Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Alexander II: Emancipation of the serfs - Coggle Diagram
Alexander II: Emancipation of the serfs
The process of emancipating the serfs: what obstacles did Alexander face, 1855 - 1861?
Stability of Russian social system was dependent on the institution of serfdom - Fears from nobility and Slavophiles that emancipating serfs would lead to chaos and anarchy if peasants were to be freed.
Hostility of nobility and landowners to such measures prevented reform. Financial and social status depended on how many serfs they owned. Tsar relied upon the nobility to rule country he couldn't afford to lose their support by forcing this reform against their will.
Trying to resolve complex issues + agree on law to emancipate serfs involved long process of reaching compromise with different powerful interests that feared they would lose out --> it took Alexander five years to complete Emancipation edict from March 1856 to February 1861.
Emancipation Edict February, 1861
Serfs granted personal freedom within 2 years, allowing them to own land, marry without interference, use law courts and set up their own businesses.
Freed peasants were granted ownership of their houses and the plot of land they had worked on.
Each serf was guaranteed a minimum size of allotment, but 75% of serfs received allotments 20% smaller than the land they worked before and 80% of the size considered necessary to feed a peasant family.
The government then compensated landlords for land lost to peasants, on a very high valuation of the land. Freed serfs were to repay the state this in the shape of ‘redemption dues’ over 49 years at 6% interest.
The local mir was made responsible for collecting and paying the redemption taxes, and exercised considerable control over each peasant.
State serfs were granted the same terms, but the transition period was 5 years not 2 and they generally received larger plots of lands. Household serfs came out worst of all: they received no land, just their freedom.
Response to emancipation edict
Effectively, nobility were angered by what they saw as radical document while peasants were disappointed by what they say as moderate document. Clearly shows difficulties Alexander and his ministers faced in trying to emancipate the serfs.
Nobility resented loss of social importance and felt betrayed that Alexander II had not fully consulted them in the process of drawing up his final draft.
Both criticized and praised. Prince Kropotkin, serf-owner and anarchist, said peasants met the reforms with 'enthusiasm' and celebrated their liberation. Other radicals hoping for greater change argued that reforms pleased no-one.
Peasants tended to be dissatisfied with what they saw as shortcomings of the deal - i.e. they thought the land they worked was theirs by right and did not see that they should have to pay landlords for it. In total 647 incidents of peasants rioting following Edict.
Successes of emancipation edict
Viewed in legal terms of rights and liberties, emancipation was monumental success: 40 million Russians liberated overnight, Russia made dramatic break with its social and economic past to an extent unparalleled in 19th-century Europe.
Historians (Hugh Seton-Watson, David Moon) compared emancipation favourably with USA’s abolition of black slavery in 1865, it guaranteed land to former serfs and did more to guarantee personal freedom of those liberated than occurred in USA.
Led to over 85 % of former serfs becoming landowners in some shape or form within 20 years of reform. Historian David Christian argues emancipation was success in achieving immediate objectives: peasant disturbances were reduced for the next 40 years, and serfdom was abolished without provoking an immediate major rebellion.
Failures of emancipation edict
Immediate impact lessened by practical problems of implementing reform at local level. Process was dependent upon support of nobility, often slow and carried out in a way that favoured interests of landowners at expense of the peasants.
Land settlements were unfavourable to the peasants: areas granted to peasants were too small, and landlords charged inflated prices. Left peasants with less land than before, paying redemption taxes beyond productive value of land for land they thought was theirs by right.
Former domestic serfs who hadn’t previously worked land didn’t receive any land at all under terms of the Edict. Emancipation probably actually worsened the wealth and living standards of former serfs in many cases.
Emancipation failed to solve industrial backwardness: lacking land, facing economic difficulties and often prevented by mir from being able to leave village for towns, peasants were not transformed into new class of prosperous consumers.
Though freed from landlord, peasants still under control of mir (peasant commune), which could restrict travel and freedom of enterprise in village. Mir tended to be backwards looking in terms of perpetuating traditional farming techniques: sharing land inefficiently in narrow strips, helped to prevent transformation of former serfs into individual peasant land owners.