Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Rings and the Great Debate

The Rings and the Great Debate
Lincoln-Douglas debates

When John and Mary Ring arrived in Will County, they stepped into a world unlike anything they had known. The prairie was crowded with newcomers — Germans, Irish, Scots, English, Scandinavians — each carrying their own languages, faiths, customs, and grievances. It was a noisy, fluid, sometimes volatile mix of people who had nothing in common except the simple fact that they were here. And yet, in that crowded field of difference, the Rings recognized something essential: their survival depended on finding common ground. They didn’t have to agree with everyone. They didn’t have to like everyone. But they understood that in this new American world, no group could elevate itself above the others without consequence. The only way forward was together. This was their first lesson in American identity.

What they did not expect was the media. The American press of the 1850s was loud, partisan, explosive, and central to the political fracture that would soon tear the nation apart. Newspapers were not neutral conveyors of information — they were engines of identity, outrage, and mobilization. Every faction had its own paper. Every paper had its own truth. For immigrants like the Rings, it was disorienting. Had they escaped one form of chaos only to land in another? But instead of judging, they discerned. They listened. They watched. They learned to separate noise from signal. And in that cacophony, a voice began to rise.


The Rings were Irish to their core. They carried in their bones the memory of subjugation, famine, and the long shadow of British rule. They knew what it meant to be exploited for economic gain. They knew what it meant to be treated as less than fully human. So when the great American debate over slavery intensified, they did not hesitate. Their sympathies aligned with the Union — not out of politics, but out of lived experience. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights — these were not abstractions to them. They were promises. Promises that the injustices of their homeland would not be repeated here. They believed in those promises with the fervor of people who had once been denied them.

Word spread of a man whose speeches were being printed verbatim in the papers. A man whose arguments were clear, measured, and grounded in respect for the common person. A man who spoke in a way the Rings understood instinctively. Abraham Lincoln. They had never seen him, but they recognized themselves in his words. He articulated what they felt but could not yet name: that America was still becoming, and that its becoming required moral clarity. The Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858 crystallized everything. Two Illinoisans, standing on makeshift platforms, arguing the future of the nation — slavery, the western territories, the meaning of the founding documents, the fate of the Union. The Rings leaned in. They listened. And they chose.

When Lincoln’s train rolled through Joliet after his nomination, the Rings felt the ground shift. The Union was fracturing. War was coming. Their foothold in this new land was still shaky, but their principles were not. They stood with the Union. Not because it was easy. Not because it was safe. But because they knew — in the marrow of their bones — that the times demanded it. They had crossed an ocean for a chance at dignity. They would not abandon that chance now.

Even as the nation tore itself apart, Lincoln insisted on building. He supported the construction of the Capitol Rotunda during the war — a symbolic act that declared: this is our shared heritage; this is our democracy; this will endure. The Rings understood that instinct. It matched their own. And when the Homestead Act passed in 1862, they saw their opening. Even in hardship, even in uncertainty, even in war — they would build. They claimed land. They worked it. They built a community with neighbors who were nothing like them. They forged an American identity rooted not in sameness, but in shared responsibility. This was the frontier version of the exhausted majority: people who chose cooperation over division because their lives depended on it.

Amid all this, one object captured their new identity. A piece of Civil War–era civic identity, cast in elegant Victorian pewter, shaped like an oversized coffee pot. Decorative, symbolic, aspirational. It cost more than they should have spent. But they bought it anyway. Because it said everything they believed — hope, dignity, belonging, aspiration, allegiance, the promise of America. They valued it as highly as the land they farmed. And they intended it to outlive them. That pewter coffee pot sits with me now. A living voice across generations. A symbol of who they were — and who they believed we could become.

John and Mary Ring did more than endure their times. They shaped them. They built a way of being that embraced difference as strength. They held fast to principles when the nation shook. They chose the Union not because it was perfect, but because it was right. They believed in America enough to build it — even when America was breaking. Their story is not nostalgia. It is an instruction. And in our own fractured moment, their example is a reminder: we become Americans not by agreeing, but by building together. We inherit the Union by choosing it.

Patrick Fitzgerald is a Buffalo-based writer whose work explores civic responsibility, community life, and the quiet virtues that hold people together. Raised in the Midwest and shaped by the steadiness of farm communities, he writes about proportion, neighborliness, and the shared duties that form the backbone of American civic life. His essays draw on lived experience, family lineage, and a deep sense of place to offer readers a grounded, reflective perspective on how we can rebuild trust in one another.


Read More

A gavel.

A retired Texas Supreme Court chief justice discusses threats to judicial independence, partisan judicial elections, and public trust in the courts.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Judicial Independence: The Cornerstone of America’s Democracy

Judicial independence was one of the core justifications for the American Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence assailed King George III, saying:

Keep ReadingShow less
THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION: When Abuse of Power Pushes Communities Out of the American Story

An opinion essay traces America's cycle of welcoming immigrants and communities of color for labor, then excluding them once they gain power.

Westend61/Getty Images

THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION: When Abuse of Power Pushes Communities Out of the American Story

The politics of exclusion is the deliberate use of power to push certain communities out of the American story through fear, cruelty, erasure, and unequal treatment. It is what happens when leaders abandon constitutional ideals and replace them with grievance, retaliation, and division.

The late John McCain warned that we weaken our greatness when we confuse patriotism with tribalism. Liz Cheney cautioned that no one should support a leader who uses fear and division to hold onto power. Adam Kinzinger called it authoritarianism. Mitt Romney said plainly, “He has caused fear and division.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez observed that “the cruelty is the point,” and the late John Lewis reminded us that “democracy is not a state; it is an act.” Together, these voices describe the elephant in the room. America is confronting a pattern bigger than corruption and bigger than authoritarian drift. It is the social, racial, and moral dimension of democratic erosion — lying, cheating, cruelty, intimidation, erasure, and exclusion masquerading as patriotism.

Keep ReadingShow less
Senators Criticize Trump Administration’s Demands to Access Health Data as a Condition for Lifesaving Aid
Roberto “Bear” Guerra/ProPublica. Source image: Getty Images

Senators Criticize Trump Administration’s Demands to Access Health Data as a Condition for Lifesaving Aid

What Happened: Citing reporting by ProPublica, eight Democratic U.S. senators have criticized the Trump administration’s demands to access the health data of millions of people as a condition of giving lifesaving aid to other countries. In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the senators, including minority leader Chuck Schumer, said the U.S. demands were “unprecedented and at odds with U.S. policy concerning the data of American citizens.”

The inquiry into the administration’s approach to foreign health data referred to a ProPublica story published in June about agreements the U.S. struck with African countries — and the risks they posed to people there. Experts told ProPublica that the deals are vague and lack language used in most data-sharing agreements to adequately limit what information is collected and how it can be used. As a result, they said, there is an increased risk that individuals’ personal data could be exposed, misused or commercialized without their consent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of US Capitol

Illustration of US Capitol

Illustration provided

Are States and Localities Required to Cooperate with ICE?

Polls show a majority of Americans disapprove of how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is doing its job, with outrage stoked by a surge in immigration arrests across the country and multiple killings by federal immigration officials. In many places, residents are against their state and local officials cooperating with immigration authorities. And many local law enforcement leaders argue that cooperating with federal immigration enforcement operations undermines public safety by taking resources away from local priorities and eroding communities’ trust in law enforcement.

Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued that states and localities are legally obligated to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. They have also warned that state and local laws limiting cooperation with ICE will be met with harsh crackdowns.

Keep ReadingShow less