What’s up with state capitols?
I like visiting state capitol buildings. It’s a fun, patriotic, somewhat conceited pattern that many state capitol buildings have huge domes rivaling that of the US Capitol. (39 states have a “capitol,” 10 use the term “statehouse” or “state house” and then Delaware has a “legislative hall” of course (List of state and territorial capitols in the United States - Wikipedia))
While running around Salem, Oregon I started thinking about why so many state capitols (and state capitals) aren’t in the state’s biggest city.
Think about it!
- Albany, NY
- Austin, TX
- Sacramento, CA
- etc…
Why is this? Is there a unifying reason? \
Most state capitals are not in the largest city
Is this intuition true, that lots of state capital cities are not the largest or most economically significant city?
Yes! Wikipedia has a great table: List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia
- In just 17 of 50 states is the capital city the most populous city
- In 16 of 50 states, the capital city isn’t even in the top 5 by population. (Frankfort, Kentucky??? Montpelier, Vermont??)
50 states and 50 reasons
I’m not the first to ask this question. Here’s a half dozen reddit threads and a youtube video:
- Why are US state capitals often smaller towns? : r/AskHistorians
- A strange thing I noticed about US states is that usually, the capital of the state is not the largest city in it. Why is that? : r/AskHistorians
- Why are US state capitals often not the largest or most economically “important” city in the state? : r/AskHistorians
- State Capitals- why are they rarely also the largest city in the state? : r/AskAnAmerican
- Why your state’s capitals are not your largest city? : r/AskAnAmerican
- Why These Capital Cities are DOMINATED by other Cities in Their OWN State | America’s BETA Capitals - YouTube
Common reasons suggested are:
- For a central geographic location between population centers (Tallahassee FL, Austin TX)
- As a political compromise between multiple large cities at the time (Columbus OH, Harrisburg PA, Frankfort KY, Olympia WA)
- A deliberate strategy by rural farmers that didn’t want to be dominated by urban interests
- A deliberate strategy to separate political and economic power (or even by politicians to intentionally be far away from prying eyes)
50 states and 1 reason
While there’s clearly a lot of different reason, I think those could all be synthesized this way: (1) When a state capital was established, there were lots of reasons to NOT put it at the economic|population center. (2) Even when that did happen, the city that WAS the economic|population center at the time often was NOT the economic|population center later (due economic geography changes like the growth of the coastal cities or the transportation shift from waterways → railroads )
I couldn’t find any research that looked at each state individually and then rolled it up. So I worked with ChatGPT and a couple sources to create a table. Note: I have NOT vetted each row individually.
I think ChatGPT-4o has liberally applied “historical significance”. But most of the “central locations” seem to make sense.
Here’s a summary of the table, suggesting geography was most frequently the reason. (Duh! I should’ve thought of that).
| Reason | Number of States | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Central Location | 21 | Montgomery, Springfield, Topeka, Jefferson City, Madison |
| Historical Significance | 15 | Juneau, Santa Fe, Richmond |
| Political Compromise | 13 | Raleigh, Austin, Madison |
| Strategic and Safety Considerations | 7 | Lansing, Baton Rouge, Helena |
| Economic and Settlement Growth | 5 | Sacramento, Carson City |
| State | Capital | Largest City | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Montgomery | Birmingham | Central location and political compromise. |
| Alaska | Juneau | Anchorage | Historical significance and accessibility issues (only accessible by boat or plane). |
| California | Sacramento | Los Angeles | Central location for the state’s population in the mid-19th century. |
| Connecticut | Hartford | Bridgeport | Historical trade and political importance. |
| Delaware | Dover | Wilmington | Central location and historical significance. |
| Florida | Tallahassee | Jacksonville | Central location between major historical settlements. |
| Illinois | Springfield | Chicago | Historical and political reasons; central location. |
| Kansas | Topeka | Wichita | Central location and historical significance. |
| Kentucky | Frankfort | Louisville | Central location and political compromise. |
| Louisiana | Baton Rouge | New Orleans | Strategic location during historical conflicts. |
| Maine | Augusta | Portland | Central location for early settlers. |
| Maryland | Annapolis | Baltimore | Historical significance and political compromise. |
| Michigan | Lansing | Detroit | Central location and to distance the capital from British-controlled Canada. |
| Minnesota | St. Paul | Minneapolis | Historical settlement patterns and political compromise. |
| Missouri | Jefferson City | Kansas City | Central location. |
| Montana | Helena | Billings | Central location and historical significance during the gold rush. |
| Nebraska | Lincoln | Omaha | Central location and political considerations. |
| Nevada | Carson City | Las Vegas | Historical significance and central location at the time of statehood. |
| New Hampshire | Concord | Manchester | Central location and historical significance. |
| New Jersey | Trenton | Newark | Historical significance and political compromise. |
| New Mexico | Santa Fe | Albuquerque | Historical and cultural significance. |
| New York | Albany | New York City | Central location for early settlers. |
| North Carolina | Raleigh | Charlotte | Central location and political compromise. |
| North Dakota | Bismarck | Fargo | Central location and historical significance. |
| Oregon | Salem | Portland | Central location and political considerations. |
| Pennsylvania | Harrisburg | Philadelphia | Central location for the state’s population at the time. |
| South Dakota | Pierre | Sioux Falls | Central location. |
| Tennessee | Nashville | Memphis | Central location and historical significance. |
| Texas | Austin | Houston | Political compromise and central location. |
| Vermont | Montpelier | Burlington | Central location and small population. |
| Virginia | Richmond | Virginia Beach | Historical significance and central location. |
| Washington | Olympia | Seattle | Historical significance and central location at the time of selection. |
| Wisconsin | Madison | Milwaukee | Central location and political compromise. |
And of course, many state capitals have moved multiple times. (The capital, not the city).
What about political corruption?
There’s an interesting paper published in the American Economic Review which claims to show that capital cities that are far away from population centers are associated with higher levels of corruption!
Isolated Capital Cities, Accountability, and Corruption: Evidence from US States - American Economic Association Abstract: We show that isolated capital cities are robustly associated with greater levels of corruption across US states, in line with the view that this isolation reduces accountability. We then provide direct evidence that the spatial distribution of population relative to the capital affects different accountability mechanisms: newspapers cover state politics more when readers are closer to the capital, voters who live far from the capital are less knowledgeable and interested in state politics, and they turn out less in state elections. We also find that isolated capitals are associated with more money in state-level campaigns, and worse public good provision.
The authors claim this is robust (read: causal). What I don’t see in there is a discussion of whether this is on purpose — e.g., whether savvy and more-corruptible politicians in the 1700s and 1800s intentionally chose further away cities when they had the chance.