Why are most US state capitals not the largest city in their state? (construction, plantation)

[TheWereRabbit]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

In most other places in the world like Canada, Australia etc the capitals tend to be the biggest city. Did most American state capitals begin as the state capital?

Quebec City is smaller than Montreal
Victoria is smaller than Vancouver
Edmonton is smaller than Calgary
Fredricton is smaller than St John and Moncton
Regina is smaller than Saskatoon


So, No. In Canada the capitals do not tend to be the largest cities. Half of the provinces have their capital as the largest city and half do not.

I can't speak for everywhere but Boston is the largest city and the capital of Massachusetts because it has always been the capital. Although Salem was founded first in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Boston was founded a few years later and has always been the center of Massachusetts.

In states where the capital is the largest city this city seems to fully embody the image of the state more than when the largest and capital and different.

[tfox]

It looks like the following states have the capital as largest city:
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
Wyoming
(a total of 17 states)

Further, there are other states whose capital is part of the largest metro area:
Minnesota
North Carolina
Tennessee

(It should be noted that a few of the first list wouldn't make the second, for example, Ohio).

So that's 20/50 that DO have the capital as the largest city or metro, so it does go either way. I do notice that there seems to be a preference for inland capitals in states that have a coastline, possibly due to protection from external threats, natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes), or for reasons of being centrally located.

There are certainly some states like Alaska, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida, whose capitals are easily explainable by the way they were originally settled but today of course seem misplaced.

There are a few choices which do seem odd -- Vermont, South Dakota, Kentucky, Delaware, New Hampshire, all have very small "cities" as their capitals for which a central location seems to have been their only criteria.

[slowlane]

According to map #1, the states with the capitals furthest from their geographic center seem to be NY, FL, CA, IL, and NV. In all those states, the internal population distribution has shifted greatly since the 1800s.

As I said before, many big cities develop along major rivers. Those same rivers often form the boundaries of states. Therefore, those metropolises are unsuitable for capitols because they are not geographically central in their state. Example: St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Fargo, Sioux Falls, Savannah, Mobile, Portland, Philadelphia, Detroit, Memphis, New Orleans.

[Trimac20]

In all six states and the northern territory the capital is also the largest city, and nowhere near the geographic centre of the state (only Melbourne comes close). The only exception is the national capital Canberra (not Sydney).

[tijlover]

As we become more and more of 3rd world country, you'll see the capitals moving to the more remote areas of the state, just my guess.

That way, the poor will be unable to afford to drive, bus or bicycle there to protest.

And the U.S. capital will move to Wyoming? Alaska?

[Blue Earth]

Sometimes a state got its capital back when that city was the largest city in the state or when it was expected to become the largest city in the state but it didn't. For example, Topeka, Kansas. When Topeka was chosen as the state capital of Kansas, it was one of the largest cities in the state. But years later Topeka was surpassed in population by Wichita, a city that had not even existed when Topeka was chosen as the state capital. The state founders had no idea when they chose Topeka that decades later another city that didn't even exist at that time would grow to be larger. They chose Topeka because to them, at that time, it seemed like Topeka WOULD become the largest city in the state. It's only in hindsight that we can look back and see that it didn't.

The same is true with some other western states. Carson City, the capital of Nevada, is a smaller city now, but back when Nevada became a state, Carson City was larger than Reno or Las Vegas.

[tfox]

Originally Posted by FreeStater

Sometimes a state got its capital back when that city was the largest city in the state or when it was expected to become the largest city in the state but it didn't. For example, Topeka, Kansas. When Topeka was chosen as the state capital of Kansas, it was one of the largest cities in the state. But years later Topeka was surpassed in population by Wichita, a city that had not even existed when Topeka was chosen as the state capital. The state founders had no idea when they chose Topeka that decades later another city that didn't even exist at that time would grow to be larger. They chose Topeka because to them, at that time, it seemed like Topeka WOULD become the largest city in the state. It's only in hindsight that we can look back and see that it didn't.

What you're saying is probably true, but even today Topeka doesn't really seem like an odd choice for a capital. It's a pretty sizable city in its own right (it's not like Jefferson City, MO in that regard), easily the largest city and metro in Kansas outside of Wichita or the KC area. Wichita is the largest city in Kansas but it's not the largest metro -- that would be KC. Even the Kansas portion of Metro KC is still larger than Wichita. Being split between two states KC metro area is unsuitable for hosting a capital of either state. Topeka is the closest city (other than Lawrence) whose metro is entirely within Kansas, so it would make sense that either Lawrence or Topeka would end up the capital. Topeka is the larger of those two now, so it makes sense as a capital.

[BPerone201]

Well Elizabeth was originally set to be the capital of NJ (which is twice the size of Trenton, and the 4th largest city in the state). But Trenton was a big deal during the revolutionary war, it was briefly the nation's capital when George Washington was there.

It would of been crazy if Trenton remained the nations capital and turned out like DC, between NYC/Philly... NJ's population density would of been ridiculous.

[johnatl]

Atlanta is actually the fifth city to be designated as the capital of Georgia. When Georgia declared its independence from England in 1776, Atlanta didn't even exist yet.

Tallahassee is an interesting one. Back when it was chosen, the only populated areas were St. Augustine & Pensacola. It was decided to build the capital city at the midway point between the two.

[Bunjee]

Every capital has its own history. Sacramento is California's capital because it was the first incorporated city in the new state of California. That's because of its location near the foothills during the Gold Rush. Important people lived there. Because it wasn't on the coastline it wasn't vulnerable to invasion, so the capital stayed there, and there's been no reason for it to move.