state capital cities

"RVerDon" wrote in message
...
You call Sacramento an obscure small city? Have you been there lately?
Or
have you ever been there?


Not only lately, but when it first became the capital, it was definitely not
small nor obscure.

Besides, any city where Arrrrnold resides can't be small and obscure.



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?

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)

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:50:48 GMT, Tim923
wrote:

You call Sacramento an obscure small city? Have you been there lately? Or
have you ever been there?

OK, it's larger than I thought, but still small compared to LA.

Not in 1849 it wasn't.

But, then, Monterey was the capital of Alto California during
Spanish and Mexican possession, and of the short-lived Bear
Republic. And San Jose was the first state capital (it was
nothing but a small farm town at the time).

Vallejo was the next capital,then Sacramento, then back to
Vallejo, then Benicia.

Finally in 1854 the legislature set the capital at Sacramento. At
the time, Los Angeles was a sleepy little pueblo.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:03:52 GMT, Bill Pittman
wrote:

In article lNH%c.401856$%_6.224462@attbi_s01,
"Sarah Banick" wrote:

This is especially noticable in eastern cities -- Albany instead of NYC;
Springfield instead of Chicago [snip]

Illinois is eastern??

Anything east of the Rockies is Eastern.

when I lived in Empria kansas people used to give ma an odd look
whan I used phrases like "back East here"

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
Pan wrote:


Nope. I'm surprised Hartford isn't the largest city in Connecticut,
but in 2000 rankings by population, Bridgeport was 151st largest in
the U.S. with 139,529, New Haven was 174th largest with 123,626, and
Hartford was 178th largest with 121,578. In 2000, Hartford was the
3rd-largest city in Connecticut.

I am sure Hartford was much more important once? Seems it is a city of
faded glory.

In article ,
jcoulter wrote:

Ken wrote in :

R H Draney wrote in
:
Smallest, of course, is Montpelier....r

Smaller than Juneau?


or Carson City Nevada?

Carson is actually quite large, and getting larger. Not as big as Las
Vegas and Reno of course but the former was tiny after WW-II and has
experienced phenomenal growth since.

In article ,
jcoulter wrote:

Ken wrote in :

R H Draney wrote in
:
Smallest, of course, is Montpelier....r

Smaller than Juneau?


or Carson City Nevada?

Carson is actually quite large, and getting larger. Not as big as Las
Vegas and Reno of course but the former was tiny after WW-II and has
experienced phenomenal growth since.

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
Pan wrote:
Nope. I'm surprised Hartford isn't the largest city in Connecticut,
but in 2000 rankings by population, Bridgeport was 151st largest in
the U.S. with 139,529, New Haven was 174th largest with 123,626, and
Hartford was 178th largest with 121,578. In 2000, Hartford was the
3rd-largest city in Connecticut.

I am sure Hartford was much more important once? Seems it is a city of
faded glory.

It was probably a little more happening back when Mark Twain was hanging
around.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 30 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

You call Sacramento an obscure small city? Have you been there lately? Or
have you ever been there?

OK, it's larger than I thought, but still small compared to LA.

In article lNH%c.401856$%_6.224462@attbi_s01,
"Sarah Banick" wrote:

This is especially noticable in eastern cities -- Albany instead of NYC;
Springfield instead of Chicago [snip]

Illinois is eastern??

--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated