What+caused+Mexican+War?+Did+Polk+provoke+Texas-boundary+conflict+in+order+to+gain+California+or+expand+slavery?+-aH

When president James K. Polk was ruling over the United States, slavery was a big thing. During this time the Republic of Texas came to be. It rejected Mexico and tried to become a U.S. state. The Northern and Southern states threw a huge predicament over this situation. If Texas was allowed in, the south would have more room for slavery. If not allowed in, the Monroe Doctrine was ruined because Texas had made deals with European countries. The government was at a loss for words. Thus the question of, "Did Polk provoke Texas-boundary conflict in order to gain California or expand slavery?" comes forward. The signs point out that James K. Polk provoked Texas in order to expand slavery because Texas was below the Missouri Compromise's rulings, Polk himself was a Democrat, and he grew up amongst slaveocracy. Texas today lies between the states New Mexico and Louisiana, with Mexico as its southern border. In the mid-1800s, Texas took up a bigger chunk of land, which made it a considerable loss to Mexico when it formed the Republic of Texas. When it announced that it would prefer to be annexed by the U.S., the current president, James K. Polk, wasn't sure what to do. James had grown up with slavery and decided to provoke the Texas-boundary conflict, thus starting the Mexican war, in order to expand slavery. Slaveocracy, the belief that the south should have as much land as it could for slavery, was to blame. The Missouri Compromise was established to prevent slaveocracy. It stated that only states below the 36 30 line could become slave states. Texas fell into that category. Polk, seeing how much the cotton industry had enriched the country, seized this opportunity and claimed Texas, giving the south more land for it's slaves and cotton. The Democratic party was one that supported slavery. The president during the time of the Republic of Texas was James K. Polk, a democrat. When the opportunity raised its head that Texas could be annexed into the U.S. as a slave state, Polk did what he did best. He annexed Texas. It's easy to believe that Polk annexed Texas without knowing what the outcome would be. However, Polk was a democrat, which goes against the previously stated opinion. Democrats were for slavery, which leads us to believe Polk really only annexed Texas to expand slavery, not to gain California from the Mexicans. James K. Polk, a democratic president who annexed the Republic of Texas into the United States, was raised in the south. This gives us reason to believe that along with Polk's Democratic Party, he annexed Texas by instinct. Being raised in Tennessee, only 17 miles away from the notorious Andrew Jackson's birthplace, he had lived with slaveocracy all his life. When Texas wished to be annexed, maybe Polk acted on his instincts, the instincts that the south taught him. Although, it's also a reasonable assumption that Polk made Texas a slave state to repay those who had helped and supported him in his childhood. Either way, Polk's life spent in the south paid a huge part in Texas's annexation into the United States of America. The Republic of Texas's becoming a slave or free state rested on Polk's lifetime experiences, not so much government and theories. Therefore, we have reason to believe that James K. Polk provoked the Texas-boundary conflict only for the expansion of slavery, not to gain California. Without slavery Texas might not even have been born into the U.S. Due to Polk's knowledge of Texas being below the 36 30 line, being part of the Democratic Party, and being raised in Tennessee, the Mexican war really was started over slaveocracy, or the expansion of slavery.