comers were Catholic.rnBy 1787, the Spanish were actively recruiting Americans, andrnmany accepted. The contrasting cultures lived peaceablyrnenough. There was more than ample room for them. In anyrncase, the Louisiana Purchase mooted the whole matter of culturalrnrivalry.rnWith no adverse experience in Louisiana to deter them, thernSpanish found it logical to practice pluralism and diversity inrnTexas. Hard realities backed up this logic. In 1820, Felipe EnriquernNeri, Baron de Bastrop, a Dutch-born colonizer, denotedrntwo such reasons for the Spanish governor’s consideration.rnOne, Comanche Indians generally controlled the countryrnnorth of Bexar (San Antonio) and east to the Sabine River. Arnfew more Indian fighters, with a personal stake in winning,rnwould not come amiss. Two, the Spanish and Mexicans clearlyrnhad no desire to live in Texas; more of them were moving outrnthan moving in.rnBaron de Bastrop spoke in support of the petition of an oldrnfriend, Moses Austin of Missouri, who in pre-Louisiana Purchaserndays had been regarded as a loyal subject of His MostrnCatholic Majesty. Moses Austin saw Texas as a new promisedrnland. There he proposed to bring in hardworking settlers, grantrnthem property, and watch civilization flourish. The hard-linernmilitary commander of the area, Arredondo, who had brutallyrnbut efficiently snuffed out republican uprisings, agreed. Thernright sort of Anglo-Americans—as opposed to the wrong sort,rnwho earlier had made military forays into the area—wouldrncome in handy, militarily. If they happened to own slaves, sornmuch the better. Property gave them a stake in peace andrnorder. The Romans had reasoned similarly when they beganrnrecruiting barbarians into the army.rnThe Provincial Council in Monterrey had hopes that allrnwould work out well. It said in a resolution: “Therefore, if to thernfirst and principal requisite of being Catholics, or agreeing tornbecome so, before entering Spanish territory they also add thatrnof accrediting their good character and habits… and taking thernnecessary oath to be obedient in all things to the government,rnto take up arms in its defense against all kinds of enemies, andrnto be faithful to the King, and to observe the political institutionrnof the Spanish monarchy, the most flattering hopes may bernformed that (Texas) will receive an important augmentation inrnagriculture, industry, and arts by the new immigrants, who willrnintroduce them.” What more could a host government hopernfor? The appropriate oaths were sworn and, under the leadershiprnof Moses Austin’s gifted son Stephen (Moses having died),rnthe new settlers tackled the land and the Indians.rnBy 1835, more than 1,500 American families had come tornTexas under Austin’s sponsorship. “In a single decade,” writesrnhistorian T.R. Fehrenbach, “these people chopped more wood,rncleared more land, broke more soil, raised more crops, had morernchildren, and built more towns than the Spanish had in threernhundred years.” The experiment worked so well that otherrnimpresarios besides Austin were authorized to bring in theirrnpeople. In addition, the border being unguarded, numerousrnAmericans slipped in discreetly, without invitation. “Undocumentedrnworkers,” or “illegal aliens,” it would have been fair torncall them.rnThe Anglo-American population of Texas rose to 20,000 byrnthe mid-I830’s (by which time independent Mexico had supplantedrnSpain as the colonial power). For every Spanish-speakingrnTexan, five spoke English. North of San Antonio, the ratiornwas one to 10. The seeds of discord had been planted.rnThe Mexicans had not feared these Greeks who bore therngifts of industry and outward loyalty. {“Gringo,” coincidentallyrn—the name often applied by Spanish-speakers to the Anglosrn—comes from the Spanish for Greek, “Griego.”) Wherernwere the xenophobes—the foreigner-fearers? Quiet or inactive,rnthough with exceptions.rnIn an 1830 speech to a secret session of the MexicanrnCongress, a member said: “Mexicans! Watch closely, for yournknow all too well the Anglo-Saxon greed for territory. We haverngenerously granted admission to these Nordics; they have maderntheir homes with us, but their hearts are with their native land.rnWe are continually in civil wars and revolutions; we are weakrnand know it—and they know it also. They may conspire withrnthe United States to take Texas from us. From this time on, bernon your guard!”rnAs we all know, such words proved prophetic. The Anglosrnplayed their part—and a valuable part it was—in Mexicanrnsociety. But tensions and strains intensified. Cultural conflictrnset in.rnNo university sociologists existed at the time to explain away,rnor pooh-pooh, differences in cultural outlooks. There was—rnis—in fact a Hispanic way of looking at life; there was—andrnremains so, though in apologetic and watered-down form—arnNorthern European way. “If Nordics saw Latins as somewhatrndegenerate, tyrannical, slavish, and cruel,” writes Fehrenbach,rn”Latins considered the Northerners arrant barbarians.” Mexico’srnvarious coups and insurgencies, its frequent changes ofrngovernment in the postcolonial period, “convinced NorthrnAmericans that the Mexicans were an inferior race. It was impossiblernfor Anglo-Americans to respect a people who couldrnnot rule themselves.”rn”The leadership of each nation,” Fehrenbach says, “operatedrnon a different plane of thought. Americans always made twornbasic assumptions: the American nation was more vigorous andrncertainly superior to the Mexican; and that the western landsrnin question were useless to Mexico, which had been unable tornsettle them. Americans expected Mexicans to accept bothrnassumptions reasonably. But in reverse, the American assumptionrnof superiority lacerated the immense Latin pride of thernMexicans, and the fact that their empire north of the RiornGrande was vulnerable suffused Mexicans with such fear andrnsuspicion that it became almost phobia among the upper classes.”rnXenophobia at last! But too late. Ahead lay the Alamo andrnSan Jacinto, and the Lone Star flag.rnWhat is the lesson? To be careful who is let in through thernfront door, knowing that once the door is open, open itrnmay remain. This is true no matter how noble, how broadmindedrnmay be the intentions of hosts and guests alike. To beginrnwith, one never knows what kinds of guests will follow thernfirst set: how strong their commitment to concord and cooperationrnwill be.rnThe peaceable and judicious Stephen F. Austin was not thernMexicans’ problem. Nor were his colonists necessarily thernproblem. The dynamics he created in Texas—North Americansrnstreaming in, bringing with them inevitably the mannersrnand mores and viewpoints of their former home, coming tornthink of themselves less as guests than as rightful owners—thatrnwas the problem. What else was to be expected? ThernSpaniards, given the necessities of the frontier, had reason tornworry more about the short run than the long run (in which, asrnKeynes a century later would dryly observe, we are all dead).rn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn