The Lake That Wasn't: A Territorial Identity Crisis
In January 1890, a prominent New York journalist claimed Washington Territory wanted to be called 'Tacoma.' The Seattle Post-Intelligencer fired back with a scathing editorial, proving that the name 'Washington' was not just a political compromise, but a point of fierce local pride.
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.
In the course of a letter to the editor of the New York Herald, written by Samuel Wilkeson, Esq., and published in that paper on January 3d, the following passage appears:
"The truth is that the proper name for Washington Territory is Tacoma. If it be called Seattle, or Washington, or whatever, the same general name will be quickly trans-ferred to by the people in their state convention, and Tacoma will remain the territorial seat. They are determined that their state shall have that name, and be howling territories can ever be organized under this determination."
It would be difficult to conceive a statement more astonishing to the residents of Washington than this, and it is impossible to believe that Mr. Wilkeson was honest in making it. There is absolutely nothing upon which to base the statement that the people of Washington desire a change in the name of their commonwealth. No representative gathering has ever declared in favor of a change and nowhere is the least dissatisfaction with the present name manifested. On the contrary, every political convention held in the territory during the past year resolved in favor of the retention of the name of Washington, and the statehood convention recently held at Ellensburg unanimously passed a resolution strongly opposing any change of name.
To a resident of Washington the statement that the people of the territory would not permit it to enter the Union under any other name than Tacoma is simply ridiculous. So far from the truth is it that it excites merely a smile of derision. In the East, however, it may be accepted as true statement of the wishes of the people of the territory and may be the means of bringing about a change of name which would be disastrous to ninety-nine out of every hundred of the people most interested.
It is perfectly proper for the advocates of a change of name to adduce arguments in favor of their position, but it is both unmanly and dishonest to misrepresent the wishes of the people of the territory as Mr. Wilkeson has done.
This editorial captures a pivotal moment in Seattle's identity formation. While Tacoma currently holds the title of state capital, Seattle grew to become the economic engine of the region. The fierce resistance to renaming the state 'Tacoma' highlights how deeply intertwined local pride was with the federal naming process, a dynamic that still influences Pacific Northwest politics today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.