The opinion was voiced in another thread that the Mexican American War was fought by the United States solely for the aquisition of New Territories.

Any thoughts?

I don't know, but they're winning it all back.

Well in a way that hits pretty close to what some people in Mexico think. Certain factions in Mexico and in the US see the Mexican War as stealing of the Southwest by a US goverment bent on manifest destiny. However these people seldom take into account General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana's saber rattling over Texas and illegal incursions into Texas.

On the other side people tend to forget that the US baited Mexico into confrontation by troop movements and diplomatoc means.

Again another fine example of both sides screwing it up, getting it wrong and ending in much pain and suffering.

it did fit the profile of manifestation of destiny. However, the Mexicans made a mistake to take the bait.

• Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter 89
• What to that redoubted harpooner, John Bull, is poor Ireland, but a fast-fish? What to that apostolic lancer, Brother Jonathan, is texas but a fast-fish? And concerning all these, is not possession the whole of the law?
• But if the doctrine of fast-fish be pretty generally applcable, the kindred doctrine of loose-fish is still more widely so. That is internationally and universally applicable.
• What are the rights of man and the liberties of the world but loose-fish?...........What is the great globe itself but a loose-fish?.......What was America in 1492 but a loose-fish, in which Colombus struck the Spanish standard by way of waifing it for his royal master and mistress? What was poland to theCzar? What Greece to the Turk? What India to England? What at last will Mexico be to the United States? All loose-fish.
• This opens chapter 1 in a book by Niall Ferguson called Colossus(The rise and fall of the American empire)

It shouldn't be forgotten that in the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 we paid for much of that land.

True. Gadsen gave us a good portion of present day Southwest. And IMO California was the real objective of the War with Mexico. The US need Ports in the Pacific. Texas was made an issue more by the Norte Americano Filibusters who were in power there.

I erred in referring to 'grabbing' Texas when it was a Republic that as annexed by the U.S., I should have referred to grabbing California which was done,partially, to prevent the British from doing so. I believe that the war was expansionistic but must note that while we invaded and occupied parts of Mexico at least we did not act like Napoleon and install our own puppet on the throne and did treat Mexico as a sovereign,ifdefeated,nation. Somehow, that always gets overlooked even if it is only a mitigating factor.

i see it rather pointless, maybe even ironic, that america paid for the land after winning the war. if the war was faught soley for land, why did the govt pay for it?
also, the military was after poncho villa as well. not to mention the bad blood between Juerta and the american govt.