How well does Alexander II deserve his reputation as The Tsar Liberator(TM)?

There is a temptation to argue that the developments which took place during his reign came about because the 'Tsar Liberator', recognised the desperate problems of the people and devoted his life to resolving them. The fact that less than six years elapsed between his accession to the throne and his reforms has made it easy for some historians to paint a glowing picture of the tragic hero struggling against adversary to bring relief to his people; yet the historian Stephenson testifies Alexander’s sympathy for serf conditions only in his craving to retain an autocracy: “Nothing Alexander did altered, or was intended to alter, the fundamental political fact of a God created autocracy.” The vague terms of the emancipation and the insignificant power given to small local governments, that were later dissolved, is proof enough that Alexander...

Some would argue that after a shocking defeat during the Crimean War; that the Tsar’s motives were to strengthen structural weakness of the army, the inefficiencies of financial administration and the archaic features of serfdom. Yet as Lee commented “his measures were not intended primarily to innovate, but rather to inject new life into a flagging system.” Hardly the intentions of a heroic liberator.

Alexander’s introduction of reforms certainly created the illusion of a liberator yet examining them more closely it is clear that the reforms were half-hearted and did not go far enough. Financial policies, for example, saw very little reform; the poll tax remained a heavy burden on the peasants and actually increased by 80% during Alexander’s reign. The call for a second emancipation in … would also not have been needed had Alexander considered the lives of Russia’s serfs. Certainly if Alexander’s motives were in the interests of all serfs he would not have instructed land owners to exhaust serfs before the announcement of the emancipation edict; why else would this instruction have been made unless Alexander knew that the edict would not actually improve the quality of life for the serfs?

Not only did the reforms not go far enough Alexander adopted a period of reaction in the late 1860s; perhaps Alexander had a change of heart, his fluctuating personality commented on here by Kropotkin: “He could be charming in his behaviour, and the next moment display sheer brutality”. Perhaps as Oxley asserts “he had only seen reforms as limited measures, necessary to meet the needs of the crisis facing Russia”; this can certainly be supported by Russia’s backwardness and desperation in the 1850s. However most historians consider this change to have been prompted by Alexander’s first assassination attempt in 1866; either way the reforms became worthless when reforming ministers were replaced with more conservative figures. Perhaps the most concrete evidence that the ‘Tsar Liberator’s’ reforms were substandard and certainly not motivated out of devotion to Russia, is Alexander’s death. In 1881 The People’s Will took extreme action and assassinated the Alexander II; this surely would not have been necessary if like a true liberator, he had considered the lives of his people.

Delving further into the question of Alexander’s worthiness to carry the title ‘Tsar Liberator’; an examination of the biggest and boldest reform must be undertook,  emancipation. Emancipation, announced in 1861 was the act of liberation for the seriously suffering serfs of Russia; serfs who were bought and sold, compelled to labour without restriction and punished at theirs masters choice. Such serfs that made up 80% of the population had no rights and no wages, they could not even choose their partner in marriage. Thus economy suffered with only a small consumer market and agriculture remained backwards with no developments to methods of farming. Serfs could also be forcibly conscripted to the army, this obviously had implications on the performance of the apathetic soldier serfs. Most importantly perhaps is that the serfs were tied to the land, unable to move towards cities preventing the vital process of industrialisation.  Undoubtedly the problem of serfdom could no longer be ignored; serfdom as a whole prevented industrialisation, harmed the economy, hindered agriculture and created apathy in the armed forces. Yet many Orthodox historians would use the Emancipation Edict of 1861 as strong evidence to suggest the Tsars humanitarian nature and motives as a ‘Tsar Liberator’.

The emancipation of the serfs was “the greatest single liberating measure in the whole modern history of Europe” according to M.S.Anderson. The question of serfdom, had for long been seen as central to the fate of Russia, described by Seton-Watson as “the knot which binds together all the things that are evil in Russia” It is thus a habit of Orthodox historians to depict Alexander as the passionate ‘Tsar Liberator’.  The Emancipation edict of 1861 gave personal freedom to 50million serfs; land was divided according to quality and each man of the community was given a share. Peasants were no longer owned by land lords, they were free to marry, trade and work as they pleased. These terms were certainly liberating and presented serfs with a freedom they had never experienced. It is for this reason perhaps that historians such as Carl Peter Watts admire the Tsar’s actions, claiming that emancipation was “a moral improvement” and S J Lee who goes as far to say that Alexander “freed more slaves than Abraham Lincoln”. These historians, however have obviously glossed over the actual effects of Emancipation.

Although appearing very generous, peasants actually had to buy land they had previously considered their own and overall lost 20-40% of land as ‘cut-offs.’ Peasants often lost rights to woods; commons now declared Lord’s private property and domestic serfs were not given any land. Peasants also had to pay redemption payments to the state for their new land for 49years; which often lead to the newly freed serfs to being tied to the land still despite permission to leave. The most deceiving concept of the Emancipation edict was that the peasants became free; serfs were freed from servitude of the land lords but these were replaced by the Mir. The Mir’s responsibilities included tax collection, selecting army recruits, collecting redemption payments, controlling peasant movement and maintaining order. The majority of peasants would testify that life before emancipation was less of a hardship.

The terms of emancipation lead to significantly negative effects: the ministry of Interior reported 647 peasant riots in the first four months. Such discontent was a result of loss of land, redemption costs, and a wish for a more beneficial emancipation. Peter Watts, a prominent revisionist, explains ‘Peasants were incredulous that they had to pay for the land which they thought belonged to them because they had always worked on it. Many, believing that the real terms of the Emancipation had been concealed by their landlords, rioted in protest.’  Evidently peasant discontent continued even after the emancipation. The call for a second emancipation is in itself valid evidence in support of Alexander as an autocratic ruler looking to maintain his regime. Alexander’s failure firstly to consider the lives of the serfs and secondly to create a beneficial emancipation; lacks the quality of a ‘Tsar Liberator’.

The intentions behind emancipation  can also not be ignored. Alexander was acutely aware of the weakness of the Russian State; defeat in the Crimean War demonstrated that Russia was lagging behind her European  counterparts and one look at serfdom showed Russia’s economic, agricultural and industrial weaknesses. Yuriy Samarin, a prominent Slavophile, articulated his concerns of political society when he wrote that “We were defeated not by the external forces of the Western alliance but by our own internal weakness.” Criticism of serfdom were echoing from many quarters; General Dimitry Milutin, advised the new Tsar that reform of the army was impossible while serfdom continued to exist, and peasants began to revolt. With such facts Alexander was compelled to take action, although what he had in mind was not to break with the past, but controlled surgery to the whole hierarchical body. As Lee comments “his measures were not intended primarily to innovate, but rather to inject new life into a flagging system”.

Alexander was compelled to take action, but action with the only intention of improving Russia’s military might, economic weaknesses and to maintain autocracy against the rebelling peasants. Alexander himself admitted that “ it is better to begin to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below.” What completely destroys the argument in support of the ‘Tsar Liberator’ are the measures he took in order to avoid rebellion upon the announcement of the edict. Emancipation was conveniently positioned in the middle of Lent, a time when many peasants would be fasting and thus short of energy; Landlords were instructed to work their serfs to exhaustion prior to emancipation and the army was mobilised. Would the ‘Tsar Liberator’ really expect discontent if the terms of the Emancipation Edict were indeed emancipating?

Certainly the Tsar was not motivated by humanitarian concerns; the real significance of the abolition of serfdom was the impetus that it gave to further reform, some of which can actually be seen as more successful. Whilst dealing with army reforms for example, Alexander moved quickly. Recruitment was suspended in 1856 with the length of service for conscripts being reduced to 6 years; as a result the military reserve was raised from 210,000 to 553,000 by 1870. Training and discipline of  the soldiers was also made more humane. These were very effective moves yet with Alexander’s motive to modernise to Europe’s standard; it is clear that the Tsar did not reform for his people.

This thought is echoed in Local Government reforms and censorship. In 1864 new bodies were created in Russia, called Zemstva, made up of elected members representing peasants, townspeople and the gentry. This appeared to be a perfect chance for ordinary people to become involved in politics; the zemstva however were only responsible for public health, prisons, roads and agriculture. Peasants could not elect their representatives and only property owners could vote. These so called governments were given little power and were created purely to pacify agitated gentry.

The “Tsar Liberator” acted the same way in dealing with the press; although censorship seemed to relax, every article had to be approved before disclosure. In 1873 The Ministry of the Interior was granted power to forbid use of certain topics, hardly rules fit for a free country. Further more after the first attempt on Alexander’s life in … these reforms were not sustained; Alexander completely abandoned all idea of reform.

Alexander must be given some credit for his relaxations, industrial development was noticeable, if slow, for example 3,212,000 tons of coal in 1880 and 4,428,000 in 1887. Saunders mentions that “The government’s liberality turned universities into a power keg. Staff spoke out and students began to organise.” This surge in freedom however was not appreciated by Alexander II; indeed reforms turned reactionary in the 1860s. After the attempt on the Tsar’s life made by a student in 1866; reaction became Alexander’s new regime. J.A.S Grenville describes that throughout, “his reign alternated between reforming impulses and reaction.” Reforming ministers were replaced with more conservative figures in late 1860s and the already moderate reforms were restricted. Scarcely the actions of a ‘Tsar Liberator’.

In comparison to previous Tsars of Russia Alexander maybe given the crown of Tsar Liberator but considering the Western countries at the time Alexander II does not even compare…

To conclude, Alexander himself illustrated that he was no liberator. In the Emancipation statue the Tsar crossed out the word “progress” to write “what is progress? I asked you not to use this word in official correspondence.” The Emancipation edict mostly damaged serf’s lives and agriculture only to streamline the autocracy. Other reforms were effective but most were vague and stemmed from the inefficiencies highlighted with the defeat during the Crimean War; not for the good of the people. Alexander negated any liberal behaviour prior to growing opposition, with his reactionary regime. In the words of Grenville; “To describe him in any meaningful sense as a liberal is thus very misleading.”

Word count 2,586

---