Huh? Sacramento became the state capital in 1854, but “Camp Capitola”, the forerunner of the current city of Capitola, wasn’t named such until 1874 (and the city wasn’t incorporated until 1949).
From what I learned about California history, San Jose fell out of favor quickly because it had a reputation as a pretty rough and tumble place and the State Legislature spent much of the time soused.
Benicia and Vallejo were supposed to be more centrally located, but a flood drove the Legislature to find a place that would likely stay drier.
“Newberg” was a double brainfart. I was thinking of Kingston, then misspelled “Newburgh.”
As for the cite, it’s at the exhibit of the Albany County Historical Associationg – the museum they have across the street from the Palace Theater. It’s also mentioned on the State Capitol tour.
Plenty of speculation by various responders, but nobody’s stumbled across the factual answer to the OP’s question.
During the early days of the Revolutionary War, the British occupied NYC, forcing the capital to flee northward. According to this site:
The rebel capital reformed in Kingston, 100 miles north. Within a month, the King’s armies came calling again. In October of 1777, the British forces converged on Kingston and burned the entire city to the ground. As the link suggests, this event is recreated every summer.(the landing, not the burning). After the destruction of Kingston, the capital was relocated, 100 miles northward again, to Albany, where it has remained since November 1777.
Then, of course, there’s Santa Fe, a continuous capital for almost 400 years. So there’s a big case of historical inertia. Though I suppose that it was the biggest town in the relavent area for most of its history.
Madison (the capitol of Wisconsin) WAS pretty much chosen by bribe.
Legislators were offered free land. At the time, the value of this land was low, but if they chose Madison as the capitol, suddenly the land becomes much more valuable…
Brian
I’m not sure if you got that from either of the linked-to web sites, but the capital wasn’t permanently established in Albany until 1797-98. I’m taking my info from a New York Times article from 1887. The article was based on documents from the State archives.
The State legislature moved about quite a bit at that time. It met more times than not in Poughkeepsie and in New York City. According to the article, Albany wasn’t even favored as a meeting spot until 1788.
Not too many facts to add, just to note that Sacramento was not - really, is not - the most senseless choice for the capitol. (What did the locating committee know from air-conditioning, anyhow?)
Historical facts not yet noted: 1. Sacramento was where Johann Sutter had his main ranch. There was (I speculate) at least some acceptance that Sacramento was an administrative site of some kind or other. 2. California still gets big bucks from agriculture. It’s at least a little appropriate that the state capitol should be right in the middle of it.
Why not? Philadelphia was also state and national capital at the same time in the 1790s. In fact, the federal government, state givernment and city hall shared three buildings on the same block!
Don’t put it in the past tense. It’s an ongoing issue. Juneau is the least accessible capital city in the Western world. And the bulk of the population lives in Anchorage. For that matter, it’s extremely inconvenient for most of Anchorage’s college students that the “main campus” of the University of Alaska is in the backwater of Fairbanks.
Yeah, and Houston had a bit of an ego, too. Wouldn’t you want the capitol in the town named after you? Of course, Houston (the city) is located in a bayou and is mostly swamp and is subject to hurricanes and tropical storms. Austin, on the other hand, is somewhat drier (relative to Houston), geographically central, and a great way to stick it to Houston (both the city and the man). Austin has long tried to avoid becoming another Houston (and failed miserably, in many respects).