Untitled Document

Irony is a term frequently used and generally understood, but we often are at a loss to explain precisely what it is and to come up with examples of irony when we need them. Many rhetoricians throughout history have thought that irony was the ablest weapon of oratory. If you can come up with ironic examples and use them at appropriate times, your point will be powerfully made. This essay will begin with a definition of irony and then give you a brief historical example of it.

Defining Irony

The OED is as good a place as any to start with a definition. Irony is "a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used." An example of this might be looking out the window into a driving rainstorm and saying, "What wonderful weather we are having!" A second definition is slightly broader in meaning, though consistent with the first: "A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things." Here we have the reversed expectations irony. An example would be where a steeplechase runner cleared all the water jumps with no problem but tripped over a smaller barrier as he was running. Or, more striking, where a person who has slain many fierce opponents comes home and is inadvertently killed by a stray arrow shot by his seven year-old. Or, an all pro lineman who is injured in a game of touch football with his kids. This notion of reversal of expectations or, as the Wikipedia article says, a gap between expectation and reality, constitutes the essence of irony. Essential to the concept is that the specific intent of an actor is negated by a later action. In the words of St. Paul, "the very law that promised life to me ended up working death in me."

A Historical Irony

A friend this week asked me a rather simple question. How did Washington State get its name? Well, we know it was named after George Washington, but why was it named Washington when the chances for confusion with Washington D.C. abound? I thought at first it was named after Washington because it became a state precisely 100 years after he was inaugurated as first President of the US (1889). Indeed, I probably could have gotten away with that explanation but, of course, I would just have been making it up as I went along--and that is no good.

So, I decided to do a little research on the question. Here is what I found. The Oregon Country began to be settled by Europeans in earnest in 1843. Wagon trains left Independence, MO en route to Oregon City annually. By the late 1840s Oregon became a territory, including land from the Pacific Ocean to the border of CA to the Rocky Mountains to the 49th parallel in the North. But many settlers in the northern country, i.e., North of the Columbia River, decided that the trek to Oregon City was too onerous to register land claims and get justice, and so they raised the issue, in an 1851 meeting at Cowlitz Landing (near the present-day Toledo, WA), of becoming a separate territory. As a result, late in 1852, they memorialized Congress to this effect, to make a separate territory. The folks South of the Columbia River didn't object. What was the original name that these North of the Columbia wanted to give to their area (the present state of Washington)? Well, it was Columbia. They wanted Congress to recognize them as residents of the Columbia Territory.

And such a request made sense. The Columbia River was one of the most present, powerful and visible geographical realities of the region. Columbia Territory, therefore, it would be.

Until, that is, Congress got hold of the proposal. Since only Congress can create a territory, the debate over creation of the "Columbia Territory" was considered in Congress early in February 1853. One Congressman, Richard H. Stanton of Kentucky had an alternative suggestion. And, he knew whereof he spoke, so his suggestion would tend to be honored. Though he was from KY, he actually was born Sept 9, 1812 in Alexandria, VA, which at that time was in the District of Columbia. The land South of the Potomoc which was originally the "District of Columbia," was retroceded to Virginia in 1847. "District of Columbia," then, bulked large in Stanton's thoughts. He suggested in the Congressional debates that the territory ought not to be called Columbia Territory lest it be confused with his home district, the District of Columbia. What should it be called instead of this? Why, Washington. It would become the Washington Territory.

As of yet, we don't have an irony. Here is why. Though the District of Columbia was officially known as Washington (from 1791), it was referred to as the "Federal City" in the late 18th and early 19th century because of George Washington's reluctance to call it after himself. In addition, the Federal City had four sections within the district, one of which was the "City of Washington" and one of which was the "County of Washington." However, after the retrocession of Alexandria in 1847 and after Georgetown ceased to be a city in 1871, the area became known simply as "Washington."

So, in 1853, when Stanton was searching for a name for the new Territory, the preeminent name for the nation's capital was the District of Columbia or the Federal City. It could also be known as Washington, but that wasn't as prominent. Thus, Stanton would "solve" the problem by calling the new Territory the Washington Territory. He would eliminate confusion this way.

Conclusion

Congress acquiesced in his suggestion, and the Washington Territory was established before the Winter of 1853 was done. No confusion. Phew. Then came 1871, when the last of the four sections of the original Federal City ceased to be an independent city. What do you have left? Why, simply Washington. Now, the confusions emerged. Precisely on the point where Rep. Stanton wanted to remove confusion. Now, isn't that a nice example of historical irony?

2173