1889, Wash. Terr.: On the naming of the new state
Among the many ideas for what to name Washington Territory when it became a state later in 1889 was a facetious suggestion of “Siwash”!
“Siwash Indian basket maker, Washington state” (image credit: Hip Postcard)
The reasoning behind this writer’s motion was sound — the perpetual confusion between Washington (DC) and Washington state. (Among many other places called Washington in the USA.)
We’ve all experienced that, especially when we travel.
Proposals to change the territory’s / state’s name failed.
But it actually happened that Washington became commonly known as “the Chinook state“!
I maintain that a petition to put that on our car license plates needs to happen…
“Siwash” = sáwásh = ‘Indigenous; Native person(s)’.
A correspondent of the Tacoma
Ledger gives vent to the following on
the naming of the new state: Ob-
serving that the Ellensburg conven-
tion took ground against a changed
name for the new state, I have this
to say: This matter should be set-
tled upon business principles, not on
sentimental grounds. I have had
important business papers go astray
in the mails because of the multipli-
cation of Washingtons in every coun-
ty and state of the United States. I
know of others who have met losses
from the same cause. It would save
the public from these losses, that
must inevitably in the long future
come upon them, if the present name
be continued under the statehood. I
surrender to no man in regard and
respect for this great name. I bear
upon my person marks of southern
bullets, received upon the battle field
while endeavoring to perpetuate the
government that Washington estab-
lished. Patriotism is not the ques-
tion involved. Wo might imitate ori-
ental nations; they never utter aloud
their great names. If we must have
“Wash” let it be Siwash, or some
more euphonious Indian name,
There are names in plenty which would
not confuse the future business of
the country. Let the Grand Army
posts of the territory take this mat-
ter up and see to it that congress
shall not perpetuate this threatened
confusion of names under the state-
hood. Even Tacoma would entail
less confusion. New York city, in
the state of New York, is a case in
point where little confusion results.
— from the Port Townsend (Washington Territory) Puget Sound Argus of January 24, 1889, page 4, column 1
