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.