Tyler, a Whig wanted the annexation of Texas and a good chunk of the Mexican northern territories as a stepping stone to follow through with the views of Monroe and Jackson, primarily because he and his cronies had serious concerns about increasing British claims on the Pacific Coast. Mexico was considered too weak to hold the Northern territories (which was basically a harsh country with scattered ranch holdings, a few mines, and a few church settlements in the middle of indigenous hunting and tribal migration grounds), Texas was "American" enough to be convinced to join the US, so it seemed The Whigs weren't supporting Tyler (seemed to be too "imperialistic" and might get us into a war with Britain, could cost too much, the country had it's own issues and didn't need to take on territory it couldn't control, etc...), and he knew his chances for re-election were pretty much nil soon after he was elected, so he went independent to be able to be his own political master and set the country up to elect Polk successor.
For all they complained about Polk being a "dark horse", he was set up to be a compromise between the radical positions of a very contentious battle between the Democratic party's pro- and anti-annexation factions.
Sort of like Lil'Mittens supposedly having been set up to be the compromise between the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Polk's advantage, however, was that not only did Tyler set in motion a confrontation with Mexico over Texas, the Whigs were in just as much radical disarray over the slavery issue, and Henry Clay (the perenial early 19th centuray presidential hopeful) was, though he was admired as a political genius, simply too aristocratic, uncompromising, temperamental and polarizing a figure to beat anyone when it came to being a national leader.
Haele
= new reply since forum marked as read
