a thesis by Flora Jane Satt - Shealtiel

The Cotopaxi ColonyFlora Jane SattAnnotation & appendicesMiles Saltiel

ContentsPart I, The Place 1Annotations 1Biography of Emanuel Saltiel 5Imported Labour from Europe 7Part 2, The People 8Government land 8Agricultural inexperience 10Ekaterinaslav (now Dnieperpetrovsk) 10Free land 13Working capital 13Moneys from HEAS 14Indebtedness 14Cattle, horses, wagons and feed 15HEAS or HIAS 16Schwarz 1: The report of 23 October 1882 17The winter in New York 17Depleted resources 18Part 3, The Events 18Quarter sections 19Deficiencies 19Schwarz 2: “Saltiel’s partner” 19Self-defence—1: neighbours’ cattle 20Saltiel’s conduct 20Kitchen gossip 20On foot 21Credit from the store 21Schwarz 3: “Avenue of communications” 21Spring sowing 22No animals to feed 22Schwarz 4: “Saltiel’s lawyer” 23The crisis 24Self-defence—2: bears 24European guns 24Rebates 25Lost money 25Self-defence—3: begging tribesmen 25Wages and scrip 25The sequence of events 26The cost of keep 26Three prominent men from Denver 26“Unasavory personal reputation” 27HEAS’ report on the colonists 27HEAS’ settlement with the colonists 28Smoke and mirrors 28Part 4, Conclusions 31Why Cotopaxi failed 32Appendix One—A note on sources 35Appendix Two—Timeline 41Appendix Three—Summary of allegations 43

Publication dataThe Cotopaxi Colony,Unpublished M.A. thesis by Flora Jane Satt,University of Colorado, 1950Available at http://cotopaxi.250x.com/index.htmAll rights acknowledged.Annotations and appendices by Miles Saltiel August 2005.Revised to incorporated references to Report of Julius Schwarz to HEAS, Oct 1882,and correspondence between Kohn/Wirkowski and Henry, Jan/Feb 1883 , September 2005Revised to incorporated references to monographs by Osofsky and Geffen December 2005

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielPart I, The PlaceCotopaxi, a small, unincorporated village on the banks of the ArkansasRiver, has been the scene of an unusual chapter in Coloradohistory. This oddly-named town, today just a “whistle-stop”on the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, thirty-threemiles west of Cañon City in Fremont County, is mentioned inmany encyclopedias and books on American agricultural colonies.Environmental factors are always important in analyzing an historicalepisode, but particularly in the case of the colony foundedhere because its failure has been attributed solely to these factors.The naming, founding and description of its physical features arenecessary for an appreciation of Cotopaxi’s role in this history.The man responsible for the strange name was Henry Thomas,known to contemporaries as “Gold Tom”. He was an itinerantprospector who left the Central City gold camp in 1867, andcrossed the Divide to investigate the Upper Arkansas Valleyaround California Gulch. There he conceived the idea that some ofthe heavier gold might have washed downstream so he continuedsouth along the river, reaching the forks near the present site ofSalida about 1870. At the same time, the Denver and Rio GrandeRailroad began its survey of a proposed transcontinental routethrough the Arkansas Valley By October 31, 1872 track had beenlaid as far west on this route as Labran, seven miles east of CañonCity , and Henry Thomas had taken a job with the railroad to augmenthis meager prospecting income. His duties included procuringtimber for ties and this meant he had to scout not only the regionthen being graded but neighboring valleys and mountains.Particularly struck by one of these valleys as closely resembling anarea he had once prospected in northern Ecuador, he named theColorado counterpart after the dominant Andean geographic feature,a volcano called “Cotopaxi”. At the juncture of the smalltributary streams which flow into the Arkansas River at Cotopaxi,Colorado, looking westward through the narrow canyon of theAnnotationsI have recently learned that Flora JaneSatt (Satt hereinafter) survives, but Ihave been unable to make direct contactwith her. I hereby acknowledge her rightsas the author of the original material andapologise to her for editing it without herpermission. Needless to say, she has noresponsibility for my work. I have left hertext but removed her notes, which goprincipally to sources, to make room formy comments. I have also providedappendices as follows:1.Notes on sources2.Timeline3. Summary of allegationsMy commentary relies on a close readingof Satt in combination with othersources. These particularly include apreviously overlooked contemporaneousreport by Julius Schwarz, the agent of theHebrew Emigrant Aid Society, thepromoters of the colony and its selfstyledGeneral Manager.To summarise my understanding, theCotopaxi settlement was promoted amida climate of euphoria about the prospectsfor settling the high plains and the scopefor Jewish participation in agriculture.Like every other Jewish agriculturalcolony in the U.S., it was doomed tofailure. In this case, the settlement wasunderfinanced and the colonists had littlebackground in farming and none in thesocial, legal or geographical conditions ofthe high plains, which combined tothwart them.The would-be pioneers were no helplessvictims; some were former proprietorsand business-people. They had lost mostof their resources in the politicalturbulence of Tsarist Russia and thebalance over a winter of inactivity in NewYork City. They turned up in Cotopaxidestitute, after changing their plans fromstock-raising to agriculture—unsuited forthe locality. On arrival they contrived tolose an ox-team on the way to theirfarmsteads, then giving up good land andwater rights to prior settlers, crops toroaming cattle, and winter supplies tobears and tribesmen. They sowed cropsthree months into a four-month growingseason and survived on credit estimatedat between $1,545 and $8,000 togetherwith wages from the Denver and RioGrande Railroad, where Schwarz hadarranged work for them.Within half a year or so of their arrivalthey were in touch with a Denverattorney and campaigning against Saltielin the Denver press and directly to HEAS.This was either for more credit, orforgiveness of their obligations to Saltielor to HEAS, or for the grubstake theyobtained once it became clear that thecolony was not viable. This created atradition of demonisation which persiststo this day, principally driven by Satt’saccount.Please note: All page referencesto Satt are to this document.1

The Cotopaxi Colonyriver, one can see a conical-shaped peak, part of the Sangre deCristo Range, framed by the steep walls of the canyon, Old residentsof the area who knew Henry (Gold Tom) Thomas say that itis this unusual view which recalled to his mind the Andean volcanoand caused him to call the little valley by the odd-soundingSpanish name. In 1873 he built a cabin there as a base for his prospectingin the surrounding hills. In 1874 he had filed several miningclaims at Cañon City and is credited with the discovery of theCotopaxi Lode, one of the richest deposits of silver with zinc inFremont County.The small streams mentioned above are ephemeral, becomingquite dry in summer and fall, although they have been destructiveduring the spring flood stage. The northern one is known as BernardCreek and the southern one, which flows out of the tip of(the) Wet Mountain valley, is called Oak Grove Creek. They jointhe Arkansas where a bend in the latter’s course widens the valleyfloor to about one mile in width. This confluence of streams hascut an oval-shaped, flat-floored valley almost completely encircledby steep, rocky cliffs. So narrow is the canyon cut by the Arkansasimmediately beyond Cotopaxi that the Denver and Rio Grandetracks run along a man-made ledge cut out of the rock walls. Thetown itself lies at an elevation of 6,718 feet above sea level, whilethe elevation of the transecting valleys rises in a steep gradient to8,000 feet within four miles.There are several such valleys along the Arkansas River betweenCañon City and Salida and these were first utilized by the Denverand Rio Grande Railroad as sites for warehouses and for water,wood and coal storage. Henry (Gold Tom) Thomas built a shed tohouse his ties at Cotopaxi in 1874. It was not until late in 1878 thatsome of these storage sites became depots, post offices and townsites,due to the four-year delay caused by the famous “RoyalGorge War”. Bitter legal battles in the courts and violent physicalstruggles along the right-of-way itself between the Denver and Rio2

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielGrande and the Santa Fe railroads divided the people of the regioninto warring camps. This controversy was held responsible for theretarded economic development of western Fremont County.Mineral resources did not attract population to Fremont County,at least in a manner experienced by other counties. It never becamea center of refining or smelting as did Pueblo County, althoughearly in the 1880’s Cañon City was vying with Pueblo forthe title of “Pittsburgh of the West”. The best source of gold andsilver was in the southern half of the county, which was separatedfor the northern half in April of 1877. This new section was namedCuster County and as the scene several years later of several spectacularmining booms.The only comparable gold and silver mines in Fremont Countywere the Gem and the Cotopaxi Lodes but considerable deposits ofcoal, oil and iron were found and developed elsewhere in thecounty. Also, unusual metals such as nickel, molybdenum andpure zincblende were mined. In general, mining laws in FremontCount conformed to those and were patterned after the laws ofother Colorado mining counties, except where coal and oil developmentrequired different provisions.There was no placer gold to attract large “rushes” of “Panners” and“Fly-by-nighters” as in Clear Creek or Gilpin Counties. No one exceptCarl Wulsten prospected for silver in Fremont County before1872. When silver was discovered in large quantities in the region,it proved to be vary difficult to mine (with the exception of thehorn silver at Silver Cliff), requiring skilled labor, considerablecapital investment, as well as metallurgical experience to handlethe ore in reduction works. The coal and oil deposits were mostlyaccidental discoveries, made while surveying for farms or diggingartesian wells or irrigation ditches.Despite the altitude and aridity of the Fremont County section ofthe Arkansas Valley, it was early considered to be favorable for ag-3

The Cotopaxi Colonyriculture. The arable valleys were settled early in Colorado Territory’shistory and the abundance of water was looked upon as adecided advantage over the lower, but drier, sections downstream.Nevertheless, these other regions soon surpassed Fremont Countyin agricultural production. Historians have offered many reasonsfor this situation. Hubert Howe Bancroft cited the delay in railconnection caused by the “Royal Gorge War” as the main deterrent.Alvin Steinel, professor at Colorado Agricultural College,pointed to the engineering difficulties of getting the water, admittedlymost abundant, up on the plateaus where it was needed.These difficulties prevented cultivation. B.F. Rockafellow, an earlysettler in the county, remarks on the lack of mills and other processingfacilities as the cause of Fremont Count’s slow development.During the 1860’s corn and wheat were planted in FremontCounty, but weather and soil conditions were found to be unfavorableto them. Then fruit-raising, particularly apples and pears, wasattempted and soon supplanted all else in the region. The pioneerin horticulture was Jesse Frazer, known throughout the UnitedStates as the developer of the “Colorado orange apple”.However, it was not until later that fruit-raising was recognized asthe proper agricultural pursuit for Fremont County, after group attemptsin the early 1870’s with grain crops had failed. Thesegroups had felt that the collective method of the “agricultural colony”would aid them in solving those larger problems of irrigationand finance that the individual farmer could not surmount. Thefirst of these was the German Colony at Colfax in [the] Wet MountainValley. The second was the Mormon Colony which locatednear Ula in 1871. Then a group of English people settled nearWestcliffe in 1872. Some ten years later still another agriculturalcolony was established in Fremont County, the Russian Jewishone, which came to the Cotopaxi area and farmed lands along OakGrove and Bernard Creeks controlled by Emanuel H. Saltiel.4

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielSaltiel was a Portuguese Jew from New York City who had come toColorado in 1867. By 1876 the Cotopaxi area had begun to attract afew settlers and many mining prospectors. Several shafts had beenopened and sluices put in operation at the site of Gold Tom’s firststrikes. Saltiel became interested in the Cotopaxi Lode, particularlywhen he learned that the discoverer, Henry Thomas, did nothave the capital or experience to work it. Saltiels’s business andpolitical contacts in Denver were well-know in Fremont Countyand his influence with officials of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroadwas sufficient to have that company designate his newlyacquiredproperty around Cotopaxi as a major stop on their run toSouth Arkansas (Salida), build there a large depot and call the stop“Saltiels”.Saltiel had filed on 2,000 acres of Government land and made tokenpayments at the county clerk’s office in Cañon City by 1878.This acreage was a long, narrow strip running north and southOak Grove Creek and Bernard Creek. Within his “property”, whichhe defined as a “town and land company” development, SaltielBiography of Emanuel SaltielSaltiel was not Portuguese but aSephardic Jew from England, born on16th October, 1844 (or 1845, documentsdiffer) at 30 James Street, Bath, a spatown in the west of the country. He wasnamed after his maternal grandfather,Emanuel Harris. His father’s occupationis given as shoemaker. He served as an“Officer of Cadets” in the Tenth TowerHamlets Riflemen. He then emigrated toNew Orleans and in the Civil Warmustered to the Confederacy. InSeptember 1864 he was a Lieutenant,acting as an aide de campe when he wastaken prisoner when Atlanta was taken bySherman’s army. In prison camp, heassumed the identity of Joseph Isaacs toescape an outbreak of retaliatoryexecutions of Confederate officers and heenlisted under that name to serve as aprivate in the US Army on the westernfrontier. In boot camp he was promptlymade up to Sergeant.In May 1866 he was discharged from thearmy in Fort Laramie, Wyoming, afterbeing found guilty of “disloyalty” at akangaroo court martial. The recordimmediately following is confusing as theNew York Tribune announcement of hismarriage dated 23 rd November 1866 giveshis address as West 77 th Street, New YorkCity, though we know that at this time hewas writing for the local paper in Denver.In 1867 he joined with George Barnett topublish the Denver Daily Times, whichfolded after a few months. He and Barnettthen took their printing equipment to theWyoming territory where in February1868 they published the History andBusiness Directory of Cheyenne andGuide to the Mining Regions of the RockyMountains. The record shows that hespent the next fifteen years between theRocky Mountains and New York City.From 1870 to 1872 he is listed as aresident variously of 270 West 38 th Street,and 544 Broadway, both in New YorkCity. He reported the occupation of editorand (from a business address at 37 ParkAvenue) patent agent.At more or less this time, his nameappears in the record of the RockyMountain region as founder of the SaltielMica and Porcelain Company. Later in lifehe was the proprietor of the CotopaxiPlacer Mining Co. and the Colorado ZincCo. From 1883 to 1885, he was once againlisted as a resident of New York City witha home on Madison Avenue at East 126 thStreet and an establishment where helisted himself as a civil engineer at 50Exchange Street in the financial district.Also at this time, he brought his brother,Woolf, and his sister-in-law to be,Adelaide Ginsburg, to the United States.5They are the forbears inter alia of BobSaltiel of Lafayette, California and hisfamily. Woolf and Adelaide lived at 152Orchard Street. Saltiel married threetimes: first in 1866 to Elisabeth Woolf, hispre-war sweetheart from New Orleans.He and Elisabeth had three children, theforbears inter alia of the Tenants ofIndiana, Dewey Exxon of Vista,California, and Staff Sergeant WilliamSalter of Hermiston Oregon, currentlyserving his second tour of duty in Iraq.Saltiel and Elisabeth divorced circa 1881,Elisabeth turning up in New York the yearafter Saltiel left, that is 1886. On 14thFebruary 1883, he married FannyShelvelson. This mésalliance ended indivorce a year later, whereupon hemarried Annie Phelan who survived him.He had no children by his second or thirdmarriages.Saltiel ended his days in January 1900 atthe abandoned township of Seminoe,twenty miles north-east of Rawlins,Wyoming, where he had been promotingan integrated coal and iron works.Although his grave in Rawlins isunmarked, the record of his burialdenominates him as a Jew.As an addendum, this note serves also tocorrect Ida Libert Uchill’s erroneousidentification of Saltiel as South African.(Uchill, Op. cit., p175 in original).

The Cotopaxi Colonyalso filed at least seven separate mining claims. These claims werequite clear and indisputable, for shortly after registering them atthe County Clerk’s office in Cañon City , he had his workers constructshafts and tunnels and other improvements on the vein outcropsand had spent well over the minimum of $500 required bythe Law of 1872, thus acquiring a clear patent to the mineral landsthereon. These seven claims, all located within the broaderboundaries of his proposed town-site, were along the streams, usingtheir scant water for sluicing and other mining operations.The appellation “Cotopaxi” clung to the area despite the honor bestowedon its leading citizen by the railroad when it built the depotand warehouses and named the stop “Saltiels”. By 1879 eight permanentbuildings had been constructed and more were in the offing.Several large residences were built. Elaborate plans for a plazaor public park were drawn up and commerce got under way with ahotel, blacksmith shop, general store and a saw-mill. Efforts to establisha saloon and gambling hall were thwarted by the virtuoustownspeople, but a meeting house which served as school andchurch were built that year. At the same time, the government establisheda post office in the town, but changed the name back toCotopaxi. By 1880 the town ranked sixth in population in FremontCounty. Saltiel had his assay office, mine and milling headquartersin a small building adjacent to the hotel which he owned in connectionwith one of his partners, A. S. Hart.Saltiel was generally credited with the discovery and exploitationof most of the important mineral veins in the region, particularlythe famous Cotopaxi Lode and the Enterprise Mine. But sinceHenry (Gold Tom) Thomas had been prospecting the area since1873 and had filed mining claims thereon with the County Clerk in1874, there seems to be sound basis for a claim controversy. It isrecorded that Saltiel bought out Thomas’ rights for insignificantamounts, in relation to what was taken out. However, there waslittle alternative for the independent, small-time miner, owing to6

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielthe nature of the ores involved, all of which required much capitalequipment and complicated processes to refine. Saltiel’s experiencebusiness connections and vast wealth put him in a superiorposition in this respect.However he soon ran into other difficulties. With the discovery ofmuch richer lodes in southern Fremont County (Custer Countynow) labor supply became practically nonexistent in the Cotopaxiarea. Saltiel had always been reluctant to pay adequate wages, inrelation to neighboring mine owners. “Help-wanted ads” beganappearing in the Denver and eastern papers, but even his eloquencethere could not buck the competition of the simultaneousstrikes in Leadville, Rosita, and Western Slope camps. In addition,those who did not care for a miner’s life could take jobs with therailroads which were then also expanding at a prodigious rate.Saltiel’s ingenious solution to this seemingly insurmountableproblem was to import his own labor supply from Europe.Imported labour from EuropeThis is of the essence of the “fraud” claimbut on scrutiny turns out to straincredulity. Satt argues (here, p25, and p33)that Saltiel always intended the colony tofail so that the pioneers would be obligedto work his mine. The record confirmsthat the region suffered from a labourshortage at the time, with miners drawnto richer lodes to the south. But sointricate a scheme is far-fetched, arguingfor a degree of long-term planning hard tocredit given the unpredictability inherentin frontier conditions; and for a degree ofpatience implausible on the part ofemployers said to be crying out forlabour.The notion that Saltiel sought to engineera pool of captive labour unravels on aclose examination of the very accountsintended to support it. Roberts (op citp127-8) writes, “A few of the men wereable to obtain temporary employmentfrom the Saltiel mine”. This meagre takeupof the labour represented by thecolonists is inconsistent with a labourshortage so acute as to call for theprolonged timescale (see Appendix 2—Timeline) or Byzantine complexities ofSaltiel’s alleged plot. Nor is there anyevidence of compulsion. Tom Young,Cotopaxi’s historian, has confirmed thatthe colonists were free to work elsewhereand the record confirms that they did so,at neighbouring mines and on therailroad.A formerly overlooked contemporaneoussource demolishes the “sweated labour”thesis once and for all. In a documentdated October 1882, the self-styledGeneral Manager of the colony, JuliusSchwarz, (whom Satt characterises asSaltiel’s partner) wrote that he hadarranged work at $2.00 per day from theDenver and Rio Grande Railroad for asmany colonists as wanted it(p13).Schwarz also records withoutembarrassment that the colonists hadalready worked in a mine, presumablySaltiel’s (also p13). This is at odds withthe narrative offered by Satt. She statesthat it was Saltiel’s hard–heartednesswhich obliged the settlers to accept workin his mine in the “the winter months”and that they then moved to the railroad.(Satt, p25). In sum, with scant evidence ofa pressing labour shortage at Saltiel’smine and the reverse of any evidence ofcoercion, we may recognise the “sweatedlabour” thesis as a fallacy. SeeAppendix 1—A note on Sources andAppendix 3—Allegations.The material in the sidebar, Schwarz’report on p17 strongly supports my longstandingsurmise—whatever the howls ofoutrage from those who grew up on thetradition of Saltiel’s villainy—that heplanned an act of high-profilebenefaction.It is far more of a piece with the traditionsof Jewish business conduct that aprosperous entrepreneur at the heart ofthe local Jewish community should seekprestige from public works than that heshould court public obloquy by abusinghis coreligionists above a townshipformerly bearing his name. On this view,the collapse should be seen as the reverseof Saltiel’s intentions. After all, it affordedhim no profit; embarrassed him with hisneighbours in Cotopaxi and Denver;made for complications with HEAShowever amicably resolved; and has givenhim a reputation for villainy unchallengeduntil the new evidence thrown up by theShealtiel: A Famly Saga and therediscovery of Schwarz’ contemporaneousreportWith hindsight we can say that Saltiel hadhimself to blame for over-optimism inpromoting the scheme to HEAS and hemight have been more patient with thecolonists after their first summer. Withthat same hindsight, however, we can alsosay that there is nothing he could havedone: every such colony in the U.S.collapsed. See Appendix 3—Allegations, for an expansion on thesepoints.7

The Cotopaxi ColonyPart II, The PeopleGovernment land.This should be read in conjunction withHEAS’ records, which show $10,000 offunding including $8,750 for land andinfrastructure.The people (see accompanying list after page 29) who comprisedthe Cotopaxi Colony in the spring of 1882 were Russian Jews fromthe provinces of Volhynia, Kiev and Ekaterinaslav. Sixty-three personsin all, there were twenty-two “heads of family”, each of whomwere eligible to file on 160 acres of government land. Actually,most of the sixty-three were members of only three main familyclans, consisting of several generations and relatives by marriage.Among these three families, too, there was much intermarriageand nearly every colonist at Cotopaxi was related to the others byties of blood or marriage, the only exception being close friendswho had attached themselves to one “patriarch” and were consideredas “adopted”. This aggregation had been well solidified inEurope, and the experiences of the pogroms, the emigration andthe events at Cotopaxi served to weld it even more firmly together.The traceable nucleus of the group begins in the early 19th centurywith a movement among the inhabitants of the Pale known as“Haskalah” or “Enlightenment”, which sought a middle road betweenthe “fathers and sons”,between the extremes of fanaticismespoused on the one hand by the “Hasidim” and on the other handby those who denied Judaism or cultural assimilation. The disciplesof modernisation were known as the “Maskilim”, and were despisedby both extremes among their own people and certainly notgiven much encouragement by the Czarist government. This, inspite of its program for gradual “Russification”, for establishmentof Crown Schools, and for urging cooperation with the government.By mid-century the Maskilim concentrated their energy oncombating the “Tzaddicks”, the superstition-ridden, mystical obscurantists,chiefly by means of satire. Even so, the Maskilimthemselves were dismissed by the more violent, modern young“assimilationists” as too slow and conservative to be consideredprogressive!8

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielOne of the important leaders of this Haskalah movement withinthe Pale was an idealistic Volhynian, Isaac Baer Levinsohn, knownas the “Moses Mendelsohn” of Russia. Alexander II’s program ofsocial amalgamation. Clearly, the children of Jacob and MalkaMilstein inherited a view of the Jewish problem quite differentfrom their neighbors in Brest, and it was these same children who,by the 1860’s and 1870’s led the Maskilim of the province who favoredsecular education, a moderate religious position and the“back-to-the-land” dream.By 1874, with the failure of the Czar’s agricultural colonies and the‘drift toward oppression’ of the Jews, it became apparent that theMaskilim program would achieve very little. The sudden change ofCzar Alexander II’s policies and open anti-Semitism began withthe Law of 1874 which restored the unfair methods of juvenileconscription for the Jewish population. The attempts at culturalfusion through secular education were recognized as utter failuresand by 1873 a ukase closed the two rabbinical schools at Vilna andZhitomir. Also the “melammeds” renewed their attacks on the“assimilationists”.Jacob and Malka Milstein’s youngest son, Isaac Leib, was forced tobecome an “only son” to a childless couple named Shames in orderto escape the dreaded quarter-century of military service, a threatthat had not menaced the Milstein family for many generationssince they were of the exempt estate. Their eldest son, Saul Baer,had experienced during his lifetime the pendulum swing of governmentattitude toward Jews; first, liberalism, then, persecutionintensified after the Polish Insurrection of 1863. As a child Saulimbibed the ideas of Haskalah enthusiastically, and as a youngman he prepared to become a “Crown Rabbi” himself by attendingthe seminary at Zhitomir. He had encouraged his younger brotherBenjamin to apply for the agricultural colony in Ekaterinaslav andhad watched him, several cousins and friends go off in high spiritsto farm--only to see most of them return discouraged and beaten9

The Cotopaxi Colonyin 1866 when the “last straw” had broken the backs of the ‘camels’.By 1870 even those Jews who had farmed their lands since CzarNicholas’s reign were evicted and their lands distributed amongthe newly-emancipated serfs.Agricultural inexperienceThis account tells us that most of thewould-be farmers had no background onthe land itself, but with leadershipcoming from a group with a backgroundin the business of agricultural supply.The Millsteins had run a business withoffices in three cities separated byhundreds of miles. They provided theleadership of the group and accounteddirectly for five (and by marriage foranother four) of the 22 family groupsenumerated by Satt. Their backgroundhelps explain their unfamiliarity with thenarrowly agricultural aspect of theirpredicament, and may offer an insightinto the group’s propensity for dispute,consistent with the skill-set of formerbusinessmen. Appendix 2—Timelinemakes it clear that the Ekaterinaslavsettlement came to an end eleven yearsbefore the pioneers turned up atCotopaxi.With the death of his father in 1861 Saul Baer Milstein became thespiritual leader and business advisor to many people in Brest Litovskand in the small rural villages in the Pripet River Valley, thevicinity wherein various Jewish families lived and produced thesupplies for his warehouses and commission business. The Milsteinfamily had been in this business for several generations sincecoming to Russia from Germany. As the eldest son, Saul Baer inheritedthe management of the entire concern, as well as his father’srole in the community of leader and teacher. His was thecontrolling voice in matters not only relating to business but infamily and social affairs as well. Nearly all employed by the firmwere relatives. In addition to Saul Baer’s duties as head of a largebusiness with branches in Grodno, Kiev, and Brody, he also taughtclasses in those secular subjects which were not offered in the“yeshivahs” of Brest Litovsk.Ekaterinaslav(now Dnieperpetrovsk)This city is close to the Black Sea coast inwhat is now the Ukraine—as it happensthe original home of my own maternalgrandfather. An agricultural colony therewould benefit from the fertility of thefabled “black earth” and ample water,poor preparation for the plateaus of theRockies.By 1871 his younger brother Benjamin had returned to Brest Litovskfrom the colony in Ekaterinaslav with his wife Hannah andtheir son Jacob. He was angry at the Russian Government’s treatmentof the Jewish colonists, but was still determined to provethat the Jews of the Pale could become successful farmers if affordedany sort of equality of opportunity. But Russia seeminglydid not want Jews on the land, and it became increasingly difficultto produce the grain and other supplies needed in the commissionhouse, since Christians were forbidden to sell their produce toJewish wholesalers. Saul Baer was much impressed with reportsfrom America concerning the liberal Homestead Act, whose benefitscould apply even to immigrants who had filed declaration ofintention to become citizens. Disappointed with the progress madeby conciliation, cooperation and meekness advocated by Maskil-10

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielism, he began to consider leaving Russia to begin a new life inAmerica. The sale of the commission business should provideenough to finance such a move for the entire family group. Therefore,strengthened in his determination by the Repressive Acts of1874, 1875, and 1876, Saul Baer encouraged his nephew Jacob,who had grown up on a farm, to leave Russia, where he was indanger of being drafted for twenty-five years’ service in the Czar’sArmy, and travel to America to investigate the provisions of thisHomestead Act and look over the possibilities for establishing the‘clan’ in the United States.Thus it was that in 1878 Jacob Milstein left Brest Litovsk to seekout land for members of his family and those others who wished toemigrate with them. He was to act as “advance scout” and to sendback all the information on homesteading to his uncle, the leaderof the proposed ‘colony’. Was the American government really astolerant of Jews as they had been led to believe? No special taxes?Freedom of worship? While he was learning these things, as wellas the English language, his uncle Saul Baer would send him amonthly allowance to cover his living and travelling expenses.But within a year of his departure from Russia Jacob had incurredthe wrath of his uncle. He received no more money and for a timethe gravity of his offense threatened the plans for the entiregroup’s migration. Jacob’s “sin” had been to persuade Nettie Milstein,Saul Baer’s eldest child, with whom he had been in love forsome time, to run away and join him in America where they couldbe married. Nettie was her father’s favorite child, and he had lavishedon her all his affection and material wealth. He had educatedher as thoroughly as any of his sons and had taken her with him onbusiness trips throughout Europe. By the time she was twentyyears old, in 1878, a confirmed spinster by Jewish standards, shewas able to relieve her father of many of his duties at the commissionhouse, in order that he might devote more time to his studiesand pupils, as she preferred a business career to marriage, having11

The Cotopaxi Colonyrefused to accept any of the suitors offered her by the “shadchens”.She was in love with Jacob, her first cousin, and since her fathernaturally opposed such a union, Nettie simply rejected marriagewith anyone else, but when Jacob left Russia and the all-pervasiveinfluence of his patriarchal uncle, Saul Baer, Nettie was impelledto flee and disregard convention, religion and social ostracism bygoing to Jacob in America. Leaving Brest Litovsk in November of1879, Nettie journeyed to the home of relatives in Hamburg, Germany,where she awaited passage money from her fiancé.Cut off from his uncle’s support, Jacob Milstein took a job in a tinfactory in New York City. He learned English rapidly and alsoearned enough to put some aside as ‘capital’ with which to prospectfor a colony site as well as passage money for his bride-to-befrom Germany. But he had worked little more than a year when anindustrial accident deprived him of the sight of one eye. It is noteworthyfor those days that the owner of the factory recognized hisresponsibility in the matter of the accident and made arrangementsfor a pension to be paid his young employee-victim. Jacobwas thus able to afford proper medical care and rest without resortingto charity. While recuperating, he became acquainted withthe work being done by the well-known American Jew, MichaelHeilprin.The latter, in 1880, was already busy organizing the Jews of theUnited States into a relief society to aid in the temporary supportof the rapidly increasing number of immigrants pouring into thecountry from Russia, caused by the increasing rigor of Czar AlexanderII’s policies against the Jewish population. Western Jewswere beginning to realize the hopeless plight of their Russian coreligionists,due particularly to their peculiar economic and politicalstatus in the Czar’s Empire. Historically sympathetic throughoutthe Diaspora, the more fortunate Western Jews had earlierformed aid societies, such as the “Alliance Israelite Universelle”,guided by Adolphe Cremieux and Moses Montefiore. Michael Heil-12

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielprin had kept in close touch with representatives of this organization,which had announced a plan at a meeting in Paris in thespring of 1880 to settle refugees in the new and undevelopedcountries in South America, South Africa, Australia and especiallyin North America, where the United States offered even aliens thebenefits of their liberal Homestead Act. This plan appealed greatlyto Michael Heilprin, who for years had been urging young immigrantJews to leave the East and try farming, taking advantage ofthe Government’s “free land”.Free landThe reference confirms that the landwould have no resale value. See the sidebar,Smoke and mirrors, on page 28Prior to 1880, there had been few Jews in America who were ableor eager to follow such advice. Lack of money for land and equipmenthad not been the main deterrent but rather the lack of anyagricultural experience, coupled with the age-old fear of investingin land, a commodity not movable nor easily convertible in case ofsudden persecution or expulsion. Therefore, when twenty-year-oldJacob Milstein, his sightless eye covered by a black patch, came toHeilprin’s office on State Street in New York City, it seemed anamazing coincidence. Here was a representative of a Russian Jewishgroup, whose background seemed promising for the venture,who were determined to leave Europe permanently, who weremost anxious to “return to the soil” and who best of all, includedmembers who had been farmers in the short-lived agriculturalcolonies for Jews in Southern Russia and also, had adequate financialresources for the trip, land investment and living expenses.Working capitalThis recognises the need for workingcapital, the absence of which wouldbedevil the colony. This emerges from aconsideration of the season of the colony’sfoundation, between May and June 1882 .Gulliford op cit para 6)writes“[t]he immigrants’ first crops wereplanted in August and September”. If so,this obliged a community initially of 26adults and 24 minors and ultimately of 32adults and 31 minors to wait from thetime of their arrival until harvest, at bestin Autumn 1882, and in the event not till1883, before they could hope to becomeself-supporting from their own holdings.Possibly it was intended that the colonistsshould hunt, but they lacked firearms,knowledge of tracking or the localcountry. In any event, the harsh climateof the Rockies imposes hibernation upongame, the lack of which is attested by thebegging bands of Ute (page 25 andsidebar). There is no record of a budget tosupport the colonists over the interimperiod of the summer, let alone thewinter. Funds are described asattributable to travel expenses, land andinfrastructure. This leaves nothing forworking capital, the lack of which becameapparent as soon as the colonists arrivedand found themselves obliged to seekcredit from Saltiel’s store.In In the footsteps of Emanuel Saltiel(Miles Saltiel, 2003, deposited at thelibrary of the colony in Cotopaxi andavailable at http://websfor.me.uk/shealtiel/history/emanuel_h_saltiel-133.pdf), I used a bench-mark of the $1 perday earned by Ed Grimes who walked toDenver (Roberts, Op. cit., page 130) tocalculate the sums required for workingcapital. I assumed that this sum couldsupport three adults without obligationsfor rent and twice as many children. Thediscussion in Appendix 1—A note onsources updates this with four estimatesof store credit based oncontemporaneous sources, at between$1,545 and $8,000.

The Cotopaxi ColonyMoneys from HEASIn the event all moneys were subscribedby HEAS—$8,750 to Saltiel for land plusinfrastructure; and $1,250 to transportthe settlers to Colorado. Schwarz October1882 report claimed expenditures of justunder $10,500 (p10). See Appendix 1-Anote on sources. Schwarz must havebeen over-egging the cake as Saltieleventually returned moneys to HEAS (seesidebar HEAS or HIAS p16 fornomenclature).The $8,750 advanced to Saltiel should beput in context; it represents a year’swages for eight or nine miners. Even if wetake Satt’s reference to Saltiel’s“vastwealth” on page 7 as hyperbolic, at thispoint he was a mine-owner and locallyprominent figure and throughout hiscareer capable of raising money fromDenver interests. Why resort to theByzantine irregularities alleged for such asum? He would have been aware thatevery aspect of such an enterprise wouldattract notice, so why risk disgrace? Inany event, after the colony failed Saltielnegotiated a settlement with HEAS as aresult of which he repaid an agreed sum,presumably after taking account interalia of supplies advanced to the settlers.IndebtednessSatt writes that land and infrastructurewere to be provided by Saltiel for $8,750and that the remaining $1,250 was to beraised by the colonists to cover costs ofrail transportation and living expenses enroute to Colorado. On page 17, Satt writesthat HEAS approved $10,000 to cover allthese expenses.On page 18 and as noted in the sidebar,Depleted resources, Satt reports thatthe colonists arrived virtually destitute.No mention is made of funds for livingexpenses after arrival. For theimplications, see the sidebar onWorking capital on page 13.On the previous page Satt records themeticulously remembered figure of $435.of indebtedness per family, computed ormade known to her nearly seventy yearsafter the colony broke up. It is impossibleto calculate the origin of this sum. Ifdivided into $10,000 it yields 22.97, sosay twenty-three families; if divided into$8,750, it yields 20.10, so say twentyfamilies. It is not clear how we might getto twenty-three families, with Sattwriting of between twenty and twentytwohefamilies; see Appendix 1—Anote on Sources.Regardless, the precision of the sum—whether remembered or calculated—tellsus how much attention the colonists paidto indebtedness. Schwarz confirms thatthe colonists regarded themselves asindebted to HEAS (Schwarz p16).Coupled with these qualifications and Heilprin’s interest in establishingexperimental Jewish colonies in the United States, was thereceipt, in September of 1880, of a most unusual offer from awealthy Jewish philanthropist, Emanuel H. Saltiel, who professeda desire to help in the work outlined by Heilprin in the latter’swidely-read articles and settle a colony of Jewish farmers on hislands in Wet Mountain Valley near Cotopaxi, Fremont County,Colorado.Emanuel H. Saltiel had gone to Colorado after the Civil War andhad prospered in mining and milling enterprises, as well as propertyinvestments. Although he maintained a home and an office inNew York as well as in Colorado, he was not affiliated with any religiousorganization. Nevertheless, he wrote several eloquent lettersto Michael Heilprin, expressing his admiration for the latter’spolicy advocating agricultural colonies for Jewish immigrants.When Heilprin first spoke with Jacob Milstein it was with the ideaof sending this particular group of which he was a representativeto homestead on the ‘donated’ lands in Oregon, where soil, waterand market facilities were known to be excellent. However,Saltiel’s letters were very persuasive and promised that he wouldundertake to construct houses for each family, several large communalbarns and sheds, provide necessary furniture and householdequipment, farm implements, seed, cattle, horses and wagonsand a year’s supply of feed for the animals. The offer was quitemagnanimous, for Saltiel was to provide all this for a mere $8,750,the remaining $1,250 to be raised by the colonists to cover costs ofrail transportation and living expenses en route to Colorado. Theentire cost was to be kept under $10,000 which meant an indebtednessfor each family of less than $435.Within a few months after hearing these proposals, Jacob’s father,mother, brother and bride-to-be arrived in New York and letterswere dispatched immediately to the others still in Russia describ-14

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltieling in great detail the generosity of this American Jew, Saltiel, andhis plan to aid them in realizing their dreams of tilling the soil in afree country, to build their homes and equip their farms and helpthem adjust to life in America. The group in Russia was enthusiasticand began to make preparations for leaving, but before theycould complete their arrangements, an event occurred whichchanged their situation. On March 1, 1881, Czar Alexander II wasassassinated and his son and successor, Alexander III, immediatelyappointed Nicolas Pavlovich Ignatieff, a militant anti-Semite,as Minister of the Interior. At once a series of pogroms beganwhich caused thousands of Jews to leave Russia forever in a massexodus unparalleled in modern history. The promulgation of theMay Laws of 1881 was the capstone in the long history of repressiveacts directed against the Jews of the Czar’s Empire.Consequently the tempo of Jewish immigration to the UnitedStates was tremendously changed that spring of 1881. By June thewaves of destitute refugees swamped the inadequate facilities ofthe Port of New York Receiving Station at Castle Garden. Up tothat time, assistance to those Jews who needed it had been renderedby private charitable organizations such as B’nai B’rith orthe various religious congregations in New York, Philadelphia,Boston and Baltimore.But the scope of the 1881 migration was entirely too much forthese private groups and the sudden realization of their inadequacycaused them to band together to try to provide emergencyrelief. The protest meetings that were held all over Europe becauseof the pogroms raised considerable funds, most of which were sentto the United States, which country received the bulk of the refugees.The Alliance Israelite Universelle mushroomed into a vast reliefagency and was responsible for the establishment of depots,“escape hatches” and embarkation stations throughout Europe.Cattle, horses, wagons and feedOn the previous page, Satt scrupulouslylists the supplies which Saltiel promisedto provide. The full list (that is, farmimplements and seed as well as the itemsset out in the title to this sidebar) suggestthat the plan was for a combination ofstock-raising and farming. When,however, we come to the complaints ofthe colonists (see page 19 and thesidebar, Deficiencies) there is nomention of the cattle, horses, wagons andfeed, the wherewithal of stock-raisingand the best bet for the high plateaus. Itlooks as though the pioneers from theUkraine preferred, quite literally, toplough a more familiar furrow andconfine themselves to farming. Thisapparent change of heart must bear uponthe eventual failure of the colony.15

The Cotopaxi ColonyHEAS or HIASThe current nomenclature is HIAS (forImmigrant), , but in the 1880s it wasHEAS (for Emigrant).To American Jews the situation that spring was particularly worrisomeas their heretofore pleasant and undisturbed insulation hadnot prepared them for such shock--or problem. Because the Jewscame in such large numbers, so rapidly, to America, the government’simmigration authorities were totally unprepared and availablefacilities completely inadequate. Prompt action was imperativelest this problem become large enough to trouble the tranquilChristian-Jewish atmosphere in the United States. Therefore a reliefcommittee composed of prominent American Jews was hastilyorganized under the chairmanship of a New York judge, MeyerIsaacs, in September of 1881. Within a month this was replaced bya union of all Jewish charitable groups along the Eastern seaboard,religious and secular alike, into what was called the HebrewEmigrant Aid Society (HEAS). By the end of that year, $300,000in temporary relief funds had been raised and headquarters of thesociety set up in Michael Heilprin’s offices in New York city. Heilprinwas unanimously elected president and directed the affairs ofthe society until its dissolution in the fall of 1883. He had to discardfor a while his theories of careful relocation of Jews on farms,as clearly these could not be applied quickly enough to solve thepressing and immediate problems of emergency relief. Wheneverpossible he urged the young men to leave the crowded urban centersand take up land in the West under the Homestead Act.Despite Heilprin’s preoccupation with Receiving Station dutiesand housing, he found time to help establish and finance two“colonies” with HEAS funds earmarked for this type of“experiment”. The first of these was the Cotopaxi Colony in Colorado,the settlers, location and investment having been decidedupon in 1881 as a result of the coincidence of Saltiel’s offer andJacob Milstein’s application. The second one was at Vineland, NewJersey.Before the pogroms of 1881 had caused such precipitous migrationsand had so drastically altered the situation of the Milstein16

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielgroup still in Brest Litovsk, Michael Heilprin had already decidedto go ahead with this plans for an experimental colony locatednear Cotopaxi. His first act, once he had accepted the offer ofSaltiel, was to assign a young lawyer connected with the society,Julius Schwarz, to go to Colorado, make a thorough investigationof the locality, markets, soil, climate, etc., and return a report tothe New York office. Schwarz left New York in January of 1881, butHEAS never received any report from him or word concerninghim.Within a few months of Schwarz’s departure, however Heilprinwas submerged in the more pressing problems of the Russian pogromvictims, and could not spend any more money investigatingthis far-off colony site. The $10,000 required for its establishmenthad already been approved and set aside by the society, the rest ofthe ‘colony group’ had arrived from Europe that winter and beganto constitute a ‘dependent immigrant classification’, having beenforced to flee Russia without waiting to sell property, etc. The expensesof tenement living during the winter of 1881-82 had usedup what little they had been able to bring with them and the conditionsin New York, plus the disappointment of delay had eaten upmuch of their enthusiasm. Heilprin had little choice but to permitthe “colony” to go ahead without having received any report ofSchwarz’s investigation.Thus it was that in April of 1882 the twenty “family groups” begantheir long train journey via Kansas City, Pueblo and the RoyalGorge, to Cotopaxi, without many of the things they should havehad. First, they were without any first-hand knowledge of justwhat kind of country they were headed for--save for the descriptionsof the eloquent Mr. Saltiel. Secondly, they were without theirbeloved leader, Saul Baer Milstein. His younger brother, Benjamin,had taken over as Saul Baer was still angry over the matter ofhis daughter Nettie’s unfortunate marriage with his first cousin.That couple was also missing from the group which left New YorkSchwarz-1:The report of 23 October 1882Satt is simply mistaken. Schwarz’proposed trip to investigate the site of thecolony never took place. See Appendix1—A note on sources for a review ofthe documents which establish this.On the other hand, once Schwarz arrived,he regarded himself as the manager ofthe colony and described himself as suchon pages 1 and 2 of his October 1882report to HEAS. His tone is euphoric inthe extreme and gives a good sense of theclimate of the times. Sample extracts:“...those who advocated the idea thata Jew cannot make a farmer havebeen refuted.”“Sixty Russian refugees left New Yorkas paupers five months ago. Todaythey are self supporting citizens.”“..spend thousands of dollars forsupplying everyday wants, and youwill breed and raise paupers andbeggars; colonize and you will makeself-supporting citizens.”“Our colony in the Rocky mountainswill always stand forth as a noblemonument of Jewish charity, as thestriking proof of the workingcapacities, of the perseverance, of theearnestness of our Russiancoreligionists…”Schwarz closes with a quote from Cicero:“There is nothing nobler, nothingsweeter, nothing more becoming to afree man than agriculture.”Obviously Schwarz got the outcomewrong, but he paints a picture ofprevailing attitudes, including those ofSaltiel, which however ill-judged were thereverse of villainy. Even seventy yearslater in 1950, Satt was no stranger toagricultural euphoria, indeed herconclusion from pages 31 to 34 positivelyembraces the redemptive power of thesoil. See Appendix 1—A note onsources, for an expansion on Schwarz’character as a witness.The winter in New YorkThis was something of a disaster for thepioneers, leading to the depletion of theirremaining funds. The question arises:why didn't some of them take jobs? Thesweatshops of Manhattan were readily tohand. Perhaps as former proprietors andwould-be farmers, they saw such labouras beneath them.17

The Cotopaxi ColonyDepleted resourcesThis confirms that the colonists arrivedshort of funds.for Colorado, having preceded it by several months. They wereawaiting the arrival of the colony which they would join, in themeantime living in Blackhawk. Thirdly, the group was no longerwell-off financially; the fee of $50.00 per head-of-family, the highcost of living in New York the preceding winter, the cost of thejourney, the loss of expected profit from the sale of their propertyand businesses in Russia, had greatly depleted its resources. Despitethese handicaps, the group was confident and optimistic asthey set out for the “promised lands” in the rich and fertile WetMountain Valley, described so eloquently in the letter from theirbenefactor, Emanuel H. Saltiel.Part III, The EventsThe townspeople of Cotopaxi watched the tired and bewilderedimmigrants get off the train. It was the eighth day of May, 1882.They had gathered at the new Denver and Rio Grande depot, curiousto see at first hand these “Jew Colonists” about whose arrivalthey had heard so much from Saltiel and his partners during thepreceding months. Some of them were openly scornful of the newcomers’clothes, language and appearance and made no effort toconceal their hostility. Others felt sympathetic at their looks of terrorand awe, caused, no doubt, by the trip through the Royal Gorgeand the desolate vastness west of the chasm. The terrain of this entirearea is quite forbidding. The land is bare, very rocky, withpractically no timber or vegetation. The unimpeded streams whichflow into the Arkansas River have cut deep transverse gorges inthe black rock formations.Saltiel sent a wagon to transport the Jews and their baggage fromthe railroad depot to this hotel across the public square. Thetwenty families were accommodated in rather crowded fashion inthe hotel until they were ready to move to their farms, some ofwhich were eight or ten miles south of the town itself. Several ofthe men met with Saltiel and two of his many partners, A. S. Hart18

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltieland Julius Schwarz, to discuss plans for their colony, but littlecould be decided until the colonists could see the location. Hartand Schwarz drove the men of the group up Oak Grove Creek toinspect their future homes.Schwarz 2: “Saltiel’s partner”It is not clear that Schwarz was Saltiel’spartner. Satt’s sources for this is areunreliable on much else. See Appendix1: A note on sources for an expansionon thisSaltiel had written to the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society in October,1881 that the twenty houses were finished and that five large barnswould be completed shortly. He listed prices for farm implementsand horses, implying that if these prices met with the approval ofthe Society, the articles would be purchased upon Saltiel’s receiptof their reply. Now, more than seven months later, the newcomersfound only twelve small, poorly-constructed cabins approximatelyeight feet square, six feet high, with flat roofs and no chimneys.They had no doors or windows, nor even the jambs or frames intowhich such might be easily fitted. There was no furniture inside,and only four of the twelve structures possessed stoves for heatingor cooking.Hart pointed out the twenty divisions of land in the valley. Therewas supposed to have been 160 acres in each parcel. Twelve ofthese were located on either side of Oak Grove Creek, the remainingeight farms were marked out beyond a high ridge 8,000 feetabove sea-level. These last were in the Wet Mountain Valley itself,but despite the name, there was no water on the lands. No fencesor other boundaries separated the colonists’ lands, and in the WetMountain Valley sections, the sparse grass which had just begun togrow was being grazed by neighboring ranchers’ cattle.On the twelve parcels in Oak Grove Valley there was no sign of anyother improvement save the tiny cabins. No wells had been dug,no fences built and no road cleared. Hart drove the wagon up thestream bed itself, not too steep under normal circumstances, butobviously impassable during spring flood stages or the suddenmountain cloudbursts which often transformed a dry arroyo into aroaring cataract for several hours. The materials for the twelveQuarter sectionsThese 160 acre plots were the standardland grant in Fremont County at thattime, but would have been scanty in theeast and turned out to be inadequate inthe Cotopaxi plateau, better suited forstock-raising than farming. Schwarz’report states that he allocated acreage toeach family on the spot. See Appendix1—A note on sources.DeficienciesSome of the colonists’ complaints seemill-judged. Fences to protect againststrays were called for barbed wire.Schwarz’ report states that this was notinitially to hand (p11), but his accountingindicates that it was subsequentlyobtained (p15). See Appendix 1—Anote on sources). To be fair, wirewould have offered meagre protectionagainst bears, presumably grizzlies,preparing for hibernation (see page 24below). By contrast, as Satt acknowledgesa few sentences later, clearing a roadthrough the rubble of the Cotopaxiplateau would have taken gangs of labournot to hand at that point.19

The Cotopaxi ColonySelf-defence—1: neighbours’ cattleHere we come to the first instance ofwhat turns out to be a consistent theme:the colonists’ difficulties in assertingthemselves and defending their rights.Satt reports on page 2 that FremontCounty had recently seen four years of“violent physical struggles” during theRoyal Gorge War of 1874-78. By contrastin this instance, the pioneers foundthemselves unable to see off stock, aslater wild animals (p24 and sidebar) anddestitute Indians (p25 and sidebar).Roberts (Op cit, p127) also reports thatearlier settlers in Fremont County hadappropriated irrigation rights. Settingaside the rough and tumble of frontierlife, Western water rights often caughtout those unfamiliar with the legal codeinherited from the Spanish.Saltiel’s conductThe accounts of the descendants of thepioneers dwell on Saltiel’s lack ofsympathy, but a close reading challengesthis. We see this when we come toSaltiel’s response to settlers’ subsequentapproaches. The record shows that theserapidly assumed the character of a claimfor damages, with Satt introducing muchevidently well-remembered detail aboutland titles, numbers and qualities ofbuildings and the like. This is so clearlythe echo of legal disputation that we arebound to ask what the settlers werethinking of. The sidebars, HEAS’settlement with the colonists andSmoke and Mirrors on page 28,answer this question. See alsoAppendix 3—Allegations for anexpansion on this discussion.Kitchen gossipMost of the paragraphs from here to thebottom of page 28, are set out in red.They form the heart of the allegationsagainst Emanuel Saltiel, but turn out tobe flimsily sourced by Satt. The analysisin Appendix 1—A note on sourcesshows that these passages rely on theuncorroborated recall of events 67 yearsearlier by three sources. At the time ofthe events they purport to describe, thesources were either unborn or childrenunable to speak English.We may take at face value HannahShames Quiat’s transparently first-handaccount of the “canned peaches…” onp23. On the other hand, we are entitled tochallenge accounts of events which areunlikely to have been observed by thesources as children, which if observedwould not have been understood, andwhere any first-hand memories wouldhave been embellished by gossip at thekitchen table over the following 67 years.This makes the core of Satt’s thesisnothing but hearsay. Examples follow inthe sidebars.structures had been hauled up to the site before winter snows hadmelted above. McCoy recalls that the stream bed, even in fall, wasnever too good a ‘road’ since large boulders and other debris hadwashed down therein, making rough going even for a single horseor mule. Some years later a wagon road was built through this valley,connecting Wet Mountain Valley with Cotopaxi, but it requiredconsiderable labor to clear the alluvial deposits.The terrain of the valley precluded the possibility of preparing extensivefields for crops. Less than half a mile in width, there is adefinite shoulder mid-way up the canyon walls, indicating the levelof the younger steam in past geologic ages. The soil on the lowerhalf is easily eroded due to the angle of tip. Some tough grassgrows, as well as sage brush and other native plants, but almost notrees, except for scrub pines. The valley is watered solely by thetiny seasonal creek and it would have required extensive irrigationworks to deflect any of this water out onto the tilted shoulders ofland designated as “farms” for the Jewish immigrants. Ed Grimes,one of the colonists, stated to a reporter for the Denver JewishNews in April, 1925, “There (Cotopaxi) was the poorest place inthe world for farming. Poor land, lots of big rocks, no water, andthe few crops we were able to raise, by a miracle, were mostlyeaten by cattle belonging to neighboring settlers.”When the men returned to Cotopaxi following their tour of inspection,they sought out Saltiel for an explanation of the many deficiencies.That gentleman was remembered as being profuse in hisapologies and used the labor shortage as the primary excuse fornon-fulfilment. He explained that items such as window frames,proper furniture, much of the tools and equipment, even lumber,were impossible to procure in the vicinity and that he had sent toDenver for them. They had been delayed. He would be leaving forDenver soon and would try to expedite delivery.The immigrants had brought only the most personal of household20

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielequipment yet it was decided among them within the first week aftertheir arrival that they must move into the available cabins andimprove them as best they could themselves, for it was most imperativeto begin the preparation of the soil for planting. By themiddle of May the Jews were able to borrow Hart’s wagon andmoved their baggage and families up to the colony, making the tripon foot themselves, carrying some of their belongings on theirbacks.A few days later, Saltiel left Cotopaxi for an extended business trip,leaving the problems of the colonists to be settled by his partners,Hart and Schwarz. They gave what little help and advice theycould, and permitted the Jews to borrow the necessary plows andhorses, seed and other equipment. Hart, as the proprietor of theGeneral Store, extended credit to the colonists for food staples andother necessities. Four additional stoves were obtained and cartedup the valley. The men themselves built mud chimneys for the fourremaining stoveless cabins.There was much discontent and anxiety among the members ofthe colony, yet they had determined to remain at Cotopaxi. Theyhad no alternative, really, since the expenses of the previous winterin New York City and the trip west had consumed what littlecash they had had, and there seemed to be no one to whom theycould turn for advice or assistance in their efforts to secure thepromised items from Saltiel. The language barrier, also, provedquite a handicap in their attempts to correct what they believed tobe an error on the part of Mr. Saltiel, since even that gentlemanwas quite limited in his knowledge of Hebrew and the immigrantswere then barely intelligible in English. When Saltiel left Cotopaxi,their only avenue of communication was the young partner, JuliusSchwarz. Later, the colonists met their German neighbors in WetMountain Valley. These people proved quite helpful as most of theimmigrants spoke German fluently and even those who spoke onlyYiddish were able to communicate easily with the German farm-On footIf the colonists had to carry theirbelongings on their back, the sidebar onpage 22, No animals to feed, tells usthat they were the authors of their ownmisfortune: they had allowed their oxento escape overnight. Thus their need tomanhandle “the heavy wagons, one at atime to Cotopaxi, some seven miles bythe old wagon road.” (Gulliford, op citpara 5) and hinted at in Schwarz’reference to “haulage” (p16).Credit from the storeThe colonists were fortunate. The loan ofhorses and ploughs relieved them of theworst consequences of the loss of theiroxen described above. As noted in thesidebar opposite, Saltiel’s conduct,store credit also turned out to be thecolonists’ lifeline for at least the first fivemonths, estimated at between $1,545 and$8,000, until it was cut off in the“Autumn”, taken to be 1st October. Seethe sidebar, The cost of keep on page26 and Appendix 1—A note onsources for discussion and calculations.Schwarz 3:“Avenue of communication”Satt’s sources are mistaken to suggestthat Saltiel’s ignorance of Hebrewstopped him communicating with thecolonists. As it happens, we know thatSaltiel was observant earlier in life. Aletter from his youth, now in the Libraryof Congress asks relatives in England forphylacteries, tefillim, so we may take itthat he would have been conventionallyfamiliar with liturgical Hebrew. Thiswould have availed him little with thesettlers, as the everyday life of theAshkenazi Jews of central and easternEurope was conducted in Yiddish.Saltiel was a Sephardic Jew, whose familyarrived in England at the beginning of the17oos, so Yiddish would have beenunknown to him.By contrast Schwarz, a Hungarian Jew,would have known Yiddish. But that isnot the principal reason that Satt’sspurges report Schwarz as the colonists’“avenue of communication.” He travelledto Cotopaxi with the colonists to becometheir “clerk”, if not “general manager”.Clearly Satt’s sources were whollyunaware of this.21

The Cotopaxi ColonySpring sowingSatt writes here of land being cleared forcrops by 1 June. Schwarz writes ofplanting in “the latter part of May” (p10).Gulliford (op cit para 6) says that nocrops were planted till August orSeptember. Perhaps there were twoplantings.No animals to feedSatt’s sources may be right about thecolonists’ lack of stock by the time theygot to the plateau, but this followed anincident “[o]n the way to Cotopaxi,[when] the colony camped at what is nowthe Peter Young Ranch. That night theyturned their oxen loose to graze and theoxen wandered off with a herd of wildcattle. The immigrants having no horseswith which to catch the oxen, attemptedto trail them on foot. They followed themas far as the river but could not catchthem.” (Gulliford, op cit, para 5). Thismust have represented a financial lossand was an early instance of the colonists’carelessness with their own property—evidently the oxen were neither tetherednor hobbled—and the general clumsinesswith stock; see the sidebar on page 20,Self-defence—1: neighbours’ cattle.ers. The latter were sympathetic concerning the plight of the Jewishcolonists and assisted them wherever possible. The women ofthe colony went regularly to visit them, obtaining milk and eggsfor the children, and some meat and vegetables. The men soughtagricultural advice from the Germans and this was gladly given,even though it was already too late to remedy the delay and mistakesmade that first spring sowing. It had been the first of Junebefore the Jews had gathered together the necessary supplies andimplements and had cleared the few acres for crops. They plantedcorn and potatoes and their methods proved a source of muchamusement for the people of Cotopaxi. The “greenhorns”, as theywere called, had much to learn about high altitude farming in aridcountry, where even with the most favorable weather, the growingseason is less than four months for most crops. They did not attemptany hay or grain crops the first year, since clear, level landwas at a premium and they had no animals to feed.Despite the help of their German neighbors and the credit extendedto them for food by Mr. Hart at Cotopaxi’s General Store,two new-born babies died soon after coming and the young son ofDavid Korpitsky died of blood poisoning incurred by stepping on arusty nail with bare feet. The babies were all buried in the villagecemetery of Cotopaxi, in unmarked graves separated from the restby a small wooden fence.In mid-June Jacob and Nettie Milstein left Blackhawk where theyhad lived for six months and joined the colony, thus becoming thetwenty-first “unit”. Although some of the family units had doubledup to share the shelter of the twelve cabins, two families set upcanvas tents while the men prepared and constructed morehouses. One family made their own house from cut sod, while Mr.and Mrs. Herschel Toplitsky, assigned to one of the sections acrossthe ridge in Wet Mountain Valley, found an abandoned Indiandugout cave which they used as a house for the first year. Theyoung Milstein couple were most welcome in the colony, despite22

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltieltheir unorthodox marriage, for they both spoke English fluentlyand were able to teach the others. Benjamin Zalman Milstein, MaxTobias, and David Korpitsky were the leaders of the colony.The babies’ deaths and other misfortunes and disappointments ofthe colony must have caused them to turn to religion for solace.They had not been considered a particularly religious group, atleast by European standards, but soon after the burial ceremonies,the group felt they must establish some sort of a “spiritual organization”.With the first letter they sent back to New York went a requestfor a “Torah”. HEAS sent one immediately and by the 23rdof June, 1882, the Jews were able to dedicate their new synagogue,which they had converted from an abandoned cabin behind theGeneral Store, the only building available. David Korpitsky servedas rabbi and performed two weddings that first summer. The firstunited Max Shuteran and Hannah Milstein and the other was thereligious ceremony which finally, even in the eyes of the most orthodox,sanctioned the civil union of Jacob Milstein and his cousinNettie. The reminiscences of the colonists recall these events asrare occasions for joy and celebration. Hannah Shames Quiat canstill remember the precious canned peaches, the fresh-caughttrout and sugar cakes which were served at the wedding reception.Saltiel himself was absent from Cotopaxi most of the summer andfall but his young partner, Julius Schwarz, a Hungarian Jew,joined with the Russian immigrants in their religious observancesand was chosen Secretary of the Congregation. Schwarz had beeneducated in New York and served as Saltiel’s lawyer. It is obviousfrom letters and remarks of the colonists that they did not connectthis young man with the lawyer Michael Heilprin had commissionedto investigate the original offer made by Emanuel Saltiel inSeptember, 1880. None of the group had been in New York, exceptJacob Milstein, when Heilprin had sent Schwarz to Colorado for areport on the proposed colony location.Schwarz 4: “Saltiel’s lawyer”As previously discussed, the sources forthis characterisation are unsafe. Schwarz’investigative trip to Colorado never tookplace; he travelled from New York toCotopaxi in May 1882 with the first groupof pioneers. See Appendix 1: A note onsources for an expansion on this.There is, however, a question as to howSchwarz supported himself for fivemonths in Colorado. His expenses do notappear in the accounts of the colony herendered to HEAS. Perhaps his duties asthe colony’s “clerk” or “general manager”were regarded as honorary and heobtained a livelihood by acting for Saltiel.This hardly amounts to corruption—sucharrangements were a commonplace at thetime.The 1883 negotiations between HEASand Saltiel might have given rise to aneventual conflict of interest As ithappens, however, Schwarz disappearsfrom the record of the colony afterAutumn 1882; there is no evidence thathe played a part in the 1883 negotiations.23

The Cotopaxi ColonyThe crisisSatt’s sources are unable to tell us whycredit was stopped. The most likelyexplanation would be a response fromHEAS to Schwarz’ report, which hepresented to the Society in New York on23 October 1882 (Schwarz pp1 and 16)The most cursory questioning wouldinform HEAS that the settlers had run updebt; the Society would not wish toassume this liability.The timing is also obscure. On the theoryabove, it would have come in November,but the calculations in Appendix 1 takea conservative view of the beginning ofOctober, it shows that the colonists hadobtained credit of between $1,545 and$8,000 for keep alone, so it was no morethan a kindness that they be protectedfrom building up further debt.Schwarz writes on p13 of his report thathe had already arranged work for thesettlers on the railroad and that they hadalso worked in local mines, presumablySaltiel’s. Moving from one to anotheremployer was no more than the settlers’right, but work in Saltiel’s mine antedatesthe stop of store credit; seeing it as theculmination of a plot seems to be eitherSatt’s own idea, unless she got this fromher unreliable sources.See the side bars, Working capital(p13), , Wages and scrip, opposite,and The cost of keep (p26, as well asAppendix 1—A note on sources foran expansion on this topic andcalculations.Self defence—2: bearsThe colonists’ failure to protectthemselves from animals is anotherexample of their lack of grip on thepracticalities of their predicament.Shuttering, lean-tos or storage binselevated off the ground might have beena better use for lumber than bonfires.European gunsOf all the stories coming down fromSatt’s sources, this is the most bizarre.Russian Jews would not have beenpermitted to own arms in the oldcountry, where they would have beenhard-pressed to find a revolver. Norwould the officials at Castle Garden, theport of entry into the U.S., havepermitted armed arrivals to clearimmigration. (They would have lockedthem up or turned them back!) This fablecan only be an echo of an underlyingtruth: the colonists were out of theirdepth, in particular as to their own selfdefence.This would have beenparticularly apparent to those colonistswho subsequently campaigned asColorado Volunteers or became peaceofficers (p30) and perhaps they came upwith this face-saving story.The festivities that summer, Schwarz’s help in the absence ofSaltiel, and the agreeable summer climate were perhaps the lastpleasant memories the Jews had of Cotopaxi, for with the arrivalof autumn their position became most uncomfortable. Saltiel returnedand refused to fulfil any of the neglected obligations andeven denied them further credit at the General Store, in which hehad a half-interest. He expressed no regret or surprise at their inabilityto sow adequate crops on the stony hillsides, nor did hedeem his failure to provide the necessary farm equipment as contributingto their difficulties. In addition, this part of Colorado sufferedan exceptionally early frost the autumn of 1882 and whenthe Jews attempted to harvest their potatoes, they found most ofthem frozen.The colonists were faced with the problem of providing, withoutmoney, fuel for heating their drafty shacks, and clothing for thebitter cold mountain winters. They had few possessions they couldsell for food, medicine and shoes. The lack of fuel was dramatizedby the menace of large bears which prowled about their cabins,looking for food before going into hibernation. The immigrantswere terrified and were forced to use what little wood they hadbeen able to gather during the summer to build big bonfires eachnight to frighten the bears away. As none of the cabins had haddoors when they moved in, the men were able to make only therudest sort of covering with what few tools they possessed, andnone of these doors had locks or bolts. A hungry bear could easilypush through the flimsy barrier which might bar his way into acabin. Furthermore, the men were without protection in the way offirearms. Only a few owned revolvers and none could afford ammunition,since they were of European make and required a bulletnot available in the area.Again and again, delegations of men would tramp eight miles totown through the deep snow to appeal to Mr. Saltiel. He had receivedaltogether, by October of 1882, close to $10,000 which the24

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielHebrew Emigrant Aid Society sent from New York. Part of thiswas payment for a bill of $5,600 he had tendered the Society thepreceding year. This sum was to recover the cost of buildingtwenty fine homes at $280.00 each. Since the colonists found onlytwelve cabins which could not possibly have cost Saltiel even$150.00 apiece, they felt that on this one item alone they shouldreceive some rebate. Two saw-mills were in operation in the immediatevicinity at this time and first-class lumber sold for $22.50per thousand. Now the Jews realized they had no means of forcingSaltiel to fulfil any of his neglected promises, as they themselvespossessed no written agreement, no contract, no bill of sale andnot even a title, deed or lease to the land they were then occupying.That winter they petitioned HEAS for aid and counsel in howto regain their lost money, believing that organization had documentson file which could intimidate Saltiel.The weather was unusually severe that year, with blizzards whichisolated their farms for weeks at a time, below-freezing temperatureswhich froze their hands and feet, unprotected by boots orgloves, and caused much suffering. To add to their misery, smallbands of Ute Indians appeared from time to time, begging foodand the frightened immigrants gave them what little food theyhad.The only recourse open to the desperate Jews was to go to work aslaborers in Saltiel mines. His foremen were glad to hire even theinexperienced Jews as the supply of workers had dwindled evenfurther during the winter months. They promised the Jews $1.50for the day shift and $2.50 for the night shift, the Cotopaxi andEnterprise Mines being worked constantly and producing well.Despite this the colonists recall they received not a penny in cashfor all the work done in the mines. Instead, they received vouchersfor credit at the General Store owned by Saltiel and Hart. This system,however unfair, did enable them to buy a few sacks of flourand other necessities.RebatesSatt sources this to a letter from Saltielwhich I have not seen. For that matter,neither had the colonists. In any event,these figures are at odds with Schwarz’report which reports $3,360 (not $5,600as stated by Satt) as attributable tohousing and a total expenditure of justunder $10,050 (Schwarz p15). SeeAppendix 1—A note on sourcesIt is not clear why we should accept theestimation of Satt’s sources as to the costof these cabins. See Appendix 3—Allegations. Such sums evidentlyexercised them, but the rebate theysought (from a total of $8,750, not$10,000) could not have beenattributable to them but to HEAS, withwhom Saltiel settled after the colony wasdisbanded. See the sidebar, Smoke andmirrors on page 28, for a fullerdiscussion of this point. This pointapplies all the more as the sums providedby HEAS were intended as loans(Schwarz p16) .Lost moneyIt is not clear what moneys Satt’s sourcesbelieved the pioneers had lost, as Sattreports that they had only ever expendedfiling fees from their own resources. At$50 for each of 22 heads of families (page29), this would be $1,100, around onefifth of the central estimate of the credittaken from Saltiel by the colonists inThe cost of keep on page 26 andAppendix 1. Satt’s references to “force”and “intimidate” speak ill for the attitudeof her sources.Self defence–3: begging tribesmenThis story is of a piece with theimmigrants’ lack of physical presence inthe face of stock and wild animals. Therecord shows that they were keener onpetitioning HEAS or campaigning tointimidate Saltiel, than defending theircrops, supplies or homes.Wages and scripThe $1.50 received by the settlers was thegoing rate for the unskilled labourersthey were. Scrip was not unreasonable,given that the settlers owed Saltiel nearly$6,000 and cash was short in the West.See Appendix 3—Allegations, for afull discussion of this.25

The Cotopaxi ColonyThe sequence of eventsIn the adjacent passages, Satt, providesno dates, but presents the followingsequence.1. Store credit stopped.2. Early frost; potato crop fails.3. Settlers resort to working in Saltiel’smine for scrip.4. Settlers then work for the Denver andRio Grande Railroad, “instead of withSaltiel”.By contrast the evidence of Schwarz’report makes for the following sequence.1. Settlers work in a mine, presumablySaltiel’s, and on the railroad.2. Report dated 23 October 1882.3. Potato crop fails.In addition, from its positive content andtone, Schwarz’ report must antedate thecrisis following the stop in credit.See Appendix 1—A note on sources,f0r a full treatment of this topic.The cost of keepThe colonists’ earnings from the Denverand Rio Grande enable us to makeanother estimate of the cost of keepingthe colonists. We understand from Satt(p29) that 23 of the colonists were menfit for work; Schwarz confirms this (p5). Iassume that 21 of these (Satt says “nearlyevery man”) worked for the railroad andthey earned an average rate of $2.50 perday. Satt writes “as much as $3.00”;Schwarz writes $2.00(p13). Afteradjusting for the Sabbath, the railwayworkers were contributing $45 per day tothe colony. If we take off ten percent fortravel to and from the railroad we get justover $40 per day to support the colony.We may use this sum to estimate thecredit taken by the colonists from arrivalon 8 th May 1882 to the “Autumn”—let ussay 1 st October 1882, some 146 days. If weadjust for the smaller number ofcolonists between 8 May and mid June,we obtain a figure of just under $5,900.These figures are consistent with thosebased on Ed Grimes’ earnings and in themiddle of the range between $1,545 and$8,000 set out in Appendix 1.Three prominent men from DenverThe colonists bought kosher meat fromDenver after the beginning of August, sowere in continuous contact thereafter(Schwarz p13). The three men includedan attorney, George H Kohn (Roberts opcit p129). From this point the pioneershad access to legal counsel, which in thenature of things would have extendeditself to negotiating and campaigningtactics. Thus, the immediatelysubsequent arrival of the press and thecolonists’ “smoke and mirrors” campaignagainst Saltiel (p28 and sidebar). Thesewere the raw material for the exchangesleading to the final settlement betweenthe pioneers and HEAS and Saltiel (p28and sidebar). It is no mean testament tothe skills of Mr Kohn that Satt or hersources took this sequence at face value.Mining in deep underground shafts and tunnels is never pleasantwork but in wintertime it is particularly disagreeable and hazardous.Since the labor shortage extended to other fields as well, theJews found they could have employment with the railroad insteadof with Saltiel. The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad was thenbuilding its line west of Salida to connect the booming miningcamps along the Continental Divide and Western Slope. the railroadwas only too happy to employ the Jews as track laborers andeven permitted them to take Saturday as their day off, instead ofSunday. Nearly every man in the colony worked that winter for theDenver and Rio Grande, and received cash wages of as much as$3.00 per day, with which they managed to support the entiregroup of sixty-three persons.The colony had another reason to be grateful to the Denver andRio Grande Railroad that winter. The women had been accustomedto scour and comb the tracks in the area for bits of coal orwood dropped by passing trains. Sympathetic engineers and firemen,noticing them, learned of their plight and then would regularlytoss down as much coal and wood as they could, thus enablingthe women to obtain enough fuel to keep them alive thatwinter.Word of the colony’s predicament reached Denver and they werevisited by several interested groups. First, the Jewish communityof Denver sent as much help as they could, including warm winterclothing, food, medicine and other necessities. Three prominentmen from Denver came down to investigate at first hand. On theirreturn they framed still another appeal to the Hebrew EmigrantAid Society, explaining Saltiel’s actions and describing his reputation.Then, a number of reporters from the Denver newspapers appearedand interviewed the immigrants and the townspeople.They had heard of this unusual agricultural experiment in Denverand had come down to check certain reports of mismanagementand illegalities.26

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielThe Denver Republican played up the story, emphasizing Saltiel’sresponsibility and the HEAS’s gullibility in investing such a largesum in so novel an experiment, without proper investigation before-hand.They exposed Saltiel’s entire plan as a “vile atrocity”and described the colonists’ sufferings in minute detail. This newspapertook the opportunity of divulging at the same time, other ofSaltiel’s deals and schemes, as well as his unsavory personal reputation.“Unsavory personal reputation”This echoes Roberts (op cit p129), whogoes on at this point to repeat allegationsthat Saltiel had “failed to provide for hisfamily”. This should be seen in light ofthe 1881 collapse of Saltiel’s marriage;see the sidebar, Biography ofEmanuel Saltiel on page 5. This gaverise to the customary exchange ofallegations—hers of his failure to providesupport; his of her notoriousinfidelities—and may also havecontributed to his absence fromCotopaxi.The Rocky Mountain News tended to play down the whole story,reminding its readers that all pioneers must endure some hardshipand compared conditions in other outlying districts withthose at Cotopaxi, making the lot of the Jews there seem ideal,even better than most.The colony did manage to survive the first winter, but they facedthe coming spring with determination not to make the same mistakesnor rely on Saltiel for any further assistance. They observedtheir first Passover at Cotopaxi that April of 1883, and immediatelyafter the rites were concluded, again borrowed seed andequipment and sowed their second crop. But nature seemed toconspire against them, for scarcely were the seeds in the groundwhen a late spring blizzard ruined a large part of them. These latestorms are common in Colorado but to the struggling and discouragedcolonists, it seemed a special punishment directed at themalone.HEAS ‘report on the colonistsThe view of the Rocky Mountain News isechoed by the report of March 2, 1883 fromH S Henry of HEAS:.“… a committee sent by German, Irishor Norwegian Emigrant Society wouldprobably have encouraged the colonistsby pointing out that their presentdiscomforts were temporary, that withthe return of spring and anotherharvest, things would improve; thatperseverance after all the expenditureof money would certainly result inultimate success.... This committeewould recommend that to start life in anew country is not child’s play--thatthere are frequent disappointments andsome misery…”Cited in Hard Times: The Jewish colony atCotopaxi, Article by Nancy Oswald,Colorado Central Magazine, No. 132,February 2005, Page 26; and available athttp://www.cozine.com/archive/cc2005/01320261.html.Again they wrote to the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society for advice.Up to this time, the directors of that agency in New York could dolittle but counsel patience and fortitude, but by the late summer of1883, the pressure of immigration had subsided in New York, dueto the Czar’s temporary retirement of Ignatieff, and the new directorfound time to write to the unhappy farmers in Colorado. MichaelHeilprin had been forced to retire that same summer, due toillness, and his successor was not as familiar with the whole story.27

The Cotopaxi ColonyHEAS’ settlement with the colonistsEvidently the colonists did not stand bythe sentiment reported by Schwarz thatHEAS be informed of “the amount thatthey may be indebted to the Society asthey desire to repay every cent spent onthem in yearly instalments” (Schwarzp16). Something caused the settlers toalter their stance—possibly the cropfailure, or possibly HEAS unknownresponse to Schwarz’ report. In any eventthey moved to seek new fundsaggressively and this grant of $2,000became the main reason for theircampaign against Saltiel; see the sidebar,Smoke and mirrors, below. Thecolonists only got something between$87 and $100 per family group each(depending on whether we take thesmallest or largest figure cited by Sattthat is between twenty and twenty-threefamily groups). Once again readingbetween the lines, this must be whereSaltiel netted off the moneys he haddefrayed on infrastructure and the credithe had extended to the colonists againstthe $8,750 he had received from HEAS.From the point of view of the colonists,this was a mixed outcome for whatalmost smacks of a shakedown. They gotlittle by way of a grubstake, but wererelieved of any obligations they mighthave incurred after obtaining the benefitof funding from HEAS and Saltiel—onbalance well worth their campaign.Also, the emergency funds had been exhausted and the great needfor the Society’s existence not as apparent, so there were plans forits dissolution. Late that summer, the colonists received a secondletter from HEAS recommending that they use the money thatwould be sent them to remove to another area; in Colorado, perhaps,but out of the Cotopaxi region, since the legal complicationsinvolved in land claims were too difficult to handle at long range.In October, 1883, more than a year after their first appeal and thereport made by the Denver investigators, the colonists received$2,000. As their harvest in 1883 was no better than the first, severalfamilies prepared to leave as soon as they received their shareof the removal funds.For the remaining families, help and encouragement during theirsecond winter was again supplied by their friends from Denver.Those who stayed on that winter earned their living expenses byworking in neighboring mines and on the railroad. The colonycelebrated its second Passover at Cotopaxi in 1884, shortly afterwhich a number of families left for new locations. Only six familiesdecided to remain and plant a third crop, but when another lateblizzard destroyed it, too, they at last recognized the futility of perseveringin this spot and made plans to abandon the site.Smoke and mirrorsIt is not clear why at this point the last fewcolonists would have concerned themselveswith titles for land they were about toabandon. Perhaps they were trying to realisethe value in their land, but as shown by thetext cited by sidebar, Free land on page 13,land in the west was so plentiful as to be defacto free. See Appendix 3—Allegationsfor fuller treatment of this topic.Alternatively they were trying to recovertheir filing fees. But at $50 per family, thiswould keep a family of two adults and twochildren for barely three weeks.Satt inclusion of this story evidently alsomystified A. Armstrong who created awebsite to satisfy the requirements for thefinal project of the Nationalism andZionism course taught by Professor DavidShneer at the University of Denver.Armstrong was able to make sense of theEach head-of-family had paid a fee of $50.00 into a common fundback in New York for the filing of deeds. When they prepared tostory only by suggesting that the colonistsbelieved they were obliged to redeemtheir deeds in cash before leaving the landThis is far-fetched. See Appendix 1—A note on sources and Appendix 3—Allegations for a fuller treatment of thistopic.Satt’s introduction of the story of the trip tothe land office makes sense only as an echoof dissent from the settlement with HEAS bya faction of the pioneers. It serves, however,as retrospective support for herinterpretation of the colonists’ earlier“smoke and mirrors” campaign to discreditSaltiel; and for the “sweated labour” theoryshe develops in this thesis as herexplanation for their conduct. Her theory is,however, challenged by the sequence ofevents set out in Appendix 2—Timeline.The colonists went after Saltiel from thetime he cut off their credit until HEAS sentthem a cash settlement, kicking in after theymet Attorney Kohn and embracing suchfamiliar elements as a press campaign. Thisis best understood as a futile attempt toobtain more credit from Saltiel, a defenceagainst recovery of the credit alreadyobtained and a support for their claim for agrubstake for settlement elsewhere. To theextent that the pioneers expected to have topay HEAS back (Schwarz p16), it would beunderstandable that they should be all themore anxious about their credit from Saltiel.Appendix 1—A note on source, showsthat such advances would have representedup to $8,000. But no smoke and mirrorswere necessary: there is no evidence thatSaltiel contemplated direct redress. Onceagain, Appendix 3—Allegations has afuller treatment of this topic.28

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltieldepart the county, they checked with the county clerk in CañonCity and could find there no record whatsoever of any such deed orconveyance. They had simply been squatters or perhaps at best,tenant farmers on corporation town-site land. They had wasted almostthree years on Saltiel’s colony when they could have filed onpublic domain nearby as homesteaders.By June of 1884 the colony, as such, was formally dissolved and afinal report submitted to Heilprin’s successors in New York. TheCotopaxi Colony had been a failure. But it had served to give itsmembers valuable lessons in pioneering, and had taken them outof the crowded ghettos in the eastern cities and given them aglance at what was available on other farm lands in the West.Of the twenty-two families who lived through the bitter but edifyingexperience at Cotopaxi, only two failed to remain in the West.These were Samuel Shradsky, and Sholem Shradsky, his eldestson, both widowers. The elder Shradsky was a very old man andwanted to return to Europe to be buried alongside of his long-deadwife. His son accompanied him and died there before he could returnto the United States. The rest used their hard-won knowledgeto try farming on better lands in the West.Saul Baer Milstein had come to Denver in 1883 with his wifeMiriam and the seven younger children. He went into the cattlebusiness with two partners. As soon as he was able, he boughtgrazing lands near Denver and by the time his younger sons weregrown, had built a stock-yard and packing house. His brother BenjaminZalman Milstein bought a farm near Derby, Colorado. Hisyoungest brother, Isaac Leib Shames, took his wife to Salt LakeCity, where they lived for many years before moving back to Colorado.Shames’ son Michael moved to Denver and joined his unclein the cattle business and also bought a farm near Westminster,Colorado. Shames’ daughter Hannah married Philip Quiat and anotherdaughter, Rachel, married Henry Singer. His eldest daugh-29

The Cotopaxi Colonyter, Yente, had been but a young bride when she and her husband,Joseph Washer, came as colonists to Cotopaxi. They had no children.Mr. Washer died soon after leaving Cotopaxi. His widow remarriedMoses Altman of Denver.Saul Baer Milstein’s eldest daughter Nettie, whose marriage to herfirst cousin Jacob had been so bitterly opposed by her father,eventually won his forgiveness. She and her husband were themost enthusiastic and successful of all the new farmers. Their firsthomestead was some four miles northeast of the city of Longmontin Boulder County. They later moved to a larger farm near Broomfield,which latter productive acreage they sold in 1935, for$18,000 to the Savery Savory Mushroom Company.Jacob Milstein, Saul Baer’s eldest son, later moved to Seattle,Washington. Both he and his cousin and brother-in-law, JacobMilstein, had been Colorado Volunteers during an Indian disturbancein 1887.The Prezants, the Shuterans, David Korpitsky and his daughters,and the Toplitskys moved to Denver, where they entered variousfields of business and soon prospered. Several of the men servedon the Denver Police Force and Fire Department.For some years the Tobias family lived in Cheyenne, Wyoming,where they ran a hardware store.The Schneider family, including the sons-in-law Morris and Newman,moved to a farm near Omaha, Nebraska, and the Needlemanand Moscowitz families homesteaded in South Dakota. Theyounger Shradskys moved to California from Cotopaxi.Soloman Shuteran participated in the Cripple Creek gold rush in1892 and established a comfortable family fortune by profitablereal estate investments in that region.30

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielPart VI, ConclusionsDespite its failure, its remoteness, its impermanence and its longsubmergence in undocumented oblivion, the Cotopaxi Colony didhave significance in the shaping of American-Jewish agriculturalhistory. In the immigrant Jew’s attempt to return to the soil, to returnto his ancient national character of the agrarian, the colonyexperiment played a definite and important role. This colony atCotopaxi happened to be the first of more than sixteen similarJewish colonies, located in Louisiana, Arkansas, the Dakotas, Kansas,Nebraska, Oregon and Michigan. Although individually Jewshad long been active and successful in American agriculture, thecolony plan, as demonstrated by successful groups during the1870’s, such as the Union and Chicago colonies in Colorado,seemed better suited for the conquest of the arid high plains andthe distant Mountain and Pacific Coast regions, especially fornewly-arrived Jews. Other national and religious groups had chosenthe collective method as the best way to achieve security and acomfortable social milieu in unfriendly or desolate areas.Analyses of the histories of these other Jewish Colonies, many ofwhich experienced even worse hardships and exploitation schemesthan the one at Cotopaxi, show the same underlying causes forfailure. Most of them were conceived in haste, under great pressure,emotional and political, without adequate consideration ofthose factors upon which successful colonization or even profitableprivate farming, depend. Geographical location, with relationshipto markets, national and local economy, transportation, the characterof the land, type of ownership, lease or title, the capitalneeds, availability of equipment and seed, the existence of anyspecial problems such as the necessity for irrigation, drainage, erosioncontrol, the economic and social condition of the neighboringfarmers in comparison with the prospective colonists, the natureof work involved, the personality and integrity of sponsorship andleadership, and last, but not least, the homogeneity of purpose and31

The Cotopaxi Colonytemperament and physical fitness of the colony members themselves--noneof these vital requirements had received sufficientconsideration in the hectic and unhappy 1880’s.Why Cotopaxi failedIn addition to the comprehensive list shownhere by Satt, the operational failing most tothe fore seems to have been the pioneers’difficulty in defending their propertyagainst the frontier’s inherent disorder.Thus, not only did the colonists lose theiroxen before they reached the Cotopaxiplateau, but they had land whose waterrights they were unable to assert, they grewcrops which they failed to protect againstwild animals and they had winter supplieswhich they surrendered to bears anddestitute tribesmen. (We may take it thatthe lack of any comment to the contraryindicates that these unfortunates wereunarmed.)This points to a consistent lack of thebelligerence required for life on the frontier.This is not to suggest the pioneers lackedpluck, but the record shows less of thephysical presence which might havesecured their interests in the first place, andmore of a propensity for disputation withthird-parties after losses had been incurred.It has never been charged that the Cotopaxi Colony failed becauseof the members’ inability, or lack of inclination for hard, manual,menial labor, or weakness under privation and hardship. It wasdissolved when the foolhardiness of persevering on land whichwas definitely not adapted for agricultural purposes, an arid, stonyvalley almost 7,000 feet above sea-level, was realized. Similarnatural or environmental causes were found in the other Jewishcolonies begun in the 1880’s; flood destroyed the Louisiana colony,malaria was the villain in Arkansas, hail, drought and prairiefires combined to foil the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas attempts,while poor, swampy land, combined with a severe local depression,was the nemesis of the Michigan colony at Bad Axe. Thoughill-fated and short-lived, these agricultural experiments were notbare of results, for these very failures focused attention on thegreat need for better guidance, more careful organization, thoroughinvestigation of the site before settlement, and other factorsattainable only by means of a definite, well-financed, well-staffedJewish farm movement. This awareness led to the foundation, in1884, of first, the Montefiore Agricultural Aid Society, followed bythe establishment of the famous Baron de Hirsch Fund, which setup the Jewish Colonization Association and the Industrial RemovalOffice. These last two merged in 1900 to become the JewishAgricultural Society whose function it has been to encourage,counsel, educate, train, and settle groups of agriculturally-mindedJews on the land. It has also been responsible for aiding in the adjustmentof these groups to their new environment.That the return of the Jew to the land is a good thing for Americaas a whole is undisputed, for, looking beyond such factors as relievingcongestion in urban centers, redistributing population andskills, combating anti-Semitism, or even demonstrating Jewish32

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielability to farm, there is a deeper and broader significance, historicallyand sociologically. The gain, since 1890, in numbers of Jewson American farms, during a period when the trend of populationwas to further urbanization, is an important indication, not to bemeasured in quantity alone. These numbers represent a positivegain in normalization, and the Jewish farmers found for themselvesand their descendants a precious lode of self-satisfactionand self-respect in rediscovering the advantages of life on the soil.Of the effect of the Cotopaxi Colony on Colorado, it will be notedthat nearly all of the members remained in the State, or nearby, infarming, stock-raising and allied fields, or quickly became independentand prosperous in business and commerce. They were notdiscouraged by their failure in Fremont County, but tried again, onan individual or family-group basis, in widely-scattered areas, onhomestead land or purchased farms. These ‘pioneers’ became thenucleus of small Jewish communities in such cities as Longmont,Pueblo, Rocky Ford, Montrose and Grand Junction and helped attractlater Jewish immigration to these places. Those who settledin Denver and nearby towns were quickly Americanized and assimilatedin the business and political life and were in a position, adecade later, to help in adjusting and advising the vast numbers ofJews who flocked to Denver for their health.Too much blame for the Cotopaxi Colony’s failure has been attributedto the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society’s lack of foresight andcareful investigation, but it must be remembered that the planswere undertaken just at the moment when Russian pogromscaused thousands of destitute refugees to crowd into New York,completely absorbing the time and funds available. Too little attentionhas been paid to the unfortunate role played by the Society’serstwhile investigator, Julius Schwarz, whose complicity withthe motives of Emanuel H. Saltiel prevented an adequate forewarningof the problems ahead More emphasis should be placedon the labor-procurement aspect of Saltiel’s offer…33

The Cotopaxi Colony(Material absent from original)...for the nature and composition of a large part of Colorado’s socialdevelopment. Lastly, the significance of their experience atCotopaxi affected the colonists themselves, their children andgrandchildren, in that it gave them a share, however small and unusual,in the history of their State and their nation.34

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielAppendix One—A note on sourcesThis appendix lists sources for the life of Saltiel the Cotopaxi colony and the period; provides a critical rehearsal of thelatter; tests the primary and principal compendium sources, offers an explanation of the legacy of bitterness, and makessome concluding remarks. An article based on this Appendix and Appendix Three is to be published by the RockyMountain Jewish Historical Notes (RMJHN) of the University of Denver, whose rights are hereby acknowledged. I amdelighted to have the opportunity to express my appreciation of the editorial support of the RMJHN, in particular thekindnesses of its editor, Dr Jeanne Abrams.A—List of sourcesWritten sources for the life of Saltiel include:Saltiel’s personal correspondence and court martial transcripts from the National Military Archive, Library of Congress,Washington DC.Justice at Fort Laramie, William E Unrau, Arizona and the West, 1973.Emanuel Saltiel—Incognito to Fort Laramie, Moshe Shaltiel, Shealtiel Gazette, Vol I,No IV, December 1995 and available at http://www.shealtiel.com/gazette/gazettevol1no4.pdfincl primary sources, that is census, directory and birth records in the US and England (the latter courtesy Dr A.P. Josephof Edgbaston, England).Written sources for the Cotopaxi colony include (in order of publication):Report of Mr Julius Schwarz on the colony of Russian refugees at Cotopaxi, Colorado, established by the Hebrew EmigrantAid Society of the United States, 15 State Street, New York City, 23 October 1882, with an ex libris label, “YaleUniversity Library, Discovery and Settlement of Western North America, Collection of William Robertson Coe”. The copyin my possession is sourced from the Library of Congress, where the original is held under call no. zc49 892sc; location:Beinecke (non-circulating).Letter to HEAS by George H Kohn and Louis Wirkowski, 30 Jan 1883; reply by H S Henry 15 February 1883; reprintedin Rocky Mountain Jewish Historical Notes, Vol 1 No 3, June 1978 (cited as RMJHN).The Jewish Colony at Cotopaxi, Dorothy Roberts, Colorado Magazine, July 1941.The present article, The Cotopaxi Colony, unpublished M.A. thesis by Flora Jane Satt, University of Colorado, 1950. Referencesto Satt’s text are to this document; references to notes are as enumerated in links pointed to at http://cotopaxi.250x.com/index.htm.Interesting Historical Facts Concerning Cotopaxi Pioneers, Elizabeth Gulliford, “The Sun”, 26, August, 1954, availableat: http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/co/fremont/history/cotopaxi.txt.Pioneers, peddlers, and Tsadikim: the story of the Jews in Colorado, Ida Libert Uchill, Boulder, Colo, 1957; [re]printed1979 by Quality Line Print Co; incl. an extract from a 1932 report by Dr Charles D Spivak & Dr J.M Morriss, cited at p176in original.Max Rosenthal’s article about Jewish agricultural colonies in the U.S. in JewishEncyclopaedia.com (note, as at October2005, this seems to have been truncated).The website created by A. Armstrong to satisfy the requirements for the final project of the Nationalism and Zionismcourse taught by Professor David Shneer at the University of Denver and available at:http://rader12.home.mindspring.com/index.htm. (This is undated; it has come up only recently on Google searches; onthe other hand A. Armstrong is no longer at UD; this dates it between c2000 and 2004.)Hard Times: The Jewish colony at Cotopaxi, Nancy Oswald, Colorado Central Magazine, No. 132, February 2005, Page26; and available at: http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc2005/01320261.html.I am happy to acknowledge my debt to Greta Heintzelman, the Reference/Cataloging Librarian of the American JewishHistorical Society of New York, who drew my attention to two other sources for HEAS and Jewish agricultural coloniesof the period, specifically:The Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society of the United States, 1881-1883, Gilbert Osofsky, Publications of the American JewishHistorical Society (1893-1961); Sept 1959-Jun 1960, 49, 1-4; AJHS Journal, p173.Annotated Documentary of Jewish Agricultural colonies as Reported in the Pages of the Russian Hebrew Press, “Ha-Melitz” and “Ha-Yom”, Joel S Geffen, American Jewish Historical Quarterly (1961-1978); Sept 1970-Jun 1971; 60, 1-4;AJHS Journal, p355.Other sources include conversations with Dr Jeanne Abrams of the Rocky Mountain Jewish Historical Society at theCentre for Judaic Studies of the University of Denver; Tom Young of Cotopaxi, Colorado; Bill Jones of the SilvertonMine & Museum; and Ranson Baker of Rawlins, Wyoming, the historian of Carbon County, in which Rawlins lies.35

B—Survey of sources on the Cotopaxi colonyThe Cotopaxi ColonyThe first five written sources may be seen as independent, albeit of varying levels of reliability, as they contain differentand occasionally contradictory information.Schwarz’ report to HEASThe principal source of new data comes from Schwarz’ 1882 report on the colony. He is a patently unreliable witness:his account is riddled with errors, trivial as to computation but large as to judgement; his tone is hopelessly overoptimistic,making it inevitable that he got a rough ride from HEAS when he presented it to them. Following this hisname is no longer to be found in the record of the colony. Even so, his report offers many facts which we have no reasonto challenge and which are unavailable elsewhere.Schwarz’ document has the character of a report to be presented personally to HEAS’ Committee. It begins by identifyinghim as the colony's General Manager. He then describes how he allocated eleven lots to the newly arriving colonists,generally of 160 acres each but totalling 1,780 acres (this presumably a typo for 1,760 acres, that is eleven quartersectionlots), with nine further quarter-section lots surveyed (pp3-5). Schwarz then describes the local laws governingland registration: this may not occur until land is occupied, five out of the 160 acres cultivated (and in the case of homesteadsa cabin erected), and boundaries staked (p5). He then enumerates the colonists giving a total of sixty persons, 31males and 29 females (pp5-6).On pages 6 to 10 Schwarz provides an essay on irrigation, its indispensability in Fremont County, the crops arising (inthe main fruits and vegetables), and concluding that water for irrigating the fertile soil is readily to hand. This roseateprospect is shaded by his account of the modesty of the colonists’ actual achievements. He confirms that planting begantoo late for grain and at the time of his report encompassed only forty acres of communally planted potatoes, cabbages,beets, beans, turnips, onions, cucumbers, melons, peas, corn and radish (p10). He also confirms that crops on privatefarmsteads were eaten by “the thousands of cows grazing in the Wet River Valley” and that only eight of the twelvefarmstead houses had been built (p11), obliging some farmers to walk to their lots daily (p12). This is confusing as earlierhe states that only four farmstead houses had been built (p5).At the time he wrote, Schwarz expected to have 45,000 pounds of potatoes for sale after setting aside seed for the nextseason (p11), though low prices were expected to impede prompt sale, and he provided specimens of a potato and a beet(p13). He noted that the colonists had cows and calves (p13), except for three families (p15). Page 14 contains an accountof the colony’s religious life. Schwarz then confirmed that the colonists needed cash by reporting that they “earnmoney daily” (p15); and that he had made arrangements with “Mr P.M. Carroll, one of the officers of the Gunnison Divisionof the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad” for such colonists as require it to obtain employment at $2.00 per day(p13); this is the context in which he praises the energy and commitment of the colonists.On page 15, Schwarz gives an account of the expenditure of the $8,750 provided by HEAS:Food $1,544.87Accommodation $3,460.00Sundry supplies, that isbarbed wire, twelve cows, a team and wagon, ploughs,agricultural implements, seeds, furniture, hauling, etc. $5,044.00Some immediate comments.1. Schwarz reports expenditure of a shade under $10,050 against HEAS advances of$8,750, but he fails to balance the books. The c$1,300 overspend is neither recognisednor attributed to HEAS.2. On p16, Schwarz reports that the colony’s assets include a mule-team and wagon;this is to draw a veil over the loss of the ox-team (Gulliford, para 5), although theaccounts of manhandling (Satt, p21) tell us that the team was unrecovered; theloss is implied by Schwarz’ reference to “hauling”.3. At this point, a similar veil is drawn over credit from the store. The sum for foodfalls so far short of the other estimates discussed below, as to suggest that at thispoint Schwarz expected the colonists to use their earnings on the railroad to repaytheir debts for food over and above the $1,544.87 which he attributes to HEAS.The crisis which came shortly after the date of Schwarz’ report seems to have followedHEAS’ recognition of their inability or disinclination to do so.36

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielSchwarz goes on to request $500 from HEAS to pay for the salary of his assistant, Leon, identified by Satt as“Max” (Satt, p23). Satt also tells us that “Mr. Tobias was the only colonist not recruited in Russia, having joined thegroup in New York during the winter of 1881. He and his wife had been in the US since 1877 and spoke English betterthan most of the others” (Satt, III, n12). The $500 was also to cover arrears of rent for communal accommodation, adistribution of flour, and cows and calves for the three families without them (pp15-16). Schwarz concludes with extravagantremarks extolling the colony and its participants.Schwarz was Hungarian (Satt, p23) and his ability to speak Yiddish to the colonists would have made for mutualwarmth. Satt repeatedly mentions his youth (Satt, pp17, 21, 23), making him of an age with many of the settlers: Sattidentifies eleven out of the 23 heads of family she enumerates as being between eighteen and thirty years of age (Satt,III, n35). This community of outlook must have offset the caution of his background as a lawyer (Satt, pp17, 23) to accountfor the unqualified enthusiasm of his writing about the colony. He wrote affectionately of the settlers, indeedsome passages parade his affection extravagantly to modern taste.“...the management of the colony never failed to remain in contact with the refugees, never failed to show that itfeels for them and with them, imbuing thereby in the desperate hearts of the lingering refugees the consoling consciousnessthat there is somebody who watches over them, knows them and understands them” (p11).He praises the “gentlemanly conduct of the majority of colonists” (p11) and expands at length on their capacity for work(pp13-14). In this passage he makes no secret that the colonists worked in a mine, presumably Saltiel’s, remarking that“they worked in damp, dark mines as good (sic) and as perseveringly as trained miners”. Whatever we make of this, theevidence is that the colonists returned his warmth. Satt notes that he “joined with the Russian immigrants in their religiousobservances and was chosen Secretary of the Congregation” (Satt, p23).It is hard to know how safely we may disregard Satt’s concluding stigmatisation.“Too little attention has been paid to the unfortunate role played by the Society’s erstwhile investigator, JuliusSchwarz, whose complicity with the motives of Emanuel H Saltiel prevented an adequate forewarning of the problemsahead” (Satt, p33).In fact we now know that Schwarz was very much in touch with HEAS. His approach need not make him a villain; itmight be better to remember that he was a youngster. His general euphoria reflects the preoccupations of his time, inparticular the notion of redemption via the soil. He makes common mistakes, for example that the colonists included“three trained farmers” and were otherwise tradesmen (p14); this is to overlook that five out of twenty-two heads offamilies were members of the clan owning an agricultural supply business (Satt, p10; Satt, III, n35). His representationof himself as General Manager of the colony (Schwarz, pp2 and 3) is confirmed by the report of the committee formedby Denver’s Jewish community of attorney George H Kohn and Louis Wirkowski (RMJHN Vol 1, No 3, p1). Some of hisremarks seem irrelevant as well as mistaken, for example his lengthy essay on irrigation (pp6-10). His report of expenditures(p15) may be over-stated, in that we understand that Saltiel subsequently settled with HEAS—presumably forless. His themes play to the gallery, in his repeated assurances that the colonists are worthy of the experiment, for examplehis report of some anonymous praise, “Your folks are first-class workers” (p13), and his assertion that the colonists“have brought respect to the Jewish name in the Rocky mountains...more than realized our most sanguine expectations”,etc, etc (p16). He lays it on with a trowel in such remarks (also without attribution) as, “The only trouble withyour people is they work too fast...” (pp13-14), let alone the extravagances with which he concludes. We should also disregardhis euphoric conclusions and predictions, some of which were promptly falsified, for example his expected 22-ton crop of potatoes (p11), altogether failed (Satt, p24).All of this said, he provides information that is available nowhere else and with nothing to discredit it. The subjects coveredinclude the mechanics of the allocation of the farmsteads (Schwarz, pp3-5); the resort to communal cultivation(p10); the provision of kosher meat after the beginning of August (p13) (n.b., this may have been the spur for the settlersto earn cash, if supplied directly from Denver, that is not on store credit. It also tells us that the settlers establisheddirect and continuous contact with Denver’s Jewish community several months before the late Autumn crisis); the supplyof cows and calves for milk after the beginning of October (also p13); a pen-portrait of one of the colonists as formerlya “boisterous rebel...a dissatisfied quarrelsome creature”, this before the redemptive effect of agricultural labour,after which “his farm looks like a flower garden” (p4), though this did give Kohn and Wirkowski rhetorical openings,when they were unable to find it under the snows of January 1883 (RMJHN, p2); another pen-portrait of the colonists’diet: “bread, butter, fish, rice, coffee, beans, prunes, dried apples and potatoes” (p13), most store-bought goods, making37

The Cotopaxi Colonyit clear how credit would have mounted up; a sinister hint of the merit of avoiding “quarrelsome litigation” withneighbouring farmers (p4), presumably an echo of the depredations reported by Roberts (p127); and a confirmationthat the settlers regarded themselves as indebted to HEAS (Schwarz, p16).Schwarz would have to have been an evil genius of extraordinary prescience to have planted the incidental elementswhich weigh most with us near 125 years later: his observations that Colorado land titles called for registration and improvementby the occupants themselves (Schwarz, p5); his expectations for the potato crop (p11); his unembarrasseddisclosure that the colonists had worked in a mine, presumably Saltiel’s (p13); his report that he had arranged for employmentfor as many as might seek it with the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad (also p13); and his ingenuous assurancethat the colonists were eager to repay their debts to HEAS (p16). Schwarz’ tone is positive throughout. At no pointdoes he recognise that the colony was weeks away from a cash crisis; the $500 he sought from HEAS was trivial bycomparison with the underlying sums.Correspondence between Kohn & Wirkowski and Henry (cited as RMHJN)In June 1978 the Rocky Mountain Jewish Historical Notes published excerpts from a correspondence between GeorgeH Kohn & Louis Wirkowski of Denver and H S Henry, the President of HEAS in New York. The provenance of this correspondenceis itself instructive. The letter of Kohn & Wirkowski is dated 30 January 1883. From Henry’s reply, welearn that the Kohn & Wirkowski letter was covered by a letter from Kohn and H Silver on 5 February 1883. Dr JeanneAbrams, the Editor of the RMJHN, introduces the correspondence by noting that Kohn & Wirkowski published theirletter in the Denver Tribune on 7 February 1883, that is two days after they sent it to New York. Abrams notes that bothletters were subsequently reprinted in the American Israelite of Cincinnati (no date given).It is probable, but not certain that the Kohn &Wirkowski letter is that referred to by Satt in her account of the “threeprominent men” from Denver who visited the colony and sent an appeal to HEAS (Satt, p26). Roberts’ account of thesame visit identifies one of the visitors as George H Kohn, an attorney (Roberts, p129). The element of uncertaintyarises because Satt did not see the original document and follows her source, the Spivak report of 1925, in identifyingthe authors of the letter as Kohn, Witkovski (an evident typo) and one A Strauss of whom we know no more (Satt, III,n25).On page one, Kohn & Wirkowski begin by describing the sequence of arrivals: fifty settlers on 8 May 1882 and a furtherfourteen on 28 August 1882, for a total of sixty three after allowing for the death of an infant. This is a simplification ofthe to-ings and fro-ings described by Schwarz. Kohn & Wirkowski confirm that Schwarz arrived in Cotopaxi with thefirst group of settlers as the colony’s “clerk”. They then complain about the infrastructure by comparison with that depictedin Schwarz’ report, in particular arguing that the houses, billed at $280 apiece “could have been built for $100”.They then describe the farms, characterising one as a “mean strip of land”, and the surrounding country, where “a beastcould not live” and enjoy a good knock-about in rebutting Schwarz’ account of a settlers‘ “flower garden” which theywere unable to find.On page two, Kohn & Wirkowski repeat Schwarz’ computation that allotted lands totalled 1,780 (rather than 1,760)acres; provide an anecdote about a colonist who planted four bags of potatoes to gather only fifteen (in later accountsthis was to become a legend of planting fourteen bags and getting fifteen (Roberts, p127); and of one Morris Mimkorskywho swam a swollen creek to get food for his sick wife. They then confirm that the colonists are earning cash from a zincmine—if Saltiel’s this was actually his silver mine; they do not touch on scrip—and the “odd job” from the railroad, includingpiece-work at one cent per hauled log. This is at odds with both Schwarz and Satt, both of whom indicate thatwork on the railroad was readily available at satisfactory daily rates. Kohn and Wirkowski conclude by requesting reliefby way of clothes and provisions and arrangements to transport the colonists to happier climes.Henry’s response (all RMJHN, p6) takes a fairly Olympian tone. He starts by noting that the investigators visited thecolony for less than twelve hours in mid-winter. He does not say (though we certainly can) that at such a season muchis concealed by snow cover. Henry satirises Kohn & Wirkowski’s report as a “forcible literary production”, underminedby including “many things which we know to be erroneous”. Given that Kohn and Wirkowski sent their letter on 5 Februaryand that within ten days Henry had obtained sufficient information to contradict it circumstantially, we may takeit that by then Western Union had reached Cotopaxi.38

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielHenry confirms that Schwarz arrived with the colonists and was in Cotopaxi for middle part of the year. He refers to theexample of German and Irish pioneers and notes that,“…it seemed to us that the very nature of the land at Cotopaxi, and the kind of farming required there, was speciallyadapted to the Russian refugee, whose experience had been chiefly in the planting of vegetables, whose physiquewas less able to battle with the clearing of land…”This tells us a couple of things. Henry shared the general misapprehension that the colonists had agricultural experience,whereas we know that the Ekaterinaslav agricultural co-operative had collapsed eleven years earlier (Satt, p10)and the leadership of the Cotopaxi pioneers came from the Milstein clan of seed merchants (Satt, p10; II,25). In additionall concerned had abandoned such element of stockraising as was contemplated by Saltiel in his original promise ofcattle, horses, wagons and a year’s supply of fodder (Satt, p14), the absence of which gave rise to no complaint by thesettlers (Satt, p20).Henry then goes on to stigmatise Russian Jews as given to mendicancy. These remarks are disagreeable, but understandablegiven the dissonance between American (in particular frontier) values of rugged individualism and the celebrationof alms as a mitzvah (blessing) among traditional Jews. It also doubtless reflected Henry’s irritation that byasking for more money, the Cotopaxi colonists were in effect repudiating the obligations to HEAS they had earlier assumed.Henry then suggests that Kohn & Wirkowski have been imposed upon by “Christian farmers, whom you have seen, orother interested parties” as to the quality of the land. It is not clear to me what Henry was getting at, but evidently hewas mistaken about the substantive issue: the land was useless for farming. In the excerpt provided in the RMJHN,Henry goes on to rebut the story of Morris Minorski, whom he (Henry) refers to as Mitkowski. Neither name appears inSatt’s list of colonists (Satt, II, 35); perhaps he was Berel Morris. Henry concludes by taking exception to the prematurepublication of the letter from Kohn & Wirkowski, which he characterises as a failing in judgement and protocol, andcontributory grounds to dismiss its substance. It is a sign of the times, as well as the indirect character of the dealingsbetween the two sides, that neither side felt it expedient to introduce finances to the face of the correspondence at thisstage. Evidently this was not the end of the negotiations between HEAS, the colonists and Saltiel, but at present noother direct evidence is to hand.SattSatt, provides the definitive compendium account. She refers to a handful of earlier specialist articles, including that byRoberts and gives due weight to the “first draft of history”, the contemporary record of the newspapers of the day, inparticular, the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Republican. Generally the former serves for such uncontroversialmatters as identifying Hart as Saltiel’s partners (III, n4), sometimes less certainly for such corollary information asthe price of sawmill timber, which neither we nor Satt are able to make much sense of (III, n19). The Denver Republicanwas a party to and serves as a sample of the campaign against Saltiel (III, n26)Satt made an extensive programme of visits: in May 1949 to New York City to see original correspondence or otherdocuments attaching to HEAS (III, n27); and to neighbours, survivors or descendants of the colonists, as well as to thesite of the colony itself, in on 14 and 15 August 1949 (sometimes confusingly cited as 1948). For the account of the colonists’arrival in Cotopaxi, she relies on “a personal interview by Charles H. McCoy on August 15, 1948” (Satt, III, n1).McCoy was 22 years old at the time of the colonists’ arrival, making him 88 years old at the time of the interview. Thissaid, he is reliable to the extent that we have corroborating sources; his main lacuna is the loss of the ox-team(Gulliford, para 5).On close scrutiny, however, Satt’s sources for the period thereafter are fallible. She relies on her interviews with the twothen surviving members of the colony: Mrs. Hannah Quiat (a.k.a. Quiatkowski—Roberts, p125) on 6 August (Satt, III,n15 ) and 15 August 1949 (Satt, III, n7); and Mrs. Rachel Singer on 15 August 1949 (Satt, III, n7); plus the descendant ofa colonist, Rose Ornstein on 15 August 1949 (Satt, II, n22; and Satt, III, n23). In her notes (Satt, II, n35) Satt identifiesHannah and Rachel as the “two young daughters” of Isaac Lieb “Shames” (Milstein). Rose Ornstein was born after thecolony was disbanded into the family of one of the two Jacob Milsteins (Satt, II, n22). The Milsteins were the leadingclan in the colony, but none of these households is identified by Satt as among the leaders of the settlement (Satt, p23).39

The Cotopaxi ColonyShe has just three primary sources, of which she saw only one in its original form. This is the 8 September 1880 letterfrom Saltiel to Heilprin, of which she saw fragments (II, n27 and III n18). The second is a citation from the Spivak reportto a letter from Saltiel to Heilprin of October 1881 (III, n6). The third, also cited in the Spivak report (III, n25), is aletter from Kohn and Wirkovsky to Henry. I assume this is the same document as that reprinted in the Rocky MountainJewish Historical Notes (Vol 1 No 3, pp1,2,6); the timing seems right, but it may be a later document as she joins withSpivak in adding Straus as a signatory.Satt’s account of Saltiel himself is accurate as to his career after c1866 (I, 19). She was unaware that he came to theUnited States as an adolescent or of his adventures in the military. There is no evidence that Saltiel was educated inEurope as an “engineer and metallurgist”, though his written English betrays conventional education. She writes of himhaving a thick accent, unlikely as he was a native speaker of British English.Satt was wholly unaware of Schwarz’ report. Given the general obscurity of this document, she has been taken as thedefinitive text by all writers after Gulliford, who offer no new information. By contrast Roberts and Gulliford presentanecdotes that are either absent from Satt’s MA thesis or treated in a different fashion. Only Roberts writes of the characterof the settlers’ title (p127), the appropriation of water rights and fertile land by other settlers (also p127), or of EdGrimes’ walk to Denver (p130); only Gulliford writes of the loss of the oxen (para 5), or the late planting (para 6). Sattimplicitly confirms the former in her account of colonists’ manhandling their possessions up to the plateau (p21). Sattwas evidently unaware of the reason for this expedient or chose to present it, unexplained, as yet another incident of thecolonists’ distress. This is of a piece with her gloomy spin on even trivial episodes; for example the “rather crowdedfashion” of the accommodation provided for sixty-one arrivals in Saltiel’s hotel in Cotopaxi (p18). Presumably this wasno hotel but the communal accommodation—in effect bunkhouse—reported by Schwarz (pp12, 15, 16).Satt was a neighbour of the descendants of the other settlers in Fremont County and a descendant of the coloniststhemselves. The former may explain her failure to repeat Roberts’ account of misappropriation of land and water,though she gives a hint in her concluding remarks about the need to take account of “the social and economic conditionsof the neighbouring farmers in comparison with the prospective colonists” (p31). The latter presumably explainsher uncritical acceptance of the colonists’ demand for a rebate (p24) and the return of their “lost money” (p25). Robertsanticipated Satt’s approach to this topic by making no comment on the newspaper account she quoted of the recollectionof B Prezant, a veteran of the colony. He recalled asking tearfully that Saltiel should provide the colonists with“their rightful share of money entrusted to him for their needs” (Roberts, p129). Setting aside questions about the accuracyof the original newspaper, Appendix Three establishes that a request along these lines would have been misguided.Satt’s work offers no inkling that this might have been the case. For all that this attests to Satt’s commitment to her thesis,it also represents something of a departure from the standards to be expected from a work of scholarship.Her affiliation with the descendants of the pioneers may also explain her patience with their clumsiness with stock,both their own—that is the oxen (p21 & Gulliford, para 5), and others—that is neighbours’ cattle (p20 and Roberts,p127); as well as their unbecoming inactivity at the nuisances presented by bears (p24), neighbours (Roberts, p127),and begging tribesmen (p25). It cannot explain the ludicrous reference to European guns (p24), which must simply reflectthe gulf between Colorado in 1950 and the economic, social and legal predicament of Jews in 1880s Russia.Satt is confusing on the numbers of colonists. On page 9 she writes of twenty-two heads of families, so enumerated inher notes (Satt, III, n35); on page 17 of twenty family groups; on page 20 of twenty quarter-section lots; on page 22 of atwenty-first “family unit” and on page 29 once again of twenty-two family groups, but her remarks about indebtedness(p15) only make sense with a denominator of 23 family units. This said, Satt’s figures seem more circumstantial thanthose offered by Roberts, who writes of sixteen families (op cit p125) but enumerates eighteen family groups (op citp125-6). Both sources agree that the colony numbered 63 persons at its peak. Satt and Roberts also differ as to the sequenceof arrivals. Roberts writes of thirteen families and fifty individuals arriving on 8 May 1882, with the colony fillingout to 63 persons as “three more families arrived during the summer.” Roberts cites only secondary sourceswhereas Satt interviewed one or two of the settlers’ descendants. This causes me to place greater confidence in her accountof twenty family groups on 8 May and a twenty-first after the Milsteins arrived in mid June. If there were 63 settlersat the peak we may deduct the Milstein couple to reach 61 arrivals in May (this overlooks the complication of thetragic death of three infants). Although Schwarz provides a contemporaneous account of 6o colonists (p6) and a morecircumstantial account of arrivals and departures, he fails to identify all of the colonists or to enumerate the departure40

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielof the Moskowitzes (identified, enumerated but departure unreported by Satt), or the arrival of the Lautersteins(altogether unreported by Satt). In this light and slightly reluctantly, my calculations of working capital below rely onthe best data to hand, namely the twenty two families provided by Satt on page 29 despite its apparent simplification.Satt is silent on finance, other than the grievances of the pioneers and a fleeting acknowledgment of their indebtedness.She does not report the loss of the ox-team and in consequence fails to alert us to its economic implications. If the colonistsowned the team, they incurred a disastrous capital loss at the outset; if they had hired the team they would haveincurred an obligation to its owner, whether for the loss of stock or the costs of its recovery. Either way they had tomake other arrangements for draft animals. Like Roberts, Satt is silent on the extent of the credit taken by the colonistsfrom their arrival to the “Autumn” (p24). She is swift to seize on the unfairness of payment by scrip, but fails to set thisin the context of the credit already taken by the colonists, or the history of the period. She is mistaken as to the positionof Schwarz, who—contrary to her surmise—did not defect from his duties to HEAS, but regarded himself as their representative.As she had not seen his October 1882 report, she was in no position to comment on its content or tone. Finally,she give no account of the process by which the colonists indebtedness was reversed to generate a further disbursement,presenting it simply as equitable recompense for Saltiel’s deceit.Satt does not question—indeed her conclusion from pages 31 to 34 positively embraces—the redemptive power of thesoil, particularly as it might bear upon Jews. She probably wrote too early to place this notion in the historical contextavailable to us, by way of the undistinguished agricultural experience of Jews outside what is now Israel; the diminishedinterest in Jewish redemption; or the excesses of agricultural ambition on the high plains of the United States.Satt is most reliable where she is not spinning her story to serve her thesis, which she was the first to publish: thatSaltiel promoted the colony to engineer a pool of sweated labour. Gulliford’s fragmentary anecdotage is silent on thetopic and Roberts’ assertion, that he wished to “boost” the area, is less definite. It is not clear if the “sweated labour”thesis was a tradition of the colonists which they passed on to Satt, or something she developed on her own account.She presents it with passion, but slightly less penetration; the specifics of her allegations are addressed in AppendixThree. We also test below five of the pillars of her case: the arrival of Schwarz in Cotopaxi, the provision of cabins, thelate Autumn crisis, the conditions of mid-winter 1882-83, and the negotiations from March to late summer 1883 leadingto the three-way final settlement between the pioneers, HEAS and Saltiel.Other sourcesUchill, Oswald and Armstrong rely upon Satt to whom they add no new fact. Uchill erroneously identifies Saltiel asHart’s cousin and a South African. (The misidentification of Saltiel as Portuguese is a recurrent confusion of Sephardicidentities.) Oswald is the first of Cotopaxi’s chroniclers to take account of material deposited at the Cotopaxi library bythe present writer, for which many thanks. Armstrong is singular in building upon Satt’s thesis to suggest that the colonistsmisunderstood their position so radically as to become virtual “serfs”; and were “under the impression that theywere indebted for the land that Saltiel had filed on for them, so money to reclaim the deed would be needed to leave theColony.” As Armstrong cites no sources, we may take this previously unheard notion as speculation. I address it in AppendixThree—Allegations.C—Comparison of sourcesWe may test the principal sources before us in order to develop a sense of their reliability. We examine the arrival ofSchwarz in Colorado, which underpins the allegation that he conspired with Saltiel to deceive HEAS; the provision ofaccommodation, which underpins the allegation that rebates due the colonists were improperly withheld; and the detailsof the late autumn crisis, which bears upon the central allegation that Saltiel always intended the colony to fail soas to establish a pool of sweated labour.The arrival of Schwarz in ColoradoPart of Satt’s thesis is that Schwartz defected from his obligations to HEAS and combined with Saltiel to deceive themand the colonists. This turns out to be mistaken. The first part of her account is“Michael Heilprin…assign[ed] a young lawyer connected with the society, Julius Schwartz, to go to Colorado, makea thorough investigation of the locality, markets, soil, climate, etc., and return a report to the New York office.Schwartz left New York in January of 1881, but HEAS never received any report from him or word concerninghim.” (Satt, p17)41

The Cotopaxi ColonyThis is unsourced, with the story of Schwarz’ trip of inspection possibly coming the source cited most adjacently, Pollack’slife of Heilprin (Satt, II,23); and the story of the lack of news from him from Satt’s ignorance of the true date ofhis arrival and the existence of his October report. Evidently Schwarz’ 1881 trip to Colorado was cancelled but his reportestablishes that he never ceased to regard himself as HEAS’ agent. The second part of Satt’s narrative relies on the recollectionof Rose Ornstein who told Satt that,“In November, 1881, Jacob Milstein left New York to survey the prospects in Colorado, and to look up JuliusSchwartz. He never found Schwartz.” (Satt, II,n32)This is because Schwarz hadn’t left New York. Millstein had got hold of the wrong end of the stick. We know this fromfour sources: first Schwartz himself. On p12 of his report he wrote,“At the base of the Rocky Mountains, we have a more genial climate [than] in the same latitude near the level ofthe sea…In Colorado, in a tent, the tenderest babe and the most delicate invalid can live and sleep all the yearround…”No matter Schwarz’ enthusiasms, such comments are inexplicable from anyone who had endured a Colorado winter.He had not. The letter by Kohn & Wirkowski and the reply by H.S Henry independently substantiate the date ofSchwarz arrival. Kohn & Wirkowski wrote, “Julius Schwarz came with the colony as its clerk…” and Henry confirms thisby writing “Schwarz derived his experience during the summer and a five months residence there…” (RMJHN, pp1, 6).Finally, Roberts writes that “Julius Schwarz, a young Hungarian lawyer, was sent to Cotopaxi soon after the arrival ofthe refugees to look after the affairs of the colony” and offers a contemporaneous source, the Jewish Messenger of 1882(Robert, p126). As Satt cited Roberts, it is odd that she failed to note the discrepancy with her oral sources on this topic.From this we learn that Satt’s sources are unreliable, that she is given to err when she prefers them to contemporaneouswritten sources, and that she jumps to conclusions.Provision of cabinsNumber and completion Part of Satt’s thesis is that the pioneers qualified for rebates in part as Saltiel’s overchargedfor accommodation. I address the issue of rebates in Appendix three. As to accommodation, Satt writes that“Saltiel had written to the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society in October, 1881 that the twenty houses werefinished and that five large barns would be completed shortly...Now, more than seven months later, thenewcomers found only twelve small, poorly-constructed cabins...”(Satt, p19)Her sources are McCoy, Quiat and Singer (Satt III, nn1, 7). The primary source, Schwarz, appears to be in agreement asto the total number, though whereas Satt says they were present on arrival, he writes of them being uncompleted in October.He also contradicts himself about the number of completions. On page four he writes of four houses alreadybuilt, six to be built on homesteads and two to be built in Cotopaxi township leading to the need to erect log cabins toestablish homestead rights. This makes twelve in total plus two log cabins. On pages 11 and 12, he writes of twelvehouses ordered by the committee, of which eight are completed.We cannot reconcile Schwarz’ contradictory accounts of four (p4) versus 8 (pp11-12) completions. We can make sense,however, of the apparent paradox that he should deny completions in October, which Satt reports in May, if we considerthat they are describing different houses. We are obliged to entertain somwethi9ng along these lines when wecome to examine the standard of accommodations.Standards The cabins are described by Quiat and Singer as “approximately eight feet square, six feet high, with flatroofs and no chimneys”. This is contradicted in almost every particular by Schwarz’ contemporaneous account whichwrites of the cabins as 16 feet by 20 feet, double boarded and insulated, with tar paper insulation, containing threerooms and a kitchen, with a 1-3 pitch roof, and 12 feet high in the centre. We can reconcile the two accounts by remindingourselves of Schwarz’ remarks about log cabins. These would have been the default configuration for all involved ininitial frontier construction, from saw-mill to site, built to a pattern intended to satisfy the minimum requirements ofthe Homestead Acts.“The provisions of the Homestead Act largely dictated frontier home design and construction. The Act mandatedthat, in addition to other improvements to the land, homesteaders had to build a dwelling that was at least ten bytwelve feet in size, and contained at least one glass window. Since more than half of all homesteaders lost their “betwith Uncle Sam” and gave up their claims before their five-year “proving up” period was completed…[c]omfort wasoften a secondary issue.” Source http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/frontierlife/essay4.html42

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielAfter allowing for the exaggeration of children (recognised with the caveat of “approximately”), the cabins described bySatt’s sources satisfy the requirements for homesteading, which would be familiar to the workmen on the spot as thefirst objective of pioneers. The Cotopaxi colonists evidently found them disappointing so they came to serve—if at all—as preliminary lodgings for farmers on remote plots until the more spacious arrangements described by Schwarz becameavailable. Such a second round of construction would have been abandoned after the cash ran out. Satt also mentionsthat “The men themselves built mud chimneys…” (Satt, p21). We should bear in mind that frontier chimneys wereinvariably a labour-intensive affair of stones or mud; given the local labour shortage, these would have been impossibleto build prior to the arrival of the colonists.Costs Satt dwells on the imperfections of the accommodation so as to establish one of the pillars of her case againstSaltiel, that he wilfully withheld money from the colonists after overcharging HEAS. When look at the specifics of thecase of overcharging, however, we find that it relies upon a misconstruction. Satt argues that “Saltiel…tendered [a bill]to cover the cost of building twenty fine homes at $280.00 each” (Satt, p25). This is sourced to Saltiel’s letter to Heilprin,dated 19 September 188o. (Satt, III, n18). Earlier, however, she makes it clear that this letter contained Saltiel’soriginal offer (Satt, p14; II, n27), so the figures represented a proposal rather than an invoice. Satt follows Kohn andWirkowski in pricing the cabins at $100 each. She associates this with information (possibly advertisements) in theRocky Mountain News of 2 December 1880 that ‘Two saw-mills were in operation in the immediate vicinity at this time[with] ‘first-class lumber sold for $22.50 per thousand’ ” Satt, p25; III, n19). She declines the final step of working upthe price of the lumber for a log cabin from this and we are unable to do so. In the event Schwarz claimed not for twentybut twelve homes at $280 (Schwarz p15).In this instance, we see that Satt failed to take account of the realities of frontier life, that is the pattern of building fallingout of the legal requirements to qualify for homesteading; that she was unaware of any second round of construction;and that she mistook the character of primary correspondence.The late autumn crisisWe confirm the weakness of Satt’s sources and approach when we turn to the alternative sequences provided for theevents leading to the late Autumn crisis. Schwarz’ sequence is:Before Schwarz’ report to HEAS (i.e., reported in it)Settlers work in a mine, presumably Saltiel’s, and on the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad,either to pay for the supplies of kosher meat or generally to support themselves.On or around 23 October 1882Schwarz presents his report to the Committee of HEAS in New York.After Schwarz’ report to HEAS (i.e., unreported in it)Potato crop fails and credit stopped.Satt’s sequence is:Potato crop fails and credit stopped.Settlers obliged to work in Saltiel’s mine.Settlers discover alternative work at the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, work there instead.Neither source is wholly satisfactory. The very date of Schwarz’ report is uncertain. It is prefaced, “New York, October23, 1882”. The location is consistent with Schwarz’ remark about parting from the colonists (p16) and tells us that eitherhe presented it personally or was to hand to answer questions. The dating is complicated by a comment in his appealfor funds, where he states that Tobias provided assistance between 2 and 18 November. This is at odds with evidenceinternal to his report: at the time he wrote he was still hoping for a successful potato crop (Schwarz, p11), so hemust have written before the “exceptionally early frost [in] the autumn of 1882” which ruined the crop (Satt, p24). Thereport’s positive content and tone make it clear that it was written before the crisis which occurred after store credit wasstopped in the late Autumn. Perhaps we can square this circle by noting that the document in my possession is aprinted edition of what must originally have been a manuscript. The layout of the document suggests that the table containingthe reference to “November” may have been compressed. On balance, this smacks of another typo.Satt’s account is also defective. Her primary sources turn out to be few in number and less than safe. For the account ofthe colonists’ arrival in Cotopaxi, she relies on interviews with elderly informants, long after the events concerned tookplace. Ornstein has already been shown to be unreliable and the safety of material sourced from Quiat and Singer ischallenged above.43

The Cotopaxi ColonySatt’s account gives no reason for the credit stop, but the sequence of events that she offers makes it clear that it precipitatedthe crisis between Saltiel and the colonists. She confines her explanation to Saltiel’s perfidy, with no thirdpartyor documentary corroboration. We explore below how this follows the lead of the pioneers’ attorney, George HKohn, one of the authors of the January 1883 report to HEAS.Taking one thing with another, we have to attach greater weight to Schwarz’ sequence. This assessment derives fromthe contemporaneous character of Schwarz’ report and the involuntary evidence coming from a close reading, ratherthan its ostensible argument. By contrast, Satt’s sequence is reliant on the hearsay of three elderly women, who at thetime of the events they were describing were either unborn or minors, in an era in which women played little part inbusiness. Those alive at the time were unable to speak English and all came from households removed from the centreof events. Such first-hand recollections as they had would, moreover, have been contaminated by the refreshment offamily discussions during the following sixty-seven years.Let us examine what the sequence falling out of Schwarz’ document would have led to in New York and Colorado. Wemay take it that the Committee promptly penetrated Schwarz’ enthusiasms to dwell on his inconsistencies—four housesbuilt on p5 of his report vs eight on p11; financial imprecision—expenditures unbalanced with income and deficit unattributed(Schwarz, p15); and prolonged irrelevance—four pages out of eighteen devoted to erroneous comments on irrigation(Schwarz, pp6-10).The discrepancies in Schwarz’ report would have put the Committee on guard. Scant effort to detect the underlying conditionsinadvertently revealed by Schwarz’ report: no crops for immediate sale; no cash reserve plus mounting obligations;imperfect accommodation; and no provision to survive the winter. Neither Schwarz’ forensic skills nor his horticulturalshow-and-tell would see off the tough questioning to be expected, causing him to reveal the whole story includingthe colony’s uncovered obligations by way of store credit. Small wonder for the Society to become concerned thatSaltiel might hold them liable for the settlers’ debts. Their natural response would be to get him to stop further creditand ensure the colonists’ self-sufficiency for the winter, by earning a livelihood from the employment which Schwarzreports as readily to hand.Slightly parenthetically, following the debacle of Schwarz’ report we hear no more of him; Satt makes no mention ofhim after the summer and the subsequent dealings she reports were directly between the colonists and Saltiel. Presumablythe crisis following Schwarz’ report led him to be dismissed as General Manager.D—The legacy of bitternessIf this revisionist account of the colony is correct, we should give thought to the legacy of bitterness. A reasonablejudgement would be that it comes from seven sources: the accumulation of store credit; the clash of cultures between thecolonists and their new environment; the prevalence of conspiracy theories among Jewish refugees of the period; the conditionsof the winter of 1882-3; the negotiations of 1883; the distortions over time of oft-told tales; and the authority of Satt’sthesis.Store creditThe colonists were keenly aware of the debts they were accumulating (Satt, op cit, p14; Schwarz, p16). We are able to offerfour approximations. First there is the testimony of Schwarz who writes of $1544.87 of expenditure of food in the first fivemonths of the colony (Schwarz, p15). This takes us to 8 October, excludes non-food expenditure and is low by comparisonwith every other estimate. We may make a calculation from the 26 March 1884 edition of the Warsaw-based Hebrew newspaper,Ha-Melitz. This contains an account of the Jewish agricultural colony of Alliance, New Jersey, which failed in 1883.There, “the committee decided to allocate from $8 to $12 to each family, so they could live well and not sparingly” (Geffen,page 7 of 28 in reproduced article). We may take it that this was a weekly stipend. If applied to the 22 families reported bySatt, this becomes $4,620 over the twenty-one weeks from 8 May to 1 October 1882 (Satt, p29).We reach higher figures if we attempt to work backwards from the earnings from the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad whichkept the colony in 1882 and 1883. These were between $2 and “up to $3” per day (Schwarz, op cit, p13; Satt, op cit, p26). Letus take the mean of $2.50 over a six-day working week for 21 men to reflect Satt’s “almost all” of the 23 adult males (That is,excluding Ed Grimes, who walked to Denver and Samuel Shradsky, “a very old man”, Satt, op cit, pp26, 29; Roberts, p130).Over the 21 week period, this totals $6,615. The highest figure comes from the 25 November 1885 issue of Ha-Melitz, which44

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles Saltielwhich reprinted a letter to Elijah Sholman by Mordecai Jalomstein, an American journalist who frequently served as a correspondentto the newspaper. Jalomstein wrote that after his “intensive study” of “the reports which [had] reached him”, hehad learned that the Cotopaxi colony had “eaten up twenty thousand dollars.” If we subtract HEAS’ original budget of$10,000 and the October 1883 settlement of $2,000, we are left with other expenditures, presumably on store credit, of$8,000. The table below summarises the expenditures arising under these alternative assumptions.Scenarios1 2 3 4 NotesTravel from New York toColorado 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250Infrastructure at Cotopaxi 8,750 8,750 8,750 8,750Final settlement with colonists 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000Estimates of store creditScenario 1 1,555 1Scenario 2 4,620 2Scenario 3 6,615 3Scenario 4 8,000 4Total 13,555 16,620 18,615 20,000Notes1. Figures from Schwarz (p15).2. Based on weekly family stipend at the Vineland NJ colony, Geffen, Page 7 of 283. Based on the earnings of 21 adult males from the Denver and Rio Grande R/R; Schwarz, p13; Satt,, p26.4 Deduction from total cited by Jalomsten; Geffen, p. 24 of 28.This gives an estimating range (in round figures) between $1,500 and $8,000 for store credit, centring around $5,500; andtotal obligations (also in round figures) of between $13,500 and $20,000, centring around $17,500. Sums of this kind wouldbe bound to add to the anxieties of the colonists.Clash of culturesWe should also recognize how much the pioneers were at odds with their physical and cultural environment. They fell foul oftheir neighbours, who grabbed the best land (Roberts, p127) and whose cattle trespassed upon and ate their crops (Schwarz,p11; Roberts, p127; Satt, pp20, 24, 25), not to say whatever further depredations HS Henry was hinting at in his Februaryletter (RMJHN, p6). The settlers lacked familiarity with stock—the ox-team lost on arrival (Gulliford, para 5); the roamingcattle of the Wet Mountain valley or game—the bears preparing for hibernation (Schwarz, p11; Roberts, p127; Satt,p20); as well as the wherewithal to see off such threats as might be posed by begging tribesmen (Satt, p25). We detecttheir distance from local mores in the attitude of the Rocky Mountain News which responded to the stories of the difficultiesat Cotopaxi by noting that “all pioneers must endure some hardship” (Satt, p27). The cultural clash extended to the colonists’coreligionists. It is a commonplace of immigration that new arrivals have to contend with the suspicion of their predecessors.Russian Jews certainly ran into this, with, for example, H S Henry making no secret of his impatience (RMHJN, p6). Norshould we lose sight of the distance between the rugged individualism characteristic of America—in particular the frontier—of the period, and the priority attaching to alms as a mitzvah, blessing, among traditional Jews.Conspiracy theoriesIt is another commonplace that those feeling themselves powerless are prone to conspiracy theories. We find a contemporaneousexample in the lamentation of an anonymous colonist from Winnipeg. He wrote a letter, published in Ha-Melitz onJuly 27 1882, the first summer of Cotopaxi.“Like an outcast, I sit looking towards the sky and I hear voices of [my fellow-colonists] weeping…‘Look how we were deceived bythe people we trusted and who seemed to be concerned with our welfare. They have sent us to a desolate place as servants andmaids to work for nothing for the local inhabitants…Why did they deceive us? Like sheep without a shepherd…we are bruisedfrom top to bottom.’ ” (Geffen, op cit, pp22-24 of 28 in reproduced document).If we hope that this unfortunate found his feet before the Manitoba winter set in, we need not take his bereft tone fullyto heart: those familiar with the Jewish literature of the period will recognize hyperbole of this kind as nothing out ofthe ordinary. His tone anticipates the heartfelt remonstrances recalled by B Prezant and similar sentiments handeddown to us by the descendants of the Cotopaxi pioneers, which later writers—unfamiliar with the conventions of largerthan-lifeidiom—took at face value.45

The Cotopaxi ColonyMore to the point, the content of the Winnipeg lamentation precisely foreshadows the protests of deceit and economicexploitation, which come down to us from Cotopaxi. The striking similarity of the two instances of complaint suggests acommon source. They tell us that Jewish refugees all over North America at this time were given to view whatever misadventuresinitially came their way through lenses distorted by rumours picked up on the Atlantic crossing or at CastleGarden, the port of entry in New York—what we would now call urban myths.The winter of 1882-83Extravagance of expression is to the fore when we examine the conditions reported for the first winter. At first sight thestory is of unremitting hardship. The pioneers lost their crops to frost and the menaces of cattle, bears and beggingtribesmen (Schwarz, p11; Roberts, p127; Satt, pp20, 24, 25). Their cabins were meagre and lacked windows, doors andchimneys (Satt, pp19, 24, 25). Some settlers resorted to cut-sod huts and an abandoned cave for shelter (Satt p22). Onesettler swam a river in spate to obtain food for his starving family (RMHJN p2). In sum, the story presented is of isolatedand destitute pioneers. The setters were obliged to scavenge for coal and wood and benefited from charitable shipmentsfrom Denver of “clothing, food, medicine and other necessities” Satt, p26), as well as $500 in cash (Roberts,p129).Much of this turns out to be exaggerated. First the underlying conditions: the Colorado winter would have been no noveltyfor pioneers who came from what is now the Ukraine. If we compare the best data available for mid-winter fromthe original region of the pioneers, Lviv, with that of the weather station closest to the colonists’ new home, MonarchPass, we see an mean February average of 25°F and a mean minimum of 8°F in the old country compared to 15°F and12°F in the pass above the colonists’ new home. The high plateaus might have been more exposed than Monarch Pass,but we know that many of the settlers planned to stay in the more sheltered elevations of Cotopaxi itself (Schwarz p12).They evidently had no difficulty withstanding the climate in that all survived the first winter and several families electedto stay for a second (Satt, p29).The failed harvests were an undoubted disaster, but the pioneers’ clumsiness with the local fauna did them no favours,whether stock—the ox-team lost on arrival (Gulliford para 5); the roaming cattle of the Wet Mountain valley (Schwarz,p11; Roberts, p127; Satt, p20) or wild—the bears preparing for hibernation (Satt. p24). They also evidently lacked thewherewithal to withstand such threat as might be posed by begging tribesmen (Satt p25). The stories of accommodationattest to similar lack of the frontier spirit. As discussed above, the cabins followed the priority of satisfying the HomesteadActs and sufficed for hundreds of thousands over many decades; chimneys, windows and doors were a labourintensiveaffair to be completed by the occupants themselves or with luck the help of neighbours. Cut-sod huts were theexpedient for innumerable pioneers who would have counted themselves lucky to find abandoned caves for their firstwinter on the great plains. The story of the river swim was disputed within a few days of its publication (RMJHN, p6).The colonists should not have been destitute. They were able to earn cash from the Autumn (Schwarz, p13) and duringthe winter almost all the adult men did so, earning between $2.00 and “up to $3.00” a day from the Denver and RioGrande Railroad (Schwarz, p13; Satt, p26). This should have been enough to keep pioneers with no obligations for rent;the following winter a smaller group was able to cover its living expenses in this way (Satt, p28). Nor were the settlersisolated: after August 1882 they were in continuous contact with the Jews of Denver, from whom they were obtainingkosher meat (Schwarz, p13). Henry’s prompt and circumstantial rejoinder to Kohn & Wirkowski establishes that Cotopaxihad a telegraph office, from which the colonists could make contact with their coreligionists in Denver without delayand at will.The charity from Denver was forthcoming in the first week of February 1883. We know this as it was unmentioned byKohn and Wirkowski in their report of 30 January, but reported in the Denver Tribune of 7 February 1883 (Roberts,p129, n15). A delivery at this point combines with the stories of scavenging for fuel to suggest that despite their earningsfrom the railroad, the colonists were on short rations for much of the first winter; possibly they had committed themselvesto pay back their debt to the Cotopaxi store. Such sacrifices as arose would contribute to the legacy of bitterness.Taking the matter in the round, however, we can see that the colonists’ sense of distress was extravagant, both absolutelyand by comparison to other pioneers of the period. Nonetheless, they saw themselves as so wretched as to havesuffered misuse and transmitted their sentiments to those who followed them.46

Negotiations leading to the final settlementFlora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielSo to the troublesome matter of the colonists’ financial position which was to consume nearly a year of negotiations. Wemay see this by examining the next sequence of events.a. Before 23 October 1882Colonists on generally good terms with the management of the colonyColonists acknowledge their debt to HEAS and expect to be in a position to repaySource: Schwarz, generally and p16.b. Before 30 January 1883Colonists in dispute with the management of the colonyColonists no longer expect to pay their debt.Source: RMJHN; for expansion see below.c. Late Summer 1883HEAS agrees to send the colonists a cash sum (received in October)(This reversed the former flow of liability, telling us that HEAS andSaltiel forgave the colonists their debt and mutually settled)Sources: Roberts, p130; Satt, p29.To summarise, the position reversed from (a) where the colonists were to repay $10,000 to HEAS, to (b) where HEASactually paid a further $2,000 to the colonists. This can only have come from hard negotiation between the colonistsand HEAS, complicated by the presence of a third-party, Saltiel, to whom the colonists also owed money.The correspondence between Kohn & Wirkowski and H S Henry, the President of HEAS, is best seen as the secondround of the colonists’ campaign. The first was the settlers’ appeal to HEAS for “aid and counsel in how to regain theirlost money” (Satt, p25). As they had expended only filing fees on land they were still occupying, we may take it thatHEAS dismissed this out of hand. Presumably, however, this appeal also conveyed to HEAS the unwelcome news thatthe pioneers no longer considered themselves bound to repay the $10,000 defrayed by HEAS on their behalf, let alonethe credit they had run up at Saltiel’s store, between the $1,545 disclosed by Schwarz (p15) and the $8,000 reported byJalomstein’s as discussed above.At more or less this time, the settlers made their position known to the Denver community, from whom they had beenbuying kosher meat since August (Schwarz, p13; Roberts p129; Satt, p26) and with whom there were able to make telegraphcontact (see the discussion of Henry’s prompt response to Kohn & Wirkowski above). Kohn & Wirkowski thenvisited the colony. The record shows that Kohn took the settlers under his wing; in effect they became his clients, eitheron a contingent basis or pro bono as they had no cash to ante up.Kohn launched the second round of the settlers’ campaign with the report he drew up with Wirkowski, which was dated30 January, sent to HEAS on 5 February, and published in the Denver Tribune on 7 February (all 1883). There then followeda campaign in the Denver Republican, who characterised the settlement as a “vile atrocity” and spoke harshly ofSaltiel (Satt, p27). Even so, at this point Kohn’s tack with HEAS was to more to talk up the colonists’ hardship than torubbish the conception or management of the colony, with his report to HEAS dwelling on the pioneers’ financial andphysical predicament.These developments put Henry and HEAS in a spot. Henry presided over a charity which had solicited funds on the basisthat they were to be loaned to pioneers, not tendered as out-and-out grants. His comments about the mendicantcharacter of the Russian immigrant—so grating to modern ears—may be seen not merely as a piece of stereotyping, butas a confirmation that by the time of his letter the colonists had signalled their intention to defect from their obligationsand an understandable reflection of his chagrin. In any event, his reply of 15 February 1883 dismissed Kohn &Wirkowski's report as hyperbole, so the second round of the settlers’ campaign came to nought. The settlers and theirattorney, Kohn, now faced a tactical dilemma. In order to achieve their negotiating objectives, they had to get Henryand HEAS to overcome their scruples about the basis on which moneys had been furnished. We lack a full record ofwhat then took place, but there was evidently a prompt third round of approaches. Satt writes that the settlers renewedtheir pleas in the spring (p27), but on 2 March 1883, HEAS wrote back counselling patience and fortitude (Satt, p27;Oswald p26). By the late summer, however, HEAS had reversed its position, abandoning its claim on the pioneers andagreeing to send them a further $2,000, with funds delivered in October 1883 (Satt, p28).47

The Cotopaxi ColonyWhat occurred by way of the fourth or whatever subsequent rounds of negotiation took place over the following fewmonths? Although the full record is unavailable, we may find a couple of clues from such documents as are available forstudy. The first is the early 1883 stance of the Denver Republican, where the management of the colony was severelycriticized (Satt, p27). The second is the letter by Mordecai Jalomstein reprinted in Ha-Melitz in November 1885. Inthis, Jalomstein recalled letters “which the colonists wrote with tears in their eyes” directly to him, showing that theircampaign extended to the opinion-formers of the day (Geffen, p24 of 28). These examples tell us that Kohn must havechanged his approach to attack the operation and very idea of the colony as forcefully and as widely as he could. Hispurpose would be to persuade Henry that HEAS and Saltiel were so implicated in the settlement’s failure as to justifywriting off $10,000 and paying out a further $2,000; meanwhile HEAS and Saltiel had to come to a parallel settlement.As we know, Kohn succeeded. We may take it that even if he didn’t deliberately set out to make Saltiel the fall-guy, hewould hardly have exerted himself to shield Saltiel’s reputation from the crossfire. The folklore of Saltiel’s perfidy wasthen embellished by sixty-seven years of kitchen gossip before being passed on to Satt.Embellishment of the recordLet us examine an example from the written record. In January 1882, Kohn and Wirkovski reported that “One of thecolonists…planted four bags of potatoes [and] gathered as a return fifteen bags…” (RMJHN, p1). Fifty-nine years laterRoberts wrote in the Colorado Magazine, “Zedek…sowed fourteen bags (of potatoes) and reaped in return fifteen”(Roberts, p127). Twenty-nine years after that, the Pueblo Chieftain printed a story headlined “Jewish ImmigrantsVictims of Hoax”, reporting that, “The new settlers…plant[ed] 14 bags of potatoes [and] harvested 15.” It is instructiveto note how this anecdote became inflated over eighty-eight years from the experience of one colonist to that of the colonyas a whole and from a poor yield of 3.75:1 to a disaster of 1.07:1. Our discovery of the fallibility of Satt’s oral sourcesreinforces this aspect of the matter.Satt’s authorityFinally, we are bound to recognise the authority of Satt’s work. In her 1950 Master’s thesis, she developed an account ofthe colony which is vivid, cogent, elegant, comprehensive and extensively sourced. The very drama of her central theses,that Saltiel plotted to engineer a pool of sweated labour and that he and Schwarz deceived HEAS, makes for good copyand strong feeling. Her work has become the principal source for the descendants of the colonists and historians of thesettlement, unchallenged until the examination of sources in this appendix.E—ConclusionThis review of sources enable us to derive conclusions which fits the facts as now brought to light—not to say our understandingof the way of the world—far better than Flora Jane Satt’s forlorn notion of a charitable enterprise conducted inthe full light of day, intended by its promoter to fail so as to create a pool of sweated labour.So, what to conclude? First, the descendants of the colonists have no reason to feel that anything is taken from the dignityof their story by the information now at hand. The Cotopaxi colony was an ordeal for their forbears, with an outcomewhich does them great credit: they went on to triumph over adversity in the New World. The settlement was patentlymislocated, though we also need to take account of the general climate of agricultural euphoria, the pressures imposedupon HEAS by the coincident torrent of refugees from Russia, the lack of working capital in the colony’s budget,the apparent changes of plan from at least some element of stock-raising to pure horticulture, the inexperience of thecolonists, and the failure of all such schemes in the U.S. Saltiel has left us no record of his motives, but we no longerneed to see him as a deliberate villain in order to make sense of the history of the Cotopaxi colony. Far more likely thathe, like HEAS, like Schwarz, like the colonists themselves, ardently believed in the scheme and took no satisfaction inits failure. With the new sources available to us, we are in a position to recognise such lines as Schwarz’s duplicity, coercedlabour, lost rebates and overpriced infrastructure as the result of all too humanly imperfect recall, lacunae in therecord, and mistaken readings of such documents as were to hand. In addition we are in a position to explain the legacyof bitterness as rooted in the conspiracy theories of the day, the financial predicament of the colonists and the tough negotiations—dimlydiscernable from the imperfect record—which freed them from their obligations. In sum, Flora JaneSatt’s thesis—however compelling—no longer holds water and we are entitled to discard it.48

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielAppendix Two—TimelineDate Event Source1871 Collapse of Jewish agricultural colony in Ekaterinaslav. Satt, p101878 Saltiel files on 200o acres and mining rights in Cotopaxi.Jacob Milstein leaves Brest-Litovsk for New York City.Satt, p6-7Satt, p1119 Sept 1880 Saltiel writes to Heilprin offering land for a Jewish colony. Satt, p14;Satt, II, n27Jan 1881Schwarz leaves New York to investigate Saltiel’s offer.(This contradicted by H.S Henry who says Schwarz leftwith the colonists the following year.)Satt, p17May Repressive edicts usher in Russian pogroms. Satt, p15October Saltiel reports to HEAS that 20 houses are finished. Satt, p19Late 1881Colonists arrive in New York, where they live in tenementsthrough the winter.Each family group subscribes $50 filing fee for homesteads.Satt, p17Satt, pp18, 28April 1882 First group of colonists leave for Colorado. Satt, p178 May First group of fifty colonists arrive at Cotopaxi after fivedays rail journey.MayColonists inspect farmsteads finding twenty lots andtwelve cabins, no wells, fences or road.Alternatively Schwarz allocates fourteen lots andidentifies nine others.Colonists protest to Saltiel about deficiencies.Satt, p18Roberts p125Schwarz p2Satt, p19Schwarz pp 3-4Satt, p20Mid to late MayColonists manhandle possessions to plateau after losingox-team.Colonist permitted to borrow plough, horses, seeds andother equipment.Colonists run out of cash; credit extended from store.First settlement established.Water rights appropriated and cultivable acreage claimedby neighbours.Satt, p21;Gulliford Para 5Satt, p21Satt, p21Schwarz p10Roberts p12727 May Nudelman child dies Schwarz p41 June Land cleared for first planting of corn and potatoes.Alternatively fourteen thousand pounds of potatoesplanted on communal property.Satt, p22Schwarz p106 June Unnamed baby born Schwarz p6AlternativelyMay/JuneThree children die.Satt, p22Mid June Additional couple, the Milsteins, join group. Satt, p2223 June Synagogue dedicated. Satt, p2316 July Lauterstein family arrive (unknown number of persons). Schwarz p649

The Cotopaxi ColonyDate Event Source30 July Moscowitz family leaves colony for Denver (unknown number of persons). Schwarz p5BeginningAugustAugust orSeptemberBeginningOctoberBefore23 OctoberSupply of Kosher meat from Denver.Schwarz p1329 August Three families (fourteen persons) arrive. Schwarz p5Further(?) planting. Gulliford para 6Arrival of cows and calves for milk.Some colonists work in mines, presumably Saltiel’s; Schwarz arranges work forcolonists at the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad.Crops eaten by cattle.Schwarz p13Schwarz p13Satt, p20;Roberts p127Schwarz p1123 October Schwarz sends positive report to HEAS. HEAS recordsAfter 23 OctoberStore credit brought to an end; early frost; potato crop fails; bears menacesettlers.Colonists appeal to Saltiel for release of fundsSatt, p24ditto; Roberts p129Winter 1882/3Before30 January 1882Colonists appeal to HEAS for “aid and counsel in how to regain their lostmoney”; Ute Indians menace settlers; some colonists work in Saltiel’s mine forscrip.Ed Grimes walks to Denver for work.Thereafter nearly all other men work on Denver and Rio Grande Railroad.Millstein (first name unknown) and Kropetzski (a.k.a. Korpitzki or Korpitsky)sent by colony to Denver Jews, who send attorney George H Kohn and shopkeeperLouis Wirkowski to investigate conditions.Satt, p25Roberts p130Satt, p26Roberts p129RMJHN, op cit, p230 January 1882 Kohn and Wirkowski conclude draft of report. RMJHN op cit , p25 February 1882 Kohn and Wirkowski’s report sent to HEAS covered by letter from Mr Silver ofDenver.Between 30 Janand 7 Feb 1883ditto; Satt, p267 February 1883 Kohn/Wirkowski report published in Denver Tribune ditto p115 February 1883 HEAS rejects the Kohn/Wirkowski report. ditto p6RMJHN op cit , p6Before the spring Reporters visit colony. Denver Republican attacks Saltiel. Satt, p 26Spring 1883Denver Jews send blankets, food medical supplies and $500 to colonists Satt, p26;Roberts p129RMJHN, op cit, p2Passover; colonists borrow seed and sow second crop, destroyed by lateblizzard; colonists write again to HEASSatt, p272 March 1883 HEAS reply, counselling patience and fortitude. ditto; Oswald p26.Late summer HEAS send “second letter”, promising cash for resettlement. Satt, p28OctoberWinter 1883/4Spring 1884Late spring 1884HEAS send settlers $2,000 for resettlement.Alternatively HEAS provides $100 per family.Several families leave Cotopaxi.Remaining families get through winter by working at neighbouring mines andon the railroad.Second Passover celebrated by colonists.All but six families leave.Crop destroyed by late blizzard.Final six families abandon site after visiting land office in Cañon City.Satt, p29Roberts p130Satt, p29dittodittoSatt, pp29-30ditto50

Flora Jane Satt—annotated by Miles SaltielAllegation Saltiel promoted the colony to boost the area.Appendix Three—Summary of allegationsSource Roberts, p127Comment Presumably Roberts meant that Saltiel was contemplating speculation in real estate, but after his initialclaim there is no evidence that Saltiel was dealing in local lands.Allegation Saltiel promoted the colony to engineer a pool of cheap labour. Source Satt, pp7, 25, 33Comment At least seventeen months elapsed between Saltiel’s initial letter in 1880 and the arrival of the settlers inMay 1882, a prolonged period for scheme alleged to be intended to cure an acute shortage of labour. The mine took uponly some of the labour represented by the colonists (Roberts, pp127-8).The colonists were free to work elsewhereand did so (Satt, p25; Roberts p128), indeed Schwarz arranged work for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad for asmany colonists as might seek it before 23 October, if that was the date of his report (Schwarz p13).Allegation Saltiel exaggerated the attractions of the site. Source Satt, pp14, 18, 19, 20Comment True, but Saltiel’s failings should be seen within the context of the climate of the times. Schwarz’ report ofOctober 1882 makes it clear that agricultural euphoria was the order of the day. Colorado alone saw two such attempts:the first at Cotopaxi and the second ten years later at Attwood, the latter failing despite an excellent location.Satt, presents further examples on page 32. The historians of Jewish agricultural colonies in the U.S., Spivak & Morriss,wrote:“…for reasons inscrutable, most of the colonies were planted on land which was unfit for cultivation.”Cited in Uchill, Op. cit., p176 in original.All miss a larger point. The lands at that time opening up in the high plains were less suited for farming than forstock-raising, though this counted for little against the agricultural utopianism at that time bewitching decisionmakers.This was an era of exceptional credulousness in agricultural matters. It was at just this point in the nineteenthcentury that the steamship and railroad were opening up the vast tracts of land in North America, Argentina and theAntipodes to European settlers. This development promised to satisfy the land hunger of the Old World once and forall and promoted an unprecedented euphoria which came wholly to taint contemporary judgement on the opportunitiesof the frontier.Thus, the settlement of the high plains and other arid regions of the American West in the last two decades of thenineteenth century was promoted by Charles Dana Wilber’s disastrous doctrine that “rain follows the plow”, leadingcountless would-be farmers to ruin. Notions of this kind contributed to the general lack of understanding on the partof city-dwellers of the distinction between lands suitable for agriculture and for stock-raising.Allegation Saltiel provided inadequate infrastructure and overcharged for it. Source Satt, pp19, p20, 24Comment The cabins and surrounding infrastructure evidently fell short of expectations but Saltiel’s plea of lack oflabour makes sense. It also seems that plans had altered: Saltiel’s original offer included cattle, horses, wagons and ayear’s supply of feed for the animals (Satt, p14), but when the colonists came to inspect their arrangements, their commentsdisregarded such issues (Satt, p20). It sounds as though all concerned had settled upon crops rather thanstock—disastrous given the area. After the settlers lost their oxen, Saltiel’s partners did lend ploughs, horses and seed(Satt, p21). It is impossible to price the cabins from the information about ex-sawmill lumber provided by Satt (p25),as it is unclear how wide the standard board was, and the cost of transport and labour is not taken into account.Allegation Saltiel cut off credit officiously or witha view to coerce the settlers to work in his mine.Source Satt, p24Comment There is nothing to suggest heartlessness in Saltiel’s response to the settlers’ representations on arrival atCotopaxi. To the contrary, the record states that he was apologetic and that although he had shortly to leave on a businesstrip, he instructed his store to furnish supplies to the pioneers without payment. This is hardly the stuff of misconduct;indeed it was the colonists’ lifeline. In the absence of budget for the purpose, the supplies which kept the pioneersalive could only have come on credit granted by Saltiel’s store. Schwarz claimed that Saltiel had expended all ofHEAS funds by the end of October 1882. For all that Saltiel had received advances from HEAS, with estimates that hehad in turn advanced credit of between $1,545 and $8,000 to the colonists. Finally, Appendix 1 establishes that thesettlers were working in a mine, presumably Saltiel’s, before credit was cut off.Allegation Saltiel failed to provide rebates due to the colonists.Source Satt, p24, Roberts p129Comment Saltiel would have been unable conscientiously to release cash to the settlers directly. The settlers mightwell feel themselves entitled to a grubstake and eventually they got one, but common sense tells us that a claimagainst Saltiel was bound to fail. Any rebate would have first to take account of advances and would then be attributablenot to the colonists but to the source of the money, HEAS, to whom Saltiel was indeed to return funds.51

The Cotopaxi ColonyThe lack of foundation to the settlers’ grievances is attested by Satt herself: “...a thorough search of Colorado courtrecords indicate that no action was ever initiated against Saltiel by any of the Jewish colonists or interestedagencies.” (Satt, I, n19). This is a telling omission in a notably litigious society—Satt refers to the “bitter legal battles”of the Royal Gorge Wars on page 2 and Denver’s Jewish community sent an attorney, George H Kohn, to investigatethe colony (Roberts, op cit p129). We may take it that Kohn would not have hesitated to take Saltiel to law if he felt itserved his clients’ purposes.Allegation Saltiel’s mine underpaid the settlers and only in scrip.Source Satt, p25Comment The rate for the work arranged by Schwarz at the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad was $2.00 a day incash (Schwarz: p13). Saltiel’s mine paid the pioneers $1.50 a day, according to Bill Jones of the Silverton Mine & Museum,the going rate for the unskilled “muckers” or labourers which they presumably were. Jones made no mention ofa night rate. All of these were premium rates: at around this time the adolescent Ed Grimes accepted $1.00 per day inDenver. Dr Abrams of the Rocky Mountain Jewish Historical Society has asserted that the colonists were underpaid,by comparison with the $3.30 going rate for experienced miners whose work called for the use of explosives. It is novillainy but plain common sense that would-be farmers from Russia should have been kept from the use of dynamiteuntil they had learned the ropes. Grievances turning on this aspect of their treatment say little for the judgement ofthe pioneers.If settlers were paid in scrip, we should remember that they owed a tidy sum to Saltiel. Scrip was also an unsatisfactorycommonplace throughout the West of the period. Rapid economic expansion coincided with the lack of a Federalcentral bank to give rise to an acute shortage of legal tender in the West for decades on end. Students of the periodwill recall that this led to fierce political contention, with Eastern creditors arguing for a tight gold-backed currencyand Western borrowers arguing for a loose silver-based system, as articulated by William Jennings Bryant’s famous “Iwill not see this nation crucified on a cross of gold”. But these were hardly conditions of Saltiel’s making.Allegation The locations or the titles attaching to the farmsteads were engineered by Saltiel to serve his purposes.Comment This is not so much a specific allegation as the accumulation of various critical comments, as follows.The farmsteads were poorly located (Satt, p19, Roberts pp126, 127). In retrospect we can see that this is right—after all, the colony failed. Notwithstanding Schwarz’ euphoria, he seems to have taken care in allocating lots (pp3-5)and we should take account of the depredations of neighbours upon land and water rights (Roberts p127), the apparentalteration from stock-raising or mixed farming to vegetables (see comment about infrastructure above), the agriculturalover-ambition of the times, and the failure of all such schemes (Satt, p32, Spivak and Morris, Op. cit).No deeds were executed for the colonists’ holdings Four conflicting stories come down to us: Schwarz reportsthat Colorado law provides that colonists could only register claims after occupying and improving them (p5). Satt indicatesthat Saltiel was to act as the colonists’ agent and file for freehold title to Government land (p8, p19, p28); Robertsis more circumstantial in writing that “the houses were erected upon land claimed by the Cotopaxi Placer MiningCompany and it was represented by Saltiel, a director of the company, that the colonists had forty-nine year leases”.Roberts cites no source, but both Satt and Jalomstein entertain something similar: the former speculates that thecolonists were de facto tenants of Saltiel (Satt, p29); the latter writes that after the colonists left Cotopaxi, “their friendshad the responsibility of selling the land.” (Geffen, p24 of 28 in reproduced article). Neither comment is intelligible:long leases presumably gratis—would have imposed no immediate liabilities ; clear—even freehold—titles would havehad no commercial value, with local land at that time de facto free, the plots would not have been negotiable for sale tothird parties or as collateral for loans. In any event, the whole point of Satt’s thesis is that these particular plots turned out tobe worthless. Both Roberts and Satt agree that no deeds were executed (Satt, p28-29; Roberts p127); Satt, points outthat HEAS concluded that the title issue was too complicated and remote for them to resolve (p28). So is it for us.The farmsteads were placed on land belonging to Saltiel or his company. (Satt, p29, Roberts p127).Schwarz was evidently surprised to discover other occupiers (Schwarz p4), but it is not clear why this matters, in thatthere is no suggestion that adjacent plots would have been more fertile, better irrigated or closer to markets.The colonists were virtual serfs of Saltiel Only Armstrong makes this suggestion, which may be rejected as hyperbole.Nothing in the record supports such a view.The colonists believed they had to redeem their deeds before quitting the colony This notion—also singularto Armstrong—is not so much an allegation against Saltiel, as a new twist to the account of the colonists’ miseries. Itake it as an attempt to make sense of Satt’s comment about titles on p29, following the story of the visit to the landoffice in Cañon City by the last group of colonists to leave Cotopaxi (Satt, p28-9). It can be safely dismissed. The colonistswere businesspeople and former proprietors, not illiterate rustics. After Autumn 1882, they were in sufficientcontact with the Jews of Denver and their attorney, Mr Kohn, for any such notions to be dispelled. In Autumn 1883the colonists negotiated a final settlement with HEAS, presumably benefiting from the counsel of Kohn or another attorney.This relieved the pioneers of any obligations to Saltiel as well as to HEAS itself. Good practice would ensure anexchange of indemnities so that all concerned could put the episode behind them. Finally, the record shows severalgroups of colonists leaving Cotopaxi at will after the October settlement, with no evidence of reluctance (Satt, p29).52