Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If New York were the capital the working people of the country would be in sight.
Your premise is still riddled with holes. If New York were the capital, the same number of working people would be working for and/or because of the government. There's no way to know that New York as the capital wouldn't have developed the same way Washington did. Secondly, there is lots more to Washington beyond Capitol Hill and the Mall. If you haven't seen them, you haven't seen much of Washington, and that's no one's fault but your own.
Your premise is still riddled with holes. If New York were the capital, the same number of working people would be working for and/or because of the government. There's no way to know that New York as the capital wouldn't have developed the same way Washington did. Secondly, there is lots more to Washington beyond Capitol Hill and the Mall. If you haven't seen them, you haven't seen much of Washington, and that's no one's fault but your own.
The White House would have looked great in Central Park. Could have put the capitol on Government Island, keeping the scalawags from polluting the gene pool. Of course it would have made 9/11 so much easier.
It is my understanding that Washington was considered "neutral ground" as far as local influence. It was also located somewhat in the center of the US states as they were then. Similarly, many (but not all) state capitals today are far from the powerhouse cities within their states, and as close to the center of the state as possible.
It is my understanding that Washington was considered "neutral ground" as far as local influence. It was also located somewhat in the center of the US states as they were then. Similarly, many (but not all) state capitals today are far from the powerhouse cities within their states, and as close to the center of the state as possible.
In terms of state capitals, some, but not all. Examples going your way are
Augusta, Maine
Albany, New York
Montpelier, Vermont
Trenton, New Jersey
Lansing, Michigan
Sacramento, California
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Salem, Oregon
Olympia, Washington
Austin, Texas
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Springfield, Illinois
Jefferson City, Missouri
Annapolis, Maryland
Columbia, South Carolina
Columbus, Ohio
Juneau, Alaska
Carson City, Nevada
Austin, Texas
Madison, Wisconsin
St. Paul, Minnesota
Dover, Delaware
Frankfort, Kentucky
Contrary examples are:
Boston, Massachusetts
Providence, Rhode Island
Indianapolis, Indiana
Denver, Colorado
Boise, Idaho
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jackson, Mississippi
Nashville, Tennessee
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Raleigh, North Carolina
Little Rock, Arkansas
Charleston, West Virginia
Des Moines, Iowa
Richmond, Virginia
Atlanta, Georgia
Honolulu, Hawaii
Phoenix, Arizona
Limits of time prevented me from going through all of the states. I may have missed or duplicated one. And some of the states' population centers moved measurably from statehood but the capitals didn't. Or are neutral in the sense of the capital being one of several larger cities. Examples are:
Tallahassee, Florida
Montgomery, Alabama
Helena, Montana
Bismarck, North Dakota
Pierre, South Dakota
Topeka, Kansas
Lincoln, Nebraska
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Concord, New Hampshire
So it's a very mixed bag. My point stands. Washington didn't exist at all without being the capital and may not have ever existed.
In terms of state capitals, some, but not all. Examples going your way are
Augusta, Maine
Albany, New York
Montpelier, Vermont
Trenton, New Jersey
Lansing, Michigan
Sacramento, California
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Salem, Oregon
Olympia, Washington
Austin, Texas
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Springfield, Illinois
Jefferson City, Missouri
Annapolis, Maryland
Columbia, South Carolina
Columbus, Ohio
Juneau, Alaska
Carson City, Nevada
Austin, Texas
Madison, Wisconsin
St. Paul, Minnesota
Dover, Delaware
Frankfort, Kentucky
Contrary examples are:
Boston, Massachusetts
Providence, Rhode Island
Indianapolis, Indiana
Denver, Colorado
Boise, Idaho
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jackson, Mississippi
Nashville, Tennessee
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Raleigh, North Carolina
Little Rock, Arkansas
Charleston, West Virginia
Des Moines, Iowa
Richmond, Virginia
Atlanta, Georgia
Honolulu, Hawaii
Phoenix, Arizona
Limits of time prevented me from going through all of the states. I may have missed or duplicated one. And some of the states' population centers moved measurably from statehood but the capitals didn't. Or are neutral in the sense of the capital being one of several larger cities. Examples are:
Tallahassee, Florida
Montgomery, Alabama
Helena, Montana
Bismarck, North Dakota
Pierre, South Dakota
Topeka, Kansas
Lincoln, Nebraska
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Concord, New Hampshire
So it's a very mixed bag. My point stands. Washington didn't exist at all without being the capital and may not have ever existed.
When they became state capitals OKC was second to Tulsa, Atlanta was second to Savannah, Nashville was 3rd to Chattanooga and Memphis, Even Providence was chosen because it was more inland than Newport. It is just that history intervened and these cities grew for various reasons.
Until the advent of railroads, the best spot for a US Capital is where travel by rivers was easiest. . The largest part of the USA is drained by the river Mississippi and its tributaries like the Ohio, Tennessee and Missouri Rivers. An excellent spot would have been Cairo Illinois! But Cape Gardeau , Memphis or Saint Louis would do just as well too. When railroads were built, most of the nations railroads along the heatland all radiated out of Chicago. In today's land of interstates KC with the East West I-70 and the N-S I-35 and the I-29 and I49. is not a bad choice! Either way the heart of the nation and its gateway to where we wanted to go was always the Show Me State.
I am now reading Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. I see why the capital was moved, i.e. assumption of the debts of the new states. However, Washington D.C. doesn't feel like a capital. New York City still does. I guess being capital of the world counts, though.
Would we have been better off if the capital remained in a real city rather than the fake city that Washington, DC largely is?
No.
The main principle of the US Constitution is checks and balances, separation of powers, or what I like to call diffusion of power, over several layers of government and geographically.
Many state capitals, if not the majority, are also in minor cities in comparison to the city where economic power is concentrated.
It is also not by accident that after Franklin Roosevelt, there was a Constitutional amendment and no New Yorker was elected president again for many decades until very recently.
Brazil has a federal constitution and they follow a similar procedure, also Germany with Bonn and even Berlin nowadays is not a major economic center.
Just hope that the Constitution continues to function as designed because if one faction should ever come to power, I guarantee that you and hundreds of millions of other people will not be pleased with the result in quick time. Just ask the Venezuelans and scores of other peoples throughout history.
One city being given that level of political, cultural and economic dominance over a country isn't necessarily a healthy situation. The disproportionate amount of power London wields over here has long been a cause for division. Germany seem to have a healthy balance with a few major cities enjoying dominance in different areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.