Reforms of Alexander II. Reforms of Alexander II - briefly
Reforms carried out during the reign of Alexander II, in the 1860s-1870s, and covered many areas of Russian life.
Alexander II ascended the throne in 1856, being deeply impressed by the lost Crimean War of 1853-1856. Its entire course and results convinced the tsar: Russia was significantly behind the advanced European states in its industrial development and, in fact, militarily. No less clear was the realization that the main reason for the country's backwardness was rooted in serfdom. With its abolition, Alexander II began his reign.
Peasant reform
One of the main and extremely difficult tasks facing the tsarist government was to achieve at least formal consent to the reform from those who owned serfs - from the noble landowners. This task was solved to some extent at the end of 1857, when, under pressure from the supreme authorities, elected noble committees began to be created locally, which were supposed to draw up projects for the liberation of peasants for their provinces. This work lasted for more than a year, and during the course of it, the landowners sought to maintain, first of all, their property interests: to retain as much of the land as possible, while receiving the maximum monetary ransom. In 1859, all local projects were placed at the disposal of the Editorial Commission, which was supposed to draw up on their basis a single draft of the Regulations on the abolition of serfdom for the entire country. This commission, chaired by Ya.I. Rostovtseva consisted mainly of liberal-minded officials, among whom N.A. stood out for his intelligence and character. Milyutin. The members of the Editorial Commission, who approached the development of the project from a national position, were inclined to take into account the interests of the peasantry to a greater extent than the landowners - if only because they were afraid of mass unrest. However, in 1860, the draft prepared by the commission passed once again through a number of government authorities, which were dominated by dignitaries who were serfdom-minded and pro-noble. As a result, in the final document - “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom” - which the tsar signed on February 19, 1861, “the benefits and advantages of the nobility” came to the fore.
According to the Regulations, the patrimonial power of the landowner was eliminated - that is, from February 19, he could no longer interfere in the personal and economic life of the peasant. However, complete liberation was still far away. Former serfs fell into a transitional state, receiving the name temporarily obliged. It was meant that during the time until they paid a ransom for the land due to them, the peasants were obliged to continue to work for their former landowner as corvee and pay him quitrent. But even then, having gotten rid of the landowner, they still did not become independent owners. The fact is that the peasants were released not individually, but as entire societies, that is, they remained at the mercy of traditional communal orders, such as: collective ownership of land with constant redistribution, mutual responsibility, and the like.
It was quite obvious that the reform doomed many peasants to land poverty. According to the Regulations, they had to receive a certain amount of land, different for different provinces - depending on the quality of the soil. Moreover, for 65% of peasants this norm turned out to be less than the plots that they had previously received for use from landowners. It is obvious that they did not spoil their peasants, providing them with only the bare minimum necessary for farming; Thus, the majority of Russian farmers went free having received less land than necessary. “Extra” land in the form of segments was added to that which remained in the property of the landowner.
The most difficult test for the peasantry was the redemption operation. The amount of money that the peasant had to pay the landowner did not correspond at all to the price of the land he was buying. In essence, the peasant redeemed himself - his working hands, his earnings, from which he paid rent. Upon his release, he had to pay the landowner such an amount of money that, if deposited in the bank, would annually bring the landowner an income equal to the peasant’s previous annual rent (in those days, the annual interest rate in the bank was 6%; to these 6% of the redemption amount and was equivalent to an annual peasant rent). For most peasants, paying such a ransom in full within any foreseeable period was completely impossible. In an effort to speed up the redemption operation and satisfy the landowners as much as possible, the state paid them 80% of the ransom at once, the rest they received from the peasants by agreement: immediately or in installments, in money or in labor. In relation to the state, the peasants found themselves in debt bondage: for 49 years they had to pay the state 6% of the amount spent on this entire operation. These “redemption payments” became a heavy burden for the peasants and a source of additional income for the state (6%X49 = 294%, that is, the state, as a malicious usurer, was obviously going to receive from the peasants almost three times more than what was spent on their ransom).
In general, recognizing the enormous importance of the peasant reform, which freed the bulk of the working population from serfdom, it is necessary to keep in mind that during this reform the state provided the peasants with too little land for an exorbitantly large ransom, thereby making them economically dependent on their former owners. landowners. Most peasants could not live without borrowing bread from the landowner and using this or that piece of land for use. The landowner, as a rule, cooperated, but in return demanded to work on his land. Thus, local owners had the opportunity to compensate for the loss of free labor that they had under serfdom; the development of serfdom was extremely difficult.
The peasant reform, which dramatically changed the basic socio-economic relations in the country, predetermined a number of other transformations: in the sphere of administration, legal proceedings, army recruitment, etc.
Zemstvo reform
In 1864, Alexander II signed the Zemstvo Regulations, according to which a system of local self-government was introduced in Russia. They were created at two levels: in districts and provinces. District zemstvo assemblies were elected by the population of the district once every three years; provincial ones were formed from representatives nominated at district assemblies. Elections to district zemstvo assemblies were organized in such a way as to ensure a noticeable advantage for the noble landowners. It is characteristic that in the provinces where there was no local nobility, for example, in the Russian North or in Siberia, and also where it was, from the point of view of the government, unreliable, as in the western provinces - Polished, Catholicized - the zemstvo was not introduced at all.
The entire population of the county was divided into three groups (curia): 1) landowners; 2) urban voters; 3) elected from rural societies (peasants). For the first and second curiae, a property qualification was determined: they were attended by persons with an annual income of over 6 thousand rubles. The equal qualifications for these curiae did not at all mean equal opportunities, because the local nobility as a whole was incomparably richer than the urban population. As for the peasants, not direct, but multi-stage elections were organized for them: first, the village assembly elected representatives to the volost assembly, at which “electors” were elected, and then the district congress, composed of them, elected deputies to the zemstvo assembly. As a result of all these tricks, the small local nobility elected as many vowel deputies (from the word “voice”) to the district zemstvo assembly as both other curiae combined. In provincial zemstvos, noble deputies, as a rule, made up more than 70% of the members.
Zemstvo assemblies were administrative bodies. They determined the general direction of the zemstvo's activities and, meeting once a year, at the end of December at a session, controlled the activities of the zemstvo councils, which were created by the corresponding zemstvo assemblies from their members immediately after the elections. It was the zemstvo councils that carried out the real work of the zemstvos in the districts and provinces.
The functions of zemstvos were quite diverse: local economy, public education, medicine, statistics. However, they could engage in all these matters only within the boundaries of their district or province. Zemstvo members had no right not only to solve, but also to discuss any problems of a national nature. Moreover, different provincial zemstvos were not allowed to establish contacts and coordinate their activities with each other. However, local work also required large expenses. The bulk of the funds (up to 80%) came from land taxes, which were provided by the same peasants, exhausted by various payments.
The shortcomings of the Russian zemstvo were obvious: a truncated structure - the absence of volost zemstvos at the lowest level and an all-Russian zemstvo assembly at the top (the zemstvo was called “a building without a foundation and a roof”); the decisive predominance of the nobility in all zemstvo bodies; scarcity of funds. Still, the reform seemed quite significant at first. The election of zemstvos, their independence from the local administration - all this made it possible to count on the fact that the zemstvo in its activities would be based on the interests of the local population and bring real benefits to them. Indeed, the zemstvo managed to achieve certain successes, especially in the field of education and medicine - zemstvo schools and hospitals became a completely new and very positive phenomenon of Russian post-reform reality. But the zemstvos never managed to become full-fledged bodies of self-government: instead of developing this system, the autocratic bureaucratic government began to mercilessly bend it to itself, allowing its functionaries - governors, first of all - a wide variety of opportunities to interfere in the activities of zemstvos and subordinate their administrative control.
Urban reform
In 1870, the “City Regulation” was introduced in Russia. In accordance with it, city government bodies were created in more than 500 cities - city councils elected for a period of 4 years. From among their ranks, the councils elected city councils - permanent executive bodies. Unlike zemstvos, elections to city dumas were classless: all those who paid city taxes took part in them. However, here too the voters were divided into three curiae - according to property wealth. As a result, city government ended up in the hands of representatives of the small first curia, consisting of entrepreneurs and wealthy homeowners.
The functions of city government were akin to zemstvo ones: dumas and councils dealt with matters related to the improvement of the city, taking care of local trade and industry, healthcare and public education. City councils received fixed assets from trade and industrial establishments in the amount of 1% of their income. But only 40% of these, as a rule, not very significant amounts, were used by city councils for their intended purpose. The remaining 60% went to maintain the police, city prisons, barracks for soldiers, and firefighters. And yet, with very modest capabilities, the new bodies noticeably revived city life and greatly contributed to the development of cities in economic and cultural terms.
Judicial reform
In 1864, the “Judicial Statutes” were approved, according to which the old clerical bureaucratic court was unconditionally abolished. Instead, two judicial systems were created, practically independent of each other: world and state.
The World Court was created in order to relieve the state court of the mass of cases related to minor offenses and minor claims. The justice of the peace was elected by the local population from among themselves; he must have had at least a high school education. The judicial procedure itself was extremely simplified: the magistrate heard the case and immediately passed a verdict. The court was open to visitors.
The state or crown court was more complex. All of Russia was divided into judicial districts, and the district court became the main body of the new system. It is characteristic that the boundaries of judicial districts did not coincide with the boundaries of the provinces. This was done in order to complicate the influence of the local administration on the new court. For the same purpose, judges and investigators became irremovable; it was impossible to dismiss them at the request of their superiors - only by court verdict. District courts were controlled by judicial chambers - several contiguous districts per chamber. It was possible to file an appeal to the judicial chamber, that is, a complaint against an unfair court decision, and try to get the case reviewed. General control over the system was exercised by the Senate, which accepted cassation - also complaints, but, unlike appeals, about violations of the law during the trial.
The entire trial was of a fundamentally new nature. Unlike the old one, during which several officials behind closed doors adjusted the investigation materials to a certain punitive formula, the new process was not only open and transparent, but also adversarial. The prosecution, led by the prosecutor, competed here with the defense, which was in the hands of a lawyer (in the Russian tradition, a sworn attorney). The judge merely conducted the process, trying to maintain order and legality as much as possible. The outcome of the trial was determined by the jurors - representatives of society, who had to, after reviewing the case, answer the questions posed to them by the judge - answer not formally, but according to their conscience. Based on their answers, the judge made a sentence.
Judicial reform was rightly considered the most consistent. However, the system she introduced over time also began to be subject to distortions. The most significant of them were associated with political processes, which since the late 1860s have become everyday phenomena of Russian life. Dissatisfied with the sentences, which are too lenient from its point of view, and lacking reliable leverage over the jury, the government gradually transfers political cases to military courts - as a rule, without any legal grounds. But military courts, in which military officers played the role of jurors, always passed the sentences that the authorities demanded of them.
Military reforms
Military reforms were a whole set of measures aimed at increasing the combat effectiveness of the Russian army and navy and eliminating those shortcomings that became obvious during the Crimean War. The preparation and implementation of these reforms were associated, first of all, with the name of Minister of War D.A. Milyutin (brother of N.A. Milyutin, leader of peasant reform).
First of all, we should note here the “Charter on Military Service”, signed by Alexander II in 1874, according to which universal military service was introduced in Russia, replacing conscription. It applied to all healthy men over 20 years of age, without distinction of class. For ground forces, a 6-year period of active service and 9 years in reserve was established; for the fleet - 7 years and 3 years, respectively. At the same time, the Charter provided for various benefits: according to marital status, reduction of service life depending on the level of education received. As a result, in peacetime no more than 25-30% of the total number of conscripts were in active service.
A lot of attention D.A. Milyutin devoted his attention to improving army management. To this end, back in 1864, he achieved the creation of a system of military districts - 15 throughout Russia. At the head of the troops stationed on the territory of each district was a commander who reported directly to the minister.
Milyutin's major achievement was the military education system. He liquidated closed military educational institutions - cadet corps. Instead, military gymnasiums with a well-thought-out curriculum were established; Having graduated from them, it was possible to enter a variety of educational institutions. Those who wished to continue their military education entered cadet schools - infantry, cavalry, military engineering, and artillery. Higher military education was provided by academies - General Staff, artillery, etc.
An important component of military reforms was the rearmament of the army and navy. In the fleet, which was controlled by the Tsar’s energetic and intelligent brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, rearmament began during the Crimean War. Steam metal ships took the place of sailing wooden ships. The ground forces received rapid-fire rifles, new artillery, etc. In the name of modernizing the army, the state incurred enormous expenses.
Reforms of Alexander II and their significance in the history of Russia
Chapter 1. Personality of Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich in the first years of his reign
Born in 1818, the son of Prince Nikolai Pavlovich Alexander was revered from the very first days of his life as a future monarch, because neither Emperor Alexander I nor Tsarevich Constantine had sons, and in his generation he was the eldest prince. Accordingly, his education and upbringing were admirably directed and aimed at preparing him for the high mission.
The first teacher of Alexander II was Captain Merder, and at the age of nine V.A. Zhukovsky began teaching him. The program under which the future emperor studied was carefully worked out and aimed at making him an educated and comprehensively enlightened person, preserving him from premature enthusiasm for the trifles of military affairs. Alexander successfully mastered the program, but could not protect himself from the military “drill” of that time.
At twenty-three, the Tsarevich married Maria Alexandrovna, Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt. From this time, Alexander began his career. For ten years he was his father's right hand. Judging by the testimony of historians, Alexander II was strongly influenced by his father and adopted some of his qualities. However, what distinguished him from Nikolai’s iron character was his innate gentleness and generosity. That is why Alexander’s personality cannot be assessed unambiguously - at different moments in his life he makes a different impression.
The first years of his reign, the emperor tried to eliminate the consequences of the Eastern War and the order of Nicholas's time. In terms of foreign policy, Alexander continued the “principles of the Holy Alliance,” which guided the policies of both Alexander I and Nicholas I. In addition, at the first reception of the diplomatic corps, the sovereign declared that he was ready to continue the war if he did not achieve an honorable peace. Thus, he demonstrated to Europe that, in this regard, he is a continuator of his father’s policies. Also in domestic politics, people had the impression that the new emperor would not deviate from the positions declared by his predecessor. However, in practice this turned out not to be the case: “there was a breath of gentleness and tolerance characteristic of the temperament of the new monarch. Petty restrictions were removed from the press; universities breathed more freely,” they said that “the sovereign wants truth, enlightenment, honesty and a free voice.” In fact, this was the case, since Alexander, taught by the bitter experience of powerlessness in the Crimean War, demanded a “frank presentation of all shortcomings.” Some historians believe that at first there was no program at all, since wartime difficulties did not allow him to focus on the internal improvement of the country. Only after the end of the war, in the manifesto of March 19, 1856, Alexander II said his famous phrase, which became the slogan for Russia for many years: “Let its internal prosperity be established and improved; let truth and mercy reign in its courts; let it develop everywhere and with renewed vigor the desire for enlightenment and all useful activities..."
Chapter 2. Abolition of serfdom
Serfdom in Russia lasted much longer than in any other European country and took such forms that it differed little from slavery. However, the government was able to abolish serfdom only in 1861.
What made the landowners and the government abandon such a convenient form of exploitation?
Back in 1856, the emperor, receiving representatives of the nobility, told them of his intention to carry out peasant reform. In his opinion, “it is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above, rather than wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed on its own from below.” In the economic sphere, there was an increase in the crisis of the landlord economy, based on the forced, extremely ineffective labor of serfs.
In the social sphere, there was an increase in peasant protest against serfdom, which was expressed in increased unrest.
For comparison, we present the data: 1831 – 1840. - 328 peasant unrest; 1841 – 1850 - 545 peasant unrest; 1851 – 1860 - 1010 peasant unrest.
As we see, peasant discontent with the existing order was growing every day. Ruling circles feared that scattered peasant unrest would develop into a second “Pugachevism.”
In addition, the defeat in the Crimean War showed that serfdom was the main reason for the country's military-technical backwardness.
Fearing that Russia would be relegated to the ranks of minor powers, the government embarked on the path of social, economic and political reforms.
On January 3, 1857, a secret committee was formed “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants,” but since it consisted of ardent serf owners, it acted indecisively. However, after some time, noticing that peasant discontent was not subsiding, but, on the contrary, growing, the committee began to seriously prepare for peasant reform. From that moment on, the existence of the committee ceased to be a “secret”, and in February 1858 it was renamed the Main Committee “on landowner peasants emerging from serfdom.”
It is necessary to say something about the attitude of the landowners themselves to the reform. And it was radically different. The majority of landowners opposed the reform altogether. Some agreed, but on different conditions: some defended the option of liberating peasants without land and for the ransom of the peasant’s personal freedom; others, whose economy was more drawn into market relations and intended to rebuild it on an entrepreneurial basis, advocated a more liberal option: the release of peasants with land with a relatively moderate ransom.
Preparations for the peasant reform took place in an atmosphere of socio-political upsurge in the country. In the 50s XIX century Two ideological centers emerged that led the revolutionary-democratic direction of Russian thought: A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev (first) and N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov (second).
There was a noticeable revival of the liberal opposition movement among those sections of the nobility who considered it necessary not only to abolish serfdom, but also to create class-wide elected bodies of government, establish a public court, introduce openness in general, carry out reforms in the field of education, etc.
V.I. Lenin called the situation of socio-political crisis in Russia at the turn of the 50s - 60s. “revolutionary situation” and identified three of its objective features:
· “crisis at the top”, expressed in their inability to “govern in the old way”;
· “exacerbation, higher than usual, of the needs and misfortunes of the oppressed classes”;
· “a significant increase in the activity of the masses” who did not want to “live in the old way.”
But the revolutionary forces were so weak that with the help of a series of bourgeois reforms, the autocracy was not only able to get out of the crisis, but also strengthen its position. This is the situation in which the abolition of serfdom was carried out.
By the end of August 1859, the draft “Regulations on Peasants” was practically prepared. At the end of January 1861, the project was submitted to the final authority of the State Council. Here a new “addition” was made to the project in favor of the landowners: at the proposal of one of the largest landowners P. P. Gagarin, a clause was introduced on the landowner’s right to provide peasants (by agreement with them) with ownership and free (“as a gift”) a quarter of the allotment . Such an allotment was called “quarter” or “giftary” (the peasants called it “orphan”).
On February 19, the “Regulations” (they included 17 legislative acts) were signed by the tsar and received force. On the same day, the tsar signed the Manifesto for the liberation of the peasants.
According to the Manifesto, the peasant received complete personal freedom. This is a particularly important point in peasant reform, and I would like to draw attention to it. For centuries, peasants fought for their freedom. Previously, a landowner could take away all his property from a serf, force him into marriage, sell him, separate him from his family, and simply kill him. With the release of the Manifesto, the peasant received the opportunity to decide where and how to live; he could marry without asking the landowner’s consent, he could independently conclude deals, open enterprises, and move to other classes. All this provided an opportunity for the development of peasant entrepreneurship, contributed to the increase in the departure of peasants to work, and in general gave a strong impetus to the development of capitalism in post-reform Russia.
According to the “Regulations,” peasant self-government was introduced, that is, village and volost assemblies headed by village elders and volost elders. Peasants were given the right to distribute land themselves, assign duties, determine the order of serving conscription duties, admit them into the community and dismiss them from it. A volost peasant court was also introduced for minor crimes and property claims.
The redemption of estates and field plots specified in the law was impossible for peasants, so the government came to the aid of the peasantry by establishing a “redemption system.” The “Regulations” indicate that landowners will be able to receive a land loan as soon as their land relations with the peasants are arranged and the land allotment is established. The loan was issued to the landowner with interest-bearing securities and was counted against the peasants as a government debt, which they had to repay within 49 years with “redemption payments.”
The procedure for implementing the peasant reform required an agreement between the landowner and the peasant regarding the size of the allotment, as well as regarding the obligations of the peasant in relation to the landowner.
This should have been stated in the “statutory charter” within one year from the date of release.
While the abolition of serfdom occurred immediately, the liquidation of feudal economic relations that had been established for decades lasted for many years. According to the law, peasants were required to serve the same duties as under serfdom for another two years. Only the corvee decreased somewhat, and small natural taxes were abolished. Before being transferred to redemption, the peasants were in a temporarily obligated position, that is, they were obliged to perform corvee labor according to established standards or pay dues for the plots provided to them. Since there was no specific period after which temporarily obliged peasants had to be transferred to compulsory redemption, their liberation extended for 20 years (although by 1881 no more than 15% of them remained).
Despite the predatory nature of the reform of 1861 for the peasants, its significance for the further development of the country was very great. This reform was a turning point in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The liberation of the peasants contributed to the intensive growth of the labor force, and the provision of some civil rights to them helped the development of entrepreneurship. For landowners, the reform ensured a gradual transition from feudal forms of economy to capitalist ones.
Chapter 3. Bourgeois reforms of Alexander II
The abolition of serfdom in Russia caused the need to carry out other bourgeois reforms - in the field of local government, courts, education, finance, and in military affairs.
On January 1, 1864, the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was published, which introduced classless elected bodies of local self-government - zemstvos. They were elected by all classes for a three-year term and consisted of administrative bodies (district and provincial zemstvo assemblies) and executive bodies (district and provincial zemstvo councils).
Zemstvos were responsible for public education, for public health, for timely food supplies, for the quality of roads, for insurance, for veterinary care and more.
All this required large funds, so zemstvos were allowed to introduce new taxes, impose duties on the population, and form zemstvo capital. With its full development, zemstvo activity was supposed to cover all aspects of local life. New forms of local self-government not only made it universal, but also expanded the range of its powers. Self-government became so widespread that it was understood by many as a transition to a representative form of government, so the government soon became noticeable in its desire to keep the activities of zemstvos at the local level and not allow the 12 zemstvo corporations to communicate with each other.
On June 16, 1870, the “City Regulations” were published, according to which elective self-government was introduced in 509 cities - city councils elected for four years. The City Duma elected its permanent executive body - the city government, which consisted of the mayor and several members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of both the city duma and the city government. Only residents with property qualifications (mainly owners of houses, commercial and industrial establishments, banks - in a word, the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie) had the right to vote and be elected to the city duma.
Thus, the bulk of the urban population was excluded from participation in city government. The competence of city self-government was limited to resolving purely economic issues (urban improvement, setting up bazaars, etc.).
Simultaneously with the zemstvo reform, the judicial reform was also prepared. Of all the reforms of that time, it was the most consistent and one of the most significant. Judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 introduced an unclassified public court with the participation of jurors, the legal profession and adversarial proceedings. The jurors participating in the trial determined only the guilt or innocence of the defendant, while the measure of punishment was determined by the judges themselves. Decisions made by the court with the participation of the jury were considered final, otherwise they could be appealed to the judicial chamber. Decisions of district courts in which jurors took part could be appealed only if a violation of the legal procedure was committed. Appeals against these decisions were considered by the Senate.
To deal with minor offenses and civil cases with a claim of up to 500 rubles, a World Court with summary proceedings was introduced in counties and cities. The composition of justices of the peace was elected at district zemstvo assemblies.
The judicial statutes of 1864 introduced the institution of “sworn attorneys”, the legal profession, as well as the institution of judicial investigators. Chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers, attorneys at law, their assistants and judicial investigators were required to have a higher legal education. The chairmen and members of district courts and judicial chambers were approved by the emperor, and justices of the peace by the Senate. After this, they could not be dismissed or removed from office for some time (only if they committed a criminal offense), but even then the decision to remove them from office was made by the court. Thus, the law introduced the important principle of irremovability of judges.
In 1861 - 1874 a series of military reforms were carried out. In 1874, a statute on universal conscription was issued, which radically changed the procedure for replenishing troops. Under Peter the Great, all classes were involved in military service. According to the laws of the 18th century, the nobility was gradually exempted from military service, and conscription became the fate of not just the lower strata of the population, but the poorest of them, since those who were richer could pay off by hiring a recruit for themselves. This form of military service placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the poor, because the service life at that time was 25 years, that is, breadwinners, leaving home, left it for almost their entire lives, peasant farms went bankrupt with all the ensuing consequences.
According to the new law, all young people who had reached the age of 14–21 were drafted, but the government determined the required number of recruits every year, and only this number was selected from the conscripts by lot (usually no more than 20–25% of conscripts were called up for service). The following categories of citizens were not subject to conscription: the only son of his parents, the only breadwinner in the family, as well as those whose older brother was serving or had served. Those recruited for service were enrolled in it for specified periods: in the ground forces - 15 years (6 years in service and 9 years in reserve); in the navy - 7 years of active service and 3 years in reserve. For everyone who received primary education, the period of active service was reduced to 4 years, for those who graduated from city school - to 3 years, gymnasium - to one and a half years, and for those who had higher education - to six months.
Thus, we can conclude that the new system involved not only military training of soldiers, but at the same time a number of events were carried out with the aim of educating them (this is especially noticeable during the management of the War Ministry by Count D. A. Milyutin).
Military expenditures caused by the Eastern War, as well as the ransom operation launched at this time, forced the government to go beyond the budget. It took out loans abroad, resorted to domestic loans, and issued credit notes. All this led to the emergence of a real problem of streamlining the state economy.
To increase government revenues, a number of measures were taken, one of which was the abolition of wine farming.
Under Catherine II, private individuals “purchased” the right to sell wine in a certain district for a certain amount. According to the new procedure, any person could sell wine, but all wine that went on sale was subject to “excise tax” (a tax in favor of the state). The same excise tax was imposed on salt, sugar, and tobacco. Some customs duties have been increased. The main means of increasing the economic power of the country was considered to be the construction of a railway network. In connection with it, foreign holidays increased 10 times, and the import of goods into Russia increased almost as much. The number of commercial and industrial enterprises has increased markedly, and the number of factories and factories has also increased. Credit institutions appeared - banks, headed by the State Bank (1860).
Russia began to lose the character of a patriarchal landowning state. Freed from serfdom and other constraints, people's labor found application in various industries created by the new conditions of social life.
Even at the beginning of his reign, Alexander II abolished some restrictive measures regarding educational institutions adopted by Emperor Nicholas I. Teaching at universities received more freedom, they became available to students, both men and women. However, in 1861 the novelty of the situation led to some unrest, after which the freedom of the universities had to be somewhat limited. In 1863, a charter was issued, according to which the professorial corporation received self-government. Students did not receive the right to influence order at the university in any way, which was the reason for frequent “student riots.” Impressed by such sentiments, Count D. A. Tolstoy decided to implement a secondary school reform. At the beginning of the emperor's reign (under Minister A.V. Golovin), access to gymnasiums was open to children of all classes. Gymnasiums were of two types: classical, with the study of ancient languages, and real, respectively, without such study, but with a predominance of natural science. Count Tolstoy, supported by M. N. Katkov, in 1871 drew up a new charter for the gymnasium, approved by the sovereign. The classical gymnasium was made the only type of general education and all-class secondary school, the graduates of which had the right to enter the university. Real gymnasiums were replaced by “real schools”; their goal was to provide education to people of all classes, adapted to practical needs and to the acquisition of practical knowledge. This reform established the complete predominance of the classical school. But Count Tolstoy overlooked several points, namely: due to the lack of a sufficient number of teachers of Latin and Greek, specialists had to be contracted from abroad. Naturally, the students did not like their teaching, since the former did not know either the Russian language or Russian literature.
Thus, despite the fact that Count Tolstoy’s reform was based on the correct idea about the meaning of classicism, it did not become part of the morals of our society.
Simultaneously with the reform of the men's secondary school, the women's secondary school was also reformed. Before the reign of Alexander II, there were only institutes and private boarding schools, in which mainly noblewomen studied. Since the late 50s. Women's gymnasiums for all classes appeared. At the same time, women's diocesan schools began to open.
After some time, the issue of higher education for women was successfully resolved. Great strides have also been made in terms of primary or public education.
But, despite the efforts, public literacy in the era of reforms was still at a low level.
Consequences of Alexander II's reforms
So, we examined the main transformations and reforms carried out by Alexander II. The main reform of his reign - the liberation of the peasants - radically changed the order that existed before and entailed all other reforms.
With the abolition of serfdom, commercial and industrial activity “resurrected”, a flow of workers poured into the cities, and new areas for entrepreneurship opened up. Old connections between cities and counties were restored and new ones emerged.
The fall of serfdom, the equalization of everyone before the courts, the creation of new liberal forms of social life led to personal freedom. And the feeling of this freedom aroused the desire to develop it. Dreams arose about establishing new forms of family and social life.
I would like to end with the words of A. A. Kiesewetter about the reign of Alexander II: “If the art of ruling consists in the ability to correctly determine the urgent needs of the era, to open a free outlet for viable and fruitful aspirations lurking in society, from the height of impartiality to pacify mutually hostile parties by the force of reasonable agreements, then one cannot but admit that Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich correctly understood the essence of his calling in the memorable 1855 - 1861 years of his reign."
Bibliography
1. Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. - M., 1993.
2. Fedorov V. A. Internal policy of the Russian autocracy in the second half of the 19th century - M., 1993.
Reforms of Alexander 2 - briefly: prerequisites, reasons, main provisions, results
I wish you good health, Andrey Puchkov is in touch. Today, using the example of the topic “Alexander’s Reforms 2”, I will show how to work on this topic when preparing for exams on your own. For more details on this simple technique, see the article at the link, link at the end of the post.
General characteristics of reforms
The reforms of Alexander II are called bourgeois because they contributed to the development of capitalism in Russia. Capitalism presupposes the free development of four main forms of capital: land, a free labor market, entrepreneurship, means of production (the ability to establish plants, factories, and produce tools). As you might guess, the main reform that at least somehow accompanied the development in Russia was the abolition.
Other reforms followed from this one. We will talk about it in the next post, and in this one we will briefly analyze the remaining reforms.
Zemstvo reform of 1864
Causes. The need to create local self-government for peasants who were previously in serfdom. Previously, it was the nobleman who ruled his serfs. After they received personal freedom, the nobleman became a private citizen for the former serfs. Therefore, it was necessary to create local self-government.
Progress of reform. On January 1, 1864, the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” were adopted. In 1870, the “City Regulations” were adopted, which reformed local government in cities. By the way, under which emperor did it appear? Write your answer in the comments!
Main provisions of the reform:
- Zemstvos (zemstvo assemblies) were established in counties and provinces, which had administrative and economic powers.
- Zemstvos were re-elected every three years, elections were curial - for three curiae: noble, merchant and peasant.
- Zemstvos were all-class bodies of local self-government, but the electoral law was such that in fact they were under the tutelage of the nobles.
Consequences of the reform.
- Some kind of local self-government has appeared in Russia.
- Zemstvos became the social support of the liberal intelligentsia. This is generally an important consequence. It is impossible to analyze all its sides within the framework of this post.
Judicial reform of 1864
Causes. After the abolition of serfdom, the need arose for a radical reform of the judicial system. Because, firstly, our courts in Russia have been class-based until now, and, secondly, when there was serfdom, the court for serfs (read, for the bulk of the population) was the landowner. Now the serfs became free and the estates de jure ceased to exist, but in reality they began to erode.
Progress of reform. In November 1864, new Judicial Statutes were adopted.
Main provisions of the reform.
- In Russia, classless courts were introduced.
- In Russia, new principles of legal proceedings were introduced: adversarialism (prosecution, defense), openness (the press began to be allowed into the courts), independence of judges, and jury trials were introduced.
- A new system of courts arose: the magistrate's court (for minor cases), the crown court (district court, judicial chamber).
- Military courts and tribunals remained.
Consequences
Russia has developed the best legal system of all time. This, by the way, proved it.
Military reform
Causes. The backwardness of the Russian army, the armament of the army, as shown by the Crimean War (the presence of smooth-bore guns versus rifled guns among the British and French; the presence of a sailing fleet versus a steam one among the Allies).
Main provisions of the reform
- Instead of conscription (which had existed since Peter the Great), universal military service was introduced. She was all-class.
- Persons between the ages of 21 and 40 were required to serve military service. Six years in the Army and seven years in the Navy.
- An educational qualification was introduced: the higher the level of completed educational institution, the less time to serve in the army. There were other restrictions, in particular, the only son in the family did not join the army.
- Some peoples of Russia were exempted from military service.
Consequences
Russia received a more or less combat-ready army, which performed well against the backward Turkish army during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878.
In addition to these reforms, the new University Charter of 1863 was adopted, and the Censorship Reform was carried out in 1865. However, the last two innovations are not tested in the Unified State Examination tests. Although I always recommend that my students know some nuances.
Post Scriptum: within the framework of this post, we, of course, will not be able to analyze all these nuances. They are discussed in my video course « » , as well as in my preparation courses for the Unified State Exam in history.
Best regards, Andrey Puchkov
Introduction
Chapter 1. Alexander II
1.1 Brief biography
Chapter 2. Liberal reforms
2.3 Conciliators
2.4 Allotments and duties
2.7 Zemstvo reform
2.8 Urban reform
2.11 Military reform
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Target:get to know the personality of Emperor Alexander II, who stands in line with emperors like Peter I, Catherine the Great, who continues their great endeavors.
task, which I set myself to connect the reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century with the reforms of modern Russia, to understand for myself what conditions are necessary for the successful implementation of reforms.
Subjectmy research into the life, fate and reforms of Alexander Nikolaevich Romanov - Emperor Alexander II.
The bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century carried out in Russia have not lost their relevanceand in our days. Today's Russia, just like Russia in the second half of the 19th century, faces a choice of path. Where to develop? How to develop?
In Russia, in the 20th century alone, three revolutions occurred:
1905 - 1907 - First revolution
History has shown that almost all revolutions end in bloody, immoral civil wars.
Therefore, the reformist path of development is always preferable to the revolutionary one.
Having understood the reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century, it is much better to understand the reforms of modern Russia.
Alexander II went down in Russian history as the emperor who, from talking about reforms, was the first to take the path of their practical implementation.
If Catherine II and Alexander I only talked about reforms, then Alexander II began to implement them.
reform alexander emperor peasant
Peter I (the first Russian emperor) turned Russia around, Catherine II continued Peter's initiatives, and Alexander II completed the formation of a Great Power.
The fate of Alexander II proved that it is impossible to carry out more than one reform in Russia without paying for it in blood.
Reforms in Russia are a hard lot:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky, the largest Russian reformer of the early 19th century, was exiled to the city of Perm for preparing a project for the state reorganization of Russia.
Sergei Yulievich Witte, Minister of Finance and head of government, who spoke about the need for reforms in the country at the end of the 19th century, was removed from office.
Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin - head of government, reformer of Russian agriculture, was killed in 1911.
Conclusion: all reformers lost, if not their lives, then their destiny.
Chapter 1. Alexander II
1.1 Brief biography
Alexander II is the son of a tsar, a pupil of a poet.
Alexander Nikolaevich Romanov, the first-born of the grand ducal family - Nikolai Pavlovich and Alexandra Fedorovna - was born on Easter week on April 17, 1818 in Moscow, in the Kremlin and was baptized in the Chudov Monastery.
Poet V.A. Zhukovsky, who was then a teacher of the Russian language under Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna, responded to the family joy with significant lines:
May he meet a century full of honor!
May he be a glorious participant!
Yes, on the high line he won’t forget
The holiest of titles: man.
Zhukovsky, seeing how the plan he had drawn up was collapsing, gradually abandoned his upbringing and went abroad for a long time. But he fell in love with a playful and sympathetic boy, and correspondence between them did not stop." Rule not by force, but by order," the poet instructed the future king, "the true power of a sovereign is not in the number of his soldiers, but in the well-being of the people... Love your people: without love the king for the people there is no love of the people for the king."
Alexander grew up healthy and cheerful. He swam and shot well, studied successfully, although his teachers noticed in him a lack of perseverance in achieving his goals. When faced with difficulties, he often fell into apathy. He was distinguished by great impressionability. Zhukovsky's lessons sank deeply into his soul. But his father had no less influence on him. He feared him and admired him. At the age of 18, the prince received the rank of major general, clearly not according to his merits. He still did not comprehend military affairs to the same extent as Nikolai (an excellent military engineer). But he knew the tinsel of parades, shows and divorces down to the smallest detail and loved it selflessly. All his life, two principles fought in his soul - the humane, instilled by Zhukovsky, and the militaristic, inherited from his father. In this respect, he resembled Alexander I.
The future tsar will forever remember his trip to Russia in 1837. He was accompanied by Zhukovsky. In seven months they visited 30 provinces. In Siberia they met with the Decembrists. In Vyatka, the exiled Herzen told them about the riches of the local region. Upon his return, the heir asked for a mitigation of the fate of the Decembrists. At the same time, Herzen was transferred to Vladimir.
In addition to parades and balls, Alexander had another hobby, purely sports, which in a strange way influenced events in the country. He passionately loved hunting and, of course, could not pass by “Notes of a Hunter” by I.S. Turgenev. Subsequently, he said that the book convinced him of the need to abolish serfdom.
He abolished serfdom and then carried out a number of reforms (zemstvo, judicial, military, etc.). After the Polish uprising of 1863-64 he switched to a reactionary domestic political course. Since the late 70s. Repressions against revolutionaries intensified. During the reign of Alexander II, the annexation of the territories of the Caucasus (1864), Kazakhstan (1865), and most of the Middle East to Russia was completed. Asia (1865-81). In order to strengthen its influence in the Balkans and help the national liberation movement of the Slavic peoples, Russia participated in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-78. For life Academician Andrei Sakharov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Director of the Institute of Russian History, speaking about the fate of Alexander II the following: “The main tragedy of the Russian autocracy is that it could not reform itself. To go further along the path of reforms, it was necessary destroy yourself - Alexander II understood this."
Assassinations and murder
Several attempts were made on Alexander II: D.V. Karakozov, Polish emigrant A. Berezovsky May 25, 1867 in Paris, A.K. Solovyov on April 2, 1879 in St. Petersburg. On August 26, 1879, the Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya decided to assassinate Alexander II (an attempt to blow up an imperial train near Moscow on November 19, 1879, an explosion in the Winter Palace carried out by S.N. Khalturin on February 5, 1880). To protect state order and fight the revolutionary movement, the Supreme Administrative Commission was created. But nothing could prevent his violent death. On March 1, 1881, Alexander II was mortally wounded on the embankment of the Catherine Canal in St. Petersburg by a bomb thrown by Narodnaya Volya member I.I. Grinevitsky. He died precisely on the day when he decided to give birth to M.T.’s constitutional project. Loris-Melikova, telling his sons Alexander (the future emperor) and Vladimir: “I do not hide from myself that we are following the path of the constitution.”
1.2 Need for reforms
Serfdom in Russia existed much longer than in other European countries, and bore the most cruel and ugly features of slave coercion and violence. The question of the abolition of serfdom was raised by Russian enlighteners N. Novikov and A. Radishchev back in the 18th century, under Catherine II. The Decembrists also in all their program documents invariably emphasized the need to abolish serfdom.
With the end of the Crimean War, a new period began in the history of Russia. It was called the era of Liberation and Great Reforms. In the minds of contemporaries and descendants, it was firmly connected with the name of Emperor Alexander II.
Chapter 2. Liberal reforms
February 19, 1861 - Abolition of serfdom. The emperor signed the “General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom” and a manifesto according to which serfs received personal freedom. Domestic historians express different opinions about the reasons for the abolition of serfdom. Most of them believe that the decisive factor was the economic factor: the crisis of the serf economic system due to the disinterest of the serfs in the result of their labor.
This factor did not contribute to increasing the productivity of landowner farms. Another group of supporters highlights the landowners' reasons for the abolition of serfdom: Russia's humiliating defeat in the Crimean War and the authorities' desire to avoid social misfortunes.
For the first time, the need for a radical peasant reform was officially announced by Alexander II in a speech by representatives of the Moscow nobility on March 30, 1856, a few days after the conclusion of the Paris Peace: “The existing order of ownership of souls cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for that time, when it itself begins to be canceled from below.”
Prominent figures stood at the origins of the abolition of serfdom:
Milyutin Nikolai Alekseevich, who actually led the preparation of the Peasant Reform of 1861.
Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich was one of the most prominent figures in the history of the reign of Alexander II. Konstantin Nikolaevich played an outstanding role in the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform.
Under pressure from the Grand Duke, the Secret Committee, with great difficulty, decided to begin preparing measures “to improve the life of the landowner peasants.” In accordance with it, the reform was carried out in three stages: “preparatory”, when the policy of mitigating serfdom was carried out, “transitional period” and “final”, when the peasants became completely free (without the provision of land). The ideas of freeing peasants with land for ransom, which the Grand Duke defended, clearly did not resonate with the majority of committee members, and Konstantin Nikolaevich acquired a reputation as a “muzhikophile” in bureaucratic and noble circles.
Cherkassky Vladimir Alexandrovich (1824-1878). Since the 1840s advocated the liberation of the peasants. Participant in the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861
Rostovtsev Yakov Ivanovich (1803/04-60), One of the leaders of the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861, chairman of the editorial commission; his program for the abolition of serfdom formed the basis of the Regulations of February 19, 1861.
In the fall of 1857, the nobility of the Lithuanian provinces, under pressure from Governor General V.I. Nazimova stated that she agreed to free the peasants from personal serfdom, but subject to the preservation of all the land. Immediately, the emperor signed a rescript (a rescript is an act of the monarch in the form of a specific instruction to a minister or some other person) addressed to Nazimov, which ordered the formation of provincial committees in each of the three provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) to prepare proposals for organizing the life of peasants .
2.2 Basic provisions of the peasant reform
The conditions for the liberation of peasants emerging from serfdom were set out in the Regulations on February 19, 1861. Since the publication of the reform documents, the former serf, previously considered the property of his master, received not only the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality (personal freedom was provided free of charge), but also acquired a number of other personal and property rights. Free rural inhabitants could enter into various transactions, sue, engage in trade and crafts, own movable and immovable property, marry without the consent of the landowner, and enter “general educational institutions.” From now on, the peasant became a legal entity in civil, administrative and criminal cases.
Former landowners and peasants were included in the tax-paying estates and had to bear state and zemstvo duties. Until January 1, 1887, peasants paid a poll tax, before the introduction of universal conscription
2.3 Conciliators
GOVERNING MEDIATOR, an official in Russia during the period of the peasant reform of 1861. Appointed from among the nobles to approve charters and resolve disputes between peasants and landowners. He had judicial and administrative powers.
If at the initial stage of preparation of the reform the government intended to entrust its practical implementation to the local nobility in the form of provincial committees, then having later encountered the fierce, irreconcilable position of the landowners, the ruling circles were forced to create the institution of world intermediaries - special representatives for the implementation of the reform on the ground.
The main function of the peace intermediaries was to facilitate agreement between peasants and landowners and draw up so-called “statutory charters”, which precisely determined the size of the allotment received by the peasants, the location and peasant duties. The statutory charters had to be put into effect no later than two years after the publication of the “Reform Provisions”.
Global mediators approved village elders and volost elders, could cancel decisions of peasant assemblies, considered complaints against landowners and peasant government bodies, imposed penalties, and acted as notaries when concluding deeds of landowners with temporarily obligated peasants.
In the lists of world intermediaries one could find representatives of famous noble families, outstanding figures of Russian culture, science, and education: L.N. Tolstoy and his brother Sergei, K.D. Kavelin, N.I. Pirogov, Samarin brothers, physiologist I.M. Sechenov, biologist K.I. Timiryazev and many others.
2.4 Allotments and duties
The central link of the reform was the issue of land. All land on the estate was recognized as the property of the landowner, including that which was at the disposal of the peasants. At the same time, in accordance with the reform document, peasants must buy back their estate and allotment land from the landowners. Those who bought them became peasant owners. Until the redemption of their plots, peasants had to continue to bear duties in the form of corvee or quitrent. Therefore, personally free peasants who bore duties in favor of the previous owner were called “temporarily obligated.” According to the "Regulations of February 19", the temporarily obliged state of peasants could last for 9 years. In fact, for many peasants it lasted for 20 years.
When determining the size of an allotment, preference should be given to voluntary agreement between peasants and landowners, and since such an agreement most often could not be reached, the size of the allotment was determined by law.
For these purposes, the entire territory of the country was divided into 3 zones: chernozem, non-chernozem and steppe. For the chernozem and non-chernozem zones, two standards were established - the highest and the lowest (the latter is 3 times lower than the highest). The highest norm for the black earth strip was from 2 3?4 up to 6 dessiatines, for non-chernozem soil - from 23 to 7 dessiatines. In the steppe zone, only one specified allotment norm was established. These norms, as a rule, were lower than the old peasants' plots, which the peasants used before the reform, therefore, according to the law, landowners received the right to cut off "extra" land from their former peasants.
As a result of the reform, peasants received 33.7 million dessiatines of land, an average of 3.4 dessiatines. Per capita. According to economists' calculations, to meet the minimum needs of a peasant economy, it was necessary to have at least 5 dessiatines per capita in black earth provinces, and from 6 to 8 dessiatines per capita in non-black earth provinces. Thus, more than 9/10 of the former landowner peasants "Regulations of February 19, 1861" retained corvee as a form of feudal service, but it was significantly limited. For the highest, or designated, allotment, peasants had to work 40 men's and 30 women's days a year (previously 135 days). n did not receive this necessary norm.
2.5 Redemption and redemption operation
After the conclusion of the redemption transaction, the peasants from the category of temporarily obliged people moved to the category of peasant owners. In order to protect the interests of the landowners, the developers of the reform proposed the following: for the allotment, the landowner must be paid an amount that, if deposited in the bank, will give the owner the current quitrent in the form of interest. If the quitrent is 10 rubles, then at 6% bank interest the amount is 166 rubles. 66 kopecks. will give the landowner these 10 rubles a year. Thus, the redemption amount for the allotment was determined at 167 rubles. At the same time, the market price is 1 dessiat. Land in the central regions usually did not exceed 25 rubles, but its redemption cost the peasant 60 rubles. On average throughout the country, the ransom exceeded the price of land by one third. It followed from this that the price of the allotment had no direct relation to the real price of the land, but it allowed the master to retain his previous privileges. Having lost the peasants, the landowner actually retained the income from them.
The peasants, naturally, could not immediately pay the landowner the entire redemption amount. Then the government met the owners halfway by organizing a “buyout operation,” that is, acting as an intermediary between the landowners and their former peasants. The owner received a one-time loan from the treasury in the amount of 88% of the redemption amount if the peasants received a full allotment, or 75% if the peasants received an incomplete allotment. Peasants had to pay for this amount by making annual so-called “redemption payments” in the amount of 6% of the redemption amount for 49 years, until 1910. It turned out that during this time the peasant had to pay almost
% of the loan provided. The former peasants had to pay the difference between the redemption amount and the redemption loan to the landowner - immediately or in installments. In cases where the redemption was made at the request of the landowner, without the consent of the peasants, the latter were exempt from additional payment.
The state carried out the reform without actually spending a single ruble on it. The total redemption amount for peasant plots was determined at 867 million rubles, while the market price of this land in the 60s of the 19th century was about 650 million rubles. Over 45 years, the former peasants managed to pay the treasury more than 1.5 billion rubles in redemption payments and still owed it. Having carried out the redemption operation, the state, at the expense of the peasants, also solved the problem of returning pre-reform debts from the landowners. The amount of landowners' debts to the treasury at the beginning of the reform amounted to 425 million rubles, this amount was deducted from the redemption loan received by the owners.
2.6 Peasants' reaction to the reform
The peasants, of course, did not expect such liberation. The bewilderment with which they listened to the Manifesto quickly gave way to murmur and general indignation, as soon as they understood the main thing in the decree they read: the land was recognized as the property of the landowners, and the peasants would continue to either pay quitrent or serve corvee until the redemption. The peasants refused to believe what they heard; they considered the published Manifesto to be a fake document, which was drawn up by landowners and officials who agreed with them, hiding the real royal will.
The government foresaw that the reform would cause disappointment and, perhaps, outright indignation among the peasantry. It is no coincidence that the major generals and adjutants sent to the localities had the broadest powers in pacifying any “restlessness, disobedience or disobedience among the peasants.” Disobedience and “restlessness” were not long in coming. Famous publicist N.A. Serno-Solovyevich wrote in June 1861: “The same phenomena were repeated everywhere: the peasants refused to go out to corvée and pay rent to the landowners, brought changes to the elders and mayors appointed by the landowners, complained about oppression from the landowners ... they demanded pure will.” In the spring of 1861, the peasant movement gained its greatest scope in the Kazan, Penza, Tambov, Saratov, Chernigov, Vilna, Kovno and Smolensk provinces.
Major protests by peasants took place in the villages of Bezdna, Kazan province, and Kandeevka, Penza province. The “Regulations of February 19” caused peasants to An abyss of bewilderment and protest. Not satisfied with the explanation of the landowners and priests, the peasants tried to find other interpreters. And such an interpreter was found. One of the local scholars, sectarian Anton Petrov, “read” from the “Regulations” the following fantastic “true will”: “for the landowner - mountains and valleys, ravines and roads and sand and reeds, there is no twig for them in the forest. He will take a step from his land - drive away with a kind word, if he doesn’t listen, cut off his head, you will receive a reward from the king.” Anton Petrov called on the peasants not to listen to the landowners and bosses, not to go to corvee, not to pay rent, and to take bread from the barns of the lords.
The period 1861-1863 is characterized by open peasant protests. But the peasant unrest reached its highest intensity in the first months after the proclamation of the reform. The government managed to break the resistance of the peasantry and suppress the spontaneously scattered and unorganized peasant movement.
2.7 Historical significance of the abolition of serfdom
The peasant reform of 1861 was an outstanding milestone in the political, economic and social development of Russia. The abolition of serfdom created the conditions for the establishment of capitalism in Russia, both in the city and in the countryside. These conditions primarily consisted of the personal liberation of 22 million landowner peasants, who made up a third of the country's population. The transfer of peasants to ransom meant the actual elimination of serfdom, the creation in the village of a class of peasant owners.
The abolition of serfdom also had high moral significance. She ended serfdom forever. Former serfs, having received certain personal and property rights, became new citizens of Russia. In the political and social situation that developed in post-reform times, the question of representative, constitutional forms of government and the movement towards a rule of law arose in a new way.
The reform of 1861 was the result of a complex compromise between the opposing interests of the state, landowners and peasants. The balancing government made numerous concessions to the landowners, but without them the peaceful liberation of the peasants would hardly have been possible. This explains the significant shortcomings of the reform, its half-heartedness, inconsistency, rather short chronological framework, which fits perfectly within two post-reform decades. But even the imperfect reform was more acceptable to society than the peasant revolution, in which representatives of the radical movement called Russia.
Let us pay tribute to the group of reformers of that time, but let us single out one in particular - Alexander II. “One such great and noble reform as the emancipation of the peasants is enough to immortalize the monarch forever,” said one of the emperor’s contemporaries about him and the reform. Not historians, Alexander II himself determined his place in history. A place that is not disputed by anyone.
2.7 Zemstvo reform
On January 1, 1864, Alexander II approved the draft Regulations on provincial and district institutions. Zemstvo institutions were created as all-class elected bodies of local self-government. They consisted of administrative bodies - district and provincial zemstvo assemblies and executive bodies - district and provincial zemstvo councils. Both were elected for a three-year term. Members of zemstvo assemblies were called vowels, i.e. had the right to vote.
How were local deputies elected? Elections of the councilors were carried out at three electoral congresses of the curiae. The first curia - district farmers - included owners of at least 200 des. Land, regardless of those classes of ownership, as well as large owners who had real estate in rural areas worth at least 15 thousand rubles. The second curia - the city one - included the owners of city industrial and commercial establishments with a turnover of at least 6 thousand rubles, merchants of the 1st and 2nd guilds, as well as owners of city real estate. The third curia consisted of chairmen of rural societies. There was no property qualification for participation in elections in this curia. However, this did not create any advantages for the peasants. The elections for the peasant curia were multi-stage. At first, rural societies sent representatives to volost assemblies, who nominated “electors,” and they, in turn, elected representatives at the district congress. At each curial congress a certain number of vowels were elected. As a result, landowners received a majority of seats in district zemstvo assemblies. In the provincial assemblies, the deputies of which, in turn, were elected at district assemblies, the local nobility had an overwhelming reseed.
Zemstvos were introduced gradually. By the end of the 70s, they were introduced only in 35 provinces of European Russia.
From the very beginning, the action of zemstvos was strictly limited to the narrow limits of purely economic “uses and needs” of a given area: the arrangement and maintenance of local communications, zemstvo schools, hospitals, almshouses and shelters; care for local trade and industry; establishing veterinary services; mutual insurance, local food supply; construction of local roads and bridges; maintenance of prisons and insane asylums, etc. Zemstvos did not have the right to engage in political activities. Violation of the framework of competence was punishable by law.
The significance of the Zemstvo reform
Russian society greeted the creation of zemstvos with satisfaction.
K.D. Kavelin noted that it was a “huge event,” a “significant, significant phenomenon” among the transformations, that it would be the seed for the development of a “multi-branched tree.” History has proven the famous liberal right. Zemstvo played a serious role in various areas of Russian life. The zemstvos made a great contribution to the concept of the cultural level of the Russian village and the spread of literacy among the peasants. By 1880, 12 thousand zemstvo schools had been created in the countryside, which were rightfully considered the best. No less noticeable is the importance of zemstvo activities for the development of healthcare in the European part of Russia. Zemstvo hospitals were opened for peasants, who had previously been practically deprived of any medical care. Zemstvos assisted in the dissemination of agronomic knowledge in the countryside.
In Perm and Vyatka, zemstvos were the first to acquire improved landowner tools, machines and seeds, and developed an institute of agronomic supervisors.
2.8 Urban reform
The zemstvo reform had a significant impact on the creation of a new system of city government. On June 16, 1870, Alexander II approved the draft of the new City Regulations. City self-government was reformed on the same principles as zemstvo. Elections to the City Duma were also held in three electoral congresses, depending on property qualifications. The right to participate in elections, regardless of class, was given to owners of real estate taxed in favor of the city, as well as all persons paying commercial and industrial taxes. Deprived of the right to vote were wage workers, the vast majority of whom did not own real estate, as well as representatives of the educated part of the population: doctors, teachers, engineers, officials, who mostly did not have their own houses, but rented apartments. This procedure greatly limited the number of voters. On average across the 46 major cities, voters made up 5.6% of the total population.
Elections to the Duma took place every four years. At the meeting of the Duma, the executive body of public administration was elected - the council and the mayor, who was simultaneously the chairman of both the executive and administrative bodies.
The competence of city self-government, like that of the zemstvo, was limited to the narrow framework of purely economic issues: external improvement, arrangement of markets and bazaars, care of local trade and industry, health care and education, adoption of sanitary and fire safety measures.
The importance of urban reform
The new bodies of city government played a significant role in the economic and cultural development of Russia. The successful solution of many problems depended to a large extent on the people who were part of the dumas and headed these institutions. An entire era in the history of Moscow was made up of the activities of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Alekseev, who was the mayor from 1855 to 1893. Over the course of 8 years, such magnificent buildings as the Moscow City Duma (in Soviet times there was a museum of V.I. Lenin), Upper Trading Rows (GUM building) appeared in the city, electrification of the central part of the city began, and construction of a new water supply system was completed. The pinnacle of N.A.’s selfless and selfless service. Alekseev was the donation of significant funds to the creation of a hospital for the mentally ill.
2.9 1864 - Judicial reform
By the middle of the 19th century, perhaps no other organ of the state apparatus was in such a bad state as the judicial system.
I.S. Aksakov wrote in the 1980s that just remembering the old trial “makes your hair stand on end, and chills run through your skin.”
The new judicial statutes, introduced on November 20, 1864, declared their goal to guarantee “a speedy, just and merciful trial, equal for all.” The judicial reform was based on the principles that underlay the courts of the bourgeois states of Western Europe. Russia received a new court: all-class, public, adversarial, independent of the administration. The old class courts, preserved from the time of Catherine II, were replaced by common judicial institutions for all subjects of the empire, no matter what class they belonged to: everyone was tried in the same courts, according to the same laws, under the same procedure legal proceedings. This was a decisive step forward.
The new legislation established two types of courts: magistrates and general. The magistrate's court considered minor acts and offenses, minor civil cases, if the damage did not exceed 500 rubles. The highest authority in relation to the magistrate's court was the congress of magistrates of the given district. Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies and city dumas for 3 years from candidates who had a certain educational and property qualification.
The general court had three categories: district court, judicial chamber and Senate. The district court became the central link of the new judicial system. The court included the chairman, his deputies, and members of the court. Jurors - elected persons involved for a certain time to participate in the proceedings of court cases (12 people) - had to decide whether the accused was guilty or innocent, and the court determined the punishment. Political cases were removed from the jurisdiction of the jury. The precaution, as it turned out later, was not superfluous for the authorities.
The creation of the institution of sworn attorneys - the Bar - was of great importance. The government, right up to the abolition of serfdom, had a negative attitude towards the idea of establishing a legal profession in Russia on the Western European model. “Who, who ruined France, if not lawyers,” exclaimed Nicholas I, “who were Mirabeau, Marat, Robespierre?! No... while I reign, Russia does not need lawyers, we will live without them.” The son lived in a different era.
The role of lawyers immediately became quite noticeable. “The Russian legal profession of the 60-70s,” according to the prominent lawyer V.D. Spasovich, “became the focus of judicial figures who could compete with any European celebrities...” The names of outstanding lawyers of that time D.V. Stasova, F.N. Plevako, P.A. Alexandrova was known throughout Russia.
The importance of judicial reform
Judicial reform was the most consistent and radical reform of Alexander II, however, it remained unfinished. The Senate was not reformed. Religious, military, commercial, and foreign courts were left intact. The highest officials of the empire were tried by a special Supreme Criminal Court. The peasant volost court, established by the General Regulations on February 19, 1861, was retained. The latter was partly explained by the fact that peasant legal concepts differed sharply from general civil ones. Therefore, the volost court judged, guided not by imperial laws, but on the basis of written customary law and local peasant customs.
Despite all these deviations, the new court differed sharply from the pre-reform court with its clerical secrecy and bribery, endless red tape through the authorities, lack of legal representation and arbitrariness of the administration. The judicial reform of 1864 undoubtedly had a progressive significance, contributing to the development in society of a sense of legality and civic consciousness.
It is difficult to disagree with the famous publisher and journalist M.N. Katkov, who gave the reform a succinct definition: “With the strengthening of the new legal process, it becomes possible to live in Russia as in a civilized country.”
2.10 Reforms in the field of public education and the press
The reforms of the 60s in the field of education and the press were inextricably linked with the transformations that followed the peasant reform of 1861. Even during the work of the Editorial Commissions, an opinion was expressed about “the urgent need to establish rural schools everywhere.” The development of this issue took several years before, on June 14, 1864, Alexander II approved
"Regulations on primary public schools."
In accordance with it, the right to open and maintain schools was granted to public institutions and private individuals with appropriate permission.
There were different types of primary schools - state, zemstvo, parish, Sunday. The duration of their studies did not exceed three years. The training course involved teaching the following disciplines: the Law of God, reading, writing, the four rules of arithmetic and church singing. Teaching was to be carried out everywhere only in Russian.
In 1864, a new charter for gymnasiums was approved. He introduced the principle of equal rights to education to secondary schools for everyone who had the opportunity to pay the established tuition fees: children of persons “of all classes, without distinction of rank or religion,” could be admitted to the gymnasium. There were two types of gymnasiums - classical and real, with a seven-year period of study. In classical gymnasiums, preference was given to humanitarian training and the study of ancient languages; in real gymnasiums, mathematics and science had an advantage. Those who graduated from a classical gymnasium had the right to enter the university without exams, while graduating from a real gymnasium gave the right to enter only higher technical educational institutions. In the early 60s, women's education also developed. In 1863, a new university charter was adopted, which restored university independence. The University Council received the right to independently decide all educational, scientific and administrative issues and manage the entire internal life of the university. The charter provided for the election of the rector, deans and professors with their subsequent confirmation in office by the Minister of Public Education. Students did not receive any corporate rights. Women were not allowed into universities.
The new law of university life was greeted positively, because, as the famous philologist F.I. wrote, Buslaev, “contributed to success in the sciences,” and professors could “give lectures calmly and unhindered,” without being embarrassed by picky formalities, “without any fear of secret guardianship.”
In an atmosphere of increased liberal sentiment and general dissatisfaction with the state of the press, the “era of censorship terror” came to an end. Back in December 1855, the government of Alexander II stopped the activities of the Buturlinov Committee, and the most reactionary censors were removed. In 1857, the government created a committee to develop a new censorship charter. Finally, in 1856, a new charter was issued, which existed with some changes and additions until 1905.
The new law exempted the capital's periodicals, books of 10 printed sheets for Russians and 20 printed sheets for translated publications from preliminary censorship
Despite the well-known restrictions on the provincial press and mass literature, the new charter was still an undoubted step forward, receiving support among book publishers and journalists.
2.11 Military reform
The lessons of the Crimean War, which revealed the military-technical backwardness of the Russian army, showed that the military machine of feudal Russia was clearly unable to withstand the advanced armies of Western European states. A radical restructuring of the entire military system was necessary.
In 1861, 45-year-old General Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin, brother of N.A., was appointed to the post of Minister of War. Milyutin, a highly educated military and statesman, known for his liberal views. The personnel choice of Alexander II turned out to be spoiled.
Dmitry Alekseevich rose to the rank of professor at the Academy of the General Staff. He wrote a number of major works on military history, among them “Suvorov’s Italian Campaign.” At the end of the 50s, he was appointed head of the Caucasian Army and participated in the development of the operation to capture Shamil, which served to end hostilities in this region. Having excellent theoretical training, the necessary combat experience and skills, and also possessing outstanding personal talents, D.A. Milyutin, like no one else, was up to the task: to reorganize Russia's military power.
YES. Milyutin first of all achieved a reduction in the period of military service from 25 to 16 years. Then conscription into soldiers for crimes was prohibited, corporal punishment, which was widely used in the pre-reform army, was abolished, and literacy training for soldiers was introduced. In 1864, he carried out a reform of military administration based on the creation of military districts. The new leadership system eliminated excessive centralization and facilitated the rapid deployment of the army in the event of hostilities. Modernization took place at a fairly rapid pace to replace smooth-bore weapons, and the arrival of rifled weapons. The sailing fleet was replaced by a steam one, and new military vessels appeared: battleships, cruisers, battleships. However, a radical reorganization of military affairs required more radical measures, namely the introduction of a new army recruitment system - replacing the old conscription with universal conscription.
For the first time, the idea of introducing universal military service in Russia, albeit in a veiled form, was expressed by D.A. Milyutin back in 1862 in the emperor’s report. There was no response. Meanwhile, the further growth of armaments and the development of military equipment in Europe, the strengthening of militaristic sentiments among the largest powers of the continent left Russia practically no other choice. There were reasons of a different order. The use of universal conscription could be effective only if military reservists were quickly mobilized, and this, in turn, required the presence of a developed system of communications. There was no such system in Russia in the early 60s. The growth of railway construction and the creation of a railway network by the beginning of the 70s made it possible to complete military reform according to the European model. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 also arrived “just in time.” Contemporaries were struck by the coherence and speed with which the Prussian army was mobilized. P.A. Valuev, who witnessed the victorious march of the Prussians to Paris, returned to Russia and, in a conversation with Miliukov, directly spoke out for the introduction of all-class conscription.
There was no longer any time to delay. Developed by a commission led by D.A. Milyutin's draft of the new military regulations, despite the tinny position of the reactionaries, was nevertheless passed in the State Council and on January 1, 1874 was approved by Alexander II. According to the new military regulations, recruitment was abolished, and universal military service was introduced, which applied to the entire male population of the country who had reached the age of 20, regardless of class. The period of active service in the infantry was set at 6 years and 9 years in the reserve, in the navy - 7 years of active service and 3 years in the reserve. Numerous benefits were established. The duration of active service was reduced for those who received education: for those who graduated from primary school - up to three years, for those who graduated from high school - up to one and a half years, and graduates of higher educational institutions could serve only 6 months. With the introduction of the new military regulations, Russia gained the opportunity to have a relatively small army in world time, and in the event of hostilities. By calling in reserve reserves, and sometimes militia, to create a massive army with the necessary reserves.
The importance of military reform
The military reforms of 1861 - 1874 played an important role in increasing the combat capability of the Russian army, which was convincingly demonstrated during the Russian-Turkish war of 1877 - 1878.
YES. Milyutin served as Minister of War for twenty years, having, unlike other reformers, the opportunity not only to develop a reform, but also to implement it in practice. He died in 1912, at the age of 96, perhaps the last of the glorious galaxy of Russian reformers of the 60s and 70s.
2.12 The significance of the reforms of 1860-1870
Political reforms 1860-1870 years became a worthy continuation of the largest reform of the century - the abolition of serfdom. The creation of modern bodies of self-government, European justice and judicial system, the introduction of universal military service, changes in the field of education and the press, the complexity of the development and implementation of all these reforms testified to the enormous transformative potential aimed at the peaceful, evolutionary development of society and the state. No reform is born in a vacuum. The complex interaction and interweaving of liberal and protective principles in state policy - all this determined the nature of the transformations of the era of Alexander II. They cannot be crossed out or rewritten. For the connection of times is continuous, and our present in this sense is nothing more than an expression of the past. Reading historical books is both fascinating and instructive.
Analyzing the reforms of Alexander II, it should be noted that not everything that was planned in the early 1860s was implemented. Many reforms remained unfinished. And yet they should truly be called “Great Reforms,” which were of great importance for the subsequent development of all aspects of Russian life. In the history of Russia, it turned out that not a single one of the reforms that were conceived and carried out in the country was brought comprehensively and consistently to its logical conclusion.
Reasons for the incompleteness of the reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century
Alexander II started a good job, but he did not have time to complete it, as he was killed. His son, Alexander III, did not see the point in continuing reforms, so he followed the path of counter-reforms.
The incompleteness of the reforms being carried out, the lack of understanding of their significance by society, leads to what the reforms of the 60s and 70s of the 19th century led to - to the discontent of society, which responded with terror.
And the trouble with terror was that both governmental and revolutionary terror were equally destructive for the governmental state of society, taming people to blood, violence, and the cheapness of human life.
Conclusion
Speaking about the reforms of the 60s - 70s of the 19th century carried out by Alexander II, we cannot help but talk about the reforms of the 90s of the 20th century, which were carried out after the collapse of the USSR, life shows that for the successful implementation of reforms certain conditions are necessary:
for carrying out the reform, responsibility should be borne not only by the authorities, but by society, which should go together;
What is needed is the unity of society, the unity of all political parties, all democratic forces, and we also lack this unity;
in carrying out reforms we must go to the end, without stopping halfway;
reforms must be proportionate to the individual. Alexander II, like M.S. Gorbachev and B.N. Yeltsin did not really understand the full depth and consequences of the reforms. Indeed, for a huge number of people, reforms both then and today were a disaster;
A strong politician should not be afraid of the strong people around him. Weak people are often chosen because they are easy to control;
To successfully carry out reforms, a favorable domestic and international environment is needed, this is also not the case today, since the situation has been worsened by the economic crisis;
A dissatisfied society, tired of waiting for changes, crosses a certain line that previously restrained the forces of habitual expectation.
And a sharp chain reaction begins in response to lack of rights, to blatant social insecurity, violation of individual rights, which lead to crowd power - ochlocracy.
As a result of this, everything moral, beautiful, creative, which constitutes the essence of the uniqueness of the human personality, perishes.
Bibliography
1. Butikov G. P. Museum - monument "Savior on Spilled Blood" publishing house St. Petersburg 1996
Vasilyeva L.N. "Wives of the Russian Crown", Atlantis XXI century, AST, Moscow, 1996.
Volobuev O.V. "History of Russia 1861-1917", Moscow, 1996.
Kaziev S.Sh. "History in diagrams and tables", LIST, Moscow 1998.
Lyutykh A.A. "Russian history for children and youth." - Moscow, RIPOL, 1996
Lyashenko Leonid "Alexander II, or the story of three solitudes", Moscow, YOUNG GUARDS, 2004.
Materials of the project of Channel 1 television "Name Russia" Alexander II
Ogonovskaya S.I. "History of Russia. A universal guide for schoolchildren and applicants", Ekaterinburg, U-FACTORIA, 2002
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
The fall of serfdom is the most important turning point in the history of Russia, opening a new path for the economic and social development of the country. The entire subsequent history of the country, right up to the revolution of 1917, took place under the influence of the reforms of the 60s and early 70s of the 19th century. The incompleteness of the initiated reforms and the inability of the existing regime to continue the reform path became the main reasons for the revolutionary explosions of 1905 and 1917.
Conservative-monarchist historians exaggerated the role of Alexander II and criticized him for making too many concessions to liberal public opinion, which undermined the foundations of the autocracy and strengthened the position of his opponents. Liberal-minded historians G.A. Dzhanshiev, I.I. Ivankov, A.A. Kornilov sought to find out the economic, political, moral and ethical reasons for the transformations, the legal and social aspects of the fall of the serfdom. To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the abolition of serfdom, a multi-volume book “The Great Reform” was published. Liberal opposition movements saw in these events an example of a compromise between the autocracy and public opinion and the fruitfulness of the reformist path for the country. The leaders of revolutionary parties and movements (V.I. Lenin, G.V. Plekhanov) exaggerated the negative consequences of the reforms in order to justify the inevitability and regularity of a revolutionary coup.
The purpose of my work is to consider the essence of the reforms of Emperor Alexander II in the mid-19th century in Russia and determine their significance and consequences for the further development of Russia. During the research, monographs by Platonov S.F., Kargalov V.V., Zakharova L.G., Kornilov A.A. were studied.
1. Upbringing, education, beginning of the reign
Alexander II - Emperor of All Russia, eldest son of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, was born in Moscow on April 17, 1818.
Naturally, great importance was given to the upbringing and education of the future monarch. His educators were General Merder (a company commander at the school of guard warrant officers, who had remarkable teaching abilities, “a gentle disposition and a rare mind”), M. M. Speransky, E. F. Kankrin. No less significant was the influence of another mentor - the famous poet Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, the head of his class studies. I would like to dwell in more detail on Zhukovsky’s education system, which provided not only general knowledge of the then accepted extensive set of subjects and four foreign languages, but also purely specialized knowledge: about the state, its laws, finances, foreign policy and formed a worldview system. The basic principles of raising the Tsarevich looked like this:
WHERE I AM? Nature, its laws. In this part of the program, science subjects are related to the idea of “God in Nature.”
WHO AM I? The doctrine of man, united by Christian doctrine.
WHAT WAS I? History, sacred history.
WHAT SHOULD I BE? Private and public morality.
WHAT AM I DESIGNED FOR? Revealed religion, metaphysics, the concept of God and the immortality of the soul.
And at the end (and not first) law, social history, state economics, statistics that follow from everything.
The knowledge gained was supported by numerous travels. He was the first of the royal family to visit (in 1837) Siberia, and the result of this visit was a mitigation of the fate of political exiles. Later, while in the Caucasus, the Tsarevich distinguished himself during an attack by the highlanders, for which he was awarded the Order of St. George 4th degree. In 1837, at the request of Nicholas I, he undertook a trip to Europe for educational purposes. He traveled around Switzerland, Austria, Italy and stayed for a long time in Berlin, Weimar, Munich, Vienna, Turin, Florence, Rome and Naples.
A big role in the life of Alexander II was played by a visit to Darmstadt, where he met Princess Maximiliana Wilhelmina Augusta Sophia Maria (born July 27, 1824), the adopted daughter of Duke Louis II of Hesse, who soon became the crown prince’s wife, Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna.
From the age of 16, Alexander successfully took part in management affairs, first sporadically, and then systematically. At the age of 26 he became a “full general” and had quite professional military training. In the last years of the reign of Emperor Nicholas and during his travels, he repeatedly replaced his father.
Alexander II ascended the throne on February 19, 1855 at the age of 36. He was to go down in history under the name of the Liberator. Already on the day of coronation, August 26, the sovereign's new manifesto was marked by a number of favors. Recruitment was suspended for three years, all government arrears, charges, etc. were forgiven; various criminals were released, or at least their sentences were commuted, including an amnesty for political prisoners - survivors of the Decembrists, Petrashevites, and participants in the Polish uprising of 1831; the admission of young Jews to recruits was canceled, and recruitment between the latter was ordered to be carried out on a general basis; free travel abroad was allowed, etc. But all these measures were only the threshold of those global reforms that marked the reign of Alexander II.
During this period, the Crimean War was in full swing and taking an unfavorable turn, where Russia had to deal with the combined forces of almost all the main European powers. Despite his love of peace, which was also known in Europe, Alexander expressed his firm determination to continue the fight and achieve peace, which was soon achieved. Representatives of seven states (Russia, France, Austria, England, Prussia, Sardinia and Turkey) gathered in Paris, and on March 18, 1856, a peace treaty was concluded. The Paris Peace Treaty, although not beneficial for Russia, was still honorable for it in view of such numerous and powerful opponents. However, its disadvantageous side - the limitation of Russia's naval forces on the Black Sea - was eliminated during the life of Alexander II.
2. Alexander P: tragedy of the reformer
2.1 Need for reforms
At the end of the Crimean War, many internal shortcomings of the Russian state were revealed. Change was needed, and the country was looking forward to it. Then the emperor uttered the words that became the slogan of Russia for a long time: “Let its internal prosperity be established and improved; let truth and mercy reign in its courts; let the desire for enlightenment and all useful activities develop everywhere and with renewed vigor...”
In the first place, of course, was the idea of emancipating the serfs. In his speech to representatives of the Moscow nobility, Alexander II said: “it is better to abolish it from above than to wait for it to be abolished from below.” There was no other way out, since every year the peasants increasingly expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing system. The corvee form of exploitation of the peasant expanded, which caused crisis situations. First of all, the labor productivity of serfs began to decline, as landowners wanted to produce more products and thereby undermined the strength of the peasant economy. The most far-sighted landowners realized that forced labor was much inferior in productivity to hired labor (For example, large landowner A.I. Koshelev wrote about this in his article “Hunting is worse than bondage” in 1847). But hiring workers required considerable expenses from the landowner at a time when serf labor was free. Many landowners tried to introduce new farming systems, use the latest technology, purchase improved varieties of purebred livestock, etc. Unfortunately, such measures led them to ruin and, accordingly, to increased exploitation of the peasants. The debts of landowners' estates to credit institutions grew. Further development of the economy on the serf system was impossible. Moreover, having existed in Russia much longer than in European countries, it took very strict forms.
However, there is another point of view regarding this reform, according to which by the middle of the 19th century, serfdom had not yet exhausted its capabilities and protests against the government were very weak. Neither economic nor social catastrophe threatened Russia, but by maintaining serfdom, it could drop out of the ranks of the great powers.
The peasant reform entailed the transformation of all aspects of state and public life. A number of measures were envisaged to restructure local government, the judicial system, education and, later, the army. These were truly major changes, comparable only to the reforms of Peter I.
2.2 Abolition of serfdom
On January 3, 1857, the first significant step was taken, which served as the beginning of the reform: the creation of a Secret Committee under the direct supervision and chairmanship of the emperor himself. It included: Prince Orlov, Count Lanskoy, Count Bludov, Minister of Finance Brock, Count V.F. Adlerberg, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property M.N. Muravyov, Prince P.P. Gagarin, Baron M.A. Korf and Ya.I. Rostovtsev. The purpose of the committee was designated as “discussion of measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants.” Thus, the government tried to get initiative from the nobility in resolving this issue. The word “liberation” had not yet been spoken. But the committee acted very sluggishly. More precise actions began to be implemented later.
In February 1858. The Secret Committee was renamed the “Main Committee on Landowner Peasants Emerging from Serfdom,” and a year later (March 4, 1859) Editorial Commissions were established under the committee, which were responsible for reviewing materials prepared by provincial committees and drafting a law on the emancipation of peasants . There were two opinions here: the majority of landowners proposed to release the peasants without any land at all or with small plots, while the liberal minority proposed to release them with land for ransom. At first, Alexander II shared the point of view of the majority, but then came to the conclusion that it was necessary to allocate land to the peasants. Usually historians associate this decision with the strengthening of the peasant movement: the Tsar was afraid of a repetition of the “Pugachevism.” But an equally important role here was played by the presence in the government of an influential group called “liberal bureaucracy.”
The draft “Regulations on Peasants” was practically prepared at the end of August 1859, but for some time it was subject to minor corrections and clarifications. In October 1860, the “Editing Commissions”, having completed their work, transferred the project to the Main Committee, where it was again discussed and underwent further changes, but in favor of the landowners. On January 28, 1861, the project was submitted to the final authority - the State Council, which accepted them with some changes, in the sense of reducing the size of the peasant plot.
Finally, on February 19, 1861, the “Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom,” which included 17 legislative acts, were signed by Alexander II. On the same day, the manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants” followed, which proclaimed the liberation of 22.6 million peasants from serfdom.
The “Provisions” applied to 45 provinces of European Russia, in which there were 112,000 landowner estates. First of all, it was declared obligatory for the landowner to provide his former peasants, in addition to the estate land, with arable and haymaking land in certain amounts. Secondly, it was declared obligatory for peasants to accept the allotment and keep in their use, for the duties established in favor of the landowner, the worldly land allocated to them for the first nine years (until February 19, 1870). After nine years, individual members of the community were given the right to both leave it and refuse to use field lands and lands if they bought out their estate; society itself also receives the right not to accept for its use such plots that individual peasants refuse. Thirdly, with regard to the size of the peasant allotment and the payments associated with it, according to general rules, it is customary to base it on voluntary agreements between landowners and peasants, for which purpose a statutory charter must be concluded through the mediation of the peace intermediaries established by law, their congresses and provincial presences in peasant affairs, and in the western provinces - and special verification commissions.
The “regulations,” however, were not limited to the rules for allocating land to peasants for permanent use, but made it easier for them to buy out the allocated plots of land using a government buyout operation, and the government lent the peasants a certain amount for the lands they were purchasing, with payment in installments for 49 years and , issuing this amount to the landowner in government interest-bearing securities, took over all further settlements with the peasants. Upon approval by the government of the redemption transaction, all obligatory relations between the peasants and the landowner ceased and the latter entered the category of peasant owners.
The “provisions” were gradually extended to the palace, appanage, assigned and state peasants.
But as a result of this, the peasantry remained bound by the community, and the land allocated to them was clearly insufficient to meet the needs of the ever-growing population. The peasant remained completely dependent on the rural community (the former “world”), which, in turn, was completely controlled by the authorities; personal plots were transferred into the ownership of peasant societies, which periodically “equalized” them to redistribute them.
In the spring and summer of 1861, the peasants, who did not receive “full freedom” as they expected, organized many uprisings. Indignation was caused by such facts as, for example: for two years the peasants remained subordinate to the landowner, were obliged to pay quitrents and perform corvée, were deprived of a significant part of the land, and those plots that were given to them as property had to be bought back from the landowner. During 1861, 1860 peasant uprisings occurred. One of the largest is considered to be the protests of peasants in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province. Subsequently, disappointment grew with the inconsistency of the reform not only of the former serfs: articles by A. Herzen and N. Ogarev in Kolokol, N. Chernyshevsky in Sovremennik.
2.3 Zemstvo reform
After the peasant “Regulations” in a number of administrative reforms, one of the most important places is occupied, without any doubt, by the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions,” which was published on January 1, 1864.
According to the regulations, classless elected bodies of local self-government - zemstvos - were introduced. They were elected by all classes for a three-year term and consisted of administrative bodies (district and provincial zemstvo assemblies) and executive bodies (district and provincial zemstvo councils). Elections to zemstvo administrative bodies - meetings of councilors (deputies) - were held on the basis of property qualifications, by curiae. The first curia (landowner) consisted of owners of land from 200 to 800 dessiatines or real estate worth from 15,000 rubles. The second curia (urban) united the owners of urban industrial and commercial establishments with an annual turnover of at least 6,000 rubles and owners of real estate of at least 2,000 rubles. Elections for the third curia (rural peasant societies) were multi-level. Zemstvo assemblies elected executive bodies - zemstvo councils - consisting of a chairman and several members.
Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions; their activities were limited mainly to resolving local issues. They were responsible for public education, for public health, for timely food supplies, for the quality of roads, for insurance, veterinary care and much more.
All this required large funds, so zemstvos were allowed to introduce new taxes, impose duties on the population, and form zemstvo capital. With its full development, zemstvo activity was supposed to cover all aspects of local life. New forms of local self-government not only made it universal, but also expanded the range of its powers. Self-government became so widespread that it was understood by many as a transition to a representative form of government, so the government soon became noticeable in its desire to keep the activities of zemstvos at the local level, and not allow zemstvo corporations to communicate with each other.
At the end of the 70s, zemstvos were introduced in 35 of the 59 Russian provinces.
2.4 Urban reform (in continuation of the zemstvo reform)
On June 16, 1870, the “City Regulations” were published, according to which elective self-government was introduced in 509 out of 1130 cities - city councils elected for four years. The city duma (administrative body) elected its permanent executive body - the city council, which consisted of the city mayor (also elected for four years) and several members. The mayor was simultaneously the chairman of both the city duma and the city government. City councils were under the control of government officials.
Only residents with property qualifications (mainly owners of houses, commercial and industrial establishments, banks) had the right to vote and be elected to the city duma. The first electoral assembly included large taxpayers who contributed a third of city taxes, the second - smaller ones, paying another third of taxes, and the third - everyone else. In the largest cities, the number of vowels (elected) averaged 5.6% of the residents. Thus, the bulk of the urban population was excluded from participation in city government.
The competence of city self-government was limited to solving purely economic issues (urban improvement, setting up hospitals, schools, taking care of the development of trade, fire safety measures, city taxation).
2.5 Judicial reform
Among the reforms, one of the leading places undoubtedly belongs to judicial reform. This deeply thought-out reform had a strong and direct impact on the entire structure of state and public life. She introduced into it completely new, long-awaited principles - the complete separation of the judicial power from the administrative and accusatory power, publicity and openness of the court, the independence of judges, the legal profession and the adversarial procedure of legal proceedings.
The country was divided into 108 judicial districts.
The essence of judicial reform boils down to the following:
the trial is oral and public;
judicial power is separated from accusatory power and belongs to the courts without any participation of administrative power;
the main form of legal proceedings is the adversarial process;
a case on its merits can be dealt with in no more than two instances. Two types of courts were introduced: magistrates and general. Magistrates' courts, represented by the magistrate judge, heard criminal and civil cases, the damage for which did not exceed 500 rubles. Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies, confirmed by the Senate and could be dismissed only at their own request or by court. The general court consisted of three instances: the district court, the judicial chamber, and the Senate. District courts heard serious civil suits and criminal (jury) cases. The Trial Chambers heard appeals and served as the court of first instance for political and government cases. The Senate was the highest court and could overturn court decisions submitted for cassation.
in cases of crimes entailing penalties associated with the deprivation of all or some rights and benefits of the estate, the determination of guilt is left to jurors selected from local inhabitants of all classes;
clerical secrecy is eliminated;
both for the petition in cases and for the defense of defendants, there are sworn attorneys in the courts, who are under the supervision of special councils composed of the same corporation.
Judicial statutes extended to 44 provinces and were introduced into them over the course of more than thirty years.
In 1863, a law was passed that abolished corporal punishment with spitzrutens, whips, whips and brands by sentences of civil and military courts. Women were completely exempt from corporal punishment. But rods were preserved for peasants (according to verdicts of volost courts), for exiles, convicts and penal soldiers.
2.6 Military reform
Military administration also underwent changes.
Already at the beginning of the reign, military settlements were destroyed. Humiliating corporal punishment was abolished.
Particular attention was paid to raising the level of general education of army officers through reforms of military educational institutions. Military gymnasiums and cadet schools with a two-year training period were created. They accepted people of all classes.
In January 1874, all-class conscription was proclaimed. The Highest Manifesto on this occasion said: “Defense of the throne and the Fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject...”. According to the new law, all young people who have reached the age of 21 are conscripted, but the government determines the required number of recruits every year, and draws only this number from the conscripts by lot (usually no more than 20-25% of conscripts are called up for service). The only son of his parents, the only breadwinner in the family, and also if the conscript's older brother is serving or has served in service were not subject to conscription. Those recruited for service are listed in it: in the ground forces for 15 years: 6 years in the ranks and 9 years in the reserve, in the navy - 7 years of active service and 3 years in the reserve. For those who have completed primary education, the period of active service is reduced to 4 years, for those who have graduated from a city school - to 3 years, a gymnasium - to one and a half years, and for those who have had a higher education - to six months.
Thus, the result of the reform was the creation of a small peacetime army with a significant trained reserve in case of war.
The military command and control system underwent radical changes in order to strengthen control over the locations of troops. The result of this revision was the “Regulations on Military District Directorates” approved on August 6, 1864. On the basis of this “Regulation”, initially nine military districts were organized, and then (August 6, 1865) four more. Each district has a chief commander, appointed at the highest discretion, bearing the title of commander of the troops of the military district. This position may also be assigned to the local governor-general. In some districts, an assistant commander of the troops is also appointed.
By the end of the 19th century, the size of the Russian army was (per 130 million population): officers, doctors and officials - 47 thousand, lower ranks - 1 million 100 thousand. Then these numbers declined and reached 742,000 people, while the military potential was maintained.
In the 60s, at the insistence of the War Ministry, railways were built to the western and southern borders of Russia, and in 1870, railway troops appeared. During the 70s, the technical re-equipment of the army was largely completed.
Concern for the defenders of the Motherland was manifested in everything, even in small things. Let’s say that for more than a hundred years (until the 80s of the 19th century), boots were made without distinguishing between the right and left legs. It was believed that during a combat alert, a soldier had no time to think about which boot to put on which foot.
There was a special attitude towards prisoners. Military personnel who were captured and were not in the service of the enemy, upon returning home, received a salary from the state for the entire time they were in captivity. The prisoner was considered a victim. And those who distinguished themselves in battles received military awards. Orders of Russia were especially highly valued. They gave such privileges that they even changed a person’s position in society.
2.7. Reforms in the field of education.
Public education also attracted the attention of the king. Of particular importance in this regard was the publication of a new and general charter of Russian universities on July 18, 1863, in the development of which, on the initiative of the Minister of Public Education A.V. Golovkin, a special commission under the main board of schools, composed mainly of professors from St. Petersburg University, participated. The charter provided universities with fairly broad autonomy: the election of the rector, deans, and professors was introduced, and the University Council received the right to independently resolve all scientific, educational, administrative and financial issues. And in connection with the development of universities, science began to develop at a correspondingly rapid pace.
According to the Regulations on Primary Public Schools approved on June 14, 1864, the state, church and society (zemstvos and cities) were to jointly educate the people.
On November 19, 1864, a new charter for gymnasiums appeared, which proclaimed equality in admission to all classes. But due to the high fees, this was only available to children of wealthy parents.
Attention was also paid to women's education. Already in the 60s, instead of the previous closed women's institutions, open ones began to be established, with the admission of girls of all classes, and these new institutions were under the department of the institutions of Empress Maria. The Ministry of Public Education began to approve similar gymnasiums. In 1870, on May 24, a new Regulation on women's gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums of the Ministry of Public Education was approved. The need for higher women's education led to the establishment of pedagogical courses and higher women's courses in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kazan and Odessa.
2.8 Press reforms
The press reform also had a profound and beneficial influence on the development of public consciousness.
In 1857, the government put on the agenda the issue of revising the censorship statute. After permission in 1858 to discuss problems of public life and government activities in print, the number of periodicals (1860 – 230) and book titles (1860 – 2,058) increased sharply.
Already in 1862, the main censorship department was closed and part of its responsibilities were assigned to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the other directly to the Minister of Public Education.
On April 6, 1865, the “Temporary Rules on the Press” were approved, which exempted from preliminary censorship original works of at least ten pages, and translated works of at least twenty pages, and some periodicals at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior. For periodicals, a large monetary deposit was additionally required. Official and scientific publications were exempt from censorship.
The “Temporary Rules on the Press” have been in effect virtually unchanged for 40 years.
2.9 Assassination of the Emperor
Emperor Alexander II, who aroused the delight and surprise of enlightened people around the world, also met ill-wishers. Pursuing goals that no one understood, the organizers created a whole series of attempts on the life of the sovereign, who was the pride and glory of Russia. On March 1, 1881, the sovereign, for whom a large population was ready to lay down their lives, died a martyr’s death from a villainous hand that threw an explosive shell.
On this fateful day, Emperor Alexander II decided to make a divorce (the procedure for sending out daily guards for shifts). The path lay along a narrow street formed by the Grand Duchess’s garden, enclosed by a man-sized stone fence and the grating of the Catherine Canal. The area is very impassable, and if it is true that the sovereign chose it in view of the anonymous threats he received, then it is difficult to imagine why an ambush awaited him on this road, unless it was because they noticed a large number of police on it, compared to the usual. Be that as it may, but when the sovereign's carriage reached the Theater Bridge, there was an explosion that broke open the back of the carriage, which immediately stopped. The Emperor came out of it unharmed, but a thrown bomb mortally wounded one of the guards, who was galloping behind, and a sapper officer walking along the sidewalk along the stone wall of the Mikhailovsky Garden. The sovereign’s coachman, sensing trouble, turned to him from the box: “Let’s go, sovereign!” The police chief, who was galloping behind, jumped out of the sleigh with the same request to go faster. But the emperor did not listen and took a few steps back: “I want to see my wounded.” At this time, the crowd managed to stop the healthy fellow who threw the bomb. The Emperor turned to him: “So it was you who wanted to kill me?” But he was unable to finish his sentence when the second bomb exploded in front of him, and he fell down with the words: “Help.” They rushed to him, lifted him up, put him in the sleigh of the police chief (who himself received 45 wounds from small bomb fragments, but not a single fatal one) and drove away. A little over an hour later, at 3:35 pm, Tsar Alexander II died in the Winter Palace.
The outstanding Russian philosopher V.V. Rozanov called the assassination of the emperor “a cross between Madness and Meanness.”
The political testament of Alexander II was destroyed. Alexander III, aware of his past errors and in an effort to return to the ideal of the Tsars of Moscow, addressed the people with a manifesto, which affirmed the inviolability of autocratic power and the exclusive responsibility of the autocrat before God.
The Russian Empire thus returned to the old traditional paths on which it had once found glory and prosperity.
Conclusion
Alexander II left a deep mark on history; he managed to do what other autocrats were afraid to undertake - the liberation of peasants from serfdom. We still enjoy the fruits of his reforms to this day.
The internal reforms of Alexander II are comparable in scale only to the reforms of Peter I. The Tsar-Reformer carried out truly grandiose transformations without social cataclysms and fratricidal war.
With the abolition of serfdom, commercial and industrial activity “resurrected”, a flow of workers poured into the cities, and new areas for entrepreneurship opened up. Former connections between cities and counties were restored and new ones were created.
The fall of serfdom, the equalization of everyone before the court, the creation of new liberal forms of social life led to personal freedom. And the feeling of this freedom aroused the desire to develop it. Dreams were created of establishing new forms of family and social life.
During his reign, Russia firmly strengthened its relations with European powers and resolved numerous conflicts with neighboring countries.
The tragic death of the emperor greatly changed the further course of history, and it was this event that led, 35 years later, Russia to death, and Nicholas II to a martyr’s wreath
