state capital cities

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:24:14 -0500, jcoulter
wrote:

Tim923 wrote in
news
This is not really a travel question, but it seemed like the best
newsgroup to post this:

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?

In some cases it is to avoid trouble with big city rivals like Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia, others it was a more significant place to start with.

And some were chosen for their central location back in the days
when one traveled by horse.


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

Frank F. Matthews filted:

The only easy one I can think of is Phoenix. There are a few others if
you use the actual city population instead of the metro area population.
Columbus is one of those.

Tim923 wrote:

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?

Here's the full list of the seventeen states where the largest city is also the
capital, compiled by cutting the table at
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0763765.html, pasting it into Excel, then
shaking vigorously:

Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming

I did this once years ago, manually, and at that time also figured out how many
states had their *second* largest cities as capitals, third largest, and so
on...I think there was one where the capital was something like the 22nd
largest...Connecticut?...r

Part of someone's original plan was that state capitols should be in the
center of the state, equally accessible to all the population of the state.
Obviously this is not always the case, but it does explain why some of the
capitols are rather obscure cities. Some of the larger capitols include
Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix, Denver, St. Paul (if you count Minneapolis as well
in the metro city area), and Salt Lake City.


"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
The only easy one I can think of is Phoenix. There are a few others if
you use the actual city population instead of the metro area population.
Columbus is one of those.

Tim923 wrote:

This is not really a travel question, but it seemed like the best
newsgroup to post this:

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?

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.

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