Alex II Flashcards
Explain the importance and origins of the enlightened bureaucrats
Origins:
- educational reforms of back in the day
- Non noble, middler class generation of granted nobles thanks to Nick’s reforms
- Continue on into Alex’s reign and shape policy
Alex Glasnost:
- softening of public discourse enough for certain groups to engage in debate, read, and free think but NOT enough to organize / pose a unified threat against autocracy
- Needed this gamble to fill positions in Bureaucracy
Milutin circle:
- Head of interior
- Widespead connections including to tsar himself via Pavlovna
- STRONG overlap with Russian Geographical Society (super important for emancipation act)
INFLUENCE:
- 10 of the 18 members of writers of emancipation act were from Milutin’s circle
- Don’t come from landowning class -> no stakes in serfdom -> why Alex wanted them
- Again, TOOL OF AUTOCRATIC POWER WARY OF NOBLE INFLUENCE
How were the Enlightened Bureaucrats different from the Intelligentsia? How were they similar?
Privelaged (nobles, higehr up bureaus) must be ALTRUISTIC -> good of state / society above personal class interests Prevented them from joining intelligentisa/revs because had PURPOSE in LIVES and were kept busy
Similar:
- Hegelianism disciples -> all want forward thesis-driven progress like this.
- Proof that tsars gamble with education/foreign ideas was indeed a gamble -> these people now have influence over government
THEREFORE:
- not revolutionary in the slightest.
- Have intentions and access to reform from within
What were the big reasons the Enlightened Bureaucrats specifically wanted serfdom out?
- Regardless of if it was (remember, evidence to the contrary -> serfdom diversifying, etc), PERCEPTION that serfdom is unproductive for Russian development in line with Adams’ ideas on state development
- Land = earn capital for themselves = for economy / state
- PEASANTS NEED PROPERTY AND A LANDED EMANCIPATION IN ORDER TO START BUSINESSES AND GENERATE CAPITAL -> WHY ENLIGHTENED BUREAUS WANTED LANDED EMANCIPATION
- AND SO PEASANTS COULD PARTAKE IN INDUSTRIAL LABOUR)
- Needed a free labour force so labour colud be diversified for factory work, less impoverished peasants (REQUIRING OWN LAND), in order to generate capital for the nation.
- Milutin memo mentions need to reorganize army in wake of Crimean war defeat. Had been outgunned by industrial armies and peasant armies hadn’t proved as loyal - NEED reserve system -> need more non-serfs for this against noble wishes (worst nightmare, mobilization)
Contrast this to mass conscriptions/standing army which was far too expensive, and allows soldiers to have jobs and be productive outside army when war not on. - On top of this, needed to survey peasants behind lines -> surveilance costs (rumours of enlistment=emancipation w/o full term) Army held back
What were the 5 main influences on Alex’s decision to emancipate the serfs?
Factors that led into decision:
- Challenges by Intellectuals -> emerging discourse against slavery and serfdom in Europe.
- Turgenev painting peasants in “Sportsman’s sketches” in humanistic light - Defeat in crimean War -> big blow. Serfs seen as unloyal (why would they care?) -> rumours circulated that runaway serfs joining the army would be emancipated and not serve a full term. Made authorities worried. Meant portion of the army had to remain in Russia to stabilize situation
Outgunned in Crimean war -> re emphasize that industrialization needed -> can’t modernize economy w/o free supply of labour - Serf discontent -> no massive uprising like under Catherine, but sustained disturbances in heartland of empire
- Political economy demands use of free labour force for gaining capital through diversification of economy and making peasants more prosperous and productive. NEED LANDED EMANCIPATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS SO PEASANTS CAN START BUSINESSES/GENERATE CAPITAL
- Like everyone else, jealous of other states (examining German emancipation reforms, etc). Growing global trend (abolitionist societies in London, etc -> American Civil War) that “developed” states couldn’t harbour morally incorrect forms of slavery
What was the most important way Alex II’s approach for emancipation differed from his predecessors ?
Alex directly went against noble wishes/tried to break the noble veto using his autocratic powers. Did this by assigning task / committees mosty full of enlightened bureaucrats, especially editorial commission who drafted the reform itself being mostly members of Milutn’s circle.
- Again, BALANCING FEARS OF NOBLE OVERSTEPPING W/ REVOLT FEARS FROM BELOW
Accomplished this by giving guise of noble involvement
- Lithuanian nobles submit request to emancipate w/o land -> Alex hits back by INVITING them (ordering them) to set up committee about giving peasants freedom AND land 1857 -> serves as basis / standard going forwards
- Also by giving them involvement in the provincial committees (ultimately subserviant to editorial commission)
Needed to strike a balance between favourable terms for peasantry (which would erode noble trust and thus power base of tsar) and for nobility (which would suck for peasants/be unproductive)
DID meet continued noble resistance until very end (petition of 5) -> JUST TRYING TO SCRAPE TOGETHER BEST DEAL FOR PEASANTS
Also trying to play into noble fears of peasant uprisings throughout. (speech to State Council before final vote)
Describe the overall process of emancipation up until the announcement
1856 Speech announcing that reform must come from above or you’ll have a Reign of Terror (sustained uprisings)
Secret committee on peasant question -> 1857 made public (to emphasize point) -> still handpicked by emperor, limited noble involvement
Case studies local committees -> reports to -> editing commission -> main (secret) committee
- Discussion of 40 meetings starts in 1860 after noble resistance/info gathered (petition of 5) -> Alex involved heavily.
- Nobles want to trim and emasculate the law they knew they couldn’t directly oppose -> still hard because of Alex’s insistance -> Alex supported all main principles of Editorial Commissions, so how could you dispute anything? (dragging feet/procrastinating)
- 1861 -> MC passes mic over to State Council for final approval. Here trickier to pass. Tsar couldn’t intervene as directly, Instead he resorts to addressing the State Council -> delays will only result in more peasant revolts and the destruction of the gentry ->
doesn’t really work and State Council (nobles) successfully declaw a lot of the reforms -> beggarly Allotment -> peasants could only claim a quarter of the land they once could
COULD OVERSTEP NOBLES BUT DOESN’T HAPPY TO PRESERVE AUTOCRACY WHILE GETTING SOME KIND OF LAND EMANCIPATION
What were the FIRST THREE main terms of the emancipation bill?
Serfs comprised 44.5% of pop!
1. Legal freedom immediately -> can’t be bought sold -> ends noble control of serf marriages -> can sign legal contracts themselves
These important for serfs to become small businessmen / develop economy
Right to sue people too (sue suppliers if don’t honour contract)
- Acquire own property -> buy land, equipment for businesses
- Nothing will happen for 2 years beyond this -> govt needs time to figure out LAND QUESTION/settle with nobility
Frustration obviously.
Explain the causes of the so called messy compromise. What was the role of peasant taxation?
Alex wants peasant reform WITH land -> pushes this by establishing Lithuanian emancipation precedent at provincial level, editorial commission made up of Burueas who wante dthis
decision left ultimately to noble dominated State Council -> emasculate reforms so peasants get only 1/4 of the land wanted.
Though peasants get legal freedom immediately, have to wait two years to settle land question with nobility.
Land handled by PEasant commune instead of outright ownership, though peasants could ACQUIRE additional land to till -> redemption payments for agreed upon land (means to generate capital for nobility?) go through this via taxation
Why state settled on this:
appease nobility. can’t have them rise up like decs
Also want to anchor peasantry to land, don’t want them roaming around and state losing track of everyone.
State surveyors always somewhat duped/influenced by nobility -> therefore nobles mostly get the best land. How will peasants get resources? Taking rivers, forests, etc. Peasants need to rent access to resource lands.
Explain the peasant reaction to these reforms
State policy:
- Waited after drafting reform for lent for fear of revolts (sobriety)
- Widespread “liberator tsar” demonstrations
WHAT PEASANTS EXPECTED:
- Wanted freedom from nobles, only expected the land they actually WORKED ON AS SERFS TO BELONG TO THEM.
Also probably expected their obligations to be ended -> obligations to STATE reduced allowing them to actually pay
This fell in line w/ what happened to state serfs and MOST SERFS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THAT
- Overall -> just trying to get best deal possible
THEREfore:
- Peasants horrified at debt obligations -> OBLIGATION WAS SERFDOM -> what bound them to LL
Reactions:
Peasants didn’t understand what was going on. Complicated language, felt they’d been cheated or easily led to reinterpretation. All they knew is that they’d get less land.
Widespread belief this isn’t “real” emancipation. -> RETURNS FOR LATER REVOLTS IN EARLY 20th CENTURY
DIDN’T blame Alex -> blamed Whig like influence of elites. Thought it was invalid/unjust like 2020 election
REVOLTS:
- Revolts were widespread (42/43 provinces) but peters out. Why?
- Extreme examples of reinterpretations of sttautues -> many believe this is a fake document or has been misinterpreted by Parish priests who read it out (complex language)
- Leads to reinterpretation by Petrov (literate) in Bezdna
- Didn’t have to work for estate owners or pay dues to them , or have to obey authorities lol
- More peasants flock to Beszda to hear good news
- police and TSARS PERSONAL GUARD SUITE descend -> hundred killed.
- Again, Tsars blood shed -> claim they’re in line w/ Alex wishes
- Petrov executed days later
What were the immediate socio-economic/political consequences (for nobles, intellectuals, peasants, etc.) of emancipation in Russian society?
Nobility:
- Because left in the dust by Alex II, start petitioning for representative government so they can regain some control over state affairs
- mostly get the best land because of influence on state surveyors
Peasantry/overall economy:
- More social fluidity despite restrictions. Have opportunities to do contract factory work and such
- Economic movement -> everyone in society now has “same” opportunities to enagge in business/commerce. (nobles of course don’t want to do that)
- Because of new serf rights (could buy own land for development, could sue, sign own documents)
Intelligentsia:
- LAND AND LIBERTY MOVEMENT -> Herzen welcomes it, learns of details, massacre of peasants and is horrified. -> Land and Liberty movement -> radicals take it up called for peasants to rise up in a revolt (Chernyshevskii) -> arrested.
Many used this as excuse to argue for inadequate governance -> end to autocracy (couldn’t care for the people)
Elected assembly instead (Herzen agrees with this)
NOT united around a central call for reform though -> moderates and radicals
Explain the decision to emancipate serfs by 1861 within the broader context of 19th century liberation/abolition movements
Post Revolutionary era Europe/world saw a general wave of emancipations that slowly built up throughout 19th century.
- Haiti, France, European states emancipating serfs, Union in US.
In Russia:
- More than one kind of “unfreedom”
- All of Russian society based on being dependent on someone else. Tsar was only “legally autonomous” individual, with everyone in different class descending in order of severity of obligation to person above
- Had expanded under Peter, Catherine and imperial approaches -> incorporated types of slavery found in new territories.
- Like German lords in Baltics -> want these blokes on side of Russia / in line w/ own power -> allow right to run estates as they pleased -> new empire, no change assertion
Also Kalmyk noions right to sell commoners (granted same rights as Russian nobles)
Early wave in Russia:
- Many Euro states emancipating, Alex I wants to get on board but struggles with noble / peasant property knot
- Can’t find way to not upset nobles by granting peasants freedom AND land.
- Peasants wouldn’t be “free” (in the Jeffersonian sense) because they wouldn’t have a livelihood based on ancestral lands and be drawn into predatory temporary obligations
- Baltic reforms of Livland / Estland eventually both follow model of liberation w/o land -> Alex accepting this and ABLE to do it because NOT WITHIN EMPIRE
- General trend eastwards of emancipation.
- ALSO DECRIES FOREIGN SLAVERIES SUCH AS ATLANTIC TRADE
- again, not touching empire
Mid wave (Nick)
- Nick cracks down somewhat but does undertake initiatives within state authority as opposed to touching Noble/peasant property knot.
- Doesn’t liberate (?) state peasants but betters conditions of 40% of population. Dries up with fear of revolt but paves way for eventual emancipation by provincial commissions
Alex II:
- Finally “commits” to being an anti-slavery state in 1861, start imperialism via emancipation
- Liberate Crimean slaves after conquest
- Baltic reforms have transitional stages -> serfdom -> intermediate freedom -> “complete”
Also Kalmyk slavery in Siberia. Banned it but allowed OWNERSHIP to remain for generations
Supported the Union, government officially against Atlantic trade, Ottoman empire
Ended Crimean slavery after anexxation
Closed slave markets in central Asia as expansion of 60s and 70s occurred
Also retains Inuit slavery, etc in Alaska (slow process)
Therefore approach to ending all types of unfreedom broadly the same if each one super specific
What are the NEXT THREE terms of the emancipation bill?
- Need to PAY for eventual land given -> redepmtion payments which will be 6% interest fr 49 years and is INHERITABLE
Average peasant didn’t even live that long lol. So will be in debt for generations on land they’ve worked their entire lives
Most peasants believed they should have land they tilled -> nobles had no right.
In end, about a 50/50 split for peasants and nobles
Peasants don’t get OUTRIGHT ownership to THIS land. (state too afraid to grant that freedom)
Peasant commune instead gets responsibility for redemption payments of village -> community responsibility to pressure people.
Meant prosperous peasants (already businessmen) couldn’t repay their debts immediately because had to go through commune/entire village payments
LAND held communally too - Household servants don’t get any land (didn’t have any in first place) -> no income stream. Did jobs for room and board for old masters.
- COULD opt for Pauer’s alotment -> declare independent homestead darm, but only got 25% of land that you’d get in communes. Not enough to support family.
Those that did this sold land and went to cities
Explain regulatory charters and the lingering effects/response to serfdom’s end following immediate chaos
RESISTANCE:
- to REGULATORY Charters -> Allocated land to peasants and the dues they’d have to pay to fulfill the temporary obligation
- By first 18 months, only 40% signed (wanted land worked free of charge)
Why revolts die down:
- Basically, state doesn’t have means to enforce laws per se
- In regions WITH state involvement -> use of effective mediators (mostly reformists) who worked w/ peasantry. Evidenced by most regulatory charters being accepted by 1864
State more reasonable than dealing w/ nobles -> govt can’t enforce taxes per se becaue of lack of Bureaus.
Therefore peasants stay out of peasant affairs -> peasant communities rely on themselves now and do well.
What was Alex’s personal reasoning behind the serfdom reforms? What is the evidenced by?
ALEX:
- COULD do nothing but takes a stance.
- Most personal motive is to secure autocracy from threats
- Ideas of enlightened despotism/tsar as protector of all subjects -> therefore needs to accomplish reform w/o jeaprodizing pillars of autocracy (noble support)
- Experiments with secret committees on peasant question in early reign,
- 1856 speech -> gentlemen, it’s time. If WE DONT TAKE CHARGE FROM ABOVE, SERFS WILL DO IT THEMSELVES FROM BELOW ->
OUTLINES WHAT HE WANTS PROVINCIAL COMMITTEES TO FOLLOW
thinks it will happen soon, individual freedoms for peasants, communal autonomy, adequate land holdings with proper redemption procedures
JUST TRYING TO SCRAPE TOGETHER BEST DEAL FOR PEASANTS -> could override nobility and declare full reforms but would have severed autocratic power base of noble relationships. Again, overall motive to retain autocracy.
- Evidenced by kicking out Milutin (Enlightened Bureaucrat) from role to restore balance after reforms
ALSO -> decides on SOME autocratic power to fix situation from abovve (and preserve autocracy because of revolt / sustained uprising fears) Again balance
