La Réunion, a French Settlement in Texas

CHAPTER VII

Chapter 8713 wordsPublic domain

THE BREAKUP

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 He was sullen, withdrawn, and sensitive to criticism.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.