Yeah, yeah, I know – Columbia is at 116th Street and Broadway.
Seriously now, what gives with the name Washington, District of Columbia? Thanks in advance.
Source: http://www.dclibrary.org/washingtoniana/faqs/dc-name.html
Note at the bottom of the web page: “Name changed to District of Columbia in 1793. The Commissioners left no record as to how or why the names were chosen.”
Columbia = peace. I believe it is Latin. There is a southern constellation, Columba, the Dove…the symbol of peace…same route. Hope this helps. Also, there is a Columbia, MD it has no relation to DC, so don’t be confused! - Jinx
Slight Correction to typo: Columbia = peace. I believe it is Latin. There is a southern constellation, Columba, the Dove…the symbol of peace…same ROOT. Hope this helps. Also, there is a Columbia, MD - but it has no relation to DC, so don’t be confused! - Jinx
Weird. stuyguy, that thought occured to me for the first time at about 8:15 this evening while walking down E. 4th St. Were you by chance in the neighborhood and our brainwaves crossed?
I don’t know, Jinx, but it’s not the Latin word for “peace.” That’s “pax.” As far as I can tell, “columbia” is not a Latin word at all. But you are right about the dove Columba.
When our country was founded, there was some concern that with all the states competing against one another, as they were at the time, it would cause trouble for one state alone to be the “capital state”. But this would be the case if the capital city of our nation was located in a state. So the independent federal district–the District of Columbia–was created. The city of Washington is of course coextensive with this district–there are no other cities in it. Although I guess in theory if the city itself evey broke up a little or something, there could be.
The District of Columbia is named after Christopher Columbus–as is Colombia, South America interestingly. Washington is of course named after George Washington.
Interesting side note: the founders deliberately chose a swamp for the new city. Believe it or not, they didn’t want to be bothered there by lobbyist, angry voters and the like. Of course this problem went away once they fully drained the swamp.
**
[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not**
[/QUOTE]
That’s scary.
-LC
Another interesting followup, in 1889, Washington state was originally intended to be named “Columbia” referring, of course, to the river on our southern border. As the story goes (and I will try to dig up a cite tomorrow), the powers that be were concerned that there would be confusion with the District of Columbia. Of course to remedy this they named the state. . .Washington.
So you’ve never heard the song which begins:
The city of Washington has not always been co-extensive with the District of Columbia. Georgetown, established in Maryland in 1751, was merged into the District of Columbia in 1871, and in 1878 was annexed to the city of Washington.
The City of Washington, D.C. ceased to exist in 1871.
At one time, Washington proper didn’t fill the entire District. There was the City of Washington and the City of Georgetown in Washington County, and the City of Alexandria in Alexandria County. These entities were located in the “Territory of Columbia.”
In 1846 the portion south of the Potomac River, including Alexandria County and Alexandria, was retroceded to Virginia. Alexandria County ourside of Alexandria eventually became Arlington County.
In 1871, Georgetown, D.C, Washington, D.C. and Washington County were abolished by Congress, and was absorbed by Washington. A new territorial government was established, called the District of Columbia.
There is really no “City of Washington.” It’s the “District of Columbia,” which has a postal address of “Washington, D.C.” The District’s Web site reads "The government of the District of Columbia holds a unique status in the country’s political system, functioning as a state, county, and city. "
Those powers were the House of Representatives, to whom irony is something you do to clothing to get rid of wrinkles. A Mr. Stanton of Kentucky was the one who made the proposal to change the name. A wave of hero worship then swept the House and the proposal carried.
A couple days later (after the bill had been passed out of the House) a representative Evans from Maryland (who was absent from the previous session) pointed out the potential confusion for the name Washington. Instead he proposed it be changed to “one of the beautiful Indian names which prevail in that part of the country”. Right. Such euphonious Northwest native names as Klickitat, Skagit, Kitsap, and (my favorite) Skookumchuck. Anyway, he was really addressing the Senate (where the bill now was) from the floor of the House and they, of course, completely ignored him.
This happened in 1852 when the area north of Oregon Territory was petitioning to become a territory. The whole story is in George R Stewart’s Names on the Land.
Then why is the chief elected official in this District of Columbia called a mayor? Mayors are usually the head of cities or towns, not districts. You’d think the head of a district would be a commissioner or governor or something.
There have been many ideas as to what to do about the “Taxation without Representation” issue faced by DC residents - a slogan they put on their license plates BTW.
One idea floated in the early & mid-90’s was to do just what Jim B postulates, break it up & make a Federal City District around the White House, Capital and Mall, (vague undefined boundaries) and make the rest of DC a state or voting part of MD (county of Columbia)
Another thing they could do would be to have the whole city become part of Maryland. I think that would be best, in fact. The District of Columbia is just like the electoral college: old, obsolete and troublesome. Of course then it would be Washington, MD. But who cares;) ?
BTW I talk about who Columbia was in
another thread. Just scroll down to the bottom to my entry.
When growing up in Arlington, Virginia, I always lauged at the term for Northern Virginia, DC, and Southern Maryland being “Tri-State area.” DC’s not a state, and regardless of what their gov’t website says, it does not function as a state.
Retrocession? Are you kidding? ANd anyway, why would Maryland want another economically-depleted, crime-ridden city? It’s already got Baltimore. No, no, the clear solution is statehood for the District, but it’ll be a long time in coming.
–Cliffy
I think that the only way to make D.C. a viable state would be to take the suburbs of southern Maryland, Northern VA, and then add the city of D.C. to it, then you would have a viable state. Of coursem there is no way this could really ever happen.
Columbia is an olde-tyme representation of the United States, before Uncle Sam and the Statue of Liberty came along. The only job she has nowadays is the logo of the movie studio which bears her name.