(06-25-2012, 12:39 PM)kandrathe Wrote: You lack a little bit of context. In the early 1840's rebellion was widespread across many Mexican states, all of whom were unhappy with their rulers. Texas was sparsely populated. The reason the US ended up with Texas was more that Texas was looking to leave, than that the US was looking to expand. Nothing describes the conditions at that time better than Santa Anna's self serving duplicity towards both sides of the conflict.
The continuation of the Mexican-American war (fighting over the loss of Texas) resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which ceded the large territory of Alta California. Alta California was also mostly unpopulated by Mexicans at that time.
What happened in Texas was manifestly not the same process that happened elsewhere in Mexico in the 1840s, if only because Texas was populated by an entirely different group of people: protestant, slave-owning, English-speaking settlers. (Both their protestantism and slaveowning were illegal under the terms of the settlement contracts, interestingly - making them illegal migrants.)
The concept that westward expansion was not Polk's agenda in annexing Texas is simply ludicrous. Manifest Destiny, right? Polk could have prevented war, or fought a much more limited war, over the Texas border. Instead, he crushed the Mexicans, and took the entirety of Alta California. He had already offered to buy the territory once. I think his objectives are clear as day - expansion, to California at the very least. Texas was both a territory to be added to the US, and a key piece of his diplomatic and military scheming, providing the nominal excuse for war.
-Jester