The Siege of Seattle: Governor Squire’s Martial Law
A fiery defense of the 1886 imposition of martial law during the anti-Chinese riots, arguing that civil authority had collapsed under the pressure of the mob.
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 Democratic Territorial Committee's position on Governor Squire’s use of martial law during the February 1886 anti-Chinese riots is being sharply debated. The critics claim that the Governor usurped power and bypassed civil authorities, but the counter-argument is that civil authority in Seattle had already been subverted by the mob. On February 7, the Sheriff of King County and the Mayor of Seattle reported to the Governor that they were unable to maintain the peace and that the situation had passed beyond their control. Consequently, the Governor’s decision to call upon the President for assistance, and his subsequent mobilization of territorial troops, was not a tyrannical act, but a necessary measure to restore order when the local civil government had failed in its duty.
“There was no subversion of the civil authorities by Governor Squire, because the civil authorities had already been subverted by the mob.”
This piece grapples with the 1886 anti-Chinese expulsion riots, a dark chapter in Seattle history where local officials stood by while mobs forced residents out. The 'martial law' debate highlights the chronic tension in Seattle’s history between grassroots mob violence and the use of state or federal force to suppress it, echoing modern debates over policing and civil authority.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.