State capitals... why so small?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Hari_Seldon

This reminds of the what they say in Urbana, IL, location of University of Illinois. That when the sate was organized they had to choose locations for the state capitol, the state penitentiary and the state university and Urbana lost.

I’ve heard this in probably eight different States…I don’t know if it’s true for one and just spread from there or true for all of them or untrue for all of them. It makes sense to a degree though, we didn’t have big State prisons til the mid to late 19th century which is also around the time a lot of Midwestern states were founding their flagship land grant universities. Also I would imagine a big prison, back then, would be seen as much better than a college. Even the largest colleges were quite small back then while the state prison would be pretty big and bring a lot more to the local economy. Of course these days the big state flagship schools are far better than having a prison…for all the cultural reasons, money from out of town sports fans, 30,000+ students 4-5000+ highly paid staff, tons of Federal dollars for research institutes and etc.

[Lord_Feldon]

US states that aren’t Alaska also tend to be more evenly settled than Australian states. The capital cities in Australia tend to be huge compared to the next largest cities in the state. Melbourne has 24 times the population of Geelong. It wouldn’t surprise me if the center of population of New South Wales was very close to Sydney even though the state has a geographically huge interior.

[robert_columbia]

Canada has the interesting example of PEI. The capital, Charlottetown, isn’t that big, but there just aren’t any big cities at all.

[robert_columbia]

@Dave_Hartwick

In some cases, like Michigan, there were geographical concerns. Detroit was the capital until 1847, but was considered unsafe as it had been captured by the British in the War of 1812. Lansing was more central and safer by virtue of being further from the Canadian border…

And during the Civil War, DC literally ended up bordering rebel territory after Virginia seceded. Thus a need for the “hundred circling camps” and why so many soldiers died in Northern Virginia.

[John_Mace]

@Shagnasty

Boston is a good example of why a state shouldn’t have its largest city as the capital. Massachusetts is a small state but it is still about a three hour drive from Boston proper to the western edge of the state on the New York border. Massachusetts is a fairly rural state overall by land area but good luck to the people who live outside of the Boston area in getting good representation. Massachusetts should have chosen like New York and set the state capital far away from its major city but it didn’t and now most of the city and state issues are hopelessly commingled with much of the state largely ignored. Making Springfield or even Worcester the state capital of Massachusetts would have spread the wealth and influence more evenly and been a much better choice.

Closer to a 2 hour drive. And much of the rest of that post is opinion, not fact.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Lord_Feldon

It wouldn’t surprise me if the center of population of New South Wales was very close to Sydney even though the state has a geographically huge interior.

As of 2001… (PDF)

At June 2001 the centre of population of NSW was located in the LGA of
Hawkesbury

Victoria’s centre of population at June 2001 was located within the SLA of
Moreland

The centre of population of Queensland at June 2001 was located in Gayndah

At June 2001 South Australia’s centre of population was located in the SLA of
Salisbury

Western Australia’s centre of population at June 2001 was located in the SLA of
Toodyay

Tasmania’s centre of population at June 2001 was located in the SLA of
Central Highlands

Over the five years to June 2001 the Northern Territory’s centre of population moved
around 6 kilometres northward within the SLA of Victoria

So for most intents and purposes, Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide are the most central cities in their states, and Perth appears to be very close. They have so many people compared to everything else that they’re the center no matter where they are geographically. I’m not sure how many US states that’s true for (Alaska probably, maybe Utah if you count the Wasatch Front as one long city).

[alphaboi867]

Another difference between Australia and the USA is that the big cities like Sydney or Melbourne are actually collections of dozens of municipalities, none of which has anything close to a majority of the metro area’s population. Sydney for example is made up of about 40 local councils and has a population of over 4 million; the City of Sydney is only the CBD & surrounding neigborhoods and has a population of 170K. Any issues effecting the whole metroplitian area are handled by the state government. A North American-style city government would rival the state government; over 60% of the population of New South Wales lives in Sydney. Seventy-five percent of Victorians live in Melbourne. Western Australia is basically one giant city-state. Only Tasmania has settlement paterns similiar to most US states.

[Giles]

It’s also interesting to compare with the Provinces of Canada. There, five out of the ten provinces have capitals which are not the largest city. However, in three cases (Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan) the capital and the largest city are fairly close in population.

There are two cases where the capital is significantly smaller: Quebec, where Quebec City is closer to the centre of the province than Montreal, and British Columbia, where Victoria is not closer to the centre of the province than Vancouver, and is on Vancouver Island separate from the majority of the province’s population. In each of these cases there are historical reasons for the choice of capital, which include that fact that Vancouver Island used to be a separate colony from British Columbia. (It’s confusing that Vancouver is not on Vancouver Island.)

With the Australian states there is a certain amount of conservatism going on: there has never been a case where a state capital has moved, so it seems out of the bounds of political reality. There’s one state where you could argue to move the capital – Queensland – but there instead political energy has been spent on trying to split the state into three parts, which would make even more sense.

[dtilque]

There’s one other factor that hasn’t been discussed. For many states, the capital was chosen when the state was very sparcely populated, usually when it was still a territory. It wasn’t always obvious at the time what the big city was going to be. So even if they wanted to put the capital in the big city, they may not have chosen right one.

This is related to the fact that for some states, the capital was chosen not for the geographic center of the state, but rather as a compromise location between the population centers of the time. Florida, is a good example. Tallahassee is no where near the center of the state. But when it was chosen, most of the population was in two areas, the panhandle Gulf coast and the northern Atlantic coast. (The peninsula was not considered a good place to live at the time, mainly being a large swamp filled with mosqitoes, alligators, and Indians.) So they put the capital at a deserted crossroad halfway between the two populated areas.

Washington and Oregon are about the same. The capitals are in a central location for the population at the time they chose the capitals. But they’re definitely not near the center of their states.

[Smapti]

In the case of Washington, Olympia was the only city of any size in the area when Washington Territory was carved out of the Oregon country, in addition to being the seat of the Army’s largest presence in an area which was still mostly populated by Indians.

[Aspidistra]

@Lord_Feldon

US states that aren’t Alaska also tend to be more evenly settled than Australian states. The capital cities in Australia tend to be huge compared to the next largest cities in the state. Melbourne has 24 times the population of Geelong. It wouldn’t surprise me if the center of population of New South Wales was very close to Sydney even though the state has a geographically huge interior.

And that’s probably because of the way our state capitals grew up and were chosen. Sydney was the first town settled in Australia. I believe Melbourne was the first town settled in Victoria. At the time they officially became State capitals, there wasn’t much to choose from - and everywhere was tiny. The very fact that the capitals ARE the capitals has influenced their development more than anything.

[N9IWP]

Then there is Madison, WI. tl;dr version: One guy promised discount land to legislators (said land would be worth a lot more if Madison was the capital)

Also at the time the lead mining region was more important so it was (mostly) centrally located population-wise

Brian

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@John_Mace

Closer to a 2 hour drive. And much of the rest of that post is opinion, not fact.

Well, Shay’s Rebellion must have been in recent memory when the Northwest Territory was being set up as states.

In the rural parts of New England, particularly in central and western Massachusetts, the economy during the American Revolutionary War had been one of little more than subsistence agriculture. Most residents in these areas had little in the way of assets beyond their land, and often bartered with one another for goods or services. In lean times, farmers might obtain goods on credit from suppliers in local market towns who would be paid when times were better.[1]

In the more economically developed coastal areas of Massachusetts Bay, the economy was basically a market economy, driven by the activities of wholesale merchants dealing with Europe, the West Indies and elsewhere on the North American coast.[2] Not surprisingly, the state government was dominated by this merchant class.[3]
Populist Governor John Hancock refused to crack down on tax delinquencies, and accepted devalued paper currency for debts.

When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the European business partners of Massachusetts merchants refused to extend lines of credit to them and insisted that goods be paid for with hard currency. Despite the continent-wide shortage of such currency, merchants began to demand the same from their local business partners, including those merchants operating in the market towns in the state’s interior.[4] Many of these merchants passed on this demand to their customers, although the popular governor, John Hancock, did not impose hard currency demands on poorer borrowers and refused to actively prosecute the collection of delinquent taxes.[5]

The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands being made of them by merchants or the civil authorities, and individuals began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations. This led to strong resentments against tax collectors and the courts, where creditors obtained and enforced judgments against debtors, and where tax collectors obtained judgments authorizing property seizures.[6]

The farmers lost, badly, and then lost again in Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791. Making sure that legislatures were more responsive to what was then the majority of the population had to be a major faction in future decisions.

[MikeS]

@John_Mace

Closer to a 2 hour drive. And much of the rest of that post is opinion, not fact.

Google Maps puts Boston to North Adams, MA (the farthest part of the state) at 2:48, without traffic.

Beyond that, I think it’s factually accurate to say that many people west of Worcester are of the opinion (voiced by Shagnasty) that the big city gets a disproportionate amount of attention and resources compared to the rest of the state. Of course, you hear much the same sentiments coming from downstate IL and upstate NY, too, and I don’t know if the problem here is actually any better or worse than it is there.

[Crotalus]

@Martin_Hyde

Well, Columbus is also the largest city in Ohio. I don’t know the reasons but Ohio has a strange history with its state capitals…at one point Chilicothe was the state capital and I don’t really see why it ever would have been.

Thomas Worthington and Edward Tiffin, two of the people responsible for Ohio’s statehood, lived in Chillicothe. I think it was a simple as that.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@MikeS

Of course, you hear much the same sentiments coming from downstate IL and upstate NY, too, and I don’t know if the problem here is actually any better or worse than it is there.

New York’s capital might be in Albany, but the Governor normally lives in New York and has to be dragged to Albany for brief sessions before escaping. I think the same thing’s true in Illinois.

And New York City legislators are as notoriously corrupt and hated by the rest of the state as Chicago legislators are.

From our perspective, it’s got to be better in Massachusetts.

[Kamino_Neko]

@robert_columbia

Canada has the interesting example of PEI. The capital, Charlottetown, isn’t that big, but there just aren’t any big cities at all.

It is, by a wide, wide margin, the largest city in the province, though, being home to approximately a quarter of the population of the province in the city proper, nearly half when the whole Charlottetown area is taken as a whole.

PEI is one of 5 provinces where the largest city is also the capital - the other 4 being Newfoundland (St John’s), Nova Scotia (Halifax), Ontario (Toronto), and Manitoba (Winnipeg).

For the other 5:

New Brunswick’s capital is Fredricton, its largest city St John.
Quebec’s capital is Quebec City, it’s largest city is Montreal.
Saskatchewan’s capital is Regina, it’s largest city Saskatoon.
Alberta’s capital is Edmonton, it’s largest city Calgary.
BC’s capital is Victoria, it’s largest city Vancouver.

All 3 territorial capitals are also the territories’ largest cities, but that’s likely a case of the capitals being the only cities of any size at all as much as anything else.

[Diceman]

@Kamino_Neko

All 3 territorial capitals are also the territories’ largest cities, but that’s likely a case of the capitals being the only cities of any size at all as much as anything else.

This is the case with Wyoming. Cheyenne is way down the SE corner of the state, but Wyoming is very sparely populated, and really doesn’t have much in the way of big cities.

[Chronos]

I don’t understand why people say things like “Such-and-such state is mostly rural by area”. That’s true of almost every state, since rural areas are, by definition, those that have low population density (in other words, people spread out over a large area). Why should it matter that a large area gets low representation in the state government? We’re “We the People”, not “We the Acres”.

[John_Mace]

@Chronos

I don’t understand why people say things like “Such-and-such state is mostly rural by area”. That’s true of almost every state, since rural areas are, by definition, those that have low population density (in other words, people spread out over a large area). Why should it matter that a large area gets low representation in the state government? We’re “We the People”, not “We the Acres”.

We haven’t been in the business of moving state capitols around for a long time, so you need to think the way people thought 100 or 150 years ago. Then, it did matter much more that farmers not get shafted in favor of city folk, and back then we had a more balanced mix of city and farm-- half the population or more was engaged in agriculture, whereas only a small fraction is now.