more random support for your critique of a post-hoc, and historically ignorant, classification of "small cities". Offhand the CA capital contest was ongoing one

more random support for your critique of a post-hoc, and historically ignorant, classification of "small cities". Offhand the CA capital contest was ongoing one and tracked from south/central CA towards the north in the mid 1800s. It's entirely unsurprising that they landed in the Sacramento courthouse; it was ~1850 and Sacramento was 1) last inland port for shipping 2) major terminus for the gold fields 3) an obvious rail hub for the connectivity in the 1850-60s, esp bay area to Sacramento and the east. Even a trivial look at the (flawed) 1850 census shows that basically all of the (mostly new) immigrant population was in Sacramento and the goldfields. eg Los Angeles was 3,500 people compared to 9,000 in Sacramento. Similar for the Washington Territory which was barely a collection of homesteads and tiny villages. IIRC Olympia was the first significant immigrant settlement in the northern Oregon Territory, the major (only?) early trade connection to shipping on the pacific, and connected to the few other settlers moving north in to the territory. Its not very surprising that it was the territorial capitol and remained so for the state. Yes, post statehood a lot of rail & shipping traffic moved north. But at least through the turn of the 20th century both Tacoma and Seattle were roughly equivalent in population and industry. Arguably the easier ship access for the Klondike is what cemented the prosperity of Seattle pre-war, and Boeing & related defence activity post war. But _at the time of territory & statehood_ Olympia was the major town in the region.