Capital Cities Ranked from Most Obvious to Most Obscure

[michravera]

Harrisburg is probably the third-most-important city in PA, centrally located, and very much on the beaten path.

Is it third-most-important because it is the capitol or intrinsically and just as an aside the capitol?

[Ketchup99]

Harrisburg is probably the third-most-important city in PA, centrally located, and very much on the beaten path.

Is it third-most-important because it is the capitol or intrinsically and just as an aside the capitol?

In general. I say *probably* because Scranton could make a case, but Harrisburg has a metro population of almost 600k.

[J3ebrules]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

[Roadgeekteen]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

[J3ebrules]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

[Roadgeekteen]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

[kkt]

On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

[Ketchup99]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

It's a reasonably sized railway junction, but only one of the lines has passenger service.

[J3ebrules]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

It's a reasonably sized railway junction, but only one of the lines has passenger service.

Well, today at least. I'm talking when railroads dominated the movement of people and goods. I am honestly not too familiar with where Harrisburg fit into the equation when it came to 19th century railways.

[bing101]

On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

[GaryV]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

It's a reasonably sized railway junction, but only one of the lines has passenger service.

Well, today at least. I'm talking when railroads dominated the movement of people and goods. I am honestly not too familiar with where Harrisburg fit into the equation when it came to 19th century railways.

It was important enough that if the South had won at Gettysburg, their next objective would have been Harrisburg, in order to cut vital ties in the Union.

[Roadgeekteen]

On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

Never San Francisco or Oakland?

[Brandon]

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

Harrisburg is at the major gap into the Great Appalachian Valley.  It's from here that settlers tended to go southwest along the valley toward the mountainous regions of Virginia (and West Virginia), North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, and made to way to Kentucky and Tennessee.  The importance of this is still seen with I-81 today.

[index]

Right, but it's not exactly "off the beaten path" like say, Pierre, SD. And don't forget about future I-87 from the west.

I-87 would connect Raleigh to I-95 North and to the Hampton Roads region, though still wouldn't be a major through corridor itself for long distance interstate traffic. It serves more as an intrastate route for traffic originating / destined in Raleigh.

It could see traffic coming through from the east headed to the I-85 corridor though.

So it is on a major e/w interstate in I-40, and both I-85 and I-95 go through its metro area.  But it is off the beaten path?  In a metropolitan area of over a million people?

I-40 mainly serves traffic from the Piedmont-Triad bound to Wilmington more than anything, not necessarily long distance traffic in the sense that I-95 and I-85 do. It just happens to be on the eastern end of the cross-country I-40 corridor which picks up long distance interstate traffic largely west of I-26 and Asheville, then taking in long-haul I-81 traffic in Tennessee where it merges into it. East of there, it's pretty much in-state traffic.

I-95 does not run in or near the metro. You have to connect via I-40 (to the south) or I-87 / US-64 (to the north).

I-85 slivers through the edge of Durham on the west side of the overall Raleigh-Durham metro, but does not actually run through Raleigh.

In the original interstate system, Raleigh was not served by an interstate highway. I-40 originally terminated at I-85 in Greensboro. In 1968, an extension eastwards overlapping I-85 to Durham, then following a new location routing through Raleigh down to I-95 was approved. In the 1970s, it was to either extend further east to either Morehead City or Wilmington, then Wilmington was chosen as the preferred path. It was not completed through Raleigh and to I-95 until the late 1980s and completed to Wilmington in phases from the 1980s until after 1990. Today, US-70 serves the Morehead City routing never built, and will over the next decade be replaced with the newer I-42.

Keep in mind, OP never defined these by what roads they served. IMO, even with this consideration, a city with the status as Raleigh, in a metro with facilities as major as the Research Triangle Park, pretty well known university facilities, and Red Hat, definitely can't be considered "off the beaten path", if you define the city by its amenities and merits rather than simple geography. It's definitely a place that's very far from being overlooked. It's not far and small either, Raleigh is much larger and more significant than the other cities it was categorized with. By the metric of roads alone, Manhattan, NY could be considered "off the beaten path" because no major 2DI serves it besides a small bit of I-95 and a stub of I-78.

[jemacedo9]

I think I was taught that most state capitals were placed in the middle of the state, because most states were formed before the invention of the auto, and therefore the center of the state was the best option in terms of travel for all residents.  In PA for example, having Philly as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Pittsburgh.  In NY, having NYC as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Buffalo.

The older cities that ended up the largest were ones near critical 19th and early 20th century transportation hubs - mainly waterways (bays/oceans/rivers/canals and the Great Lakes).   

[kphoger]

Expanding this to Mexico...

Baja California – The capital is Mexicali, not Tijuana.
Veracruz – The capital is Xalapa, not the city of Veracruz.

Most others that seem surprising at first aren't actually very obscure at all.

[Flint1979]

Lansing is close to the center of population now but don't know about when it became the capital. The geographic center of the state is in Wexford County near Cadillac. The geographic center of the Lower Peninsula is near or in St. Louis.

[1995hoo]

I think I was taught that most state capitals were placed in the middle of the state, because most states were formed before the invention of the auto, and therefore the center of the state was the best option in terms of travel for all residents.  In PA for example, having Philly as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Pittsburgh.  In NY, having NYC as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Buffalo.

The older cities that ended up the largest were ones near critical 19th and early 20th century transportation hubs - mainly waterways (bays/oceans/rivers/canals and the Great Lakes).   

This is one of the things the people in the counties that became West Virginia objected to, aside from the slavery issue–they felt the state capital in Richmond, and the state university in Charlottesville, were both too far away.

[Roadgeekteen]

I think I was taught that most state capitals were placed in the middle of the state, because most states were formed before the invention of the auto, and therefore the center of the state was the best option in terms of travel for all residents.  In PA for example, having Philly as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Pittsburgh.  In NY, having NYC as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Buffalo.

The older cities that ended up the largest were ones near critical 19th and early 20th century transportation hubs - mainly waterways (bays/oceans/rivers/canals and the Great Lakes).   

This is one of the things the people in the counties that became West Virginia objected to, aside from the slavery issue—they felt the state capital in Richmond, and the state university in Charlottesville, were both too far away.

I feel like Richmond is near the center of population though. Virginia was just too big.

[DTComposer]

On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

Never San Francisco or Oakland?

No. San Jose was first (1849-1851), then Benicia (1852-1853), then Vallejo (1853-1854), then Sacramento.

Sacramento is definitely ranked too low on this list. Located at the confluence of the American River (hugely important during the Gold Rush) and Sacramento River (major transport corridor from the Sacramento Valley into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean), and since Southern California was very sparsely settled at the time, it would have been an extremely sensible choice for capital. Even now, Sacramento has over 500,000 people and the metro area has 2.3 million.

[Brandon]

Lansing is close to the center of population now but don't know about when it became the capital. The geographic center of the state is in Wexford County near Cadillac. The geographic center of the Lower Peninsula is near or in St. Louis.

1847.  Detroit was the state capital prior to that (1837-47), and the territorial capital as well.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

There was legislation pending at the time of statehood to move Minnesota's capital from St. Paul to St. Peter, in southern Minnesota. A legislator opposed to the idea stole the physical piece of legislation before it could be signed and hid with it until it expired.

For some reason I can't fathom this event made the state legislature go "yeah, we won't ever try that again"  and the rest is history.

[mrsman]

[...]

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.

[...]

The problem with this being the University was still almost 20 years from existence when this was being decided, and Jefferson City was chosen for its proximity to the geographic centerpoint of Missouri. The Missouri River was not yet a major route of commerce (aside from heavy fur trade farther upstream), and Jefferson City was still largely surrounded by wilderness as the time, whereas Columbia was located on major overland routes across Missouri, include the Boone's Lick Road and the eastern end of the Great Osage Trail.

I tend to agree with the first sentiment.  It would make sense that there be one mid-sized town in the center of the state that had both the capital and the university (with similar growth patterns a la Madison, WI).  And once the town was chosen, then everything else as far as travel routes would follow.  If it made sense to be on the Missouri River, then Jeff City should have had the university, and from there it would have been the better choice for intrastate travel between St Louis and KC.  US 40 and US 50 both connect St Louis to KC, but if US 50 would be the more prominent choice, then it would make sense to have routed I-70 along its path between St Louis and KC so that Jefferson City would also be served. 

If all of the above happened, then Jefferson City would be larger than Columbia.

[kphoger]

I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

[hotdogPi]

I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.