Alexander II Dilemmas Views Emancipation Serfs

Alexander II dilemmas views emancipation serfs

The background of Emancipation serfs: The foundation of serfdom extends back to as earlier as 11th century and continued in the Russian society till the time, Tsar Alexander finally announced to demolish this system in 1861. The serfdom was an altered form of slavery for a number of people, who were restricted for every need of life and bound to take permission from their lord. They could not get married, start a business, own land or even travel with liberty. In the nineteenth century, however, the people of Russia, seeking for major political, economical and social reforms, desired for end of serfdom. Furthermore, the involvement of Russia and than a defeat in Crimean War resulted as the final event stimulating consequent reform decisions in the country. Alexander II felt the insecurity of analysts in his shrewd leadership after the unusual defeat (Gorshkov, 2005).

Pre-Reform Era: Before the advent of Emancipation, the peasants living in Russia were mostly living in two categories. Either, they were living on state lands and were owned by the ministry of the state or living on the land of landlords, or private lands. These people were owned by landlords and were totally dependent on them for every need of their lives. They were termed as serfs and were treated as slaves. The restrictions growing with the passage of time, new rules, and more denials from their rights and no autonomy allowed in their decisions made it very difficult to differentiate between serfs and slaves. Though other European countries had mass of people or tribes treated on similar level, however the Russian serfs constituted a high frequency of total population. Documents show that almost 38% of Russian population included serfs and peasants. It is documented that by the time of nineteenth century, almost half of the peasants in Russia were serfs. The most dominating era of serfdom started in sixteenth century when the prohibitions for any activity of serfs reached its peak. The serfs were even not allowed to leave the locality in which they were born, they could not change the lords and were not allowed to get married with their own consent. Household serfs were the in worst of state compared to other serfs as their status was no better than some domestic slave having almost no right on their own lives.

It was nineteenth century when the people started to focus on their condition due to unstable circumstances in Russia. They wanted some main practical changes and reforms for social, economical, political and industrial growth of Russia as well as for keeping pace with the rest of the world in terms of modernism. Alexander II had an indefinite position due to his defeat in Crimean War and thus he took the decision for major reforms that could turn the dark phase of disappointment, the nation was going through to the dawn of prosperity, integrity and a hope of a new Russia. This led him make his mind up for liberating the serfs, as it was most desired subject under discussion and focus of all the critics as well as progressive minded people. Thus, despite of opposition by gentry of Russia, he determinedly gave the verdict of liberating serfs of Russia, entitling them as free citizens and allowing them basic rights of their own lives. His fundamental rationale behind this verdict included to lessen the economic deficiency of serfs, make them socially reputable as well as to grant them independence in their basic human rights. They could buy lands, start their own business, marry independently and were not restricted to move or bound to their lords anymore. This decision brought with it many expectations for both lords; in the form of fear and progressive minded people, in the form of a new prosper Russia. But what it actually was, time was the only power to decide (Gorshkov, 2005).

The expectations and realism: This royal command of Alexander II gave rise to new expectations of those, longing for some social reforms in Russia to overcome the disappointment they had faced after an unpredicted defeat in Crimean War in 1854. Equally intensified terror grabbed the attention of those, Landlords primarily, who did not want to lose control over serfs, as it could be a threat for their dominance and power. The concept of emancipation of serfs remains controversial in terms of the intension of Alexander behind this social and cultural change. One school of thought considers the decision to be the result of his thinking to place the status of Russia in economically and socially advanced countries, while the other emphasizes this decision to be his effort to ensure his own rule over the country and favor of his people, who were in doubt of his capabilities as a judicious leadership due to weakened situation of his regime at that time (Lynch, 2003).

Whatever the intension was, this decision had long-term impact on more than 23 million people, who availed their liberty. However, the glow of all hopes faded away very soon when the practical realities of the emancipation saddled the newly freed serfs. The applauded decision of Alexander II turned out to be huge failure, as the serfs had to pay the price of their lives in debt in return of freedom they could not even avail. What we intend to explore is the prime reason involved in rotting such a splendid decision into a dilemma for the serfs. Also, the real beneficiaries behind this reform will also be highlighted (Lynch, 2003).

Verdict to implementation gap: Though Alexander II had announced it 1856, to free the serfs, his decision was initially opposed and objected by the gentry. The lords initially gathered and forced Alexander to take his decision back, showing him how devastating results it could end in, for economy of Russia. In 1858, it seemed that this pressure will work out and Alexander will have to revert with his decision, but he remained determined and ordered them to plan for the procedure of emancipation at once. The next move, nobles opted for was the option of granting them freedom and not the land. Again revoked by the determination of his decision, they decided to give off the land on their own prices. As the legislation was being in charge by one of the most powerful lords of Russia, the Count Panin, who owned more than 20,000 serfs, peasants had to face the worst of unexpected disguised behind this generous reform5.

Disguised policy of nobles:

A very famous statement of Alexander is quoted in context of this reform, as mentioned here;

'It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below' and also, 'I ask you, gentlemen, to figure out how all this can be carried out to completion.'

In the statement above, he was asking the nobles of Moscow to put in their effort and devise a procedure to implement his obvious decision. It was a very wise move by Alexander that unchained him from any appalling consequences of this decision (Lynch, 2003).

Hence, the most dynamic role, behind this entire transformation, was played by the nobles and landlords of Russia. History also demonstrates markedly high benefits; the nobles availed from this reform. So does it show what impacts were faced by the serfs, as a result of plans and measures for implementation, contained in 360 pages of 22 separate documents. These measures were drafted by the same nobles who were obliged to free the serfs by Alexander, but were given the freedom to plan the procedure themselves.

The main objective of majority of gentry was to get the maximum compensation from the freedom serfs owned by them. The basic threat these landlords had, was losing their cheap servants necessary for maintaining a lifestyle, land and elegance. This threat led them to formulate a legislation that could provide them with best of treasury compensation as well as land. Also, the rules of very high taxes and loans were also devised in a particular manner, so as to seldom allow the serfs to grow and prosper equally to their former lords. Initially, the nobles insisted on allowing freedom to the serfs and not the land, but due to several reasons, chiefly the resolute decision of Alexander, they agreed to sell the land, but only of their own choice (Russia and Empire, 1856-1903 Retrieved on January 6, 2013).

Options utilized for best compensation: When Alexander himself directed the nobles to draw a plan for emancipation of serfs, they found an opportunity to set up the procedures that provide them best compensation of all they give up. They took the full advantage of this opportunity and worked out for their objectives. At the end, when the plan was implemented on peasants, the actual beneficiaries were not them, but the nobles.

The compensation prices decided was very high than the actual market value of their lands. Furthermore, the landlords were the ones to decide which parts of their land they will give up. This, of course, gave them benefit as what peasants could buy was the left over, with no cultivation or benefit. Also the land, that was sold, had no appropriate mapping or planning, due to which it became very difficult for serfs to manage the strips of land. Data shows that 75% of land was retained by the lords, giving off only 25% to serfs, and that too, least for any use. The restriction of movement was still on them, as they were bound to live in their localities or where they bought lands. Nearly all of the peasants bought the land where they lived, hence now, they were bound to land, if not lord (Lynch, 2003).

Moreover, the prices for this land were too high that the peasants had no option but to take loan for buying them. Definitely, with no savings at all, they were indebted on 100% mortgages. The 20% of all loans were provided by the lords, whereas 80% was given by the state bank. Though, apparently, it looks very generous of them, actually the peasants had imprisoned themselves to a non-ending chain of payments that was obviously being inherited to their generations as well. The hold of Mir community was still on the serfs for implementation of new local government with restructured regulations. Hence, it was not, but merely the label of free citizens instead of serfs that they availed from this reform. Otherwise a new form, and the worse one, slavery was still to be faced (Figs, 1996).

Results of emancipation of serfs: The decision of emancipation presented the Tsar Alexander II as the generous ruler for he granted freedom to a massive number of serfs, who constituted about 38% of the entire community. But in depth, were contexts that include diffidence in Alexander's sight, enforcing him to take this decision. The decision had some obvious influences, if not the expected ones, but somehow altered the established system.

It is also thought that Alexander sensed a threat from some emerging peasants and by emancipation, he actually constricted the control over them. Some records by the ministry of interior, in the time span of 1826 to 1854, shows a figure of 712 peasants who were rising and Alexander wanted to eliminate their strength. So, one obvious reason to free the serfs was actually to strengthen his rule as well as eliminate the political threat.

The overall consequences of this decision were far less than what was being forecasted and hoped for. The benefit was surely provided, but not for the peasants, as was being hoped but to the lords. Though all praises and credits were given to Alexander II for his generosity, yet at the end it proved to be a huge crash. For sure, Alexander wanted to take some solid steps for reform, modification, betterment, social and economical advancement, above all strengthening of his regime but this did not help hi fulfill his desires to any greater extent. The critics of all times have also been stating it as a treachery with the peasants to gain their support (Figes, 1996).

One point, that is very important to mention, is that such reforms do not illustrate any immediate influences. Such huge scale alterations always take time, further amendments according to the situations and resources to fulfill the desired goals. Hence, even though Alexander gave much of his sincerity and recourses to establish practical implications of his decision, due to lack in other requirements, his goals, at least what he apparently announced to achieve could not be met. The reason behind this failure was also the fact that the policies against which emancipation was being awarded to serfs were totally unfavorable for them, hence the basic purpose to let the serfs live a dignified liberated life was abolished. They understood that the restrictions were not being demolished but merely changed from one form to another. Previously they were bound to the landlords and now they were bound with the land (Lynch, 2003; Figes, 1996).

However, the players who contributed vitally availed the major benefits from this reform. They were actually behind the entire scene that happened, and collected the maximum of financial and social benefit from it. These players were the nobles, who formulated the procedures and plan according to what suited them the best. Withdrawal from the ownership of serfs was definitely not a contented decision for them, so they planned to benefit from this reform for compensating their lush lifestyle. They enjoyed the compensations far greater than the land was worth of, and also remained dominating by loans they had given the peasants to buy a land. The interests and payments of loan were so high that the peasants spent their lives in these settlements. The lords, at one end were being highly praised for their bounteousness for liberating their surfs and they were being credited throughout the world for being kind enough to lend money to their surfs as a financial aid for land and living. While actually, they were ensnaring the peasants under heavy burden of their loans.

The emancipation also, could not satisfy most of the serfs due to vague and unfavorable policies. The people denied manifesto and were angered of unfair policies. The raged and angered crowds created violence for which troops had to be called for assistance and control. Documents show a minimum of 647 riots within first four months of announcement of this manifesto. It is also documented that around 50 serfs were killed in Kazan as a result of these riots, when troops opened fire on furious crowds. Their basic objection was regarding high amount of taxes, as all they saved or earned was spent on payment of taxes. Other reason was also the payment they had to pay for buying land, and that too, the one left over, uncultivated and rotten. Lords kept the best land, meadows and pastures themselves that exceeded two third of total land area giving off the useless part to peasants. Though, this silence enforced Alexander to focus again and make necessary amendments in this edict, not a great difference could be made. Alexander changed some officials from the government and also, he did announce a few financial adjustments for the deserving serfs, yet he could not completely eradicate the suffering and price, serfs had to pay for their liberty (Alexander II and the emancipation of the serfs Retrieved on January 6, 2013).