> How does he think the US got Texas, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Utah, and overseas territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Sa

> How does he think the US got Texas, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Utah, and overseas territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa? There are different meanings for annexation. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation "Annexation,[1] in international law, is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory.[2] In current international law, it is generally held to be an illegal act.[3] Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state,[4] as distinct from the complete conquest of another country,[a][7][8] and differs from cession, in which territory is given or sold through treaty." While the Republic of Texas was annexed into the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation), it was voluntary, and does not fit that modern definition in international law. Puerto Rico was also transferred to the US by cession, because it was "as a result of a treaty concluded between the States concerned" (quoting [3] above), that being the 1898 Treaty of Paris. It's also seen in the name "Mexican Cession" to describe the lands transferred to the US as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, even though we often say the region was annexed by the U.S. to become, for example, Utah and Nevada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession I consider the US acquisition of Republic of Hawaii to be annexation, and would add the acquisition of the Philippines in 1898 to your list. The American Anti-Imperialist League was right. A goal of the post-war anti-colonization movement was to delegitimize the use force to obtain territory, which is why [3] also points out "Under present international law, annexation no longer constitutes a legally admissible mode of acquisition of territory as it violates the prohibition of the threat or use of force. Therefore annexations must not be recognized as legal." (Emphasis mine.)