To what extent can Alexander II be called a liberator

by rennab28 (student)

“To what extent did the Alexander II deserved his title of the ‘Tsar Liberator’?”

Born in Moscow on April 29, 1818 and died in St. Petersburg on March 13, 1881, was Tsar of the Russian Empire from the March 3, 1855 until his assassination in 1881.During his youth he showed his real skills, until the time of its advent in 1855, few imagined that it would be known as a leader who implement the most difficult reforms in Russia.

During the thirty-six years he was heir to the atmosphere of St. Petersburg was unfavorable to the development of any intellectual or political innovation. All the principles of freedom of thought and private initiative were, as far as possible, suppressed. Personal and official censorship, the criticism of the authorities were seen as a serious crime. This was also considered as one of the reasons that led to his murder.

Russia Before Alexander II

To have a better idea of what was Alexander II was liberating we need to understand the circumstances of Russia before Alexander II became Tsar.

Nicholas I ruled Russia and he has been known as the most reactionary[1] Russian monarch.

Nicholas I was determinate to control Russian society to prevent the spread or culmination of liberty ideas that could question his absolutism. Therefore the government censured and controlled the education, making difficult the access to higher education. He also restricts the sell of foreign books.

Nicholas did not agree with serfdom and he considerate the idea of abolishing it, but he was afraid of the landowners turn against him. However he took actions to improve the peasant life style with help of the minister Pavel Kiselev.

Emancipation of the Serfs

This was the first and most important liberal reform of Russia during Alexander’s reign making serfs free. They were in right to married who ever they wanted, travel, have a legal status and to own a property and a business. They where also allowed to buy land from the landowners. It was the end of feudal dues and payments; some peasant had more land holding, as well they were not afraid of being forced to join the military service. As a consequence of this, a new class of peasants emerged, the Kulaks, they where ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Emancipation of the Serfs

This is not a fairytale story were everyone ended up happy, at the end there where more looses than gains. There was an over loss of land and because of that they had to rent additional lands at higher prices. The volosts did not have full citizen rights. The Mir tended to replace the nobility, controlling the independence and lives of the peasants. In addition to, subsistence farming made peasants more vulnerably to famine.

In my opinion this reform was not successful, how can we call Alexander II a liberator? If the legislation did not liberate peasants from excessive external obligations and neither he fixed up all their restrictions as social or economic. Applying an unequal using of the legislation, he left a lot of peasants with out lands, while others ex peasants became the landowners of their provinces.

I think this was a kind of an “exchange of restrictions” serfs weren’t serfs anymore, they could do more things than before but at the same time new rules were created and more restrictions came with it. At the end, in my opinion mostly no one was freer or less free, it was just a new lifestyle within new rules but the same kind of injustice to say it like that.

Judicial

The judicial system before Alexander II was full of corruption was illogical, arbitrary and cruel. Was abusive in general, the new reforms Alexander II involved included the separation of judicial and administrative powers, public tribunals, the right to appeal to a conference of justice as well as showing evidence and try to defend yourself, and what I considerate a very important one, judges better trained, among many others.

These reforms made a less corruptive Russia and helped the modernization of the country. According to H. Seton-Watson, ‘it raised general moral and even political standards’… ‘for a long time the court-room was the one place in Russia where real freedom of speech prevailed, and its main champion was the lawyer’.

The new system has really good statements, but it did not work at all, the country was used to all the irregularities and at the beginning where some problems with the lawyers because only a few where trained, some people still was excluded of all the new reforms, to only mention a few anomalies. So even though it was a good idea it was no good managed and did not succeed as it could.

Military

Because the reform was really necessary to defeat the Crimean War and to abolish the serfdom it was applied more effectively, becoming a better-trained military given a proper training, modern weapons, etc.

Dimitri Milyutin had great intelligent statements to change in the military but once again the nobility argued against it. I think the reduction of the military service during peacetime was a brilliant idea to save money but still having one.

However, peasants still where the base of the military army giving an unequal treat among the rest of the population.

Education and Censorship

The education had a significant improvement where primary and secondary schools where opened not only allowing to students to assist, but permitting women as well. Also censorship was re-organized, now there were liberal publications, the press could discuss the government policy, foreign publications were allowed. Also editors had more freedom over their writings.

Universities where independent for a short time until the rebellions occurred making the state supervising them again. But in 1861 many of them where closed and students criticized the regime. Behind all this problems, education was for everyone and that involve a lot of power. Not only make you a better person but also it allows you to have a proper critic of everything, basically it permit you to think. And that for me, is one of the most important things if you what to be free.

Financial and Economic Reforms

In a way to improve the economy there was not much, there were not real tax reform. Foreign trades, planned railways, banking had different results trying to succeed. But the one metallurgy and engineering industry provide some stability.

All the reforms until certain point was useful but in the end everything change, he returned to a conservative atmosphere and a lot of repression. He accused universities of spreading liberating ideas and because of that he suppressed subjects like history, science, and modern languages because they ‘encourage independent ideas’. Also he censured any bad comment against the government. People were not free of expression again.

The reforms of Alexander II mostly where not well applied and maybe that’s why many people were dissatisfied with them. Nevertheless speaking about the abolishing of serfdom were a lot of injustices, I think that reform was the least liberating and the less successful measure. Whereas the education reforms lend people the capacity of thinking which makes the most successful measure. Even though it was all censored again, young people had conscience of their rights and they fight for them.

Calling the Alexander II “the Tsar Liberator” is a bit too much; I think a more proper name for him could be a reactionary tsar. He changed from a non-liberal country to a freer of opinion one, but then he transformed to a conservative one, so he established an anterior state to the present.