Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
[Illustration: _Charles Fourier._
Charles Francois Fourier was born in Besançon, France, in 1722. His
teachings and writings inspired Victor Prosper Considerant to attempt
the establishment of La Réunion, a French Colony in Texas.]
LA RÉUNION,
a French Settlement in Texas
by
William J. Hammond, Ph.D.
and
Margaret F. Hammond, M.A.
Royal Publishing Company
Dallas, Texas
Copyright 1958
_by_
William J. Hammond
Printed in the United States of America
_by_
Royal Publishing Company
"The Supreme law is liberty and reciprocal adaptation."
Considerant, _The Great West_, 40.
"We desire the free and spontaneous unison of human forces."
Considerant, _The Great West_, 47.
"Les principes de liberté, de justice, et d'unité"
Considerant, _Au Texas_, 2 ed., 199.
PREFACE
In presenting this brief history of La Réunion, we realize that the
story may appear too long for such a seemingly unimportant event in our
state history, but to those who are doing research work, especially
years hence, the details can not be too numerous. Even now great
difficulties present themselves in tracing down the materials that are
now in existence.
Extensive quotations have been used throughout the monograph, too
extensive in fact, but the production of these documents in full rather
than in part may be justified on the basis of making them available to
students of Texas History. Additional material has been given in the
appendix where it was deemed too long to include such materials in the
story, and it is thus given as a mere narrative of facts of one of the
great romantic attempts to settle Texas and the Southwest. We have
avoided complicating the story by not discussing socialism per se,
dealing with its connection with La Réunion only when necessary for an
understanding of the activities of the colonists.
We wish to express our thanks to the librarians of the Public Library in
Fort Worth, the Texas University Library, and Congressional Library for
the loan of books, and especially to Mrs. Bertie Mothershead, former
librarian at Texas Christian University for her co-operation and
helpfulness.
The Authors
CONTENTS
Introduction 9
Chapter I Founders of the Colony 17
Chapter II Au Texas 35
Chapter III The Society 47
Chapter IV Attitude of Texans toward the Colony 63
Chapter V The Immigrants 85
Chapter VI La Réunion, the Colony 95
Chapter VII The Breakup 107
The Appendix 117
A. Partial list of the Settlers 117
B. Plan of the Phalanstery 126
C. Acts Incorporating the Colony 127
D. Letters of Introduction 130
References 133
Bibliography 147
INTRODUCTION
SOCIALISM CROSSES THE ATLANTIC
The last half of the eighteenth century was a period of awakening for
the masses of western Europe; revolution thundered in Paris and
reverberated throughout all Europe. Thrones tottered and fell; others
rose to take their places. Republics were created by the revolutions
overnight to live and thrive only during the predominance of the French
Revolution, and then fade into the kingdoms from whence they had
emerged. Peoples were led to believe that the day of Utopia had arrived
and they turned upon their masters and oppressors to destroy them, and
then, in return, were led to the battlefields and slaughtered for the
whimsical desire for glory of the man who rode the waves of emotional
fanaticism to power. Out of the mad chaos created by such desires and
emotions a new system of economic hope was created. French dreamers and
intellectuals had seen, in a short time of twenty-five years, the
ultimate hopes of a nation rise to exalted heights in a sort of
religious fanaticism and then plunge to depths of despair. A culture or
civilization in which such a catastrophe as that could happen, so the
philosophers thought, must be faulty beyond repair. Some of these
philosophers surrendered to discouragement and pessimism while others
sought to rebuild and reconstruct the crumbling ruins of the past.
Claude-Henri Saint Simon, Louis Blanc, François Fourier, Pierre
Proudhon, Karl Marx, Robert Owen, Charles Kingsley, Saint Jean-Baptiste
La Salle, Frederic Engels, and Johann Rodbertus were some of the most
prominent socialists and thinkers who attempted to find a solution to
the economic ills of Europe and to guarantee an equitable distribution
of wealth to the masses of the people.[1]
This new system became known as socialism and was a middle class
movement which developed out of the shattered eighteenth century era.
Side by side with socialism developed communism, a doctrine developed
out of the working class needs which, it was thought by some, neither
socialism nor capitalism could satisfy. Socialism, as maintained by
nineteenth century philosophers, stemmed not only from the old
totalitarian doctrine of the Greek city-state but from the old concept
of a universal pattern of cultural religion and economics of the
medieval period. The philosophers were only substituting economics for
medieval religion in the new social theory. The spirit of co-operative
good, of theoretical equality and ultimate perfection of society are
common to both Utopian socialism and religion. The socialists visualized
a world of productivity sufficient to abolish poverty and furnish
abundance to those who worked. The problem, as they understood it, was
to prevent the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a few
individuals by which those who possess wealth deprive the masses of
equitable distribution of goods. This concentration could be prevented,
so thought the socialist, if production and distribution could remain in
control of the people who produced the materials. The socialist dreamed
of an economy in which there would be a social development along with
the economic but in which all inequality and special privilege would be
eliminated from both political and economic life. One writer has defined
socialism as:
A socialized industry is one in which the material instruments of
production are owned by a public authority or voluntary association
and operated, not with a view to profit by sale to other people, but
for the direct service of those whom the authority or association
represents. A socialized system is one the main part of whose
productive resources are engaged in socialized industries.[2]
Over against the socialist theory was the pragmatic theory of capitalism
already operating in many parts of Europe and America. The same writer
defines capitalism as:
A capitalist industry is one in which the material instruments of
production are owned or hired by private persons and are operated at
their orders with a view to selling at a profit the goods or services
that they help to produce. A capitalist economy, or capitalist system,
is one the main part of whose productive resources is engaged in
capitalist industries.[3]
Out of the socialist movement there developed three different types:
first, socialism as represented by the Utopian idealism which is
apparently impractical but which doesn't encourage hostility between
classes, groups or individuals; second, Marxian socialism which
theoretically conceives of a classless society and which recognizes a
ceaseless war between the so-called privileged and the underprivileged;
and third, liberal socialism which involves the gradual socialization of
all means of production and distribution by permitting it to remain
definitely in the hands of the producer and consumer through
governmental agencies or co-operating groups.[4] This latter type of
socialism is the kind that many governments of the world are adopting
today by the procedure of the established political parties in those
states acquiring what appears to them as the practical socialist
doctrines as new platforms and policies. These conceptions of socialism
are tenets of early socialism and not of the many varieties operating
under the name at the present time.
It is Utopian socialism rather than Marxian which developed into a
strong movement in Europe during the nineteenth century but failed to
materialize as a successful movement. This failure to gain immediate
success was accepted by the leaders of socialism as a weakness of
society instead of lack of merit in socialism, and the failure was
explained as due to the inherent conditions of a traditionally bound
European culture. Therefore, success, so the leaders thought, required
only the transfer of their efforts to new lands where traditions had not
yet been so thoroughly established. America was one of these new lands
where Utopias could be built in the vast spaces beyond the frontiers.
And so these dreamers turned their eyes toward the United States as a
place where doctrines could be established and success could be
achieved. However, neither here nor in Europe has the Utopian dream
approached realization.
Robert Owen was one of the Utopian socialists who crossed the Atlantic
to the United States seeking to escape the inheritance of European
culture so that he could develop his socialism in a new world. Owen was
the son of a saddler, well-educated, religious, and thoroughly trained
in business. He organized New Harmony in the United States, an
undertaking which cost him three to five years of his life and
four-fifths of his fortune. Another settlement similar to New Harmony,
located near Glasgow, Scotland, was attempted by him but also failed.
Perhaps due to his eminent success in business in the British Isles,
Owen was received by American leaders with more public acclaim than any
other socialist. However, due to rash unorthodox religious statements
and his temporary denouncement of marriage, he soon became unpopular in
the United States as well as in the British Isles.
Owen was absolutely opposed to violence of any kind and was extremely
favorable to recognition of the value of capital. He withdrew from the
labor movement after the leaders had violated his doctrine expressed in
his _Address to the Workman_, namely, that all workers must renounce
hatred and violence directed against the capitalist or ruling class.[5]
While Owen failed to establish a Utopia in Europe or America, he did
have great influence as stated by one writer:
And yet, despite his errors in judgment and the failure of many of his
plans, the great-hearted and lovable cotton manufacturer and communist
did exert a profound influence on the social thinking of the world.
His indictment of the present order of society for its waste, its
injustices, its tragedy of unemployment; his emphasis on social
happiness as the ideal of human progress; his insistence that
character was profoundly influenced by social environment; his urgent
plea that all co-operate for the common welfare in the production and
distribution of wealth, all these left their imprint on future
generations. And his life of untiring devotion and sacrifice proved
one of the great sources of inspiration to those who followed later in
the socialist, co-operative, and trade union movements, as well as
those who worked in behalf of child training, of labor legislation, of
prison reform, and of similar causes.[6]
Another class of socialists found in the United States who came from
across the Atlantic consisted of various religious groups. New Harmony
itself had been originally created and founded by the Rappists and later
purchased by Owen.
Fourier was to France what Owen was to England. There is a great
difference between the position of men like Owen and Fourier and the one
assumed by those who accepted Karl Marx, whose doctrines are best
represented by Wilhelm Weitling. The communism of the first group was
merely the communal possession of goods produced by communal effort with
no thought of class conflict or the confiscation of goods produced by
other means. This group sought to deny hostility and hatred between
classes saying that the wealthy had the same desire to create a perfect
society as did those who labored for a living. Marx held to the view
that constant conflict between classes was fundamental.
Frederick Engels in evaluating the Utopian socialist wrote:
To all these Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason,
and justice, and has only to be discerned to conquer all the world by
virtue of its own power.[7]
Marxian socialism, on the other hand, is in direct contrast to the
Utopian. He says:
From this time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery
of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the
struggle between two historically developed classes--the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie.[8]
Thus, it came about that the United States was fortunate in receiving
whatever socialistic contributions it has received from the English and
French Utopian socialism of reason rather than from the ruthless Marxian
socialism of conflict which never has had any great influence in the
United States.[9] All the colonies established by the followers of
Fourier and Owen have disappeared. La Réunion, a French colony in Texas,
furnishes a splendid opportunity to analyze the reasons for these
failures.
[Illustration: Bust of Victor Considerant erected in his native village
of Salins, France. From Maurice Commanget, _Victor Considerant, sa Vie,
son Oeuvre_, 1929, Paris France.]
CHAPTER I
FOUNDERS OF THE COLONY
La Réunion, a French settlement in Texas, was the result of the efforts
and teachings of three men: Albert Brisbane, Charles François Fourier,
and Victor Prosper Considerant. These men were all middle-class and all
were Utopian socialists. Both Brisbane and Considerant visited the
colony but Fourier's contribution was confined to the promulgation of
the ideas and theories which formed a basis of the colony.
Owenism in England and Fourierism in France grew out of the distaste of
businessmen for business as it was conducted during the transition
period between the dominance of the Mercantile System and the
achievement of control of society by the new capitalistic groups. Both
Owen and Fourier deserted what promised to be a fruitful and very
successful business life in order to project their fantasia of reform.
The origin of these doctrines of Utopian socialism in such an
environment perhaps explains the non-violent principles insisted upon by
both Owen and Fourier.
Fourierism may be better understood when it is realized that Lyon, the
home of Fourier, was the most highly industrialized city in France at
the beginning of the nineteenth century. There was constant strife
between the owners and guild workers, oftentimes developing into open
warfare. Poverty and fear of insecurity were general. Thus Fourier was
able to observe and to compare capitalism with the co-operative nature
of peasant efforts in the rich agricultural area surrounding the
city.[1]
François Fourier was born in Besançon, France, in 1772, and while yet a
child he mastered Latin and Greek, as was the custom in the educational
system of those days. His father was a middle-class merchant who was
frugal, if not too honest, and who was able to gather a small fortune of
two hundred thousand francs of which François inherited one-half at his
father's death. In 1793 he lost his inheritance in an insurrection of
the village against the French Convention then in power in France. In
the same year he was forced into the army by a decree of the National
Assembly, which provided that every man between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-five should be conscripted for service. In 1797 he quit the army
and returned to Lyon to enter business as a clerk. While making a living
clerking in the store, he amused himself by writing. He published an
article in a magazine in Lyon in 1803, another article in 1804; finally
in 1808 his first important work, _Theory of the Four Movements and the
General Destinies_, came from the press.
This work was met by indifference and disdain everywhere; even Fourier's
mother tried to persuade him to discontinue his work and make amends for
that already published. However, he persisted. During the winter of 1815
and 1816 he left Lyon and retired to Talissier, where he prepared his
second great work, _Le traité de L'association domestique agricole ou
attraction industrielle_. It was after the production of these works
that Just Muiron, one of his most faithful disciples, came to him.
During these years and immediately thereafter, Fourier thought out and
planned an elaborate system of socialism, or economic policy, which the
world today has rejected as a fantastic Utopia incapable of
realization.[2]
Fourier's idea was one of mass production and systematic co-operation
which was to be accomplished by minute organization, the unit of which
was to be a phalange or phalanx. People were to be impelled into this
system, rather than compelled, as is the method of many Utopian schemes.
No force or compulsion was to be used. The whole process of evolving
such a society was to be so natural and logical that people would accept
the scheme without any persuasion. Happiness and prosperity would be
obtained by a minute co-ordination of the various duties of the members
of the phalanx, and that without any community of property. The phalanx
would, in order to be successful, contain approximately two thousand
members, all living in the same huge buildings known as phalansteries,
which would contain the workshops as well as living quarters. This
settlement was to be surrounded with a few leagues of land which the
members worked when desire prompted them to do so.[3]
Under Fourier's plan, however, work was to be nothing more than
organized sport, and thus by competitive effort all necessary work was
to be pleasantly done. Each community was to be self-sustaining and each
member was to draw from a common storehouse all the necessities of life,
provided, of course, that he had agreed to the unity of goods and
property. Food and clothing were not to be held in equal share, but to
be distributed according to the merits of each member of the
phalansteries.
Each person was to gain initiative by the emotional passions which
mutual attraction naturally developed. Misery, poverty, and unhappiness,
according to Fourier, came from suppression of natural desires and
passions. All that was required for perfect harmony in social life was
the harmonious development and satisfaction of natural desires. People
were misled only because civilization, by its unnatural laws of
suppression, prevented men and women from full acquisition and use of
their natural talents. Each person and each phalanx was to be brought
into competition with others in the arts of commerce, labor, learning,
and various activities of life. Then, too, desire for company, for
association and union would be fulfilled by the bringing together of
several hundred men and women into one phalanx or more. Whenever one
form of labor or association became monotonous for the individual, he
could easily transfer to another type of work and a new group of
associates. Women were to be relieved of the monotony and drudgery of
housework and the rearing of children. These duties, which had
previously been forced upon the women, would be abolished by the
switching from one type of labor to another, and by the organizing of
children into special phalanges of their own.
Fourier was neither a clear thinker nor a logical writer.[4] In fact,
all his writings are disorderly and his system has no logical outline
nor organization. He was never able to impart to his disciples an
impulse of victory and desire such as great men are frequently able to
do.[5] However, what Fourier lacked, his most prominent follower, Victor
Prosper Considerant, possessed.
Considerant was born in Salins, France, in 1808 at the foot of the Jura
mountains, of a family belonging to the bourgeoisie. His father was a
distinguished humanist, translator of English treatises, librarian for
the city, and headmaster of a small school. The family was poor and the
parents often had boarders in order to make financial ends meet.
Considerant finished school at Salins and then entered the Lycée de
Besançon in order to prepare himself for L'Ecole Polytechnique. While
attending school in Besançon he met Just Muiron in the home of Mme.
Vigoureaux who, with several others, was giving considerable time to the
study of the works of Fourier. Mme. Vigoureaux had lived in Salins and
had sent her son to Considerant's father for instruction; it was thus
natural for Considerant to spend a portion of his time in her home.
Besides the boy, she had two daughters, one of whom later became the
wife of Considerant and accompanied him to Texas.
In 1826, at the age of eighteen, Considerant entered L'Ecole
Polytechnique and was in due time graduated, whereupon he immediately
entered the army and soon attained the rank of captain. After a short
service with the army, he felt that he should give all of his time to
the spreading of the teachings of Fourier and, finally, after some
hesitation, resigned his commission in the army. Marshall Soult, to whom
he applied for release, told him that his resignation would not be
accepted for the army needed officers of his type, but that he would be
granted indefinite leave of absence, and that he might return to the
army at any time with the same rank as he then held.[6]
Considerant also attended school in Metz and from there he went to
Paris, where he set about his work. In June, 1832, the first number of
the _Phalanstére_, organ of the Fourierists, appeared. The principal
contributors to the paper were Considerant, Baudet-Dulary, Jules
Lechevalier, Just Muiron, Amédee Paget, Pellarin, Renaud, Clarisse
Vigoureaux, and Fourier. The followers of Fourier rejected the name
Fourierists and accepted as an official title _phalanstériens_ and the
constituent parts were to be known as _phalanstére_ or phalange. The
paper soon brought discord, or rather the discord was inherent in the
publication. Fourier thought that the whole movement should be
advertised or established by an actual experiment, while the disciples
thought that conferences, pamphlets, political actions, public speeches,
and other means should be used to get the plan before the people. Then,
too, besides Fourier, others led a mild revolt from the group which
Considerant apparently controlled.
Fourier had an opportunity to see his scheme tested and his idea of
propagation carried out when in 1833 Baudet-Dulary, deputy from the
Seine-et-Oise, purchased five hundred hectares of land near the forest
of Rambouillet and founded a society with a capital of 1,200,000 francs
for the purpose of trying out the phalange idea. The subscription did
not reach five hundred thousand francs and failure came quickly. The
members could not agree, a sad situation which was repeated later at La
Réunion, and the company broke up greatly in debt. The disappointment
was great to Fourier; "he grew old quickly, his health declined, a
bitter disquietude seized him," and he died at the home of Mme.
Vigoureaux, October, 1837. His death freed Considerant from certain
restraint which the master had held over him, and permitted Considerant
to develop the phalange idea along the line which he thought best to
follow.[7]
Great activity of the school now became imperative. The Phalanstére was
succeeded in 1835 by the _Réforme Industrielle_, and in the following
year the Phalange made its appearance. On July 30, 1843, the journal
announced further changes, and on August 1, there appeared the first
number of the _Démocratie Pacifique, journal des intérets des
gouvernements et des peuples_. At first the paper appeared three times
weekly, later becoming a daily. This advance and transformation of the
journal was made possible by a gift of four hundred thousand francs to
the society by Arthur Young, an Englishman. Young, who travelled much in
France, had been converted to Fourierism and made this contribution to
advancement of the doctrine. The _Démocratie Pacifique_, in a sense,
continued the great work of the St. Simonians, although the Fourierists
abstained from all theorizing on the subject of religion or on minor
changes in social institutions. The great objective was the organization
of the collective life of man strictly on a scientific basis. In 1840
the school founded a society for the propagation of the theories held by
Fourier; the capital amounted to seven hundred thousand francs. With the
aid of this money, Considerant gathered all the manuscripts which
Fourier had left and, combining them into one complete series, published
and sold them. Various other materials were sent out over Germany,
Switzerland, Brazil, Belgium, and the United States, so that in 1847 in
all these countries and in thirty-four cities in France, great banquets
were held in celebration of the memory of Fourier.[8]
This was undoubtedly the high tide of Fourierism; in France, and
everywhere the propaganda had been spread, people received and held on
to it like fanatics. Fourier's works went through several editions, his
bust was sculptured and sold throughout the world; Considerant's
writings were in demand everywhere. Even the government of France feared
the _Démocratie Pacifique_ and sought to stem the tide of its
influence.[9]
At the time of the publication of the first issue of the _Démocratie
Pacifique_, the disciples of Fourier, thanks to the incessant propaganda
of Considerant and his friends, already had a large number of converts,
not only in Paris and other cities in France but in other parts of the
world.[10] The paper, being most of the time published in secret, was
housed in various places, having to be moved frequently with only a
moment's notice. However, the audacity and earnestness of Considerant
and his group of young intellectuals kept it alive. Their enthusiasm is
well illustrated by an incident told by Brisbane:
Those were happy days--days of faith and enthusiasm, when material
obstacles were but straws to be blown to the winds before the
vehemence of youth under the inspiration of a grand idea! I remember
Considerant rushing into the office one day--a red fez cap, which I
had given him to wear to a masked ball a few days before, on his
head,--and throwing down upon the sofa a bag of money; "There," he
exclaimed, "is enough to go on with sometime yet! In twenty years we
shall be in Constantinople." Fourier's idea was that Constantinople
would ultimately become the capital of the globe.[11]
Nevertheless, such inspiration and hope could not continue under a
despotic government such as ruled France. In 1848, a revolution having
dethroned Louis Philippe and established, for the time being, a
socialistic republic, Considerant was elected to the National Assembly.
Three years later, after Napoleon had been elected president,
Considerant, on account of his energetic protest against the French
armies' destruction of the Roman republic and because of his known
connection with the _Démocratie Pacifique_, was condemned to be
transported to some French island, but he was successful in escaping in
disguise to Belgium where he continued to dwell until he came to the
United States.[12]
The incident of the escape is vividly told by Brisbane, who says:
A great many caricatures of Napoleon had been posted up in the
editorial rooms of the _Democratie Pacifique_ and these were speedily
torn down: I could see that the editors felt that the reign of
despotism had come; no one could tell how long he himself would be
safe, and every preparation was made to meet an attack on the office.
Fourier's manuscripts and other valuables were removed to a place of
safety just in time. The attack came, and Considerant made his escape
by disguising himself as a fisherman. Having shaved his long
peculiarly-shaped mustache he was unrecognizable, even by his intimate
friends, and he thus spent several days fishing under the bridges of
the Seine. At length passports were obtained and he made his way to
Belgium.[13]
Considerant's relation to the whole Fourieristic movement is splendidly
summed up in an article in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_, which states:
The overthrow of the St. Simonian School at Paris was the point, as is
well known, from which the prevalence of Fourierism commenced. With
the failure of its external success, the whole of the St. Simonian
School came to an end, both what was true in it and what was false.
The person, who was the first, and that after a period of nearly
twenty years, to take a lively interest in the ideas of Charles
Fourier, was Just Muiron, who in the year 1814 attempted to apply them
to the "Communal Comptoir." He was sincere and devoted, but did not
possess the qualities to promulgate and defend the new system of
society. It could not succeed, unless a man was found, combining
profound convictions with ardent zeal, and the gift of eloquence,
demanded by new ideas in order to secure the attention of the public
to the question proposed. Such a man was Victor Considerant. His
education in Polytechnic school had accustomed him not merely to
follow a rigid calculation but to appropriate its results as actual
truths; the demonstration in figures for Fourier's statements of the
subversion of the present social institutions as regards the total
production was not to be set aside.
It was then but a single step to the idea of an Agricultural
Association leading to the practical side of Fourier's theory.
Considerant was convinced: he formed personal relations with Fourier
himself; ideas were exchanged; and the chief points of the school,
then in its infancy, were established. After Jules Lechevalier (now in
exile in London) and Abel Transon were brought into the School, the
former lecturing upon its principles in Paris and the other
promulgating them by his pen, Considerant repaired to Metz, where he
delivered a course on the theory of Fourier, and subsequently became
one of the most active contributors to the _Phalanstère_ or _Réforme
Industrielle_, which appeared at the beginning of 1832.
After the failure of a practical experiment at the time of which
Reybaud said "There was silence concerning Charles Fourier," the chief
of the later Associative School, took his stand with fresh energy at
the head of affairs, collected the scattered remains, and opened a new
epoch for the doctrine. Victor Considerant returned to Paris. Young,
bold, a fervent and impulsive speaker, he could not persuade himself
that the cause which he had embraced and professed as the faith of his
whole life was doomed to go down so soon, and with so little effect.
He went to work and wrote the book, from which the revival of the
Social School is dated, the _Destinée Sociale, Exposition Elementaire
Complete de la Théorie Societaire_. In this, he first of all takes
hold of the present condition of Society, showing that the perversion
of its institutions was the cause of all misery, and that there was no
hope of solving the present problem but in a total transformation of
Society. This work contains Fourier's theory in a comprehensive shape,
but surrounded and in fact penetrated by an acute and powerful
criticism of the whole social industrial and political condition of
France. Considerant thus started the Social School anew, and from him
dates the progressive importance of Fourierism.
On the 11th of Dec., 1835, he delivered before the "Congress
Historique" his celebrated lecture on the "True position of Fourierism
in respect to the Religious and Philosophical Convictions of the Time"
which he afterwards sent forth from the press, and which, at that
time, caused so much sensation. The _Gazette de France_ and the
_Univers_ attacked it with extreme violence. The discussion was
pervaded by the spirit of progress, without being absolutely tied down
to the dogmas of Fourier's School. This direction has (been) always
maintained by Considerant, and it is this which (has) gained an always
increasing number of adherents from among the best youthful intellects
to the higher and more abstract portions of social science. Entering
upon this field, it contains a germ, which, though still at a distance
from its true development, is alone able to secure its future.
Not less important is the second side, which the Social School
presents in relation to the times. By the Revolution of July, not
merely the political conditions, but also the political consciousness
of the French people was thrown into confusion on all sides. Each man
followed only himself, claiming the liberty to enforce his convictions
by every variety of method. Thus arose the secret unions of
Republicans and Communists, amidst the public relations of the
ever-changing struggle of parties, which were soon turned into
factions, vying with each other for possession of power. Nowhere was
peace, nowhere security--the most important interests neglected for
questions of party--The welfare of the country was notoriously turned
into a game. Disturbances arose at several points, as at Paris, Lyons,
Muhlhausen. Then the public sentiment gradually began to react against
these merely political movements and to become weary of them. People
no longer wanted Revolution, and addressed themselves to other
problems. The idea of material welfare emerged from the back ground,
presenting its claims in opposition to political movements. But those
who took up this direction were in want of an organ, possessing an
independent life, and a representative of material necessities among
the new parties demanding a Republic, Legitimacy, a Constitution and
the Press. For such a position no one was better fitted than the
Social School which has always acknowledged the principle that the
improvement of the social condition was the true problem of the time
without also perceiving the impossibility of such an improvement
except in a free political State. Here also Considerant became a
leading spokesman, taking his stand for the first time in decided
opposition both to the Liberals and Conservatives, who displayed no
other desire than to see an exclusive form of Government with a place
in it for themselves. Considerant had found the points, which were
sought by the general demand for criticism and system, and took
possession of them in the name of Fourier. But we must here do justice
to the elastic spirit of the school, which is by no means inclined to
entrench itself under the dogmas of a master--it acknowledges the
possibility of progress, the necessity of measuring with its
principles the events of the day, and fairly uniting all in every
field. Considerant was the first who gave this political direction to
the Social School, which enabled it on a sudden to take such a strong
stand at the side of the social parties in 1848, not merely as a
theoretical school but as a political power.
The career of Considerant from that time is too well known to those
who have watched the social movements of the last three or four years,
to need any comment in this place. It is sufficient to have maintained
his early influence in respect to the social movements of the last ten
years. His observations in the United States will still more forcibly
show him the importance of combining political action with social
aspirations, since the conviction will be forced upon him that there
is no well-founded hope of a possible realization except in a
democratic State.[14]
Albert Brisbane of New York was the third man who took a great deal of
interest in the establishment of La Réunion. He was Considerant's chief
lieutenant in America, and was also a disciple of Fourier. Brisbane had
studied the works of Hegel, St. Simon, and other great social leaders
while in Germany and finally, by mere chance, came upon the writings of
Fourier. He soon returned to Paris where he placed himself under the
direct teachings of the master, to whom he paid five francs per lesson
for personal instruction.[15] Here, at the same time, he also became
acquainted with Considerant and was closely associated with him and his
group. The part of the doctrine which appealed to Brisbane is explained
in his own words as follows:
First his idea of attractive industry, bearing directly on the
material interest of men. The idea that the productive labors of
mankind--those of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, etc.--now so
repulsive, so monotonous, so wearing to mind and body, and so
degrading to those engaged in them, can be dignified and rendered
attractive certainly appears on the surface one of the most
chimerical. Still, Fourier did not undertake to do this by any
abstract, imaginative means, by persuasion or appeals to moral duties;
his process is an entirely new and practical organization of those
labors. It is by a minute division of their details; by convenient and
labor-saving machinery; by healthy, even elegant workshops, where a
certain refinement could be introduced, and scientific thought
combined with the pursuit of industry; by short sessions of labor, and
the prosecutions of all of its branches by groups of persons united in
taste and in sympathy of character, thus bringing the play of the
sentiments into industry, and identifying the social and productive
life of man; lastly, by a clear appreciation on the part of humanity
of the importance of these labors as regards their influence on the
cultivation of the globe, and through that cultivation, on the whole
economy of the planet, its climates, etc.[16]
After his return from Europe in 1839, Brisbane began propaganda for
Fourierism, and by the latter part of that year had won several
adherents, the most important of whom was Horace Greeley. Brisbane and
Greeley started a paper in New York, called the _Future_, which lasted
only a few weeks. When the paper suspended publication, Brisbane began a
column in Greeley's newly organized _Tribune_. Brisbane soon withdrew
from this assignment and went to the _Chronicle_ which he began to edit,
and at the same time, wrote articles for other publications.[17]
The propaganda had great success; the repercussion, however, fell
heavily upon Brisbane. Various interests, especially those who saw in
socialism an enemy to established customs, began to attack him severely.
In his memoirs, Brisbane writes concerning the public attitude toward
him at this time as follows:
Gradually, I came to be considered as an atheist, and advocate of
theories subversive of all morality; as a fomentor of war between
classes, and what not. No color was too black in which to paint my
character. For a while I endeavored to defend myself, but the attacks
were so varied, the blows came from so many quarters at once, that I
soon felt the impossibility of meeting them and gave it up. Bowing to
the necessity of things, I accepted the reputation thus made for
me.[18]
Not only was he attacked editorially, but on some occasions he would
have suffered bodily harm if he had not escaped.[19] Socialism was too
new and the principles were too little known for an adherent to have an
unbiased hearing in a country seething with nationalism, and in a
country where political demagogues would not hesitate to appeal to any
prejudice that they might discover in an ignorant people.
Brisbane was a remarkable man who really felt the necessity of revamping
the institutions of the world. He was interested in the most minute
details of social and economic life; for instance, he writes, "Women ...
are absorbed in a monotonous repetition of the trivial degrading
occupations of the kitchen and the needle;--degrading because they have
to be so continually repeated and on so small a scale."[20] Moreover, he
thought the labor of children under the present system was entirely
wasted because of the petty amount of their task. To overcome such
"smallness" of chores, he advocated that separate households be
abolished and associations of households be created instead. Thus, woman
would have time to help produce the material necessities of life and be
an equal to man. Such an idea of combinations, Brisbane thought, could
be applied to all industries and especially to that of agriculture.
There are only two methods to be followed he believed: the incoherent or
the combined. In his book, _Social Destiny of Man_, or _Associations and
Reorganization of Industry_, with the impulse of a fanatic and the
learning of a philosopher, he weighs the merits of one against the
merits of the other, always with prejudice in favor of the "combined."
With provocative thought and earnest application he creates a favorable
impression for "associations" or "combines." Speaking of agricultural
associations, he says,
It is above all in precautions against fire and other accidental
waste, that the profits (of the Association) become colossal. All
measures of public security are impracticable with three hundred
families, some being too poor to take necessary precautions, others
too careless or indifferent. We frequently hear of a whole town being
consumed by the imprudence of a single family. Precautions against
insects, rats, etc. become illusive also, because there is no joint
action between these families. If by great care one farmer destroys
the rats in his granaries he is soon assailed by those of the
neighboring farms and fields, that have not been cleared of them, for
the want of a system of general co-operation, impossible with the
present diversity of interest.[21]
Therefore, reasons the writer, not only in the matter of fire
protection, but in every other form of agricultural work, the advantages
of the Fourieristic principle of association are evident, and within the
near future all activities must be carried on in such combination of
various groups.
Brisbane soon became the center of a brilliant group which believed and
taught Fourierism. Some of the others were: John Allen, the Channings,
George W. Curtis, Charles A. Dana, John S. Dwight, Parke Goodwin, George
C. Foster, Henry James, Horace Greeley, James Russell Lowell, C.
Neidhardt, Francis G. Shaw, John G. Whittier, George Ripley and many
others.[22]
Hundreds became interested and phalanges were established in many
sections of the United States. In fact, the propaganda was so successful
that an avalanche of applications fell upon Brisbane before he had
worked out any plan of promotion or forms. He warned those who
contemplated forming the "associations" not to be hasty and not to make
any attempt to put the principles into operation until they had
sufficient capital to guarantee some sort of success. However, very
little attention was given to his advice and many phalanges were
established, but few were successful.[23]
It was from the results of the teachings of these three men, Fourier,
Considerant, and Brisbane, and from the direct effort of the last two
that La Réunion was established in Texas, on the banks of the Trinity
river.
"The best elements of the old world ask only to leave it; let America
afford to them a little aid; nothing more is required, for them at
once to join forces with her. Europe is now driving from her bosom
whatever is good; let America give it a home with herself."
Victor Considerant, _European Colonization in Texas_, p. 29.