WI: New York City was Capitol of New York State

[RyuDrago]

Having Manhattan as the district would've made it very small. The original DC formed a square that was 100 miles^2, before retrocession of the Western part to Virginia. Manhattan only is 23 square miles. New York as the capital probably would've also taken in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Bergen Township, NJ (which IOTL became Hudson County)

I admit that I thought of the size difference later.

But, given that Manhattan wasn't certainly fully filled at the end of the 18th century, it would not have been considered sufficient at the time and then successive additions to be granted? I mean the District even gave back the Maryland segment and well the population of the District today isn't comparable to Manhattan...

 

[kernals12]

I admit that I thought of the size difference later.

But, given that Manhattan wasn't certainly fully filled at the end of the 18th century, it would not have been considered sufficient at the time and then successive additions to be granted? I mean the District even gave back the Maryland segment and well the population of the District today isn't comparable to Manhattan...

They wanted 100 square miles for a reason. And adding more territory would not have been possible, as it would've required states to cede territory, which they never would do.

Part of it was defense. After the Philadelphia Mutiny of 1783, when Pennsylvania's governor refused to defend the congress against an angry mob, the founders felt that the nation's capital could not depend on any particular state for protection.

There's also the worry about foreign attacks. If they had Brooklyn, they'd have a buffer zone to fend off any attack coming from the Atlantic. If they had the West Bank of the Hudson, any armada of ships coming up the river could be hit from two sides.

As for the population comparison, Manhattan has unique characteristics that cause people to live at a density of 66,000 per square mile (and 100,000 per square mile in 1910).

 

[RyuDrago]

They wanted 100 square miles for a reason. And adding more territory would not have been possible, as it would've required states to cede territory, which they never would do.

Part of it was defense. After the Philadelphia Mutiny of 1783, when Pennsylvania's governor refused to defend the congress against an angry mob, the founders felt that the nation's capital could not depend on any particular state for protection.

There's also the worry about foreign attacks. If they had Brooklyn, they'd have a buffer zone to fend off any attack coming from the Atlantic. If they had the West Bank of the Hudson, any armada of ships coming up the river could be hit from two sides.

As for the population comparison, Manhattan has unique characteristics that cause people to live at a density of 66,000 per square mile (and 100,000 per square mile in 1910).

Fine, but the war of 1812 proved that Washington wasn't so defendible... If the defense thought would have fallen and the government decided the capital wasn't worth being rebuilt, Philadelphia and New York might have returned the more suitable places to relocate the American administration.

However I digress. In the end my question is, if NYC would have remained the capital, how this could have affected the state and Albany.

 

[kernals12]

Fine, but the war of 1812 proved that Washington wasn't so defendible... If the defense thought would have fallen and the government decided the capital wasn't worth being rebuilt, Philadelphia and New York might have returned the more suitable places to relocate the American administration.

However I digress. In the end my question is, if NYC would have remained the capital, how this could have affected the state and Albany.

New York State's center of gravity would've moved further south. Look at Maryland, its capital, Annapolis, is just an answer to a question on high school geography tests, Baltimore has become a backwater, and all the real action occurs in places like Bethesda and Chevy Chase.

 

[SenatorErnesto]

Being originally from upstate New York, and now living on Long Island I can think of generally two paths NYC as the capital would have.

Larger, maybe even successful secession movements in upstate New York at the behest of the “evil” self center cityites.

Or possibly the opposite. Without Albany deemed the capital, Upstate New Yorkers would never of gained the political capital they’ve had to turn it into a movement against the city and lower counties. Plus with legislators needing to travel to the city:
(1) infrastructure would be better, connecting far flung upstate locales with the city much better than they are today
(2) the constant traveling and living in the city might persuade upstate legislators to bring back some of that NYC culture

 

[Dave Howery]

America has a weird tradition: we put our state capitols in the middle of podunk nowhere because if they were in big cities, then, the thinking goes, legislators might be too particular to those cities.

WY, of course, has to be different. Our capitol is our biggest city, and it's way down in the SE corner, not centrally located. Of course, WY's biggest city would be a middle of Podunk nowhere in most states...

 

[kernals12]

WY, of course, has to be different. Our capitol is our biggest city, and it's way down in the SE corner, not centrally located. Of course, WY's biggest city would be a middle of Podunk nowhere in most states...

Actually, Charleston, WV is the smallest state capital that is still the state's largest city.
And it's a damn shame they didn't put the capital in Jackson Hole.

 

[Dave Howery]

Actually, Charleston, WV is the smallest state capital that is still the state's largest city.
And it's a damn shame they didn't put the capital in Jackson Hole.

ah, I'd read that about WV sometime years ago, had forgotten it.
Jackson Hole? At the time of WY's statehood vote, I'm not sure the town even existed. Of course, back then, just about anyplace in WY outside of Cheyenne didn't amount to much...

 

[kernals12]

ah, I'd read that about WV sometime years ago, had forgotten it.
Jackson Hole? At the time of WY's statehood vote, I'm not sure the town even existed. Of course, back then, just about anyplace in WY outside of Cheyenne didn't amount to much...

I'm saying that they should've put it in the NW part of the state, which is by far the most beautiful.

 

[David T]

Actually, the choice of Albany made more sense than may be apparent today. In fact, it could be called forward-looking in that the development of the steamboat was to make transportation to and from New York City quicker, while the Erie Canal (which, one must remember, had been discussed for decades before it was built) was to find its eastern terminus in Albany. Indeed, from the 1810 through 1850 censuses Albany was one of the ten largest urban areas in the US; in the 1830 and 1840 censuses it was in ninth place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Albany,_New_York_(1784–1860)

 

[Old1812]

Some of it was also travel times. Harrisburg required only a few days of travel for legislators from the west of the state thanks to its location on the Susquehanna River while Philadelphia required weeks. But other ones were still unforgivable. Michigan's capitol became Lansing because of worries about foreign attack after the War of 1812, and Detroit has suffered greatly because of that. Baton Rouge and Jefferson City got their positions because of the "sinfulness" of New Orleans and St Louis.

This, mostly. Milledgeville was the capital of my state for decades because it was close to the center of the state. Moving the capital to Atlanta was feasible mostly due to railroads.

 

[kernals12]

This, mostly. Milledgeville was the capital of my state for decades because it was close to the center of the state. Moving the capital to Atlanta was feasible mostly due to railroads.

But that doesn't apply to New York which, thanks to the Hudson River, was not really much more accessible from the rest of the state than Albany.

 

[IncongruousGoat]

New York State's center of gravity would've moved further south.

It's hard to imagine how this could physically happen. NYC is already the largest city in the U.S. by a frankly ridiculous margin, and the center of gravity of the state of NY is already firmly planted in NYC. The ~25,000 state government employees who work in Albany IOTL are hardly going to be a drop in the bucket.

 

[Urcea]

New York State's center of gravity would've moved further south.

I have no idea what this means. A vast majority of people in NYS live south of Kingston. There is no real “center of gravity” in Albany besides that of a normal urban region benefitted by the Erie Canal. The only difference is the government kept the capital region on its feet while the rest of the canal cities declined precipitously.

 

[Mark E.]

It's hard to imagine how this could physically happen. NYC is already the largest city in the U.S. by a frankly ridiculous margin, and the center of gravity of the state of NY is already firmly planted in NYC. The ~25,000 state government employees who work in Albany IOTL are hardly going to be a drop in the bucket.

That's the point. How much staffing does it take to populate a state capital? The city will have some extra industries: printing offices, second-home apartments, etc.

 

[Urcea]

That's the point. How much staffing does it take to populate a state capital? The city will have some extra industries: printing offices, second-home apartments, etc.

Yes, because a city of underpaid priced-out public employees is a system that works excellently in Washington

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

those cities are national, not provincial capitals. Ontario has Toronto as its capitol, NSW has Sydney, Bavaria has Munich etc.

In Canada there is the case of Victoria, the tiny capital of BC.