Talk:California Republic

What kind of US Navy ship was it?

According to Ship_of_the_line, the term "battleship" would be anachronistic for naval vessels in the age of sail. What kind of ship was it that docked at Monterey in 1846?--MayerG 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the details and added them. MayerG 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Transfer of Power/annexation

As far as I know, California Republic still exists as a sovereign State... what references are available to show that the Republic (the politcal entity) was transferred to the United States, rather than a simple annexation of territory. From my research, the original constitution was never repealed, and there cannot be two Constitutions over the same State. I think that California Republic (distinct from The State of California, but having the same geographical location) still exists, and there is a Constitution, and the California Jural Society that still convenes to govern it, so I am not alone in this. I'd be interested in any comments on this. Pedant 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the California Constitution was simply modified over time. We still use it today, but modified. There's some ammendment to it about the Federal government being superior to that of California. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a separate Constitution that uses some of the same wording. The second constitution omits several fundamental rights and in their place is completely unrelated text. It's not merely an amended constitution, and it was never ratified. 67.49.8.228 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding...the Bear Flag revolt! 30 or so belligerent immigrants , not complying with the Mexican government, claiming to take posession of something that was not theirs to begin with, then having the audacity to claim they had a President! and making the bizarre insinuation that the so called "republic" still exists as a sovereign state! Give me a break!!! DonDeigo 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It was probably easy for these embusteros to put on this song-and-dance because they had Fremont, Sloat, and Stockton (U.S. fire power) backing up their ruse.

The routine goes like this: a small band of discontents revolt, declare independence, and the whole of CA get annexed (stolen) by U.S. Apparently, this routine worked so well in TX that they had an encore performance in CA.

And what about this coincidence: Since December, 1845, Fremont and troops just happened to be in CA at the time conducting a science expedition! Sloat's fleet just happened to be off the coast of CA! And finally, if the U.S. had only taken offense with Mexico for not respecting the Texas border at the River Grande, why did this give them the right to grab more of Mexico's land? After all was said and done, Mexico had lost 52% of its territory!

No wonder they call this in Mexico el robo del siglo, the theft of the century!!! MiztuhX 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is a discussion page for the Wikipedia article, not the actual revolt. Plus, you sound like conspiracy theorists. "Theft of the century"? Give me a break! JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The official ownership of Californiadidn't transfer to the US until 2 February 1848, then technically would it mean the republic existed for almost two yeras?

If there were no elections, then there was no republic. Texas remains the only state in the US that was a true republic.Free4all76 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding Free4all76 comment added by Free4all76 (talk • contribs)

Deleted comments

Sorry fellas, this is a discussion page for the Wikipedia article, not the actual revolt. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or political platform. It is especially not a battleground for conspiracy theorists. "Theft of the century"? Give us a break! Comments deleted to avoid more "discussion." for more on this Wikipedia policy, see WP:SOAP. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

references cited?

"He painted the flag on a piece of brown cotton, a yard and a half or so in length, with a red star representing Texas, and what he intended to be a representation of a common bear in California.[1]"

The article cited about Mr. Todd's creation of the flag says nothing about the reasoning of the red star, and explicitly defines the bear as a Grizzly (which, at the time, was a common bear). Is there a cite for the Texas reference?

Here is a reference, The California State Flag, although I remember being taught differently. My teacher said it was a reference to the North Star and the possible influence of emmigration from the Bering land bridge. In essence, the bear is looking towards the field of honor (towards his right) that has the North Star painted red which is the color of blood which can stand for historic or future bloodshed. Here's another reference, Raising of the Bear Flag which uses the terms some say in solidarity with Texas (my emphasis on "some say") because over time that probably became the more acceptable urban legend. The Flag of Texas was presented to Congress in 1838 which means Todd may have been aware of it prior to leaving on his historic trek to Oregon followed by California. Almost any reference you will find on the Bear Flag will mention Texas in it. Ronbo76 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Another source for Bear Flag info

• University of California Irvine Camillo Ynitia, Coast Miwok (1803-1856) - Catholic, Rancho Grant Owner talks about another battle. Ronbo76 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cousin or nephew of Mary Todd

According to my research, I am reasonable certain, the creator of the California Bear Flag, William L Todd was Mary Todd's Cousin. Not Nephew. This is in direct contrast to many published web sources stating colloquially he was her nephew. According to the genealogy site, cited by the Mary Todd Research Project, which has the dubious distinction of being a Members.aol.com page, their common ancestor was Levi Todd (generation 5. One of his sons was Dr. John Todd, who in turn had a son named William L. Born 1818. The other of Levi's sons in question was Robert Smith Todd Generation six), who in turn had a daughter named Mary also born 1818. This family relationship suggests first cousins, not that of aunt and nephew.

It takes serious attention to discern this from the site, as it is most concerned with Mary's genealogy, hence lateral branching is minimized. Mary Todd Genealogy Mary Todd Research site

How interesting, it is to me, that this is dated on the June 14 anniversary!

--K3vin (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My irrational exuberance kept me digging for another authoritative reference. Bear Flag Museum

The reason for this obsessive documentation, is William L. is Widely quoted as being her nephew. Mary does have an great uncle or such of the name William but he predates the whole California republic, and is more in line with the American Rev I believe this is due to sloppy reading of the genealogy cite, by someone, and it got multiplied over several times, becoming - the "truth". Using google and wiki methodology, the more links, the more truthiness :-) Well it started here.  :-)

--K3vin (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation problems

Hi everybody. As a member of WikiProject California and [[Wikipedia:{{WPMILHIST|WikiProject Military history]], I really enjoyed reading this article. There is a lot of potential interest in this information, just look at all the WikiProjects above. In fact, it could probably use some expansion. But first, we need to address the citation issue, especially because the controversial nature of this material makes it likely to be challenged.... There is a difference between general references as an end note, and inline citations, which directly follow sentences in the text (see WP:CITE#HOW for more info). Wikipedia policy maintains that in order for an article to meet good article criteria and featured article criteria, it must use inline citations. All challenged material could potentially be removed by any editor, if it is not addressed in a timely manner. Please help improve this article if you can by directly citing any statement within the article that is likely to be challenged. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spanish name for the republic

I'm not sure why the name "California Republic" was translated into Spanish in this article. I've removed it until somebody can come up with a source stating that the actual Bear Flag republicans used the Spanish at all to title their state. It is my understanding that they were English-speaking (even though the majority of their citizens may have used Spanish). Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rampant vs. Passant

So here is where the history gets murky but that is where it gets fun too right? The Wikipedia entry for the Bear Flag says, "The bear was described as being en passant (walking),[7] but on the original flag the bear was drawn statant (standing). Statant and en passant are terms used in heraldry. This oversight (if oversight it was) has been corrected on the modern California flag, which shows the bear walking."

I only have a little problem with this because it makes it sound like Todd drew a version of the bear statant on the original flag and then on the reproduction years later and subsequent state flags the bear was drawn passant. This is not, I believe, the case. There were two flags at the time of the revolt. One flag was made by Peter Storm and Nancy Kelsey and the other by Todd. Storm was a Norwegian carpenter/artist that got caught up in the events of June, 1846. Kelsey was one of the women of the Bartleson Bidwell party of 1841. The Storm/Kelsey flag is similar to the Todd flag and perhaps flew first. It is a white field with a broader red bottom with a statant bear facing the star. The Todd flag, the one Montgomery had on the Portsmouth always had a passant bear. These flags were concurrent but it was the Todd flag that paved the way for our state flag of today.

Image of the Storm/Kelsey flag: http://northbaydigital.sonoma.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fsunday&CISOPTR=1297&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=18.20388&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=1&REC=9&DMROTATE=0&x=42&y=50

Andrew Quist Sonora, CA.

Andrew: There is documentary evidence of the so-called "Todd" Bear Flag at Sonoma during the Revolt. I have never seen any documentary evidence of the existence of the Storm Bear Flag during the 6/14 - 7/9/1846 time of the Revolt. I am aware of the Storm Bear Flag and have a photo of Storm holding his flag, but again where is the evidence of its creation and existence during the time of the Revolt? If you have such evidence, please share it. Many statements about the Revolt and its flag were not made until many years after the Revolt which impacts on the credibility of the statements. Sorry to disagree, but accuracy is critical.

William J. Trinkle, Executive Director, THE BEAR FLAG MUSEUM www.bearflagmuseum.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.203.241 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A question re: a new State

Just a unsual question. Wasnt there a New Styate proclaimed in Extreme Northern California in 1941? Humbolt County I beleive. It didnt last long but there was some legal issue that they the seperatists(sorry I can recall the name of this New State in Northern California)Claimed to also be a California Republic. Nova California Republic? Very new at this!Blossomboy (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for the State of Jefferson. Gentgeen (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not actually a country

The "California Republic" was never an independent nation and a full, functioning government beyond was never established. I think that the page should be moved to Bear Flag Revolt and the infobox be changed. Let's not forget that the revolt only included less than 100 people and was only at one location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interchange88 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a case of six-and-one-half, half-dozen the other. As the article says:

The words "California Republic" appeared on the flag but were never officially adopted by the insurgents. Their actions were later called the "Bear Flag Revolt."

That's what I'm saying; "California Republic" is a misnomer.--Interchange88 ☢ 03:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides, Bear Flag Revolt already redirects to here. No point fixing what ain't broke. howcheng {chat} 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there. Anyway, I figured calling the page "California Republic" is misleading, and the infobox makes it look even more convincing. --Interchange88 ☢ 03:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bear Flaggers called themselves this due to the original flag. California was independent for a short time and ultimately gave up independence. The order of events are as follows. I admit I need to help this article. -DevinCook (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fearing ethnic cleansing by Santa Ana William Ide and several other "mountain men" captured General Valejo. The fears of the Bear Flaggers was based in rumors that Santa Ana was invoking the native Americans to drive the settlers into the mountains as well as the Massacre of Goliad, the red flag of the Alamo, etc....
• Ide sent men to farms in the area to request collect guns, ammo, and recruit men.
• Very few of the men returned - two of which were found tortured to death in a manner that the witnesses never wrote in great detail.
• The Flaggers found out that one of there men was being held by Castro and they launched a rescue. This was the Battle of Olompali.
• John Sutter joined the revolt and his fort was used to hold Vallejo. They were good friends.
• Bear Flaggers capture the Bay Area including San Fransisco. These were bloodless - and Mexican officials fled in advance. Ide's forces number about 200.
• Fremont offers to violate his orders and help the rebels - granted that they capture California for the United States. (later Fremont is court-marshaled for this)
• Ide agrees, though insulted, and resigns as Commander and Chief and joins his own army as a private - headed by Fremont. This the California Battalion. They flew a Bear Flag, but this was also destroyed with the Todd Flag in the San Fransisco fire.
• The Battalion heads sound picking up volunteers along the way. Only Los Angeles resisted and this resulted in a protracted battle. This is usually put into the "Mexican-American War" category.

I agree. The Bear Flaggers were just a bunch of opportunistic people, which did not constitute a functional government, neither do they have territorial control outside Sonoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.214 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Map is misleading

Why is the map of modern-day California included in this article? The Bear Flaggers did not have any territorial control outside Sonoma, nor they represented the majority of Californians. Besides, the limits of California at that time were different from the current limits, as the border between Mexican California and British Oregon had not been clearly established, and the states of Nevada and Arizona had not yet been created. Besides, the limit between modern-day Mexico and modern-day California was not established either. For the same reason, the area in the infobox is misleading too, as it corresponds to modern-day California.

• That's a very good point. The Bear Flaggers were able to capture Sonoma, San Fransisco, and Sacramento, but were absorbed into the California Battalion before the march south. Although, the point can be made that the Battalion was the bear flaggers since it was as much Ide's men as it was Fremont's. Does everyone think the map should be replaced or simply removed? -DevinCook (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ise never actually commanded a unit; the map is not accurate or useful.Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed map & area. Feel free to add if you can find a more accurate map of the California limits & area as of 1846.

Fallout

In the well known Fallout series, there's a faction known as the New California Republic, which is an extremely obvious nod to the California Republic. I suggest that it's mentioned in the article, but I'll leave it up to the judgement of somebody more experienced. Sir jcd (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I really don't think this reference belongs here. This is a historical article. While it's a neat piece of trivia, it is essentially still trivia and doesn't deserve mention in a serious historical context. I'm going to remove it and suggest that such information be kept in video games articles. It just doesn't match the tone of the rest of the article and feels like one of those trivia sections that Wikipedia frowns upon.Gurp13]]|[[User talk:Gurp13|Talk (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the Fallout reference, as written, is not relevant and does not belong in this article. I don't know anything about the game, so my question is: does the California Republic in the game have any connection to the historical Califonia Republic? If all they share is the name and location, then the answer is no. WCCasey (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the game well enough to say how much of a connection there is. The game is a work of fiction, however. Unless someone can come forward with more information justifying the inclusion of a media reference for a historical article, I think it should stay out.Gurp13]]|[[User talk:Gurp13|Talk (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:California Republic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I find that this article quick-fails, for several reasons:

Sourcing

• the article is inadequately cited (tags were added after its nomination to point out some places where citation is obviously inadequate)
• sources claimed to be used disagree with the article content on at least one point: the reason for Frémont's presence in California. Harlow, for example, describes his mission in somewhat different terms.
• Since the listed sources are never used in citation, it is impossible to assess how they were used.
• Bancroft is, unfortunately, a somewhat difficult source. According to Hubert Howe Bancroft, it is difficult to assess which of the writings attributed to him are reliable and which are not; I would consequently prefer the use of more recent sources.
• Citations that refer to books are lacking page numbers.
• A brief series of searches in Google Books reveals more sources that could be used to expand this article, including works like this one

Content

• The article is lacking in adequate background. Why were there Americans in California to begin with? What motivated them to be anti-Spanish?
• The context of Mexican-American relations and the incipient war is sketchy, and should be consolidated and expanded at the start of the article.
• I would expect a more expansive account of the republic's brief existence, including more detailed accounts of the Spanish response to Ide's proclamation and Frémont's assertion of US authority.
• The content of the proclamation should be on Wikisource, not here; its meaning should be discussed here.

-- Magic♪piano 15:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

aTrue the articlle could be larger, but it stands on its own. Add references if you want.Slx03 (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)