The Political Shuffle Before Statehood
As Washington Territory neared statehood in 1886, Republican leaders in Seattle scrambled to settle on a single, unified candidate for Delegate to Congress—a move that local power brokers hoped would avoid the bitter factionalism of the past.
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.
Within the past few days a strong movement has developed in King County for the nomination of Chief Justice Greene. This movement has not been prompted, or, so far as we know, encouraged by the Chief Justice, who seems to have stayed upon the bench and held aloof from politics. The feeling in favor of his nomination arose from a belief that he could best unite the different factions of the party, that he would be the strongest candidate that could be named, and that his nomination would be equal to that of his election by a large majority. That Judge Greene would be an able and faithful Delegate, no one doubts, and the universal respect with which he is regarded both by his political friends and his political enemies is a guarantee that his nomination would give general and profound satisfaction.
“The universal respect with which he is regarded both by his political friends and his political enemies is a guarantee that his nomination would give general and profound satisfaction.”
The 1886 scramble for a consensus candidate highlights Seattle's long-standing obsession with political factionalism and 'electability' over ideological purity. While the parties and offices have changed, the anxiety over whether a candidate can 'unite the factions' remains the central tension in local civic life today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.