Yes, yes, of course. But why those particular smallish cities for state capitals?

[snowthx]

@TriPolar

Here in Rhode Island Providence is our capital and largest city. There isn’t anyplace very far away to move it to though, and the next 4 largest cities adjoin it. Even Newport is close enough that according to legend Roger Williams once rowed a boat from Newport to Providence and back again in the same day.

I wonder if you could ride a horse from the state RI Capitol to anywhere in the state in one day?

[Mudshark]

Ohio’s current capital was chosen because it was centrally located. It currently happens to be the largest city in the state.

Chillicothe was the first capital, I don’t know why it was chosen. Then Zanesville was the capital for a few years as a compromise to get a bill passed. It moved back to Chillicothe again before moving to Columbus in 1816.

[TriPolar]

@snowthx

I wonder if you could ride a horse from the state RI Capitol to anywhere in the state in one day?

Only if that horse were a really good swimmer. Part of the state is Block Island which is 14 miles out in the ocean. From Providence to Westerly is less than 50 miles though, and about as far as you can get away over land.

[N9IWP]

Madison, WI was chosen when the landowner promised to sell cheap land to legislatures. If they didn’t choose Madison as the capital thier land would not be worth much. But if they did, ka ching

I will dig up a cite

Bruan

[teflon_grut]

I’ve heard that during the assignment of the capitol of Michigan, both Ann Arbor and Lansing were in the running. They ended up settling on Lansing. To balance it out, they decided to build the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Judging by the current state of both cities, I would say Ann Arbor won that, even though they had to accept the door prize.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Loopus

Houston was actually founded to be the capital of the Republic of Texas, with the blessing of President Sam Houston. While on the far east edge of the land the Republic claimed, Houston was actually pretty centrally located relative to the larger population centers of the time.

When Mirabeau B Lamar became president a few years later, he moved the capital from Houston to the frontier village of Waterloo, renaming it Austin. He did this both because he had delusions of Texas becoming a powerful nation and wanted a capital near the center of the land it claimed, and because he hated Sam Houston’s guts and didn’t want to live in a city named after him.

I’m with Freddy: Fifty states, fifty stories.

Yup.

That’s Mirabeau Bonaparte Lamar! He objected to Houston’s decent relations with the Native Americans, among other things. Houston thought the little town renamed after Stephen F Austin was too close to the Comancheria & vulnerable to the continuing threat from Mexico. Houston also wanted Texas to become a State–his loyalty to the Union later cost him the governorship when he refused to swear allegiance to the CSA. He was certainly a strong character.

The City of Houston was still a dump at the time. San Antonio was the only decent-sized town–but it was full of Tejanos!

The City of Houston grew mightily. I remember driving North toward Austin–as our Coastal Prairie gives way to gentle hills. Atop one hill, you could see the UT Tower & the Capitol Dome in a sea of trees. Now there’s a bunch of skyscrapers on the Austin skyline…

[Acsenray]

@snowthx

A lot of county seats are generally centrally situated. However, when you start getting into the newer states, counties start becoming a lot larger, and county seats may not be centrally located. This was prior to the advent of the automobile in most cases, so I am not sure exactly when this “one-day’s ride” rule ended. Anyone know?

Looking at Arizona’s county lines, it seems to me they were designed to slice up the Navajo reservation and put the county seats as far from them as possible.

@jtur88

Alternatively, the title to the thread could have been : “Why didn’t state capitals grow to be larger cities?” Since most state capitals were established at a time when the there was a rather sparse population and few cities had yet taken hold as a major metropolis. State capitals clearly had a potential growth advantage not enjoyed by other cities in the state, yet often failed to grow.

Often fail to grow? But sometimes did?

If you look at the Wikipedia chart linked to above you’ll see that the majority of state capitals are the largest or second largest cities in their states—and few of them are lower than fourth or fifth.

That means they’re almost all major population centers. No doubt being chosen as the capital played a big part in that.

Again, as noted above, Columbus didn’t even exist before its designation as capital and now it’s the largest city in Ohio, which has five more major population centers (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, Akron-Canton, and Youngstown). Thus, its growth can be entirely credited to its capital status.

[HubZilla]

Honolulu for Hawaii is pretty easy: its the only large city in the state, was the territorial capital, and the kingdom’s capital before that.

Lahaina on Maui was the first capital. But Honolulu on Oahu was growing faster because it was a good port (Honolulu means “Fair Haven”) for whalers and later missionaries. The missionaries’ families basically (long convoluted story) started the sugar industry, and Honolulu really took off. It became so important due to commerce that in the 1840s, King Kamehameha III declared it the capital of the kingdom.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Again, as noted above, Columbus didn’t even exist before its designation as capital and now it’s the largest city in Ohio, which has five more major population centers (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, Akron-Canton, and Youngstown). Thus, its growth can be entirely credited to its capital status.

Well, that and having Ohio State University there. But one might be the result of the other.

[TriPolar]

@snowthx

Tangental question regarding county seats, if the OP will allow…

I understood county seats were generally designated as being about one-day’s ride by horse to any other settlement in that county. Clearly, when you look at Texas, that could be the case, as with most of the Eastern (older) states. A lot of county seats are generally centrally situated. However, when you start getting into the newer states, counties start becoming a lot larger, and county seats may not be centrally located. This was prior to the advent of the automobile in most cases, so I am not sure exactly when this “one-day’s ride” rule ended. Anyone know?

Even if it wasn’t a real rule it’s a pretty good argument at the state house for selecting a central location.

[Acsenray]

@Rick_Kitchen

Well, that and having Ohio State University there. But one might be the result of the other.

Might be? It’s the only reason the university is there.

[split_p_j]

@smiling_bandit

I don’t think there’s much mystery about it. Until the 19th century, cities were almost completely the result of natural transportation opportunities - spots with good harbors, or along rivers, or both. Being a capital isn’t going to attract any business that uses transportation heavily - which is virtually all of them, except (ironically) virtual business. There may be some opportunities for service businesses, but even then you’re looking at a seasonal clientele for legislators, plus bureaucrats. But by convenience, necessity, and politics, bureaucracies are often spread out over the state anyway.

Rail changed things, but it didn’t inherently change the commercial importance of capitals. Some of them turned into major cities because they were centrally located, so it made sense to put them right on major train lines that were going through the state anyway. Still, for the most part the rail lines ran where they went because that was where it made sense to put rail lines - they were built to serve people and industries, not to decorate capitals. So while they created new, and different transportation opportunities, they didn’t necessarily make capitals any better sited than before. And of course, no amount of rail can turn a poor harbor into a thriving port, although eventually technological changes did eventually make some obsolete and gave big opportunities to others. Many of the major ports before the 20th century are functional but not really ideal, due to not have the necessary deep waters to support supersized cargo ships. So while hosting the government can be nice for a city, it won’t ensure it becomes large or even particularly wealthy.

There’s other things we could go into about this, but it would veer a bit into GD territory. Just talking about the highways could spark some ferocious arguments.

This perfectly explains why Albany is the capital of New York.

There are several books that go into more detail, but Albany was THE gateway to the west going back to the 1600’s. This was due to the Hudson and Mohawk river valleys forming an easy natural path through the Appalachians. Albany controlled the trade route and therefore had considerable influence, there was a reason why the Erie Canal originally began in Albany. This influence lasted until the decline of railroads in the 1960’s.

Today, while the city of Albany itself only has a population of about 100,000, it’s CSA (which is far more accurate) is over 1.1 million, making it the third highest CSA in the state and 45th highest in the country. Not really small by any measure. It is still a transportation hub for rail, and has an important in land port for ships

I am an Albany native, and live in one of it’s suburbs. I love my city, our main problem is that we are to close to NYC, so we tend to have an identity problem.

That said, it makes total sense to me that Albany is the capital.

[split_p_j]

Just to clarify, Albany is near the confluence of the two rivers, and was able to parlay that into control of the trade route.

[Find_Friends]

@Mr_Downtown

There’s a recent scholarly book on this topic.

I am very happy about the volume of responses on this. And now a book!

Thank you.

[Pixel_Dent]

Not a state capital but a State University that has an interesting story for it’s location. The University of Florida is in Gainesville because there was a fresh water spring there and the state was offered unlimited free water for the University, no small thing at the time.

[whc.03grady]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Outside the original 13 colonies, capitals seem to have been largely modeled on the Washington DC approach: “let’s build a town specifically to function as our seat of government.” Similar to the establishment of DC, this approach seems to have been a common compromise to avoid favoring any established population center. For example, Tallahassee (Florida) was centrally located between Pensacola and St. Augustine, which were at that time the largest cities in the state.

ETA: if you look at this state capital map you’ll see that the vast majority of post-1780 capitals are centrally located within their respective states.

The “vast majority”? Using a very liberal definition of “centrally located” I count 20, which isn’t the vast majority of 37.

Also, besides Lincoln Nebraska, I can’t think of another example of a state capital that even “seems”–let alone was–built specifically to be the state’s capital, a la Brasilia (I know that’s a national capital, but the theory is the same). And even Lincoln’s story isn’t that simple.

[Velocity]

@Chefguy

Juneau, AK is a real anomaly, since not only is it not centrally located, it’s only accessible by air or water, making travel to and from the capital by legislators very expensive and not without danger. There have been many attempts (and votes) to move the capital to an area on the road system, but the money never seems to be found to accomplish that. Juneau is the third largest population center in Alaska, and the largest in land area of any capital in the US.

Would siting the capitol at Anchorage be a political nonstarter in Alaskan politics?

[Acsenray]

@whc.03grady

The “vast majority”? Using a very liberal definition of “centrally located” I count 20, which isn’t the vast majority of 37.

Also, besides Lincoln Nebraska, I can’t think of another example of a state capital that even “seems”–let alone was–built specifically to be the state’s capital, a la Brasilia (I know that’s a national capital, but the theory is the same). And even Lincoln’s story isn’t that simple.

Above is a post about Columbus, Ohio, which did not exist until it was chosen as the site for the new capital. Does that not fit?

[Lord_Feldon]

@whc.03grady

The “vast majority”? Using a very liberal definition of “centrally located” I count 20, which isn’t the vast majority of 37.

Some, like Tallahassee and Carson City, used to be centrally located (with respect to the population) but aren’t any more.

[Chefguy]

@Velocity

Would siting the capitol at Anchorage be a political nonstarter in Alaskan politics?

Moving the capital to a location nearer the population center of Anchorage, probably in the Mat-Su Valley (or at least somewhere on the road system), has been a political football for decades. It’s been voted on (and approved) at least once, and brought up in legislative sessions many times. Opposition comes from Juneau, of course, as the legislature brings in dollars in the form of legislative sessions, lobbyists, etc. Juneau is worried that it will die, economically. Then there’s the prejudice against locating in the Anchorage Borough, as much of Alaska views Anchorage with suspicion. :rolleyes: That said, the legislature recently leased additional office space in Anchorage, but there is no real energy behind moving the capital at this point, as Alaska is in economic doldrums with the drop in oil production and prices.