What is the origin of the DC in Washington,DC?
342113
The District of Columbia is a federal district as specified by the United States Constitution. The U.S. Congress has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia, though it has delegated limited local rule to the municipal government.  The term "District of Columbia" is derived from an old poetic name for the United States, Columbia, which has fallen out of common use since the early 20th century.\n\nWashington, D.C. is the capital city of the United States of America, the federal district containing the city of Washington. The seat of the federal government is often located in a Federal District, so that no single individual component can exercise undue influence over federal affairs
288447
there is a library/hall of records in DC. check back in a cpl of days i'll get the address for you
101262
George Washington....thanks for the points! :)
219262
Washington DC area- I think Virginia
705014
Washington is a federal city. It was awarded self government. However other than the USA Government located there  there is none.\nHopefully some day the feds will make this a truely federal city and remove the scum living there and reclaim it.
891920
What? The capitol was still Washington DC if thats what you are asking us.
606159
The initial plot of land authorized by the Constitution for the seat of the US government was a 100-square mile area. The first commissioners appointed to acquire the property for the new capital and construct the first government buildings made the obvious choice and named the city Washington. At the same time, they decided to call the entire 100 square-mile area the District of Columbia. Congress later went along with this decision through legislative references to the area. \n\nThe city of Washington as designed by L'Enfant did not, of course, fill the 100 square-mile area authorized by the Constitution for the seat of government. The area also included the cities of Georgetown (1751) and Alexandria (1749), which were already in existence. Congress designated the rest of the 10-mile by 10-mile portion outside the corporate limits of these three cities as the County of Alexandria, in the section given by Virginia, and the County of Washington, in the Maryland-ceded portion. \nIn 1846 Congress voted to give back to Virginia all the land that state had given to the government in 1790 for creation of the District of Columbia. This move returned about 32 square miles of territory to Virginia. Residents of Alexandria and what is now Arlington County, Virginia, thus lost District of Columbia residency and again became Virginia citizens. \n\nIf all this sounds confusing, think of Congress trying to enact legislation dealing with the local affairs of this area. Congress tried to clarify the jurisdictional muddle when it established a territorial form of government for the capital in 1871. It revoked the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and also abolished a levy court for the County of Washington. All legal municipal functions were given to the District of Columbia. \n\nThen Congress changed its mind again and decided that Georgetown and the County of Washington should be separate entities. In 1895, Congress legally ended Georgetown's status as a separate city by merging it with the City of Washington, yet this act said nothing about the County of Washington. Technically, this Maryland-ceded portion of the District of Columbia is still a part of that namesake even though it operates as a separate identity. The slip-up, moreover, has never been corrected. \n\nSo, today, a resident of the District of Columbia may be living either in the old County of Washington or in the merged section made up of L'Enfant's City of Washington and of Georgetown. Washington, D.C., however, is a city in name only - a mapmaker's designation and the established pseudonym for the District of Columbia.
437534
No.  The District of Columbia was established so that the working seat of American governement would not reside in a specific state.  \n\nThat way when Iowa and Maryland get into a urination contest one of them can't say "Well I am home to the whole freakin' government!"
600917
The capitol was originally Philadelphia, which at the time was the largest city of the United States.  Congress wanted a place where a capitol could be built and designed from scratch and they chose the area we know as D.C.  It was named Washington in honor of the father of our country, hence the history of Washington D.C. and our nation's capitol.
1002177
Some Jurisdictions exchange information, others do not.  Also when you say "Washington", no one knows whether you mean the State or D.C.
625461
Maybe... Because... the district is in there. Jeeezzaa!! I really am not quite sure! (Hint: District as in District of Columbia aka capital of America!)
205184
Assuming that you are asking abt the Disctrict of Columbia. Here is the link with full details... \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.\n\nAssuming that you are asking about the Country "Colombia" often misspelled as columbia, here is the link\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia\n\n.:Fishie:.
560817
It's not in a state. Washington DC is the nation's capital. DC is a federal district, which contains the city of Washington.
444494
Arlington, Virginia\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon
319673
February 20, 1895 in Washington d.c
660821
Well, obviously it is not from 1789. In Denver? At that time, the US Constitution had only been signed for about a year, the Department of the Treasury was formed by Act of Congress that year. So you have a coin that commemerates the founding of the Treasury and shows the Treasury Dept bldg in Washington DC. There should be a date showing the striking date and a valuation somewhere on the coin. Good luck in finding out more about it. I would suggest looking at some numismatistic sites on google.
435401
British\n\n[modified below to provide source]\n"British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. The British, under orders not to hold any territory, withdrew."\nhttp://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html\n\n[another modification to provide some more details]\nI'm not a historian, so I will not pretend to be an expert on this subject.  However, I am learning more details as I go along in the effort to more fully answer your question.  At this point, this is more of a challenge and just plain fun, so it doesn't matter if you should choose this as a best answer or not.  The thrill is in the hunt.\n\nWhat I've determined so far is that the burning of Washington (and the White House) was performed by parts of the British Army stationed along the East Coast. Although the Canadian militia did fight on the side of the British, it seems that they were primarily in the Great Lakes regions where they comprised nearly half of the British forces.  The Great Lakes region was a separate theatre of operations during the war. \n\nThe war was conducted in four theatres of operations:\nThe Atlantic Ocean \nThe Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier \nThe coast of the United States \nThe Southern States \n\nThe commander of the British forces on the East Coast was General Robert Ross who served under Admiral Cockburn.  These two men are credited with leading the forces responsible for the burning of Washington.  From my reading, it appears that Ross probably actually led the forces, while Cockburn received credit as the commander of British Naval forces along the US coastal, providing the means for the landing of the ground forces, and as Ross' superior officer.\n\nRoss, himself, commanded a 4500-man army, comprised of the 4th (King's Own) Light, 21st Royal North British Fusiliers, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot, and 85th Regiment of Foot.\n\n(The British commander of the Great Lakes forces was Major-General Sir Isaac Brock.)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be any significant work, citable references, or other resources that indicate any ties between the Canadian militia that served in the Great Lakes with Ross' East Coast forces that participated in the burning of Washington.\n\nFrom additional reading, it would seem that the attack on Washington and Baltimore was performed by components of the British as a diversion so that the British forces in the north (with Canadians) could repel the continual attacks from US forces and make an incursion into the US.\n\n\nSo, it would seem, in my opinion, that it was not Canadians that burned down the White House.  Although Canadians fought alongside the British in the Great Lakes region, they were not instrutmental in Cockburne's and Ross' forces on the East Coast that actually did the burning.  Further, just because the British Army in one region contained Canadian militia members, I don't think it would be correct to conclude, in any respect, that Canadians should get 'credit' for burning down the White House.  That would be like saying that Latvia gets the historical credit for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein.  They had men in the coalition forces, after all.