La RÉunion was a failure from the moment it started; it was never a success. Of course, a historian cannot predict what would have happened under certain given conditions, but it seems reasonable to believe that any other type of colony formed by the same people under the same conditions would also have been a failure.

In the first place, Considerant was not a suitable man to head such an enterprise. His theory of colonization as propounded in Au Texas is reasonable enough and, if followed, could probably succeed under favorable conditions. However, his weaknesses were his personal attitude and his lack of administrative ability. Savardan says that Considerant was a great organizer and promoter but did not possess a sense of continuity or of development. He easily became discouraged and soon lost interest in proposed plans and procedures. When he arrived in New York in 1854 on his return to Texas, he was met by the denunciation of the Know-Nothing Party (American Party.) Tirades against foreigners made by leaders of the party were diplomatically and ably answered by Considerant’s pamphlet, European Colonization in America, but in spite of his confident tone exhibited in this pamphlet, he became discouraged from that moment. His absolute faith in the sense of justice of the American people, as stated in Au Texas, vanished and he was forced to realize the absurd servility of people who will subject themselves to demagogues in time of national hysteria. Considerant never exhibited any sign of vigor, initiative, or enthusiasm after the publication of his address to the American people.

When he joined Savardan’s party in Galveston, a change in his attitude was evident. He was sullen, withdrawn, and sensitive to criticism. Instead of going with the party from Houston to Dallas, he went to Austin and then to La RÉunion. However, there is no indication in the records of any initiative on his part to put the colony in shape, or of any plan of unity of development worked out. The moment he reached La RÉunion he began to think of leaving it. In a conversation between Cantagrel and Savardan in April, 1856, before all the colonists had arrived, Savardan understood that Considerant had come to the conclusion to disband the colony, to parcel out the land to colonists and others, and to break up the community affairs. Savardan states that not more than ten per cent of the colonists wanted to divide up the land, that most of them felt that they could not exist independently.[1]

Considerant, leader of the whole undertaking, was never in the colony for any length of time. He was alternately at Austin, San Antonio, or Uvalde, and consequently, when he was at La RÉunion, he could not make any decision because he was unacquainted with the workings of the organization. Apparently, refusal of the state legislature to grant the lands which Considerant had expected to obtain for the colonists completely destroyed what hope he had left; it was after this refusal that he wrote to France advising that no more colonists be sent.[2] Finally, after an absence of five months, he returned to the colony from a trip into Southwest Texas, and being convinced that the colony was doomed, appointed a successor to himself and suddenly, on July 7, 1856, departed in secret.[3]

Considerant, in his pamphlet Du Texas, assumes all blame for the failure of the La RÉunion experiment and confesses that he had a serious lack of confidence in himself. After his plans failed, he became a despairing and broken man, often planning to end all by self-destruction.[4] It is certainly true that this lack of self-confidence prevented success of the colony.

The second reason for its failure was the mismanagement of financial affairs. Considerant reported about 1857 that “During two years, the greater part of the disposable funds were wasted under my own eyes.”[5] But Savardan gives a different story: he lists several funds which he claims Considerant, himself, wasted. His evidence is as follows:

a. $3,000 wasted by an inefficient gardener who, Considerant insisted, should be at the head of the agricultural work.

b. That Considerant paid double price for meat when it could have been raised on the farms of La RÉunion. There were no sheep or pigs—$300.

c. That he bought carriages and horses for himself which he did not need, at least they were better than were required, for which he charged the society under the head of personal expense—$300.

d. That he built for himself and family a cottage instead of living in the commodious buildings of the colony with the remainder of the colonists and charged the cost to personal expenses—$1,000.

e. The horses that were lost by theft or death unnecessarily and the carriages and other equipment which soon depreciated in value because of lack of sheds, etc., the poorly constructed houses and other buildings, which would soon have to be replaced—$10,000.

f. The failure of Considerant to pay his own passage and transportation as other colonists had done—$100.

g. Numerous trips from San Antonio to Uvalde for the purchase of land when one or two trips would have been sufficient.

While the above does not convict Considerant of serious mismanagement, it does indicate a lack of system. However, in another place he is charged with using funds without giving any account to the directors, and of entrusting the financial affairs of the colony to dishonest men.[6]

Even though the society owned all its tools, cattle, and other property, there was apparently no method used to check the use of this property until toward the close of 1856, nearly two years after the organization was started. Bussy, who had charge of the equipment, became disgusted and resigned; then Savardan took over the work. He listed all equipment and tools on cards and then numbered each object so he could keep up with all the property belonging to the company. The records of this checking were kept in a large book which he left at La RÉunion on his departure therefrom. All the cattle, hogs, and other livestock were also numbered, and a proposal was made that even the colonists themselves should be assigned a number by which their accounts could be checked. All property loaned and assigned to members of the colony had to be checked out and a record of it kept by a young man appointed as caretaker. This scheme apparently worked well and the serious loss of materials which had occurred previously was checked. However, a minor reform such as Savardan made could not revitalize the faulty financial system.[7]

In addition to mismanagement there was downright dishonesty and misapplication of funds. This was especially true in the mismanagement of the restaurant and in the keeping of accounts with individuals of the colony. Savardan stated that Cousin took $98.00 from him which he deposited with the treasurer of the colony for safe-keeping. Others had the same experience. Apparently some one applied to the courts in Dallas for redress, for on July 16, 1857, the Dallas court made inquiry as to the administration. Considerant refused even to attempt a settlement of the accounts and the company sent a Mr. Simonin to La RÉunion from New York to audit the accounts. He spent three months in the colony and investigated more than 200 accounts, arranged them satisfactorily, and then turned the business over to another man also sent from New York.

A third reason for the failure of La RÉunion was the failure of the Americans to participate in its promotion and settlement. Both Brisbane and Considerant had planned to have as many Americans as Frenchmen in the colony, but there were never more than twenty and perhaps less than a dozen. One colonist tells about Pendleton and Newton, two American carpenters, who joined the colony. They knew nothing about Fourierism and had merely heard about socialism. Their wives wore bloomers, being followers of Mrs. Blummer who advocated freedom of women’s dress. Savardan said that he had no objections to bloomers as they were an improvement over the old “hoop skirt” which flew up every time a woman sat down in a carriage. In addition to these four Americans there were only a few others, all of whom had left the colony by September, 1857.

Lack of interest on the part of the Americans might be explained on the grounds of the intense American nationalism of the time, the sad experiences of Peter’s Colony, and the “law of reserve” which had caused a very sudden rise in the price of land in the vicinity of La RÉunion. After Brisbane’s visit and the first flush of excitement and investment, very little attention was paid by Americans to the experiment. The attitude of the Texas newspapers and the total lack of interest, even hostility, of the state legislature, certainly contributed to the failure.

The climate might be cited as a fourth reason for the breakup of the colony. The years 1855-1857 seem to have been unusual years judging from reports of the colonists themselves and of other Texas settlers living in various parts of the state. Considerant reports that the winter 1856-1857 was a very cold one, and was considered by old settlers to have been the coldest in their memory. Another colonist says that there were twenty-three days of ice in January and from February 7 to March 2 the temperature measured an average of fifteen degrees above zero inside the cabins. This statement is supported by Bureau who arrived in La RÉunion January 17, 1857, and found the temperature fifteen degrees below zero. The cold brought great suffering to the settlers, especially to women and children living in the poorly built cabins.

When spring came there was no relief. Drought took the place of cold. Springs dried up and the obtaining of water became a serious problem. Crops came up only to wither and die under the blast of dry winds. Cattle had to be driven to the river for water, but there was no water available for the gardens. The farmers found it difficult to raise anything, especially since they refused to follow instructions of the scientific farmers in the colony. Thus, cold weather, drought, and discouragement undermined the morale of the group and one by one the settlers began to disperse.

Nevertheless, after these things are taken into consideration, and all due allowances are made for these factors, there remains the pertinent fact that the colonists could never agree. There were racial divisions, Belgians vs. French, and conflicts arising between individual members. The most severe disagreements were between the leaders rather than in the rank and file. Savardan, the most garrulous and troublesome of the whole group, tells numerous stories about these misunderstandings. He states that Considerant, Rogers, and Raizant made every effort in their power to prevent colonists from coming to La RÉunion. Barclay, a Swiss, came to the colony in 1855 with twenty others, all healthy and strong, intending to become permanent settlers. However, because of the attitude of the colonists, especially of Considerant, all except one soon left and established themselves elsewhere. He also wrote about the coming of Santerre and his family. Santerre sold his farm in France and with seven children started to America. They were dumped on the shore near a Houston farm without anyone to guide them, finally reaching the farm after much trouble. There Raizant did everything he could to prevent them from continuing their journey to La RÉunion, but without success. When the family did arrive at La RÉunion, Cousin tried to make them leave by the use of sarcasm.[8]

Once when Savardan accused Cousin of forgery of a document which placed him in control of the colony, Cousin threatened to place Savardan in prison, whereupon Savardan immediately withdrew into the house and challenged Cousin to enter, at the same time reminding him of the American law which gave a man the right to protect his own home. After considerable trouble the two men were quieted and the incident passed without any serious results.

Several times, near riots occurred when the men of the colony met to discuss various complaints, those concerning wages especially. Sometimes these disturbances would be ended by the appointment of a committee to consider the matter, after which very little was done—in fact, nothing could be done, as the company had no resources with which to pay nor to make good losses which had occurred. These continual bickerings would have destroyed the colony had nothing else entered the situation to hasten the end. Finally, no socialistic experiment could have been a success under frontier conditions in Texas. The doctrine of Utopian Socialism is a system which deals with industrial conditions and could hardly be applicable to the agrarian frontier. In addition, the capitalistic system had greater rewards to offer individual efforts than did the Utopian social dream.