- May 9, 2005
- 10,219
- 1,671
Its crazy to think that the development and growth of California started up north and slowly trickled down south, specifically with the infrastructure (namely the transcontinental railroad) of the state thanks to the gold rush. The fact that Sacramento was first incorporated city of California says it all.
Add to the fact that as a young country, America was still (rightfully) afraid of attacks by sea, Sacramento makes pretty good sense since it is a good distance inland and had the rivers to facilitate transportation of goods and services, specifically to SF.
To my first point of Sacramento being the first incorporated city of the state, there wouldn't be any need to build a new city from scratch.... Although they probably should have taken flooding into account.....
At the end of the day, it is what it is, the gold rush finally simmered down, WW1 and WW2 vastly changed the landscape of the nation, specifically in the core industries and Sacramento, for lack of a better term, was left in the dust.
Moving the capital city now would probably be too radical of a change but at least the capital wasn't settled in Vallejo or Benicia
This brightened up my day a little
Wish I had that PS of Kobe holding 8/8 at the dunk contest though
Last edited: