For those who think the war took land unfairly:

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000. This exchange is known as the Mexican Cession.

In 1853, in what became known as The Gadsden Purchase, the United States paid an additional $10 million to Mexico to purchase land in what is now southern Arizona and southern New Mexico for the construction of a southern route...

For those who think the war took land unfairly:

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000. This exchange is known as the Mexican Cession.

In 1853, in what became known as The Gadsden Purchase, the United States paid an additional $10 million to Mexico to purchase land in what is now southern Arizona and southern New Mexico for the construction of a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. The purchase was also designed to further compensate Mexico for the lands taken by the U.S. after the Mexican-American War.

Oh...I see...interesting...

Hey Adolph...you still want that second story apartment overlooking the Eiffel Tower? A few million deutchmarks would do fine.

Hey Joe...don't worry about the Baltic States, Seoul or Eastern Europe...your rubbles are good here Comrade!

Hey Ghandi what are you complaining about? I am sure the East India Company paid good money for your land, I mean you can't go wrong with a few million pounds, now can you!

Saddam, are you still interested in having that seaside Villa on the beach in the Gulf? No problem! My friend here the Emir says that a few million dinars and where all good.

Hey Margaret, my friends running the Junta say that they'll get a good loan and bu...

Oh...I see...interesting...

Hey Adolph...you still want that second story apartment overlooking the Eiffel Tower? A few million deutchmarks would do fine.

Hey Joe...don't worry about the Baltic States, Seoul or Eastern Europe...your rubbles are good here Comrade!

Hey Ghandi what are you complaining about? I am sure the East India Company paid good money for your land, I mean you can't go wrong with a few million pounds, now can you!

Saddam, are you still interested in having that seaside Villa on the beach in the Gulf? No problem! My friend here the Emir says that a few million dinars and where all good.

Hey Margaret, my friends running the Junta say that they'll get a good loan and buy those pesky islands from you, I mean c'mon is not like your going to launch an expedition to retake them, right?

Oh boy....

While Mexico had not followed through with its threat to declare war if the United States annexed Texas, relations between the two nations remained tense due to Mexico’s refusal to recognize the border of Texas. According to the Texans, their state included significant portions of what is today New Mexico and Colorado, and the western and southern portions of Texas itself, which they claimed extended to the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, argued that the border only extended to the Nueces River, several miles to the north of the Rio Grande.

In July, 1945 Polk, who had been elected on a platform of expansionism, ordered the commander of the U.S. Army...

read more»

Oh boy....

While Mexico had not followed through with its threat to declare war if the United States annexed Texas, relations between the two nations remained tense due to Mexico’s refusal to recognize the border of Texas. According to the Texans, their state included significant portions of what is today New Mexico and Colorado, and the western and southern portions of Texas itself, which they claimed extended to the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, argued that the border only extended to the Nueces River, several miles to the north of the Rio Grande.

In July, 1945 Polk, who had been elected on a platform of expansionism, ordered the commander of the U.S. Army in Texas, Zachary Taylor, to move his forces into the disputed lands that lay between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers. In November 1845, Polk dispatched Congressman John Slidell to Mexico with orders to negotiate the purchase of the disputed areas along the Texas-Mexican border, and the territory comprising the present-day states of New Mexico and California.

Following the failure of Slidell’s mission in May 1846, Polk expressed his concerns regarding ongoing skirmishes between the Mexican troops and Taylor’s army and eventually gained Congressional support for a declaration of war against Mexico. The President neglected to inform Congress, however, that the Mexicans had only retaliated after Taylor’s troops had positioned themselves on the banks of the Rio Grande River, which was effectively Mexican territory. On May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico.

Source: U.S. State Department Website

On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors returned to Fort Brown.

May 3 began the Siege of Fort Texas. Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Texas, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardmen...

On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors returned to Fort Brown.

May 3 began the Siege of Fort Texas. Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Texas, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardment, including Jacob Brown, after whom the fort was later named.

And it wasn't Mexican territory, it was disputed territory. When the Texans defeated the Mexican Army, the treaty signed by Santa Anna said the Rio Grande. But Mexico refused to honor that treaty and decided to move the border north. Texas never signed any treaties to that effect. Any way you look at it, Mexicans attacked first.

And a short list of Liars and Haters:

General Ulysses S. Grant identified the U.S. Aggression War Against Mexico as “one of the most unjust [wars] ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. . . . The occupation, separation, and annexation [of Texas] were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a [slave-power] conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave States might be formed for the American Union [U.S.A.]. Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced on Mexico cannot. . . . The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations like individuals are punished for their tra...

And a short list of Liars and Haters:

General Ulysses S. Grant identified the U.S. Aggression War Against Mexico as “one of the most unjust [wars] ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. . . . The occupation, separation, and annexation [of Texas] were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a [slave-power] conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave States might be formed for the American Union [U.S.A.]. Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced on Mexico cannot. . . . The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations like individuals are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary [bloody] and expensive war of modern times. . . . United States troops . . . were sent [by President Polk] to provoke a fight [war]. . . . Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces [River] to drive the invaders from her soil, it became [policy] for the [U.S. troops] to approach [aggress even further, i.e., to ] . . . occupy a [still-deeper-into-Mexico] position near the largest centre of population possible.”—Grant's Personal Memoirs (New York: C.L. Webster & Co, 1885-1886), Vol. I, Chapter II, pp 53-56, et seq.

Its wrong when you are not restoring the peace and instead your sole purpose was a war of aggression to steal said land in the first place. Conquest does not confer rights, if that where the case I could go into your home, shoot you in the leg and force you to sign the deed of your house and land to me. We fought, I won, its mine. And again, Polk designs went far beyond settling a disputed border between Texas and Mexico, it was the whole sale acquisition (by force when money did not get him what he wanted) of Mexican territory from the Texas border to the Pacific.

By your logic, the U.S. should not have intervened in the war between Iraq and Kuwait. There was a disputed border, the Iraqis ...

Its wrong when you are not restoring the peace and instead your sole purpose was a war of aggression to steal said land in the first place. Conquest does not confer rights, if that where the case I could go into your home, shoot you in the leg and force you to sign the deed of your house and land to me. We fought, I won, its mine. And again, Polk designs went far beyond settling a disputed border between Texas and Mexico, it was the whole sale acquisition (by force when money did not get him what he wanted) of Mexican territory from the Texas border to the Pacific.

By your logic, the U.S. should not have intervened in the war between Iraq and Kuwait. There was a disputed border, the Iraqis invaded and took what they wanted. The only thing they had to do was forced...erm I mean, negotiate a treaty with Kuwait and pay a few billion dinars and all would be right with the world.

On the so called Santa Ana Treaty, Lincoln said the following:

I next consider the President's statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas, recognised the Rio Grande, as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position, so often taken that Santa Anna, while a prisoner of war--a captive--could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive--besides this, I wish to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man would like to be amused by a sight of that little thing, which the President calls by that big name, he can have it, by turning to Niles' Register volume 50, page 336. [See Santa Anna Treaty.] And if any one shou...

On the so called Santa Ana Treaty, Lincoln said the following:

I next consider the President's statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas, recognised the Rio Grande, as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position, so often taken that Santa Anna, while a prisoner of war--a captive--could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive--besides this, I wish to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man would like to be amused by a sight of that little thing, which the President calls by that big name, he can have it, by turning to Niles' Register volume 50, page 336. [See Santa Anna Treaty.] And if any one should suppose that Niles' Register is a curious repository of so mighty a document, as a solemn treaty between nations, I can only say that I learned, to a tolerable degree [of] certainty, by enquiry at the State Department, that the President himself, never saw it any where else. By the way, I believe I should not err, if I were to declare, that during the first ten years of the existence of that document, it was never, by any body, called a treaty--that it was never so called, till the President, in his extremity, attempted, by so calling it, to wring something from it in justification of himself in connection with the Mexican war. It has none of the distinguishing features of a treaty.

It does not call itself a treaty. Santa Anna does not therein, assume to bind Mexico; he assumes only to act as the President-Commander-in-chief of the Mexican Army and Navy; stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and that he would not himself take up arms, nor influence the Mexican people to take up arms, against Texas during the existence of the war of independence [. ] He did not recognise the independence of Texas; he did not assume to put an end to the war; but clearly indicated his expectation of it's continuance; he did not say one word about boundary, and, most probably, never thought of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexican forces should evacuate t...

It does not call itself a treaty. Santa Anna does not therein, assume to bind Mexico; he assumes only to act as the President-Commander-in-chief of the Mexican Army and Navy; stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and that he would not himself take up arms, nor influence the Mexican people to take up arms, against Texas during the existence of the war of independence [. ] He did not recognise the independence of Texas; he did not assume to put an end to the war; but clearly indicated his expectation of it's continuance; he did not say one word about boundary, and, most probably, never thought of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexican forces should evacuate the teritory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande; and in another article, it is stipulated that, to prevent collisions between the armies, the Texan army should not approach nearer than within five leagues--of what is not said--but clearly, from the object stated it is--of the Rio Grande. Now, if this is a treaty, recognising the Rio Grande, as the boundary of Texas, it contains the singular feauture [sic], of stipulating, that Texas shall not go within five leagues of her own boundary.

What made war inevitable? It's actually pretty simple...Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
In the early 1830's he renounced the federalist reforms of the government and abrogated the constitution, suspended state legislatures (replacing them with appointed elites - "hombres de bien"), limited state militias, and assumed dictatorial power with his Siete Leyes (Seven Laws). Rebellions broke out against him in four states, which he mercilessly crushed, with the city of Zacateca receiving the brunt of the slaughter and pillaging.

Stephen F. Austin, renowned for always favoring diplomacy, returned to Texas looking wasted and sickly after a 2 year prison sentence. Knowing what had tr...

What made war inevitable? It's actually pretty simple...Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
In the early 1830's he renounced the federalist reforms of the government and abrogated the constitution, suspended state legislatures (replacing them with appointed elites - "hombres de bien"), limited state militias, and assumed dictatorial power with his Siete Leyes (Seven Laws). Rebellions broke out against him in four states, which he mercilessly crushed, with the city of Zacateca receiving the brunt of the slaughter and pillaging.

Stephen F. Austin, renowned for always favoring diplomacy, returned to Texas looking wasted and sickly after a 2 year prison sentence. Knowing what had transpired, he said:

My friends, I can truly say, that no one has been, or is now, more anxious than myself to keep trouble away from this country. No one has been, or is now more faithful to his duty as a Mexican citizen, and no one has personally sacrificed or suffered more in the discharge of this duty...Texas needs peace, and a local government...But how can I, or anyone, remain indifferent, when our rights, our all, appear to be in jeopardy?

Santa Anna was a ruthless egomaniac who considered himself to be the Napoleon of the West. He continually revoked laws (or enacted new ones to his desires), disregarded treaties, and given the chance would slaughter military or political opponents. While he was in power, there could not have been concession nor compromise. After his capture at San Jacinto he summed it up as such:

...it is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one."

The two wars were linked.
Mexico maneuvered to get Texas back throughout the decade after the revolution. Santa Anna wasn't alone in nonrecognition of Texas independence. After being toppled by an internal coup, he was exiled to Cuba, but the struggle continued in his absence.

Sam Houston was a proponent for annexation simply for security, which was impossible as long as Texas was affected by Mexico's retribution and coups and counter-coups. Texas was subject to constant incursions and was admittedly struggling as a lone Republic in numerous aspects.

Now, with a new federalist president in Mexico, Jose Herrera, the annexation process began. Mexico responded by cutting off all diplo...

The two wars were linked.
Mexico maneuvered to get Texas back throughout the decade after the revolution. Santa Anna wasn't alone in nonrecognition of Texas independence. After being toppled by an internal coup, he was exiled to Cuba, but the struggle continued in his absence.

Sam Houston was a proponent for annexation simply for security, which was impossible as long as Texas was affected by Mexico's retribution and coups and counter-coups. Texas was subject to constant incursions and was admittedly struggling as a lone Republic in numerous aspects.

Now, with a new federalist president in Mexico, Jose Herrera, the annexation process began. Mexico responded by cutting off all diplomatic contact with the U.S. Sensing the rise of tensions, and being obligated to protect Texas during annexation negotiations, Polk sent forces to Nueces (with support from Texas volunteers). Nevertheless, President Polk sent John Slidell to negotiate the boundary and the purchasing of California. He wasn't even allowed to see Herrera. But then, Herrera himself was overthrown by the centralist Mariano Paredes, who threw Slidell out of the country.

Sure, Polk was an unapologetic expansionist, but he wasn't a warmonger. His diplomatic avenues weren't even received. Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. But that mattered little...Mexico had already declared war on April 23rd (the day before the Ft.Brown skirmish).

Skip to the end of the war, and guess what...Paredes had been overthrown by Valentin Farias...who was soon pushed aside by Santa Anna. After the capture of Mexico City, he was exiled again (though he would return to power later), replaced by yet another executive, Pedro Anaya. This was the interim president that started the negotiations of the treaty.

One valid point is that the U.S. envoy, Nicholas Trist was unauthorized...but the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty was approved by the Senate anyways and subsequently ratified by the Mexican congress.

Surely the core of the issue, though, is Manifest Destiny. While European powers commandeered India, SE Asia, and Africa, the USA was busily seizing land from the Mississippi to the Pacific.

Wars are still ignited through many of the same methods: put soldiers in the presence of other soldiers, wait till something happens, "have the right to defend ourselves."
From Havana to Manila to the Gulf of Tonkin, to Guatemala and Haiti and Mexico and Panama, to Iraq and very possibly [url=http://masbury.wordpress...

Surely the core of the issue, though, is Manifest Destiny. While European powers commandeered India, SE Asia, and Africa, the USA was busily seizing land from the Mississippi to the Pacific.

Wars are still ignited through many of the same methods: put soldiers in the presence of other soldiers, wait till something happens, "have the right to defend ourselves."
From Havana to Manila to the Gulf of Tonkin, to Guatemala and Haiti and Mexico and Panama, to Iraq and very possibly Iran, the USA has most commonly gone to war using self-righteous, fabricated, or self- provoked issues as excuses for seizing control of something industry badly wanted. The absence of WMD in Iraq is scarcely atypical.
There is little to be proud of in those sinister exploits.

Sure, Polk was an unapologetic expansionist, but he wasn't a warmonger. His diplomatic avenues weren't even received. Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. But that mattered little...Mexico had already declared war on April 23rd (the day before the Ft.Brown skirmish).

Ha! To be an expansionist is to be a warmonger. He wanted the land. And Mexico rejected the offer because they where not about to sell their land to anyone.

Again, the situation in Texas was used as an excuse to take the whole south west. If it only about Texas, American forces would have pushed back the Mexicans to the Rio Grande and "secure" the borders, instead they went all the way to Mexico City.

For th...

Sure, Polk was an unapologetic expansionist, but he wasn't a warmonger. His diplomatic avenues weren't even received. Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. But that mattered little...Mexico had already declared war on April 23rd (the day before the Ft.Brown skirmish).

Ha! To be an expansionist is to be a warmonger. He wanted the land. And Mexico rejected the offer because they where not about to sell their land to anyone.

Again, the situation in Texas was used as an excuse to take the whole south west. If it only about Texas, American forces would have pushed back the Mexicans to the Rio Grande and "secure" the borders, instead they went all the way to Mexico City.

For the Mexican goverment (who was weak and divided at the time) it was all about mataining their territorial integrity. For the U.S. (and for Polk, who earned the title "young Hickory" following the foosteps of "Old Hickory" Jackson) it was about territory and Empire.

Of course, we can all ignore Lincoln words or Ralph Waldo Emmerson protest. The better for those who believe that victory in war justifies all things.