[Strategerist]

I thought those territories were 'held' by European Monarchs.

Umm, no; Mexico had been an independent country for over 20 years prior to the Mexican-American War. Even a the time of the war, many in the US opposed the war as a war of conquest.

Per our Constitution, the US recognized the claim of NO Monarch on the N. American continent.

Good lord, do you have a muddled conception of US History. There's not word one in the Consitution about ANY such matters. You're thinking of the Monroe Doctrine but you're even sort of twisting that.

Also, the war of 1812, among other things, was fought to keep British press gangs OFF us shipping. Am I wrong there too?

That's the "official" reason and the sanitized children's textbook reason.

However, the British actually ended that practice right after we declared war (before they knew we had declared war, and we didn't get the news of it till after we'd declared war.)

And virtually all of the impressed seamen were from New England.

The vote for war was actually close; all the New England congressmen voted AGAINST going to war, even though the only people being impressed were their constituents. It was the Western states that voted for the war; they had a lot of people that wanted to conquer Canada.

In fact there was so much opposition to the War of 1812 in New England there was a meeting to discuss Secession from the US.

[SMARTY]

That means, we should not even BE a country but now that we are, we shouldn't have been defending ourselves in two world wars and should not be defending ourselves now?

By the way, weren't the Mexicans inviting the French to assist with the Mexican invasion of the US?

What is more, our experience with Monarchs having been what it was, I am sure that the founding fathers meant for NO monarchy to get a foothold in N. America, ever again. That concern pre dates the Monroe Doctrine. Anyway, call the document what ever you like or cite NO document at all, after George III Americans weren't having any more 'kings'.

As for 'official', or 'story book reasons' for war, I don't know. Criticizing US attempts at self defense which begin by citing 'children's' story book reasons' are a regular red flag for me. After the criticism of the Viet Nam war, which I lived through at the time, I learned to never trust that 'logic'. Defend yourself at home or 'over there', but defend yourself. We are not lucky like the Europeans who could take their best whack at their enemies then, win or lose (usually lose) send out for help from the Americans. We only can count on OURSELVES.