The Struggle for an American Canal
A 1885 editorial dissecting the political tensions of the era and the push for an American-controlled interoceanic waterway.
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.
The position taken in regard to the protection of the public domain, the Indian question, the Mormon evil, and the naturalization of servile laborers, cannot be too highly commended. In regard to the last mentioned question, the declaration is strong enough to justify the hope that the anti-Chinese laws will now be executed to good effect, and that the power of the government will no longer be used for the partial nullification of those just measures, wrung as they were by the people of the Pacific Coast. If Mr. Cleveland fulfills the expectations thus raised and bears in mind all the while that the interoceanic canal must be an American waterway, the people will be satisfied.
“The interoceanic canal must be an American waterway.”
This 1885 editorial reflects the era's intense local pressure on the federal government to prioritize Pacific Coast interests, specifically regarding the anti-Chinese movement. Today, the debate over who controls our infrastructure—from port labor to digital waterways—remains a central theme in Seattle's political identity, though the rhetoric has shifted from jingoistic isolationism to global economic integration.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.