Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Political History
This can be seen from the time of Canada’s Hudson’s Bay Company up until the leadership of Speaker of the House Tom Foley, of Spokane, Washington. Native American governments were also intimately tied to the environment, but this work will focus on state and territorial governments. The pre-state history of Washington and Idaho did vary noticeably, due to geographic reasons. Washington had all-important access to ports, which led to a sufficient population for it to become a territory by 1853, while Idaho’s first town did not spring up until 1860. It did manage to achieve territory status within three years, but has never had nearly the same population as Washington. Settlers viewed Idaho as a land to be crossed, not settled. Both areas had people in the areas much earlier in the century, however, as the Hudson’s Bay Company was sending people throughout the interior Northwest to trap beavers, and forts were established for the trappers at the sites of several present day cities. The Hudson’s Bay Company had bought out other companies that were in the area, and by 1820 was the only major trapping company in the region. Since the company was the only organized group in the region at the time, it took on a political entity of its own. This was the first example of a governing body being focused on natural resources, and by its very nature, the company was geared towards extraction rather than preservation. The Hudson’s Bay expedition that went into Idaho was known as the Snake brigade. Leaders of this brigade included Donald “Perpetual Motion” Mackenzie, Finan McDonald, Alexander Ross, and Peter Skene Ogden, known as a “terror of the Indians” despite marrying an Indian woman. Ogden exemplifies the Northwest attitude that natural resources should be harvested and consumed, often as quickly as possible, and he left perhaps the greatest mark on the region at that time. His predecessor, Ross, encountered a group of American trappers while on an expedition, and bragged about the region’s supply of beaver. When Ogden took over, it was his charge to decimate the beaver population in order to discourage American trappers from coming to the region. This can be seen in two ways; discouraging American competitors was sound business sense for the Hudson’s Bay Company, but there were also political implications to these actions. If the Americans did not establish themselves in the land, they would not have a strong claim when it was eventually divided between Canada and the United States. The politics involved here are subtle, but had the potential to have important long-term ramifications. Ogden was able to severely deplete the beaver population, but not to the point that the Americans were discouraged from entering the areas. By 1825, General William Henry Ashley had devised the “rendezvous system” which established permanent trading posts, in order to save money. The rendezvous was held during the summer, allowing trappers to unload their pelts, buy supplies, and be entertained by a variety of events. Developments such as this continued to lead Americans to the far Northwest to trap, although most American trappers stopped in the mountains east of Oregon territory. In general, the Hudson’s Bay Company had more influence and organization in the Northwest, which allowed it to deal with Native Americans better than the American trappers could. Between 1824 and 1826, Indians killed 32 American trappers, while the more numerous Hudson’s Bay employees suffered fewer casualties. The Company also attempted to work with the Native Americans, to have the men trap beavers for them, but this met limited success. From 1825 to 1846, John McLoughlin led the Company, and despite early success in his goals of monopolizing the fur trade and keeping peace with the Indians, he sealed the fate of the Hudson’s Bay Company when he provided assistance to settlers coming into the region. The Company could not continue to trap with the influx of population, but McLoughlin was posthumously given the honorary title “Father of Oregon” in 1957 by the Oregon legislature, in recognition for his work in developing the area. He was instrumental in the development of Oregon and the Northwest, despite having a calling that would necessitate it remaining a wilderness. While McLoughlin was working with the Indians, there were many who simply did not want them around. Another Hudson’s Bay employee, Herbert Beaver, referred to McLoughlin’s Indian wife as a concubine.
Sentiments such as these were common among common people and leaders alike. There were consistent signs of the tension between the groups, including the 1846 Whitman Massacre, among many others. The tension between Native Americans and settlers was one reason that government had to get involved in the area. Treaties were a large part of early government involvement in the Northwest. They were created in order to extinguish the Indian’s title to the land, despite the lack of a concept of land-ownership in the Indian community. The justification for this was very paternalistic; the practices of the Native American tribes were inferior to those of the settlers. Regardless of the justification, the treaties were a way that American settlers could have access to the resources of the Northwest, and government was determined to obtain that result. Many of the treaties were established starting in the 1850’s, under Washington Territory Governor Isaac Stevens. A surveyor by trade, Stevens felt that Indians “infested the land” and needed to be placed on reservations. Even when treaties were made, the settlers did not always honor the boundaries, as evidenced when gold was discovered near the Clearwater and Salmon River watersheds in 1863. A new treaty was quickly negotiated which reduced the 11,000-square-mile reservation to only 1,100 square miles. The result was that the Indian tribes were confined to ever-shrinking reservations, and the rest of the land was opened to white settlers. This is another example of Northwest government being chiefly concerned with natural resources, primarily land that settlers wanted for their own private use.
While Governor Stevens is a well known Washington governor, Idaho Territory’s early governors tended to be notably incompetent and disliked. This would be one of the first examples of Northwestern citizens not trusting government officials, although a large part of this is due to the fact that territorial officials were chosen by the president and confirmed in the Senate. The $2,500 salary was not enough to attract competent men, apparently, as Idaho had one governor resign when he realized he had misunderstood, thinking the salary to be $25,000. Adding to troubles was that most appointed officials were Republicans, many of whom were appointed by President Lincoln, while local elected officials were usually Democrat. One of Lincoln’s appointees and Idaho’s first territorial governor, William H. Wallace, took four months to get to Idaho, and served for less than a year before getting elected to Congress. The second governor was Caleb Lyon, a New York art and literature critic, who was terribly unsuited for the Idaho lifestyle and mentality. His most notable act as governor was moving the capital from Lewiston to Boise. Soon after, he returned to Washington D.C., leaving Idaho with no governor for two months. The next governor, Clinton Dewitt Smith, fared no better. It took him eight months to arrive in Idaho, and within seven more he drank himself to death. Next in line was Horace Gibson, who stole $41,000 of territory money before leaving for Paris and Hong Kong. After Gibson, Caleb Lyon returned, choosing to work with the Indians much more than the settlers would have liked. Upon leaving his post, he was accused of stealing $46,000 of Indian funds. Idaho was a territory for 27 years, and sixteen governors were confirmed. It was 1885 before an Idaho resident, Edward Augustus Stevenson, was appointed governor. Idaho was lucky to have escaped this period as well off as it did, considering the incompetence of its leaders. Ever since, Northwestern citizens have opposed control by the national government to a level that rivals the South, which is well-known for championing state’s rights. Once Idaho and Washington became states, the independent streak continued. Perhaps the best known regional politician of the time was Idaho Senator William Edgar Borah. A brilliant orator and an Idaho Republican, he rarely followed party lines, and found himself defending civil liberties during World War I. He supported Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, and was one of the first to support diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union in the 1920’s, something that President Roosevelt finally did in 1933. His independence on national issues was coupled with desire to help Idaho’s farmers, who were dealing with low commodity prices. He supported New Deal plans that would aid them, while opposing others. Borah is one of Idaho’s best examples of a politician who went to Washington, but seemed to be above the national politics, and for this, he was rewarded with reelection, serving from 1907 to 1940. At the same time, across the border in Washington other arguments were being presented that would have lasting effects on the region and the world. Grand Coulee Dam would become an icon of the West and an asset to the nation. It also represents both aspects of Northwest politics. The history behind the dam gives much of the context for this, and it begins in 1917 in Ephrata. Five young professionals were discussing how to raise crops in the arid land. One mentioned that he had been to Grand Coulee, where a giant glacier had once stopped up and diverted the entire Columbia River. The idea was born, but none of the men were willing to talk about it publicly, because none were engineers and feared that they would be ridiculed for their thoughts. However, Rufus Woods, a newspaper publisher from Wenatchee, heard of the story, and made the dam his life’s calling. He ran nearly twenty years of front-page coverage on the prospects of the dam, which he said would cure the ailing economy and help the local residents. A mix of boosterism and optimism that an outside entity would help the region prosper, his dream was realized under Roosevelt’s New Deal. When Roosevelt decided that Grand Coulee Dam would be a centerpiece of the federally funded New Deal, Washington benefited tremendously. Seven thousand jobs were created instantly. When the dam was finished, it was the largest producer of electricity in the world, although it has since slipped to third, behind two South American dams. Local farmers got the water that they needed to irrigate the dry land. The region gained notoriety when President Roosevelt made two visits to the construction site, and when folk singer Woody Guthrie came to the region and wrote songs about the environment and the dam. What has been the biggest blessing, however, is that Washington residents, who were originally destined to repay the money for the dam, have never had to do so. The federal government found itself in a situation where it was not able to take back what it had freely given, and ended up footing nearly the entire bill. Any attempt to get Washington residents to pay for costs was vehemently opposed by Northwest representatives, and many local farmers felt that the federal government should pay for the project out of a sense of honor. The only notable exception to the success the Northwest has had in this realm came when farmers tried to expand the project to its original New Deal specifications (more acres were originally to be covered). An independent study found that an investment of $5,000 per acre by the federal government would have raised the value of the land to $1,500 per acre. When the expansion was scuttled, farmers said they felt “betrayed by their government.” This is one example of how residents are wary of the central government; they have been happy to accept the benefits of federal government action, but oppose regulation by the national government. Others will be shown, but they require the context of the natural resource connection to Northwest politics. When Grand Coulee Dam was created, it also allowed for Hanford to be built along the shores of the Columbia.
The dam provided the electricity needed to help build the atomic bombs. At the time, the region was supportive and proud of its Hanford connection, but over time, this has changed. Now, Hanford represents both the environmental concern and the distrust towards the federal government seen in Northwest politics. Hanford released radioactive material at different points after the Second World War, in order to see the effects on the populations. It did so secretly, and since this came to light, it has been another reason that Northwest residents do not trust the federal government. They feel betrayed and used. One man, born a year after his stillborn brother, had underdeveloped lungs and numerous birth defects, and at 18 was diagnosed as sterile. There are many cases of similar families, many of whom blame the federal government and Hanford for their maladies. Unfortunately for them, they cannot prove in court that Hanford was the cause, despite the abnormally high rates for birth defects, thyroid cancer, and multiple sclerosis found in the region. Hanford is also one of many factors that emerge in the current environmental crisis in the Northwest. Columbia River salmon have become a Northwest icon in the past twenty years. The river serves many different interests, and each seems to claim that something else is killing the salmon. Possible culprits are the dams, barging and shipping companies, Hanford (by leaking radiation or by heating the water near the plant), sea lions and seals, farmers, Indians, commercial fishing, wind-surfers, and increased competition in the ocean, where scientists have not been able to observe them. This presents politicians with a dilemma. With so many sides on this issue, they must decide the best way to use the Columbia River. Each of the above groups uses the Columbia’s waters, which are in limited supply. The politicians must decide the best way to use this resource. Some people advocate the removal of the dams, but with the political capital of the interested parties, that is not likely to happen. Hanford is not likely to go away anytime soon. Politicians must try to balance the interests of all the parties, which is nearly impossible to do. A solution here is not going to be easy, but what politicians are learning to do is to take a firm stand, one way or the other, on the environment. Perhaps the quandary local politicians find themselves in is related to the policy for national reserves, which are kept for “multiple purposes.” However, different Northwest politicians have seen their responsibility to their state in different ways. Idahoans Frank Church and Cecil D. Andrus were notable politicians who favored preservation, and Church has a national forest named after him. Former Speaker of the House and 30-year Congressional veteran Tom Foley had a similar mindset. However, Foley suffered a nearly-unheard of defeat during the Republican Revolution of 1994 by George Nethercutt, who proposed a limit on the money that could be spent to save Northwest salmon. Nethercutt has been in office ever since then. In 1994, Washington residents felt that Foley was too much of a Washington (D.C., that is) politician, and chose the candidate who supported term-limits and promised not to run more than twice (he won his 5th term in 2002). His appeal was that he seemed like a homegrown Washington man, and he benefited from taking a hard stand towards the environment. That being said, Nethercutt also faced pressure, due to national coverage on Northwest salmon, to do what he could to save them from becoming extinct. Whichever action is taken, Congressmen of Idaho and Washington must have a good knowledge of environmental issues facing their constituents. The history of Northwest politics has been somewhat steady and slow to change. History is defined as change over time, but here, it seems that it is usually only the names that change. Policies have remained strikingly similar, and due to the vast amount of natural resources available in the Northwest, the policies have been crafted to help extractive industries, and thus the state itself. Idaho and Washington residents still do not trust national government, although they are willing to accept federal aid. While the federal dollars are easily welcomed, federal control is not. For the Pacific Northwest, it may be somewhat problematic to use this history to predict the future trends of regional politics. For Idaho, which has changed much more slowly than Washington, knowing the history of the state’s politics will probably prove useful in trying to predict the state’s future political leanings. It would be much more difficult to use history as a guide, as in the past decade the politics have been changed by the urbanization of the western part of the state. Eastern Washington fits better politically with Idaho or even Montana, but because of the relatively small population, does not get as much representation in government. Nethercutt represents the eastern part of the state, and his views are different than those espoused by the more liberal Western-Washington representatives. Seattle has a reputation among many Eastern-Washington residents as a city of bookish, coffee-drinking vegetarian leftists, and for some, is coming to represent the type of government that they distrust. The Cascades represent a divide, not only of the state, but of ideas and mindsets. Future politics in Washington will likely depend on whether the urban population continues to grow, or if the recent growth cities like Seattle have seen tapers off.
