Alex I Early Reign Flashcards
Explain the peasant / landlord knot and why Alex was so unsuccessful in breaching it
Basically, a deadlock over recognition of both noble and peasant rights
Background: serfs divided 50/050 of their labour to own lands and production on landowner held. Widespread abuses of this by Alex’s reign. (6 days a week). Noble rights strong, able to rescind on peasant ownership in exchange for full lands.
Noble: Individual property rights including inheritance and alienation of land. Freeing peasants would deprive nobles of labour force
Peasant: traditional, right to not be moved from land or separated from it. Wouldn’t be FREE WITHOUT PROPERTY -> landless, unable to generate income, need DEPENDANT on others. Couldn’t be moved to, say, work in a factory elsewhere.
Ultimately respect/recognition for both that resulted in deadlock, though Alex is unwilling to erode noble powerbase and consistantly gives into them while trying to get best deal possible for peasants at same time.
- Livland reform looks promising - grant peasants inheritance / alienation rights, ability to acquire own land, govt oversees obligations via land surveys
- Estland replaces this - just serf amencipation w/o land. -> voluntary contracts to get to land instead of state overseen ones
Since Alex respects nobles right to give up rights, has to rescind on this. Alex at least tries to get serfs individually free if kicked off land
- Therefore relents to noble authority, also wants to wait because he can’t get landed emancipation for peasants w/o overetepping this power base (preservation of autocracy OVER reform)
Explain the concept and importance of political economy. How did Alex contribute to its spread?
WHAT: science of economics as it applies to the state
PEASANTS NEED LANDED EMANCIPATION TO START BUSINESSES
Created by Adam Smith et all, centres developing CAPITAL/wealth as the ultimate goal civilized states should strive for. Issue was you needed a free labour force because:
- Slave labour unproductive on account of stealing, primacy of agriculture, immovable population, and surveillance costs (army in this case)
Becomes hugely popular because:
- Russian authors like Storch contribute texts, make it clear serfdom (unfree labour) is unproductive for BOTH STATE AND LLs
- Alex allows and engages in this debate -> advisors like Kieslev offer proposals such as:
- Self redemption: peasants buy themselves out -> generate capital for landlords and free peasants
- Obligated inhabitants -> politically free peasants forced into labour contracts w/o land rights in order to have access to land after emancipation (K’s)
- Alex rejects these because they don’t GUARANTEE traditional land rights of serfs.
Significance:
- Evidence actually points to contrary -> peasants prosperous
- Doesn’t matter -> enough people convinced under Alex’s reign for it to be considered EASIER TO ADJUST TO GRADUALIST APPROACH.
- Contrast to no public discourse surrounding serfdom prior to Alex’s reign
Overall, explain Alex’s take when it came to Serfdom. Why didn’t he emancipate them?
Thinks it immoral, somewhat of a radical himself (tutored by Enlightenment thinkers like La Harpe)
- Banished by Paul in youth for liberal tendencies, exposed to western ideas abroad here
- Immediately sets up unofficial committees on the matter
- Thinks it unproductive in line with ideas about political economy. -> need free labour force
That said: needs to BALANCE NOBLE AND PEASANT COMPLAINTS
SLOW process is better process in this case -> trying to get best deal for peasants (landed emancipation)
NOBLES DONT WANT LAND OCCUPIED BY PEASANTS IF THEY’RE NOT WORKING FOR THEM -> HAVE RIGHT TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY - > ALEX CANT OVER STEP THIS
Witnesses Paul die from nobility -> can’t upset noble balance of power too much by imposing autocratic will
Also child of French revolution -> can’t just let masses gain unprecedented freedom/rights or else autocracy under threat and bloodshed reigns.
Smaller reforms undertaken:
- limited transportaion of serfs to industrial settings (separation of families like slaves)
- Banned advertisements of serfs (like slave ads)
Reform experiments undertaken:
- BALTIC reforms -> Livland grants peasants guaranteed traditional property rights of ancestral land AND individual property rights over NEW land they could buy (inheritance, alianation)
- Repealed for style like Estland (landless emancipation)
- Done because nobles overwhelmingly wanted latter, Alex couldn’t infringe on THEIR rights to give up property (peasants) for preservation of other assets
LEGACY REGARDING SERFDOM: -> GRADUALIST APPROACH NEEDED
1. Liberal consensus that emancipation was inevitable and even a good thing for nation in long run. -> political economy, enlightenment/developed states
- Consensus that human slavery was an unnatural condition
- Fear of revolution / self liberation -> government planning from top down was important to preserve autocracy and prevent peasants from rising up
- Political Economy emerges: Enshrines noble rights to property (primacy over trad land rights) but recognizes serfdom is unproductive for nation
OVERALL:
- Wants best deal for peasants (landed emancipation) but unwilling to sacrifice absolutist power base of tsar- noble-relationship in order to achieve this.
NOBLES HAVE OWNERSHIP OF LAND -> DONT WANT TO LOSE PROPERTY AND NOT HAVE LABOUR FORCE AT SAME TIME. PEASANTS WOULD JUST HAVE LOITERED
Explain Alex’s confused take on constitutions. Why was he so back and forth on it, what was his ultimate view of them?
Overall: wants to PRESERVE AUTOCRACY with constitutional reform. Intrigued by these liberal ideas, but ultimately convinced by Cath at young age of Autocracy’s importance (And La Harpe saying he should pull and Attaturk)
- Preservation: like Nick and enlightened Bureaus/legal reform, thought that if state functioned properly people would shut up about greater reform/change/popular sovereignty
- Also wants legal reform (1801 const) for same reason
ALSO: NOBLES PREVENT CONCRETE REFORM -> THINK CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO EMANCIPATION BECAUSE OF ENSHRINING OF RIGHTS
Unofficial Committee take:
- IN LIGHT OF FRENCH REV -> can’t grant political freedoms to the masses to quickly or violence will ensue
- While Alex believes in enlightenment, thinks it needs to be “handed down” to the masses with a GRADUALIST approach.
- Therefore -> no initiatives for constitutions to grant popular sovereignty among masses.
Constitutional experiments:
- Speranskii several times -> 1801, 09 -> Deeply involved in these processes
- 1818 (STATE CHARTER OF RUSSIAN EMPIRE)
- closest he gets to popular representation/sovereignty is system where the Tsar would select representatives voted in to be NOMINATED by voting blocks.
- 1818 Poland / Sejn speech -> declares constitution will be granted to Russia as well. Also gave Poland a parliament and constitution, making him a const monarch but was JUST A RUBBER stamp. Very liberal reforms (free press, etc) but ultimately retains veto power over all decisions.
- Finland. Similar, grants constitution but doesn’t meet again for 54 years. Also veto
- LAST TWO UNDERTAKEN IN TERRITORIES w/o SERFDOM
Generally describe some of the constitutional approaches considered under Alex’s reign by different parties
Nobles:
- DONT WANT ONE -> think it would give too much power to masses, implicitly links to freedom of serfs -> had MOST TO LOSE
Alex:
- streamline autocracy to get more feedback from people (nominate reps for Tsar to choose from) but ultimately preserve absolutism
Muraviev / NS -> want constitutional monarchy where nobles would weild most power despite mass involvement (on account of education, literacy -> most ability to vote)
SS / Pestel -> radical republic, abolition of all classes, tsaricide.
How did reforms INVOLVING education leave a legacy under Alex?
Education reforms:
- expansion of unis to help civ servant pop
- Founded ministry of education in 1803. Two new universities established
BENTHEM:
- wants him involved in directly codifying Russia’s legal code (abandoned) -> books on this and political reform BOOM DURING REIGN
Speranskii reforms:
- makes it so
- Courtiers who held certain titles needed to DO THEIR JOB outlined by position or be transfered to military/civil service. Couldn’t have title in name only.
- No one could be promoted to ranks 8 or 5 w/o prior academic requirements.
- Built off table of ranks by Peter -> moved up throughout career. Rank 8 gives you personal/outside nobility (way to get nobility w/o birth)
- Rank 5 did the same but applied it to your whole family.
- Reform therefore makes it harder/wants people competent
- No one could be promoted to ranks 8 or 5 w/o prior academic requirements.
Generates more educated nobility! Obviously mixed results w/ that lol.
What was Alex’s take on legal reform? What is this evidence of?
Preservation of autocracy. Like Nick, wants a functioning autocratic state so people won’t complain/desire a constitution for change. Evidenced by Naumov affair where layer tried to set up school of jurisprudence as a private individual to do just this (create awareness of Russian legal system and help people navigate it) claimed he had Tsar’s permission but Alex forces a stop to this -> clearly wants to RETAIN POWER OF THIS IN MONARCHY
