ATTITUDE OF TEXANS TOWARD THE COLONY
When Victor Prosper Considerant, the founder of La Réunion, came to
Texas for the first time in 1852 he evidently met with hospitality from
all the people, as his reports show no feeling of having been treated
otherwise. In fact, in his writings he frequently refers to the kindly
interest in, and attitude of the people toward, his scheme of
colonization; especially does he mention Captain Macy of the United
States Army, and Major Merrill, Commanding Officer at Fort Worth.
However, when he returned to the United States seventeen months after
his first trip to Texas, he found conditions considerably changed.[1]
The first overtures he made to men of prominence after his return were
very favorable. He says, "The cordial reception and warm support,
moreover, which our first overtures have met with from many eminent
persons in Washington--senators or representatives from Texas, former
governors and etc., with whom I have had recently the honor to converse,
tended to strengthen me in my confidence."[2] But the masses of the
people of the South and of Texas, had during these seventeen months
which had intervened between the first and second trips, been
over-powered with one of those peculiar psychological phenomena which
occur quite frequently in a nation. This time it was the Know-Nothing
Party.
This party grew up almost overnight and became a strong force in the
politics of the nation. The party was a secret organization which had as
its principal theories the idea that the government of the United States
should be in the hands of "Native Americans," that no one should be
permitted to become a citizen until after a very long period of
probation, and that Catholics should be excluded from all offices. The
party gained its largest number of votes in 1854 and declined rapidly
after that time, being dead in less than three years after its victories
in 1854 and 1855. Such an organization, of course, could have very
little welcome for a group of French socialists and, in the main, would
be openly hostile toward them.
The rather sensitive and alert Considerant quickly sensed the change. He
immediately issued a statement concerning the attitude of himself and
his colonists in which he stated:
I by no means intend to criticize or to approve this political
movement, or to pass judgment upon it in any manner whatever. God
forbid that I should follow the example of those new comers who,
having scarcely set foot on a great country where they find
hospitality, freedom, and an immense field open to their activity,
hasten to take part in its internal affairs, mixing themselves up in
questions of which they cannot yet understand the first elements,
speaking, judging and deciding, right or wrong, on all sorts of
subjects, which demand long study and profound knowledge of things in
order to be comprehended.
No! my friends and myself, I am authorized to say, are men of common
sense. We do not come to America in order to enlist in parties, of
which we know neither the principles, the traditions, nor the exciting
causes.
It is undoubtedly our earnest desire to attain, as soon as possible,
the dignity of American citizens. But we will patiently wait the time
when the law shall accord to us this title of nobility (whatever delay
it may prescribe us to-day or establish to-morrow). We hold this title
in high esteem, sufficiently to understand that the law, before
conferring it on foreigners, should require them to become worthy of
the privileges; and for ourselves, we do not pretend to see farther
than the Americans into their own affairs. So far from aspiring to
give them lessons of political conduct, we know that on all questions
of this nature they are our superiors and masters, and it is our part
to place ourselves on the seat of instruction. We feel ourselves far
more urgently called to cultivate the earth, to erect buildings, and
to establish various branches of industry, workshops, and schools,
than to swell the ranks of any political party, to deposit our votes
in the ballot box, or to place ourselves in either a scale of the
political balance in the United States, Know-Nothingism, and
Anti-Know-Nothingism--American Democracy Whiggism, Abolitionism,
Pro-Slaveryism, with all the other isms of the same nature, are as yet
to us only words expressing ideas, interests, and principles on which
we are not ashamed to confess our ignorance, and to declare our
perfect incompetence. All these questions, we think, are essentially
American, concerning Americans alone, and in which no foreigner can
reasonably take part until after he has been thoroughly Americanized;
and,--this is not the work of a day.[3]
He expressed no fear of the consequences that Know-Nothingism would have
on his scheme. On the other hand, he analyzed the movement from a
political and social viewpoint and said nothing but good would come out
of it if it were conducted in a proper way. He had been told that the
party had as a cardinal principle the exclusion of all foreigners from
the domains of the United States, but through reading and investigation
he found out the true position of the party, namely, that it did not
particularly desire to exclude foreigners but to increase the time of
their residence within the United States before conferring political
rights upon them. Their civil rights were not called in question.
Considerant believed the causes for the rise of this party to be the
following: (1) accumulation of slums in larger cities causing indigent
people to become numerous; (2) lowering of wage scales by incoming
immigrants; (3) the possibility of these indigent new citizens forming a
political block that would destroy American principles of government;
(4) fear of the religious affiliations of these immigrants of whom
practically all were Roman Catholics.[4]
Considerant either was a novice in his judgment of American political
attitudes and was mistaken concerning the essential results of the
Know-Nothing Party on foreigners, or he was showing masterful diplomacy.
It seems the former was the case. He always esteemed the American people
very highly, ascribing to them far more love of liberty and toleration
than they possessed. It seemed absolutely impossible to him that the
Americans, steeped in democracy, would deny newcomers a small piece of
the vast uninhabited wilderness in which to live, no matter what form of
democracy they might profess. Then too, Considerant trusted the masses,
and like Jefferson, believed that eventually justice and right would
triumph if the people were permitted to decide the issues of government.
However, he was to learn that the hard-working American of 1853 whom he
had met on the frontier and in the cities was a different type of man
from that of 1855 when agitated by political leaders seeking votes to
control the national government. He met opposition from men from whom he
expected help and especially from the newspapers.
The attitude of the papers of that day toward his project ranged from
the position of vigorous opposition to that of active support. The
_Texas State Times_ and the _Austin State Gazette_ were the ones most
actively engaged against the colony. The proximity of these papers to
the capitol, where those interested in land speculation, railroad
grants, and other forms of private privileges came to press their
application, perhaps accounts for some of the opposition, but both
papers had on their editorial staffs men favorable to the Know-Nothing
Party, and furthermore, the highly intellectual reputation of the French
colonists excited the prejudice of the writers. The _Dallas Herald_ and
the _Northern Standard_ were the two papers most favorable toward the
colonists; also the _Galveston News_ took a favorable attitude. Outside
of Texas the _New York Tribune_ became one of the prime movers in
support of the colony, while the _Washington Sentinel_ (Washington,
D.C.) was hostile to the socialists. The opposition based its objections
to the colony upon the following four points: first, socialism, as such;
second, the alleged opposition to slavery on the part of the colonists;
third, dislike of foreigners; and, fourth, Considerant's high
intellectual training, and his request for a subsidy of land in Texas
for his colonists.
In regard to socialism, the _Texas State Gazette_ in its issue of
February 17, 1855, says:
We are always pleased to have industrious immigrants come among us.
Plenty of work can be found by mechanics and laborers, and there is
room in all our towns for more enterprising merchants and business
men. There is one class, however, that we are opposed to, and have no
disposition to hold out to them inducements to settle among us. This
class is of that Propagandist school which in France and in parts of
the United States, has and is seeking to sap the foundations of
society. The socialist desires to destroy individual rights in
property; and, if he is not a very intelligent and moral man--a rare
thing,--we may have in him a neighbor who will rob and plunder us
whenever he can get the chance; for he holds it as a primary principle
in his creed, that no individual has a right to accumulate property
for himself, and all above what is necessary to sustain him belongs to
the rest of society.... Again, the socialist is an _abolitionist_
everywhere. He would not be less opposed to slavery by living in Texas
than in France or in Ohio. It is part of his creed. Now, we are told
that John Allen, of Ohio, and Mons. Victor Considerant, propose
bringing out from France to western Texas a colony of socialists. This
move, for the purpose of building up a sect opposed to our political
institutions, may well be regarded with jealousy, and the founders may
rely upon it that they will not be suffered to tamper with our
institutions. The whole principle of colonization, where men of a
peculiar caste in religion or politics seek to array themselves
together in particular sections of the country, both as landholders
and factionists, is at war with all the elements of society, and
cannot be carried on without creating bitter and unrelenting
prejudices and animosities among our native citizens. We note this
advent of socialism in Texas as foreboding us no good; and we wish
them to have a fair understanding before they reach our soil, that as
a political sect, our whole people are against them.[5]
The editorial just quoted was apparently read with wide interest all
over Texas and the United States. Considerant, himself, read the article
in New York and made a reply to the criticism; the _Washington Sentinel_
(Washington, D.C.) entered a long editorial in its column in support of
the stand taken by the _Texas State Gazette_; and, as a further
indication of interest, the writers of the editorial in the _Gazette_
received numerous letters praising them for the position which they had
taken against the socialists.[6] The _Washington Sentinel_ stated that
no paper had been more earnest in defending the rights of naturalized
foreigners and in insisting upon the supremacy of the constitution than
it had, but there were certain interferences that even it could not and
would not submit to, and this interference was socialism.[7]
On June 2, 1855, the _Texas State Gazette_ again called the attention of
the people of Texas to the serious danger which confronted the citizens
of the state by permitting the socialists to establish themselves among
the people. In an article, "The Socialist in Texas," the paper declared:
We have had enough discussion of the principles of Socialism from
Greeley, Brisbane, and other fanatics and abolitionists, to know what
Socialism must be in Texas, and how it will finally end.
When men get tired of the glorious institutions of our republic, there
is something wrong with them, themselves, radically. They are
certainly good enough to protect us in our life, our liberty and
pursuit of happiness. Whatever may be their _new views_, they are at
least not the class of men to do a state any good. We have had
occasion before to allude to the importation of foreign Socialists
into Texas, and the opinions we have expressed have certainly
undergone no change. We believe them to be a mischievous element of
population, and did we not believe that their wild theories would not
long stand the test of experiment, and would soon be abandoned, we
might urge our objections more seriously than we have done.
In the same article was a letter from a man who signed himself J.L. from
the city of Washington. The writer of the letter mentioned that he had
seen a short article in a northern paper in which the attitude of the
_Gazette_, as expressed in a former editorial, was very unfavorable to
the "settlement of a colony of Fourierestes under the auspices of M.
Considerant," in Texas. He appealed to the "Southerners of Texas, not to
permit that band of lawless and unprincipled foreigners to settle in
their midst," and listed reasons why his appeal should be heeded as
follows:
1. That it is the purpose of the Socialists to overthrow all constituted
government and establish instead a system in which the members would
"follow the tendencies of their passions and inclinations regardless of
any restraint of laws."
2. That they were opposed to the Christian code of morals as stated in
the decalogue, because that would check their passional liberty.
3. That they were all infidels.
4. That they condemned marriage relations and wherever they dared to do
so, "openly avow promiscuous intercourse of sexes, accordingly."
5. That they were abolitionists of the most vile stamp.
6. That they would divert individual property to their own peculiar
organizations.[8]
Considerant answered these charges in a very dignified way in a pamphlet
published in New York.[9] However, he was astonished at the attitude of
the papers and asked, "why are we so precipitately attacked by persons
to whom we are entirely unknown, and who have been informed of our
projects only by vague rumors?" Why such an attitude could be held by
people of a free land against Europeans fleeing persecution was a
mystery to him; however, he sought to answer it on two grounds, namely,
a crusade of private interest, and on the ground of ignorance.
In his answer the Texans were assured that the immigrants did not desire
to leave the theatre of European struggles, to seek a theatre of other
struggles in Texas. They came to Texas seeking liberty and peace and
were seeking a place remote from civilization where the ideals of their
society could be developed in peace and security. If such a place was
not secured for them in Texas, they would be forced to seek other
climes, either in North America or Central America, even though such a
movement was repugnant to them as they had already selected Texas as
their adopted home. Considerant derided the _Texas State Gazette_ in
that it appeared to believe that the socialists were to make an assault
on Texas and, as mere barbarians, invade and destroy it. Such an absurd
idea! These gentle and civilized folk--more so than the Texans--were too
mild-mannered barbarians to wish to harm or disturb anyone.[10]
Such a wrong implication seemed so foreign to the sympathetic nature of
Texans that Considerant was inclined to excuse the attack on the ground
of ignorance. There were two errors in the statement of the _Gazette_,
he contended, one of fact and one of logic. The error of fact was that
there were several kinds of Socialists, and two divisions of the
Fourieristic type, one favoring private property and another opposing
it. The larger group of Fourierists, especially the colonists coming to
Texas, were those who believed in possession of private property. In
fact, the leaders of the former group had carried on several extensive
debates and had written articles against those favoring the abolishing
of private property. The error of logic was that the paper reasoned from
the assumption that because the immigrants did not believe in private
property they would in turn rob and pillage their neighbors who
possessed property. He stressed the fact that the men immigrating to the
United States in his colony were men of honor and accomplishments and
were not suddenly going to turn robbers and marauders. However,
Considerant did not ask for any special forbearance and importuned the
Americans for but one thing, namely to assure to the colonists the
protection of their lives and the property which they hoped to acquire.
Nevertheless, in spite of such declarations, when the pamphlet reached
Texas, perhaps in July or August of 1855, the attack of the newspapers
became even more severe. The _Texas State Gazette_, in an article in
which sarcasm rather than dignity was displayed, attacked Considerant
personally. Of him it was said that he possessed the traits of a
diplomat instead of those of a philosopher; that he was cunning and
ingenuous rather than dignified and learned. His good face was presented
to the Texans and his bad face was kept in the background, but his
"supercilious airs" and "unabashed self-sufficiency" were evident to
anyone reading the pamphlet. Fear of socialism seems to be the
predominant note in the long editorial. In one place the editor says:
We would rather see the State a howling desert than witness the
spreading waves of Socialism stretch itself over the Christian
Churches and the Slave Institution of Texas. To hold out inducements
to these Socialists is to take steps to make every part of the State
where they may inhabit, undesirable for settlement to Southern
citizens of other States, and as the Socialist increases, must we look
forward to the repulsion and retirement of slave-holders. It is an
excellent initiatory step for Northern Agressionists and may be
flatteringly successful, if we lack the nerve at the present time to
withhold our disapproval.[11]
The _Texas State Times_, in a more dignified and reasonable manner
discussed the pamphlet. The writer referred to the work as "an ably
written address to the American people upon the subject of European
colonization in Texas."[12] But in a sarcastic vein it is shown how
Considerant desires to better the condition of a "Heaven deserted state
... by the introduction of mechanical arts among its rude people, and
designing to fruitfully occupy their leisure moments by illustrating the
practical workings of diverse new and improved social systems." The
editor further states:
The deep interest which this modern reformer manifests towards
everything in America in general, and in Texas in particular, and the
unselfishness with which he avows his willingness to bring his colony,
with all their capital, ingenuity, industry, virtue, and vices, too,
we suppose, and settle them in our midst, in consideration of a grant
of our worthless lands, would excite our gratitude, if we were not
convinced that quite a sufficiency of this description of better
citizens reach our shores through the usual medium of emigration,
without the aid of any special agent, and that European malcontents
can spread the slow but certain poison of their obnoxious principles
quite rapidly enough for the good of this country, when they come
singly and in couples, without this wholesale importation.[13]
Again, it was the fear of dissemination of socialistic principles that
stirred the writer to warn his fellow countrymen.
The dissemination of any set of principles antagonistic to an existing
government, must inevitably decrease the strength and vigor of that
government, be it democratic or monarchial, in the same ratio that
these principles find defenders and advocates. Wherever doctrines,
however preposterous and destructive to society, have been broached by
men of mind, they have never failed to find disciples.[14]
The principles which Considerant was advocating were such, the writer
said, as the "vilest Red Republicans of France have repudiated, in the
most licentious and stormy days of that wavering government." Even
though the whole scheme was to be experimental it would be very much
better, so the writer thought, that such experiments should be done by
"our own people rather than by a deputation of French philosophers"
whose attempts to "half-sole and heel-tap society in days gone by" had
ended in miserable failure.[15]
There were papers, however, that did not fear socialism and were anxious
to see the experiment tried in Texas. The _Galveston News_ even thought
that the experiment might discover or explain certain social regulations
that would bring to humanity "greater happiness and a higher degree of
civilization." But in such statements there existed in the mind of the
writer a certain pessimism for he says, "Discord, which creeps into all
human organization, may cause it to riot in infamy."[16]
Even so, the colony was not sufficiently large or powerful to cause any
serious dangers to the republican institutions of Texas. _The Dallas
Herald_ favored the colony because of the profit which would come to the
city of Dallas and the surrounding country from the manufactories which
Considerant proposed to establish.[17] The fact, though, that the men
who were to form the colony were republicans who had been expelled from
France because of their sentiments struck a responsive chord in the
minds of the Dallas editors, and caused them to issue a general welcome
to the colonists and express hope for their success. _The Standard_
said:
For ourselves only, we say that we think the immigration of such a
class of persons as he describes would be eminently beneficial to the
State, and tend to its enrichment, by the introduction of
Manufactures, without which no State is truly independent, and free
from tribute in an eminent degree to other States. The agriculture,
manufacturing and commercial elements all confined in a body politic,
give it great power as the result of great resources--Texas has the
elements for the successful development of all three, to which may be
added mining in coal and iron.[18]
The support of the _New York Tribune_ perhaps did Considerant more harm
than good, as the Southern papers were suspicious of anything with which
Greeley was connected. The mere fact that Brisbane and Greeley favored
the colony was enough to convince most people in the South that the
colony was organized for the sole purpose of establishing Free-soilers
and Abolitionists in the slave states.
In fact, all the papers, even those supporting Considerant, were
unanimous in their condemnation of the anti-slavery sentiment as
expressed by Considerant. The _State Gazette_ on October 13, 1855, says:
It is a matter of deep solicitude to all Southern men, that these
Socialists should know in advance the opinions and views of our
people. We are far from being fit subject for the transcendental
theorists of the North and of France. The thousand isms of the day
find no congenial soil in the South, and besides this, the hatred of
the Slave Institution, cherished by these Socialists and avowed openly
by them in our State, must only the more remind us of our duty and
awake us to action.
It was said in the same issue that socialists were to be emptied upon
Texas by the thousands, and already that their surveyors were working
through several counties in which the colony had secured nearly every
available piece of ground. Rumor had it that the slave-holders who lived
near these people thought it opportune to dispose of their slaves, and
many Southerners were disposed to leave their homes and seek plantations
farther West.[19] Such statements apparently were wide of the mark as
investigation fails to produce a single protest from people in the
vicinity of the colony; such exaggeration merely represents the usual
effort of some editors and newspapers to carry their points in any
sensational issue and should not be given credence here. The incongruous
statements of the _Washington Sentinel_ are amusing:
We have a great country, interminable in extent, blessed with every
variety of climate, and adapted to every kind of production. We have
vast uninhabited wilds that resound oftener with the tread of the
buffalo or the howl of the wolf than with the step or the voice of the
man. We have room for the oppressed, the enterprising, the industrious
and the patriotic of every clime and country. They are welcome. We
would say to them, come--our arms are open to receive. Come ... and be
naturalized into our free American brotherhood.
Yet when an effort is made to plant amongst us, and that, in a slave
State (Texas) a colony of French Socialists and abolitionists (they
are endorsed by the _New York Tribune_) then we demur, most positively
and absolutely.
We want no abolition _plantations_ or _colonies_ here, whether they
are foreign or native. We want no European ideas of liberty. We carved
out, by our own strong arms, the independence of this country, and we
want nothing of foreign origin infused into our system.
But Socialists are system-makers, government builders, and
communists--they are political incendiaries and propagandists, and
would not only plant themselves and their social institutions upon our
soil, but would endeavor insidiously and furtively to erect the system
of government which they espouse, on the same soil. Their system is
altogether different from our system.... Besides, it is an abolition
system. It is useless for M. Considerant or M. Anybody else to attempt
to disguise it. They want to get a foothold here, and they will adopt
any means to do so. It is vain for M. Considerant to attempt to hide
his purposes under the rubbish of pedantic and scholastic phrases.
Those purposes are plain and palpable.[20]
The above article was based largely upon Considerant's declaration
against slavery contained in his pamphlet, _European Colonization in
Texas_, in which he stated that "The evil of slavery should not be
increased by an addition of peculiar grants." Considerant well
understood that the slavery question would soon drive the North and
South into war if it were not settled by some scientific formula rather
than by the hot heads of either side. Personally, he wanted to see
slavery abolished gradually. He was influenced in this position, no
doubt, by Brisbane, who suggested as early as 1840 that a special
investigation should be made into all slavery or involuntary servitude
to determine whether it was economically sound to have such an
institution. If it were found to be economically unsound or unjust to
the men so penalized, then some plan should be worked out scientifically
for its abolition.[21] The charge of many of the Southern papers that
Considerant had been influenced by Greeley, Brisbane, and other liberal
leaders of the North in the formation of his American political
attitudes cannot be gainsaid. However, the wide political and basic
fundamentals of his concept of social and political relations were
European, and that of the extreme liberal school. Slavery was certainly
against all his doctrines concerning the political and social equality
of man, but he was not a fanatic on the subject as were many of the
Northern and Southern leaders.[22]
_The State Gazette_ referred to his statement of his position on slavery
as "traitorous" and said that he was merely using "honeyed words" to
cover up his "pernicious dogmas." The prejudiced attitude of mind of the
editors is evidenced in the editorials in the _Gazette_. They state that
Considerant's term "social relation of humanity" meant nothing more than
"nigger good as white man" and that his proposal for a "scientific and
peaceful progress" of the settlement meant "the development of this fact
in the legislature."[23] Seemingly conscious of the fact that many of
Considerant's arguments and pleas were unanswerable by reasonable
arguments, the papers resorted to sarcasm and appealed to the prejudice
of an inflamed public sentiment. It was not mere neutrality on the
slavery question that was demanded; it was actual participation in the
agitation for permanence of the institution.[24] Such activity would not
have been possible from the colonists' viewpoint because Considerant had
distinctly declared against any active participation in the politics of
the nation until the members of the colony had become thoroughly
conversant with its problems, nor would such participation have been
acceptable to the South which was at this particular time largely
dominated by the "Know-Nothing" attitude toward the foreigner.
During the time that Considerant was trying to establish his colony in
Texas, Albert Brisbane, his chief lieutenant in the United States, was
having a very difficult time in New York. On one occasion the police,
urged on by the usual anti-socialist complaint of that day, raided a
meeting at which Brisbane was speaking. The _New York Tribune_ in
describing the scene said:
Nervous young gentlemen, destitute of hats, and bemoaning rent gloves
and departed overcoats, dashed about to and fro in confusion--In
Broadway, around the doors of Taylor's saloon, and thickly packed up
the sidewalks of nearly the distance of a block, stood an expectant
crowd, who had got the wind of the fun that was to be heard of above,
and who watched with intense eagerness the egress of one victim after
another in the relentless grasp of the Police. As the female members
of the club emerged from the doors, like a flock of frightened sheep
chased by wolves, the Police followed closely in their tracks, the
crowd raised loud shouts,--"Make way for the Ladies;" "Here they
come;"--"Three Cheers"--"Let us see them"--"Hoo-Raw for the Free
Lovers," etc., etc., etc.[25]
The attitude of the legislature of Texas is very interesting. This
attitude, perhaps, can best be explained by the study of a petition
presented by Considerant and by the report of bills in the House and the
Senate. Ignorance on the part of the legislators of the purposes and
policies of the colony is astonishing, and this ignorance existed in
spite of the fact that Considerant had done everything to inform them of
his purpose and policies. At one time he distributed to the members his
pamphlet on _European Colonization in Texas_ which went into detail
concerning the proposed colony. Savardan, in his book, states that this
distribution was the greatest mistake made by Considerant because he
took a neutral stand on political problems, especially on slavery. This,
Savardan explains, was the very thing that Texans, especially the
legislators, did not want. Conditions and circumstances in Texas
demanded partisan politics and not neutrality. One must of necessity be
for or against slavery, building of railroads, immigration, and similar
movements.
In December, 1855, Considerant presented a petition to the House of
Representatives and the Senate setting forth his appeal for grants of
land in Texas.[26] In this he said that in returning to Texas for the
second time he found there had been considerable change: in the public
sentiment toward foreigners; in that all vacant lands in the north part
of the state had been taken up by settlers, located on by speculators,
or reserved to the Pacific Railroad Company. Thus the advantage which he
clearly foresaw in 1852 for his colonization company and which he put
forth as inducements in his reports to his friends to settle in Texas,
had practically vanished, leaving him in a peculiar situation. The
reaction to such a situation in Europe and among his friends had been
such as to endanger the project of colonization. In consideration of
these factors he asked if "a grant, for instance of two hundred sections
of land, made to the Colonization Company, would exceed the measure of
the favor" which the state would feel disposed to extend to the company
as encouragement and compensation for the heavy expenses already
undergone by the company in bringing settlers to Texas. So when he
returned to present the above petition, he found public opinion aroused
opposing his project.[27]
Considerant, thoroughly realizing this opposition to him and his
colonists in Texas, attempted to answer the charges brought against him.
In a letter to the governor of Texas, he said that certain persons "see
only in our immigration an invasion of fanatics, enemies of property, of
robbers, abolitionists," and that they "imagined that we came to this
country with the intention of subverting her institutions and laws, to
bring about the abolition of slavery, and to create a State within a
State." Such charges were, according to him wholly unfounded, and could
be charged only to "persons who had previously given unmistakable signs
of mental aberration."[28]
Nevertheless, in spite of Considerant's pleading and earnest
presentation of facts, the state legislature did not see fit to grant
him lands which he had requested. This was due perhaps to the change of
policy in regard to state lands which had been recently adopted rather
than to any particular objections to the French colonists or their
socialistic doctrines. Of course, as was shown by newspaper reports, the
objection to the colonists was so great that no land would have been
granted even if there had been no change of policy.
Even though Considerant and others of the colony labored assiduously for
the grant of land and recognition of the colony, a bill permitting
incorporation was all that they could achieve. On July 19, 1856, the
Committee on Public Lands made the following report concerning the
petition of the colony:
The Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the petition of
Victor Considerant, have had the same under consideration, and
instructed me to report against the prayer of the petitioner; yet they
have instructed me, in virtue of the fact that the petitioner
represents a company with a large capital, and whose objects are to
engage in manufacturing and other branches of industry, which it is
believed will be of incalculable advantage to this country, to report
a bill incorporating said company for the above purpose and recommend
its passage.[29]
Later, on August 16, such a bill was introduced to "incorporate the
European and American Colonization Society in Texas." Some one
immediately moved to amend the bill by inserting Harrison County and
substituting G. G. Gregg, W. Adair, W. M. Evans. The amendment was
tabled. Still another amendment was offered to substitute thirty-three
and one-third years for the one hundred years contained in the bill,
which amendment was also lost. Mr. Dickson of Red River, when his name
was called, arose and said,
I would like to know what this incorporation means to do. I don't see
any proposition to do any particular thing. The bill just incorporates
a body of men, without specifying for what purpose.
Now, I understand that this is a French Colony of Communists, and that
those people there work for the leading men at about twenty cents a
day, and are charged for their provisions, thus coming in debt at the
end of every night.
Without having any explanation of what these people mean to do, and
hearing these things charged against them, I vote No.[30]
The bill to incorporate finally passed the House by a vote of
forty-eight to twenty according to the _House Journal_, but only
forty-three to twenty according to the records of the _State
Gazette_.[31]
In the Senate the bill suffered the same fate as to amendments. On
August 25, one was offered which "provided, that this act shall not take
effect or be in force until said Corporation shall (if they be
foreigners) first file evidence in the State Department of their
naturalization." Then another amendment,
Provided, that a majority of the directors of said company, and the
President thereof, shall be residents of Texas, and that the principal
office shall be kept in this State, where all writs and citations
shall be served.
and then the third amendment,
Provided, that this act shall not be so construed as to entitle said
company to the benefit of any law, granting land or money to any
Railroad or Manufacturing or Colonization Company, nor shall it
authorize the company to prohibit slavery in any territory occupied by
them.[32]
The bill as amended was voted on and failed of adoption in the Senate by
a vote of fifteen for and thirteen against, two-thirds being needed for
its passage.
After the bill failed in passage, Senator McDade moved for a
reconsideration of the vote, but it was laid on the table for future
consideration.[33] Later, on August 29, Bryan called upon the Senate to
reconsider the vote on the colony, and was successful in winning the
passage in the Senate, fifteen to seven.[34] Then, on the following day
the bill was reported in a list of bills enrolled--having been signed by
the speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and being ready
for the governor's signature.[35]
On September 1, 1856, the bill to incorporate the "American Colonization
Society in Texas," was signed and thus became a recognized act of the
State Legislature. Thus, in spite of the prejudice created by the
newspapers the colony was legally established in Texas, but the outcome
was very discouraging to those who had expected success.