Why are some capital cities not the largest city (economic powerhouse) in a state? (metro, transportation)

[Tekkie]

Why are some state's capital cities not their largest cities?

It seems to me that ideally your economic driver would also serve well as your governmental core. Are there any particular reasons why some states decided to keep their governmental cores separate from their economic cores? Was it to stave off political influence over business?

[Eddyline]

Many state capitals were chosen when walking or horseback were the only travel options, so centrally located
is an important consideration. Often the largest city was not centrally located because it was on water either the ocean or a river which was also often a state border. Then there are situations like Illinois where Chicago barely existed when they chose their capital. Same with California, most of the population was in the gold rush towns and SF, LA was still a cattle ranch, so Sacramento was a good compromise between the eastern goldmining towns and the western port.

[urbanlife78]

In some cases it is a state that is worried that putting the capital in the biggest city will alienate rural people, then there are times that the capital is picked by drawing a city name out of a hat.

[Katarina Witt]

Government and business are not the same. It doesn't matter too much where the state cap is (IMO). Some midwestern states put their flagship university in the capital city as well, e.g. Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by Eddyline

Many state capitals were chosen when walking or horseback were the only travel options, so centrally located is an important consideration.

This is the correct answer.

Frankfort, Indianapolis, Nashville, Richmond, Columbus, Lansing, Springfield, Madison, Little Rock, Columbia ... They may not necessarily be in the exact geographic center of the state.

[ccdscott]

^ And then, some of them eventually become the most important economic center in the state anyway, ie. Nashville, Indianapolis, Denver, Phoenix, Charleston, Columbia, Des Moines, etc...

[texdav]

Because industry turned to outside those cities. based on the nature of industry. New York isn't the capital of USA remember.

[pvande55]

Perhaps to spread economic development throughout the State. Placing it in the commercial center concentrates it. When the country was mostly agricultural this made a difference.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

This is the correct answer.

Frankfort, Indianapolis, Nashville, Richmond, Columbus, Lansing, Springfield, Madison, Little Rock, Columbia ... They may not necessarily be in the exact geographic center of the state.

That, and this other observation by Eddyline:

Originally Posted by Eddyline

Then there are situations like Illinois where Chicago barely existed when they chose their capital.

Sometimes changing economic forces and transportation systems that occurred after a state capital was established may have caused other cities in a state to grow more in later years.

[drive carephilly]

There are only 14 state capitals that are in the largest metro in their state and with the exception of micro-states like Rhode Island and Hawaii all of them are landlocked.

I'd venture to guess that the state capitals became the largest cities in those states because they were the state capital so there was already a concentration of employment and business activity there and those towns probably also became important railroad hubs further cementing their position.