The Case for 'Made in Seattle' Ships
An 1877 editorial argues that Seattle’s abundant timber and cheap labor should make it a maritime powerhouse rather than a consumer of imported vessels.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
From our Eastern exchanges, we learn that the shipbuilding interests of the Atlantic are brightening up greatly. If the shipbuilding interests of the Atlantic coast are to be thus revived, we see no reason why there should not be a corresponding activity on this coast. Heretofore, it has been customary for many of our shipowners, when they wanted a vessel, to go East and purchase instead of building one at home, and in this way our shipbuilding interests have suffered. But the unwisdom of this policy is beginning to be appreciated. Nowhere on the continent can such a large and excellent supply of timber for shipbuilding purposes be found as in this Territory. As a point for shipbuilding, Seattle possesses many advantages. It is really one of the best locations on the Sound, and in the event of a considerable revival of that business, we ought to see the shores about the city dotted with shipyards and our town turned into a veritable Bath.
“It is as inconsistent here to import our vessels from the East as it would be for them to import coal from Cardiff.”
This 1877 editorial echoes modern debates about local manufacturing and the economic risks of relying on imported goods. Just as nineteenth-century Seattle sought to transition from an extraction colony to a hub of industrial value-add, contemporary Seattle continues to grapple with the tension between global commerce and local production.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.