Portrait of Alexander II the Liberator.
February 19 (March 3), 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants” dated February 19, 1861 was accompanied by a number of legislative acts (17 documents in total) relating to the issues of the liberation of peasants, the conditions for their redemption of landowners' land and the size of redeemed allotments in certain regions of Russia. Among them: “Rules on the procedure for bringing into force the Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom”, “Regulations on the redemption by peasants who have emerged from serfdom, from the estate settlement and on government assistance in acquiring these peasants into the ownership of field lands”, local provisions.
Manifesto of Alexander II on the liberation of the peasants, 1861.
The main provisions of the reform
The main act - "The General Regulations on Peasants Who Have Emerged from Serfdom" - contained the main conditions for the peasant reform:
Peasants ceased to be considered serfs and began to be considered "temporarily liable"; peasants received the rights of "free rural inhabitants", that is, full civil legal capacity in everything that did not relate to their special class rights and obligations - membership in a rural society and ownership of allotment land.
Peasant houses, buildings, all movable property of the peasants were recognized as their personal property.
The peasants received elective self-government, the lowest (economic) unit of self-government was the rural society, the highest (administrative) unit was the volost.
Medal "For labors for the liberation of the peasants", 1861.
Medals in honor of the abolition of serfdom. 1861.
The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, however, they were obliged to provide the peasants with “estate settlement” (household land) and a field allotment for use; the lands of the field allotment were not provided personally to the peasants, but for the collective use of rural communities, which could distribute them among the peasant farms at their discretion. The minimum size of a peasant allotment for each locality was established by law.
For the use of allotment land, the peasants had to serve a corvée or pay dues and did not have the right to refuse it for 49 years.
The size of the field allotment and duties had to be fixed in charter letters, which were drawn up by the landowners for each estate and checked by peace mediators.
The abolition of serfdom. 1861-1911. From the collection of Igor Slovyagin (Bratsk)
Rural societies were given the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field plot, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; the peasants who redeemed the allotment were called "peasant-owners". Peasants could also refuse the right to redeem and receive from the landlord free of charge an allotment in the amount of a quarter of the allotment that they had the right to redeem; when endowing a free allotment, the temporarily obligated state also ceased.
The state, on preferential terms, provided the landlords with financial guarantees for the receipt of redemption payments (redemption operation), accepting their payment; peasants, respectively, had to pay redemption payments to the state.
Tokens and medals in honor of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the peasants, 1911.
THE MATERIALS WERE PRESENTED BY THE BROTHER COLLECTOR IGOR VIKTOROVICH SLOVYAGIN, WHO OWNS A LARGE SELECTION OF HISTORICAL MATERIALS ON THE EVENTS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1861. THE ORIGINAL MANIFESTO OF ALEXANDER II ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE PEASANTS IS PRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR TO THE MUSEUM.
On March 3, 1861, Alexander II abolished serfdom and received the nickname "Liberator" for this. But the reform did not become popular; on the contrary, it was the cause of mass unrest and the death of the emperor.
Landlord initiative
The preparation of the reform was carried out by large landlords-feudal lords. Why did they suddenly agree to compromise? At the beginning of his reign, Alexander gave a speech to the Moscow nobility, in which he voiced one simple thought: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for it to be abolished by itself from below.”
His fears were not unfounded. In the first quarter of the 19th century, 651 peasant unrest were registered, in the second quarter of this century - already 1089 unrest, and over the last decade (1851 - 1860) - 1010, while 852 unrest occurred in 1856-1860.
The landowners provided Alexander with more than a hundred projects for future reform. Those of them who owned estates in the non-Chernozem provinces were ready to let the peasants go and give them allotments. But this land was to be bought from them by the state. The landlords of the black earth belt wanted to keep as much land as possible in their hands.
But the final draft of the reform was drawn up under the control of the state in a specially formed Secret Committee.
false will
After the abolition of serfdom, rumors spread among the peasants almost immediately that the decree he had read was fake, and the landowners hid the real manifesto of the tsar. Where did these rumors come from? The fact is that the peasants were given "freedom", that is, personal freedom. But they didn't get the land.
The owner of the land was still the landowner, and the peasant was only its user. To become the full owner of the allotment, the peasant had to redeem it from the master.
The liberated peasant still remained tied to the land, only now he was held not by the landowner, but by the community, which was difficult to leave - everyone was "bound in one chain." For example, it was unprofitable for community members to have wealthy peasants stand out and run an independent household.
Redemptions and cuts
On what conditions did the peasants part with their slave position? The most acute issue was, of course, the question of land. Complete landlessness of the peasants was an economically disadvantageous and socially dangerous measure. The entire territory of European Russia was divided into 3 bands - non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe. In the non-chernozem regions, the size of the allotments was larger, but in the fertile black earth regions, the landowners were very reluctant to part with their land. The peasants had to bear their former duties - corvée and dues, only now it was considered payment for the land provided to them. Such peasants were called temporarily liable.
Since 1883, all temporarily liable peasants were obliged to buy their allotment from the landowner, and at a price much higher than the market price. The peasant was obliged to immediately pay the landowner 20% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 80% was paid by the state. The peasants had to repay it for 49 years annually in equal redemption payments.
The distribution of land in individual estates also took place in the interests of the landowners. The allotments were fenced off by the landlords' lands from the lands that were vital in the economy: forests, rivers, pastures. So the communities had to rent these lands for a high fee.
Step towards capitalism
Many modern historians write about the shortcomings of the 1861 reform. For example, Petr Andreevich Zaionchkovsky says that the terms of the ransom were extortionate. Soviet historians unequivocally agree that it was the contradictory and compromise nature of the reform that ultimately led to the 1917 revolution.
But, nevertheless, after the signing of the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the life of the peasants in Russia changed for the better. At least they stopped selling and buying them, as if they were animals or things. The liberated peasants replenished the labor market, got jobs in factories and factories. This entailed the formation of new capitalist relations in the country's economy and its modernization.
And, finally, the liberation of the peasants was one of the first reforms from a whole series prepared and carried out by the associates of Alexander II. Historian B.G. Litvak wrote: "... such a huge social act as the abolition of serfdom could not pass without a trace for the entire state organism." The changes affected almost all spheres of life: the economy, the socio-political sphere, local government, the army and navy.
Russia and America
It is generally accepted that the Russian Empire was socially a very backward state, because until the second half of the 19th century, the disgusting custom of selling people at auction, like cattle, remained there, and the landowners did not bear any serious punishment for the murder of their serfs. But do not forget that at that very time, on the other side of the world, in the United States, there was a war between north and south, and one of the reasons for it was the problem of slavery. Only through a military conflict in which hundreds of thousands of people died.
In the American slave and serf one can indeed find many similarities: they did not manage their lives in the same way, they were sold, they were separated from their families; private life was controlled.
The difference lay in the very nature of the societies that gave rise to slavery and serfdom. In Russia, the labor of serfs was cheap, and the estates were unproductive. Attaching peasants to the land was more of a political than an economic phenomenon. The plantations of the American South have always been commercial, and their main principles have been economic efficiency.
He signed the manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants" and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. Based on these documents, the peasants received personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property.
The peasant reform was preceded by a long work on the development of draft legislative acts on the abolition of serfdom. In 1857, by decree of Alexander II, a secret Committee on Peasant Affairs was formed to work out measures to improve the situation of the peasantry. Then, from the local landowners, the government formed provincial peasant committees, which were asked to develop their proposals for a project to abolish serfdom.In January 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for the Arrangement of the Rural Population. It included 12 highest royal dignitaries under the chairmanship of the king. Two editorial commissions arose under the committee, which were entrusted with the duty to collect and systematize the opinions of the provincial committees (in fact, one worked under the leadership of General Ya. I. Rostovtsev). Prepared in the summer of 1859, the draft "Regulations on the Peasants" underwent many changes and clarifications during the discussions.
The documents signed by the emperor on February 19 (March 3), 1861 caused a mixed reaction in all segments of the population, since the transformations were half-hearted.
According to the Manifesto, the peasants were given civil rights - the freedom to marry, independently conclude contracts and conduct court cases, and acquire real estate in their own name.
The peasantry was granted legal freedom, but the land was declared the property of the landlords. For allotted plots (cut by an average of 20%), the peasants in the position of "temporarily liable" bore duties in favor of the landowners, who practically did not differ from the former serfs. The allocation of land to the peasants and the procedure for carrying out duties were determined by a voluntary agreement between the landowners and peasants.
For the redemption of land, peasants were provided with an allowance in the form of a loan. The land could be redeemed both by the community and by the individual peasant. The land allotted to the community was in collective use, therefore, with the transition to another estate or another community, the peasant lost the right to the “worldly land” of his former community.
The enthusiasm with which the release of the Manifesto was greeted was soon replaced by disappointment. The former serfs expected full freedom and were dissatisfied with the transitional state of the “temporarily liable”. Believing that the true meaning of the reform was being hidden from them, the peasants rebelled, demanding liberation from the land. To suppress the largest speeches, accompanied by a seizure of power, as in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province), troops were used.
Despite this, the peasant reform of 1861 was of great historical significance. It opened up new prospects for Russia, creating an opportunity for the broad development of market relations. The abolition of serfdom paved the way for other important transformations aimed at creating a civil society in Russia.
Lit .: Zayonchkovsky P. A. Peasant reform of 1861 // Great Soviet Encyclopedia. T. 13. M., 1973; Manifesto of February 19, 1861 // Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 7. M., 1989; The same [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/feb1861.htm; Fedorov V. A. The fall of serfdom in Russia: Documents and materials. Issue. 1: Socio-economic background and preparation of the peasant reform. M., 1966; Engelman I. E. The history of serfdom in Russia / Per. with him. V. Shcherba, ed. A. Kizevetter. M., 1900
.See also in the Presidential Library:
The highest approved general provision on peasants who emerged from serfdom on February 19, 1861 // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. 36. Det. 1. St. Petersburg, 1863. No. 36657; Peasants // Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. prof. I. E. Andreevsky. T. 16a. SPb., 1895
;Peasant reform of 1861: collection;
Peasant reform of 1861. Abolition of serfdom: catalog.
At the turn of the 50-60s. a revolutionary situation arose in Russia. The abolition of serfdom becomes a condition for maintaining social stability. The crisis caused by the Crimean War, the intensification of feudal exploitation, the peasant movement, the general backwardness of the country, made the peasant reform not only necessary, but inevitable. In relation to her, society has split into several camps.
The course of Alexander II and his like-minded people on liberal reforms constantly ran into opposition from the conservative forces of the highest bureaucracy, which retained significant political influence at court. Disagreements also existed among the liberal-minded nobles, who understood the inevitability of major concessions. They were strongest between the landlords of the black earth provinces, who ran a corvee economy on fertile land and valued it, and the landowners of the non-black earth region, for whom quitrent payments were the most important source of income. The latter were inclined to give the peasants more land in order to receive large ransoms.
Consistent reformist views were held by N. Milyutin, who played a prominent role in the development of the peasant reform project, General Rostovtsev (chairman of the Editorial Commissions in which the reform law was drafted), Minister of Internal Affairs Lanskoy. And the staunch conservatives Dolgorukov and Muravyov sought to influence Alexander II in such a way as to make the reform as less liberal as possible. This struggle in the government was conducted with varying success, which was reflected in the main provisions of the reform.
At the end of 1857, at the direction of the tsar, noble committees were established in the provinces to draw up reform projects. The government program was determined by the end of 1858, but continued to be discussed in government circles for over two more years. The project took its final form by the beginning of 1861.
February 19, 1861 Alexander II signed the "Regulations" and "Manifesto" on the abolition of serfdom. They were released on March 5th. The main result of the reform was the personal liberation of the peasant, the landlords lost the right to dispose of them. According to the Manifesto, a charter charter became a legal document that formulated the conditions for the exit of peasants from serfdom. It was signed by the landowner and peasant attorneys (on behalf of the community). The peasants acquired the rights of a legal entity and the status of free rural inhabitants, endowed with land. They got the opportunity to own property, engage in commercial and industrial activities, move to other classes, and conduct court cases.
The size of the peasant allotment was to be made by agreement between the landowner and the peasants. Where no agreement was reached, state norms were established. The landlords had the right to keep at least 1/3 of the land in the non-chernozem provinces, in the chernozem - at least 1/2. Therefore, in the Chernozem region, peasant allotments were much smaller. If, before the reform, the peasants had more land than was provided for by the act of February 19, then the surplus - "segments" - were given to the landowners. In the black earth provinces, up to 30-40% of the land was cut off from the peasants. Moreover, they were endowed with land of inferior quality, inconveniently located. To become its owners, the peasants had to pay a ransom, much higher than the market value of the land. Since the peasants did not have the means, the state acted as an intermediary. It gave the landlords up to 80% of the redemption amount, and the peasants were obliged to pay this debt with interest within 49 years. "Redemption payments" were canceled only after the revolution of 1905-1907. During this time, the peasants paid the treasury and landlords about 2 billion rubles, while the market price of the land left by the peasants, on the eve of 1861, was about half a billion rubles. However, even 20% of the redemption amount turned out to be too much for many peasants. Such were considered temporarily liable and for the use of allotments they had to serve their former duties - corvée or dues. True, the amount of duties was now strictly defined, and the landowner could not demand additional services from the peasant. The temporarily liable state was liquidated in 1881, when all temporarily liable peasants had to redeem their allotment. Following the Russian provinces, serfdom was abolished in Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus.
The historical significance of the peasant reform is enormous. It cleared the way for the establishment of capitalist relations in Russia. However, the reform retained many feudal vestiges that hindered the bourgeois development of the countryside. Large-scale landlordism and the lack of land of the peasants made the agrarian question topical throughout the entire subsequent existence of the Russian monarchy. At the same time, the removal of serf shackles from the village meant a change in social relations. The liberation of the peasants shifted the avalanche of transformations that were moving Russia towards a rule of law state. Inevitably, it was necessary to change the administrative management of the village, the nature of the judicial institutions, the recruitment of the army, the order of education. State institutions based on serfdom were a thing of the past. Positive consequences: 1. Slavery was abolished in Russia, the k-in received personal freedom
Negative consequences: 1. there was a bondage with the redemption of land for kr-n. During this period, redemption payments were canceled in 1906, kr-did not pay Mr. 3 times more than the cost of land namely: there was no free withdrawal, the process of differentiation slowed down, the c / o adhered to the principle of equalization, it was not possible to use new technology
In Russia, landlordism was preserved. The development of cap-ma in Russia followed the Prussian path.
Ticket 2.1 Methodological approaches, methods and sources of studying history.
Methods of studying history.
The student should know: methods of studying history - comparative, systemic, typological, retrospective, ideographic.
Method - translated from Greek me^Iodose means "the right way", that is, a way or plan to achieve a certain goal.
In the narrow scientific sense, “method” is understood as a method and procedure for studying a subject in order to obtain a more complete and true result.
History as a science uses both general scientific methods and specific scientific methods corresponding to the subject of study.
1. Comparative (comparative) method involves a comparison of historical objects in space, in time and the identification of similarities and differences between them.
2. System method involves the construction of a generalized model that reflects the relationship of the real situation. Consideration of objects as systems focuses on the disclosure of the integrity of the object, on the identification of diverse types of connections in it and their reduction into a single theoretical picture.
3. Typological method involves the classification of historical phenomena, events on the basis of their common essential features. 4. Retrospective method involves a progressive penetration into the past with
the purpose of identifying the cause of an event or phenomenon.
5. Ideographic method consists in a consistent description of historical events and phenomena based on objective facts.
6. Problem-chronological method involves the study of the sequence of historical events in time.
Methodology of history.
Methodology - the doctrine of research methods, coverage of historical facts, scientific knowledge. The methodology of history is based on scientific principles and approaches to the study of historical facts.
The fundamental principles of the study of historical facts include:
1. the principle of historicism, which involves the study of historical phenomena in development, in accordance with the specific historical situation;
2. the principle of objectivity, which provides for the researcher's reliance on objective facts, consideration of the phenomenon in all its versatility and inconsistency;
3. the principle of social approach involves consideration of phenomena and processes, taking into account the social interests of various segments of the population, taking into account the subjective moment in the practical activities of parties, governments, individuals;
4. principle of alternativeness determines the degree of probability of an event, phenomenon, process based on an objective analysis of the real situation.
Compliance with these principles ensures scientific validity and reliability in the study of the past.
In the modern methodology of history there is no unitary (single) platform, it is characterized by a variety of methodological approaches that have developed as a result of the progressive development and formation of the theoretical foundations of historical knowledge. The most significant and widespread are the following methodological approaches to the study of history: theological, subjectivism, geographical determinism, evolutionism, Marxism and civilizational approach.
Theological approach represents a religious understanding of history based on the recognition of the Supreme Mind (God the Creator) and the divine world order created by him. According to this approach, God the Creator is the basis of the universe, the fundamental principle of all things and the root cause of all things and phenomena. God created the universe and man, gave his innermost meaning to his historical existence and development.
The theological or God-centered approach has two main strands:
1. religious-confessional concepts(Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc.);
2. religious-supra-confessional syncretic concepts history (the teachings of E.P. Blavatsky, the teachings of N. and E. Roerichs, the teachings of D. Andreev, etc.).
Recently, the theological approach, idealistic in its essence, is becoming more and more widespread, which allowed the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician Yu. Osipov, to declare the gradual convergence of science and religion in the modern world.
Subjectivism- methodological direction, ignoring the objective approach to reality, denying the objective laws of nature and society. Subjectivism considers the historical process as the result of the manifestation of the world spirit, absolutizes the active role of the subject in various fields of activity.
Representatives of subjectivism were the philosophers D. Berkeley (1685 - 1753), I.G. Fichte (1762-1814), D. Hume (1711 - 1776).
Geographic determinism absolutizes the role of geographical factors in the development of the historical process. So, the French educator Sh.L. Montesquieu (1689 -1755) - the founder of the geographical school in sociology, believed that climate, soil and the state of the earth's surface determine the spirit of the people and the nature of social development. Russian geographer, sociologist and public figure L.I. Mechnikov (1838 - 1888) attached particular importance to the hydrosphere and tried to explain the uneven social development by changing the significance of the same geographical conditions, primarily water resources and communications. In accordance with this, he singled out three periods in the history of civilization: 1) river - from the time of the emergence of the first states in the valleys of the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, Indus and Ganges, Huang He and Yangtze; 2) Mediterranean - from the founding of Carthage; 3) oceanic - after the discovery of America.
Evolutionism as a methodological approach took shape in the second half of the 19th century. in the works of E. Tylor, A. Bastian, L. Morgan. According to their views, there is a cultural unity of mankind and general laws for the development of the cultures of all peoples from simple forms to complex ones, from lower to higher ones; the difference in the culture of different peoples is a consequence of different stages of their evolution. The driving force behind the evolution of human society is the improvement of the psyche.
Marxism as a philosophical direction took shape in the middle - II half of the XIX century. Its founders were the German thinkers K. Marx (1818 - 1883) and F. Engels (1820 - 1895). They substantiated the doctrine of historical materialism, according to which the relations of production are at the heart of the historical process. All world history is a class struggle for economic and political power. The class struggle is the engine of the historical process, economic relations are a priority in the development of society.
The central place in the socio-economic scheme of Marxism is occupied by the so-called socio-economic formations - stages in the historical development of society, determined by the mode of production and production relations, which are determined by the level of development of the productive forces. Marxists identified five socio-economic formations (primitive-communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, communist), which successively replace each other. The formational approach is based on the idea of historical progress, the idea of a linear, progressive development of human society, ascending to ever newer and higher levels of development. He declares the unity of the historical process and the predetermination of its ultimate goal - the creation of a single society of universal prosperity.
This approach absolutized socio-economic factors and ignored the spiritual, mental specifics in the history of peoples, the human factor.
civilizational approach. The beginnings of a civilizational approach appeared in the II half. 18th century (Voltaire), further development was given by the German enlightener of the end of the 18th century. I.G. Herder. He believed that development is a natural result of the development of human abilities, the disclosure of which depends on natural conditions, therefore there is no single civilization, but there are many unique civilizations.
In the first half of the XX century. theoretically took shape civilizational approach to history. The founder is considered to be Oswald Spengler (1880 - 1936), German. cultural philosopher. In fundamental work "The Decline of Europe" (1922) he presented the history of mankind as a panorama of closed and non-interacting "cultures". Cultures exist in a certain territory and go through three stages of development: youth, flourishing, decline. O. Spengler singled out 8 cultures: Egyptian, Mayan, Greco-Roman, Byzantine, Arabic, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Western European.
Another major theorist of the civilizational approach was the English historian and public figure Arnold Toynbee (1889 - 1975). Main labor "Comprehension of history" (in 12 volumes) he started publishing in /922 G. At the center of his teachings are local civilizations that did not cover all of humanity and were limited in time and space. According to Toynbee's classification, in historical time there were 21 local civilizations, of which, by the middle of the 20th century. there were 5 "living", including Christian and Islamic.
Unlike Spengler, who categorically denied the unity and integrity of the historical process, Toynbee allowed a certain degree of mutual influence of different civilizations, believed that local civilizations are mosaic components of the universal panorama of world history.
The emergence of civilizations in Toynbee is associated with the mechanism of "call" and "response". “Challenges” are caused by both natural and social factors. The “answer” is possible if there is a group of people in human society or outstanding figures capable of perceiving the “challenge”, for example, J. Christ or Mohammed. If the "answers" to "challenges" become unsuccessful and inadequate, then civilization enters the stage of breakdown, and then disintegration occurs. But it is not inevitable. The scientist saw the salvation of modern Christian civilization on the path of interfaith integration.
In Russia, at the origins of the civilizational approach was Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822 - 1885), philosopher, naturalist and sociologist. Main labor "Russia and Europe" was published in 1869
The central category in Danilevsky's sociological theory is "cultural-historical types" as closed superstate human communities or civilizations. They are called upon to realize themselves in one of the four areas of life-creativity: religion, culture, politics, socio-economic activity. In the process of development, civilization can be realized in all areas. He predicted such a future for the Slavic civilization.
The concept and classification of a historical source.
It is possible to obtain information about a person, society, state, events that took place at different times and in different countries only from historical sources. Under historical source currently understood a product of culture, an objectified result of human activity. It can be cultural objects, works, things, documents.
Cognitive means for all this variety of historical sources is classification. It is conditionally possible to distinguish 4 types of historical sources:
1) real;
2) written;
3) phonic (sound);
4) pictorial.
Only the involvement of all kinds of sources will make it possible to recreate an objective picture of historical development.
Of greatest interest to historians are written sources. They are studied by an auxiliary historical discipline source study. Written sources are also subject to classification. According to the domestic historian L.N. Pushkarev, written sources can be divided into two types: clerical and narrative. Documentary sources are divided into 4 types: cartographic, statistical, act, clerical. Pushkarev also divided narrative sources into 4 types: personal, artistic, historical and scientific. There are other classifications of historical sources.
2.2 Causes, course and results of the Cold War (1946-1992)
The Cold War is a period in the development of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR that lasted almost 40 years after the end of World War II. The essence of the Cold War was the political, military-strategic and ideological confrontation between the countries of the capitalist and the so-called socialist system.
Causes of the Cold War: the fundamental opposition of the two world systems, economic, political, ideological differences between them; the desire of each of them to strengthen its influence in the world, to spread it to new countries and peoples; the policy of imposing their own values, their own order (system) on new territories; the readiness of each of the parties to defend their positions by all possible means (economic, political, military); the policy of threats, which already in the first post-war years led to mutual distrust, the formation by each side of the "image of the enemy."
First stage"cold war" - the end of the 40s - 60s. - extreme sharpness of confrontation:
Stalin's claims to revise the borders in Europe and Asia and the regime of the Black Sea straits, change the regime of management of the former Italian colonies in Africa; W. Churchill's speech in Fulton in March 1946 calling for protecting the Western world by all possible means from "the spread of the influence of the USSR"; The Truman Doctrine (February 1947). Measures to "save Europe from Soviet expansion" (including the creation of a network of military bases near Soviet borders). The main doctrines are the doctrines of "containment" and "rejection" of communism; the creation by the Soviet Union (with the support of local communist parties and Soviet military bases) of a pro-Soviet bloc of Eastern European countries, the reproduction of the Soviet model of development in these countries; "Iron Curtain", Stalin's dictate in the domestic and foreign policy of the countries of the socialist camp, the policy of purges, repressions, executions.
The apogee of the Cold War - 1949-1950s: the creation of NATO, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The confrontation between the two military-political blocs and the buildup of weapons, including nuclear missiles; the Berlin crisis, the creation of the FRG and the GDR; conflicts and wars in Southeast Asia (Korea, Vietnam), in the Middle East, in which the US and the USSR directly or indirectly participated. Caribbean crisis of 1962 (the world is on the verge of a new world war); entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968
the Berlin Crisis, the creation of the FRG and the GDR; conflicts and wars in Southeast Asia (Korea, Vietnam), in the Middle East, in which the US and the USSR directly or indirectly participated. Caribbean crisis of 1962 (the world is on the verge of a new world war); entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968
Second phase Cold War - 1970s - defusing international tension: agreements between the FRG and the USSR, Poland, the GDR, Czechoslovakia; an agreement on West Berlin, Soviet-American arms limitation treaties (ABM and SALT); Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki in 1975 (attempts peaceful coexistence of two systems, its complexity and contradictions); military-political parity between the USSR and the USA. Third stage- late 1970s - mid 1980s: end detentes, a new aggravation of the international confrontation between the two systems; the deterioration of Soviet-American relations, a new round of the arms race, the American SDI program; the growth of US interference in the politics of the countries of the Middle East and Latin America;
entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan; "Brezhnev's doctrine" - limiting the sovereignty of the countries of the socialist camp, increasing friction within it; attempts to continue the policy of the "cold war" in the conditions of the crisis of the world socialist system.
Ticket 3.1 Domestic historiography in the past and present.
Historiography - This is a special historical discipline that studies the history of historical science as a complex, multifaceted and contradictory process and its laws.
The subject of historiography is the history of historical science.
Historiography solves the following tasks:
1) the study of the laws of change and the approval of historical concepts and their analysis. Under historical concept the system of views of one historian or a group of scientists is understood both on the entire course of historical development as a whole and on its various problems and aspects;
2) analysis of the theoretical and methodological principles of various trends in historical science and the elucidation of the patterns of their change and struggle;
3) study of the process of accumulation of factual knowledge about human society:
4) the study of the objective conditions for the development of historical science.
The history of historical science in our country begins in the period of the existence of Ancient Russia. Until the end of the XVI century. the main type of historical writings were annals.
The basis for most of the annalistic vaults was "The Tale of Bygone Years" (I quarter of the 12th century). The most valuable lists are the Lavrentiev, Ipatiev and First Novgorod chronicles. Since the 18th century, the authorship of The Tale of Bygone Years has been attributed to the monk Nestor, but at present this point of view is not the only one and is being questioned.
During the period of feudal fragmentation, chronicle writing was carried out in most major principalities and centers.
With the creation of a single state at the turn of the XV - XVI centuries. the chronicle acquires an official state character. Historical literature follows the path of creating works of grand scale and magnificent forms (the Resurrection Chronicle, the Nikon Chronicle, the Facial Code of Ivan the Terrible).
In the 17th century historical novels, chronographs and power books are approved. In 1672 the first educational book on Russian history was published. "Synopsis" by I. Gizel. The word "synopsis" means "general view". In 1692 completed his work "Scythian history" I. Lyzlov.
The father of Russian historical science is considered Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686 -1750). He was not a professional historian, he came from a seedy family of Smolensk nobles, but, thanks to his abilities, he made a public career under Peter I. Tatishchev participated in the Northern War, carried out diplomatic missions, led the mining industry of the Urals (1720 - 1721, 1734 - 1737) , was the Astrakhan governor. But for a significant part of his life, in parallel with state activities, Tatishchev collected historical sources, described them and systematized them. From the beginning of the 1720s, Tatishchev began work on the Russian History, which he continued until his death in 1750. "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" in 5 books was published in 1768 - 1848. In this essay, the author gave a general periodization of the history of Russia, identified three periods: 1) 862 - 1238; 2) 1238 - 1462; 3) 1462 -1577. Tatishchev associated the development of history with the activities of rulers (princes, kings). He sought to establish a causal relationship of events. When presenting history, he used a pragmatic approach, relying on sources, primarily chronicles. Tatishchev was not only the founder of historical science in Russia, but laid the foundations for source studies, historical geography, Russian metrology and other disciplines.
In /725, founded by Peter I Academy of Sciences. Initially, invited German scientists worked in it. A special contribution to the development of historical science in Russia was made by G.Z. Bayer (1694 - 1738), G.F. Miller (1705 - 1783) and A.L. Schlozer (1735 -1809). They became the creators of the "Norman theory" of the emergence of statehood in Russia.
This theory was sharply criticized Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov (1711 -1765), the first Russian academician, one of the founders of Moscow University, scientist-encyclopedist.
M.V. Lomonosov believed that engaging in history is a patriotic affair, and the history of the people closely merges with the history of rulers, the reason for the power of peoples is the merits of enlightened monarchs.
In 1749, Lomonosov made comments on Miller's dissertation "The Origin of the Russian Name and People." The main historical work of Lomonosov is "Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav the First or until 1054", on which the scientist worked from 1751 to 1758.
The scientist believed that the world-historical process testifies to the progressive movement of mankind. He assessed historical events from the standpoint of enlightened absolutism, widely drew on sources, and was the first to raise the question of the level of development of the Eastern Slavs before the formation of the state.
In the second half of the XVIII century. the largest representatives of noble historiography were M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin.
A major event in the development of historical science in / quarter of the 19th century was the publication "History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin.
II.M. Karamzin(1766 - 1826) belonged to the provincial Simbirsk nobility, was educated at home, served in the guards, but retired early and devoted himself to literary creativity. In 1803, Alexander I appointed Karamzin as a historiographer, instructing him to write a history of Russia for the general reader. Creating the "History of the Russian State", N.M. Karamzin was guided by the desire for the artistic embodiment of history, he was guided by love for the fatherland, the desire to objectively reflect the events that took place. For Karamzin, the driving force behind the historical process was power, the state. Autocracy, according to the historian, is the core on which the entire social life of Russia is strung. Destruction of autocracy leads to death, revival - to the salvation of the state. The monarch must be humane and enlightened. Karamzin objectively revealed the insidiousness of Yu. Dolgorukov, the cruelty of Ivan III and Ivan IV, the villainy of Godunov and Shuisky, he assessed the activities of Peter I inconsistently. people in respect for her. The first eight volumes of "History .." were published in 1818 and became compulsory reading in gymnasiums and universities. By 1916 The book went through 41 editions. In Soviet times, his works were practically not published as conservative-monarchist ones. At the end of the XX century. "History ..." Karamzin was returned to readers.
Outstanding Historian // floor. 19th century was Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820 -1879), creator of the 29-volume "History of Russia from ancient times", professor, rector of Moscow University. Beginning in 1851, he published a volume every year until his death. His work covers Russian history from antiquity to the end of the 18th century. Solovyov set and solved the problem of creating a generalizing scientific work on Russian history, taking into account the current state of historical science. The dialectical approach allowed the scientist to raise the study to a new level. For the first time, Solovyov comprehensively considered the role of natural-geographical, demographic-ethnic and foreign policy factors in the historical development of Russia, which is his undoubted merit. CM. Solovyov gave a clear periodization of history, highlighting four main periods:
1. From Rurik to A. Bogolyubsky - the period of domination of tribal relations in political life;
2. From Andrei Bogolyubsky to the beginning of the 17th century. - a period of struggle between tribal and state principles, culminating in the victory of the latter;
3. From the beginning of the XVII century. until the middle of the 18th century. - the period of Russia's entry into the system of European states;
4. From the middle of the XVIII century. before the reforms of the 60s. 19th century - a new period of Russian history.
Trud S.M. Solovyov has not lost its significance to this day.
A student of S.M. Solovyov was Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841 - 1911). The future historian was born into the family of a hereditary priest in Penza and was preparing to continue the family tradition, but his interest in history forced him to leave the seminary without completing the course and enter Moscow University (1861-1865). In 1871, he brilliantly defended his master's thesis "Old Russian Lives of the Saints as a historical source." The doctoral dissertation was devoted to the Boyar Duma. He combined scientific work with teaching. His lectures on the history of Russia formed the basis "Course of Russian History" in 5 parts.
V. O. Klyuchevsky was a prominent representative of the national psycho-economic school that was formed in Russia in the last quarter of the 19th century. He considered history as a progressive process, and associated development with the accumulation of experience, knowledge, and everyday comforts. Klyuchevsky saw the task of the historian in the knowledge of the causal relationships of phenomena.
The historian paid close attention to the peculiarities of Russian history, the formation of serfdom and classes. He assigned the role of the main force in the history of the formation and development of the state to the people as an ethnic and ethical concept.
He saw the scientific task of the historian in understanding the origin and development of human societies, in studying the genesis and mechanism of human society.
Klyuchevsky developed the idea of S.M. Solovyov about colonization as an important factor in historical development, highlighting its economic, ethnological and psychological aspects. He approached the study of history from the standpoint of the relationship and mutual influence of the three main factors - personality, nature and society.
Klyuchevsky combined historical and sociological approaches, specific analysis with the study of the phenomenon as a phenomenon of world history.
IN. Klyuchevsky left a deep mark on the history of Russian science and culture. His students were P.N. Milyukov, M.N. Pokrovsky, M.K. Lyubavsky and others. He had a profound influence on his contemporaries and descendants.
In October 1917, the Bolsheviks came to power. The conditions for the development of historical science in the country have changed dramatically. Marxism became the unified methodological basis of the humanities, the topics of research were determined by the state ideology, the history of the class struggle, the history of the working class, the peasantry, the communist party, etc. became priority areas.
Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky is considered the first Marxist historian.(1868 - 1932). He received his education at Moscow University. Since the mid-1890s, he has evolved towards economic materialism. Under economic materialism, he understood the explanation of all historical changes by the influence of material conditions, the material needs of man. Class struggle perceived by him as the driving beginning of history. On the question of the role of the individual in history, Pokrovsky proceeded from the fact that the individual characteristics of historical figures were dictated by the economy of their time.
The central work of the historian "Russian history from ancient times" in 4 volumes (1909) and "History of Russia in the XIX century" (1907 - 1911). He saw his task in considering the primitive communal and feudal system, as well as capitalism, from the point of view of economic materialism. Already in these works, the theory of "commercial capital" appeared, more clearly formed in "Russian history in the most concise outline" (1920) and other works of the Soviet period. Pokrovsky called the autocracy "commercial capital in Monomakh's cap." Under the influence of his views, a scientific school was formed, which was defeated in the 30s. 20th century
Despite the repressions and harsh ideological dictates, Soviet historical science continued to develop. Among Soviet historians, Academician B.A. Rybakov, Academician L.V. Cherepnin, Academician M.V. Nechkin, Academician B.D. Grekov, who made a significant contribution to the development of national historical science.
After the collapse of the USSR (1991), a new stage in the development of historical science began: access to archives expanded, censorship and ideological dictate disappeared, but state funding for scientific research significantly decreased. Domestic historical science has become part of world science, and relations with scientists from all over the world have expanded. But it is too early to talk about the results of these positive changes.
3.2 The Soviet Union in 1985-1991 "Perestroika".
1985-91 is a special period in the history of the USSR. It began in April 1985 and ended in December 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This period is divided into 2 parts: 1985-87 - acceleration, 1987-1991 - economic restructuring.
Acceleration:
one). Mid 80's - a comprehensive society.
2). March 1985 - the new leadership of the country: Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - Gorbachev, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Gromyko (since July), Chairman of the Council of Ministers - Ryzhkov.
3). April plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (1985). A new course for accelerating socio-economic development has been adopted (author Academician Agambegyan). Concretized at the 27th congress 1986 (12th five-year plan)
4). The need for a new course: acute social problems, the threat to military-political parity, ensuring the country's full economic independence, the economy sliding into a crisis.
5). The essence of acceleration: high growth rates (not less than 4% per year), a new quality of growth (based on scientific and technical progress), active social policy (food, housing, etc.)
6). Acceleration progress: the key link is mechanical engineering, lack of capital investment, an attempt to rely on enthusiasm, an attempt to strengthen labor and production discipline (state acceptance), two unsuccessful commissions: the fight against drunkenness and the fight against unearned income.
7). The failure of the course: the bet on enthusiasm, not supported by scientific and technical progress, capital investments and socio-economic transformations did not justify itself. The growth of accidents and catastrophes - Chernobyl (April 27, 1986).
one). Definition: radical transformations in all spheres of public life in the Soviet Union, covering the economy, government, domestic and foreign policy, as well as culture and spiritual life.
2). The components of the concept of perestroika and the stages of its implementation. At the beginning (87-88) - a radical economic reform, then the reform of the political system is connected to it, then a course towards updating the ideology.
3). The state of the economy: an extended crisis - a decrease in production volumes, inflation, a budget deficit, a drop in production discipline, an imbalance in the money supply and commodity coverage (demand crises: sugar, tobacco, vodka, tea) Þ the 12th five-year plan was forgotten.
4). The beginning of perestroika in the field of economics (87-89).
Law on the state enterprise (association): expansion of the rights of enterprises and labor collectives (1987). Enterprises received the right to freely sell their products on the market, including the external one (this right was limited by state orders). A joint venture began to be created (the first - May 1987 - Soviet-Hungarian). It was supposed to restructure the central administrative apparatus (ministries and departments). Labor collectives received the right to elect leaders and control the activities of the administration. Law on cooperation, law on individual labor activity (1988). Transformations in the agrarian sector: the dissolution of the state agro-industry (rejection of super-centralization of management), the curtailment of the fight against personal subsidiary plots, the course towards a multistructural structure in the agrarian sector (equality of all forms of management).
5). Course towards a regulated market economy (89-91)
The economic crisis continues to grow and a new goal is being developed - the transition to a market economy. Two transition models: 1. combination of plan and market (Abalkin-Ryzhkov) - USSR Supreme Council resolution on the concept of transition to a regulated market economy, June 1990), 2. alternative program - 500 days Þ phased privatization of the economy (Yavlinsky, Shatalin), 3. Gorbachev - an attempt to combine programs. New laws: more than 100 - on the main economic relations in the USSR, on property, on enterprises in the USSR. But the laws didn't work. Threatening position of the economy: 1988 - growth of national income 4.4%; 1989 - income reduction - 1990 reduction was 10%. Wave of strikes and protests: miners in the forefront (1989) Þ demand for the resignation of the USSR government. December 1990 - Ryzhkov resigns. The new chairman of the Council of Ministers - Pavlov: an attempt to revive the financial system by raising prices by 2-10 times with partial compensation for losses. 1991 - a new wave of strikes. The miners are again at the forefront Þ demanding the resignation of the President of the USSR. The Union leadership is losing the support of the people. Republican leaders, especially Yeltsin, promise to carry out reforms not at the expense of the people, but for the good of the people.
6). political development. Turn in politics: in 1988, the leadership of the country (Gorbachev) came to the conclusion that the economic development of the country was kept by the political system and switched the main attention to political transformations. Prerequisites for large-scale political reforms: 85-86 - discussion of the New edition of the CPSU program and its adoption at the 27th Congress (1986). The ideas of communism in the party and society are being supplanted by the ideas of perestroika; 87 - the beginning of the policy of publicity, i.e. open and free discussion of all issues of public life, criticism of shortcomings unfolds; the offensive against Stalinism and the struggle for the purity of Lenin's ideals; March 1988 Andreev's article - a manifesto of anti-perestroika forces, discussions in the press and society. June 1988 - 19th All-Union Party Conference: a course towards the restructuring of the political system. December 1, 1988 - The Constitution of the USSR is valid as amended by the law of December 1, 1988. Two stages of political reform: the democratization of the political system (89), the transition to a legal state (90-91). The first stage: in May-June 1989, the 1st Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (the highest authority in the country) was held. There were 5 sessions in total. In December 1989, the 2nd Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Chairman Gorbachev) was formed. At the congress there was a struggle between the democrats, the allies and the old party guard. Sakharov and Yeltsin became symbols of democracy. The old party guard was headed by the head of the Politburo, Secretary of the Central Committee Ligachev. The communist reformers were represented by Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Shevardnadze. Outcome: the reform initiative passed to the people's deputies.
7). Second stage (90-91). March 1990 - 3rd Congress elected Gorbachev President of the USSR. The structure of presidential power (presidential council, etc.) began to take shape, which meant the gradual curtailment of Soviet power. The 3rd Congress changed Article No. 6 in the Constitution of the USSR, removing from it: the thesis of the CPSU as the leading force of society; the revival of the multi-party system. The process of disintegration of the CPSU (in terms of ideological and national-organizational direction): 89-90 the communist parties of the Baltic republics left the CPSU, in 1990 the Communist Party of the RSFSR was created as part of the CPSU. Ideological struggle in the CPSU: orthodox communists, centrists, social democrats (many platforms). July 1990 - 28th Congress of the CPSU (last)Þ approval of the platform of democratic socialism. August 1991 - Gorbachev resigned as Secretary General. In August 1991, by decrees of Yeltsin, the activities of the Communist Party on the territory of the RSFSR were suspended, and in November it was banned. In January 1992, the Communist Party (CPSU and CP RSFSR) ceased to exist in its former form.
eight). The result of political reforms: the collapse of the political system of the USSR after August 1991 Þ by the end of the year, a single union state ceased to exist. The dynamics of disintegration: the soviets pushed the party to the margins of political life, the president did not allow the soviets to have a monopoly on power, the national republics no longer needed a union president, the union collapsed.
Culture and spiritual life. A turning point in public consciousness as a reflection of socio-economic changes. The flow of new information Þ the crisis of faith, dogmatism and nihilism. Discussion about white spots of history. Polarization of public opinion. A new (market) utopia Þ growth of discontent. Political illusionism and moral pluralism. Returned culture. Bottom line: perestroika did not give the expected results, deeper changes were required, meanwhile, the crisis of society took on a systemic character and went so far as to lead to the collapse of the USSR.
Ticket 4.1 The problem of the ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs
In a notebook with seminars
Our common Indo-European ancestors were not numerous and originally occupied some small territory of Eastern Turkey or the territory along the Oder and Vistula rivers, and they fell into it, separating earlier from a more ancient tribe. It was so long ago that at the time of separation, they did not have a developed language. With an increase in numbers, individual families moved to other lands in Europe and Asia Minor, giving rise to new tribes and clans. The Indo-Europeans - the Celts, Slavs, Baltics, Germans, to the greatest extent created the modern ethnic map of Europe. The Slavs separated themselves from the Indo-European community in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. The territory from the Carpathians to the Dnieper is recognized as the ancestral home of the Slavs. Distribution of tribes, cat. could be called Slavic, began in the 4th century. AD, and the Slavs came to the lands of modern Belarus, Ukraine, the European part of Russia in the 6th-7th centuries. Until the 7th century. not a single Russian on earth existed. The first written evidence about the Slavs appears in thousands of Greek, Arabic and Byzantine sources. The names Slavs, or Wends or Andes, appeared in the sources. On the way of their settlement, the Slavs met other tribes: nomadic, and agricultural Baltic and Fino-Ugrian, and from the south - the Goths were replaced by the Huns, the Huns were replaced by the Avars, the Avars by the Ugrians and the Khazars, the Khazars by the Pechenegs, the Pechenegs by the Polovtsy, the Polovtsy by the Tatars. The community played an important role in the life of the Old Russian village. By the time of the formation of the state-va at the east. Slavs tribal community was replaced by a territorial community. As a result of the transfer by the princes of the right to own land to the feudal lords, part of the communities fell under their authority. Dr. by subordinating the neighboring communities to the feudal lords, they were captured by warriors and princes. Communities that did not fall under the rule of the feudal lords were obliged to pay taxes to the state, a cat. in relation to these communities, both the supreme power and the feudal power acted. At the head of the East Slavic tribal unions were princes from the tribal nobility and the former tribal elite - “deliberate people”, “best husbands”. There was a militia. At the head of them were the thousand, sotsky. A special military organization was the squad, which was divided into the eldest, from which came ambassadors and princely rulers who had their own land, and the younger, who lived with the prince and served his court and household. The warriors collected tribute from the conquered tribes. Such campaigns for tribute were called "polyudye".
East Slavic tribes: Slavs, Krivichi, Vyatichi, Polyana, Drevlyans (~ 15 tribes)
Economy: agriculture (rye, barley, turnip), cattle breeding, hunting, fishing, blacksmithing, foundry, beekeeping.
Religion: worship of the forces of nature, the cult of ancestors.
They settled mainly along the rivers, which were the main means of communication with each other and the rest of the world. 2 most important ways - "from the Varangians to the tracks" he connected Scandinavia with Byzantium, "from the Varangians to the Persians" the highway went to Central Asia and the Arab countries.
By the 7th century a powerful union of a number of leading East Slavic tribes was formed, which foreigners called "Rus". The body of power is the veche and the leader chosen by him. Formation of a privileged military squad class (the prince and his squad). In the hands of the prince, power and wealth were combined, he declared himself the owner of the land and forced free community members to pay tribute in their favor.
Boris Kustodiev. "The Liberation of the Peasants (Reading the Manifesto)". 1907 painting
"I want to be alone with my conscience." The emperor asked everyone to leave the office. In front of him on the table lay a document that was supposed to turn the whole of Russian history - the Law on the Liberation of the Peasants. He was expected for many years, the best people of the state fought for him. The law not only eliminated the shame of Russia - serfdom, but also gave hope for the triumph of goodness and justice. Such a step for the monarch is a difficult test for which he has been preparing all his life, from year to year, from childhood ...
His tutor Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky spared neither effort nor time to instill in the future emperor of Russia a sense of goodness, honor, and humanity. When Alexander II ascended the throne, Zhukovsky was no longer around, but the emperor kept his advice and instructions and followed them until the end of his life. Having accepted Russia, exhausted by the Crimean War, he began his reign by giving peace to Russia.
Historians often reproach the emperors of the first half of the 19th century for not striving to implement or trying with all their might to hinder the abolition of serfdom. Only Alexander II decided to take this step. His reform activities are often accused of being half-hearted. But was it really easy for the monarch to carry out reforms if his support, the Russian nobility, did not support his undertakings. Alexander II needed great courage to balance between the possibility of a threat of noble opposition, on the one hand, and the threat of a peasant revolt, on the other.
In fairness, we note that there were attempts to carry out a peasant reform before. Let's go back to history. In 1797, Emperor Paul I issued a decree on a three-day corvee, although the wording of the law remained unclear, whether the law does not allow, or simply does not recommend the use of peasant labor in corvee for more than three days a week. It is clear that the landlords were for the most part inclined to adhere to the latter interpretation. His son, Alexander I, once said: "If education were at a higher level, I would destroy slavery, even if it cost me my life." However, after Count Razumovsky applied to him in 1803 for permission to free fifty thousand of his serfs, the tsar did not forget about this precedent, and as a result, in the same year, a decree “On free cultivators” appeared. According to this law, the landlords received the right to release their peasants into the wild in the event that it would be beneficial to both parties. For 59 years of the law, the landowners released only 111,829 peasants, of which 50 thousand were serfs of Count Razumovsky. Apparently, the nobility was more inclined to hatch plans for the reorganization of society than to begin its implementation with the liberation of their own peasants.
In 1842, Nicholas I issued the Decree "On obligated peasants", according to which peasants were allowed to be freed without land, providing it for the performance of certain duties. As a result, 27 thousand people passed into the category of obliged peasants. The need to abolish serfdom was not in doubt. “The serfdom is a powder magazine under the state,” wrote the chief of gendarmes A.Kh.
But Alexander II abolished serfdom. He understood that one should act carefully, gradually preparing society for reforms. In the first years of his reign, at a meeting with a delegation of Moscow nobles, he said: “Rumors are circulating that I want to give freedom to the peasants; it's not fair, and you can say it to everyone right and left. But a feeling of hostility between the peasants and the landowners, unfortunately, exists, and this has already led to several cases of disobedience to the landowners. I am convinced that sooner or later we must come to this. I think you are of the same opinion as me. It is better to begin the abolition of serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it begins to abolish itself from below.” The emperor asked the nobles to think and submit their views on the peasant issue. But no offers were forthcoming.
Then Alexander II turned to another option - the creation of a Secret Committee "to discuss measures to arrange the life of the landlord peasants" under his personal chairmanship. The committee held its first meeting on January 3, 1857. The committee included Count S.S. Lanskoy, Prince Orlov, Count Bludov, Minister of Finance Brock, Count Adlerberg, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property Muravyov, Prince Gagarin, Baron Korf and Ya.I. Rostovtsev. Managed the affairs of the committee Butkov. Committee members agreed that serfdom should be abolished, but warned against making radical decisions. Only Lanskoy, Bludov, Rostovtsev and Butkov came out in favor of a real emancipation of the peasants; most of the committee members proposed only measures to alleviate the situation of the serfs. Then the emperor introduced his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, to the committee, who was convinced of the need to abolish serfdom.
The Grand Duke was an extraordinary person, and thanks to his active influence, the committee began to develop measures. On the advice of the Grand Duke, Alexander II took advantage of the situation in the Baltic provinces, where the landowners were dissatisfied with the existing fixed norms of corvée and dues and would like to abolish them. The Lithuanian landowners decided that it was better for them to give up the ownership of serfs altogether, retaining land that could be profitably rented out. A corresponding letter was drawn up to the emperor, and he, in turn, handed it over to the Secret Committee. The discussion of the letter in the committee went on for a long time, most of its members did not share such an idea, but Alexander ordered "to approve the good intentions of the Lithuanian nobles" and to create official committees in the Vilna, Kovno and Grodno provinces to prepare proposals for organizing peasant life. Instructions were sent out to all Russian governors in case the local landowners "have a desire to solve the matter in a similar way." But no one showed up. Then Alexander sent a rescript to the Governor-General of St. Petersburg with the same instruction to create a committee.
In December 1857, both royal rescripts were published in the newspapers. So, with the help of glasnost (by the way, this word came into use at that time), the matter got off the ground. For the first time in the country, the problem of the abolition of serfdom was openly discussed. The Secret Committee ceased to be such, and in early 1858 it was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. And by the end of the year the committees were already working in all provinces.
On March 4, 1858, the Zemsky department was formed as part of the Ministry of the Interior for the preliminary consideration of projects received from the provinces, which were then transferred to the Main Committee. Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs A.I. Levshin was appointed chairman of the Zemsky department, the most important role in his work was played by the head of the department, Ya.A. Soloviev, and the director of the economic department, N.A. Milyutin, who soon replaced Levshin as deputy minister.
At the end of 1858, comments from the provincial committees finally began to arrive. To study their proposals and develop general and local provisions for the reform, two editorial commissions were formed, the chairman of which the emperor appointed the chief head of military educational institutions, Ya.I. Rostovtsev. General Rostovtsev was sympathetic to the cause of the liberation of the peasants. He established a completely trusting relationship with Milyutin, who, at the request of the chairman, attracted liberal-minded officials and public figures, convinced supporters of the implementation of the reform, Yu.F. Samarin, Prince Cherkassky, Ya.A. Solovyov and others, to the activities of the commissions. They were opposed by members of the commissions who were opponents of the reform, among whom Count P.P. Shuvalov, V.V. Apraksin and Adjutant General Prince I.F. Paskevich stood out. They insisted that the landowners retain the right to own land, rejected the possibility of granting land to the peasants for redemption, except in cases of mutual consent, and demanded that the landowners be given full power in their estates. Already the first meetings were held in a rather tense atmosphere.
With the death of Rostovtsev, Count Panin was appointed in his place, which was perceived by many as the curtailment of activities to free the peasants. Only Alexander II was imperturbable. To his aunt, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, who expressed misgivings about this appointment, he replied: “You don’t know Panin; his convictions are the exact execution of my orders.” The Emperor was right. Count Panin strictly followed his instructions: do not change anything during the preparation of the reform, continue to follow the intended course. Therefore, the hopes of the feudal lords, who dreamed of cardinal concessions in their favor, were not destined to come true.
At the same time, at the meetings of the editorial commissions, Panin behaved more independently, trying to gradually, very carefully, make concessions to the landowners, which could lead to significant distortions of the project. The struggle between supporters and opponents of the reform sometimes took on a rather serious character.
On October 10, 1860, the emperor ordered the closing of the editorial committees, which had worked for about twenty months, and the resumption of the activities of the Main Committee. Due to the illness of the chairman of the committee, Prince Orlov, Alexander II appointed his brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, to this post. Several groups formed in the small committee, none of which could win a clear majority. At the head of one of them, which included the chief of the gendarmes, Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, the Minister of Finance A.M. Knyazhevich and others, was M.N. Muravyov. These members of the committee sought to reduce the norms of land allotments. A special position in the committee was occupied by Count Panin, who challenged many of the provisions of the editorial draft, and Prince P.P. Gagarin, who insisted on the liberation of the peasants without land. For a long time, Grand Duke Konstantin failed to gather a solid majority of supporters of the draft editorial commissions. In order to ensure the advantage, he tried, resorting to the power of persuasion and making some concessions, to win over Panin to his side, and he nevertheless succeeded. Thus, an absolute majority of the supporters of the project was formed - fifty percent plus one vote: five members of the Main Committee against four.
Many were waiting for the offensive of 1861. Grand Duke Konstantin noted in his diary: “January 1, 1861. This mysterious 1861 began. What will he bring us? With what feelings will we look at him on December 31? Should the peasant question and the Slavic question be resolved in it? Isn't this alone enough to call it mysterious and even fatal? Perhaps this is the most important epoch in the thousand-year existence of Russia?
At the last meeting of the Main Committee, the emperor himself presided. Ministers who were not members of the committee were invited to the meeting. Alexander II stated that, submitting the draft for consideration by the State Council, he would not tolerate any tricks and delays, and set the deadline for completion of consideration on February 15, so that he could publish and bring the content of the resolutions to the peasants before the start of field work. “This is what I want, I demand, I command!” the emperor said.
In a detailed speech at a meeting of the State Council, Alexander II gave a historical background on the attempts and plans to resolve the peasant issue in previous reigns and during the years of his reign and explained what he expects from the members of the State Council: “Views of the presented work may be different. Therefore, I will gladly listen to all different opinions, but I have the right to demand one thing from you: that you, putting aside all personal interests, act not as landowners, but as state dignitaries, invested with my confidence.
But even in the State Council, the approval of the project was not easy. Only with the support of the emperor did the decision of the minority receive the force of law. The preparations for the reform were nearing completion. By February 17, 1861, the State Council completed consideration of the project.
On February 19, 1861, on the sixth anniversary of his accession to Alexander II, he signed all the legal provisions on the reform and the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.
On March 5, 1861, the Manifesto was read in the churches after mass. At the divorce in the Mikhailovsky Manege, Alexander II himself read it to the troops.
The manifesto on the abolition of serfdom provided the peasants with personal freedom. From now on, they could not be sold, bought, donated, relocated at the request of the landowner. Peasants now had the right to own property, the freedom to marry, they could independently conclude contracts and conduct legal proceedings, they could acquire real estate in their own name, and they had freedom of movement.
To personal freedom, the peasant received a plot of land. The size of the land allotment was established taking into account the terrain and was not the same in different regions of Russia. If earlier the peasant had more land than he set a fixed allotment for a given area, then the “extra” part was cut off in favor of the landowner. Such "segments" amounted to a fifth of all lands. The allotment was given to the peasant for a ransom. A quarter of the ransom amount was paid by the peasant to the landowner at a time, and the rest was repaid by the state. The peasant had to repay his debt to the state within 49 years. Prior to the redemption of land from the landowner, the peasant was considered "temporarily liable", paid the landowner dues and worked off the corvée. The relationship between the landowner and the peasant was regulated by the Charter.
The peasants of each landowner's estate united in rural societies - communities. They discussed and resolved their general economic issues at rural gatherings. The decisions of the gatherings were to be carried out by the village headman, who was elected for three years. Several adjacent rural societies made up the volost. The volost headman was elected at a general meeting, he later performed administrative duties.
The activities of the rural and volost administrations, as well as the relationship between peasants and landlords, were controlled by amicable mediators. They were appointed by the Senate from among the local noble landlords. Conciliators had broad powers and followed the directions of the law. The size of the peasant allotment and duties for each estate should be determined once and for all by agreement between the peasants and the landowner and recorded in the Charter. The introduction of these letters was the main occupation of the peace mediators.
Assessing the peasant reform, it is important to understand that it was the result of a compromise between the landlords, peasants and the government. Moreover, the interests of the landowners were taken into account as much as possible, but there was probably no other way to free the peasants. The compromise nature of the reform already contained future contradictions and conflicts. The reform prevented mass protests by peasants, although they did take place in some regions. The most significant of them are the uprisings of peasants in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province and Kandeevka, Penza province.
And yet, the liberation of more than 20 million landlord peasants with land was a unique event in Russian and world history. The personal freedom of the peasants and the transformation of former serfs into "free rural inhabitants" destroyed the former system of economic arbitrariness and opened up new prospects for Russia, creating an opportunity for the broad development of market relations and the further development of society. The abolition of serfdom paved the way for other important transformations, which were to introduce new forms of self-government and courts in the country, to encourage the development of education.
Undeniably great is the merit in this of Emperor Alexander II, as well as those who developed and promoted this reform, fought for its implementation - Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, N.A. Milyutin, Ya.I. Rostovtsev, Yu.F. Samarin, Ya.A.Soloviev and others.
References:
Great reform. T. 5: Figures of reform. - M., 1912.
Ilyin, V.V. Reforms and counter-reforms in Russia. - M., 1996.
Troitsky, N.A. Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1997.
