The new period of Russian history that came after the defeat of the Decembrists is inextricably linked with the personality of Nicholas I.
In 1796, in the last year of the reign of Catherine II, her third grandson was born, who was named Nicholas. He grew up as a healthy and strong child, standing out among his peers with high stature. He lost his father at the age of four. He did not have a close relationship with his older brothers. He spent his childhood in endless war games with his younger brother. Looking at Nicholas, Alexander I thought longingly that this frowning, angular teenager would eventually take his throne.
Nicholas studied unevenly. The social sciences seemed boring to him. However, he was attracted to the exact and natural sciences, and he was really fond of military engineering. Once he was given an essay on the topic that military service is not the only occupation of a nobleman, that there are other occupations that are honorable and useful. Nikolai did not write anything, and the teachers had to write this essay themselves, and then dictate it to their student.
Having visited England, Nikolai expressed the wish that all these talkers who make noise at rallies and in clubs would be left speechless. But in Berlin, at the court of his father-in-law, the Prussian king, he felt at home. The German officers were surprised how well he knew the Prussian military regulations.
Unlike Alexander I, Nicholas I was always a stranger to the ideas of constitutionalism and liberalism. He was a militarist and materialist, with contempt for the spiritual side of life. In everyday life, he was very unpretentious. Severity kept even in the family circle. Once, when he was already an emperor, he was talking with the viceroy in the Caucasus. At the end of the conversation, as usual, he asked about the health of his wife. The viceroy complained about her frustrated nerves. “Nerves?” Nicholas asked again. “The Empress also had nerves. But I said that there were no nerves, and they were gone.”
Nicholas personally interrogated many Decembrists. Some he tried to persuade to frank testimony by gentle treatment, he shouted at others. The arrested were kept in the Peter and Paul Fortress in harsh conditions. They were taken to interrogations in shackles. Investigators often threatened with torture. The trial of the Decembrists took place behind closed doors. The obsequious courtiers appointed by the judges pronounced a very cruel sentence. Five Decembrists (K.F. Ryleev, P.I. Pestel, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky) were sentenced to quartering. Nicholas replaced it with hanging. The execution took place early in the morning on July 13, 1826 in the Peter and Paul Fortress.
121 Decembrists were exiled to hard labor or to a settlement in Siberia, imprisoned in a fortress or sent to die in the Caucasus as ordinary soldiers. Few had a chance to survive the long reign of Nicholas.
Nicholas I was terribly proud of his victory over the Decembrists. Meanwhile, in military terms, it meant nothing. And in moral terms, Nikolai lost, because with harsh sentences in the case of the Decembrists, he forever alienated from himself that part of educated society with which they were connected by ideological, family and friendly ties. Nothing strengthens ideas so much as inhuman persecution of their supporters.
The government has taken a number of steps to strengthen the police force. In 1826, the Third Branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery was established, which became the main body of political investigation. At his disposal was a separate corps of gendarmes. The head of the Third Division was also the chief of the gendarme corps. For many years this position was held by Count A.Kh. Benkendorf, who participated in the defeat of the Decembrists and in the investigation of them. A personal friend of Nicholas I, he concentrated enormous power in his hands.
In a society terrorized by the massacre of the Decembrists, the slightest manifestations of "sedition" were sought out. The initiated cases were inflated in every possible way, presented to the tsar as a "terrible conspiracy", the participants of which received exorbitantly heavy punishments. In 1827, among the students of Moscow University, a circle of six people was discovered who intended to place a proclamation demanding a constitution near the monument to Minin and Pozharsky. This is how the “case of the Cretan brothers” arose, the Elder brother died four years later in the Shlisselburg fortress, another brother, sent as a private to the Caucasus, died in battle, the third ended up in prison companies along with three other comrades in misfortune.
The government believed that Russian reality did not provide grounds for the emergence of a "seditious" way of thinking, that all this appeared under the influence of Western European liberation ideas. Therefore, exaggerated hopes were pinned on censorship. Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov, who was in charge of censorship, saw his task in multiplying "where possible, the number of mental dams" against the influx of "harmful" ideas. In 1826, a new charter on censorship was adopted, nicknamed "cast iron." The censors were not supposed to miss any works where the monarchical form of government was condemned. It was forbidden to express "arbitrary" proposals for state reforms. Religious freethinking was severely suppressed. Censors who were not vigilant enough were punished or fired.
Other departments also began to seek for themselves the right to censor - each in the area of their interests. Soon this right was acquired by the Third Branch. Synod, almost all ministries. Even the Horse Breeding Authority has acquired its own censorship. Rampant censorship has surpassed all reasonable limits - even from the point of view of the government. But attempts to somehow rectify the situation gave only short-term success, and then chaos and arbitrariness were restored in censorship. People who were friendly to the government often became its victims, and liberation ideas continued to penetrate Russia in unknown ways.
The Nikolaev government tried to develop its own ideology, introduce it into schools, universities, the press, and educate the young generation devoted to the autocracy. Uvarov became the main ideologist of the autocracy. In the past, a freethinker who was friends with many Decembrists, he put forward the so-called "theory of official nationality" ("autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality"). Its meaning consisted in opposing the noble-intellectual revolutionary spirit and the passivity of the masses, observed from the end of the 18th century. Liberation ideas were presented as a superficial phenomenon, common only among the "corrupted" part of an educated society. The passivity of the peasantry, its patriarchal piety, and steadfast faith in the tsar were portrayed as "original" and "original" traits of the people's character. Other peoples, Uvarov assured, "do not know peace and are weakened by dissent," and Russia "is strong with unparalleled unanimity - here the tsar loves the Fatherland in the person of the people and rules it like a father, guided by laws, and the people do not know how to separate the Fatherland from the tsar and sees it has its own happiness, strength and glory."
Uvarov's theory, which at that time seemed to rest on very solid foundations, nevertheless had one major flaw. She had no perspective. If the existing order in Russia is so good, if there is complete harmony between the government and the people, then there is no need to change or improve anything. Everything is so good. It was in this spirit that Benckendorff interpreted Uvarov's ideas. "Russia's past was amazing," he wrote, "her present is more than magnificent, as for her future, it is higher than anything that the wildest imagination can imagine." Decembrist noble censorship gendarmerie
In fact, there was no harmony of interests even then. On the contrary, there were many problems that the late emperor struggled with, but which the late emperor never solved. But they seemed to succumb to endless postponing. And they began to deny or stopped noticing. The most prominent representatives of official science (historians M.P. Pogodin, N.G. Ustryalov and others) made every effort to inflate the legends and myths of the "official people". Simulated optimism, contrasting "original" Russia with the "corrupt" West, praising the existing order in Russia, including serfdom - all these motifs permeated the writings of official writers.
For many sane people, the far-fetchedness and hypocrisy of official idle talk were obvious, but few dared to speak about it openly. Therefore, such a deep impression on contemporaries was made by the "Philosophical Letter", published in 1836 in the journal "Telescope" and written by P.Ya. Chaadaev, a friend of A.S. Pushkin and many Decembrists. Chaadaev spoke with bitter indignation about the isolation of Russia from the latest European ideological currents, about the situation of national complacency and spiritual stagnation that had established itself in the country. By order of the tsar, Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under house arrest. The theory of "official nationality" became the cornerstone of the autocracy's ideology for many decades.
Not trusting the public, Nicholas I saw his main support in the army and officials. During the reign of Nicholas there was an unprecedented growth of the bureaucratic apparatus. New ministries and departments appeared, striving to create their own bodies on the ground. The objects of bureaucratic regulation were the most diverse spheres of human activity, including religion, art, literature, and science. The number of officials grew rapidly (at the beginning of the 19th century - 15-16 thousand, in 1847 - 61.5 thousand and in 1857 - 86 thousand).
Intensified, passing all reasonable limits, managerial centralism. Almost all cases were decided in the central departments. Even the highest institutions (the Council of State and the Senate) were overwhelmed with a mass of petty affairs. This gave rise to a huge correspondence, often of a formal nature. Provincial officials sometimes scribbled an answer to a paper from St. Petersburg without understanding its meaning.
However, the essence of bureaucratic management does not consist in scribbling a large number of papers and bureaucratic red tape. These are his outward signs. The essence is that decisions are made and implemented not by any meeting of representatives, not by a single responsible official (minister, governor), but by the entire administrative machine as a whole. The minister or the governor is only a part of this machine, although a very important one. Once, in a moment of insight, Nicholas I said: "Russia is ruled by head clerks."
Introduction1.2 Peasant question
2.1 Formation of the revolutionary-democratic direction
2.2 The activities of Belinsky and Herzen in the 40s
2.3 Slavophiles and their opponents
2.4 Social movement in Russia and the revolution of 1848
ConclusionIntroduction
The accession to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by the performance of the Decembrists on Senate Square on December 14, 1825. Suppressing this speech, Nicholas I, nevertheless, made an important conclusion for himself about the need to resolve the peasant issue. Nikolai himself considered reforms, including the peasant reform, to be an urgent matter that society desired. It should be noted that in the period 1837-1842. under the leadership of P.D. Kiselev, a reform of the State peasants was carried out. However, Nicholas did not dare to abolish serfdom.
The second important conclusion was that the nobility had ceased to be the backbone of the regime. Even Paul I and Alexander I spoke out against the predominance of nobility created in Russian society in the 18th century. Hence the desire of Nicholas I to rely on the bureaucracy, bureaucracy. The years of the reign of Nicholas I were marked by the strengthening of autocracy, the complication of all parts of the state apparatus, further numerical growth and the strengthening of the positions of the bureaucracy. In this regard, it should be noted the provincial reform, carried out in the 30s of the XIX century, which severely limited the power of the nobility in the field. After its implementation, "the nobility became an auxiliary means of the crown administration, a police tool of the government." The official turned into the main figure in the province, pushing the estate nobility into the background. The shifting of executive power onto the shoulders of the bureaucracy led to its sharp quantitative growth. A special place in the system of power was played by His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. It had several departments. Among them, an important place was occupied by the III Division, in which the gendarme corps was located.
The main idea of the reign of Nicholas was as follows: "do not introduce anything new and only repair and put the old in order." In this regard, we can point to the tightening of the censorship regime and a number of measures in the field of education and enlightenment, for example, the elimination of the autonomy of universities. During the reign of Nicholas I, Russia waged wars with Turkey and Iran, military operations continued in the North Caucasus against the highlanders. In 1853, Russia got involved in the Crimean War (1853-1856), which had far-reaching consequences for the country.
1. Regime of Nicholas I: political reaction and reforms. The beginning of the crisis of the Nikolaev empire.
After the death of Alexander I, the interregnum and the cruel massacre of the rebellious Decembrists, Alexander's brother Nicholas I ascended the Russian throne.
Nicholas was not specially trained to manage such a huge empire as Russia. In his youth, he did not receive a sufficient serious education. He was primarily interested in military affairs. However, it should be noted that his natural mind, iron will, love of discipline gave him the opportunity to effectively manage the state.
The reign of Nicholas I is rightly considered one of the most reactionary periods in our history. He became famous for his uncompromising struggle against revolutionary, democratic movements not only in Russia, but also in Europe.
The accession to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by the performance of the Decembrists on Senate Square on December 14, 1825.
The case of the Decembrists was of great importance for the young sovereign, as well as for the entire state. It had a huge impact on the entire government activities of Emperor Nicholas and greatly affected his public mood. Emperor Nicholas I throughout his reign remembered "his friends on December 14th" (as he put it about the Decembrists). Personally familiar with their case, himself, participating in interrogations and investigations, Nikolai had the opportunity to think about the circumstances of the case.
From his acquaintance with the case of the Decembrists, he made a conclusion about the unreliable mood of the nobility. A very large number of people who participated in secret societies were from the nobility. Nicholas I was inclined to consider the conspiracy of December 14, 1825 as a class movement of the nobility, covering all circles and strata of the nobility. Suspecting the nobles of striving for political dominance in the state, Nicholas tried to create a bureaucracy around himself and rule the country through obedient bureaucracy, without the help of noble institutions and figures. Under Nicholas I, the centralization of administration was greatly strengthened: all matters were decided by officials in the ministerial offices in St. Petersburg, and local estate institutions turned to simple executive bodies for ministries.
Getting acquainted with the affairs of the Decembrists, Emperor Nicholas I was convinced that the desire for change and reform, which led the Decembrists, had deep foundations. Serfdom, the absence of a good set of laws, the partiality of judges, the arbitrariness of rulers, the lack of education, in a word, everything that the Decembrists complained about was a real evil in Russian life. Having punished the Decembrists, Emperor Nicholas I came to the conclusion that the government itself had to make corrections and legally start reforms.
In order to calm public opinion, the first secret committee was created (Committee of December 6, 1826). Before the committee, Nicholas I set the task of reviewing the papers of Alexander I in order to "review the current situation of all parts of the administration" and determine "what is good now, what cannot be left and what can be replaced." The Committee was headed by the chairman of the State Council, an experienced and cautious administrator V.P. Kochubey, and one of its active members was M.M. Speransky, whose constitutional "dreams" had long since disappeared, and his knowledge, efficiency, faith in government attracted the sympathy of the king.
The December 6 Committee worked regularly for 4 years. His proposals for the reform of the central authorities proceeded from the idea of "separation of powers", but not to limit autocracy, but to strengthen it by more clearly delineating functions between various departments. Projects for the reform of the local administration were reduced to strengthening control over it both from the side of related departments and from the side of the central authorities.
The draft law "on states" developed by the committee was frankly pro-noble in nature: it was proposed to abolish the provision of Peter's "Table of Ranks" on obtaining a noble title by length of service. In order to satisfy other classes, it was proposed to limit the sale of serfs without land. The revolution that began in France and Belgium in 1830 and the uprising in Poland frightened the government and forced it to abandon such moderate reforms.
In order to manage important matters, the emperor considered it necessary to have his own office. The transformation of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery into the most important body of state power (I department) began.
All legislative work was carried out in the second department, and through it deviations from laws or changes in them were requested and received on various occasions "in the order of the supreme administration."
Nikolay and the high police took direct charge of his office and established for this the famous III Department, headed by General Benckendorff. In connection with the III Branch, a separate corps of gendarmes was established with the division of the whole country into five (and then up to eight) gendarmerie districts. These new institutions were presented as beneficent for "well-intentioned" inhabitants and counted on their support.
Instruction IV branch managed charitable and educational institutions. In 1836, there was also the fifth department for the management of state property and state peasants (then a special ministry was established).
The drafting of the legislative code was entrusted to M. M. Speransky. Initially, Speransky set himself a very serious task: to collect all the laws and, on this basis, create a new effective legislation. However, Nicholas 1 complicated the task: to collect all the known laws, publish them in chronological order and select the current laws from them.
Speransky did a great job of identifying, collecting and publishing all the laws. In 1830-1832. 45 volumes of the "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire" were published, which included all legislation, starting from the "Council Code" of 1649 to 1825, and 6 volumes of laws adopted under Nicholas I (from 1825 to 1830). Then volumes of adopted laws were published annually. From this mass of legislative acts, Speransky made a selection and classification of existing laws. In 1833, 15 volumes of the Code of Laws were published, in which the laws were arranged according to the thematic and chronological principle.
It is generally accepted that Nicholas's attempt to improve state administration failed. Over-centralization resulted in the fact that the highest authorities were literally flooded with a sea of papers and lost real control over the course of affairs on the ground.
1.2 Peasant question
The constant attention and interest of the emperor was attracted by the question of improving the life of the peasants. This interest was supported by frequent unrest of the peasants. In the reign of Nicholas I, there were over 500 cases of peasant unrest. Several times Nicholas I established secret ("tacit") committees on peasant affairs. They collected information and materials, wrote memorandums, drew up projects, but all this paper production remained to lie "under the cloth", because Nicholas I himself could not decide on a serious breakdown of the existing order. During the discussion in the State Council of the draft law on “obliged peasants” (in 1842), Emperor Nicholas I declared: “There is no doubt that serfdom in its current position is evil, tangible and obvious to everyone; but to touch it now would be evil , of course, even more disastrous"
The decree on "mandatory peasants" of April 2, 1842 did not cancel the decree of 1803. "on free cultivators", but the owners were allowed "to conclude agreements with their peasants by mutual agreement on such a basis that ... the landowners retain their full right of patrimonial ownership of the land ... and the peasants received from them plots of land for use for established duties ". The decree of 1842 was only advisory in nature, the norms of allotment and duties of the peasants were completely overestimated by the landowner, who also retained full power over the "liberated", "mandatory" peasant. The practical significance of this decree was not great - before the reform of 1861, more than 27 thousand peasants were released.
In 1837-1838. to manage "state property" (including state peasants), a special Ministry of State Property was established; the humane general Count P. D. Kiselev was appointed minister. He persistently sought to comprehensively improve their situation.
Volost and rural administration were built on the basis of peasant self-government. The Ministry of Count P. D. Kiselev took care of meeting the economic and domestic needs of the peasants: it demarcated land, allotted additional allotments for those with little land, set up savings and loan banks, schools and hospitals. The reform of the state village, carried out by P. D. Kiselev, a new form of organization of state peasants (including the introduction of self-government) served as a model for the arrangement of landlord peasants after their liberation from serfdom.
Of the internal measures of the Nicholas reign, mention should be made of the financial reform of Count E.F. Kankrin, who headed the Ministry of Finance from 1824 to 1844. In 1839-1843. Count E.F. Kankrin made a formal devaluation (an official decrease in the gold content of the monetary unit or a depreciation of the national currency in relation to gold, silver ...) banknotes (paper money), establishing that 350 rubles in banknotes equal 100 silver rubles, and then issued new paper money - "credit notes", the value of which was provided by the metal change fund collected by the Minister of Finance.
The economic development of the country forced the government to patronize industry, trade and, ultimately, to promote the development of capitalist relations. The planting of industry, the establishment of banks, the construction of railways, the founding of technical educational institutions, the encouragement of the activities of agricultural and industrial societies, the organization of exhibitions - all these measures to encourage economic development were carried out taking into account the interests of the landowner and the needs of the autocracy.
Military spending and the cost of a growing administrative apparatus required an increase in cash receipts. Hence the adoption of incentive measures for entrepreneurs, the publication of protective tariffs. Conservative in its origins, the policy hampered, of course, the development of new processes in the economy. But they, nevertheless, slowly but surely made their way, deepening the crisis of the entire socio-economic system.
Nicholas I Pavlovich (1825–1855) ascended the throne in 1825, during the unsuccessful Decembrist uprising. The new emperor ruled Russia for 30 years. A characteristic feature of the Nikolaev regime was: centralization; militarization of the entire system of government.
Under Nicholas I, a system of comprehensive guardianship of the state was created over all spheres of society: political, economic, social. After accession to the throne, Nicholas formed a secret committee, which was supposed to prepare a project for reforms in the public administration system. M.M. was involved in his work. Speransky. The committee, having worked until 1830, did not create a coherent reform program.
The most important body of state administration under Nicholas I was his personal office, which consisted of three departments.
The 1st department of the chancellery was in charge of the documents that came to the tsar and carried out the tsar's orders.
In the second department, work was concentrated on streamlining (codification) of laws.
The III branch carried out the functions of the police, it was supposed to be the all-seeing eye of the king, to observe the exact execution of laws.
This department was also entrusted with all political affairs and control over the mindset in society.
The main directions of the domestic policy of Nicholas I:
1) legislation codification- under the leadership of M.M. Speransky, the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire were prepared and published. This work was supposed to end with the creation of a new code, but Nicholas I limited himself to existing legislation;
2) peasant question- in 1837-1844. under the leadership of Count P.D. Kiselyov, a reform of the management of state peasants was carried out. In accordance with it, self-government was introduced in the settlements of state peasants, schools and hospitals began to open. The small-land peasants were now able to move to free lands. In 1841, measures were taken that concerned landlord peasants, according to which it was forbidden to sell peasants without land. In 1843, landless nobles were deprived of the right to acquire serfs. From 1847, serfs received the right to redeem their freedom if the landowner sold his estate for debts. But nevertheless, these measures did not abolish the institution of serfdom, it generally continued to be preserved;
3) monetary reform- in 1839–1843. under the leadership of the Minister of Finance E.F. Kankrin carried out a monetary reform. The main means of payment was the silver ruble. Credit notes were then issued that could be exchanged for silver. The country maintained a proportion between the number of bank notes and the stock of silver. This made it possible to strengthen the financial situation in the country;
4) reactionary measures in education- During the reign of Nicholas, a number of reforms were carried out in the field of education. In 1835, a new university charter was adopted, which was the most reactionary of all the university charters of pre-revolutionary Russia;
5) stricter censorship of the press. But the order in Russia became even more embittered after a series of European revolutions in 1848, which horrified Nicholas I.
CULTURE OF RUSSIA IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY
Factors that influenced the culture of the first half of the 19th century:
1) formation of the Russian nation in the course of the development of capitalist relations, the formation of national culture;
2) significant expansion of cultural ties
Russia with the culture of other countries and peoples contributed to the intensive development of Russian national culture;
3) democratization of culture which manifested itself primarily in a change in the subject matter of works of literature, music, and art. Especially since the 30s. 19th century the theme of the common people is becoming widespread.
Literature
Leading area of the first half of the XIX century. was literature.
Main ideological and aesthetic directions Literature of this period
2) romanticism;
3) realism.
A prominent representative of sentimentalism in Russia was Karamzin. In the works of representatives of this trend, rural life, the way of life and customs of ordinary villagers, the relationship between landlords and peasants are lovingly depicted (idealized).
After the Patriotic War of 1812, the romantic style became widespread, which in Russia was characterized by:
1) heroism;
2) the struggle for the ideals of freedom;
3) placing the action in historical interiors, etc. During this period, interest in folk culture and national history increases. The tragedy of A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov" is still one of the pinnacles of artistic historical literature. N.M. Karamzin writes "History of the Russian State", which immediately becomes the subject of wide discussion.
Folklore becomes the basis for the creation of many works by N.V. Gogol, T.G. Shevchenko. Russian folk culture aroused deep interest in literary and philosophical salons and circles (the circle of Count Bludov, Slavophiles). Partly in the awakening of interest in the history of Russia and Russian culture, the theory of “official nationality” dictated from above also played a role.
A.S. is considered the founder of Russian realism. Pushkin. His novel in verse "Eugene Onegin", which is often called the encyclopedia of Russian life, is the highest expression of realism in the poet's work.
art
Painting, sculpture and architecture of this period were influenced by European classicism. Architectural masterpieces by A.N. Voronikhina, K.I. Rossi, O.I. Beauvais; sculptures by I.P. Martos, P.I. Klodt; paintings by K.I. Bryullov, F.A. The Bruni were not a mindless copy of him. They were permeated by the patriotic idea, the pathos of glorifying the greatness of the Russian Empire. The works of the architect K.A. The tones represent a new (coming from the West) architectural trend - eclecticism, at the same time, the traditions of ancient Russian architecture, Russian wooden architecture are developing. In the work of A.G. Venetsianova, V.A. Tropinin's sentimentalism turned into a previously unimaginable attention to the life and life of the common people, in particular serfs.
Theater and music
The combination of the traditions of German and Italian opera with the folk music of Russia is presented in the famous operas of M.I. Glinka and A.S. Dargomyzhsky. Folk motifs also permeate the romances of A.A. Alyabyeva, A.E. Varlamov and others.
BACKGROUND OF THE PEASANT REFORM OF 1861, THE ABOLITION OF serfdom
Peasant question in the middle of the XIX century. became a paramount socio-political problem in the country:
1) serfdom hindered the process of industrial development of Russia;
2) serfdom prevented overcoming the military-technical backwardness of the country;
3) hindered the formation of a free labor market;
4) did not contribute to the increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.
After Russia's defeat in the Crimean War, which showed the country's significant lag behind the level of development of the advanced European states, the need for reforms to bring the economic and socio-political system in line with the needs of the time became even more obvious.
The need to abolish serfdom was declared by the progressive Russian public (N.I. Novikov, A.N. Radishchev, Decembrists, Slavophiles and Westernizers, etc.). throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. this issue was also discussed in government circles. But even attempts to only soften serfdom aroused the resistance of the landlords.
After 1856, criticism of the autocratic-feudal system intensified.
In these circumstances, the new Emperor Alexander II (1855–1881) was forced to begin the process of reforming land relations.
Reform preparation
In 1857, a Secret Committee was created, which began to develop a plan for the liberation of the peasants. In 1858 it was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. Its members were to develop a common government line on the issue of the liberation of the peasants. In 1859, under the Main Committee chaired by Ya.I. Rostovtsev, editorial commissions were established to review the drafts prepared by the provincial committees and to develop a draft law on the abolition of serfdom. The submitted versions of the reform projects in 1860 were received by the Main Committee, where they were studied in detail.
February 19, 1861 in the State Council, Alexander II signed the Regulations on Reform (17 legislative acts) and Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.
1. The manifesto provided the peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights.
2. Regulations regulated the issues of allocating land to peasants.
3. According to the reform, the peasants received an established allotment of land, but for a ransom, which was equal to the annual amount of dues, increased by an average of 17 times.
4. Within 49 years, the peasants had to pay this amount with interest.
5. Until the redemption of land, the peasants continued to be considered temporarily liable to the landowner, they had to bear the old duties - corvée and dues.
The exit of peasants from serfdom exacerbated the problem of land shortage, the allotments of many peasants were very small, which hindered the development of agriculture.
But, despite the limited nature, the peasant reform was of great importance. It gave scope to the development of capitalism in Russia.
The 30-year reign (1825-1855) of the brother of Alexander I, Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, or Nicholas I, was the apotheosis of autocratic Russia, the highest stage of traditional society in its late, relatively civilized and, moreover, military-police-bureaucratic form. Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich himself represents the most powerful and colorful personality of the late Russian emperors (since the death of his grandmother Catherine the Great and before the revolution), with an iron will, regal charm and brilliant manners, personifying (along with the imperial court that dazzled foreigners with its magnificence) outward brilliance great empire, an excellent actor who knew how to put on many masks, moreover, a meticulously precise, stern martinet, a fanatic of the idea of legitimate autocracy.
The main content of the domestic policy of Nicholas I is as follows:
Undoubted positives:
1. Codification of laws (previously representing a formless heap), carried out by M.M. Speransky, and streamlining the work of the state apparatus.
2. Development of technical education, foundation of the first technical universities in Russia.
3. Monetary reform of the Minister of Finance E. Kankrin with the transition to the silver standard of the ruble, which strengthened its stability.
4. Facilitating the position of the state peasants (P. Kiselyov's reform).
5. Patronage of national culture (Pushkin, Glinka, etc.).
"Reset" positive - 6. Repeated attempts to start the abolition of serfdom through secret committees convened 7 times, not implemented due to the resistance of the nobility and the inertia of the highest bureaucracy.
Controversial Traits:
7. Political reaction after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, which began the reign of Nicholas, and the pacification of the Polish uprising of 1831. The reaction was expressed primarily in the suppression of any dissent, the tightening of censorship and political repression. The use of the death penalty, which had not previously been used for 50 years (from the time of the Pugachev rebellion to the Decembrist putsch), resumed. When “sedition” did not fall under the criminal article, other measures of influence were invented, a striking example is the case of P. Chaadaev. A Westerner, a friend of Pushkin, who parted ways with him politically, because Pushkin stood on patriotic positions, Chaadaev in 1836, due to an oversight of the censor, published an article with sweeping criticism of Russian history, culture, religion and traditions; however, it did not contain language that would directly bring the author to justice. Then Chaadaev was declared mentally ill. So Nicholas I acted as an "innovator" in the methods of repression and far anticipated in this the late Soviet leaders who sent dissidents to mental hospitals.
The reaction intensified especially in the last years of the reign of Nicholas, after the revolutionary events of 1848 in European countries. In particular, previously free travel abroad was sharply limited (mostly only for diplomats) - in fact, for the first time an "iron curtain" was erected between Russia and Europe, so that in this, Nicholas was far ahead of the leaders of the USSR.
8. The creation of a secret political police - the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery and the gendarme corps subordinate to him (1826, the first chief - General Count A.Kh. Benckendorff), nicknamed "blue uniforms", to fight the revolutionary and other opposition movements. She had enormous powers (up to checking personal letters) and was personally subordinate to the emperor and monitored all the subjects of the empire.
9. A turn from the Petrine ideology of “learning from Europe” to a nationalist course, expressed in the motto “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality” (a formula invented by the Minister of Education Count S. Uvarov) and guarding the conservative foundations of Russian life. The reason for this turn, like the "Iron Curtain", was the influence of the revolutionary and liberal tendencies of the West, which began with the French Revolution, which was dangerous for the monarchy. On the one hand, this ideology was partly anticipated by the Patriotic War with Napoleon and was aimed at reviving patriotic self-consciousness, which was largely lost by the upper strata of society as a result of the general and uncritical enthusiasm for everything Western, and especially French, since the time of Peter. (In particular, Nicholas ordered the nobles to speak Russian at court, since many of them had already forgotten their native language). On the other hand, fencing off Europe with the “Iron Curtain”, although it did not reach such a degree of confrontation as in the days of “Moscow - the Third Rome”, since it was no longer dictated by religious fanaticism, but by quite pragmatic motives (in particular, scientific, technical and business contacts with the West, teaching foreign languages to young people), but still contributed to the partial conservation of the country.
In general, most historians agree in recognizing the Nikolaev era as a time of missed opportunities to modernize the country - and not only because of the personal conservatism of the emperor, but also the inertia of the ruling bureaucracy and the nobility - after all, it was they who eventually "released on the brakes" all the tsar's initiatives to the question of the abolition of serfdom. Rejecting the false unequivocally negative stereotype regarding Nicholas I, created by liberal and revolutionary historiography (starting with A. Herzen) and entrenched in the Soviet era, one should also recognize something else. With all the outstanding personal qualities of Nicholas - by far the largest and most colorful of the Russian emperors after Peter and Catherine, and with all the positive innovations, they still had a private character. Behind the regal image of Nicholas that captivated people and the outward brilliance of his empire, starting with the dazzling court splendor and ending with the army, drilled with cane discipline to acrobatic art at parades, and behind the outwardly ideal bureaucratic mechanism, obsolete estate-serfdom remnants were covered, and most importantly, the growing economic, technical and military backwardness from Europe, in which the industrial revolution had already taken place, machine production, railways, the steam fleet and rifled weapons dominated, while in our country all these processes were still in their initial and extremely slow stage, since they were hampered by a shortage of free hands in conditions of serfdom. All this gave rise to the aforementioned revolutionary publicist A. Herzen, for all his tendentiousness, very aptly called Nicholas Russia "the empire of facades."
The main directions of the foreign policy of Nicholas I were:
1) expansion to the East and South;
2) the fight against the revolutionary movement in Europe, which resulted in the transformation of Russia into the "gendarme of Europe" (figurative expression of K. Marx), which further increased the hostility from the progressive European public opinion and its international isolation, which led to a dramatic denouement in the Crimean War .
The chronicle of the main events of foreign policy is as follows:
1828-1829 - Accession of Eastern Armenia and Northern Azerbaijan as a result of victorious wars with Turkey and Persia (Iran).
1831 - Polish national liberation uprising and its suppression.
1834-1859 - a war of extermination for the conquest of the North Caucasus (in many respects similar to the recent war in Chechnya) with the mountaineer tribes led by Shamil (ended in victory after the death of Nicholas).
1849 - military intervention in Hungary and the suppression of the revolution in it, which saved the Austrian monarchy from collapse and death, which later turned against Russia itself.
The sad outcome of the reign of Nicholas was the Crimean War (1853-1855), which was the result of his desire for the final crush and division of the once formidable for Europe, and by that time the decrepit Muslim Ottoman (or Ottoman) Empire (Turkey). Contrary to Nicholas's calculations, England and France came to its defense (and even Austria, saved by him from collapse, took a hostile position). This manifested the international isolation of Russia, whose foreign policy ambitions have long caused general discontent. Despite the victories over the Turks (in particular, the defeat of the Turkish fleet at Sinop) and the heroic defense of Sevastopol from the British and French, which lasted almost a year, under the leadership of Admiral P.S. Nakhimov, the war ended in defeat and (already after the death of Nicholas, under the terms of the peace treaty of 1856) the loss of the Black Sea Fleet by Russia.
The Crimean War clearly and mercilessly exposed the economic and military-technical backwardness of Russia from the leading countries of Europe. According to A. Tyutcheva, "all the magnificent phantasmagoria of Nicholas's reign dissipated like smoke", which caused his premature death (even before the end of the war). The halo of invincibility of autocratic-feudal Russia dissipated. As a result, the defeat in the Crimean War was the decisive impetus for the Great Reforms of the next reign.
Attempts to strengthen the empire.
Public life.
1. 1825-1855 - the reign of Nicholas I. The reign of Nicholas I - the period of the highest flowering of the absolute monarchy in its military-bureaucratic form. In the early years of the reign of Nicholas I, he was occupied with the idea of liberating the serfs, although, however, the new emperor, by decree of May 12, 1826, publicly announced at the beginning of his reign that no changes would be made to the fate of the serfs.
The reign of Nicholas 1 began with the trial and reprisal of the Decembrists: 5 were executed (Ryleev, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Muravyov-Apostol, Pestel, Kakhovsky), 121 Decembrists were sent into exile.
The government has taken a number of measures to strengthen the police force. In 1826, the 3rd branch of his own imperial majesty's office was created - for political investigation. The prerogatives of this department were enormous - it collected information about the moods of various strata of society, secretly supervised unreliable persons and the press, etc. - it was the body of the tsar's personal information about all the events in the Russian Empire. A separate corps of gendarmes was created, headed by Baron Benckendorff. The slightest manifestations of free thought were persecuted. Censorship is intensifying: in 1826, a new charter on censorship was adopted, nicknamed “cast iron” for its rigidity. A number of reactionary measures were taken in the field of education and the press, for here lay the main danger of free-thinking. The system of public education was based on the principle of strict estates. In 1828, a school charter was issued, according to which primary and secondary education was divided into three categories: 1) one-class parish schools were intended for children of the lower classes (peasantry); 2) for the middle classes (philistines and merchants) three-year county schools; 3) for the children of nobles and officials - seven-grade gymnasiums.
The tsarist government sought to develop its own official ideology and introduce it into the education system. The main ideologist of tsarism was Count Uvarov, the Minister of Education. He developed the "theory of official nationality", with the main slogan "autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality." In his opinion, the Russian people remain true to the existing order in Russia. The Russian people were opposed to the revolutionary intelligentsia.
The main support of tsarism was the army and officials. The bureaucratic apparatus is growing, new ministries and departments are appearing. For 50 years (from 1800 to 1850) the number of officials increased by 4 times (up to 85 thousand). Bureaucracy in Russia was distinguished by red tape, confusion in business, and bribes were commonplace.
2.
H 
Nicholas I and his administration tried to consolidate power in order to exclude the penetration of bourgeois ideas into Russia. There was a need to create a new code of laws, since the last code was published in 1649. M.M. Speransky took up this business. In 1832, work was completed on 15 volumes of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Chapter 1 read: - “The monarchy in Russia is autocratic and
unlimited." In gratitude for the work done, Nicholas I awarded Speransky the highest order of the Russian Empire - the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.
It was necessary to resolve the issue of state peasants and the organization of the state village. Under the leadership of P.D. Kiselyov, the reform of the management of the state village began (1837).
Kiselev advocated the gradual abolition of serfdom for serfs. Schools and hospitals began to open in state villages, and the resettlement of small-land peasants to new territories - Siberia and the Urals - began. Agrotechnics and planting potatoes were widely introduced. Kiselyov's reform was half-hearted and did not suit either the peasants or the landlords. The peasants dreamed of getting new lands, the serfs - freedom, and the landowners wanted to leave everything as it is. The reform did not satisfy anyone, and was curtailed. The activities of numerous secret committees and the reform of P. D. Kiselev indicated that changes were ripe. But the projects for the reform of serf relations were rejected during discussions in the State Council. Nicholas 1 believed that the conditions for the liberation of the landlord peasants were not yet ripe. The main means of achieving political stability during his reign remained the strengthening of the military-bureaucratic apparatus in the center and in the regions.
It was necessary to restore order in monetary circulation: the ruble was depreciating, Russia owed other states 102 million rubles.
The monetary reform was carried out by the Minister of Finance E.F. Kankrin. In 1839, the silver ruble became the basis of monetary circulation, the amount of paper money decreased, and inflation decreased. However, the results of the reform were nullified by the unreasonable monetary policy of the government: huge spending on the royal court and military spending. By the end of the reign of Nicholas I, Russia's debt increased to
E.F. Kankrin 280 million rubles.
3.
Despite the persecution of the tsarist departments, the democratic bourgeois movement developed further. As before, circles were created, which included mainly young people. In the second half of the 1920s, a circle led by Venevitinov (poet and philosopher) was popular. Venevitinov was arrested and died in prison. At this time, Herzen and Belinsky began their activities, having entered Moscow University in 1829. In 1836, P.Ya. Chaadaev's Philosophical Letter was published in the Telescope magazine. In the letter, he criticized the existing order in the country, saying that Russia was marking time, and not developing. The authorities declared Chaadaev mentally ill.
The Westerners (Herzen, Belinsky, Granovsky, Solovyov) and the Slavophiles (Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Aksakov) argued about the ways of Russia's development. Westerners believed that Russia was following the same path of development as Europe. They highly appreciated the personality of Peter I, since it was he who began the transformations in Russia according to the European model. The Slavophils said that Russia had its own, special path of development. They saw the main features of Russia in the peasant community and the Orthodox faith. Being critical of the modern church structure, they at the same time believed that Orthodoxy brought to Russia that spirit of fraternal communion and human warmth, which distinguished the first Christians. Thanks to Orthodoxy and communality, members of the circle argued, there was no internal struggle in Russia, all social groups and estates coexisted peacefully with each other. The transformations of Peter I were critically evaluated. It was believed that they rejected Russia from the natural path of development, tore off the upper strata of society from the people, but did not change the internal structure of the country and did not destroy the possibility of returning to the former path, which corresponds to the spiritual warehouse of all Slavic peoples. The Slavophils put forward the formula “the power of power is for the king, the power of opinion is for the people” (K.S. Aksakov). This meant that the autocratic sovereign must rule, coordinating his actions with the opinion of the people, by which the Slavophils understood, first of all, the peasantry, contrasting it with the “public” - the Europeanized tops of society. They advocated the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor, the abolition of serfdom, but against the constitution on the Western model.
In the 40s, the most organized circle was M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. In this circle, they talked about the need to abolish serfdom and introduce democratic freedoms. Some members of the circle came up with the idea of organizing an armed uprising. An active member of the circle, P.N. In 1849, many members of the circle were captured and sent to hard labor. "Petrashevtsev" historians call the first socialists in Russia.
