after the U.S. took texas why didnt they take all of mexico?

Answer 1

Actually, during the Mexican-American War the Mexican generals deposed Santa Anna and surrendered all of Mexico to the United States. The U.S. could have had the entire country down to Guatemala. President Pierce refused. The U.S. instead got the present lands of half of New Mexico, part of Colorado, Nevada, most of Arizona and California.

Answer 2

Good question - - - no easy answer. In a weird way America did 'respect' Mexico's Sovereinity. Actually America did not take Texas. Texas fought for its own idependence when their Mexican Overlords said 'No' to Slavery. America technically went to War against Mexico to secure the Southern border of Texas at the Rio Grande rather than a couple of hundred miles North. And America wanted California though Uncertain why, exactly - - - but seizing all of Mexico was not seriously considered nor seriouslly suggested.
Mexico was viewed as a Country, thus inviolate, whereas California and Nevavda and Arizona were 'empty' lands, and thus America felt they had a right to take those lands. and when Gold was discovered in California, well that sealed the deal.

And America was fervently Anti-Catholic, the thought of acquirring several million Mexican Catholics was distateful in the extreme, America had a hard enough time dealing with immigrant Irish Catholics. the US of A had its focus on settling the West, all of its energies went into raping & slaughtering the Natives and seizing their lands. Turning their Attention South of 'the border' was not considered viable. The Gadsen 'purchase' is proof that America had a firm notion of a Southern Boundary, though that said, lopping Baja California off from the rest of the territory was odd..


/// ----- O . u . O ------- \\\ Peace.............................

(Now if Gold had been discovered in Mexico at the time things might have been real different... When Oil came into play around 1900 America nearly sezied Vera Cruz and neighborhood)

Answer 3

You're talking about two different wars, but the simple answer is that they didn't want to assimilate all of those Mexicans! The southern part of Mexico was far more populated than California, Texas, and the Arizona territories.

With alta California, the U.S. was able to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean without crossing foreign soil. The Rio Grande River provided an easily identifiable border.

Answer 4

The United States government did not "take" the Mexican province of Tejas (pronounced Tehas); it was the mixed American/Mexican population who rebelled against the Mexican government of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna Perez de Lebron in order to form their own republic - effectively a separate country.

There were around 28,000 Americans liviing in Tejas by 1835 and they were initially loyal to Mexico. When Santa Anna showed himself to be a ruthless dictator, the American colonists and many of the Mexican inhabitants (who called themselves Texians - "Tehians") eventually resorted to armed rebellion. They were fighting for their own rights as settlers, definitely not to transfer power to the US government.

Having defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto in April of 1836, the Republic of Texas was formed. It was ten years before the new republic of Texas was "absorbed" into the Union.

Answer 5

I do not know but to read the intelligence of the other answers made me impressed about this site. We are given fun answers and intelligent answers. It is great to know that we have this site and our people to gain knowledge. Talk later.

Answer 6

Land was probably not as prosperous, i really do not know? That is a very great question, would solve a lot of illegal immigrant wars we face today wouldn't it.

Answer 7

beats me never thought about it ,great question