The Name That Never Was: How Washington Stole Its Identity
A furious editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer defends the state's name against a congressional proposal to rename it 'Tacoma,' arguing that the people’s attachment to their home is sacred.
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.
It is said that Representative Springer, the autocrat who undertakes to govern the fate of the territories, has decided that there should be a radical change in the names of commonwealths which are seeking admission into the Union. He will permit North Dakota to retain the name of Dakota; upon South Dakota he will confer the name of Winona; upon New Mexico that of Montezuma; and upon Washington that of Tacoma.
Mr. Springer would thus, for a reason which at best is wholly sentimental, change the names of three commonwealths, though he knows that in each case the change would be against the practically unanimous wish of the people most concerned. The people of South Dakota do not want the meaningless name of Winona; those of New Mexico do not want that of Montezuma; and those of Washington do not want that of Tacoma.
The reasons for their opposition are both sentimental and practical, and they overbalance, a thousand times over, the puny argument urged in favor of the changes. In every case the change of name entails no great an inconvenience and loss upon the territory concerned that its people would be justified in protesting against it in almost any terms.
Never has a commonwealth been admitted to the Union under any name other than that which it had as a territory. The vested right of the people to the name of the commonwealth in which they have always lived has always been respected. It has been understood that the time to confer upon a commonwealth its permanent name was when it was organized as a territory, and not after the people had grown to love a name conferred.
There are in this territory today hundreds of men and women who were born in Washington and have always lived in it. Certainly they will not have the name of their native commonwealth struck from the map to give place to one selected by Mr. Springer and his aesthetic friends.
Fortunately there are members of congress who will look upon that matter more reasonably than does Mr. Springer, and it may be hoped that the question of a change of name will at least be submitted to the people of the territories.
In 1889, as Washington prepared for statehood, there was a genuine political panic that Congress might rename the new state 'Tacoma'—likely due to the city's growing prominence or political maneuvering by Tacoma's boosters. This editorial captures a moment of civic identity formation where the name itself was under siege. Today, it echoes modern debates over place names, indigenous land acknowledgments, and the power of local communities versus distant legislative bodies to define regional identity.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.