Findings

# Findings

A finding is a claim this project makes that no single source makes. It requires
combining at least two independent sources or data points. If one source says it
already, it belongs in a note on that source, not here.

Essays and colonist biographies draw from this file. When new research produces
a finding, it goes here. When an essay makes a claim, that claim should be
traceable to an entry here.


## Connections

**Remond → Michel → cement industry.** Remond's seminary geology training led him
to identify the Austin Chalk limestone at the colony. His findings influenced
Michel to build a lime kiln on his Trinity River land (where Union Station now
stands). Michel's kiln supplied Dallas construction for 25 years (Sandell p.45).
Remond later made the first refractory bricks in Dallas. After his death in 1906,
his widow sold the 60 acres to Iola Portland Cement Company for $10,000. The
cement company bought the land for the limestone underneath it — the same
limestone Remond had identified fifty years earlier. (Cordillot, Remond bio;
Sandell p.45; deed Vol. 365, p.430.)

**Nussbaumer land → Swiss Avenue → Wilson Block.** Nussbaumer bought farmland
east of Dallas in 1856 at fifty cents an acre. The road to the Swiss farms became
Swiss Avenue. Nussbaumer donated land for the H&TC railroad station in 1872. In
1898, Nussbaumer heirs sold land in Block 492 to Henrietta Frichot Wilson — a
descendant of La Reunion colonists — "out of her separate estate" (deed Vol. 230,
pp.327-328). The Wilson Block, now a historic district attributed to F.P. Wilson,
sits on Nussbaumer land purchased by a Frichot. (Sandell; deed records; Wikipedia
Talk:Wilson_Block_(Dallas,_Texas).)

**Godin as SCEAT managing partner.** Godin-Lemaire in the SCEAT statutes is
Jean-Baptiste Andre Godin, the industrialist who built the Familistere de Guise.
Confirmed by Santerre's 1874 letter: "J'ai ete visiter l'etablissement de Godin
Lemaire, a Guise (Familistere)." Godin personally selected the colony's industrial
equipment (Savardan). He intended to emigrate but was prevented by illness. The
equipment was thrown under a shed and left to rust (Savardan). Godin later proved
the Fourierist model could work at the Familistere, which operated for over a
century. (SCEAT statutes; Savardan; Cordillot, Santerre bio; Santerre letter in
Bulletin de l'Union republicaine, Dec 16, 1874.)

**The Godin counterfactual: the man who would prove the model viable was refused
Réunion.** When Considerant collapsed into discouragement and wrote Cantagrel "I
am ill and can neither nor will occupy myself with anything whatever — I delegate
to you all my powers," the management faced an opening to replace the man of
letters with a man of business. Godin — managing partner, proven "in the creation
of a great industry and in the government of men and things" — twice offered to
come take charge of the direction in America. Bureau and Guillon ("the artist and
the political writer"), "re-fascinated" by Considerant once the Cañon of Uvalde
revived his hopes, refused "this wise measure of salvation" (Savardan, *Naufrage*
ch. XII; he repeats it in ch. XII's Santerre passage). The force of the
counterfactual is in what Godin did instead: he built the Familistère de Guise and
ran it as a working Fourierist association for over a century. The standard story
("the model couldn't work" / "Texas defeated impractical dreamers") has to answer
why the one partner who later demonstrated the model could work was the one kept
out of the colony — by the colony's own leadership. Note a source tension to leave
open, not resolve: the entry above has Godin "prevented by illness," whereas
Savardan attributes his absence to Bureau/Guillon's refusal of his offer; both may
hold (offer refused, then illness), but the cause is not settled. (Savardan,
*Naufrage* ch. XII; Familistère de Guise; cf. `[[godin]]`,
`src/sources/considerant_savardan_correspondence.md` finding 5.)

**The Société de Réunion's statutes survive — inside Savardan.** The subsidiary's
charter (the 7 Aug 1855 act constituting the society that actually ran the colony)
has no located standalone copy — Cordillot refers to it as published, and the
repo's statutes dossier covers only the parent SCEAT. But Savardan copies "the
principal articles" verbatim in *Naufrage* ch. VII: object (Art. 2), capital
**$600,000 = 4,800 × $125** (Art. 4), any-number quorum (Art. 7), the
capital–labor sharing mechanism (Arts. 10–11), and Considerant's cession of the
whole domain plus his subscription of "the complement" needed for constitution
(Art. 18) — plus the same-day council deliberation naming Cantagrel director and
fixing capital's advance at 3⅓%, the rate Considerant later admitted he set "to
force them to go away." Verlet's quotation of the supervisory board supplies
Paris's side: the parent took **$50,000 in subsidiary shares** in place of land
title, over its board's alarm. Full working-out: `src/essays/corporate_structure.md`.
(Savardan, *Naufrage* ch. VII; Verlet, *Cahiers Charles Fourier* art0091;
SCEAT statutes dossier.)

**A fifth or less of the SCEAT's authorized capital was ever subscribed — and the
capital that existed did not emigrate.** Authorized: $1M = 5.4M fr (statutes
Art. 8), constituted on a $100k threshold (Brisbane $20k, Godin $20k, Considerant
surety). Subscribed: Pratt has *Au Texas* stimulating **650,000 fr ≈ $130k**;
Verlet has "only a fifth" of the $1M **in the end** (~$200k) — early wave vs.
eventual total, neither dated; both put subscription at a fifth or less of
authorization. Within it: Bürkli's 150k+ fr Swiss raise, Goetseels' ~30k fr. The
capital that did exist stayed in Europe: Savardan counts only ~20 shareholders
present at Réunion, just **ten** holding the $125 needed to sit in a general
assembly — so the subsidiary's elaborate capital–labor sharing machinery
(Réunion Arts. 10–11) had almost nobody on its capital side, and the emigration
was of labor. Bürkli's 1858 defense ("of nearly 2 million francs, 120,000 fr.
were squandered" — ~6% "tuition") works from a larger denominator that folds in
the colonists' own goods; it is an apologist's base, not a subscription figure.
Ledger with all figures and rates: `src/essays/corporate_structure.md`.
(SCEAT statutes; Pratt notes; Verlet art0091; Bürkli 1858; Savardan; Cordillot
via Goetseels finding.)

**Priot-Remond-Santerre brick network.** Priot (tailor) and Remond (geologist)
were half-brothers from Nievre. Both married into the Santerre family. Priot
partnered with his father-in-law and family to start a brickworks in the late
1860s. Remond built a separate brickworks at Hutchins, then in Dallas. Both
joined AIT Section 46 in 1872. Remond's membership booklet was countersigned by
Capy and Wilemet. The Frichot brothers ran a third brickworks. Between these
three operations, La Reunion colonists dominated brick production in Dallas.
(Cordillot, Priot and Remond bios; Sandell.)

**The 1860 fire as turning point.** The July 18, 1860 fire destroyed most of
Dallas's commercial buildings. Colonist building skills went from surplus to
essential. Cretien moved to Dallas because carpentry demand surged. The Frichot
brothers started their brick business. The fire did not end the colony — it
pulled the colonists into the center of Dallas. (Sandell; George Cretein letter
to Frank Cockrell, March 30, 1952.)

**SCEAT map shows projected railroad.** The colony map (plan_de_texas_la_reunion.jpg)
shows a projected railroad line through colony land. The colonists chose the site
knowing a railroad corridor was planned. The H&TC arrived in 1872, seventeen years
later, through the Swiss farmland east of town. The colony's presence — population,
capital, demand — contributed to making Dallas a destination worth connecting.
(SCEAT map; Sandell.)

**The SCEAT reserve was located with two headright certificates: John C. Read's
and James McLaughlin's.** The 1858 plan's thirteen "Terres provenant de la
Réserve, acquises par Certificats" (№58–72, 9,210 acres) map one-to-one onto
the modern Dallas County survey abstracts: the county contains exactly eight
JOHN C READ abstracts (A-1181 through A-1188) and exactly five JAMES McLAUGHLIN
abstracts (A-845 through A-849), and every one of them is an 1858 reserve
parcel — no source states this; it emerges only by georeferencing the plan
against the abstract shapefile. Acreage matches parcel by parcel (№59→A-1186
160/165, №60→A-1187 160/160, №65→A-1185 847/842, №70→A-849 66/68, №58→A-845
3,119/3,206, ...). The identification also fixes the core sections: parcel 1 =
Enoch Horton A-604, parcels 2–3 = L G Coombs A-289 (full section, south half
platted as the town), parcel 4 = Anson McCracken A-868, parcel 5 = T V Griffin
A-511 (~330-acre polygon, supporting Sandell's 320 acres over transactions.py's
640), and parcel 6 = **William M.** Moon A-878, not Jesse Moon. Two naming
conflicts surface and are left open: the strip the plan labels "Joe Read"
beside №59 is the modern William Laughlin A-785 (candidate for Sandell's
160-acre "JC Reed" purchase, and adjoining the later Remond/cement land), and
the half-section the plan itself hedges as "J. Read ou Griffin" is the modern
W C McGowan A-859 — three names across two witnesses for the same ground.
(1858 SCEAT plan, doc/maps/plan_de_texas_la_reunion.jpg; Dallas County survey
abstracts, doc/gis/SurveyAbstracts; identification table in
src/land/sceat_surveys.py.)

**Iola Portland Cement consolidated colony land in September 1906.** Two purchases
within sixteen days: Cesarine Remond sold ~56 acres in the WB Laughlin survey on
September 10 (Vol. 365, p.430, $10,000); Jesse Callaway sold ~75 acres in the LG
Coombs survey on September 26 (Vol. 366, p.404, $240/acre). The Callaway land
traces back through former colony surveys — he bought 7 acres from the Sharpe
heirs in 1882 (Vol. 56, p.432) and accumulated the rest over 24 years. Iola was
assembling a large parcel across the old colony footprint. No single source
connects these two sales; the pattern is visible only in the deed records.
(Deed transcriptions, src/notes/notes; src/land/deeds.py.)

**Cockrell-to-colonist sales span 1857–1872.** Sarah Horton Cockrell sold Dallas
town property to at least five colonists over fifteen years: Michel (three
purchases: 1857, 1859, 1866), Frichot (1858), Capy (1861), Gouffre (1866),
Cretein (1872). Michel alone accumulated ~7.75 acres from Cockrell in three
transactions. By 1867 he held eight town lots across three blocks — more town
property than any other colonist. This is not a one-time exodus from colony to
city. It is sustained, repeated land acquisition by the same people from the
same seller over a decade and a half. (Sandell ch.III, Cockrell papers; 1867
Town of Dallas Assessor's Register, Cockrell Papers A4340.)

**Michel as Dallas's largest colonist property accumulator.** Three Cockrell
purchases (G/2, F/664, J/428), eight lots in the 1867 register (blocks 21, 38,
39 — four of them shared with W. Caruth & Bro), and the lime kiln on his Trinity
River land. Sandell says the kiln "provided lime for Dallas construction for
twenty-five years." The deed records show he was buying the land to do it on as
early as 1857 — two years after the colony was founded, while it was still
operating. (Sandell ch.III; 1867 register; Cockrell papers.)

**Goetseels as largest rural colonist landholder.** The 1859 tax rolls show
Jean Goetseels holding 871 acres across four parcels — more than any other
individual colonist. P.P. Frichot held 266 acres. Together, two colonists held
over 1,100 acres of Dallas County land by 1859, four years after arrival.
Cordillot says Goetseels invested ~30,000 francs (~$6,000) in SCEAT and bought
Mountain Creek from Sauzeau. The tax rolls — a source independent of both
Cordillot and Sandell — confirm the scale. (1859 Dallas County Tax Records,
Dallas Public Library; Cordillot, Goetseels bio; Sandell ch.III.)


**Priot and P.P. Frichot shared land at Bryan and Harwood.** Cordillot's Priot
bio says he built his first brickworks "à l'emplacement des rues Bryan, Harwood
et Liveoak." Cordillot's P.P. Frichot bio says he bought land "près des
actuelles rues Bryan et Harwood" and built a stone house there in 1869. These
are in separate biographies with no cross-reference, but they describe father-
in-law and son-in-law on the same ground. Priot married Léontine Frichot, P.P.'s
daughter. The brickworks and the stone house were on family land. The brick
network finding (above) is not just a trade network — it had a geographic center.
(Cordillot, Priot bio; Cordillot, P.P. Frichot bio.)

**The hostile "Colas" letter was written by F. Collas, Uriel passenger #168.**
The corpus's only adversarial primary account (`[[colas]]`, the 1858 Journet
letter dated "Mutuelle, 1 Sept 1855") is signed **"C…"** and addressed by Journet
as **"M.A. Col."**; its author's identity has been unknown since Phillips's 1963
translation. A high-zoom re-read of the **Uriel passenger manifest** reads **#168
as "F. Collas," age 27, born France, last residence Saône-et-Loire, occupation
"Professor of languages"** (correcting an earlier low-confidence "Cordier[?]").
Two independent data points converge: the letter's self-masking — **"Collas" →
"Col." → "C…"** is a straight truncation of the surname — and the fact that Collas
is the **only "Professor of languages"** aboard, an educated young Frenchman
matching the letter's literary register and its Proudhon quotations (a laborer did
not write it). The letter's internal self-description fits at every point:
Belgium-/Antwerp-departing, a Uriel passenger in a faction of twelve, an expelled
"anarchist," co-founder of Mutuelle. Strong but not certain — the manifest is the
ship's New York leg whereas the letter ends at New Orleans (reconciled as one
voyage continuing on to New Orleans), and the surname is a cursive best-read. The
same French cluster on the manifest (#168 Collas, #169 Claudius, #170 Perpina) plus
the five Texas-bound Belgian workmen from Louvain (#194–198, see the next finding)
is the plausible nucleus of Colas's "twelve … six Belgian workmen … three
anarchists" — the founders of Mutuelle. (Colas letter, signature/address; Uriel
manifest #168, `doc/colonists/ships/uriel/roster.md`; `[[colas]]` dossier.)

**The Uriel's Belgian colonists are the five Louvain artisans, not the Waterloo
emigrants.** Our scan-based manifest read flagged two Belgian heads — #42 Debormeure
(mason) and #58 "Van Camerbeck" (farmer), both from "Watervlitt" — as candidate
colonists. An independent typed transcription (the *Belgians in the American Civil
War* emigrant-ship index) preserves the manifest's **Destination column**, which our
scan had merged into origin, and it settles the question: the #42–58 "Watervlitt"
(Watervliet/Waterloo) Belgians — the Deborneure, Phillips, and Camerbeck families,
~11 people — were bound for the **USA**, while a separate block from **Louvain** was
bound for **Texas**: #194 Michel (gardener), #195–197 Derleischonver (three joiners),
#198 **de Smidh** (farmer — correcting our scan's "Louis St. Smardt[?]"). So the
Uriel's Belgian colony contingent is these **five Louvain artisans**, and the
Waterloo Belgians are ordinary emigrants sharing the Antwerp charter — a corrected
false positive (there is also no "Van" on #58, and #48–49, logged German, are
Belgian). This corroborates Savardan's "twelve persons, 8 Belgians and four French"
Cousin party on its **artisan half** (5 Louvain Belgians + the Frenchman Collas #168)
while leaving its named leadership (Cousin, Haeck, Goetseels, De Guelle, Sauzeau)
still absent from any manifest row — the standing "Savardan filed the Uriel dozen
under Cousin's name" gap. (Uriel manifest destination column, rootsweb *Belgians in
the American Civil War* Uriel extract, cross-referenced in
`doc/colonists/ships/uriel/roster.md`; Savardan group-of-twelve, `[[savardan]]`;
`src/colonists/groups`.)

**The Horton purchase: a second communal experiment after the colony.** Cordillot
says Guillemet "acheta ensuite avec quelques compagnons la propriété Horton et
participa à cette tentative de recréer un mini-phalanstère." The Enoch Horton
survey was 320 acres of colony land (deed E/3, 1855). After the colony dissolved,
a group of colonists bought part of this land and tried to run a small
phalanstère. This is a second communal experiment, after the first had failed.
No deed for the group purchase is in the repo. The 1860 census found Guillemet
still living in Dallas County with wife and four children (Cordillot). Separate
from this, Santerre built what Cordillot calls a "mini-phalanstère autarcique"
on his own 75-hectare farm. The colony produced at least two second attempts.
(Cordillot, Guillemet bio; Cordillot, Santerre bio; deed E/3.)

**Reverchon on the McCracken farm: three sources converge.** Cordillot places
Maximilien Reverchon "sur des terres situées près des rues Davis et Westmount
(ferme McCracken)." The 1859 tax rolls show Julian & M. Reverchon holding 50
acres. The 1880 deed (Vol. 48, p.471) records Julien Reverchon, executor of
Maximilien's estate, selling land in the McCracken survey to Louisa Girard for
$100. Three independent sources — a French biography, a Texas tax roll, and a
Dallas County deed — confirm the same family on the same survey. The Girard
sale also shows colony-area land staying in the colonist network twenty-four
years after the colony dissolved. (Cordillot, Reverchon bio; 1859 Dallas County
Tax Records; deed Vol. 48, p.471.)

**Boll: "très actif dans l'immobilier" but thin property record.** Cordillot
says Boll was "very active in real estate." The 1859 tax rolls show Boll and
his father holding 162 acres. He held stock in the Dallas Bridge Company
(Sandell, DHS archives). But Boll does not appear in the 1867 town register
and no deeds for him are in the repo. For someone Cordillot calls very active
in real estate, the paper trail is thin. His property activity may have been
east of town (outside the register's scope) or post-1867. Sandell's note that
he resigned the alderman position because he "did not reside within the city
limits" is consistent — in 1868 he was still outside Dallas proper. (Cordillot,
Boll bio; 1859 tax rolls; Sandell ch.IV.)

**Frick's invisible property.** Cordillot says Frick "réinvestit ses gains dans
des terrains situés au centre-ville, qui prirent rapidement une très grande
valeur" — he reinvested profits in center-city land that gained great value.
But Frick appears in no property record in the repo: not the 1859 tax rolls,
not the 1867 register, not any deed. Sandell's 1869 navigation petition lists
him as a property-owning citizen. Cordillot's claim, Sandell's petition, and
the property records' silence form a three-way discrepancy. His center-city
purchases may postdate 1867, or the records may be under a variant spelling
(Sandell lists "Otto Frick"). Unresolved. (Cordillot, Frick bio; Sandell
ch.III, navigation petition; 1859 tax rolls; 1867 register.)

**Bürkli's Swiss print campaign, and "Bär" = Gaspard Baer.** The Zurich
recruitment drive left a paper trail no single source assembles. Colonist Gaspard
Baer (educator, Switzerland, #74 in the colonist list, via Santerre) is the
"Bär" who **co-translated Considerant's *Au Texas*** with Bürkli — *Auswanderung
nach Hoch-Texas* (erster Theil, Orell Füssli, 1855) — confirmed independently by
Cordillot's *Dictionnaire* entry and a signed letter in the *Zürcherische
Freitagszeitung* (9 Mar. 1855). The same two men were named as the lead
correspondents of the Zurich Fourierists' monthly ***Die Neue Welt. Organ für
Auswanderung*** (from July 1855), which carried the colonists' original dispatches
from Texas — confirmed by its own subscription ad (*Zürcher Oberländer*, 28 Jul.
1855) and a defense signed "Mehrere Phalansterianer" (*Zürcherische
Freitagszeitung*, 31 Aug. 1855). So the disillusioned 1858 Bürkli article the
repo holds is the tail of a documented 1854–55 promotional apparatus (translation
+ nine-part series + a dedicated emigration monthly) that framed the venture to
Swiss subscribers. Neither *Die Neue Welt* nor the brochure is yet held; five
ancillary Zurich press items are transcribed in
`doc/text/articles/la_reunion/swiss_recruitment_press_1854_1855.md`. (Cordillot,
Bürkli bio in `au_texas_cordillot.md`; e-newspaperarchives.ch: *ZFZ* 9 Mar. &
31 Aug. 1855, *ZOB* 28 Jul. 1855, *NZZ* 25 Mar. 1855, *Eidg. Zeitung* 19 Aug.
1854; `src/colonists.md` #74.)

**The Swiss contingent's ship was the *Franziska*, and it corrects Cordillot's
dates.** The ship manifest (Galveston Immigration Database, Galveston Historical
Foundation) records the *Franziska* departing **Bremen 13 May 1855** and arriving
**Galveston 4 July 1855**, with multiple Swiss-colonist matches aboard — this is
the vessel that carried Bürkli's group (Baer, Studer, Nussbaumer, Boll, Long, et
al.), the fourth relevant immigrant ship after the Nuremberg/Uriel/Lexington (all
French/Belgian). The structured manifest corrects the narrative biography:
Cordillot's notices state the group "embarked at Bremen **12 April 1855**" and
"arrived at Réunion **5 July 1855**," but the ship did not leave Bremen until 13
May and only reached *Galveston* (not the colony, ~250 mi inland) on 4 July. Two
independent data points back the manifest over Cordillot: the *NZZ* reported the
group leaving **Zürich** only on ~25 March 1855 (a April-12 *Bremen* embarkation
is implausibly soon after and likely an error for the actual mid-May sailing), and
**Bürkli's own 1858 account** says the Zurchers "came last … arrived **in July
1855**" at the colony — i.e. weeks after the 4 July Galveston landing, not on 5
July. Cordillot appears to have mistaken the Galveston arrival date for the colony
arrival. The full 97-entry manifest is transcribed in
`doc/colonists/ships/franziska/roster.md`; its Swiss cluster (~25 families —
Bürkli, Baer ×2, Boll, Benjamin Long, Frick, Knœpfli, Nägeli ×2, Studer, et al.)
matches the Cordillot roster closely and supplies first names/family sizes. Two
sub-findings from the manifest: **Jacob Nussbaumer is *not* aboard the Franziska** —
he came on a *big* ship, the *Lexington* (Le Havre → New Orleans ~24 Feb 1855),
entry #245 "Nusbaumer, Jacques, 28" (`doc/colonists/ships/lexington/roster.md`;
reading verified — see the Nussbaumer finding below) — i.e. via the French/Belgian
route with Raisant, not with the Swiss contingent he later led east; and a
"died-on-voyage" flag sits on the Baer party (likely a family member, since
Gaspard Baer is documented alive in Texas/US afterward). (Galveston Immigration DB,
*Franziska*; Cordillot, `au_texas_cordillot.md`; Bürkli,
`doc/text/books/1800/burkli/transcription/german_clean.md`; *NZZ* 25 Mar. 1855 in
`swiss_recruitment_press_1854_1855.md`.)

**The Nussbaumers' arrival resolved — father and son on the *Lexington*, and the
father is "Rupert," a ghost entry in Cordillot's roster.** A high-res re-read
(Jul 2026) of *Lexington* manifest page 0634 confirms **#242 "Nusbaumer, Rupert,
42"** and **#245 "Nusbaumer, Jacques, 28"** — the earlier Renk-/Nuss- ambiguity is
resolved, and the father's forename clearly reads **Rupert**, not Robert. Three
independent streams interlock. (1) The manifest: Le Havre → New Orleans, arrived
24 Feb. 1855, the two men traveling in the French colony cluster with Raisant.
(2) Pratt: "Rupert Nussbaumer, forty-eight years old," of canton **Soleure** —
animal husbandry, teams, cheese dairy, pigsty — camped outside Houston in March
1855 with "his twenty-six year old son, Jacques"; Rupert remained to superintend
the society's Houston nursery (Considerant remitted him $1,000). (3) Cordillot's
notice for "NUSSBAUMER **Robert**" (b. Soleure ~1807, Paris Fourierist, embarked
Le Havre **January 1855**), whose quoted colonization-application skills — culture,
soin des animaux, conduite des attelages, fromagerie, porcherie — are the same
document Pratt paraphrases. Same man throughout. Adjudications: on the forename,
manifest + Pratt (**Rupert**) outvote Cordillot (Robert); on age, Pratt's 48 +
Cordillot's ~1807 make the manifest's 42 the outlier (and restore a plausible
father–son gap to Jacob, b. ~1828). Consequences: **(a)** the bare "RUPERT" entry
in Cordillot's colonist roster is almost certainly a **ghost of this man** — the
forename taken for a surname; **(b)** no "whole family" emigrated — the manifest
shows the two men unaccompanied, and Pratt has the wife and two children staying
in Paris (they learned of his death six weeks after the fact); **(c)** Rupert
barely lived at Réunion: he ran the Houston nursery from March, reached the colony
only ~late Aug. 1855 (with the clockmaker Chavannes, per Pratt), and died there
**26 Sept. 1855** — **typhoid fever (Pratt) vs yellow fever (Cordillot)**, noted
not resolved; the scratch deaths note's "Jacob Nussbaumer" colony death is this
event under the wrong forename (Jacob lived to lead the East Dallas move);
**(d)** Jacob's own colony arrival is the **Cousin/Wolski 3 May march** out of
that same Houston camp — originally placed by inference, now confirmed by the
Lexington/Cousin finding below (the Lexington *was* that group's ship, and
Wolski counts "three [who] remained in Houston" off the convoy — his father
among them). Cordillot's
"first Swiss at Réunion" claim holds through Jacob alone (May, well before the
Franziska Swiss ~25 July); Rupert reached the colony only in late August, so
Cordillot's "son fils Jacques **et lui**" overstates the father's part — a
divergence against Pratt's Houston timeline, noted not resolved. Addendum: a
fourth stream — Savardan's list of the groups that preceded his own names "the
group of MM. **Raizant and Nusbaumer**, composed of nine persons," independently
pairing the two Lexington men and spelling the surname exactly as the manifest
does (*naufrage* ch. III). And a fifth: Wolski's death notice — "**Ruppert**,
Swiss by birth but long resident in Paris, where he was editor of one of the
French papers, also died after a few days' illness" (⟨301⟩) — is the same man:
Swiss, long Paris resident, and the "editor" is Wolski's garble of the
*Démocratie pacifique* surveillance-committee seat Cordillot records. Wolski's
surname-style "Ruppert" is very likely the direct source of Cordillot's ghost
roster entry "RUPERT." New divergence flagged: Wolski's notice sits in his
15 Aug. diary block vs Pratt/Cordillot's 26 Sept. death date — favor 26 Sept.
lightly (Pratt's date is specific, likely from the *Bulletin*; Wolski reworked
his diary for publication twenty years on), noted not resolved. (Lexington manifest p. 0634 + roster;
pratt `src/sources/pratt/notes.md`; Cordillot notices Jacques/Robert + roster,
`doc/text/transcriptions/au_texas_cordillot.md`.)


**Who sailed on what: the manifests against the registry (Aug 2026).** Running
the four roster transcriptions (`doc/colonists/ships/*/roster.md`) through
`src/colonists/ships.py` + `crosscheck.py`, with the rosters' own hand
cross-references as the adjudicator, puts sixteen registry colonists on a named
ship at a numbered line. *Nuremberg* (Le Havre → New Orleans, sworn 21 Apr 1855):
Savardan in the cabin (#7, "Docteur, 60"), and the French colony block on pages
0849–0850 — Blot (#251), Abel Bossereau (#253), Come (#255), Peloux (#257, with
wife and two daughters), Poitevin (#263), Dusseau (#265), Guyot (#272, family of
three), Dailly (#277). *Lexington*: Jacob Nussbaumer as "Jacques Nusbaumer, 28"
(#245) beside his father Rupert (#242) — already a finding. *Franziska* (Bremen →
Galveston): Bürkli (#13), Baer (#6, family of six, one death on the voyage),
Boll (#12), Frick (#22), Knöpfli (#38), Long/Lang (#44). Recorded in
`registry.py` as attestations with a `manifest` berth; the site's colonist
pages and roster pages now link both ways. Three things fall out. (1) The
*Uriel* — the Antwerp ship, SCEAT's own port — yields no confirmed colonist: its
Texas-bound party (#193–198: Blaisat, "P. L. Michel", three Derleischonver
joiners, "de Smidh") matches the registry only by surname, and the registry's
Ferdinand Michel and "Mr. Desmet" are not the same forenames. (2) The Nuremberg
colony block carries fifteen more people the rosters tie to Savardan or
Cordillot but who are in no ingested list and so not in the registry: Barret
Hippolyte, the Candil family, Boyer Jules, Pascal Jacques, Pierre Brochier,
Eugène Brunet (locksmith — the registry's Joseph Brunet is a locksmith from the
same town), Martin Robert, Auguste Mique (Savardan's Mique), Montagne, Hérisson,
Perrin, Bride, Guyenet, Cohu, Pucel, Louise Dusseau, and "Baptiste Capy, 24"
where the registry has Charles Capy. (3) The Franziska's Swiss cluster is
twenty-five heads; the registry holds six. The other nineteen (Bluntschli,
Bachmann, Boidron, Vogel, Denzler, Glättli, Koller, Lüthi, two Nägelis,
Sallenbach, Schärer, Schoch, Schwarz, Troxler, Wegmann, Adler, Studer, Jacob
Baer) are in Cordillot's roster and nowhere else in the registry — the
registry's largest known gap. (Rosters; `registry.py`; Cordillot roster.)

## Corrections to the standard narrative

**The Cousin/Wolski group's ship found: the *Lexington* — the colony's first
two "French waves" were one voyage that fanned out.** The untranscribed early
chapters of Wolski (chs XIV–XVII, located by an OCR sweep of the Polish
original, Jul 2026) supply the missing sea legs. Wolski himself sailed New York
→ Mississippi mouth **1–17 Nov. 1854** (Capt. Klark's sailing ship) and waited
three months at New Orleans, per Considerant's letter asking him to receive
"the first pioneers … numbering 40, by **sailing ship from Antwerp to New
Orleans**," and guide them to Texas. On **20 February [1855]** the papers
announced "the ship **'Lexington'**, on which the colonists sent from Antwerp
were sailing (*whose name I knew from Considerant's letter*)," in quarantine,
due at the port in 38 hours; on the quay Wolski was greeted by name by **M.
Cousin, "substantial shareholder … and effectively commander of the 34 first
colonists going to Texas"** (ch. XVII, book pp. 221–222). Unloading took three
days — including "a large quantity of crates containing seedlings of various
fruit trees," stored in the Ursuline convent yard — ten more for tents and
provisions; then the party took the steamer **South America** to Galveston
(early March, 48 hours), thence Houston. This closes the ledger's "(ship
unconfirmed)" for the biggest pre-Savardan wave, and it means the Lexington's
colony cluster (#227–254) **is** Cousin's 34 (28 legible entries, block edges
uncertain), its Feb-24 manifest arrival ≈ Wolski's ~22 Feb. docking.
Consequences: **(a)** the "early French/Belgian wave" and the 3 May arrival are
one ship's passengers fanning out — Raisant (and likely Guy) rode ahead of the
ox convoy (colony by 1 Apr., pratt), the main body arrived 3 May ("33 of us,"
Wolski XXI), and **"three remained in Houston"** — Rupert Nussbaumer at the
nursery surely among them (with Chavannes his ~Aug. straggler companion),
which upgrades Jacob Nussbaumer's 3 May placement from inference to confirmed;
the counts cohere (Cousin's 34 + Wolski ≈ early riders + 33 marchers + 3
Houston stayers). **(b)** Wolski's "sent from Antwerp" vs the manifest's "from
Havre" — both can hold (an Antwerp charter calling at Le Havre, or Wolski
writing loosely of the Brussels society's port); noted, unresolved. **(c)** NEW
DIVERGENCE: Savardan's "group of M. Cousin … twelve persons, eight Belgians
and four French" (incl. young de Guelles) does not match Wolski's eyewitness
34 — it matches the **Uriel** party (Antwerp → New York, sworn 21 Feb.; the
Colas/De Guelle/Goetseels Belgian dozen). Savardan appears to have filed the
Uriel dozen under Cousin's name; joins the Mutuelle/Colas thread. (Wolski, *Do
Ameryki* Part II chs XIV–XVII + XXI, PDF pp. 124–125, 185–229 — OCR pass in
hand, chapters not yet formally transcribed; Lexington roster; pratt notes;
savardan ch. III; ledger `src/colonists/colonists.py`.)

**The Savardan group named: Nuremberg block #251–286 + cabin matches Savardan's
own enumeration and the Cordillot roster nearly one-to-one.** Savardan's *naufrage*
(ch. III) enumerates his group by origin — 11 Carcassonne, 3 Hautes-Alpes
(Nicolas, Pascal, Brochier), 3 Ardennes (the Guyot-Rémy family), 4
Château-Renault (Brunet + the Boulay family), 7 Le Mans, Dailly of Orléans, a
Rouen schoolmistress, 4 Parisians (Bussy, a cooper, a notary's clerk, Capy), and
4 from La Chapelle-Gaugain (a plowman, a stone-cutter, Abel and Catherine
Bossereau) — ~38 plus himself, after 5 Jura members stayed at New Orleans. A
high-zoom re-read of the manifest (Jul 2026) shows this is exactly the French
block that closes the steerage list: **#251–286 plus the 10 cabin passengers = 46
embarked ≈ Savardan's ~45**, with the German/Swiss emigrant block resuming at
#287. Person-level matches lock in across all three streams: Pascal (#275,
*charpentier*), Brochier (#276, *fermier*), Guyot-Rémy ×3 (#272–274), Brunet
(#278, *serrurier*, 22 — Savardan's "young and skilled locksmith"; Cordillot's
"BRUNETTE Ernest" vs manifest "Eugène" noted), Dailly (#277), the Bossereau
siblings (#253–254), Blot, Renier, Come, Baret, Boyer, Cillard, Mique, and — per
Savardan's placement of M. Capy among his four Parisians — #286 "Capey, Baptiste,
24" is very probably **Charles Capy** (given-name conflict flagged). A
transcription-method find with reach: the clerk's long-s pair **"ſſ" had been
misread as "p/pr"** — Roſſereau=**Bossereau**, Duſſeau=**Dusseau**,
Heriſſon=Herisson. That correction exposes a family cluster: #263–266 = Poitevin
Guillaume + **Anna** (= Cordillot's "Mme POITEVIN Anne, née DUSSEAU") + Pierre
**Dusseau** + **Louise Dusseau** — the Louise of Pratt's Sam Jones courtship
note; manifest × Cordillot × Pratt agree. Consequences: the 1855.07.17 arrival
group now carries a **36-name floor** (colony-corroborated members only; the
5 Jura New-Orleans stayers are among the block entries deliberately left
unnamed), raising the ledger's named floor at the August peak to ~70 of ~128;
and Wolski's "~75, many wives" for the 17 July arrival is now a flagged
divergence — the manifest supports ~40, so Wolski's figure either bundles
groups or overcounts. Still open: which five entries are the Jura stayers;
individual resolution of the 11 Carcassonne; the Le Mans seven vs the Peloux ×4
+ Candil ×3 families (trade labels don't map 1:1 — occupation-column re-read
pending). (Nuremberg manifest pp. 0849–0851 + `roster.md`; Savardan,
`naufrage/english_clean.md` ch. III; Cordillot roster,
`au_texas_cordillot.md`; pratt notes for Louise Dusseau; ledger
`src/colonists/colonists.py`.)

**Seven DMN 1906 roster names are garbled reprints of better-attested colonists,
not separate people.** The 3 Jun 1906 reunion roster ("Names of Colonists," DMN
p. 14) was set from names read aloud 50 years after the colony, and its unmatched
entries include phonetic/typographic corruptions of colonists already fixed by
Santerre. Matching the roster against the Santerre core resolves seven:
**Corne = Sebastian Come**, **Billard = Jules Cillard** (B/C print confusion),
**Barbot = George Barbeau**, **Vradack = Rudolph Vreidag** (both Belgian/Flanders,
DMN's Belgian section), **Ettein = Etienne** (Belgian section), **Vilmain =
Vilmorin**, and — a corruption internal to Santerre's own list — **Danderet =
Doderet**, one man printed twice. Each merge gives the anchor colonist an
independent 1906 attestation it previously lacked and drops the registry's phantom
headcount from 176 to 169. A related bride-name match: DMN's **"Miss J. Graiset"**
(m. A. Lanotte in the colony) is very likely a daughter of Santerre's
Grisset/Cirsset household (Pierre Grisset, Josephine Cirsset), not the unattested
surname the earlier note claimed. Five other roster garbles remain genuinely
ambiguous and are left flagged, not merged, because each has more than one
candidate anchor or the paper lists the anchor separately: Goudsill (Philip vs
John Goetsels), Poidevin (Portevin vs Toidevin), Boulet (DMN lists Boulay too;
Boyer's "Dominique Boulet"), Bosseveau (vs Adele Bossereau, both DMN), and Lasagne
(weak match to Lavinge). (DMN 1906 roster, `src/colonists/lists/dmn1906`; Santerre
list, `src/colonists/lists/santerre`; registry `src/colonists/registry.py`.)

**The "conflicting" headcounts are one arrival curve, not a contradiction.** The
population figures that sit UNRESOLVED across the timeline — ~24 (Apr 1), 51 (May
16), ~130 (Aug), "never 300" — are not witnesses disagreeing; they are the same
cumulative-arrivals total sampled at different dates. A five-group colony-arrival
ledger (advance/early via the Uriel + Lexington; Cousin/Wolski 05.03;
Considérant 06.15; Savardan/Nuremberg 07.17; Bürkli/Franziska ~07.25) reproduces
all three attested waypoints: 24 → 51 → ~128. So the numbers corroborate rather
than conflict, once ordered as inflow. (This holds only through the ~August peak,
before the departure outflow begins.) Built + validated in
`src/colonists/colonists.py` (`census(date)`); retires the headcount UNRESOLVED
tags at TIMELINE 1855.05.16 and 1855.08. (pratt 24/51; wolski + burkli + colas
~130; ship rosters `doc/colonists/ships/`.)

**"Impractical intellectuals."** 63% of foreign-born household heads in the 1860
census listed trades or skills. Only 26% of the rest of Dallas County did. The
colonists were the most skilled labor force in the county. (Sandell, census data.)

**"Failed by 1857."** The SCEAT charter ran through December 31, 1875. Considerant
acquired land personally through 1867. Cantagrel bought remaining SCEAT lands in
1875. The Remond family held colony land until 1906. (Sandell; deed records;
SCEAT statutes.)

**"Vanished from Dallas."** The 1875 city directory (Butterfield and Rundlett)
listed no colonists. The 1878 directory listed many. The colonists hadn't
appeared — the editor had changed. Bias, not absence. (Sandell.)

**"Boll refused the alderman position."** Cordillot says Boll "refusa la place
d'adjoint au Maire" (refused the deputy mayor position). Sandell says he was
named alderman by the military government in 1868 but resigned at the first
council meeting because he did not reside within the city limits. Sandell's
account is more precise — he accepted the appointment and then resigned for a
specific reason. (Cordillot, Boll bio; Sandell.)

**"Capy was an engineer."** Santerre lists Capy as an "engineer." Cordillot says
his father was an entrepreneur en batiment and Capy was trained as a
peintre-menuisier (painter-joiner). At the colony he worked as a carpenter and
building contractor. Cordillot is more precise. (Santerre list; Cordillot,
Capy bio.)

**Willemet council dates.** Sandell's biographical section says Willemet served
on the city council 1870-1875. Sandell's government chapter says he was elected
April 10, 1875 and left in 1876. Internal contradiction in a single source.
Unresolved.

**"The premature emigrants broke Considerant's plan."** *Du Texas* (1857) blames
the collapse on ~200 colonists who rushed over against his warnings and "broke my
plan in my hand" (Part One §III), and says he wished he could have "sent back
nine-tenths" (§IV). Savardan — present, and his accounts cleared — answers from
inside: the largest contingent (the *Nuremberg* group) had been **pre-approved by
Considerant himself** at Brussels, and he reports Considerant's own words fixing
the workers' wage at one-third "**expressly to force them to go away, if they do
not know how to live on it**" (*Naufrage* ch. VII). The same pattern recurs as the
refused realizations (the dam, mills, tannery, school), the anti-immigration
circular, and Roger's mission to intercept emigrants on the road (ch. VI, XII).
Santerre corroborates independently: invited to stay home by the management at the
last minute, he came anyway and was then persecuted by Cousin "to punish him for
his disobedience" (ch. XII; `[[santerre]]`). The convergence inverts the standard
story — the colonists were not a burden Considerant regretted losing but one he
engineered the loss of. (Considerant, *Du Texas* I §III–IV, II §VII; Savardan,
*Naufrage* VI–VII, XII; Santerre. See
`src/sources/considerant_savardan_correspondence.md`.)

**The "responsible-editor" pattern: how to read *Du Texas*'s grammar of
victimhood.** *Du Texas* presents Considerant as the passive casualty of forces
he could not control — "the funds *were swallowed up* before my eyes," the harm
"came, above all, from circumstances," "I have not accused persons" (Part One §I,
VI). Savardan supplies the structural reading and names its origin: from his
journalism, Considerant kept the habit of a "responsible editor" — an intermediary
"onto whom may be cast the disavowal, the blame… of the acts that turn out badly,"
while "engaging his responsibility as little as possible in case of failure"
(*Naufrage* ch. III). The pattern is then documented across four successive
figures who each absorb blame for acts directed from above: Cantagrel (the friend
of twenty years, criticized to the workers behind his back, made the "plastron…
sacrificed in advance," ch. VII, XIV); Duthoya (handed all powers two days before
the flight, ch. XIII); Bureau (sent to *preserve* the collective center, turned in
48 hours at San Antonio into its executioner, ch. XIV); and Cousin (the
"providential" agent who does the liquidation Considerant "did not dare to
accomplish himself," and whom Considerant then disowns — "M. Cousin was named by
M. Bureau and not by me," ch. XV). What makes this a finding rather than Savardan's
opinion alone: *Du Texas* itself **exhibits** the grammar the pattern predicts —
its passive voice and "circumstances, not persons" are the rhetoric of a man who
structurally externalizes blame, so Considerant's own text corroborates Savardan's
structural claim. It also reframes the standard "sincere visionary defeated by
circumstance" reading of *Du Texas*: the circumstantial framing is itself the
fifteen-year-old method, not a neutral account. (Considerant, *Du Texas* I §I, VI,
II §I; Savardan, *Naufrage* III, VII, XIII–XV. See
`src/sources/considerant_savardan_correspondence.md`, finding 3.)


**Cordillot's notices against the manifests, the tax roll and Sandell.**
Writing the thirty-one *Au Texas* notices up as colonist files
(`src/colonists/bios/`) put each against the other sources. Agreements: the
Lexington's "Rupert Nusbaumer, 42" (#242) is Cordillot's Robert Nussbaumer, the
first Swiss at the colony with his son, dead of yellow fever 26 Sept 1855 — and
Wolski's "Ruppert" among the August 1855 dead is very probably the same man, a
month early; the Nuremberg cabin party "Jean Louis Boulay, 49" is Cordillot's
Jean-Louis Boulay (b. 1806, Château-Renault, baker, ex-Brazil), a *different*
Boulay from the registry's Dominique, whom Cordillot's appendix lists separately
— so the open manifest question is not a conflict but a missing person; Sandell's
"Frances (J.F.)" is probably the appendix's François. Corrections: Cordillot's
three Franziska notices (Boll, Frick, Long) give the Bremen sailing as 12
February or 12 April 1855 and the arrival as 4–5 July — the manifest fixes the
sailing at 13 May and 4 July as the Galveston landing, not the colony. Conflicts
left open: Long re-elected mayor 1874 (Cordillot) vs Cabell defeats Long 8 Apr
1874 (Sandell); Maximilien Reverchon's arrival December 1856 (his notice) vs
spring 1856 (Julien's); his birthplace Marcigny (Cordillot) vs Lyon (Hammond);
Julien's birth 1837 (Cordillot) vs 1836 (the marker); François Loupot a Dallas
saloon-keeper (Sandell) vs back in France teaching from 1859 (Cordillot);
Goetsels of Paris (Santerre) vs Louvain (Cordillot, Sandell); Cousin's ship
bound for New Orleans (Cordillot) vs the Uriel's New York manifest; Willemet
meeting Considérant "at Brook Farm" when the 1852–53 stay was at the North
American Phalanx. Two registry corrections landed with a second source:
"Mr. Cousin" → Vincent Cousin, surveyor of Mons; "Mrs. Vigoureaux" → Clarisse
Vigoureux, Considérant's mother-in-law. (Cordillot, *Au Texas*; the four
rosters; `deeds.py` 1859 tax roll; Sandell directory; Wolski ⟨300–302⟩.)

**The 1892 officials lists against the positions register.** John Henry Brown's
year-by-year lists of Dallas city and county officers, printed in the *Memorial and
Biographical History of Dallas County* (1892, now mirrored in
`doc/text/books/1800/lewis_memorial_dallas_county_1892/`), were run against
`src/colonists/offices.py`. Settled: the **1875 Ward 1 seat is Willemet's** (the April
1875 list has F. L. Willemet and no Capy); **Long was not re-elected in 1874** (term
"November 1872 to April 1874," Cabell elected 1874 — Sandell right, Cordillot wrong);
**Long's and Thévenet's county office was District Clerk** (Spillman "superseded by
Ben Long"; "Mishel Therenet appointed District Clerk in the fall of 1868"); **J. F.
Barbier was the marshal** and no assistant marshal is listed; **Louckx sat 1885–1890**
— on every April list from 1885 to 1889, off in 1890, "three terms" by his own
sketch, resigned on leaving the ward. Confirmed silence: **no colonist on any city
list from April 1876 to 1884** — the register's post-Reconstruction thinness is real,
not an artefact of Sandell's stopping point. New from the biographies: Louckx's
first wife Mary Desmet was the daughter of Dr Henry Desmet, the colony's second
physician (Santerre's "Dr. Henri Dismet"); Jean Loupot spent the war years in
Mexico freighting cotton and his uncle went home in 1869 (Cordillot: 1859); Priot
came in 1854, two years before Rémond; Julien Reverchon married Marie Henri 24 July
1864, and both sons died of typhoid in 1884 (the marker says 1888); Dominique Boulay
was born 1826 and came in 1856 — twenty years and a year apart from Jean-Louis, so
two men beyond doubt. Conflicts opened: Boll says he was elected City and County
Treasurer in 1869 (minutes: 1871–72), sailed in February and reached Dallas July 4
(the manifest: sailed May, Galveston July 4); Capy says he came in May 1855
(Cordillot: 1856); the council's 1873 resignation is dated April 24 (Sandell: March
20–22). And a signature, checked on the page image (p. 239, kept as
`p239_memorial_signers.jpg`): the June 4, 1868 memorial for a Trinity-navigation
tax carries, among Long, Thévenet, the Bolls, Barbier, Louckx, Gouffé, the Van
Grinderbecks, Frick, Reverchon, Priot, Poitevin and Nussbaumer, an **"F. L.
Churignon"** as printed. Not "Thuvignon" letter for letter, but the same initials in
the same company, and *Churignon* is how a handwritten *Thuvignon* misreads (T/C,
v/r) — a third rendering of the real name beside Savardan's *Thuvignon* and
Sandell's *Thervignon*, and very probably Willemet signing a public document under
it. The manuscript memorial, if the county or city archives hold it, would settle
the spelling. (Brown's lists pp. 228–229, 278–284; biographies pp.
392–396, 491–492, 502–503, 613–615, 625–626, 740–741; `offices.py`; Sandell IV;
Cordillot.) The in-law biographies add a small chronological fact: **the Swiss second
wave began before Long's trip.** Henry Noetzli (b. Zurich 1831; his sister Barbara
married Heinrich Frick) came in 1867 and signed the June 1868 memorial; Rosina Getzer,
who married Jean Loupot in 1869, came in 1867 at sixteen; John Tenison, Louckx's second
father-in-law and an alderman on the 1868 slate, came in 1868. Long's party of 1871 was
the peak of a migration already running — and the 1868 memorial's Swiss signers
(Noetzli, Vogel, the Bolls, Frick, Nussbaumer) are the East Dallas community two years
before the trip that is credited with founding it. (Lewis 1892, Noetzli, Loupot and
Louckx sketches; Sandell ch. V.)

**Sandell's directory against the registry.** The thesis's alphabetical directory of
Dallas-stayers (heads of household documented in the county from the 1860 census
on) went through `crosscheck.py`: 61 of its 81 entries are people already in the
registry — a Dallas-side witness now stands on a third of it — and 20 are on no other
list, now added: John F. Barbier (the 1868 city marshal, absent from every French
list including Cordillot's appendix), Henry Boll Sr., François Boulay, Caperon, M.
Christian, Louis Coleman, François Colm, Émile De Lord, Otto Frick, Lucine Goetsels,
F. T. Heymans, Gustave Hitten, Alexandre Lanotte, Ant. McDelore, "Raymond", Louis
Reinhardt, Joseph Royer, Joel Roza, John Wealms, Susan Witt. Two identifications
across the lists: Sandell's "Goetseed, Lucine — farmer/merchant" is Cordillot's Mme
Goetsels Lucine, John Goetsels's wife, heading a household in her own right by 1860
(so he had died by then — Cordillot says only "after his death the family moved to
Dallas"); and eleven of the twenty new names sit in Cordillot's appendix under their
French spellings (Christian, Coleman, Colm, Heymens, Hetten, Lanotte, McDelore, Royer,
Wealms), which is the appendix's first cross-check. Kept as flagged: Sandell's
"Brochier (Birqui, Burkli)" attested to Bürkli, whose career it describes; "Hershel"
Frichot to Achille; "Vorin" to Voirin. The registry stands at 191. (Sandell
directory, `src/colonists/lists/sandell`; Cordillot appendix; Boll 1892 sketch.)

**Cordillot's appendix against the registry.** The 248 names of the *Au Texas*
closing list ("autres membres de la colonie recensés à ce jour") went through
`crosscheck.py`: 123 attest people already registered, 119 are new rows, and the
registry stands at 310 (`src/colonists/lists/cordillot_appendix`). What the pour
shows: the appendix is the French-side census of the colony, and it carries what no
Dallas-side list does — the **wives and children by name** (Zoë Bureau née Rey,
Joséphine Cantagrel née Conrad, Julie Considérant, the Henri women of the cemetery,
Marie Santerre née Launey, Barbara Knöpfli née Steinman, Eugénie Vieschondere who
married Ben Long), the **company men** (Simonin the accountant, Dr Roger, Sauzeau
of the Mutuelle, the Colas brothers, Gouhenant's son) and a run of **Americans at
the colony** (Allen, Ferguson, McKinney, Pendleton, Renshaw, Scott, Smith, Wade)
whom the French sources otherwise never name. It also confirms two manifest
readings — Catherine Bossereau (Nuremberg #254) is "Miss Bosseveau"; Anne Poitevin
née Dusseau (#264) is a person, not a garble of Poidevin — and sets up the
Rupert/Vézian pair: Cordillot lists both a RUPERT and a VAIZIAN (ou VÉZIAN), the
two names Wolski gives for the dead of August 1855, so Wolski's "Ruppert" is a
Rupert, not a mishearing, and Robert Nussbaumer's identity with him rests on the
Lexington's "Rupert Nusbaumer" alone. Where Cordillot copies Santerre's garbles
(MIGOUREAUX beside Mme CONSIDERANT née VIGOUREUX; TUILLOT for Guillot) the
appendix is not an independent witness. Kept as rows, not merged: a dozen near-
duplicate surname clusters the pour exposed (roadmap). (Cordillot appendix; the
rosters; Sandell; Boll's and Noetzli's 1892 sketches.)

**The 1860 census, county-wide, against the registry.** The Dallas Genealogical
Society's 1969 "Old French Colony" list (`src/population/dgs_1969_old_french_colony.md`)
gives family numbers for every colonist household the Society found in the schedule;
run against the roll, it located them all, and the enlarged registry linked 68 census
lines to 66 people (`1860_reunion_colonist_links.csv`; 21 before). What the pages
say that no list did: (1) **Lucine Goetsels, "farmer & merchant," $21,680 real and
$16,540 personal** — the largest colonist estate in the county by a factor of ten,
a widow heading eight in the New Leuven precinct (Precinct 9, its own post office),
with Philippe, 21, and six children; Goetsels père was dead by June 1860. (2) **The
carpenters boarded at Sarah Cockrell's.** Capy, Christian, Vandenbosch, Grisot and
Haize, all "carpenter" or "master carpenter," are lines in the household of "Sarah H.
Cockrell, 34, hotel keeper, $78,500" on 26 September 1860 — two months after the
fire, the colony's builders were lodging with the woman who sold the colonists
their town lots. (3) **The Frichot household**: D. Frichot, 40, brick mason, with
**Suzanne, 42, born Switzerland** — Cordillot's Mme Frichot Suzanne née Boll, so the
astronomer-jeweller married Henri Boll's sister — an infant Laura, Pierre, 44, and
**Herschel, 21, brick mason**: Sandell's "Hershel" is a real person, Pierre's son,
and probably the registry's Achille under an American name. (4) **Ferdinand Michel,
43, brick mason, Belgium** — Santerre right, Sandell wrong — with Salomé from Baden.
(5) Family 750 "Victor Cristin, carpenter" with George, 4, Texas, and Émile, 2, is
**Athanase Crétien's household** (the DGS list's "Gratin"); the draft's
"J. N. Harley, 57" with Louis, 14, is **Jean-Louis Boulay and the son** of the
Nuremberg cabin; "Pascal Roger, 47, miller" in the Combs mill household is
**Joseph Royer**, not Dr Roger; "Ant. McClure, 52" is **Ant. McDelore**. (6) A third
Boulay: René Pimpare's household in the New Leuven precinct holds **François
Boulay, 67, farm labourer**, Dominique, 34, and Adolphine, 1 — the DGS list made
François, misread as 37, the head. (7) **Bourgeois farmed in the Lancaster precinct**
with **Louisa, 41, born Massachusetts** — an American wife, which is why the couple
"spoke English on arrival"; Brunette was a labourer in a Lancaster doctor's
household; Poitevin farmed at Cedar Hill with Anne née Dusseau; Pierre Dusseau, 60,
gardener, lived with his daughter Louisa and son-in-law Sam S. Jones in town (the
registry's Henriette Dusseau — the census says Louisa). (8) Adia Henri, 5, "born at
sea": the Henris crossed in 1855 with a newborn. Corrections to the draft's own
labels: the Palace Hill pages are Precinct 2 throughout, enumerated 23–24 August,
not 27–31. Not yet found: Farine and Thévenet (the DGS gave no family numbers) and
"George Reinhardt 1234" (family 1234 is Dr Pryor's). (DGS 1969; M653-1292 frames
89–102, 120, 214, 233, 246, 250; Cordillot; Sandell; the 1892 sketches.)

**The family trees against the records.** The Santerre and Reverchon–Henri GEDCOMs'
dated events, 1854–1925, now sit in the timeline's life-events layer
(`src/ged/events.py`), flagged as tree assertions. First reading against the records:
the tree has **Marie Florence "Asia" Henry born 13 February 1855 aboard the "Asia
steamship" en route from France** — the 1860 census's "Adia, 5, born at sea" in Paul
Henri's household, so the Henris crossed in February 1855 on a steamer called *Asia*
(Cordillot: Henri met Considérant at New York early in 1855), not on any of the four
rosters. The tree's marriage of Émile Rémond and Césarine Santerre, 28 July 1865 "at
La Réunion," agrees with Cordillot's "after the war"; its Reverchon dates match the
1892 sketch (the sons' deaths June and December 1884 — so the cemetery marker's 1888
is the odd one out); Adélaïde Henri née Dehogues dies 26 August 1858 in Dallas County
as the cemetery says. Tree errors to carry as flags: François Santerre and Marie
Launay "married 1837, La Réunion, Texas" (Cordillot: a free union in France, married
later); Jacques Maximilien Reverchon "born about 1811" (Cordillot and the 1892 sketch:
16 November 1810). (src/ged/; census 1860; Cordillot; Lewis 1892; Santerre XIII.)

**The Dallas Morning News read as a source, 1891–2020.** The 24 clippings in
`doc/text/newspaper/frenchtown/` are now captioned in the timeline's reception layer.
What they add to the record: (1) **the second Swiss wave is dated** — Emil Fretz, one of
the party, arrived "Dec. 3, 1870 … twenty-seven of us," recruited by Long's summer 1870
visit; Sandell's 1871 and "35" are wrong, and Long was back within eight months of
resigning. (2) **The cement company was on the land in 1900**: the Texas Portland Cement
Co. advertised for a well four miles from the city in April and took two Laughlin tracts
and an 80-acre Coombs tract from G. C. Fuqua in July — a year before the spine's 1901
organization. (3) **Jesse Calloway lived in Considérant's house** in July 1900 (Reaugh's
"French Town Trip": the President's house his residence, the store his barn), and the
Sharpes of the 1882 deed had settled "in the dying colony" in 1871 (Foree, 1949) — the
two ends of the Iola/Calloway assembly, both dated. (4) A **survivor roster of 1903**
(thirteen names, now attested in the registry as `dmn1903`; Adolph Frick, Charles Louckx
and a Mrs Van Grinderbeck were on no list). (5) **Rémond helped build Cockrell's hotel**
before it burned in July 1860 (Gillespie, 1905), and **Remond Drive is Judge Nash's
doing** (letter, 10 Oct 1907). (6) The **myth's parts, dated**: "an experiment in
corporate colonization" and the survivors' own account in 1903; "not more than a dozen
of the 500 were farmers … long on doctors" and "the Swiss seceded to Moon's Lake" first
in the 1910 anniversary piece; "a dozen farmers among 230" repeated over Emanuel
Santerre's head in 1938; and Tolbert's 1962 column assembling all of it — 300 colonists,
a dozen farmers, florists, wooden shoes, "the worst land in the county," Cantagrel
fleeing the war — from a Timken publicity inquiry. The 1903 piece, written when the
colonists were alive to be asked, is the sober one. Conflicts opened: Emanuel Santerre
names "Leon DeLord and his son Alphonse" as builders of the last stone house where
Sandell has Emile De Lord; the 1904 sketch has Rémond arriving 1854 and enlisting 1861
(1856, 1863). (`doc/text/newspaper/frenchtown/`; TIMELINE reception layer.)

**Wolski's cast against the registry.** The project's best eyewitness had no row
until Aug 2026; he came from New York, not Europe, so no roster holds him. Read for
names, his chapters attest fifteen registered people and describe four of them as no
list does: **Bussy is "the ex-subprefect of Avranches"** — which makes the Nuremberg
cabin's "Bussy, Charles François Bernard, 53" a retired official, the right age and
class, and all but closes that open manifest candidate; **Vézian "the ex-lieutenant
from Algiers, a young man of only 25,"** dead in August 1855; **Maget a tailor "who had
already left Icaria,"** the malcontents' leader; and **Ruppert "Swiss by birth but long
resident in Paris"** — a description that fits Robert Nussbaumer of Solothurn, a member
of *La Démocratie pacifique*'s committee in Paris, better than any other Swiss on the
list, and so re-strengthens the Ruppert = Rupert Nusbaumer identification the Cordillot
appendix had loosened. One new row: **Leguay, "a considerable shareholder from
Belgium,"** who arrived 1 November 1855 and took his 10,000 francs back in land and
livestock under article 48 — the first reimbursement in kind, six months in. (Wolski
⟨300–305⟩; `src/sources/wolski`; Nuremberg roster.)

## Open questions

**Manifest candidates the registry cannot yet settle.** Nuremberg cabin #4–6
"Jean Louis Boulay, 49, fermier" is now identified (Cordillot's Jean-Louis, not
the registry's Dominique — see above) and wants a registry entry; cabin #2 "Jean Nicolas, 56,
Pasteur[?]" against "Dr. Nicholas, physician"; cabin #1 "Bussy, Charles François
Bernard, 53" against the surname-only "Mr. Bussey". Nuremberg #254 Catherine
Bossereau (Abel's sister, weaver) is the likely "Miss Bosseveau" who married
Abel Doelly; #264 Anna Poitevin née Dusseau may be the "Mr. Poidevin" entry;
#282 "Cushil[?] Jules" may be Jules Cillard. Franziska #75 "Schärer, Johann,
Switzerland" against the registry's "Mr. Scherer, Belgium". Uriel #194 "P. L.
Michel, 40, gardener, Louvain, remark Texas" against Ferdinand Michel, lime
manufacturer, Belgium. Each is a forename or origin conflict between a manifest
and a derived list; none is recorded as an attestation until a third source
decides it. Four matcher hits were rejected as artefacts of surname-only or
given-name-only rows (Uriel #197 "Louis" → Louis Louis; Uriel #173 "Barb" →
Baer; Lexington #224 Pott → Priot; #241 Barbet → Brunet).

**Confederate service among colonists.** Remond volunteered in 1863 and fought
hard (flag-bearer, wounded, captured, escaped twice). Louckx served two years in
the Confederate army. Other colonists (Cretien) claimed French citizenship to
avoid service. Long and the Barbiers were pro-Union. The colonists were not
politically monolithic. The accounting from the repo sources (Aug 2026, the site's
war page): six named in Confederate units (Remond, Achille Frichot, Boll, Louckx,
the two Knapflis), three in the war's workshops (Henri, Priot; Guillot was never a
colonist), one documented exemption (Crétien), 25 petitioners of 1862 whose names
are not held here; the Unionist evidence for Long and Gouffé is the 1865–68
petition and the 1868 slate, not a wartime record. The NPS Soldiers and Sailors
index (NARA M227/M393), run for all 202 registry surnames with a Texas filter
(28 Aug 2026, recorded in `offices.py` as `nps`): confirms Remond ("Reimond,
Emile", Co. B 19th Cav., ensign), Achille Frichot (Co. B, corporal) and Louckx
(Co. F Waller's, private); has no Boll, no Jacob or William Knapfli, no Henri, no
Guillot — the commissary, pistol-works and wagon-shop men were civilian hire;
adds Pierre-Philippe and Christophe-Désiré Frichot (Co. H, 3rd Texas Infantry
State Troops, 1863–64), Louis Reinhardt (Good's Dallas Light Artillery, state
troops), Charles and Alfred Voirin (Co. B) and Julius Royer (Co. C) in Darnell's
18th Texas Cavalry — the regiment that seized the colony's guns; Royer's card
corroborates his 1898 obituary (drummer with Walker's division at Mansfield);
and two conscription cards (Henry Knopfli, "P. Priot"). On the Union side two
unplaced candidates: Jean Santerre (Co. B, 1st Texas Cavalry U.S.) and Paul
Girard (1st then 2nd Texas Cavalry U.S.). Still open: the M323 jackets (Remond's
transfer to Pratt's battery and his capture; the state-troops musters), the
petition's signatures and its date (16 May in Sandell's text, 16 March in her
footnote), who signed the Crétien certificate, and who Jean Santerre and Paul
Girard were — not François's sons (1860 household, tree) and absent from the
Louisiana and Texas newspapers in Chronicling America; their M402 jackets
(sign-in sources) are the next step.

**How much money did the SCEAT actually invest?** Now bracketed, not settled (see
the subscription finding under Connections, and the capital ledger in
`src/essays/corporate_structure.md`): subscriptions ran $130k–$200k of the $1M
authorized. Still open: the precise subscription total (the *Bulletin*'s
subscription lists would settle Pratt-vs-Verlet), the founding land-purchase
prices (the 1855 deeds in `deeds.py` carry no consideration amounts — check the
deed transcriptions/scans), and the portion physically remitted to Texas as
against spent in Europe on ships and stores.

**East Dallas annexation and population.** The 1890 annexation of East Dallas
made Dallas the most populous city in Texas. How much of East Dallas's population
was directly attributable to the Swiss colonist community and Long's 1870 wave?

**Griffin survey acreage and the missing Reed survey.** Sandell's list of
Cantagrel purchases says 320 acres in the TV Griffin survey and 160 acres in the
JC Reed survey (total: 2,080 acres). The structured data in transactions.py says
640 acres for Griffin and omits Reed entirely (total: 2,240 acres). The Griffin
patent was 320 acres. reunion.py has a commented-out Reed reference (N/481),
suggesting the deed was found but not entered. Which figure is correct for
Griffin, and what does the Reed deed say? Resolving this would establish the
exact original colony footprint.