Alexander II did introduce a number of reforms, which were quite revolutionary for that period of time. Many historians therefore believe that Alexander II deserves the title ‘Tsar Liberator’. Views of Alexander II do, however, differ to a great extent, When regarding Alexander II Saunders says “his enthusiasm for change lasted a mere four years, it may be that his reputation as the ‘Tsar liberator’ is ill deserved” 1this strongly suggests that Alexander II was not a liberator.
However, as Bideleux says “Alexander II came to be known as the ‘Tsar liberator on ccount of his resoluteness in freeing millions of Russian serfs through the 1861 Emancipation Act”2 although Alexander II did free serfs this does not solely justify the title ‘Tsar liberator’ Alexander may have freed the peasants but it wasn’t complete freedom. Many historians believe that Alexander II cannot be called a “Tsar Liberator” as he did not pass reforms out of a genuine desire to liberate, but to remain in power and keep the peace instead.
Historians also argue that Alexander II remained a very determined autocrat who was not willing to let go of his inherited utocratic powers. There is no doubt that Alexander was not willing to let go of his autocratic powers and although he made significant reforms in areas such as education and the military he was not a liberator. Alexander has been called a liberator due to his reforms of serfdom.
It is important to realise that Serfdom was an economic institution and an instrument of social control that had been seen as the norm, therefore for Alexander II to change this system can be seen as a liberal reform. However when you look closer at the terms of the emancipation edict it looks less f liberation, this is due to the fact the peasants had to pay redemptions fees for 49 years and never gained sufficient land for their needs. Equally the reasons behind emancipation were not to liberalise the peasantry.
Only through Emancipation could Russia modernise following the disastrous failure that was the Crimea war, if this was the only reason behind Alexander II’s decision and not to liberate one may have difficulty in describing Alexander II as a ‘Tsar liberator’. One reason why Alexander II’s title as ‘Tsar liberator’ is called into uestion is the controversy regarding redemption payments. The major difficulty was the charging of redemption payments to compensate the nobility for loss of land and labour which was part of the emancipation edict.
Redemption fees were a major financial burden on the peasants and critics use this to prove that the Emancipation was a failure. “The sovereign has betrayed the hopes of the people; the freedom he has given them is not real and is not what the people dreamed of “1 this implies that Alexander II was not a liberator because they were not fully liberated. However Bideleux disputes this and presents statistics that redemption dues came down to about 2% of agricultural output 2 Bideleux implies that the redemption fees were not as harsh thus Alexander II may be seen as a liberator.
These statistics by Bideleux are somewhat selective as in the fertile black soil regions of the Ukraine no doubt these figures were feasible but this was not the case in many other areas where redemption fees were onerous. Therefore on balance redemption fees were a major factor in the Emancipation edict not being a true liberation since without the eans to be financially and economically independent many peasants could not be called liberated. When considering the extent to which Alexander II was a Liberator, historians do not question the liberation of the peasants from landowners.
They question the terms of the Emancipation edict itself. Zaionchkovsky says “There can be no doubt that the reform defrauded the peasants… the most onerous conditions of all were the terms of redemption… the allotments obtained by the private peasant through the reform were for the most part entirely inadequate… 3 Zaionchkovsky was writing this in 1978 as a soviet historian during Communist rule. He is therefore unlikely to be supportive of reform undertaken by the Tsarist regime.
Bideleux contradicting this interpretation says “Overall in 43 provinces of Eastern Russia serfs received 96% of the land that they previously farmed for their use” 1 this implies that Alexander II was a liberator because the peasants gained land, but he isn’t showing the full picture as he only talks about 43 provinces in Eastern Russia and not Russia on the whole Bidelux also ails to mention that “the ‘cut offs’ withheld by land lords were particularly large in the fertile ‘black earth’ regions and were a source of intense and lasting bitterness”.
Although Bideleux attempts to show Alexander II as a liberator, it can be clearly seen that Alexander II’s emancipation edict was not liberation as David Saunders says, “peasants nevertheless remained the poorest and the most heavily exploited section of the population” 3. Overall it appears that a large number of peasants did feel cheated by the Emancipation. The main problem was the allocation of land and that it could be said that peasants found the land that they were given was insufficient for their needs and many found the redemption fees onerous.
Some peasants did noticeably benefit from the Emancipation such as the Kulaks but the majority didn’t. It appears that Alexander II’s edict did fall short in many areas and that although ‘free’; serfs had no economic freedom to allow truly independent lives. Thus to call Alexander II a liberator on the basis of his emancipation edict does seem to be njust. Alexander II has been called liberator due to the Emancipation edict, which gave freedoms to marry and freedom from ownership.
However these freedoms were undermined by the powers of the Mir. The Mir’s main roles were the collection of taxes including redemption payment and also the redistribution of land. Critics say that in some respects the Mir replaced the landlord in terms of controlling personal freedom as Watson says ” their personal freedom of movement and choice of occupation were tightly constrained by the commune (Mir)”[1].
Evans and Jenkins say that the commune “replaced the gentry in terms of controlling the lives of peasants and their independence” 1 suggesting that Alexander II was not a liberator. However others argue that as it was peasant elders controlling the commune and therefore other peasants, and so at least peasants were controlling themselves. However there is no doubt that even with the powers of the Mir the serfs generally had more personal freedom after Emancipation, although in terms of prosperity they may not have seen any improvement.
Therefore spects of Alexander II’s emancipation edict were liberating notably the creation of the peasant commune, but only to a certain extent. The emancipation didn’t give economic liberation which means that Alexander II’s claim as a Liberator must be questioned. When you compare Alexander II’s emancipation edict to the emancipation of the American Negro’s the case against calling Alexander II a ‘Tsar liberator’ is however strengthened.
This is supported by Seton Watson who states the 1861 edict was “a great achievement when compared to the Emancipation of the American Negro ” 2 Seton Watson is writing this comparison favourably and one can draw comparisons between the two events. Both Emancipation’s occurred at similar points in the 19th century however, like Alexander II’s Emancipation edict, Abraham Lincoln’s liberation of Americas Negro’s perhaps was notional freedom.
Although the American Negro was free to marry, to travel and free from any form of ownership, he was still without freedoms enjoyed by most white Americans. American Negro’s were liberated but not given economic and political rights to make this iberation work in practice. Indeed, when set against the American model, Alexander II’s edict has similarities, both Russian serf and American slave were free but lacking economic independence, Negro’s were denied the vote in many cases while serfs lived in an autocracy.
But to compare the 1861 edict favourably as Seton Watson does is perhaps to miss a vital difference. Lincoln was not liberating American slaves to achieve industrial progress or to keep the lid on unrest, which could overthrow autocratic power. His driving force was one of morality and therefore Lincoln perhaps meets the title ‘Tsar Liberator’ more fully than Alexander II A reform that suggests that Alexander does deserve the title ‘Tsar liberator was the setting up of Zemstvo’s.
However there are different interpretations concerning the reform as W Mosse describes “With the Emancipation law the authority of these hereditary police masters disappeared; measures had to be taken to replace it”1 to call the aristocracy “hereditary police masters” is an extreme, but the point that here was a need for a decision making body regionally was very true.
However as Watson says, “The local knowledge of the Zemstvo’s enabled them to do a good job” 2 and was not just replacing the roles of “hereditary police masters”. Mosse says “the new Zemstvo’s statute was the logical and inevitable outcome… the ‘consolation prize’ offered to the nobility for the losses of 1861” [2]. Although a lot of the previous landowners were a part of the Zemstvo’s it is rather critical of Mosse to say that the Zemstvo’s were created to keep the landowner and aristocracy content with the Tsar.
