What is up with the state capitals?

[amarinth]

@Red Barchetta

Edit: And I agree about state capitals. Washington’s is Olympia, though IIRC, it does have the distinction of having one of the higher crime rates in the state. yay?

At the time, Seattle wasn’t Seattle yet (Olympia was actually the bigger city and Vancouver was right behind), and (according to some) there was a really nice bribe involved.

Just because now Olympia’s really small now doesn’t mean it always was. In the 1850s, it was “Damn, this place is the SPOT” if mostly because everywhere else was “unsettled” (by Europeans) forest.

[RickJay]

@iwakura43

At least in the case of New York, Albany was chosen as the capital precisely because it’s not the bustling, sexy metropolis that is NYC. In short, if NYC were the capital of New York State, it would dominate New York politics even more than it already does, and all the people who live upstate would be pushed to the sidelines. For New York, it was an equity issue.

Is it because NYC is a metropolis, though, or just because it’s not centrally located? A great many state capitals seem to be located where they are because they’re more or less in the middle of things. It’s doubtful NYC would be the capital no matter how big or small it was.

In the case of New York, NYC is extremely geographically isolated from the rest of the state. It used to be that the big upstate cities like Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester were actually much more important, relatively speaking, than they are now; they were never as big as NYC but were a much larger fraction of the state in terms of population and economic clout. At one point Buffalo was one of the USA’s largest cities; today it’s well down the list.

Also, Boston, the capital of Massachusetts is a fine city, interesting to tourists and residents, and a place I’d recommend anyone visit. In fall or spring, not winter
[/QUOTE]

[Siam_Sam]

@HoboStew

Siam Sam, I’ve never been to Santa Fe. What are some of the things you like about it? And for the record I have been to Austin and had a fantastic time. That is one capital that breaks the mold. Honolulu doesn’t get credit because you could make a shack on the beach in Hawaii the capital and it would still rule. I’ll grudgingly give Boston credit even though I have a major personal vendetta against that city. Denver I will admit to being ignorant about. What do you in Denver when you are not dead? I’ll give a little love to Hot-lanta, I had fun when I visited there briefly.

Sorry I’m so late in replying, but we just got back into town last night.

Santa Fe: What’s not to love (except the cost of living)? The way it looks, with all the old adobe architecture. The food. The very smell of the mountain air (7000 feet amid forest area). The great hikes. The sense of history. I lived for a while in Albuquerque and went to Santa Fe fairly often, as I also did as a young adult in West Texas: in Texas, many would head for Dallas or the coast, but I’d always pack up and head for northern New Mexico. A big dinner of chile rellenos and margaritas at Tomasitas was a big highlight.

I remember, too, the sight of Los Alamos at night from Santa Fe. It’s at a higher elevation than the capital, so it appears to be a city in the sky. Santa Fe just gives one a magical feeling.

[Siam_Sam]

As for Denver, okay it’s not Paris, but it ain’t Oklahoma City either. It’s been years since I was there, but I remember it seemed like a neat place. A good capital city.

[movingfinger]

I visited Juneau a few years ago and asked about recurrent cries to move the Alaskan capital to Anchorage or Fairbanks. I was told the legislators like it just fine in a town where the rest of the state has no road connection to the capital city and most of the rest of the population is hundreds of miles away.

[Largo62]

@Bearflag70

SACRAMENTO

Stories of attempts to lure the capital to Sacramento aside, the city was very important and centrally located at the time (1850’s), in terms of population distribution in the state.

In the 1850’s, most of California’s population was (1) in the Gold Country of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains; (2) in San Francisco, which was the major port serving the state as people flooded in during the Gold Rush; and (3) centrally located in Sacramento, which was the launching point for miners headed from San Francisco to the Gold Country.

By that time, however, Sacramento had already been established as a “destination” by virtue of Sutter’s Fort, which served the pioneers well before the Gold Rush and statehood.

Sacramento had the additional advantage of being a port that could handle large ships of the day. The Sacramento River is deep there, and connected to the sea, flowing into San Francisco Bay.

Actually, Sacramento would be a nice place to live if it didn’t get so damned hot in the summer. Whew!

If size counts, then of course Los Angeles should be the capital of California. But before San Francisco, San Jose is now over a million population and ninth most populous city in the country.

Capitals often seem to be quiet places, like Salem, Oregon, which, the last time I was there, didn’t even have a decent hotel. Maybe that’s changed. Portland, or secondarily, Eugene would be more appropriate places for a capital . . . if size counts.

[Giles]

@gardentraveler

I think some capitals were selected because they were in a central location and therefore most equitably accessible to state residents. That’s the case for Columbus and, IIRC for Lansing, MI (can’t remember if they were ignoring the UP or if it wasn’t part of Michigan when the capital was selected).

Columbus is now the largest city in Ohio (though the Cleveland area is the largest metro area). But it certainly wasn’t when it became the capital.

[plnnr]

Richmond became the capital of VA in 1780 (moved from Williamsburg) in order to have a more secure (and slightly more central) location. Richmond is located at the fall line and was more defensible against a water invasion from the British.

[Shagnasty]

Baton Rouge actually became the biggest city in Louisiana effective immediately after Katrina hit and remains so to this day.

[Acsenray]

My theory is that in most states, keeping the capital away from the major metropolis was just one of the means of denying proportionate political voice to urban folks. The urban-rural rivalry has been around for a long time.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@iwakura43

At least in the case of New York, Albany was chosen as the capital precisely because it’s not the bustling, sexy metropolis that is NYC. In short, if NYC were the capital of New York State, it would dominate New York politics even more than it already does, and all the people who live upstate would be pushed to the sidelines. For New York, it was an equity issue.

I think this is pretty much it in most states. San Francisco was already the major city of the Pacific Coast at the time Sacramento was made capital. For a time, Los Angeles was the capital, but it was very small then with only a few thousand people. The country was agrarian in those days, so the idea seems to have been to provide a balance between the commercial interests of the major cities and the agricultural interests in the hinterlands.

[Acsenray]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

The country was agrarian in those days, so the idea seems to have been to provide a balance between the commercial interests of the major cities and the agricultural interests in the hinterlands.

I think it’s less benign than this. The rural folks might have spoken in terms of a “balance,” but, really I believe that their real motive was disenfranchisement of urban folks. It took the Supreme Court in the 1960s to force one-man, one-vote representation on state legislatures.