Australia is just a bit smaller than the USA but only has 22 million compared to the USA’s 313 million.
I would be if Australia was to have grown larger the capitals would’ve been moved to more central places. In fact look at Canberra, which was a compromise between Sydney and Melbourne.
I had a friend who was a reporter in Buffalo. He said his typical conversation with anyone in the Governor’s office went like this:
"I’m calling from Buffalo. BUFFALO! The second-largest f****** city in the state!
“My state’s politics aren’t nearly as corrupt as New York’s or Illinois’.”
That’s pretty much the archetypal example of setting the bar low.
“One man, one vote” seems to be remembered today as civil rights legislation but it was all about making state legislative districts equal because of the disproportionate power of the rural districts.
It wasn’t corrected until Reynolds v. Sims in 1964. That’s 175 years of “We, the Acres.”
It’s also not as rare as you are saying. Sure, a majority of state capitals aren’t the largest city, but it’s not a small percentage.
15 of the 50 state capitals are the state’s largest city, or 30% of state capitals:
Phoenix, AZ
Indianapolis, IN
Columbus, OH
Boston, MA
Denver, CO
Oklahoma City, OK
Atlanta, GA
Honolulu, HI
Boise, ID
Des Moines, IA
Little Rock, AR
Salt Lake City, UT
Providence, RI
Jackson, MS
Columbia, SC
I think I read that Jefferson City, is the only state capital that isn’t among the states top ten cities in population.
In many of these states the capitol city is both the largest city and centrally located. Here in RI central doesn’t have much meaning, you can’t get far from the center. MA is the real outlier with it’s capitol so far from so much of it’s land area.
With fewer than 8,000 people, Montpelier, Vt is the smallest state capital.
Frankfort, Ky. is also not one of that state’s 10 largest cities.
There are four suburbs of St. Louis and three of Kansas City that have a larger population than Jefferson City.
The capital city of my state was chosen as the result of a contest (actually three). It also happens to be almost centrally located. I guess the contest fight was hard and dirty. You can read about it here (PDF).
Raleigh NC -
The city’s location was chosen, in part, for being within 11 miles (16 km) of Isaac Hunter’s Tavern, a popular tavern frequented by the state legislators.
And if half the population was farmers, then at that time there was no risk of them being overwhelmed by the city-dwellers. The argument doesn’t make sense no matter what breakdown of urban vs. rural you use.
Ignoring the fact that Juneau and Honolulu only became state capitals in 1959-60, what was the last relocation of a state capital city? (If we need to go back before 1912 , apply the same criterion: territorial capital becoming state capital doesn’t count.)
Nashville was centrally located, in a time before the State had paved roads.
The river locations also helped. This made the trip to the capitol on business as short as feasible for each citizen.
The biggest city, Memphis, was tiny when Nashville was founded. The vast trade on the Mississippi River made Memphis’s grow inevitable.
I assume the 1976 Alaska vote to move the capital to Willow, near Anchorage but not Anchorage itself, doesn’t count, regardless of the new master architectural plan, due to the 1982 vote not to spend any money on it.
Rhode Island made Providence the permanent capital in 1900. It was alternating with Newport before that, and may have been the capital for some time before then. Charleston West Virginia would be next in line in 1885.
It’s worth noting, however, that Edmonton is very nearly as large as Calgary, and Regina isn’t a whole lot smaller than Saskatoon. Quebec City is the second largest city in Quebec, Victoria is the second largest city (by metro area) in BC that is not a suburb of Vancouver, and Fredericton isn’t much smaller than Saint John.
Canada really has no extreme, dramatic examples of capital cities that seem like bizarrely obscure choices, like Tallahassee, Albany, Carson City, or Harrisburg.
There were three prominent cities early in Minnesota, the tried to divvy up the prizes evenly: Minneapolis got the university, St. Paul got the capitol, and Stillwater got the prison. There was a proposal to move the capitol to St Peter, where some legislators were speculating in land, until a guy stole the bill and kept it hidden until it was too late to sign it.
Tallahassee was chosen because it was exactly half way between the two prominent cities at the time, St. Augustine and Pensacola.
I would do something like this: There are 6 states in Australia. Of the corresponding number of the largest cities of Australia, 5 are state capitals. The only one missing is the capital of Tasmania, which clocks in at number 11. Which means that all 6 state capitals are among the 2 × 6 = 12 largest cities of the country.
As for the United States, there are 50 states. And of the corresponding number of largest cities of the United States, 11 are state capitals. (Another 1 of these cities is the nation’s capital.) Of the largest 2 × 50 = 100, you get another 12, which is a bunch, but it still leaves out more than half the state capitals.
It does actually if you understand how legislatures actually work. And for a lot of these states it would not have been 50/50 between rural and urban, but more like 80/20 rural/urban. It wasn’t until the fourth quarter of the 19th century I believe that less than 50% of Americans were primarily engaged in the business of farming.
But anyway, in the 19th and 18th centuries legislators were only vaguely responsive to their constituents, they were not scrutinized nearly so much as they are now because by and large government was much smaller and only important when people really wanted something or when government did something that really pissed people off. So the fear for many people would have been that a bunch of legislators hanging out and making decisions together in the biggest city in the State might be influenced a lot by business interests and other influence peddlers who actually live in that city and will be advocating for that city’s special interests. Since many legislators could go years without serious challengers or scrutiny their rural constituents could literally be sold down the river long before realizing something was afoot.
But that’s really only a part of it I would think, also consider even today most state legislative jobs are part time, they were basically “super part time” in the 19th/18th century. Legislators needed to be able to travel back home to work, and concentrating the state house in some far corner of the state just because that’s where the river is and where the biggest city is would be really troublesome for a lot of legislators and not ideal for the constituents who would have no access at all to their representative for long periods of time as they were stuck with massive commutes to the statehouse.
In some States this difficulty of travel could basically mean legislators didn’t even regularly make it to the statehouse except for really important scenarios. While the western counties of Virginia were obviously contiguous, until large scale tunneling and railroad building those counties were very remote from Richmond. Most immigrants into those counties actually came south from Pennsylvania, so it was basically a huge bitch to even get to Richmond. So ultimately at one point in its history the western counties had almost as many people (white people who weren’t slave, that is) as the eastern counties but virtually no power in the statehouse because their representatives were so remote and removed from Richmond politics and were never able to effectively deal with that disadvantage. That’s one of the big reasons many of them decided to take the money and run when the Civil War broke out and they saw their best/only chance to escape the domination of Richmond.
Just to throw my 2c worth in most Australian capitals are based on sea or river ports and as such trading was the focus, it makes sense that these became the biggest towns. With the exception of Canberra all our capitals are based on the original settlements and when we became federated it made sense for the gentry to keep them there. We were in a lot of respects just like old mother England.