Assess The Significance Of The Short Term Consequences Of The Emancipation Edict From 1861 To 1881
Assess the significance of the short term consequences of the Emancipation Edict from 1861 to 1881
The Emancipation Edict issued by Alexander II was of greatest significance to the effects on the people of Russia socially. Although the social effects of the edict were of the greatest significance, the economic impact on the country and the political effect on the Tsarist regime cannot be overlooked. Kropotkin suggests that Emancipation had positive social consequences for the Russian people in source one. However, he is the only contemporary source who promotes the Edict to be positive. Both Mikhailov and Shelgunov argue that the Edict had a socially and politically negative significance. This view is supported also by Smith who offers his views on the negative economic state following the Edict along with Kravchinsky and Kropotkin.
Source 5 outlines the significantly dire economic situation the serfs were left in as an effect of the emancipation Edict. The table shows the Northern, Eastern and Southern provinces suffering most from the economic plight that the Edict caused, part of which was caused by the large redemption fees that were placed on the newly-freed serfs that had to be wholly paid back. They were given 100% loans, 80% of which was given by the Russian state and the other 20% by the landowner, the issue being that the Serfs had no way of being able to afford profitable land that they could both provide food for themselves and at the same time, be able to contribute towards their loans. As stated, average tax on the serfs land was enormous. On top of this, the landowners charged the serfs extortionate fees to buy the land, and of course, not wanting to lose their best plots of land, only offered poor land that the serfs were barely able to maintain. Wallace (S4) provides an insight of how significant this was to the serfs, discussing how difficult it was for them to afford necessities such as “clothes (and) firewood” and also says that “their burdens and their privileges – been swept away together and replaced by ... unbending, unrealistic legal relations”, with the 'privileges' being all the necessities the landowners had previously supplied them with prior to the emancipation edict. With both these sources stating the negative economic significance of the Emancipation Edict, it seems accurate to say the Emancipation had, to an extent, forced the peasants to give up all their economic assets that they had acquired under the ownership of the landowners and consequently regain economic stability in an impossible environment. Wallace, a Scottish writer/ journalist, would have brought to Russia his experience of growing up in a democratic capitalist society with very different norms, values and ideology than his home country. This culture shock may have caused him to over emphasise and exaggerate the situation in Russia, whereas the Russian serfs may not have actually seen the consequences as quite as severe as Wallace interpreted them to be. This would make the judgement Wallace presented somewhat subjective and invalid to the situation of the time due to the held beliefs he had, thus decreasing the validity and weight of the source. He is very general in his claims of the state of Russia, which is likely to be due to the fact he did not visit Russia in it its entirety and as the table (S5) suggests, there were huge differences in the the current situations of different parts of Russia, so it may be the case that Wallace only visited the poorer areas of Russia, perhaps northern Russia, and then made a generalisation of the bad economic situation to the whole of Russia when he actually didn't visit it all. This would significantly decrease the weight of the source as making generalisations to the whole of Russia based on one small part of it decreases the accuracy of the statement as it is not backed up with evidence and is somewhat refuted by table in Source 5 that suggests the Wallace's judgement was not reflective of the economic situation of the whole of Russia, but instead is just reflective of the part that he visited. However, the weight of Wallace's source is increased with the economic ruin the peasants faced as a consequence being echoed by Serge, who states that the land the peasants were able to purchase 'was valued at about double it's real value', the exact figure being estimated at 342 million roubles instead of 180 million. Kravchinsky (S3) also agrees that the economic situation for the newly freed serfs was not a positive one as a consequence of the edict. He states that 'the enfranchised peasants were utterly unable to provide themselves with the first necessities of life.'
The Edict had far reaching consequences on the Tsarist regime and political culture of Russian society as a result of the emancipation. Mikhailov and Shelgunov (S2) made a clear statement in their radical pamphlet against the Tsarist regime, in which they suggested that the regime and Russian society wanted “to have as our head an ordinary mortal, a man of the soil, who understands life and the people who have elected him”. It could be argued that this source, distributed as a pamphlet, was a clear attempt to give rise to revolution and spread revolutionary ideas, which cannot be underestimated when assessing the fact that the source is clearly lacking validity due to these vested interests. In keeping with the nature of the source, to suggest that the Tsar did not understand life is clearly a bold claim, yet one that is potentially agreeable. The Tsar did not take much interest in the peasants and the emancipation was not introduced directly for them, and it could be argued it was more to protect his own status. Kravchinsky (S3) agrees that the Edict left the Russian people with no choice to call for complete political reform, due to the conditions they were left in, saying that it was the “paramount cause and justification for the rebellion against it (the Russian Gov.)”. It is true to say that the Russian people expected far more from the Edict. The peasants expected the entirety of the land that they had before farmed, but in reality got very little at high cost as a short term consequence of the edict. It was therefore no wonder that the general feeling within the peasantry was that they had been betrayed by the Tsar, which was potentially pushing them toward rising up against the autocratic regime, highlighting the negative social factor as a short term impact. During this period the growth of opposition toward the Tsar was growing, with new Marxist theory becoming more and more ideologically favoured by Russian people. Furthermore radical terrorist groups such as The People’s Will were rising up to threaten and overthrow the regime, eventually being the successful group that ended up killing the Tsar.
The Edict had huge social effects on the Russian peasants, whom it could be agued were ‘freed’, with conflicting views being portrayed within the sources. Kropotkin (S1) suggests that the peasants “so much valued the abolition of their personal enslavement”. It cannot be underestimated that anybody would be unhappy to be under the control of someone else, with the positive effects of the edict arguably being that the peasants felt released from the subordination they had suffered and as though they were now able to live a proper life without being owned by someone else. Kropotkin, however, was a great advocate of communism who wrote many leaflets, books and pamphlets full of anti-capitalist propaganda, so it needs to be considered that his views would have been impacted in a way that he would be supportive of anything that would free the people from capitalist oppression. The Edict (S4) itself has a reference which seems to dictate what the Tsar had hoped to give: “The serfs will receive in time the full rights of free rural inhabitants”. Furthermore, Anderson agrees “the grant of individual freedom and a minimum of civil rights to twenty million people previously in legal bondage was the single greatest liberating measure in the whole history of Europe”. This unhappiness with the consequences from the passing of the Edict was made clear by the peasants who used considerable violence to express their views, with 647 riots ensuing in the first four months of the edict being passed. It can certainly be considered that there was still a distinct lack of freedom following the Edict, however, the source (S3) does lack weight and objectivity. The two radicals were part of a group of revolutionaries and were attempting to stir up a force against the Tsarist regime. For this reason it is easily recognisable that the view they provide may not actually have been the case and that the peasants were, in comparison to this view free, as the other sources suggest.
The Edict did not receive great support from the nobility, who owned the land. The Edict (S6) makes it clear that the Tsar knew that giving freedom came with sacrifice for the nobility: “We … expect that the freed serfs will appreciate and recognise the considerable sacrifices... the nobility has made.” However, the weight and objectivity of this source is questionable as it can be argued its purpose was not to simply inform the Russian public on the new polices, but to avoid social instability by over emphasising the 'sacrifices' the nobility had made, presumably in favour of the peasantry. This has a negative impact on the weight of the source because it is subjective, as its real purpose could be argued was to send a message to the serfs that the nobility had to suffer as a result of the edict and that they should be grateful for the major sacrifices made for them. Kropotkin (S1) also makes clear the loss that the nobility were left to deal with: “the redemption tax for the land … was in reality an indemnity to the nobles”. This suggestion of compensation comes with the connotation of suffering for the nobles who had also lost out. With this upset in mind that they so obviously felt, as Ascher states, they had lost their “raison d'être and standing in society”. As they had no say in the running of society, they also began to feel that they wanted a democratically run country as a consequence of the edict. Source 5 highlights this, and is shown where Graham says "To give the land (to the serfs) meant to ruin the nobility". This is a significant short term consequence of the Emancipation Edict, in that the landowners and nobility no longer had the means to farm all the land they had previously had done by the peasants. On the other hand, by allowing them to only sell off their worst pieces of land at these extortionate prices, the Russian Government had affectively made their land hugely unproductive. As the peasants and nobles were no longer tied to each other, the peasants no longer wished to work on their owners land, and no workers meant they could not fully farm the land they still had. This is supported by Asher, stating that the landowners “failed to develop the drive and initiative necessary for success in a market economy”. The lack of productivity can be put down to the fact that the nobility themselves lacked the capability to cope without their workers, as many of the freed serfs attempted to go it alone.
It is clear the social effects caused by the Emancipation Edict had the most significance in Russia as a short term consequence. The Edict caused much debate within the Russian citizens and divided the social classes of Russia, leading to many of the issues that surrounded the Edict, such as the social discontent and the hundreds of riots that so clearly expressed the peasants view of the Emancipation Edict . Without the social unrest there may never have been the political effect on the Tsar, and the unrest certainly played its part in continuing to upset the downfall of Russia’s economy as a short term consequence.
The Emancipation Edict issued by Alexander II was of greatest significance to the effects on the people of Russia socially. Although the social effects of the edict were of the greatest significance, the economic impact on the country and the political effect on the Tsarist regime cannot be overlooked. Kropotkin suggests that Emancipation had positive social consequences for the Russian people in source one. However, he is the only contemporary source who promotes the Edict to be positive. Both Mikhailov and Shelgunov argue that the Edict had a socially and politically negative significance. This view is supported also by Smith who offers his views on the negative economic state following the Edict along with Kravchinsky and Kropotkin.
Source 5 outlines the significantly dire economic situation the serfs were left in as an effect of the emancipation Edict. The table shows the Northern, Eastern and Southern provinces suffering most from the economic plight that the Edict caused, part of which was caused by the large redemption fees that were placed on the newly-freed serfs that had to be wholly paid back. They were given 100% loans, 80% of which was given by the Russian state and the other 20% by the landowner, the issue being that the Serfs had no way of being able to afford profitable land that they could both provide food for themselves and at the same time, be able to contribute towards their loans. As stated, average tax on the serfs land was enormous. On top of this, the landowners charged the serfs extortionate fees to buy the land, and of course, not wanting to lose their best plots of land, only offered poor land that the serfs were barely able to maintain. Wallace (S4) provides an insight of how significant this was to the serfs, discussing how difficult it was for them to afford necessities such as “clothes (and) firewood” and also says that “their burdens and their privileges – been swept away together and replaced by ... unbending, unrealistic legal relations”, with the 'privileges' being all the necessities the landowners had previously supplied them with prior to the emancipation edict. With both these sources stating the negative economic significance of the Emancipation Edict, it seems accurate to say the Emancipation had, to an extent, forced the peasants to give up all their economic assets that they had acquired under the ownership of the landowners and consequently regain economic stability in an impossible environment. Wallace, a Scottish writer/ journalist, would have brought to Russia his experience of growing up in a democratic capitalist society with very different norms, values and ideology than his home country. This culture shock may have caused him to over emphasise and exaggerate the situation in Russia, whereas the Russian serfs may not have actually seen the consequences as quite as severe as Wallace interpreted them to be. This would make the judgement Wallace presented somewhat subjective and invalid to the situation of the time due to the held beliefs he had, thus decreasing the validity and weight of the source. He is very general in his claims of the state of Russia, which is likely to be due to the fact he did not visit Russia in it its entirety and as the table (S5) suggests, there were huge differences in the the current situations of different parts of Russia, so it may be the case that Wallace only visited the poorer areas of Russia, perhaps northern Russia, and then made a generalisation of the bad economic situation to the whole of Russia when he actually didn't visit it all. This would significantly decrease the weight of the source as making generalisations to the whole of Russia based on one small part of it decreases the accuracy of the statement as it is not backed up with evidence and is somewhat refuted by table in Source 5 that suggests the Wallace's judgement was not reflective of the economic situation of the whole of Russia, but instead is just reflective of the part that he visited. However, the weight of Wallace's source is increased with the economic ruin the peasants faced as a consequence being echoed by Serge, who states that the land the peasants were able to purchase 'was valued at about double it's real value', the exact figure being estimated at 342 million roubles instead of 180 million. Kravchinsky (S3) also agrees that the economic situation for the newly freed serfs was not a positive one as a consequence of the edict. He states that 'the enfranchised peasants were utterly unable to provide themselves with the first necessities of life.'
The Edict had far reaching consequences on the Tsarist regime and political culture of Russian society as a result of the emancipation. Mikhailov and Shelgunov (S2) made a clear statement in their radical pamphlet against the Tsarist regime, in which they suggested that the regime and Russian society wanted “to have as our head an ordinary mortal, a man of the soil, who understands life and the people who have elected him”. It could be argued that this source, distributed as a pamphlet, was a clear attempt to give rise to revolution and spread revolutionary ideas, which cannot be underestimated when assessing the fact that the source is clearly lacking validity due to these vested interests. In keeping with the nature of the source, to suggest that the Tsar did not understand life is clearly a bold claim, yet one that is potentially agreeable. The Tsar did not take much interest in the peasants and the emancipation was not introduced directly for them, and it could be argued it was more to protect his own status. Kravchinsky (S3) agrees that the Edict left the Russian people with no choice to call for complete political reform, due to the conditions they were left in, saying that it was the “paramount cause and justification for the rebellion against it (the Russian Gov.)”. It is true to say that the Russian people expected far more from the Edict. The peasants expected the entirety of the land that they had before farmed, but in reality got very little at high cost as a short term consequence of the edict. It was therefore no wonder that the general feeling within the peasantry was that they had been betrayed by the Tsar, which was potentially pushing them toward rising up against the autocratic regime, highlighting the negative social factor as a short term impact. During this period the growth of opposition toward the Tsar was growing, with new Marxist theory becoming more and more ideologically favoured by Russian people. Furthermore radical terrorist groups such as The People’s Will were rising up to threaten and overthrow the regime, eventually being the successful group that ended up killing the Tsar.
The Edict had huge social effects on the Russian peasants, whom it could be agued were ‘freed’, with conflicting views being portrayed within the sources. Kropotkin (S1) suggests that the peasants “so much valued the abolition of their personal enslavement”. It cannot be underestimated that anybody would be unhappy to be under the control of someone else, with the positive effects of the edict arguably being that the peasants felt released from the subordination they had suffered and as though they were now able to live a proper life without being owned by someone else. Kropotkin, however, was a great advocate of communism who wrote many leaflets, books and pamphlets full of anti-capitalist propaganda, so it needs to be considered that his views would have been impacted in a way that he would be supportive of anything that would free the people from capitalist oppression. The Edict (S4) itself has a reference which seems to dictate what the Tsar had hoped to give: “The serfs will receive in time the full rights of free rural inhabitants”. Furthermore, Anderson agrees “the grant of individual freedom and a minimum of civil rights to twenty million people previously in legal bondage was the single greatest liberating measure in the whole history of Europe”. This unhappiness with the consequences from the passing of the Edict was made clear by the peasants who used considerable violence to express their views, with 647 riots ensuing in the first four months of the edict being passed. It can certainly be considered that there was still a distinct lack of freedom following the Edict, however, the source (S3) does lack weight and objectivity. The two radicals were part of a group of revolutionaries and were attempting to stir up a force against the Tsarist regime. For this reason it is easily recognisable that the view they provide may not actually have been the case and that the peasants were, in comparison to this view free, as the other sources suggest.
The Edict did not receive great support from the nobility, who owned the land. The Edict (S6) makes it clear that the Tsar knew that giving freedom came with sacrifice for the nobility: “We … expect that the freed serfs will appreciate and recognise the considerable sacrifices... the nobility has made.” However, the weight and objectivity of this source is questionable as it can be argued its purpose was not to simply inform the Russian public on the new polices, but to avoid social instability by over emphasising the 'sacrifices' the nobility had made, presumably in favour of the peasantry. This has a negative impact on the weight of the source because it is subjective, as its real purpose could be argued was to send a message to the serfs that the nobility had to suffer as a result of the edict and that they should be grateful for the major sacrifices made for them. Kropotkin (S1) also makes clear the loss that the nobility were left to deal with: “the redemption tax for the land … was in reality an indemnity to the nobles”. This suggestion of compensation comes with the connotation of suffering for the nobles who had also lost out. With this upset in mind that they so obviously felt, as Ascher states, they had lost their “raison d'être and standing in society”. As they had no say in the running of society, they also began to feel that they wanted a democratically run country as a consequence of the edict. Source 5 highlights this, and is shown where Graham says "To give the land (to the serfs) meant to ruin the nobility". This is a significant short term consequence of the Emancipation Edict, in that the landowners and nobility no longer had the means to farm all the land they had previously had done by the peasants. On the other hand, by allowing them to only sell off their worst pieces of land at these extortionate prices, the Russian Government had affectively made their land hugely unproductive. As the peasants and nobles were no longer tied to each other, the peasants no longer wished to work on their owners land, and no workers meant they could not fully farm the land they still had. This is supported by Asher, stating that the landowners “failed to develop the drive and initiative necessary for success in a market economy”. The lack of productivity can be put down to the fact that the nobility themselves lacked the capability to cope without their workers, as many of the freed serfs attempted to go it alone.
It is clear the social effects caused by the Emancipation Edict had the most significance in Russia as a short term consequence. The Edict caused much debate within the Russian citizens and divided the social classes of Russia, leading to many of the issues that surrounded the Edict, such as the social discontent and the hundreds of riots that so clearly expressed the peasants view of the Emancipation Edict . Without the social unrest there may never have been the political effect on the Tsar, and the unrest certainly played its part in continuing to upset the downfall of Russia’s economy as a short term consequence.