The Cotopaxi ColonyHEAS’ settlement with the colonistsEvidently the colonists did not stand <strong>by</strong>the sentiment reported <strong>by</strong> 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 <strong>by</strong> <strong>Satt</strong>that 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 <strong>by</strong> 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 <strong>by</strong> 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 <strong>by</strong> their friends from Denver.Those who stayed on that winter earned their living expenses <strong>by</strong>working 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 <strong>by</strong> thetext cited <strong>by</strong> 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.<strong>Satt</strong> inclusion of this story evidently alsomystified A. Armstrong who created awebsite to satisfy the requirements for thefinal project of the Nationalism andZionism course taught <strong>by</strong> 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 <strong>by</strong> 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.<strong>Satt</strong>’s introduction of the story of the trip tothe land office makes sense only as an echoof dissent from the settlement with HEAS <strong>by</strong>a 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 <strong>thesis</strong> as herexplanation for their conduct. Her theory is,however, challenged <strong>by</strong> 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
<strong>Flora</strong> <strong>Jane</strong> <strong>Satt</strong>—annotated <strong>by</strong> 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 near<strong>by</strong> 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 <strong>by</strong> the time his younger sons weregrown, had built a stock-yard and packing house. His brother BenjaminZalman Milstein bought a farm near Der<strong>by</strong>, 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
Change language