Peacemaker King. Alexander III
Alexander III Alexandrovich (02/26/1845 - 10/20/1894) Emperor of All Russia (03/2/1881 - 10/20/1894)
Alexander III did not receive the education that was considered necessary for the heir to the throne. The educator of Alexander III was the theoretician of autocracy, the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, who for the first time after the accession to the throne of his pupil was the most influential person in the government. Having ascended the throne, he made it his task to complete the reforms of Alexander II.
The emperor possessed great capacity for work and extraordinary physical strength. Unlike his father, Alexander III was not a brave man. Fearing assassination attempts, he retired to Gatchina, to the palace of his great-grandfather Paul I, planned as an ancient castle, surrounded by ditches and protected by watchtowers.
Under the conditions of developing capitalism, Alexander III, expressing the interests of the most conservative circles of the nobility, preserved the landlord way of life. However, in the field of economic policy, the emperor was forced to reckon with the growth of capitalist elements in the country.
In the first months of his reign, Alexander III pursued a policy of maneuvering between liberalism and reaction, which determined the struggle of groups within the government camp (M. T. Loris-Melikov, A. A. Abaza, D. A. Milyutin - on the one hand, K. P. Pobedonostsev, on the other). On April 29, 1881, Alexander III issued a manifesto on the establishment of autocracy, which meant a transition to a reactionary course in domestic politics. However, in the first half of the 1880s, under the influence of economic development and the prevailing political situation, the government of Alexander III was forced to carry out a number of reforms. In 1882, a peasant bank was established, with the help of which peasants could acquire landed property. This decision was made by Speransky, but did not receive the support of Alexander I.
This decision was a natural step before the abolition of the tax and the permission to buy out (the redemption was allowed earlier) of the land. In 1890, a new position was introduced - the zemstvo chief, who concentrated administrative and judicial power in their hands. It was a step back towards autocracy, but it was necessary, since today's Russia was not ready (and probably never will be ready for democracy). The year 1884 was marked by the introduction of a new university charter - military gymnasiums were transformed into cadet corps. With the resignation of the Minister of the Interior Count N. I. Ignatiev (1882) and the appointment of Count D. A. Tolstoy to this post, a period of open reaction began. During the reign of Alexander III, administrative arbitrariness increased significantly. Administrative arbitrariness was strengthened by a series of decrees in 1890. Basically, these decrees appointed new positions that limited the democratic beginning of the previous decrees - in particular, a new position was introduced for the zemstvo chief, who had judicial and administrative power, which could not have a positive effect on Russian democracy.
In order to develop new lands under Alexander III, the resettlement of peasant families to Siberia proceeded at a rapid pace. In total, during the reign of Alexander III, up to 400 thousand peasants were resettled in Siberia, and 60 thousand in Central Asia. The government to some extent took care of improving the life of workers - rules were introduced on hiring for rural and factory work, the supervision of which was entrusted to the factory inspectors (1882), the work of minors and women was limited.
In foreign policy during these years, there was a deterioration in Russian-German relations and there was a gradual rapprochement between Russia and France, ending with the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance (1891-1893).
Coronation of Alexander III
Alexander Alexandrovich, the second son of Emperor Alexander II and his wife Empress Maria Alexandrovna, ascended the throne on March 1, 1881. Alexander III was crowned on March 15, 1881 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.
Trial of the First Marchers
The regicide carried out by the Narodnaya Volya on March 1, 1881, caused confusion and panic in Russian society. Mass raids and searches conducted by the police led to the arrest of the organizers of the assassination attempt on Alexander II. A trial took place over the murderers of the emperor, who sentenced them to death. On April 3, 1881, in St. Petersburg, five Narodnaya Volya members - the noblewoman Sofya Perovskaya, the priest's son Nikolai Kibalchich, the tradesman Nikolai Rysakov, the peasants Andrei Zhelyabov and Timofei Mikhailov were publicly executed.
Accession of Central Asia to Russia
By the time of the broad offensive of Russia, Central Asia had a diverse population in terms of national composition. Of the feudal states of Central Asia, three stood out - the Kokand and Khiva khanates and the Emirate of Bukhara. In 1864, Russian troops entered the Kokand Khanate. The cities of Turkestan and Chimkent were occupied. In June 1865, the largest commercial and craft-industrial city of Central Asia, Tashkent, with a population of 100 thousand people, was taken. In January 1868, a trade agreement beneficial for Russia was concluded with the Kokand Khan, and Khudoyar Khan recognized himself as a vassal of the Russian emperor. In May 1868, Samarkand was taken by Russian troops, the Emir of Bukhara stopped the fight and concluded an agreement with the tsarist government, according to which the emirate was placed in vassal dependence on Russia, and Russian merchants were granted the right to free and preferential trade. In May 1873, the capital of the Khanate of Khiva, surrounded by Russian troops approaching from several directions, capitulated. The Khan of Khiva also recognized himself as a vassal of Russia. The accession of Central Asia to Russia was completed in 1885.
Famine in the Volga region
In 1891, a crop failure occurred in the Volga region due to drought. The catastrophic famine affected the eastern regions of the black earth zone - 20 provinces with a 40 million peasant population. The famine was followed by a cholera epidemic in 1892. A wide wave of government and public assistance to the starving took place throughout Russia: funds were collected in the cities to help the starving, canteens were organized in the villages and grain was distributed, doctors worked free of charge in areas covered by the epidemic.
Royal train crash
In October 1888, during one of his trips around the country, the imperial train derailed. The roof of the carriage, in which the family of Alexander III was, began to fail. The emperor, who possessed extraordinary physical strength, took the falling roof onto his shoulders and held it until his wife and children got out alive and unharmed from the rubble. But due to kidney disease acquired due to this crash and excessive drinking, the Emperor died in 1894. He was buried in the Pavlovsky Cathedral.
Counter-reforms. The era of Alexander III.
The abolition of serfdom in 1861 opened a whole period of transformations in various spheres of life in Russian society: local self-government was introduced - zemstvo (1864) and city (1870); judicial reform (1864), democratization of education (1863-1864), press reform (1865), etc. "state pressure" and the omnipotence of the bureaucracy. On the one hand, the ability to freely defend one's interests through a system of representative institutions was unconventional for Russian society. It is accustomed to giving primacy to the state interest to the detriment of the private, human. On the other hand, the conservative bureaucracy perceived any innovation as an attack on the very idea of Russian statehood. It took a lot of time for both society and the state to realize such radical changes, get used to them, and in some cases come to terms with them.
The reign of Emperor Alexander III (1881-1894) became a kind of historical pause - a time of reflection on the great transformations of the previous reign and a time of reaction that replaced the reformist onslaught of the previous 20th anniversary. In historical science, this time was called the era of counter-reforms.
Emperor's new policy
The new government course apparently differed from the reformist activities of Alexander II and his inner circle - the liberal-minded ministers. The latter were replaced by D. A. Tolstoy, K. P. Pobedonostsev, S. G. Stroganov, V. P. Meshchersky, who became the closest adviser to Alexander III. These were people with a different mindset, different views on the development of Russia and the role of the state. Such a replacement of key figures in the government meant a decisive departure from the previous course of government.
The previous, reformist, period passed under the sign of the modernization of the social system in Russia. Attempts were made to at least partially bring it into line with the requirements of the time, with the Western European experience in granting civil liberties. The coming era preferred to check the time according to its own historical clock. It was during this period, thanks to the works of Pobedonostsev (1827-1907), one of the most influential figures of the new reign, that the Russian state ideology, which upholds the inviolability of autocracy, acquires the most complete and perfect features.
The main reason for the sharp change in government policy in the early 80s. XIX century was not only in the originality of the personality of Alexander III and his associates. The decisive role was played by the tense domestic political situation caused by the terrorist activities of the Narodnaya Volya, and, above all, the assassination of Alexander II. The death of the emperor made a stunning impression on the country: Alexander II became not only the king-liberator, but also the king-martyr. The tragedy that broke out on the Catherine's Canal was connected by public consciousness with all the previous "liberal" activities of the sovereign, which "released the dark forces", which ultimately led to a terrible denouement. Memories of regicide predetermined the attitude towards the revolutionary and liberal forces of the country not only on the part of those in power, but also on the part of most of the enlightened society, tuned in to the need to “put things in order”.
The future emperor was not disposed to continue the course begun by his father when he ascended the throne, although on the second day after the death of his father, having gathered the highest ranks and retinue, Alexander said: “I accept the crown with determination. I will try to follow my father and finish the work he started. If the Almighty judged me the same fate as him, then I hope you will be as faithful to my son as to my father. In dispatches sent on March 4 to Russian ambassadors at foreign courts, it was said that "the Sovereign Emperor will devote himself, first of all, to the cause of internal state development, closely connected with the success of citizenship and economic and social issues, which are now the subject of special concerns of all governments." In society, the new sovereign was perceived as a person of liberal views, not alien to constitutional ideas. This supported the hopes for the continuation and development of those undertakings to which Alexander II returned in the last year of his reign. However, these hopes were not destined to come true.
The reign of the son did not at all resemble the reign of his father, whom Alexander III did not even resemble in appearance. The late sovereign was handsome, possessed of refined manners, natural kindness and gentleness in personal relationships. The new emperor, according to the memoirs of a major politician S. Yu. Witte, “looked like a big Russian peasant from the central provinces, a suit would suit him best: a short fur coat, undershirt and bast shoes ... he was not handsome, in manners he was rather more or less bearish; He was very large in stature, and for all his complexion, he was not particularly strong and muscular, but rather was somewhat fat and fat.
Alexander Alexandrovich did not count on the Russian crown either in childhood or in his early youth. The legitimate heir to the throne - his elder brother Nikolai Alexandrovich - died at the age of 22 from tuberculosis. Alexander Alexandrovich was declared Tsarevich at the age of 20, i.e. being a fully formed person. Growing up in an officer environment, the Grand Duke did not receive the education that a future emperor should have. They left much to be desired and the features of the upbringing of the young man. At one time, his father had excellent mentors, including the famous Russian poet V. A. Zhukovsky, who aspired to ensure that his pet would grow into a comprehensively educated, humane sovereign, who cares about the welfare of the people. Pobedonostsev, the spiritual mentor of Alexander Alexandrovich, was at least suspicious of education in the spirit of the Enlightenment. And the student himself was not distinguished by special talents. “Emperor Alexander III,” wrote Witte, “was of a completely ordinary mind, perhaps, one might say, below average intelligence, below average abilities, below average education ...”. True, the emperor had "a huge character, a beautiful heart," but this is clearly not enough for a statesman. A kind family man and conservative, Alexander ΙΙΙ considered patriarchy to be the best way of life and thought for all citizens of his country. He himself tried to become a strict but fair father for his subjects and expected the same from officials, landowners, and the church. The shortcomings, however, were peculiarly compensated for by stubbornness, as well as the strength and firmness of his character. These qualities made themselves felt in the very first months of the reign.
After brief hesitation and maneuvering between two opposing political groups - "liberal" and "protective" (headed respectively by M. T. Loris-Melikov and K. P. Pobedonostsev) - Alexander III leaned towards the latter. Already in March, the constitutional draft of the Minister of Internal Affairs Loris-Melikov, which proposed the introduction of an all-Russian representative body, was “buried”. (Alexander II agreed to consider the project a few hours before his tragic death.) In the tsar's manifesto, published on April 29, 1881, compiled by Pobedonostsev, he declared the determination "to become cheerfully in the cause of government, with faith in the strength and truth of autocratic power," which the emperor is called upon to "assert and protect for the good of the people from any encroachments on it." The main principles of foreign and domestic policy were formulated: to maintain order and strong power, to observe justice and economy, to return to primordially Russian principles and everywhere to ensure primordially Russian interests. Constitutional dreams were over. It was cold in Russia.
Alexander II began his reign with the destruction of military settlements, allowing the free issuance of foreign passports, weakening censorship oppression, amnesty for political prisoners, etc. The first measures of the government of Alexander III confirmed the determination of the authorities to firmly pursue the “protective” course proclaimed in the manifesto: August 14 In 1881, the “Regulations on Measures to Protect State Security and Public Peace” were adopted. Now in any province it was allowed to introduce a state of emergency "to restore calm and eradicate sedition." Any of its inhabitants could be arrested, exiled without trial for five years, or brought before a military court. The governors received the right to close the press, trade and industrial enterprises, and educational institutions; to suspend the activities of zemstvos and city dumas. Published as "temporary", for a period of three years, this "Regulation" was constantly renewed and was valid until 1917.
The measures of the government of Alexander III, called counter-reforms, consisted in revising many of the achievements of the previous course in such important areas of Russian society as zemstvo, city government, courts, education and the press.
Zemstvo
In 1864, the creation of zemstvo institutions began. This meant the revival of the ancient zemstvo with its idea of popular representation and self-government bodies independent of the central government. The role of the latter was reduced to nothing at the end of the 17th century.
According to the new “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” of 1890, the zemstvo was transformed. The nobility got the opportunity to elect most of the elected zemstvo figures - vowels (about 57%). The property qualification (the minimum level of income giving the right to a representative of one or another class to participate in the activities of zemstvo institutions) was reduced for the nobility and increased for the urban population. Peasants generally lost the right to choose vowels, since now they were appointed by the governor from among the peasant electors - persons authorized by peasant societies to participate in elections.
The newly elected zemstvo vowels were approved by the governor, which placed the zemstvo institutions under the strict control of the state. In fact, this crossed out the main idea of the zemstvo - independence from state authorities and the tsar in resolving issues of local self-government. The meaning of the zemstvo counter-reform was to nullify the possibility of participation in the work of the zemstvo bodies of "random" (undesirable for the regime) people, to increase the representation of the nobility - the support of the throne, and ultimately to make the zemstvos loyal to the autocratic authorities. All these measures reflected the opposition of the tsar and the nobility to the democratic Russian zemstvo (“land”, “people”) - an opposition that goes deep into Russian history.
City government
The city counter-reform pursued exactly the same goals as the zemstvo one: to weaken the elective principle, narrow the range of issues addressed by the city self-government bodies, and expand the scope of government powers. According to the new city regulation of 1892, the property qualification, which gave the right to participate in elections, increased. As a result, the number of voters in Moscow, for example, decreased three times. The provision that city dumas and councils act independently was withdrawn from the legislation. The intervention of the tsarist administration in their affairs was consolidated. The government received the right not to approve the officially elected mayor - the chairman of the city duma. The number of meetings of the latter was limited. Thus, city self-government was, in fact, turned into a kind of public service.
The judicial system of Russia - the most successful brainchild of the reformers removed from power - did not undergo any significant changes at that time. The judicial statutes of 1864 continued to operate successfully. However, publicity was limited in legal proceedings in political cases: the publication of reports on political trials was prohibited. All cases of violent actions against officials were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the jury.
Significant changes have taken place in the lower judiciary. The magistrates' courts, which, in addition to dealing with petty cases, resolved disputes between peasants and landlords, were largely liquidated. They survived only in three large cities - Moscow, St. Petersburg and Odessa. Justices of the peace were replaced by zemstvo district chiefs, whose positions were granted exclusively to noblemen with a high property qualification. In contrast to the magistrate's court, which was entrusted with reaching an agreement between peasants and landowners, zemstvo chiefs resolved all contentious issues individually, with an eye on the local state administration.
Education
Since the students were considered the main source of free-thinking, a hotbed of republican ideas and all sorts of unrest, Russian universities became one of the first victims of the protective course. The new university charter of 1884 abolished their autonomy. The university court was liquidated, any student associations were prohibited. Teachers elected by academic councils were necessarily approved in their positions by the Minister of Education. The entire university life was now led by a state official - the trustee of the educational district: he appointed deans (one of the highest elected positions of the university), had the right to convene an academic council, attend its meetings, and oversee teaching. The state did not forget to remind students about the "duty of military duty": conscription benefits for those with higher education were limited, and the minimum period of military service was increased.
The inspirer and main organizer of the counter-reforms in the field of education, Count I.D. Delyanov (1818-1897), the Minister of Public Education since 1882, also belongs to the authorship of the infamous circular "about the cook's children." In this document, it was recommended to limit the admission to the gymnasium and pro-gymnasium "of the children of coachmen, lackeys, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and similar people, whose children, with the exception of perhaps gifted with extraordinary abilities, should not at all be taken out of the environment to which they belong." In secondary and higher educational institutions, the admission of persons of Jewish nationality was reduced. The circular, however, did not have any real consequences, remaining in the history of Russian education as an example of the exceptional limitations of state officials.
Seal
The first experience of freedom of speech was interrupted after the approval in August 1882 of the new "Provisional Rules on the Press" (which became permanent). The administration received the right to close any newspapers and magazines and deprive publishers and editors of the right to continue their professional activities. The editorial offices were obliged to disclose the pseudonyms of their authors at the request of the authorities. Increased censorship.
In accordance with the new legislation, in 1884, the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski, hated by the government, ceased to exist, edited by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. But the newspaper of M. N. Katkov (1818-1887) Moskovskie Vedomosti flourished. Exactly in the 80s. This is the final period of activity of this famous Russian publicist, who at one time was known as a liberal and did a lot to expand the range of issues allowed for discussion in the press. But from the mid-60s, and especially after the establishment of a new government course under Alexander III, Katkov did a lot to strengthen the protective spirit and intolerance in the country of those in power. Possessing great journalistic talent and a reputation as a liberal, he managed to instill doubt in the minds of his readers about the need to continue the reforms, which he declared as a whole as “unsuccessful”: “A few more months, perhaps weeks of the former regime,” he wrote on the occasion of the April 29 manifesto 1881 - and the collapse would have been inevitable.
Counter-reforms in the socio-economic sphere
The reactionary nature of the government of Alexander III also manifested itself in the socio-economic sphere. An attempt to protect the interests of the ruined landlords led to a tougher policy towards the peasantry, as a result of which, in order to prevent the emergence of a rural bourgeoisie, the family divisions of the peasants were limited and obstacles were put up for the alienation of peasant allotments. However, in the conditions of the increasingly complicated international situation, the government could not but encourage the development of capitalist relations, and primarily in the field of industrial production, although it did this not very consistently. Priority was given to enterprises and industries of strategic importance. A policy of their encouragement and state protection was carried out, which actually turned them into monopolists. As a result of these actions, threatening disproportions were growing, which could lead to economic and social upheavals.
CHAPTER FIRST
Manifesto on the accession of the sovereign to the throne. - Evaluation of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (V. O. Klyuchevsky, K. P. Pobedonostsev). - General situation in 1894 - Russian Empire. - Royal authority. - Bureaucracy. – Tendencies of the ruling circles: “demophilic” and “aristocratic”. - Foreign policy and the Franco-Russian alliance. - Army. - Fleet. - Local government. – Finland. – Press and censorship. - Mildness of laws and courts.
The role of Alexander III in Russian history
“God Almighty was pleased in his inscrutable ways to interrupt the precious life of our dearly beloved Parent, Sovereign Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich. A serious illness did not succumb to either treatment or the fertile climate of the Crimea, and on October 20, He died in Livadia, surrounded by His August Family, in the arms of Her Imperial Majesty the Empress and Ours.
Our grief cannot be expressed in words, but every Russian heart will understand it, and We believe that there will be no place in Our vast State where hot tears would not be shed for the Sovereign, who untimely departed into eternity and left his native land, which He loved with all His might. Russian soul and on whose well-being He placed all His thoughts, sparing neither His health nor life. And not only in Russia, but far beyond its borders, they will never cease to honor the memory of the Tsar, who personified unshakable truth and peace, never violated in all of His reign.
With these words, the manifesto begins, announcing to Russia the accession of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.
The reign of Emperor Alexander III, who received the title of Tsar-Peacemaker, did not abound with external events, but it left a deep imprint on Russian and world life. During these thirteen years, many knots were tied - both in foreign and domestic policy - to untie or cut which happened to his son and successor, Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich.
Both friends and enemies of imperial Russia equally recognize that Emperor Alexander III significantly increased the international weight of the Russian Empire, and within its borders he confirmed and exalted the importance of autocratic tsarist power. He led the Russian state ship in a different course than his father. He did not believe that the reforms of the 60s and 70s were an unconditional blessing, but tried to introduce into them those amendments that, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal balance of Russia.
After the epoch of great reforms, after the war of 1877-1878, this enormous strain of Russian forces in the interests of the Balkan Slavs, Russia, in any case, needed a respite. It was necessary to master, to “digest” the changes that had taken place.
Estimates of the reign of Alexander III
In the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, a well-known Russian historian, prof. V. O. Klyuchevsky, in his speech in memory of Emperor Alexander III, a week after his death, said:
“During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, before the eyes of one generation, we peacefully carried out a number of deep reforms in our state system in the spirit of Christian rules, therefore, in the spirit of European principles - such reforms that cost Western Europe centuries and often stormy efforts, - and this Europe continued to see in us representatives of Mongolian inertia, some kind of imposed adoptives of the cultural world ...
13 years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III have passed, and the more hastily the hand of death hurried to close His eyes, the wider and more amazed the eyes of Europe were opened to the world significance of this short reign. Finally, even the stones cried out, the organs of European public opinion spoke the truth about Russia, and spoke the more sincerely, the more unusual it was for them to say this. It turned out, according to these confessions, that European civilization had insufficiently and carelessly ensured its peaceful development, for its own safety it was placed on a powder magazine, that a burning wick approached this dangerous defensive warehouse more than once from different sides, and each time the caring and patient hand of the Russian Tsar quietly and cautiously took him away... Europe recognized that the Tsar of the Russian people was the sovereign of the international world, and by this recognition confirmed the historical vocation of Russia, for in Russia, according to its political organization, the will of the Tsar expresses the thought of His people, and the will of the people becomes the thought of its Tsar. Europe recognized that the country, which it considered a threat to its civilization, stood and stands on its guard, understands, appreciates and protects its foundations no worse than its creators; it recognized Russia as an organically indispensable part of its cultural composition, a vital, natural member of the family of its peoples...
Science will give Emperor Alexander III a proper place not only in the history of Russia and all of Europe, but also in Russian historiography, will say that He won in the area where these victories are most difficult to get, defeated the prejudice of peoples and thereby contributed to their rapprochement, conquered the public conscience in the name of peace and truth, increased the amount of goodness in the moral circulation of mankind, encouraged and uplifted Russian historical thought, Russian national self-consciousness, and did all this so quietly and silently that only now, when He no longer exists, Europe understood what He was for her."
If Professor Klyuchevsky, a Russian intellectual and rather a “Westernizer”, dwells more on the foreign policy of Emperor Alexander III and, apparently, hints at a rapprochement with France, the closest collaborator of the late monarch, K.P. Pobedonostsev:
“Everyone knew that he would not give in to the Russian, the history of the bequeathed interest either in the Polish or in other outskirts of the foreign element, that he deeply kept in his soul one faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people; finally, that he, together with the people, believes in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia and will not allow for it, in the specter of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions.
At a meeting of the French Senate, its chairman, Challmel-Lacour, said in his speech (November 5, 1894) that the Russian people are experiencing “sorrow for the loss of a ruler, immensely devoted to his future, his greatness, his security; The Russian nation, under the just and peaceful rule of its emperor, enjoyed security, this highest good of society and an instrument of true greatness.
Most of the French press spoke about the deceased Russian tsar in the same tone: “He leaves Russia greater than he received it,” wrote the Journal des Debats; a “Revue des deux Mondes” echoed the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky: “This grief was also our grief; for us it has acquired a national character; but almost the same feelings were experienced by other nations ... Europe felt that it was losing an arbiter who had always been guided by the idea of justice.
International position at the end of the reign of Alexander III
1894 - like the 80s and 90s in general. - refers to that long period of "calm before the storm", the longest period without major wars in modern and medieval history. This time has left its mark on all those who grew up in these years of calm. By the end of the 19th century, the growth of material well-being and external education proceeded with increasing acceleration. Technique went from invention to invention, science from discovery to discovery. Railroads, steamboats have already made it possible to "travel around the world in 80 days"; Following the telegraph wires, threads of telephone wires were already stretched all over the world. Electric lighting quickly replaced gas lighting. But in 1894, the clumsy first automobiles could not yet compete with elegant carriages and carriages; "live photography" was still in the stage of preliminary experiments; steerable balloons were only a dream; Heavier-than-air machines have never been heard of before. Radio had not been invented, and radium had not yet been discovered ...
In almost all states, the same political process was observed: the growth of the influence of parliament, the expansion of suffrage, the transfer of power to more left-wing circles. Against this trend, which at that time seemed to be a spontaneous course of "historical progress", no one in the West, in essence, waged a real struggle. The Conservatives, themselves gradually shedding and “lefting”, were content with the fact that at times they slowed down the pace of this development - 1894 in most countries just found such a slowdown.
In France, after the assassination of President Carnot and a number of senseless anarchist attempts, up to the bomb in the Chamber of Deputies and the notorious Panama scandal, which marked the beginning of the 90s. in this country, there has been just a slight shift to the right. The president was Casimir Perier, a right-wing republican inclined to expand presidential power; ruled by the Dupuy ministry, based on a moderate majority. But "moderates" already at that time were considered those who in the 70s were on the extreme left of the National Assembly; just shortly before that - around 1890 - under the influence of the advice of Pope Leo XIII, a significant part of the French Catholics went over to the ranks of the Republicans.
In Germany, after the resignation of Bismarck, the influence of the Reichstag increased significantly; Social Democracy, gradually conquering all the big cities, became the largest German party. The Conservatives, for their part, relying on the Prussian Landtag, waged a stubborn struggle against the economic policy of Wilhelm II. For lack of energy in the fight against the socialists, Chancellor Caprivi was replaced in October 1894 by the aged Prince Hohenlohe; but no appreciable change of course resulted from this.
In England, in 1894, the Liberals were defeated on the Irish question, and Lord Rosebery's "intermediate" ministry was in power, which soon gave way to Lord Salisbury's cabinet, which relied on conservatives and unionist liberals (opponents of Irish self-government). These Unionists, led by Chamberlain, played such a prominent role in the government majority that soon the name of the Unionists in general supplanted the name of the Conservatives for twenty years altogether. Unlike Germany, the British labor movement was not yet political in nature, and the powerful trade unions, already staging very impressive strikes, were still content with economic and professional achievements - meeting in this more support from the conservatives than from the liberals. These correlations explain the phrase of a prominent English figure of that time: “We are all now socialists” ...
In Austria and Hungary, parliamentary rule was more pronounced than in Germany: cabinets that did not have a majority had to resign. On the other hand, the parliament itself opposed the expansion of suffrage: the ruling parties were afraid of losing power. By the time of the death of Emperor Alexander III in Vienna, the short-lived ministry of Prince. Windischgrätz, which relied on very heterogeneous elements: German liberals, Poles and clerics.
In Italy, after a period of domination by the left headed by Giolitti, after a scandal over the appointment of the stealing director of the Tanlongo bank to the Senate, at the beginning of 1894 the old political figure Crispi, one of the authors of the Triple Alliance, came to power again, in the special Italian parliamentary conditions, playing a role conservative.
Although the Second International had already been founded in 1889 and socialist ideas were becoming more widespread in Europe, by 1894 the socialists were not yet a serious political force in any country except Germany (where in 1893 they had already held 44 deputies ). But the parliamentary system in many small states - Belgium, the Scandinavian, Balkan countries - has received an even more straightforward application than that of the great powers. In addition to Russia, only Turkey and Montenegro from European countries did not have parliaments at that time.
The era of calm was at the same time the era of armed peace. All the great powers, followed by the smaller ones, increased and improved their armaments. Europe, as V. O. Klyuchevsky put it, “fitted itself on a powder magazine for its own safety.” Universal conscription was carried out in all the major states of Europe, except for insular England. The technology of war did not lag behind the technology of peace in its development.
Mutual distrust between states was great. The triple alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy seemed to be the most powerful combination of powers. But even its participants did not fully rely on each other. Until 1890, Germany still considered it necessary to "play it safe" by means of a secret treaty with Russia - and Bismarck saw a fatal mistake in the fact that Emperor Wilhelm II did not renew this treaty - and France entered into negotiations with Italy more than once, trying to tear it away from the Triple union. England was in "splendid solitude". France hid the unhealed wound of its defeat in 1870-1871. and was ready to join any enemy of Germany. The thirst for revenge was clearly manifested in the late 80s. the success of boulangism.
The division of Africa was broadly completed by 1890, at least on the coast. Entrepreneurial colonialists rushed from everywhere to the interior of the mainland, where there were still unexplored areas, in order to be the first to raise the flag of their country and secure "no one's lands" for it. Only in the middle reaches of the Nile did the British still block the path of the Mahdists, Muslim fanatics, who in 1885 defeated and killed the English General Gordon during the capture of Khartoum. And mountainous Abyssinia, on which the Italians began their campaign, prepared an unexpectedly powerful rebuff for them.
All these were just islands - Africa, like Australia and America before, became the property of the white race. Until the end of the 19th century, the prevailing belief was that Asia would suffer the same fate. England and Russia were already watching each other through a thin barrier of still weak independent states, Persia, Afghanistan, semi-independent Tibet. The closest thing came to a war for the entire reign of Emperor Alexander III, when in 1885 General Komarov defeated the Afghans near Kushka: the British vigilantly watched the "gates to India"! However, the acute conflict was resolved by an agreement in 1887.
But in the Far East, where back in the 1850s. The Russians occupied the Ussuri Territory, which belonged to China, without a fight, and the slumbering peoples were just beginning to stir. When Emperor Alexander III was dying, cannons rattled on the shores of the Yellow Sea: small Japan, having mastered European technology, won its first victories over huge, but still motionless China.
Russia towards the end of the reign of Alexander III
Portrait of Alexander III. Artist A. Sokolov, 1883
In this world, the Russian Empire, with its area of twenty million square miles, with a population of 125 million people, occupied a prominent position. Since the Seven Years' War, and especially since 1812, Russia's military power has been highly valued in Western Europe. The Crimean War showed the limits of this power, but at the same time confirmed its strength. Since then, the era of reforms, including in the military sphere, has created new conditions for the development of Russian power.
Russia at that time began to be seriously studied. A. Leroy-Beaulieu in French, Sir D. Mackenzie-Wallace in English published large studies on Russia in the 1870s-1880s. The structure of the Russian Empire was very different from Western European conditions, but foreigners then already began to understand that we were talking about dissimilar, and not about "backward" state forms.
“The Russian Empire is governed on the exact basis of laws emanating from the Highest Authority. The emperor is an autocratic and unlimited monarch,” said the Russian fundamental laws. The tsar had full legislative and executive powers. This did not mean arbitrariness: all essential questions had exact answers in the laws, which were subject to execution until there was a repeal. In the field of civil rights, the Russian tsarist government generally avoided a sharp break, reckoned with the legal skills of the population and acquired rights, and left in effect on the territory of the empire both the Napoleonic code (in the kingdom of Poland), and the Lithuanian Statute (in the Poltava and Chernigov provinces), and Magdeburg law (in the Baltic region), and customary law among the peasants, and all kinds of local laws and customs in the Caucasus, Siberia, and Central Asia.
But the right to legislate was indivisibly vested in the king. There was a State Council of high dignitaries appointed there by the sovereign; he discussed draft laws; but the king could agree, at his discretion, with the opinion of the majority and with the opinion of the minority - or reject both. Usually, special commissions and meetings were formed to hold important events; but they had, of course, only a preparatory value.
In the field of executive fullness of royal power was also unlimited. Louis XIV, after the death of Cardinal Mazarin, declared that he wanted to be his own first minister from now on. But all Russian monarchs were in the same position. Russia did not know the position of the first minister. The title of chancellor, sometimes assigned to the minister of foreign affairs (the last chancellor was His Serene Highness Prince A. M. Gorchakov, who died in 1883), gave him the rank of the 1st class according to the table of ranks, but did not mean any supremacy over other ministers. There was a Committee of Ministers, it had a permanent chairman (in 1894, the former Minister of Finance, N. Kh. Bunge, also consisted of it). But this Committee was, in essence, only a kind of interdepartmental meeting.
All ministers and heads of separate units had their own independent report with the sovereign. The sovereign was also directly subordinate to the governor-general, as well as the mayors of both capitals.
This did not mean that the sovereign was involved in all the details of managing individual departments (although, for example, Emperor Alexander III was “his own minister of foreign affairs”, to whom all “incoming” and “outgoing” reports were reported; N.K. Girs was, as it were, his "comrade minister"). Individual ministers sometimes had great power and the opportunity for broad initiative. But they had them because and so far the sovereign trusted them.
To carry out the plans coming from above, Russia also had a large staff of officials. Emperor Nicholas I once dropped the ironic phrase that Russia is ruled by 30,000 head clerks. Complaints about the "bureaucracy", about the "mediastinum" were very common in Russian society. It was customary to scold officials, to grumble at them. Abroad, there was an idea of almost total bribery of Russian officials. He was often judged by the satires of Gogol or Shchedrin; but a caricature, even a successful one, cannot be considered a portrait. In some departments, for example, in the police, low salaries did contribute to a fairly wide distribution of bribes. Others, such as, for example, the Ministry of Finance or the judicial department after the reform of 1864, enjoyed, on the contrary, a reputation for high honesty. It must be admitted, however, that one of the traits that made Russia related to the eastern countries was the condescending everyday attitude towards many acts of dubious honesty; the fight against this phenomenon was psychologically difficult. Some sections of the population, such as engineers, enjoyed an even worse reputation than officials - quite often, of course, undeserved.
But the top government was free from this disease. Cases where ministers or other representatives of the authorities were involved in abuses were the rarest sensational exceptions.
Be that as it may, the Russian administration, even in its most imperfect parts, carried out, despite the difficult conditions, the task assigned to it. The tsarist government had at its disposal an obedient and well-organized state apparatus adapted to the diverse needs of the Russian Empire. This apparatus was created over the centuries - from Moscow orders - and in many ways has reached a high level of perfection.
But the Russian tsar was not only the head of state: he was at the same time the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which occupied a leading position in the country. This, of course, did not mean that the tsar had the right to touch upon church dogmas; the conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church ruled out such an understanding of the rights of the tsar. But at the suggestion of the Holy Synod, the highest church college, the appointment of bishops was made by the king; and the replenishment of the composition of the Synod itself depended (in the same order) on him. The chief prosecutor of the Synod was the link between church and state. This position was occupied by K. P. Pobedonostsev, a man of outstanding mind and strong will, a teacher of two emperors, Alexander III and Nicholas II, for more than a quarter of a century.
During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the following main tendencies of power appeared: not an indiscriminately negative, but in any case a critical attitude towards what was called "progress", and the desire to give Russia more internal unity by asserting the primacy of the Russian elements of the country. In addition, two currents were simultaneously manifested, far from being similar, but, as it were, complementing each other. One that aims at defending the weak from the strong, preferring the broad masses of the people to the upper classes that have separated from them, with some leveling inclinations, in terms of our time, could be called "demophile" or Christian-social. This is a trend whose representatives, along with others, were the Minister of Justice Manasein (who retired in 1894) and K.P. Pobedonostsev, who wrote that "nobles, like the people, are subject to curbing." Another trend, which found its expression in the Minister of the Interior, Count. D. A. Tolstoy, sought to strengthen the ruling classes, to establish a certain hierarchy in the state. The first trend, by the way, ardently defended the peasant community as a kind of Russian form of solving the social problem.
The Russification policy met with more sympathy from the “demophile” trend. On the contrary, a prominent representative of the second trend, the famous writer K. N. Leontiev, published in 1888 the pamphlet “National Policy as an Instrument of World Revolution” (in subsequent editions the word “national” was replaced by “tribal”), arguing that “the movement of modern political nationalism is nothing else than the spread of cosmopolitan democratization, modified only in methods.
Of the prominent right-wing publicists of that time, M.N. V. P. Meshchersky.
Emperor Alexander III himself, with his deeply Russian mindset, did not sympathize with the Russification extremes and expressively wrote to K. P. Pobedonostsev (in 1886): “There are gentlemen who think that they are only Russians, and no one else. Do they already imagine that I am a German or a Chukhonian? It is easy for them with their farcical patriotism when they are not responsible for anything. I won’t let Russia be offended.”
Foreign policy results of the reign of Alexander III
In foreign policy, the reign of Emperor Alexander III brought great changes. That affinity with Germany, or rather with Prussia, which remained a common feature of Russian policy since Catherine the Great and runs like a red thread through the reigns of Alexander I, Nicholas I, and especially Alexander II, has been replaced by a noticeable cooling. It would hardly be correct, as is sometimes done, to attribute this development of events to the anti-German sentiments of Empress Maria Feodorovna, a Danish princess who married a Russian heir shortly after the Danish-Prussian war of 1864! It can only be said that the political complications this time were not mitigated, as in previous reigns, by personal good relations and family ties of the dynasties. The reasons were, of course, predominantly political.
Although Bismarck considered it possible to combine the Tripartite Alliance with friendly relations with Russia, the Austro-German-Italian alliance was, of course, at the heart of the chill between old friends. The Berlin Congress left bitterness in Russian public opinion. Anti-German notes began to sound at the top. The sharp speech of Gen. Skobeleva against the Germans; Katkov in Moskovskie Vedomosti waged a campaign against them. By the mid-1980s, the tension began to be felt more strongly; The German seven-year military budget (“septennat”) was caused by the deterioration of relations with Russia. The German government closed the Berlin market for Russian securities.
Emperor Alexander III, like Bismarck, was seriously worried about this aggravation, and in 1887 he was imprisoned - for a three-year term - the so-called. reinsurance agreement. It was a secret Russo-German agreement under which both countries promised each other benevolent neutrality in the event that a third country attacked one of them. This agreement was an essential reservation to the act of the Triple Alliance. It meant that Germany would not support any anti-Russian action by Austria. Legally, these treaties were compatible, since the Triple Alliance also provided only support in the event that one of its participants was attacked (which gave Italy the opportunity in 1914 to declare neutrality without violating the union treaty).
But this reinsurance treaty was not renewed in 1890. Negotiations about it coincided with the moment of Bismarck's resignation. His successor, Gen. Caprivi, with military straightforwardness, pointed out to Wilhelm II that this treaty seemed disloyal to Austria. For his part, Emperor Alexander III, who had sympathy for Bismarck, did not seek to get involved with the new rulers of Germany.
After that, in the 90s, it came to the Russian-German customs war, which ended with a trade agreement on March 20, 1894, concluded with the close participation of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte. This treaty gave Russia - for a ten-year period - significant advantages.
Relations with Austria-Hungary had nothing to spoil: since the time when Austria, saved from the Hungarian revolution by Emperor Nicholas I, “surprised the world with ingratitude” during the Crimean War, Russia and Austria also clashed on the entire front of the Balkans, like Russia and England all over Asia.
England at that time still continued to see the Russian Empire as its main enemy and competitor, "a huge glacier hanging over India," as Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli) put it in the English Parliament.
In the Balkans, Russia experienced in the 80s. the worst disappointments. The liberation war of 1877-1878, which cost Russia so much blood and such financial upheavals, did not bear immediate fruit. Austria actually took possession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia was forced to admit this in order to avoid a new war. In Serbia, the Obrenović dynasty, represented by King Milan, was in power, clearly gravitating towards Austria. About Bulgaria, even Bismarck caustically responded in his memoirs: "The liberated peoples are not grateful, but pretentious." There it came to the persecution of Russophile elements. The replacement of Prince Alexander of Battenberg, who became the head of anti-Russian movements, by Ferdinand of Coburg did not improve Russian-Bulgarian relations. Only in 1894, Stambulov, the main inspirer of the Russophobic policy, had to resign. The only country with which Russia did not even have diplomatic relations for many years was Bulgaria, so recently resurrected by Russian weapons from a long state non-existence!
Romania was allied with Austria and Germany, offended by the fact that in 1878 Russia regained a small piece of Bessarabia taken from it in the Crimean War. Although Romania received in the form of compensation the entire Dobruja with the port of Constanta, she preferred to get closer to the opponents of Russian policy in the Balkans.
When Emperor Alexander III proclaimed his famous toast to "the only true friend of Russia, Prince Nicholas of Montenegro", this, in essence, corresponded to reality. The power of Russia was so great that she did not feel threatened in this loneliness. But after the termination of the reinsurance agreement, during a sharp deterioration in Russian-German economic relations, Emperor Alexander III took certain steps to rapprochement with France.
The republican system, state disbelief, and such recent phenomena at that time as the Panama scandal, could not dispose the Russian tsar, the keeper of conservative and religious principles, to France. Many considered therefore the Franco-Russian agreement excluded. The solemn reception of the sailors of the French squadron in Kronstadt, when the Russian tsar listened to the Marseillaise with his head uncovered, showed that sympathies or antipathies for the internal order of France were not decisive for Emperor Alexander III. Few people, however, thought that since 1892 a secret defensive alliance had been concluded between Russia and France, supplemented by a military convention indicating how many troops both sides were obliged to field in case of war with Germany. This treaty was at that time so secret that neither the ministers (of course, except for two or three senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the military department), nor even the heir to the throne himself knew about it.
French society has long been eager to formalize this union, but the tsar made it a condition for the strictest secrecy, fearing that confidence in Russian support could give rise to militant moods in France, revive the thirst for revenge, and the government, due to the peculiarities of the democratic system, would not be able to resist the pressure of public opinion. .
Russian army and navy towards the end of the reign of Alexander III
The Russian Empire at that time had the largest peacetime army in the world. Its 22 corps, not counting the Cossacks and irregular units, reached a strength of up to 900,000 people. With a four-year term of military service, the annual conscription of recruits gave in the early 90s. three times as many people as the army needed. This not only made it possible to make a strict selection for physical fitness, but also made it possible to provide wide benefits for marital status. The only sons, older brothers, who took care of the younger ones, teachers, doctors, etc., were exempted from active military service and directly enlisted in the second-class militia warriors, to whom mobilization could only come as a last resort. In Russia, only 31 percent of the draftees each year were enrolled in the army, while in France 76 percent.
For the armament of the army, mainly state-owned factories worked; Russia did not have those "cannon dealers" who enjoy such an unflattering reputation in the West.
For the training of officers, there were 37 secondary and 15 higher military educational institutions, in which 14,000-15,000 people studied.
All the lower ranks who served in the ranks of the army received, in addition, a well-known education. The illiterate were taught to read and write, and all were given some of the basic beginnings of a general education.
The Russian fleet, which had been in decline since the Crimean War, revived and rebuilt during the reign of Emperor Alexander III. 114 new warships were launched, including 17 battleships and 10 armored cruisers. The displacement of the fleet reached 300,000 tons - the Russian fleet ranked third (after England and France) in a number of world fleets. Its weak point, however, was that the Black Sea Fleet - about a third of the Russian naval forces - was locked up in the Black Sea under international treaties and did not have the opportunity to take part in the struggle that would have arisen in other seas.
Local self-government in Russia towards the end of the reign of Alexander III
Russia had no imperial representative institutions; Emperor Alexander III, in the words of K. P. Pobedonostsev, believed “in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia” and did not allow for it “in the specter of freedom, a disastrous mixture of languages and opinions.” But from the previous reign, the bodies of local self-government, zemstvos and cities remained as a legacy; and since the time of Catherine II, there was a class self-government in the person of noble assemblies, provincial and district (petty-bourgeois councils and other self-government bodies of citizens gradually lost all real significance).
Zemstvo self-governments were introduced (in 1864) in 34 (out of 50) provinces of European Russia, that is, they spread to more than half of the population of the empire. They were elected by three groups of the population: peasants, private landowners and townspeople; the number of seats was distributed among the groups according to the amount of taxes they paid. In 1890, a law was passed that strengthened the role of the nobility in the zemstvos. In general, private owners, as a more educated element of the village, played a leading role in most provinces; but there were also predominantly peasant zemstvos (Vyatka, Perm, for example). The Russian zemstvos had a broader scope of activity than local self-government bodies in France now have. Medical and veterinary care, public education, road maintenance, statistics, insurance business, agronomy, cooperation, etc. - such was the scope of the zemstvos.
City governments (dumas) were elected by homeowners. Dumas elected city councils with the mayor at the head. The scope of their competence within the cities was in general the same as that of the zemstvos in relation to the countryside.
Reception of volost foremen by Alexander III. Painting by I. Repin, 1885-1886
Finally, the village also had its own peasant self-government, in which all adult peasants and the wives of absent husbands took part. "Peace" resolved local issues and elected representatives to the volost gathering. The elders (chairmen) and the clerks (secretaries) who were with them led these primary cells of peasant self-government.
In general, by the end of the reign of Emperor Alexander III, with a state budget of 1,200,000,000 rubles, local budgets administered by elective institutions amounted to about 200 million, of which about 60 million a year fell to zemstvos and cities. Of this amount, the zemstvos spent about a third on medical care and about one-sixth on public education.
Noble assemblies, created by Catherine the Great, consisted of all hereditary nobles of each province (or county), and only those nobles who had landed property in a given area could participate in the meetings. Provincial noble assemblies were, in fact, the only public bodies in which questions of general policy were sometimes discussed on a legal basis. Noble assemblies in the form of addresses addressed to the Highest Name more than once came up with political resolutions. In addition, the scope of their competence was very limited, and they played a certain role only due to their connection with the zemstvos (the local marshal of the nobility was ex officio the chairman of the provincial or district zemstvo assembly).
The importance of the nobility in the country at that time was already noticeably on the wane. In the early 1890s, contrary to popular beliefs in the West, at 49 lips. In European Russia, out of 381 million acres of land area, only 55 million belonged to the nobles, while in Siberia, Central Asia and the Caucasus there was almost no noble land ownership at all (only in the provinces of the Kingdom of Poland, the nobility owned 44 percent of the land).
In local governments, as everywhere where the elective principle operates, there were, of course, their own groupings, their right and left. There were liberal zemstvos and conservative zemstvos. But real parties did not come from this. At that time, there were no significant illegal groups after the collapse of Narodnaya Volya, although some revolutionary publications were published abroad. Thus, the London Foundation for Illegal Press (S. Stepnyak, N. Tchaikovsky, L. Shishko and others) in a report for 1893 reported that they distributed 20,407 copies of illegal brochures and books in a year - 2,360 of them in Russia, which is not a large number per 125 million population ...
The Grand Duchy of Finland was in a special position. There was a constitution, bestowed by Alexander I. The Finnish Seim, consisting of representatives of the four estates (nobles, clergy, townspeople and peasants), convened every five years, and under Emperor Alexander III he even received (in 1885) the right to legislative initiative. The local government was the senate, appointed by the emperor, and communication with the general imperial administration was provided through the minister-secretary of state for Finnish affairs.
Censorship of newspapers and books
In the absence of representative institutions, there was no organized political activity in Russia, and attempts to create party groups were immediately thwarted by police measures. The press was under the watchful eye of the authorities. Some large newspapers, however, were published without prior censorship - in order to speed up the publication - and therefore bore the risk of subsequent reprisals. Usually two "warnings" were made to the newspaper, and on the third its publication was suspended. But at the same time, the newspapers remained independent: within certain limits, subject to some external restraint, they could, and often carried, views that were very hostile to the government. Most of the big newspapers and magazines were deliberately oppositional. The government only put up external barriers to the expression of views hostile to it, and did not try to influence the content of the press.
It can be said that the Russian government had neither the inclination nor the ability to self-promotion. Its achievements and successes often remained in the shadows, while failures and weaknesses were diligently painted with imaginary objectivity on the pages of the Russian temporary press, and spread abroad by Russian political emigrants, creating largely false ideas about Russia.
Church censorship was the most strict in relation to books. Less severe than the Vatican with its "index", it at the same time had the opportunity not only to put banned books on the lists, but also to actually stop their distribution. So, under the ban were anti-church writings gr. L. N. Tolstoy, "The Life of Jesus" by Renan; when translating from Heine, for example, passages containing mockery of religion were excluded. But in general - especially if we take into account that censorship at different periods acted with varying degrees of severity, and books, once admitted, were rarely withdrawn from circulation later - books forbidden to the Russian "legal" reader constituted an insignificant fraction of world literature. Of the major Russian writers, only Herzen was banned.
Russian laws and court by the end of the reign of Alexander III
In a country that was considered abroad "the kingdom of the whip, chains and exile to Siberia", in fact, very soft and humane laws were in force. Russia was the only country where the death penalty was abolished altogether (since the time of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna) for all crimes tried by general courts. She remained only in the military courts and for the highest state crimes. For the 19th century the number of those executed (if we exclude both Polish uprisings and violations of military discipline) was not even a hundred people in a hundred years. During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, in addition to the participants in the regicide on March 1, only a few people who attempted to kill the emperor were executed (one of them, by the way, was just A. Ulyanov - Lenin's brother).
Administrative exile, on the basis of the law on the provision of enhanced security, was applied, on the other hand, quite widely to all types of anti-government agitation. There were various degrees of exile: to Siberia, to the northern provinces (“places not so remote,” as it was usually called), sometimes simply to provincial cities. Those deported who did not have their own means were given a state allowance for life. In places of exile, special colonies of people united by a common destiny were formed; often these colonies of exiles became the cells of future revolutionary work, creating connections and acquaintances, contributing to "enslavement" in hostility to the existing order. Those who were considered the most dangerous were placed in the Shlisselburg fortress on an island in the upper reaches of the Neva.
The Russian court, based on the judicial statutes of 1864, has stood at a high level since that time; "Gogol types" in the judicial world have receded into the realm of legends. Careful attitude towards the defendants, the broadest provision of the rights of the defense, the selective composition of judges - all this was a matter of just pride for the Russian people and corresponded to the mood of society. The judicial statutes were one of the few laws that society not only respected, but was also ready to jealously defend against the government when it considered it necessary to make reservations and amendments to the liberal law for a more successful fight against crimes.
There were no zemstvos: in 12 western provinces, where non-Russian elements prevailed among the landowners; in the sparsely populated Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan provinces; in the Region of the Don Army, and in the Orenburg province. with their Cossack institutions.
The nobility in Russia did not constitute a closed caste; the rights of hereditary nobility were acquired by everyone who reached the rank of VIII class but the table of ranks (collegiate assessor, captain, captain).
III deserved, albeit a little controversial, but mostly positive feedback. The people associated him with good deeds and called him a peacemaker. And why Alexander 3 was called a peacemaker can be found in this article.
Ascension to the throne
Due to the fact that Alexander was only the second child in the family, no one considered him as a contender for the throne. He was not trained to rule, but only given a basic military education. The death of his brother Nicholas completely changed the course of history. After this event, Alexander had to devote a lot of time to study. He re-mastered almost all subjects, from the basics of economics and the Russian language to world history and foreign policy. After the murder of his father, he became a full-fledged emperor of a great power. The reign of Alexander 3 lasted from 1881 to 1894. What kind of ruler he was, we will consider further.
Why Alexander 3 was called a peacemaker
To strengthen his position on the throne at the beginning of his reign, Alexander abandoned his father's idea of the constitutionality of the country. This is the answer to the question of why Alexander 3 was called a peacemaker. Thanks to the choice of such a strategy of government, he managed to stop the unrest. To a greater extent due to the creation of a secret police. Under Alexander III, the state strengthened its borders quite strongly. The most powerful army and its reserve reserves appeared in the country. Thanks to this, Western influence on the country came to a minimum. This made it possible to exclude all kinds of bloodshed throughout the entire period of his rule. One of the main reasons why Alexander 3 was called a peacemaker is that he often participated in the elimination of military conflicts in his country and abroad.
Board results
As a result of the reign of Alexander the 3rd, they were awarded the honorary title of peacemaker. Historians also call him the most Russian tsar. He threw all his strength to the defense of the Russian people. It was his forces that restored the prestige of the country on the world stage and raised the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church. Alexander III devoted a lot of time and money to the development of industries and agriculture in Russia. He improved the well-being of the inhabitants of his country. Thanks to his efforts and love for his country and people, Russia achieved the highest results for that period in economics and politics. In addition to the title of peacemaker, Alexander III is also given the title of reformer. According to many historians, it was he who planted the germs of communism in the minds of the people.
Alexander III (1845-1894), Russian emperor (since 1881).
Born March 10, 1845 in Tsarskoye Selo. The second son of Emperor Alexander II. After the death of his elder brother Nicholas (1865) he became the heir.
In 1866, Alexander married the bride of his deceased brother, the daughter of the Danish king Christian IX, Princess Sophia Frederica Dagmar (Maria Feodorovna in Orthodoxy).
He ascended the throne on March 13, 1881 in a difficult political and economic situation: the terrorist activities of the Narodnaya Volya reached its climax, the war with Turkey completely upset the finances and monetary system of the Russian Empire. The assassination of Alexander II restored the new emperor against the liberals, whom he considered responsible for the death of his father.
Alexander III canceled the draft constitutional reform, his manifesto of May 11, 1881 expressed the program of domestic and foreign policy: maintaining order and spirit of church piety in the country, strengthening power, protecting national interests. Censorship was strengthened, university autonomy was abolished, and it was forbidden to admit children of the lower class in the gymnasium.
The result of the activities of Alexander III was the conservation of the existing system.
Government policy contributed to the further development of trade, industry, and the elimination of the budget deficit, which made it possible to switch to gold circulation and created the prerequisites for a powerful economic upsurge in the second half of the 1990s. 19th century
In 1882, the government established the Peasant Land Bank, which issued loans to peasants to purchase land, which contributed to the creation of private land ownership among the peasants.
On March 13, 1887, the Narodnaya Volya made an attempt on the life of the emperor. A week later, on March 20, the participants in the failed assassination attempt were hanged.
The thirteen-year reign of Alexander III passed peacefully, without major military clashes, for which he was called the peacemaker king.
