Now he was a NATO booster. What changed, exactly? And what's flattery got to do with it? Nearly everything, it turns out. Both Trump turnarounds can be traced to Rutte, the former Dutch Prime Minister who took the reins at NATO last October and has had a stunningly successful couple of months. At the June summit, he won pledges from members to spend 5% of GDP on defense, and ringing endorsements from Trump. And there was Rutte in the Oval Office Monday, a key broker of the new deal for Ukraine. What happened to alter the course of these U.S. policies? Among other things, Rutte showed the world how Trump flattery is done; Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky took something of a crash course in the same subject; and Putin, resting on his long-held view that Trump would never cross him, skipped the flattery, made over-the-phone promises to Trump and then broke them. Read More: Why Trump's U-Turn on Ukraine Matters If it seems frivolous to suggest that a polishing of the commander-in-chief's ego has turned the tide of global affairs, consider Trump's relationship with NATO. On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump called NATO 'obsolete' and threatened to pull the U.S. from the alliance. More recently he said, of member nations that didn't pull their weight, "I would not protect you…In fact, I would encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want.' On the eve of last month's summit, he refused to publicly commit the U.S. to NATO's Article 5, which compels every member to come to the defense of another. As for Ukraine, in February Trump called Zelensky a dictator, berated him in that now-infamous Oval Office meeting, and offered to reopen commercial and diplomatic ties with the Kremlin—a stinging blow to Ukraine and NATO both. No new American aid pledges for Kyiv were in the works. Enter Rutte, who knew Trump from his time as Prime Minister, and who got to work buttering up the American president. He began by repeatedly crediting Trump with prodding NATO members to boost their defense spending. At the White House in March, Rutte said, NATO nations 'want to work together with you… to make sure that we will have a NATO which is newly invigorated under your leadership.' That was fair enough—not overly fawning, and largely true. Trump wasn't the only leader to push for more NATO military spending, but no president had pressed the point harder. On the eve of the June summit, Rutte took things to another level. While leaders across Western Europe were condemning or questioning Trump's air strikes against Iran, NATO's leader cheered them on. 'Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran,' Rutte wrote in a private message that Trump quickly made public. 'That was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.' In the same message, Rutte linked the Iran strikes to the coming summit. 'You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 percent! Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,' applauded Rutte. 'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win. Safe travels and see you at His Majesty's dinner!' To some the missive reeked of El Pais called Rutte's performance 'flattery diplomacy, bordering on outright vassalage.' But even critics could admire the tactics. Rutte wasn't just flattering the president, he was using Trump's syntax ('big success,' 'your win,' etc.), the occasional word in CAPS, and the use of exclamation marks too. At the summit, Rutte called Trump a 'man of strength…and peace,' and when the subject of Middle Eastern diplomacy arose, the NATO leader said of Trump, 'Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get them to stop.' It's hard to overstate the White House shifts that followed. Rutte won an alliance statement, agreed to by the U.S., that Russia was 'a profound security threat' (the Trump Administration previously hadn't even agreed to name Russia as the 'aggressor' in Ukraine), along with a 'commitment to NATO' and to Article 5. '100 percent,' Trump said of the latter—having refused, three days earlier, to commit to it at all. If there was any doubt that the flattery had done its work, Trump put that to rest. 'They were so respectful of me,' he said. After all those years spent blasting NATO members for 'ripping off' the U.S., Trump said, 'I left here differently…It's not a rip‑off, and we are here to help them protect their country.' President Trump said he was grateful for the hospitality at the summit. 'I want to thank them for the royal treatment,' he said of his hosts at The Hague. 'Couldn't have been nicer.' Trump also singled out Rutte: 'He's been terrific.' This week it was Ukraine's turn to enjoy the fruits of the flattery. The arrangement announced Monday—the U.S. sells weapons to Europe, Europe delivers them to Ukraine—was brokered by Rutte. Once again, the NATO Secretary General was in the Oval Office for the announcement, and ready to heap praise on the American president. "This is a clear signal that President Trump is serious,' Rutte told Fox News after the announcements. 'He wants peace. He hates the fact that so many people lose their lives in Ukraine." Until recently, Trump had evinced few such sympathies. But since that Oval Office debacle, Zelensky had done his Trump homework, too. He wrote to Trump in early March extolling the president's 'strong leadership' and thanked him effusively for a six-year-old gift of anti-tank weapons. 'The moment when things changed [was] when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins,' Zelensky wrote. (A stretch, perhaps, given that the Javelins were sent three years before Russia's full-scale invasion). In a long message on X, Zelensky praised 'President Trump's concept of peace through strength,' and in April he applauded Trump's 'vision' after a meeting at the Vatican—'our best conversation yet,' he said. Every Zelensky message was a blend of praise and gratitude, leavened with reminders about what the Kremlin was up to. Which brings us to Putin. Theories abound as to why Trump has so regularly stood by the Russian leader. Trump praised him as a 'savvy' statesman, a 'genius,' and in 2018, a man Trump said he trusted more than his own intelligence community. Whatever the case, Putin—a longtime Trump flatterer himself—may have imagined he no longer needed to play that game. He watched the Zelensky-Trump meltdown, took the calls from Trump and his envoys, made pledges and broke them. And at some point over the past few weeks and months, as Rutte and Zelensky were playing their hands , something changed. Trump stopped calling Zelensky a dictator. After a meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit, Trump said Zelensky 'couldn't have been nicer,' and commended him and the people of Ukraine for fighting 'a brave battle.' As for Putin, Trump blasted his 'bullsh-t' promises, something other leaders and analysts had been familiar with for years. Read More: Finally, Trump Seems to Get Putin Then came this week's weapons deal along with more sympathy for Ukraine and more praise for NATO and its leader. Rutte has made no apologies for his approach to Trump. 'I think when somebody deserves praise, that praise should be given,' he told The New York Times. As for those who skewered him for over-the-top flattery, he said, 'I know about criticism, but I don't care. In the end, I need to do my job. I have to keep the whole of NATO together. And the biggest ally is the United States.' Neither Rutte nor Zelensky can claim the prize of flatterer-in-chief; surely that honor goes to Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who last week nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize and handed his nomination letter to Trump, as the cameras rolled. 'It's well deserved, and you should get it,' Netanyahu said. But Israel hardly needed a sea change in the Trump view of his country. Neither did the Qataris who gifted Trump a luxury jet, nor British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who handed Trump an invitation from King Charles for a state dinner. In the case of NATO and Ukraine, however, they were in rough waters, as it were, and in their own ways, both were desperate for American support, and a turning of the tide. Of course things can change quickly in the Trump world view, and the pendulum may swing back. But for now this much seems clear: Ukraine will get more U.S. weapons, and NATO will get more robust American support, because a pair of world leaders were good students of how best to flatter the American president. As Mae West might have said, sometimes a little flattery can go a long way.
