Originally Posted By jonvn Know how California got away from Mexico? The US did come in in 1846, but it was about 3 weeks after what was called the Bear Flag Revolt. In that, the people who actually lived in California decided they no longer wanted to be part of Mexico. Mexico couldn't administer it anyway, as the area was just too big. The Spanish had been running running California previously, and really, only along the coastline near the missions for around fifty or so years. The Spanish control of the area beyond the areas of the missions was not very solid. This started around 1765. Prior to that, Spanish explorers had been surveying the area since the 1500s, but so had the English and Russians. In 1821, Mexico became independent of Spain. So, from 1821 until 1846, California was then part of Mexico. Only then. By the time 1846 did come by, there were not that many people speaking Spanish here. Mostly, they were in the southern part of the state. In June of 1846, a revolt against Mexican rule occurred and within a couple of weeks, the US was in charge. The first American flags flying over California were raised in July of 1846. So, does that make California a part of Mexico? I don't think so. They had it for a very short time, and Spain had it for not much longer prior to that. It was not by force that the Americans came in and took over, but through the local population that did not want to be a part of Mexico. Now, somehow, amongst certain segments of the population, the idea has come about that this was all Mexico for years and years and how it should become that again. It's nonsense. But for some reason, you have left wing morons going out of their way to cater to these people. The only people who have controlled this area longer than the US were the native indians living here. For the most part, they didn't mind the settlers coming in. During the Gold Rush a few tribes (such as the Yosemite) did not particularly appreciate their land being dug up for gold, and that did cause some friction. But mostly the indigineous population was very accepting. So who has a "right" to this land? Who does it belong to? It belongs to whomever is willing to take it. The US government is so profoundly inept that they are letting this be turned into an area it never really was--part of Mexico. I can not begin to tell you how useless the federal government has become. Oh, they're willing to crack down on porn and marijuana, and darn it, what about that flag burning ammendent and gay rights curtailments? Those are what we get out of Washington. We get nothing about protecting ourselves, we get nothing about anything of any substance. One day, this area is no longer going to be a part of the USA anymore. And given how poorly the USA does things, maybe that would not be such a bad thing.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>In that, the people who actually lived in California decided they no longer wanted to be part of Mexico.<< Weren't the people behind the revolt Americans who were living here under Mexican rule, and not the Mexicans who were here already?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Weren't the people behind the revolt Americans who were living here under Mexican rule, and not the Mexicans who were here already?" There was an influx of Americans prior to the revolt. Most of the people who lived in Northern California were Americans who had immigrated here. The southern part of the state had more of the Spanish speakers. So, yes. But, the fact remains that the revolt against the established government at the time came from the people living in the state, and was not military force.
Originally Posted By jonvn One more thing, the number of households speaking Spanish in the mid 1840s numbered around 10,000. This was an extremely low number. Most people at the time spoke English. Chiefly, the Mexican government was simply incapable of running the state, as it was simply too large for them to be an effective governing force. General Vallejo was actually on the side of seccession when the revolt in Sonoma happened. He later went on to be a state senator.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger You history can't be that accurate, jonvn. There was nothing about Zorro in it.
Originally Posted By jonvn True. It was just a summary, though. Not exhaustive. Next time, I'll speak more of the Zorro contribution.
