> Why are state capital cities often relatively obscure small cities?
> Albany, Sacramento, Tallahassee, Springfield, Lansing come to mind.
> Which capitals are also the largest city population wise?
Hi Tim --
I actually posted this in another thread not too long ago. In the 18th and
19th centuries, there was an anti-urban bias in the U.S., due to rapid
industrialization and the arrival of immmigrants, etc. There were far more
rural people in a given state (until about 1960, when urbanization became
prevalent). In the U.S., cities are creatures of the state, established by
the state legislature. As the major of legislaturers were -- and in many
cases still are -- rural, they voted to place their capitols away from the
evil trade-centered cities.
This is especially noticable in eastern cities -- Albany instead of NYC;
Springfield instead of Chicago; Harrisburg instead of Philadelpia; Annapolis
instead of Baltimore.
Of course there are exceptions (Boston).
Now, as the country began to move west, the trend appears to continue
(Jefferson City, Missouri, anyone?) In some cases there was no big city, but
the capital city grew into it (Denver, Phoenix). In other cases, the capital
city floundered or, more likely, was outgrown by rival cities (Carson City,
Sacramento, Salem, Tacoma, Austin) because of economic, social, and
political realities.
There was never an established pattern for capital cities. They've mostly
evolved as their states' economic activities evolved. By the way, land grant
state colleges were also founded in "rural cities."
Atlanta, where I live, was not Georgia's original capital. It was Savannah,
a couple other places, and then, Milledgeville until 1864. During
Reconstruction there was a battle in the legislature as to whether return it
to Milledgeville (we all know where that is, right?), or move it to the evil
city where the horrors of Reconstruction were taking place. The evil traders
won. :-)
Sarah (glad to have something to show for an MS in Urban Studies)
|