Star News
Periodization of the liberation movement in the Russian Empire. Chapter IV The beginning of the first stage of the liberation movement in Russia. Decembrists in Ukraine. Soldier's song about military settlements
«103 Chapter 5. The beginning of the liberation movement in Russia. Decembrists § 1. Features of the first stage of the liberation movement in Russia ... "
Chapter 5
in Russia. Decembrists
§ 1. Features of the first stage of the liberation
movement in Russia
formation The concept of the liberation movement includes not only the Decembrist
revolutionary struggle, but also liberal-ideological opposition speeches, as well
also all shades of advanced socio-political thought.
The liberation movement in this sense begins in the era of transition from
feudalism to capitalism, i.e., in the era of the breakdown of feudal-absolutist institutions and the rise of the bourgeoisie. This transitional era put forward the tasks of bourgeois-democratic transformations. In socio-economic and political development Russia lagged behind the advanced Western European countries, in which already in the XVII-XVIII centuries. bourgeois-democratic revolutions took place and a representative political system was established, which marked the victory of the bourgeoisie. However, in Russia at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. the tasks of the same transformations were set by social thought, which largely borrowed the advanced ideas of Western European thinkers. But the specifics of Russia lay in the fact that the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic transformation of the country, put forward by its liberation movement, were ahead of the real conditions for their implementation. This, in essence, was the tragedy of the first freedom fighters in Russia.
In various historical periods, the Russian liberation movement had its own characteristics, in accordance with which its periodization can be established.
As you know, V.I. Lenin liberation movement in Russia in his historical development(until 1917) divided into three stages: noble, raznochinsk and proletarian. He based this periodization on the estate-class criterion, because, as he pointed out, the predominance at one stage or another of a certain class (or estate) "left its mark on the movement", i.e., determined its features: the composition of participants, the nature program requirements and organizational and tactical principles. This scheme of a purely "class" approach dominated Soviet research and educational literature.
Note that the use of the class criterion has its own reasons. In fact, at the first stage (until approximately the middle of the 19th century), the nobility practically prevailed in the Russian liberation movement, at the second stage the raznochintsy led the liberation struggle, at the third - the proletariat. And yet, at the "raznochinsk" stage in the liberation movement (especially among its liberal opposition wing), people from the nobility continued to play a significant role.
Even at the proletarian stage, the democratic parties that actually led the revolutionary struggle and acted on behalf of the proletariat or the peasantry were represented mainly by those who did not come from the workers and peasants, but from the intelligentsia. As for the moderate wing of the liberation movement, the liberal opposition parties, it was almost entirely represented by the bourgeois-landlord intelligentsia.
But in the periodization of the liberation movement in Russia, other criteria are also legitimate - first of all, the nature of the advanced ideology adopted by its leaders. At the noble stage (mainly during the years of the Decembrist organizations), the liberation movement was dominated by the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, the theory of "natural rights of man and citizen", formulated in the 18th century. French enlighteners. The Raznochinsk stage passes under the sign of socialist ideas, mainly "Russian socialism", oriented towards a special, non-capitalist way to socialism, relying on the peasant community. Proletarian was based on the ideas of Marxism in their modification in relation to Russian conditions expressed in Leninism.
Another essential criterion in distinguishing periods of the liberation movement is the characteristics of one or another historical epoch. Each stage of the liberation movement is associated with a certain socio-economic and political life of the country: the noble one fully corresponds to the pre-reform, serf era;
Raznochinskiy coincides with the establishment and development of capitalism in the post-reform era; proletarian - with the era of imperialism. Each epoch, putting forward its tasks of social and political transformations in the country, also formed the composition of the participants in the movement, determined the strategy and tactics, as well as the forms of struggle. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the Russian liberation movement of the XIX - early XX centuries. - a single process, and each subsequent stage is organically connected with the previous one.
The predominance of nobles and intellectuals in the Russian liberation movement was due (unlike in the countries of Western Europe) to the fact that in Russia a wide "middle" stratum of the population, the so-called "third estate", which could put forward its own political programs, did not form. demands and lead the revolutionary struggle.
A. N. Radishchev, N. I. Novikov, Russian enlighteners at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, A. I.
Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, V. G. Belinsky, the Petrashevites - these are the most prominent representatives of the first, noble, stage of the liberation movement in Russia. They represented a very narrow circle of the most educated, advanced nobility. In general, the Russian nobility remained a serf-minded and conservative estate loyal to the throne.
The origins of the Decembrist ideology. The Decembrists were people of high morality, which distinguished them from the rest of the nobility, forced them to rise above their class privileges given to them by their origin and position, that is, "become Decembrists", sacrificing all their wealth and even life itself in the name of high and noble ideals - the liberation of Russia from serfdom and from the despotism of autocratic power. The distinctive moral features of the Decembrists were their true chivalry, spiritual purity, high sense of camaraderie, awareness of civic duty and readiness for selfless, disinterested service to the fatherland. They correlated all their practical actions with moral standards. To achieve a great end, there must be, as they argued, highly moral means. "For a great deed one should not use low means" (K. F. Ryleev).
Consequently, the "case" of the Decembrists is not only their civil, but also high moral feat the way they imagined it.
They felt the fatefulness of the era in which they had to live and act, when, in their opinion, "the fate of Russia" was being decided. They were characterized by a feeling of the coming grandiosity of the events of their time, which served as the leading motive for their actions.
The Decembrists are representatives of the radical wing of the noble opposition to the autocracy, which united mainly military youth. The sources of the Decembrist ideology were the ideas of the French enlighteners of the 18th century, Russian "freethinkers" of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. - A. N. Radishchev, N. I. Novikov and their followers, as well as the influence of the liberating spirit of "freethinking" that prevailed at the beginning of the 19th century. at Moscow University, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, in some military educational institutions where many future Decembrists studied.
Big influence on the formation of the liberation ideas of the Decembrists had Patriotic War 1812 It is no coincidence that they called themselves "children of 1812", considering it as the starting date of their political education. Over a hundred future Decembrists were participants in the war of 1812, 65 of those whom the tsarist court would later call "state criminals" stood to death on the Borodino field.
The victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 contributed to the growth of national self-awareness in Russia, gave a powerful impetus to the development of advanced social thought and Russian national culture in general. It was the war of 1812 that raised questions about the fate of Russia and the ways of its development before the future Decembrists. It revealed the enormous possibilities of the people, who, as the Decembrists believed, having liberated their country from foreign invasion, sooner or later had to find the strength in themselves to free themselves from "internal tyranny" - to throw off the yoke of feudal slavery.
The foreign campaign of the Russian army in 1813-1814, in which many Decembrists took part, introduced them to the socio-political changes in Europe after the French Revolution of the late 18th century, enriched them with vivid impressions, new ideas and life experience. All this turned out to be in harmony with those liberation ideas, the main source of which at that time was primarily patriotism.
It was in the Decembrist movement that liberation ideas were especially closely connected with patriotic sentiments, and to a large extent flowed from them. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that at an early stage of the liberation movement, not only in Russia, but also in other countries - in the conditions of the formation of a nation, the growth of national self-consciousness - advanced ideas were inextricably linked with the development of national culture, with the progress of the nation in general. The Decembrists - ardent patriots of their homeland - understood earlier than others that serfdom and autocratic arbitrariness are the main cause of Russia's backwardness, which in the final analysis can lead to its death. Therefore, they considered the elimination of the serf system and autocracy primarily as a deeply patriotic task - the "salvation" of Russia.
The Decembrists appeared on the historical arena in the era of major military-political cataclysms, their time brought "unheard of changes, unprecedented revolts":
Napoleonic wars, revolutions in different countries Europe, national liberation uprisings in Greece and in the Latin American colonies. “The current century,” P. I. Pestel wrote in his testimony to the investigation, “is marked by revolutionary thoughts. From one end of Europe to the other one and the same thing is visible, from Portugal to Russia, not excluding a single state, even England and Turkey, these two opposites. All of America presents the same spectacle. The spirit of transformation makes, so to speak, minds everywhere bubbling."
The formation of the Decembrist ideology and the emergence of the first Decembrist organizations took place in the context of the growth of liberal opposition sentiments in Russia after the Patriotic War of 1812. The Decembrists were closely connected with the liberal opposition, or otherwise "near-Decembrist" environment, on which they relied in their activities and which to a large extent degree shared their characteristic views. These are prominent writers (for example, A. S. Pushkin, P. A. Vyazemsky, A. S. Griboyedov, D. V. Davydov), statesmen and military figures (M. M. Speransky, N. S.
Mordvinov, P. D. Kiselev, A. P. Ermolov), known for their independent views.
Therefore, the emergence of Decembristism and the activities of Decembrist societies, especially at their early stage, cannot be understood without connection with their liberal opposition environment. It is impossible not to take into account the fact that the formation of Decembrist ideas and views was influenced both by the reform activities and reform plans of the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, and later disappointment in the "reformer on the throne", which followed as a result of their actual rejection.
Masonic lodges (more than 80 Decembrists, including all their leaders, were members of them), as well as the experience of secret societies in European countries, had a significant influence on the organizational and tactical principles of the Decembrists.
§ 2. Early Decembrist organizations They were preceded by the so-called "pre-Decembrist" organizations - "youth brotherhoods" and officer "artels" in the guards regiments, which operated in 1814-1816.
Among them, the most famous are the “artel” of officers of the Life Guards of the Semenovsky Regiment and the “Order of Russian Knights” by M.F. Orlov and M.A. Dmitriev-Mamonov, which even had its own written charter.
Union of Salvation The first Decembrist society - the Union of Salvation - arose in early February 1816 in St. Petersburg. The initiator of its creation was a 23-year-old colonel
Guards headquarters A. N. Muravyov. The society initially included young officers:
N. M. Muravyov, brothers M. I. and S. I. Muravyov-Apostles, S. P. Trubetskoy and I. D.
Yakushkin. The society received its final structure a year later, when the energetic P. I. Pestel, who arrived in St. Petersburg, joined it. With his participation, the "statute" (charter) of a secret society was drawn up and adopted. From that moment on, it was called the "Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland."
It was still a small group of like-minded people in the amount of 10-12 people, which was of a conspiratorial nature. At the end of 1817, its membership increased to 30 members. In the internal use of the organization, the influence of the Masonic ritual affected: its composition was divided into three "categories" - the highest ("bolyar"), the middle ("husbands") and the younger ("brethren"); accepted into society gave a solemn oath, taken on the cross and the Gospel - to be faithful to society and not to divulge its secrets.
In the first Decembrist organization, although its goal was defined - the introduction of a constitution and the abolition of serfdom, it was not yet clear by what means to achieve this goal, there was also no program of transformation.
It was supposed in the future, most likely at the moment of the change of kings on the throne, to “pull out” the constitution from the government: not to swear allegiance to the new king if he does not grant a constitution. At the same time, members of the secret society cherished the hope that the reigning Emperor Alexander I, continuing his reform activities, could himself grant Russia a constitution similar to the one he granted in 1815.
Poland (this hope was strengthened in 1818, when he publicly announced this intention in Warsaw). In this case, it was supposed to support him in every possible way. As P. I. Pestel showed during the investigation, then they reasoned in this way: "If the sovereign bestows firm laws and a constant order of affairs on the fatherland, then we will be his most faithful adherents and savers." But the hopes of the Decembrists were replaced by disappointments, they were broken by the real actions of the monarch.
In August 1817, the royal court, together with the guards, left for Moscow to hold celebrations in connection with the fifth anniversary of the victory in the Patriotic War of 1812. Most of the members of the Union of Salvation turned out to be part of the guards who arrived in Moscow. Apartment A.
N. Muravyov in the Khamovniki barracks became a meeting place for the Decembrists. At this time, they received news of the massacre of the peasants of the Novgorod province, who resisted their transfer to military settlers. At the same time, a letter came from St. Petersburg from Trubetskoy, who reported rumors that Alexander I intended to restore the independence of Poland and annex some primordially Russian territories to it, which greatly hurt the patriotic feelings of the Decembrists. Spontaneously, a plan arose for an immediate action, which was supposed to begin with regicide. I.D.
Yakushkin volunteered to sneak into the Kremlin with two pistols: from one to hit the tsar, and from the other to commit suicide, which was supposed to give this act the character of a noble duel. After lengthy and heated disputes between supporters and opponents of regicide, they came to a decision to abandon this intention in view of the extremely limited forces of the conspirators for a coup, if regicide could be carried out. As a result, it was decided to liquidate this first secret society and start creating a new, broader organization.
The Welfare Union This organization was established in January 1818 in Moscow under the name of the Welfare Union. During its three-year existence (1818 -
1821) The Union of Welfare made a significant step in the development of organizational and tactical principles and program provisions of the Decembrists.
The new organization had up to 200 members and had its own charter, called the "Green Book". The first part of the charter was well-intentioned and pursued, according to the Decembrists, "the immediate goal - the spread of education, the occupation of civil positions by members of a secret society," that is, it set only educational goals. It also detailed the organizational principles of the Welfare Union. When compiling the first part of the Green Book, the charter of the secret Prussian society Tugenbund (Union of Virtue), created in 1808 with the aim of patriotic education of the people, when Prussia, defeated by Napoleon, was under his yoke, was used.
The first part of the "Green Book" was introduced to all those who joined the Union of Welfare.
Somewhat later, the second part of the charter was written in rough form, containing the "secret" goal of the society: "the introduction of a constitution and lawful free government, equality of citizens before the law, publicity in public affairs and in legal proceedings, the destruction of peasant slavery, recruitment and military settlements."
The "secret" part of the "Green Book" has not been preserved, but the testimony of the Decembrists involved in its creation testifies to its content.
The founding members (there were 29 of them - almost all former members of the Salvation Union) made up the Root Union. He elected the governing body - the Council of the Indigenous Union, consisting of six people. Each member of the Indigenous Union was obliged to create a cell of a secret society - "uprava", the head of which he became. It was supposed to create up to 30 councils in this way in the near future. However, in the future it was planned to create much more of them, because each council was given the right to form subordinate cells-upravdas. In this case, it became the "main council", and those created by it. were called "sides". In reality, up to 15 councils were formed as part of the Welfare Union. Most of them were in St. Petersburg, mainly in the guards regiments. Councils were created in Moscow, Smolensk, Nizhny Novgorod, Chisinau, Tulchin and some other cities. There were many such members of the Union of Welfare who, having joined it, practically did not take any part in its affairs. Subsequently, they lagged behind him and were not involved in the investigation.
In the Union of Prosperity, the task of forming an advanced "public opinion" in the country as a necessary condition for the transformational plans of the Decembrists was put forward to the fore. The thesis of "public opinion ruling the world", put forward in the XVIII century. French enlighteners, was widespread in the European liberation movement of the late XVIII - early XIX centuries. MM Speransky also attached decisive importance to public opinion in the historical process.
The Decembrists were convinced that it was enough to prepare an advanced public opinion in the country, as the necessary conditions for a bloodless political upheaval will arise. To create an advanced public opinion, it will take, as the Decembrists calculated, about 20 years. In this regard, they provided for the formation, in addition to the cells-managements of the Union of Welfare, various legal and semi-legal educational, literary, charitable societies, with the help of which it was supposed to prepare public opinion in a certain direction. In those years, it was essentially already taking shape in Russia. The activities of the Union of Welfare, mainly propaganda and educational, took place in an atmosphere of noticeable socio-political revival after and under the influence of the Patriotic War of 1812. Until about 1820, there was still no noticeable strengthening of the reactionary political course of the autocracy, characteristic of the last five years of the reign of Alexander I. The Russian journals of that time still continued to publish articles outlining the French and American constitutions, and books appeared in which anti-serfdom ideas were openly promoted. All this created an environment for the practically open propaganda and educational work of the Union of Welfare.
Through scientific, "free" literary and charitable societies, legally operating "side councils" (for example, through the "free society of lovers of Russian literature", literary circles "Arzamas" and "Green Lamp"), which included many members of the Union of Welfare, the Decembrist the organization was closely connected with the progressive literary and scientific circles of Russia. The members of the Welfare Union advocated the protection of advanced science and literature, defended the offended and unjustly convicted, redeemed talented self-taught people from serfdom, created Lancaster schools for mutual education under the regiments, provided assistance to starving peasants (for example, in the Smolensk province), ardently opposed the serfs in the salons law, the use of corporal punishment in the army, Arakcheev military settlements. As I. D. Yakushkin recalled, at the meetings of the secret society they "discussed the main ulcers of the fatherland: the inertia of the people, the cruel treatment of soldiers, for whom service for 25 years was hard labor, widespread extortion, robbery, and, finally, a clear disrespect for man in general ".
In the Welfare Union there were people of different views and ideas about the ways and means of political transformations in the country. The majority adhered to a moderate orientation, not going beyond the educational tasks outlined in the first part of the Zelenev Book. At the same time, a radical wing was also taking shape in society, demanding "decisive measures" and the introduction of a republic. The wider the circle of the Welfare Union became, the more heterogeneous its composition increased. Disputes boiled at his meetings, various projects and plans were born, various, sometimes opposite, opinions collided.
1820-1821 became a turning point in the history of the Decembrist secret societies in Russia.
In 1820-1821. in the countries of Southern Europe (Portugal; Spain, Naples, Piedmont) a wave of revolutionary uprisings swept. In 1821, a national liberation uprising began in Greece against the Ottoman yoke. Finally, in Russia itself, in October 1820, the Semyonovsky Guards Regiment rebelled, headed by Alexander I himself. These events contributed to the growth of radical sentiments among the Decembrists, but at the same time frightened its moderate members.
The situation in the country has also changed. Revolutionary events in Western Europe dramatically changed political course Alexander I, who switched to open reaction.
In January 1820, a meeting of 14 members of the Indigenous Administration of the Welfare Union met in St. Petersburg. At this meeting, Pestel made a presentation on the forms of government in Russia after the revolutionary upheaval. Outlining all the "benefits and disadvantages of both monarchical and republican governments," Pestel argued the advantages of the latter. After heated debates and Pestel's convincing arguments, all participants in the meeting ultimately spoke in favor of the republic. Pavel Pestel and Nikita Muravyov were instructed to start developing the program documents of the secret society.
Disagreements between the radical and moderate currents in the Welfare Union became especially aggravated by the end of 1820. The congress of representatives of the administrations of the Welfare Union, which met in Moscow in January 1821, decided: in view of the aggravated disagreements in the secret society, declare it dissolved. The purpose of such an action was to get rid of unreliable and hesitant fellow travelers, as well as to extinguish the suspicions of the government, already aware through denunciations of the existence of a secret society. After the formal self-dissolution of the Union of Welfare at the same congress, it was decided to create a new, more secretive secret society, consisting of four councils - in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Smolensk and Tulchin. By this action, the Decembrists who gathered at the Moscow Congress sought to isolate Pestel (by removing him from the leadership of the newly created Tulchinsk administration), whose extreme radicalism and his increased influence on the affairs of the secret society began to cause concern among the Moscow and St. Petersburg administrations of the Welfare Union.
The Tulchinsk council headed by Pestel - the most numerous in the Union of Welfare - did not recognize the decision of the Moscow Congress to dissolve the secret society and decided to "continue the society". In March 1821, the Southern Society was formed on the basis of the Tulchinsk Council. Almost simultaneously in St. Petersburg N. M. Muravyov and N.
I. Turgenev laid the foundation for the Northern Society, which received its final structure in 1822. Both societies interacted with each other and considered themselves as parts of one organization.
After 1821, the activities of the newly formed Decembrist societies took place already in an atmosphere of increased domestic and international reaction. Under conditions of ubiquitous police surveillance and censorship, it became more and more difficult to carry out propaganda, as envisaged by the Green Book. The Decembrists were forced to switch to a stricter secrecy, to develop a different, more effective tactic, designed not for long-term propaganda, but for the preparation of a revolutionary action, and in the near future.
As early as 1820, the idea of a "military revolution" - a military uprising without the participation of the masses of the people - began to take over the minds of the Decembrists more and more. It should be emphasized that the tactical plan to carry out a revolutionary coup "in the name of the people", but without its participation, was due not only and not even so much to the "nobility narrow-mindedness" of the Decembrists. They proceeded from the experience of two types of revolutions: the French - the revolution of the masses, accompanied by "unrest and anarchy", and the Spanish 1820 - the revolution "organized", "without blood and unrest", accomplished with the assistance of a disciplined military force, led by authoritative military leaders - members of secret societies. The example of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic dictatorship that followed it showed the Decembrists that the logical outcome of such a revolution was the emergence of a dictator. They were terrified by the horrors of the Jacobin terror as a consequence of the "mob revolution". The Decembrists were convinced that people's revolutions inevitably lead to despotism, because a dictator always appears on the crest of a spontaneous wave of "unbridled masses".
A military revolution "like the Guishpanian" was supposed to be an alternative to a revolution like the French one. As the Decembrists have repeatedly pointed out, the military revolution will be "the most rapid, bloodless, painless", and most importantly - "organized", preventing anarchy with all its negative consequences. In the conditions of Russia, it will be an alternative to Pugachevism. As S. P. Trubetskoy testified during the investigation, "in Russia, serfdom favors Pugachevism more than in any other state." He painted a gloomy picture of how Pugachevism could end in Russia: “With the uprising of the peasants, horrors that no imagination can imagine will inevitably be connected, and the state will become a victim of strife and can be the prey of ambitious people, and finally, it can fall apart, and from one strong state to disintegrate into different weak ones.
All the glory of Russia may perish, if not forever, then for many centuries. "Some Decembrists in their testimony during the investigation tried to present their plans for a military coup as a desire to prevent a possible Pugachevshchina in Russia.
1821-1823 - the time of formation, numerical growth and organizational design of the Southern and Northern societies. The southern society consisted of Tulchinskaya, Kamenskaya and Vasilkovskaya administrations. The society was headed by the Directory (or the Root Duma), to which P. I. Pestel, A. P. Yushnevsky and the head of the Northern Society N. M. Muravyov were elected in March 1821 (thus, the connection between the Northern and Southern societies was emphasized ). In fact, Pestel "dominated" in Southern society, whose authority and influence were indisputable. His strong will, clear analytical mind, encyclopedic erudition, deep conviction that he was right and the iron logic of his judgments captivated and, as it were, suppressed his listeners, so that, according to the Decembrists themselves, "it was difficult to resist his influence." Pestel's immediate superior, commander of the 2nd Army, Count P. X. Wittgenstein said of him: "Let him command the army, put him at the head of any ministry - he will be in place everywhere." But these qualities of Pestel, which, according to the Decembrists, made him the "driving spring" of the Southern Society, aroused suspicion among the members of the Northern Society - they suspected in him the intention to "become a Russian Bonaparte."
Pestel advocated a strictly disciplined secret organization, which became the Southern Society, the most numerous and radical. Every year in early January, starting from 1822, in Kyiv, where in those days officers of many regiments came to buy provisions and fodder, congresses of the leaders of the Southern Society and its administrations gathered to discuss organizational, tactical and program issues.
The northern society also consisted of several councils (departments) in the guards regiments of the capital. The Northern Society was headed by the Duma of three people - N.M.
Muravyov, S. P. Trubetskoy and E. P. Obolensky. In 1823, I.I.
Pushchin received K. F. Ryleev, who was well known in Decembrist circles as a talented poet, author of freedom-loving and patriotic works. Then they talked a lot about Ryleev's satire "To the temporary worker", which caused a sensation, directed against Arakcheev. Ryleev was immediately introduced to the highest category ("convinced") and soon took a leading position in Northern society. Adopted by him in 1824-1825. a group of young officers of the army and navy formed the so-called "Ryley branch" in the Northern society, which later played a decisive role in the Decembrist uprising. The Moscow Council was also part of the Northern Society, in it a prominent place was occupied by the lyceum friend of A.S. Pushkin, the judge of the Moscow Court of Appeal, I.I.
In 1821, the Kishinev Administration of the Union of Welfare, headed by the commander of the 16th Infantry Division, Major General M.F., became an independent organization.
Orlov and his friend Major V.F. Raevsky. The arrest of Raevsky in February 1822 in connection with his anti-government agitation among the soldiers led to the defeat of the Kishinev organization in 1823.
§ 4. Constitutional projects of P. I. Pestel and N.
M. Muravyova The development of constitutional projects and plans for armed action occupied a paramount place in the activities of the Decembrist societies after 1821. In 1821-1825. two political programs of revolutionary transformations in Russia were created - P. I. Pestel's "Russian Truth" and the Constitution of Nikita Muravyov; In principle, the plan for the joint action of both societies was also agreed upon.
The Decembrist projects for the political and social reorganization of Russia were based on the principles of "natural law" developed by the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment - Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot, Holbach, whose works the authors of the Decembrist constitutions were well acquainted with. Under "natural law" was understood the inviolability of the individual, freedom of speech and conscience, equality of all before the law, non-recognition of class differences, guarantees for the protection of private property, and politically - the introduction of a representative form of government with the separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial. These provisions were directed against the feudal-absolutist order and contained a great revolutionary charge for that time. They laid the foundations of the bourgeois rule of law. When developing their drafts, Pestel and N. Muravyov also relied on the constitutional experience of other European and American states.
Pestel's Russkaya Pravda proclaimed the decisive abolition of serfdom, the establishment of a republic in Russia and the equality of all citizens before the law.
“The slavery of the peasants must be decisively destroyed,” Pestel wrote, “and the nobility must forever renounce the vile advantage of possessing other people.” The peasants were to receive not only personal freedom, but also land.
When solving the agrarian question, Pestel proceeded from two prerequisites: land is a public property, from which every citizen has the right to receive a land allotment, but at the same time, private ownership of land was also recognized, for "labor and work is the source of property." Pestel sought to reconcile the public and private beginnings by dividing the entire land fund of the country into two parts - public land and private land. Public land was transferred to the disposal of the volost society (the primary administrative and economic unit of the country), so it was called "volost". Each citizen had to be assigned to a certain volost for this. Whatever he did (trade, industry, etc.), in case of failure in his activities, he could always find a means of subsistence in his volost at the expense of a plot of public land due to him. This land could neither be sold nor mortgaged, but was provided free of charge to anyone who wished to engage in agriculture. She, according to Pestel, was intended to produce a "necessary product" in order to provide the necessary means of subsistence every citizen, and thus was supposed to serve as a guarantee against begging and hunger.
All state and monastic lands were to be included in the public land fund. In addition, to replenish it, partial confiscation of land from large landowners was envisaged: from those who had more than 10 thousand acres, half was taken away without any remuneration, from owners from 5 to 10 thousand acres, half was alienated either for monetary compensation or for providing an equivalent plot in the other place. Private lands were in free commodity circulation and served to "deliver abundance", that is, they were called upon to promote the development of private entrepreneurial initiative in agricultural production.
Pestel built his attitude to private property on the basis of reasonable combination public and private interest ("goods"). "The rich will always exist," he wrote, "and that's a very good thing." However, he emphasized, "it is unacceptable to add other political rights and advantages to wealth to the detriment of the rest of the population", that is, to establish, for example, a property qualification for holding public office. Providing for a number of measures to protect private property and private enterprise, Pestel at the same time opposed large owners (or, as he said, "the aristocracy of wealth"), which, as he saw in the example of England and France, have a strong influence on government policy.
Pestel considered the "aristocracy of wealth" even more dangerous than the "feudal aristocracy".
The former class division was to be abolished. All estates "merge into a single estate - civil." Civil and political rights were given to men who reached the age of 20. Instead of the former recruitment, universal military service was introduced with a 15-year term of service. Military settlements were liquidated. Russkaya Pravda declared freedom of speech, press, assembly, occupation, movement, religion, inviolability of the person and home, the introduction of a new court, equal for all citizens, with open trial and the right of the accused to defense. However, restrictions were also placed on the exercise of some of these rights. All sorts of societies and associations were categorically forbidden, "at least open, even secret, because the former are useless, and the latter are harmful." Pestel saw the futility of the former in the fact that their activities "are included in the circle of actions of the government itself"; the latter are harmful because the very fact of secret activity makes one suspect them of "maliciousness", because the new social order "does not force anything good and useful to be hidden, but even, on the contrary, it provides all means for their introduction and promulgation by law."
Established censorship of morals. The "writer" and the publisher were brought to trial for works that violated the "rules of morality" or damaged the honor and dignity of a citizen. The government was obliged to have "vigilant and strict supervision" over various kinds of private and public "festivals and amusements" so that "they are not contrary to the purest morality and do not contain debauchery and temptation."
The education of children, according to Pestel's project, should be carried out in government educational institutions. It was strictly forbidden for private individuals to "set up pensions and other educational establishments". Pestel motivated this ban by the impossibility of controlling private educational institutions by the government.
The Russkaya Pravda proclaimed freedom of conscience. Orthodoxy was declared "the dominant faith of the great Russian state", however, freedom was also granted to other religions, "unless they are contrary to Russian laws, spiritual and political, the rules of pure morality and do not violate the natural duties of a person." Clerics were regarded as government officials, "performing special positions." Monasteries were preserved, but people no younger than 60 years old were allowed to take the veil.
Russkaya Pravda elaborates civil and family law relations in detail. The age of majority was proposed to be considered 15 years, when young men and women in a solemn atmosphere take the oath of allegiance to the fatherland. From that moment on, girls have the right to marry; young men, on the other hand, receive such a right from the age of 20, as well as the right to elect and be elected to government bodies at all levels, to enter the military and civil service. Parents have full power over minor children, but they are also responsible for their upbringing and actions.
Pestel was an ardent supporter of the establishment of republican government in Russia. Calling autocracy "furious malevolence", he opposed any form of monarchical government, believing that any monarchy would inevitably "end with despotism." As the investigation established, Pestel considered it necessary during the revolutionary upheaval to "exterminate" the entire reigning family.
According to Russkaya Pravda, the future Russian republic should be a single and indivisible state, with a strong centralized government. Pestel was an opponent of the federation, believing that it would contribute to the development of centrifugal and separatist tendencies and thus to the weakening of the state, and possibly its collapse. He considered the federal structure as the restoration of the "former specific system" that existed in Russia, with all its negative consequences. Administratively, the Russian Republic was to consist of ten large regions, each of which would include five districts (or provinces); districts were divided into counties (or counties), and counties - into volosts.
The highest legislative power, according to Russkaya Pravda, belonged to the unicameral People's Veche, consisting of 500 people elected for 5 years. Every year 1/5 of the People's Council was re-elected. The executive power was to be exercised by the Sovereign Duma in the amount of 5 people, elected by the People's Council also for 5 years.
The Duma was chaired by the one who had been in its composition for the last, fifth, year. The supreme control ("monitor") power was handed over to the Supreme Council of 120 people. The most authoritative and honored citizens of the country were elected to it for life.
Local administrative power was exercised by regional, district, district and volost "local assemblies", and executive power was exercised by regional, district, district and volost "local boards". The heads of "local assemblies" and at the same time "local boards" were to be elected "posadniks" (in volosts - "volost leaders"). Local authorities were elected for a one-year term.
When solving the national question, Pestel proceeded from two contradictory principles: "the rights of the people", that is, the right of national self-determination, and the "right of convenience" - the recognition of "every large state" of its desire "to establish borders, strong local position and strong natural strongholds", and at the same time - the desire "to ensure that the forces of the small peoples surrounding it multiply its own forces, and not the forces of any neighboring large state, basing this desire and diligence on the right of security." Pestel called both rights equally legitimate and fair, however, in his opinion, the right to self-determination can really be granted only to those peoples who have the strength and ability to "preserve it", otherwise they cannot "because of their weakness enjoy independent political independence" and will inevitably fall under the rule of "one of the large neighboring states." Therefore, this right for small peoples is "imaginary and non-existent." “Besides, small nations, located between large ones, serve as a constant field for military operations, ruin and disastrous actions of all kinds.” Therefore, Pestel pointed out, "it will be better and more useful for them when they unite in spirit and society with a large state." Based on these premises, Pestel believed that in relation to the peoples inhabiting Russia, the "right of convenience" should act. He made an exception for Poland, which received political independence on the condition that a democratic republic would be established in it with the help of the Russian revolution and the same transformations would be carried out as in Russia, with which she would enter into an “eternal alliance”.
Pestel called every inhabitant of Russia "Russian". This name meant not so much belonging to the Russian nationality, as it determined the status of a citizen of the Russian Republic. The entry of small peoples into the composition Russian state he did not associate with forced Christianization and Russification. According to Pestel, no discrimination based on nationality is allowed: all peoples enjoy the same rights and bear the same duties. Giving clear priority to the "right of convenience", Pestel pointed out that in the future "one should not oppose by hostile feelings and actions to the correct separate existence of peoples who can take advantage of full political independence."
Pestel's Russkaya Pravda was called upon to serve as a "Mandate" to the Provisional Government, vested with dictatorial power for a period of 10 years. During this necessary, according to Pestel, transitional period, it puts into practice the transformations recorded in the "Instruction". After a 10-year period, a new constitution was to be adopted, fixing the transformations made, according to Russkaya Pravda, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government resigned its powers.
Russkaya Pravda by Pestel is the most radical constitutional project of the Decembrists. The transformations recorded in it were supposed to be carried out with the help of a tough revolutionary dictatorship envisaged by Pestel.
The constitutional project of N. M. Muravyov proceeded from a different political concept.
Unlike Pestel's Russkaya Pravda, Muraviev's project provided for the preservation of the monarchy, limited by the constitution. In addition, Muravyov was an opponent of strictly centralized power and a unitary state. Russia, according to his project, should become a federation of 14 "powers" and two regions (according to the second draft - of 13 "powers" and two regions) with its own capitals and independent government. According to Muravyov, in such a vast country as Russia, the federal structure will be a counterbalance to the excessive strengthening of the central power, which in a centralized state will inevitably turn into despotism. Thus, the federal structure of the country will better ensure the preservation of the freedoms of citizens.
But in determining the federal structure, Muravyov proceeded not from the national, but from the economic and economic characteristics of those regions that were to become "powers." According to his project, "powers" were tied either to the shores of the seas or to large navigable rivers. Accordingly, they received the names: Botanical, Baltic, 3Avolzhskaya, Kama, Obyskaya, Lena, Okinsky, Buzhskaya, Dnieper, Black Sea, etc. The capitals of the "powers", according to Muravyov, were to be large commercial and industrial centers, river or seaports. Poland was not included in the Russian Federation, it was supposed to receive state independence. The "powers" were divided into "povets" (districts), which should have numbered a total of 569, and they, in turn, into volosts of 500-1500 male residents each. The capital of the federation was to be (like Pestel's) Nizhny Novgorod, which was renamed Slavyanok (Pestel's - Vladimir).
Muravyov carried out a strict separation of powers - into legislative, executive and judicial, which, along with the federal structure, was intended to become a guarantee against the emergence of dictatorial power in the country. the highest legislative body in the future Russian Federation was a bicameral People's Veche, consisting of the Supreme Duma (upper house) and the "House of Representatives of the People" (lower house). Deputies to both chambers were elected for a 6-year term, while every two years 1/3 of them were re-elected. Three deputies from each "power" and two from the "region" were elected to the upper chamber, and one deputy from 50,000 male inhabitants was elected to the lower house.
In each "state" the legislative body was the Sovereign Council, which also consisted of two chambers - the Sovereign Duma and the House of Elected. The Sovereign Council was elected for 4 years, while 1/4 of its members were re-elected annually.
The right to participate in elections to central and local authorities was given to male citizens aged at least 21 years. In addition, they had to have a permanent place of residence, real estate worth at least 500 rubles. silver or movable for 1000 rubles, regularly pay taxes and perform public duties, and also not be "in the service" of anyone. And in order to be elected to local and central authorities or to hold public office, an even higher property qualification was established. To occupy the highest government positions, it was necessary to have 30 thousand rubles. real estate silver and 60 thousand rubles. movable property. Thus, a high property qualification gave access to participation in the active political life of the country mainly to the wealthy segments of the population, while, as we see, the owners of real estate (and these were mainly landowning nobles) had a double advantage over the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie).
The supreme executive power belonged to the emperor. He was Supreme Commander, in his competence were negotiations with other countries, he appointed, with the consent of the Supreme Duma, ambassadors and consuls, judges of the supreme courts and ministers. Upon accession to the throne, the emperor had to take an oath of allegiance and protection of the constitution. He was considered "the first official of the state." He was allocated a high salary (from 8 to 10 million rubles in silver per year), on which he could support his court. However, the courtiers, as being "in the service", for the duration of their service to the emperor, were deprived of voting rights and, thereby, participation in the political life of the country.
The executive power in the "power" was exercised by the sovereign ruler and his deputy, appointed by the Sovereign Council.
The administrative and executive power in the county was handed over to the elected thousandth.
In Muravyov's project, the transformation of the judicial system is elaborated in detail.
A public court was introduced with jurors, advocacy, competitiveness of the parties. The court was declared equal for all citizens of the country. The supreme judicial body of the country was the Supreme Court, in the states - the sovereign, and in the counties - the county court, the volost "conscientious court" became the lower court.
Muravyov's project proclaimed the abolition of the class structure of society, the introduction of universal equality of citizens before the law, the protection of the inviolability of the person and property, broad freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and free choice of occupation. Muravyov's project, unlike Pestel's, considered it an inalienable right of citizens to create various kinds of associations and communities.
Muravyov's Constitution solemnly declared the liquidation of serfdom: "Serfdom and slavery are abolished. A slave who touches Russian land becomes free." However, landownership was declared inviolable ("landlords' land remains theirs"). Initially, Muravyov planned to free the peasants without land at all, and only in the latest version of his project did he provide for the former landlord peasants to be given their estates and two acres per yard, which was clearly not enough for the normal conduct of the peasant economy and would inevitably force the peasant to go into bondage to his former landowner. State and specific peasants, as well as military settlers, were in a more advantageous position: they were assigned all the allotment land that they had previously used. Muravyov believed that in the future all land, including peasant allotments, should become the private property of their owners.
It was generally accepted that Muravyov's constitutional draft, being more "moderate", bears to a greater extent "features of class, nobility, narrow-mindedness" and therefore stands "below" Pestel's. Meanwhile, Muravyov's project was closer to the conditions of the then Russia than Pestel's project. Back in 1820, Nikita Muravyov stood for a republic, but after deep reflection and study of the then state of Russia, in which tsarist illusions prevailed among the broad masses of the people, he came to the conclusion that a constitutional monarchy was expedient for the country. The introduction by him of a property qualification for holding public office pursued the goal during the socio-political transformations in the country to rely on the wealthy, the most active segments of the population, providing them with more favorable conditions for economic entrepreneurship.
Both constitutional drafts of the Decembrists were not completed. Of the ten proposed chapters of Russkaya Pravda, Pestel wrote only five, and before that he had drawn up a short summary of the project called "The Constitution of the State Testament."
As for the Constitution of Nikita Muravyov, two unfinished lists and summary her, written by him in the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress at the request of the investigation.
Variants of these constitutional drafts were discussed in a narrow circle of Decembrists and, in essence, were not accepted as program documents. Despite the limitations in solving important social problems, the inconsistency and utopian nature of certain provisions, both projects are remarkable monuments of the Decembrist political thought, they reflect the ardent desire of the Decembrists to adapt the advanced ideas of the Age of Enlightenment to Russian conditions.
Petersburg meetings of 1824-1825. characterized by the intensification of the activities of the Decembrist organizations, especially the Northern Society of the Southern Society. Their number increased significantly due to the admission mainly in 1824 of military youth.
The task of direct preparation of a military action was closely set.
In the spring of 1824, Pestel arrived in St. Petersburg in order to negotiate with the leadership of the Northern Society on its merger with the Southern Society. The negotiations were difficult. Pestel sought to unite both societies on the ideological platform of Russkaya Pravda. His project caused heated debate in the Northern Society, whose leadership (especially N.M.
Muravyov and S. P. Trubetskoy) opposed the dictatorship of the Provisional Government proposed by Pestel for the transitional period, defended the idea of a Constituent Assembly and a federal structure future Russia. It also objected to Pestel's "division of lands" project. Fears of "ambitious", "dictatorial" intentions, in which Pestel was suspected, also served as a serious obstacle to unification.
Although the unification of both societies did not take place, nevertheless, the parties agreed to work out a compromise version of the constitutional project, and most importantly, on a joint action planned for the summer of 1826.
Plans for the uprising It was supposed to start a speech in St. Petersburg, "like the center of all authorities and governments", with an uprising of the guards and the fleet, then "take the royal family to foreign lands" (with the exception of the emperor himself, who was kept under arrest until the issue of the form of government was resolved - a constitutional monarchy or Republic), to convene the Senate, "in order to promulgate the new order of things through it." On the periphery ("in the army and in the provinces"), the local members of the secret society were to provide military support to the uprising in the capital. This was, according to Pestel, "the main opinion."
But the leaders of the Vasilkovskaya Council of the Southern Society, S. I. Muravyov-Apostol and M. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, put forward a different plan for a coup: to start an uprising not in the capital, but on the periphery. According to their plan, during the tsarist review of the troops, members of the secret society, dressed as guard soldiers, should arrest the tsar, raise the troops, then move with them in two directions - to Moscow and Kyiv, joining other military units along the way. At the same time, two proclamations were to be issued - to the army and the people - about the goals of the uprising.
The Vasilkovskaya Council tried twice to implement this plan during the tsarist review of troops in Bobruisk in 1823 and in Belaya | Churches in 1824, but at the insistence of Pestel (due to the unavailability of tay-;
society to speak) was forced to refuse;
these intentions. A new plan to capture the tsar, scheduled for 1825 during the proposed review of the tsarist troops in Belaya Tserkov, was canceled due to the fact that Alexander I, who was aware of the denunciations that were being prepared against him, canceled the review.
In 1823, the leaders of the Vasilkovsky council came into contact with the Polish Patriotic Society (which arose in Warsaw in 1821). Negotiations were conducted under the control of Pestel MP Bestuzhev-Ryumin. In 1825, a preliminary agreement was concluded on the support of the Decembrists by the Polish revolutionary forces.
– – –
"Society of First Consent" (soon renamed by them into "Society of Friends of Nature"). Initially, they set as their task "the improvement of oneself in the sciences, arts and virtues", that is, in essence it was an educational circle.
In 1823, the Borisov brothers in Novograd-Volynsk, where their unit was stationed, met the politically exiled Pole Julian Lyublinsky, a former student who had extensive experience in conspiracy. Together they determined the organizational principles and main program requirements of the new organization, which was called the Society of United Slavs. In the "Oath Promise" and "Rules" of this society, which can be considered its policy documents, demands were put forward to fight against serfdom and any despotism, for the creation of a Slavic federation of 10 Slavic states: Russia, Poland, Moravia, Bohemia, Serbia, Dalmatia, Croatia , as well as Hungary, Wallachia and Moldavia (members of the Society also ranked Hungarians, Romanians and Moldavians as Slavs). The future social order in the Slavic federation was presented as universal civil equality under republican rule.
Having merged with the Southern Society, the "united Slavs" constituted a special "Slavic Council" in it, which by the end of 1825 already had 52 members. Basically, they were from families of stateless and small-scale nobles, they occupied lower officer posts and lived on a small army salary.
In the summer of 1825, a secret Society of military friends arose on the territory of Lithuania and Belarus. It had up to 50 members (officers, students, petty officials).
Its organizers and leaders were Captain K. G. Igelstrom and Lieutenant A. I.
Vigelin. The society, being at the stage of its organizational formation, did not yet have either a charter or a developed program. But it was a society of an undeniably "Decembrist" type, put forward the same goals as other Decembrist organizations, and was oriented towards a military uprising. The investigation failed to establish any connections with other Decembrist societies.
At the end of 1825, members of the Southern Society launched propaganda work among the soldiers in order to prepare them for military action. Agitation was conducted through trusted non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the cassation after the indignation of 1820.
Semyonovsky regiment - those whom some members of the secret society knew well from their service in this regiment. The soldiers were told about the upcoming action and the "change of government", as a result of which "they will reduce their years of service, increase their salaries, reduce the severity through which they are so tormented." The agitation, as established by the investigation, found a warm response from the soldiers.
In June 1825, Alexander I received a denunciation about the existence of a conspiracy in the troops stationed in southern Russia. However, the scammer, except for the fact of the conspiracy, could not name the names of its participants. A plan was developed to identify and arrest them. The leadership of this operation was entrusted to A. A. Arakcheev, but due to "family circumstances" (the murder of his mistress by the courtyards), he fell into a severe depression and generally retired from all state affairs. In autumn, the tsar in Taganrog, where he was at that time, received new denunciations, in which 45 members of the Southern and Northern societies were named by name, including their leaders. On November 10, Alexander I, already seriously ill, ordered the arrest of the identified participants in the conspiracy. However, the death of the emperor on November 19 somewhat delayed the start of the repression.
§ 6. Revolt of the Decembrists. Investigation and trial Uprising December 14, 1825 The news of the death of Alexander I came to St. Petersburg on November 27. According to the law on succession to the throne, adopted by Paul I on April 5, 1797, the next in seniority brother of the deceased childless Alexander I, Tsarevich Konstantin, who was at that time as the viceroy of the tsar in Warsaw, was to take the throne. But Konstantin entered into a morganatic marriage with the Polish countess Joanna Grudzinska. On this occasion, in 1820, by decree of Alexander I, he was deprived of the right to transfer the throne to his descendants, and in 1823, at the insistence of Alexander, he completely renounced his rights to the throne. However, the act of refusal of Constantine and the manifesto on the transfer of the throne to another brother - Nikolai Pavlovich - Alexander I decided to keep secret for the time being.
When news of Alexander's death was received, the troops, government offices, and the populace swore allegiance to Constantine. Nikolai himself took the oath to him.
However, Constantine, not accepting the throne, did not want to officially announce his renunciation of it. The reasons for this behavior of Constantine still remain a mystery.
Thus, an interregnum situation was created.
The news of the death of Alexander I received in St. Petersburg took the members of the Northern Society by surprise. At a meeting with Ryleev, it was decided that if Konstantin takes the throne, then it is necessary to formally announce to all members of the secret society about its dissolution "and act as carefully as possible, trying to take significant places in the guards regiments in two or three years." Meanwhile, persistent rumors began to spread in St. Petersburg that Constantine was abdicating the throne, which thus passes to Nicholas. The Decembrists again had hope for an immediate action. On December 10, it became known for sure that the "re-swearing" was being prepared. Daily meetings began with K. F. Ryleev, S. P. Trubetskoy and E. P. Obolensky, where various versions of the speech were developed. Among them was Trubetskoy's proposal for an armed demonstration "without bloodshed": to raise guard regiments and artillery, gather them in one place outside the city and, relying on this armed force, demand from the government consent to the adoption of a constitution and the introduction of representative government.
On December 13, at Ryleev's apartment, after lengthy and heated discussions, the final plan for the uprising was adopted. It was decided the next day, December 14, on which the oath to the new emperor, Nicholas I, was scheduled, to withdraw the guards regiments in the name of loyalty to the former oath (Konstantin) to Senate Square and force the Senate to announce the introduction of constitutional government. It was supposed to simultaneously take Peter and Paul Fortress and the Winter Palace, arrest royal family. Trubetskoy was elected "dictator of the uprising" (commander of the insurgent troops) as "senior in rank" (he was a colonel of the guard), and E. P. Obolensky was his "chief of staff".
On behalf of the Senate, it was supposed to promulgate the Manifesto to the Russian people", which proclaimed: "Destruction former board"(i.e., the autocratic power of the tsar), the elimination of serfdom of peasants, recruitment, military settlements, corporal punishment, the abolition of the poll tax and the addition of tax arrears, the reduction of soldier service to 15 years, the equalization of the rights of all classes, the introduction of the principle of election in the central and local governments, public jury trials, freedom of speech, occupation, movement.
According to the plan developed by the Decembrists, immediately after the uprising, power in the country was handed over to the Provisional Revolutionary "Board", which was supposed to include the most authoritative state and military figures: M. M. Speransky, N. S.
Mordvinov, A. P. Ermolov, P. D. Kiselev; G.S. was introduced there from a secret society.
Batenkov. Three months after the uprising, it was supposed to convene the Great Council, which was supposed to perform the functions of the Constituent Assembly. It was to elect two representatives from each estate from each province to its composition. The Grand Council was to determine "that form of government which is recognized by general opinion as useful and beneficent," and adopt an appropriate constitution.
It was the morning of December 14th. Members of the secret society were in their military units and campaigned against the oath to Nicholas I. By 11 o’clock in the morning, A. A. Bestuzhev and D. A. Shchepin-Rostovsky were the first to bring to Senate Square 800 soldiers of the Life Guards of the Moscow Regiment, which were built in a square (quadrangle) near the monument to Peter I. Around the square and the monument, a protective chain of soldiers was put up.
By 1 o'clock in the afternoon, the sailors of the Guards crew under the command of Lieutenant Commander N. A. Bestuzhev joined the soldiers of the Moscow Regiment. Following them, the Life Guards Grenadier Regiment arrived on the square, led by lieutenants N.A. Panov and A.N.
Sutgof. In total, 3 thousand soldiers and sailors gathered on the square with 30 officers (some of them were not members of a secret society and joined the uprising at the last moment). Waiting for others to come military units, but most importantly - the dictator of the uprising S.P.
Trubetskoy, without whose orders the rebels could not act independently.
However, he did not appear on the square, and the uprising was left without a leader. Even on the eve of the uprising, Trubetskoy showed hesitation and indecision. His doubts about success intensified on the day of the uprising, when he became convinced that he had not been able to raise most of the guard regiments that the Decembrists had counted on. Trubetskoy's behavior undoubtedly played a fatal role on December 14th. However, there were many other reasons that led to the failure of the uprising. From the very beginning, its leaders made a lot of mistakes: first of all, they failed to take advantage of the initial confusion of the authorities, when it was quite possible to capture the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Senate, the Winter Palace and interfere with the oath to Nicholas I in many regiments in which fermentation was going on; they did not show activity even in the course of the uprising itself, limiting themselves to waiting for other units to join them; thus they made it possible for Nicholas I to seize the initiative.
Before the government troops were pulled to the place of the uprising, Nicholas I tried to influence the rebels by persuasion. The governor-general of St. Petersburg, Count M.A. Miloradovich, was sent to them. A popular hero of the Patriotic War of 1812, he tried to shake the soldiers with his eloquence - to convince them not to make a fatal mistake, and his attempt almost succeeded - but he was mortally wounded by a pistol shot by P. G. Kakhovsky. The metropolitans Seraphim of St. Petersburg and Eugene of Kyiv were sent to "exhort" the soldiers, but the rebels very "impolitely" asked them to "depart".
While the persuasion was going on, Nikolai pulled 9,000 soldiers of the guards infantry and 3,000 horsemen to the Senate Square. Twice the Horse Guards Regiment attacked the square of the rebels, but each time its attacks were stopped by rapid rifle fire from the square. However, the rebels fired upwards, and the horse guards themselves acted indecisively. Soldiers showed solidarity on both sides here. And the rest of the government troops showed hesitation. Parliamentarians came from them to the rebels and asked them to "hold out until evening," promising to join them at nightfall.
Nicholas I, fearing that with the onset of darkness "the riot could be communicated to the mob", gave the order to use artillery. Several shots taken at point-blank range at close range caused great havoc in the ranks of the rebels and put them to flight. By 6 p.m. the uprising was crushed. All night, by the light of fires, the dead and wounded were removed and the spilled blood was washed off the square.
The uprising of the Chernigov regiment On December 29, 1825, the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, stationed in the area of the city of Vasilkov (30 km southwest of Kyiv), began. The uprising was led by S.I.
Muravyov-Apostle. It began at the moment when the members of the Southern Society had already become aware of the defeat of the uprising in St. Petersburg, and even earlier (December 13) the leaders of the Southern Society P.I. Pestel and A.P. societies in the south.
The uprising began in the village of Trilesy, where one of the companies of the Chernigov regiment was located.
In the same village, S. I. Muravyov-Apostol stopped, avoiding arrest. But here he was overtaken and arrested by the commander of the Chernigov regiment, Colonel G.I. Gebel. Several members of the Society of United Slavs, removing the guard soldiers and seriously wounding Gebel, freed Muravyov-Apostol, who, together with a company of this regiment, went to Vasilkov, where the headquarters of the Chernigov regiment was located and five more of his companies were quartered. They enthusiastically joined S. I. Muravyov-Apostol. Muraviev-Apostol and M. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin even earlier compiled a revolutionary "Catechism", intended for distribution among the army and the people. This document, written in the manner of the "Orthodox Catechism" in the form of questions and answers, argued with reference to Holy Bible the need to abolish monarchical power and establish republican government. The "Catechism" was read to the soldiers of the Chernigov regiment, but did not make the desired impression on them, because they did not accept its anti-tsarist orientation.
Within a week, S. I. Muravyov-Apostol with 970 soldiers and eight officers (about half of the Chernigov regiment) made a raid on the snowy fields of Ukraine, hoping to join other military units in which members of the secret society served. However, this hope was not justified. The military command managed to isolate the Chernigov regiment, withdrawing from its path those regiments that S.I. Muravyov-Apostol counted on joining the Chernigovites. At the same time, large forces of troops loyal to the government were being drawn to the area of the uprising. Nicholas I entrusted the overall command of this operation to his brother Konstantin Pavlovich. When Muravyov-Apostol's hope of joining the 17th Jaeger Regiment, stationed in the city of Belaya Tserkov, did not come true (the authorities had withdrawn this unreliable regiment from the city in advance), Muravyov-Apostol turned his regiment to the village of Trilesy, hoping to make a throw on the city of Zhytomyr . On the morning of January 3, 1826, when approaching Triles, the Chernigov regiment between the villages of Ustinovka and Kovalevka was met by a cavalry detachment of government troops and shot with grapeshot. Muraviev-Apostol, wounded in the head, was captured and sent to St. Petersburg in shackles.
On December 24, 1825, another attempt was made to raise an uprising, this time by the leaders of the Society of Military Friends, Captain K. G. Igelstrom and Lieutenant A.
I. Vigelin. On that day in the city of Bialystok, they managed to convince the Lithuanian Pioneer Battalion to refuse the oath to Nicholas I and intended to raise other military units stationed in this city and its environs. The command managed to isolate the rebellious battalion, arrest the leaders and participants in the conspiracy, and extinguish the fermentation that had already begun in other units. 39 members of this organization and 144 soldiers appeared before a military court.
After the suppression of the uprisings in St. Petersburg and in the Ukraine, the autocracy attacked the Decembrists with all ruthlessness. 316 people were taken into custody. Some of them were arrested by accident and released after the first interrogations. In total, 545 people were involved in the case of the Decembrists - such was the number of people who fell into the Alphabet for Members of a Malicious Society, which was opened on December 14, 1825, compiled later by the investigation. Many of them were investigated in absentia.
The investigation left "without attention" those who had previously lagged behind the secret society, but they were nevertheless included in this "Alphabet", which was constantly under Nicholas I.
At the same time, commissions of inquiry worked in Bila Tserkva, Mogilev, Bialystok, Warsaw, and also at some regiments of the capital. They investigated cases of soldiers involved in the Decembrists' conspiracy, officers of the Chernigov regiment, members of the Polish Patriotic Society, and the Society of Military Friends. It was the first wide political process. 289 people were found guilty, of which 121 were brought to the Supreme Criminal Court, and in total 173 Decembrists were convicted by all courts. Of those betrayed by the Supreme Criminal Court, five (Pestel, S.
Muraviev-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Ryleev and Kakhovsky) were placed "out of the ranks" and sentenced to "death by quartering", replaced by hanging.
The rest were divided according to the degree of their guilt into 11 categories. 31 people of the 1st category were sentenced to "the death penalty by beheading", replaced by hard labor for life, 37 - to various terms of hard labor with subsequent settlement in Siberia, 19 - to exile in Siberia, 9 were demoted to soldiers. Over 120 people were punished without trial, by the personal order of Nicholas I: they were seated in fortresses for periods of six months to four years, demoted to soldiers, transferred to the active army in the Caucasus, and placed under police supervision. Special judicial commissions that considered the cases of soldiers who participated in the uprisings in St. Petersburg and Ukraine sentenced 178 people to punishment with gauntlets: they were driven through the ranks through a thousand soldiers from one to twelve times, 23 people were sentenced to punishment with sticks and rods. Of the rest of the participants in the uprisings, a consolidated regiment of 4 thousand people was formed, which was sent to the active army in the Caucasus.
Significance of the Decembrist movement. "Your mournful work will not be wasted," A. S. Pushkin wrote to the Decembrists in Siberia. Decembrist traditions and the highly moral feat of the Decembrists inspired subsequent generations of freedom fighters. Members of student circles of Moscow University in the 20-30s of the 19th century, A. I. Herzen and N.
P. Ogarev, the Petrashevites, many democrats of the sixties saw their spiritual mentors in the Decembrists, and considered themselves the successors of their work.
The contribution of the Decembrists to the development of Russian culture is significant. Russian culture in the broadest sense of the word was not only a spiritual and moral ground for the Decembrists, but it was directly embodied in them and was elevated by them to a new level. The ideas of the Decembrists had a significant impact on the work of A. S. Pushkin, A.
S. Griboedov, P. A. Vyazemsky, A. I. Polezhaev. Among the Decembrists themselves were famous writers and poets (K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, F. N. Glinka, V.
F. Raevsky), scientists and artists (N. I. Turgenev, N. A. Bestuzhev, A. O. Kornilovich, F.
P. Tolstoy).
Placed by the punitive authorities outside of political existence, they were connected with Russia by many threads in spite of all prohibitions, were aware of Russian and foreign political events. Great was their contribution to the development of education and culture in Siberia.
Upon returning from exile, many Decembrists found the strength to join in public life countries: they appeared in the press with their memoirs, published scientific works, participated in the preparation and implementation of peasant and other reforms as members of provincial committees on peasant affairs, world
2017 www.site - "Free e-library- various documents
The materials of this site are posted for review, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.
During the reign of Alexander 1 in Russia, for the first time, a politically formalized revolutionary movement arose, headed by the nobility. It put forward the task of eliminating serfdom, autocracy, the estate system and feudal-absolutist institutions. The Russian bourgeoisie had not yet formed as a class in those years, and therefore could not put forward independent demands. But even later, being mature, she never put forward revolutionary programs. Its closest connection with tsarism and the feudal-landlord system had an effect.
The ideology of the Decembrists and the factors of its formation
The ideological course of Decembrism was a direct result of the Patriotic War of 1812 and the war that followed it for the liberation of Europe from Napoleonic aggression. Russian society and the army were on a high patriotic upsurge. A long stay abroad contributed to the acquaintance of progressive-minded circles of Russian officers with the ideological and political life of European countries, their liberal constitutions.
Russian reality was in sharp contrast. It was the reality of Arakcheevshchina, military settlements and serfdom. The aspirations of the peasants for freedom did not come true. In the manifesto of August 30, 1814, in connection with the completion of the military anti-Napoleonic campaign, it was said: "Peasants, our faithful people, may they receive their reward from God." In the summer of 1819, an uprising of military settlers broke out in Chuguev near Kharkov, which was brutally suppressed by Arakcheev. In 1820, unrest swept 256 peasant villages on the Don. Fermentation began in the Semyonovsky regiment and other parts of the capital's garrison. These events contributed to the radicalization of the views of the liberal opposition, which took shape in 1816-1820. More and more, its moderately minded representatives broke away from the broad social movement. In secret societies, supporters of active revolutionary actions gained a numerical superiority.
The beginning of the noble stage in the Russian liberation movement. Decembrist revolt
M. D. Marich's novel Northern Lights gives a broad picture of the social and political life of Russia in the 1820s and 30s. It tells about the emergence of secret societies of the Decembrists, their uprisings in St. Petersburg and in the Kyiv province. The images of the noble revolutionaries Pestel, Ryleev, Muravyovs, Kakhovsky and others are vividly recreated.
The passage below paints a gloomy picture of the feudal serf system in the country, established by the tsar and his temporary worker Arakcheev.
Arakcheev ruled Russia ...
Alexander could not help himself: he constantly felt the imminent danger threatening him. Everywhere he seemed to see conspiracies, indignations. In any joke, he found a hidden hint, disguised discontent, reproach ... Petersburg became hostile and alien to him, and he moved to Tsarskoe Selo "Tsarskoye Selo Palace became his favorite residence. Here he did not feel that secret fear that in Petersburg crawled behind him from the gloomy Mikhailovsky Castle, from the cold brilliance of the Neva, from the high front rooms of the Winter Palace.
Russia was ruled by Arakcheev, who saw in it a huge military settlement in which people were supposed to think, feel and act according to the very "articles" that were introduced in his own fiefdom.
Deciding that only the iron hand of Arakcheev was capable of suppressing manifestations of public discontent, Alexander gave the temporary worker forms with his signature, authorizing in advance everything that he thought of putting on blank paper to the hated and hating Arakcheev by everyone. All submissions of ministers, all decisions of the Senate, Synod and Council of State, all explanatory notes of individual members of these public institutions and their personal letters to Alexander reached him only at the discretion of Arakcheev.
And while Gruzine and the gloomy house of Arakcheev in St. Petersburg on the corner of Liteinaya and Kirochnaya served as a harsh school of "humiliation and patience" for everyone - from field marshals and governors general to sergeant majors and petty officials; while all of Russia was groaning under the blows of sticks, and neither the gray hair of old age, nor childish weakness, nor female modesty prevented the use of this means, and beating flourished in schools, in villages, on the market squares of cities, in landowners' stables, at lordly porches, in sheds, barnyards, camps, barracks - everywhere on the backs of people freely walked a stick, a gauntlet and a rod - in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace, surrounded by a shady park with crystal clear ponds, along which majestic black and white swans silently swam, reigned peace and quiet *.
*(M. Marich. Northern lights. M., Goslitizdat, 1952, pp. 171, 172.)
Question. What was Alexander I afraid of and by what means did he fight against the danger that threatened him?
A gloomy picture of the life of the serfs at the beginning of the 19th century, the arbitrariness of the landlords, was painted by the great Russian poet A. S. Pushkin in his poem "The Village".
Here the wild nobility, without feeling, without law, Appropriated by a violent vine And labor, and property, and the time of the farmer Leaning on an alien plow, submitting to scourges, Here lean slavery drags along the reins of the Inexorable owner. Here everyone drags a burdensome yoke to the grave, Not daring to nourish hopes and inclinations in the soul, Here young virgins bloom For the whim of an insensitive villain. Dear support of aging fathers, Young sons, comrades of labor, From their native huts come to multiply Yard crowds of tortured slaves. Oh, if only my voice could disturb hearts! Why is a fruitless heat burning in my chest And the fate of ornateness has not given me a formidable gift? Will I see, O friends, an unoppressed people And slavery, fallen at the behest of the tsar * And over the fatherland of enlightened freedom Will the beautiful dawn finally rise?**
*(In the author's text of the poem it was written: "And the fallen slavery and the fallen king." The correction of the text was made by P. A. Vyazemsky for censorship reasons. See: A. S. Pushkin. Complete Works, vol. II. M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1949, p. 1055.)
**(A. S. Pushkin. Selected works. M., Detgiz, 1958, pp. 51 - 52.)
think, which revolted the poet in the life of his contemporary village and in what he saw a way out of the situation that had arisen there.
Soldier's song about military settlements
Life in a military settlement is a real torment, but not for everyone! The villagers are starving, But the authorities are doing very well! For the regiments here - imprisonment, Hunger, cold, exhaustion - Worse than in the Crimea. Here barley is given to the uhlans, And rye is hidden in the pockets - ............................. That's how it is. District, regional, All swindlers are, What you will not find, Treasurers, auditors * And quartermasters - all thieves................................. The scribes are capitalists. The cantonists are dying like flies. Air, you see, such! State-owned bread will not be born, But your own is arguing, There is nowhere to go! The infirmaries are terribly bad, But the caretakers have glorious carriages! Life in a military settlement Real torment, But not for everyone. On paper - everything is fine, But in reality - so terrible, Don't say *** "
*(Auditor - military rank.)
**(Cantonists are children taken from their parents and sent to military settlements to train future soldiers from them.)
Riot of military settlers in Staraya Russa
Ilyin's day was approaching. Osip received news that a riot had begun in Staraya Russa, that many officers had already been killed...
The next day the riot did not subside. Officers hiding in the forest and in the fields were caught, beaten and dragged to the guardhouse headquarters.
Near the fourth settled company lived a landowner who mistreated his peasants. The villagers climbed up to him, they whipped him cruelly, and in the house they killed everyone, broke them, drank all the wine they had.
On the same day, a riot began on the other side of the Volkhov in the settled battalion of the king of the Prussian regiment, and, like a fire, it went further and further. The settlers also moved to Gruzino, the estate of Count Arakcheev, but he rode off to Tikhvin ...
The violent people were not yet appeased; armed groups continued to travel around, many had guns and sabers recruited from officers' apartments ...
On Ilyin's day, at the very mass, all the hosts were demanded to the headquarters. Count Orlov arrived with a retinue, but without an escort. When all the villagers gathered in the arena, they brought there the arrested officers who could come.
Count Orlov, in strict terms, exposed to the villagers all the ugliness of their rampage and announced that the sovereign emperor himself would come to them one of these days, and all the arrested officers, without exception, were escorted to Novgorod ...
Finally the emperor arrived. The emperor expressed his displeasure to the villagers gathered in the arena in strong and energetic terms, but in conclusion he said: "Give me the guilty, and I forgive the rest" ...
The authorities came in large numbers, an investigation began, arrests began. Morchenko was the first to be taken, and after him the lancers and Cossacks began to take the rebels in dozens and send them to Novgorod under escort. Mikheich did not survive either, the villagers pointed out to him that he had betrayed his master ...
Soon the trial began, which ended even sooner ... Punishment took place at the headquarters. They drove along the green street through the formation, and as soon as someone fell from exhaustion, he was taken to the hospital and, after recovering, they continued to drive him again. Some were driven in this way three times. They beat them with a whip on the parade ground, this punishment was executed completely at one time, and the executioner often counted the blows on the dead body *.
*(Nicholas Bogoslovsky. Old order. Historical story from the life of the war settlements. SPb., ed. N. G. Martynova, 1881, pp. 130, 143 - 147.)
Questions. Who were the rebels targeting? What was missing from their performance?
In 1820, soldiers of the Semyonovsky Guards Regiment rebelled in St. Petersburg. The teacher uses the text from O. Forsh's novel "The Firstborn of Freedom" to concretize his story about the growth of class contradictions in the country on the eve of the revolutionary action of the Decembrists.
Uprising in the Semyonovsky regiment
At the insistence of Grand Duke Nikolai, who found that the commander of the Semenovsky regiment, Yakov Alekseevich Potemkin, had disbanded his regiment, Colonel Schwartz, who had previously commanded an army regiment, was appointed to "pull up" the soldier. Widespread among the troops was a rumor about his truly brutal cruelty. In the place where he stood with the regiment, a certain hill was pointed out, under which the soldiers he had spotted were buried. That was the name of this big hill - Shvartseva grave. Under the former commander Yakov Alekseevich Potemkin, the bleak soldier's life softened somewhat. And it was all the more insulting to the soldiers when Schwartz, who replaced Potemkin, restored all the hated Prussianism, the entire official inhuman system.
Finally, the cruelty of Schwartz became unbearable to the soldiers, and in order to remove him from his post, they decided to commit a deed unheard of in terms of military subordination. On October 16, 1820, the soldiers arbitrarily, at the wrong hour, went out into the corridor and declared to sergeant major Bragin that they humbly, but immediately demand the arrival of company commander Kashkarov to convey their request to him.
There was no impudence, but the soldiers showed such uncompromising perseverance, which prompted the sergeant major to call the company commander, who, in turn, called the battalion commander. The soldiers demanded to remove Schwartz and appoint any other commander.
We no longer have the strength to endure the bullying of Colonel Schwartz.
The battalion commander went to Schwartz, so that he would reassure the people by his personal appearance and consider their complaints.
Schwartz, who knew so many sins in front of the soldiers, got scared and flew with a report about the rebellion in the Semenovsky regiment directly to Grand Duke Mikhail, the brigade commander.
Young Mikhail, who surpassed Nikolai himself in his zeal for front and subordination, kept the company for several hours under interrogation: who is the instigator? who are the "callers" into the corridor, and even at the wrong time?
The soldiers did not issue the "callers".
In the evening, Adjutant General Vasilchikov lured the unarmed first company to the headquarters of the corps, declared it under arrest and sent it to the Peter and Paul Fortress.
Upon learning of this event, the Semenovites rushed into the yard shouting:
"The first company is in the fortress, and are we going to sleep, or what? We all have one end, to die - so together!"
Agitated by the arrest of their company, the regiment did not want to return to the barracks. Anger raged against Schwartz, because of which, they understood, hundreds of innocent people would now die a painful death under gauntlets.
Some platoon rushed to Schwartz's apartment. And the end would be for this colonel if he had not decided to escape from a well-deserved death into ... manure: stables were being cleaned in the courtyard of his house, and he buried himself headlong in a huge pile. They did not think to look for him there.
The soldiers found Schwartz's dress uniform somewhere, lifted it up on a stick and, betraying all sorts of reproach, tore it to shreds.
A courier was immediately sent to Alexander, who was sitting at a congress in Troppau, with a report on an unprecedented event in the Russian army - a mutiny of an entire regiment. How will he be dealt with?
A wise solution to this issue was expected from the king ...
Deciding that the rebellion in his Semyonovsky regiment was caused, of course, by the "secret Russian Carbonari", whom he was so afraid of, Alexander was not slow to send a courier with a cruel sentence:
"The first company will be judged by a military court in the fortress! The other battalions will be dispersed according to army regiments and garrisons"*.
*(O. Forsh, Firstborn of Freedom. Sobr. works, vol. V. M. - L., 1963, pp. 14 - 19.)
Question. What caused and what did the uprising of the soldiers of the Semyonovsky Guards Regiment testify to?
N. A. Zadonsky's story "Mountains and Stars", written on the basis of documentary materials, is dedicated to the remarkable Russian figure, freedom lover and freethinker, founder of the pre-Decembrist "Sacred Artel", a friend of the Decembrists N. N. Muravyov. N. N. Muravyov was a participant and witness of such historical events as the Patriotic War of 1812, the Decembrist uprising, the Crimean War of 1854-1856. The book contains many clear examples selfless love for the Fatherland, courage and nobility of advanced Russian people.
On creating a secret political organization pre-Decembrist period is narrated in the following passage. The text is used to prepare a dramatized reading in faces.
"Sacred artel"
Once, when they got together, Nikolai suggested: - And what, my dears, if we create an artel? Let's rent a comfortable apartment, keep a common table and continue self-education, it's cheaper and more pleasant for us in every respect..
A few days later, an apartment for the artel was rented on Srednyaya Meshchanskaya Street. We did a pooling, purchased the necessary furniture and utensils, hired a cook. At dinner, the artel workers always had a place for two guests, and these places were never empty, and in the evenings they had more guests.
Friends and comrades were attracted by the comradely ease that reigned in the artel: here, over a glass of hot tea, one could read foreign newspapers that were subscribed by the artel workers, or play chess, but most of all, it was tempting to talk without hesitation about the Arakcheev orders that were being introduced in the country and arousing general indignation, about senseless despotic actions of a double-minded king. For liberal-minded young people, before whose eyes great historical events had just happened, the empty court life was unbearable, service under the command of mediocre and cruel paradiers was painful. There were many topics for conversation. And the disputes in the artel grew hotter day by day.
*(Paradeers are parade organizers.)
Artel winter evenings remained in the memory of Nikolai Muravyov forever. And in the artel living room it is warm and unusually comfortable.
Yakushkin, pacing the room, says excitedly:
The slavery and the Arakcheev order that we have are incompatible with the spirit of the times ... I recently saw how soldiers were tortured with gauntlets ... An unbearable sight! And what about the situation of the unfortunate peasants, who remain the property of the landlords, hardened in ignorance and hardness of heart? The whole world admires the heroism of the Russian people, who liberated their fatherland and all of Europe from the tyranny of Bonaparte, and what reward did their ruler, Emperor Alexander, prepare for the heroes?
Haven't you read the tsar's manifesto? - Matvey Muravyov-Apostol ironically and proclaims in a church manner: - Let our faithful people receive their bribe from God!
Here, only is it, - Yakushkin grins. - A bribe from God! Nothing but false promises and beautiful gestures! In Europe, our tsar is almost a liberal, but in Russia he is a cruel and senseless despot!
What is the decree recently signed by the sovereign on the establishment of military settlements worth! - recalls Pyotr Kaloshin. - Arakcheev is sinking his claws deeper and deeper into the body of the people ...
It was as if nothing new had been said, the artel workers more than once spoke out in favor of the need to abolish serfdom, but the strength of conviction, the passion with which Alexander Muravyov spoke, always captivated the artel workers, and, as usual, his last words were drowned in the rumble of excited voices:
It is unthinkable to endure the serf yoke any longer!
Eternal shame to us and contempt for posterity, if we do not do everything in our power to free us!
Autocracy rests on serfdom, it is useless to hope for the tsar!
Violent disputes flared up, passions heated up *.
*(N. Zadonsky. Mountains and stars. M., Military Publishing, 1965, pp. 75 - 76, 85 - 89.)
Question. What did the advanced noble youth condemn and what political goals did they set for themselves?
The teacher will find exciting, dramatic material about the uprising of the Decembrists on Senate Square in St. Petersburg in O. Forsh's novel "The Firstborn of Freedom". Below is an excerpt from the novel. Used in a teacher's emotional story or to prepare a student's message.
Uprising on the Senate Square
The company of Mikhail Bestuzhev moved first, followed by the company of Shchepin-Rostovsky. They realized that there was no regimental banner ahead. They returned for him. When, with the banner, they all moved to the gates together, the regimental commander and the brigade had already appeared. They stopped the soldiers at the gate and tried to calm them down and return them to the barracks. Shchepin, whom Mikhail Bestuzhev inflamed all night with his speeches about freedom, drew his saber and hit the regimental commander Frederiks with it. And another general, who took part in the detention of the troops at the very exit from the barracks, Shchepin grabbed flat on the lower back. The soldiers laughed loudly as the overweight general, raising his hands, ran shouting: "They killed me!"
Finally, eight hundred people broke out onto the Fontanka and with a loud "hurrah" moved to Petrovskaya Square.
When the Moscow regiment approached Petrovsky Square, it was still empty.
Muscovites also occupied the entrance to the Senate from St. Isaac's Square.
Having made his way through the crowd with great difficulty, Miloradovich drove up to the right front (flank. - Ed.) And stopped about ten paces from the rebels. He loudly commanded "Smir-r-no" five times...
Obolensky invited Miloradovich to retire and, in order to rein back his horse, poked him with a bayonet, hitting the leg of the governor-general. However, Miloradovich, confidently taking the tone of his father-commander, continued to exhort the soldiers and already made many listen to him sympathetically. Then Kakhovsky fired at Miloradovich. The bullet pierced the blue St. Andrew's ribbon and the chest hung with orders. Miloradovich fell off his horse, picked up by his adjutant.
Meanwhile, Nicholas became aware that more troops were moving to help the rebels, and he urgently, as a last hope, sent the clergy to the square.
The spiritual fathers, urged on, gathered hastily, taking with them two deacons...
The Metropolitan got out of the carriage and moved towards the rebels...
The Metropolitan still tried to speak, but they did not listen to him at all, they drowned out his voice with a drum. The advancing crowd hummed menacingly.
Suddenly, an enthusiastic "cheers" rolled across the square: reinforcements arrived in time for the insurgent Moscow regiment - it was Lieutenant Sutgof who led his company of life-grenadiers right across the ice of the Neva.
A huge crowd of people was a true participant in the events ...
St. Isaac's Cathedral was under construction. At its foot lay piles of logs, granite slabs. The people climbed onto the stones, onto the piles of logs, vigilantly observed the unusual behavior of the troops and very soon understood the essence of what was happening in the square.
Events were interpreted in their own way:
The will to give the people is supposed to be according to the will of Alexander, but they strive to hide it!
In the meantime, on the orders of Nicholas, more and more government troops were being drawn to Senate Square.
Orlov ordered the first two rows of horsemen to attack.
The Reiters rushed forward, but people from the crowd fearlessly rushed to the horsemen, grabbed the horses by the bridle ... Four times the squadron went on the attack and four times was stopped by shots of the rebels and a live avalanche of people.
Nikolai galloped to the corner of the boulevard, he wanted to command himself. From the crowd they shouted to him with rude abuse:
Come here, impostor... We'll show you!
Nicholas turned his horse.
And every time the tsar tried to approach the monument of Peter, stones and logs flew from the crowd. Having broken the front garden opposite the cathedral, people armed themselves with stakes, frozen clods of earth and snow.
Ryleev rushed about in search of Trubetskoy.
Trubetskoy hid, sparrow soul! Pushchin replied contemptuously.
Nicholas launched an attack not only the horse guards, but the cavalry guards and the horse-pioneer squadron.
The forced inaction of the rebels, in addition to discouraging secret sympathizers, gave strength to the enemies. Nikolai managed to encircle the rebels with his troops.
To Nikolai's repeated offer to surrender, broadcast throughout the square, the rebels gave one answer:
Firing guns in order! Buckshot! Right flank, start!
But there was no shot, although the order was "first!" - was repeated by the battery commander. The soldier of the right gun did not want to lay the fuse.
Your honor!..
The officer snatched the fuse from the fireworks and fired the first shot himself.
In response, from the side of the monument to Peter, a volley of rifles burst out.
The wounded were people clinging to the eaves of the Senate house, around the columns, on the roofs of neighboring houses. broken glass clattering out of the windows.
It became completely dark, and flashes of gunfire instantly, like lightning, illuminated the bodies of the dead on the snow, the buildings and the monument, surrounded by the same square of the rebels, as if already separated from it forever ...
In total, seven volleys of buckshot were fired. The firing continued for an hour. The rebellious troops could not stand it at last. Many rushed to the ice of the Neva*.
*(O. Forsh. The firstborn of freedom. Sobr. works, vol. V. M. - L., 1963, pp. 295, 300, 309, 315 - 316.)
Discuss what was the significance of the Decembrist uprising and why it was defeated ..
A. L. Slonimsky in the story "Chernigovtsy" describes the emergence of the "Southern Society" and the activities of the main members of this society, as well as the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, headed by S.I. Muravyov-Apostle. The passage below shows one of the episodes of the uprising and its defeat.
Uprising of the Chernihiv Regiment
The sixth day of the uprising arrived. On Sunday, January 3 at four o'clock in the morning, in complete darkness, the Chernigov regiment set out from the village of Pologi (near the White Church. - Ed.). The companies were formed into a column in half-platoons, when it suddenly became known that the company commanders, Staff Captain Maevsky and Lieutenant Petin, had fled.
Their disappearance caused only ridicule from the soldiers.
At the end of the eleventh hour, the regiment entered Kovalevka, from where five days ago, on Tuesday, the first two insurgent companies left.
The soldiers of these companies were a little embarrassed when they saw familiar places.
We circle around! they said, smiling shyly. ... It was noon. The regiment, stretched out in a narrow column along the squads, walked at a quick pace along the road to Trilesi. Sergei (S. Muravyov-Apostol. - Ed.) rode ahead.
Suddenly, somewhere ahead, something hooted and boomed through the sunny and snowy expanses.
The column involuntarily slowed down.
Sergei turned to the soldiers. On his pale face was an expression of desperate faith in a miracle that was about to take place. Rising up in his stirrups, he shouted enthusiastically loudly:
Don't worry, friends! Then the fifth cavalry company gives us a signal. Forward!
They're coming. Another shot. This time it is heard that this is the core. Tearing the air, it rushes with a screech and howl right overhead.
The soldiers stop in confusion. The back rows overlap the front rows.
The soldiers have stern gray faces. Without waiting for orders, they themselves began to prepare for battle.
Having lined up in a battle column in platoons, they go further, At a distance of a verst - where the road, rising, goes into the blue sky - a dark, motionless line of horsemen is shown.
This dark line blocks the path to happiness, to freedom. Feel free to break through it at once -o and there he will be met by hugs, brotherly kisses.
Forward! - Sergey commands, letting the horse into a light trot. The soldiers feel like an obedient machine in his hands.
The front of the column runs after Sergei, leaving behind the convoy and the rear guard.
Stop! Sergei is in command. To the right of the road, under the cover of a small elevation, two cannons can be seen. Two muzzles peek out with black spots from behind a snow-white slope. Now a miracle must happen: these two muzzles will be turned there, to Zhitomir!
Arrows, scattered! Bypassing the guns! Now everything will be decided: from this moment depends what course history will take. The uprising will grow like a snowball thrown from a mountain, and will fall on the heads of tyrants in a terrible snowfall.
Bolder! Brothers are waiting for us there! A spark flared over the hillock, and smoke flared up. Shot. Buckshot whistled through the air with a whining screech.
Everything instantly mixed up. The front platoon dropped their guns and ran. On the road, with their faces buried in the snow, hunched over or overturned, lay the wounded and the dead. A squadron of hussars, scattered all over the field, pursued the fugitives*.
*(Alexander Slonimsky. Chernihiv. Detgiz, 1961, pp. 260 - 265.)
The book by A. Gessen "In the depths of Siberian ores ..." contains colorful material about the uprising of the Decembrists, the massacre of them by Tsar Nicholas I and the remarkable feat of the wives of the Decembrists, who voluntarily followed to Siberia and shared their fate with their husbands.
Execution of the Decembrists
At dawn, the jailers rattled the keys and began to open the doors of the cells: the condemned were taken out to death. In the suddenly ensuing silence, Ryleev’s exclamation was heard:
Sorry, sorry, brothers!
Obolensky, who was sitting in the next cell, rushed to the window and saw all five of them below, surrounded by grenadiers with attached bayonets. They were in long white shirts, their hands and feet were shackled in heavy shackles. On the chest each had a plaque with the inscription: "Regicide" ...
All five said goodbye to each other. They were calm and retained an extraordinary firmness of spirit.
Put your hand on my heart,” Ryleev said to the priest Myslovsky, who accompanied him, “and see if it beats stronger.
The Decembrist's heart was beating evenly... Pestel, looking at the gallows, said:
Don't we deserve a better death? It seems that we have never turned our chela away from bullets or cannonballs. We could have been shot!
The convicts were raised to the platform, led to the gallows, put on and tightened the nooses. When the benches were knocked out from under the feet of the hanged, Pestel and Bestuzhev-Ryumin remained hanging, while Ryleev, Muraviev-Apostol and Kakhovsky fell off.
Poor Russia! And they don’t know how to hang decently! exclaimed the bloody Muravyov-Apostol.
In the old days, there was a belief that people from the people, sympathizing with those sentenced to hanging, purposely made loops from rotten ropes, since those who broke off the loops during the execution were usually pardoned. But Nicholas I and his zealous performers were not like that.
Adjutant General Chernyshev, "an infamous inquisitor in appearance and gimmicks," who was prancing around the hanged men on horseback and examining them through a lorgnette, ordered them to be raised and hanged again.
These three convicts died a second time.
All bloodied, having broken his head in the fall and having lost a lot of blood, Ryleev still had the strength to get up and shouted to the St. Petersburg Governor-General Kutuzov:
You, General, probably came to watch us die. Please your sovereign, tell him that his desire is being fulfilled: you see - we are dying in torment.
Hang them again soon! - Kutuzov shouted in response to this executioner.
The vile oprichnik of the tyrant! - the indomitable Ryleev threw Kutuzov in the face. - Give the executioner your aiguillettes so that we don't die a third time! ..
At dawn, the bodies of the executed were placed in coffins and secretly taken to Goloday Island, where they were buried. Their grave has not been found. An obelisk was built on the island in 1939.
The details of the execution became widely known on the same day, they were discussed in all circles of St. Petersburg*.
*(A. Gessen. In the depths of Siberian ores ... M., "Children's Literature", 1965, pp. 101, 102.)
Wives of the Decembrists in Siberia
The Decembrists were helped a lot in hard labor and in exile by their wives who went to Siberia for their husbands. There were eleven of them, these heroic women.
In distant Siberia, these heroic women began to build their new life and became "mediators between the living and the dead of political death."
Together with the Decembrists, they selflessly bore their heavy share. Deprived of all rights, being together with convicts and exiled settlers at the lowest level of human existence, the wives of the Decembrists throughout the long years of their Siberian life did not stop fighting together with their husbands for the ideas that led them to hard labor, for the right to human dignity in conditions of hard labor and links.
The wives of the Decembrists always kept themselves free and independent, and with their great moral authority they did a lot together with their husbands and their comrades to raise the cultural level of the local population.
The Siberian authorities, big and small, were afraid of them.
“Among the ladies, the two most irreconcilable and always ready to tear apart the government are Princess Volkonskaya and General Konovnitsyna (Nyryshkina. - A. G.), - a police agent informed the authorities. the one they vomit on the government and its servants."
Not all Decembrists endured thirty years of hard labor in Siberia and exile. And not all wives were destined to see their homeland and their children and relatives left at home again. But those who returned retained the clarity of their hearts and souls and always warmly and gratefully remembered their tightly knit, friendly family of the Decembrists.
“The main thing,” I. I. Pushchin wrote from hard labor, “is not to lose the poetry of life, it has supported me so far; woe to those of us who will lose this consolation in our exceptional position” *.
*(A. Gessen. Specified essay. Page 7, 8, 9.)
Question. What moral qualities of the wives of the Decembrists were evidenced by their arrival and life in Siberia?
A. I. Odoevsky's poem "Response to the message of A. S. Pushkin" is used as an emotional ending to the topic. It is read by one of the prepared students.
Answer to the message of A. S. Pushkin
The fiery sounds of prophetic strings Have reached our ears, Our hands have rushed to the swords, But only have found fetters. But be calm, bard: with chains, We are proud of our fate And behind the gates of prison In our souls we laugh at the kings. Our mournful labor will not be wasted: A flame will kindle from a spark, And our enlightened people Will gather under the holy banner. We forge swords from chains And rekindle the fire of freedom: It will descend upon kings - And the peoples will sigh joyfully *.
*(Collection "Poetry of the Decembrists", M.-L., "Soviet Writer", 1950, p. 353.)
Related Literature
A. Gessen, In the depths of Siberian ores ... M., Detgiz, 1963.
M. Marich, Northern Lights. M., Goslitizdat, 1952.
L. N. Medvedskaya. Pavel Ivanovich Pestel, M., "Enlightenment", 1967.
S. N. Golubov. From a spark to a flame. Novel. M., Detgiz, 1950.
Y. Kalugin. Decembrist's wife Kyiv, 1963.
N. A. Nekrasov. Russian women. Any edition. Vl. Orlov. Poets of Pushkin's time. L., Detgiz, 1954.
A. L. Slonimsky. Chernihiv. M., Detgiz, 1961.
Yu. N. Tynyanov. Kukhlya. Lenizdat, 1955.
N. Zadonsky. Mountains and stars. M., Military Publishing House, 1965.
O. Forsh. The firstborn of freedom. Collected works, vol. V.
M. K. Paustovsky. Northern story. Any edition. L., 1963.
For noble stage of the liberation movement in Russia characteristic were the economic ideas of the Decembrists. V. I. Lenin repeatedly addressed the issue of the noble revolutionary spirit of the Decembrists. He noted that in the era of serfdom, the liberation movement was dominated by the nobility: “Serfdom Russia is downtrodden and immobile. An insignificant minority of nobles protests, powerless without the support of the people. But the best people from the nobles helped wake the people "*.
The appearance of Decembrism as the first stage of the liberation movement in Russia was due to a number of objective reasons. Among them, the most important place is occupied by the disintegration of serfdom under the influence of the growth of productive forces, the expansion of commodity-money relations, and the aggravation of class contradictions between landlords and serfs. The Pugachev uprising exposed the full depth of these contradictions. A well-known role in aggravating the ideological struggle within the ruling class was played by the Patriotic War of 1812, when advanced officers and soldiers, having traveled through Europe, got acquainted with the life of peoples. Western countries, with the elementary norms of bourgeois democracy, with the ideas of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. As I. D. Yakushkin wrote, "stay whole year in Germany and then a few months in Paris could not help but change the views of at least somewhat thinking Russian youth "*. The conservative policy of Emperor Alexander I, who left everything in the country unchanged even after the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, had a great influence on strengthening the discontent of the advanced Russian officers G.
An important role in shaping the ideology of Decembrism was played by the works of Russian enlighteners of the late 18th century. (N. I. Novikova, I. A. Tretyakova, S. E. Desnitsky, Ya. P. Kozelsky and others). but especially the revolutionary ideas of A. N. Radishchev. The economic views of the Decembrists were generated by the complex economic and political contradictions of feudal Russia, which were critically comprehended by representatives of the revolutionary nobility. The revolutionary-minded Decembrists saw their main task in the destruction of serfdom, the provision of personal freedom to the peasants, the elimination of the absolutist monarchy, and the establishment of democratic orders in Russia. It was a revolutionary program to break the feudal system, the implementation of which would have contributed to the development of Russia along the bourgeois path.
Anti-feudal movement in Russia was supposed to lead the bourgeoisie, but at the beginning of the XIX century. she was still weak. Therefore, the role of leader of the liberation movement fell to the lot of the revolutionary nobility. Within the movement of the Decembrists, various currents were discovered. The most consistent noble revolutionaries were grouped around P. I. Pestel (Southern Society), and the moderates organized the Northern Society, headed by N. M. Muravyov.
The most striking literary source that makes it possible to judge the program of the Decembrists is Russkaya Pravda, written by P.I. Pestel in the period after the end of the war with Napoleon. P. I. Pestel (1793-1826) was a highly educated person who was seriously engaged in political sciences. He knew well the writings of the classics of bourgeois political economy, the work of the petty-bourgeois and vulgar economists of the West. Pestel was the ideological leader of the Decembrist movement, a theoretician and propagandist of the radical way of establishing a new system, a staunch supporter of the republic. Russkaya Pravda uncompromisingly proclaimed the abolition of autocracy and serfdom, the establishment of a republican system and the provision of the "welfare of the people." In the very concept of "well-being", too broad and equally vague, Pestel tried to invest two main ideas - welfare and security. To ensure them, Pestel considered it necessary to implement a system of economic and political measures.
Political laws must be based on "natural law"; political economy must also be guided by it. The doctrine of "natural law" Pestel understood very broadly. He believed that "natural law" should be the initial norm in establishing both the political rights of the citizens of society and their rights to property, to the means of production. Hence, the author saw the main goal of Russkaya Pravda as being to set out "a true order both for the people and for the temporary Supreme Government", to indicate the ways and methods for achieving the goal of public welfare, which was understood as "the welfare of the totality of the people." At the same time, “public well-being must be considered more important than private well-being”*.
The Decembrists raised the question of the destruction of the monarchy. In the "Orthodox Catechism" compiled even before the uprising by Pestel's associate S.I. Muravyov-Apostol with the participation of M.P. tyranny of the tsars, an unequivocal answer was given: "All together take up arms against tyranny and restore faith and freedom in Russia"*.
However, among the Decembrists there was no unity on the question of the republican system. The head of the Northern Society N. M. Muravyov (1796-1843) in 1820-1821. drafted the Constitution (three versions), in which he resolutely opposed autocracy and serfdom, believing that "the power of autocracy is equally disastrous for rulers and for societies." Chapter III of the draft Constitution declared that "serfdom and slavery are abolished"*. However, unlike Pestel, Muravyov was inclined to preserve the constitutional monarchy, albeit limited to the People's Veche, consisting of the Supreme Duma and the House of People's Representatives.
The Decembrists were united in the methods of overthrowing the autocracy. They all shared the idea of a military coup without the participation of the masses. This is due to the narrow-mindedness of the nobility and a lack of understanding of the role of the people in the destruction of feudalism. The Decembrists were going to create a social system in which, along with the free peasantry, capitalist enterprises in industry and trade, there would also be landowners who own land as a source of their livelihood.
The Decembrists, fighting for the "welfare of the people", at the same time excluded them from participation in this struggle, reasonably fearing that the peasantry would not confine itself to the noble program in resolving the issue of land. This explains why V. I. Lenin, while appreciating the program of the Decembrists to eliminate the autocratic system in Russia, at the same time noted that they were too "far from the people" and therefore their practical possibilities for carrying out a military coup were insignificant. This ultimately predetermined their defeat. Pointing to the class limitations of the economic program of the Decembrists, nevertheless, it must be emphasized that in the historical conditions of serfdom in Russia, the demand for the liberation of the peasants and the attempt to practically achieve this through a military coup was an outstanding revolutionary event.
According to the preliminary plan of the uprising, developed by S. P. Trubetskoy, in the event of the victory of the insurgents, the Senate was to publish a "Manifesto" to the people. It announced the abolition of the former government (autocracy), serfdom, the "equalization of the rights of all classes", the right of any citizen "to acquire all kinds of property, such as land, houses in villages and cities." This was supplemented by the abolition of "poll taxes and arrears on them"*.
These are, in general, the fundamental principles of the Decembrists, guided by which they began the struggle against the autocracy. At the same time, they saw the supporting positions of their program requirements not only in the doctrine of "natural law", but also in the history of Russia. As the Decembrist M. A. Fonvizin wrote, " Ancient Russia she did not know either political slavery or civil slavery: both were instilled in her gradually and forcibly ... "*.
One of the central issues that worried the Decembrists was agrarian. He was discussed for a long time in their circles. How to liberate the peasants - with or without land? The author of Russkaya Pravda took the most radical position, arguing that real liberation of the peasants from economic and political dependence on the landowners is possible only when the peasants (along with personal freedom) are endowed with land. Pestel resolutely denied the right of the nobles to keep the peasants in personal dependence. "... The right to possess other people as one's own property," he wrote, "to sell, pledge, donate... is a shameful thing, contrary to humanity, to natural laws"*. Based on this general position, Pestel argued that the liberation of the peasants with land is the only and most important condition for ensuring social welfare.
The ideological leader of the Decembrists P. I. Pestel did not conceive of revolutionary changes in Russia without changes in agrarian relations. He considered agriculture as the main branch of the national economy, and he mainly considered labor in agricultural production to be the source of national wealth. If one of the tasks of the new social order was recognized as the elimination of poverty and poverty of the masses, then the closest way to achieve this was seen in providing an opportunity for all citizens of the new Russia to work on land that is either in public ownership and provided for the use of the peasants, or in their private property. Pestel preferred public ownership of land over private ownership, since the use of land from the public fund should be free, everyone will be able to get it at their disposal, regardless of property status. Pestel thought of granting such a right to all residents of the village and the city, in order to put all citizens of Russia in an equal position in relation to the land. It was an original solution to a complex issue.
What lands were to be used to create a public fund? These are mainly the lands of the landowners and the treasury. Such lands are quite enough to provide all those in need. The very idea of encroachment on the landlords' land was substantiated in the new constitution ("State Testament"), which stated that "the entire Russian people"will amount to" one estate - civil ", since all current estates are being destroyed. Such is Pestel's statement of the question of land and its use, of a new form of land ownership. He saw the practical embodiment of this idea in the division of all land in each volost" into two parts: on volost and private. The first belongs to the whole society, the second - to private people. The first is public property, the second is private property.
Pestel also worked out the conditions on the basis of which part of the landed estates was taken away for the benefit of society. From landlords with 10,000 acres or more, it was planned to take away half of it free of charge. If the landowner had from 5 to 9 thousand acres, then half of the selected land must be reimbursed at the expense of state property or compensated in money at the expense of the treasury *. This would allow the landowner to run the economy with the help of hired labor and gradually transfer it to capitalist principles. Thus, according to Pestel's project, the property of the landed estates was preserved, although it was significantly curtailed in large estates. In this, undoubtedly, the limited views of Pestel affected. But the genuine revolutionary character of his agrarian program lay in the fact that he proposed that all peasants be given land, and thereby abolished the economic dependence of the peasants on the landlords.
Pestel's agricultural project was not supported by all members of the secret society of the Decembrists. Its radical content went beyond the liberating transformations allowed by moderately minded members of society. For example, the prominent Decembrist and economist N. I. Turgenev (1789-1871), who fought for the liberation of peasants from personal serfdom, at the same time allowed them to be freed without land or with land (two tithes per male soul), but for a ransom. Turgenev made a lot of efforts to convince the landlords that the liberation of the peasants from personal dependence would not cause a breakdown in their economy. From the wage labor of the peasants it is possible to "squeeze out" no less income than under serfdom. N. I. Turgenev, who wrote a number of works: "An Experience in the Theory of Taxes" (1818), "Something about corvee" (1818), "Something about serfdom in Russia" (1819), "The issue of emancipation and the issue of managing peasants" (1819 ) and others, painted a vivid picture of the plight of the peasants, especially corvée and serfs. However, he still saw a way out of this situation in decisions "from above", and not in the revolutionary abolition of serfdom. The author of the note "Something about the serfdom in Russia" assured that "only the government can begin to improve the lot of the peasants"*.
But it is known that the landlords not only in the period disintegration of serfdom (late 18th - early 19th century), but also during the crisis of serfdom (mid-19th century) they were resolute opponents of the liberation of the peasants, and only objective reasons forced the government in 1861 to embark on the path of reform. Turgenev erroneously considered landlord ownership of land as a condition for the economic progress of Russia, and advocated the transfer of noble latifundia to the capitalist path of development. Peasant farms were given a subordinate role as a source of cheap labor for the landowners' estates. Unlike Pestel, Turgenev saw the future of Russia in the capitalist development of agriculture, headed by the large capitalist farms of the landowners. Turgenev's views on serfdom and the land issue were a reflection of the limited nobility.
N. M. Muravyov also expressed his negative attitude to Pestel’s agrarian project, who did not hide this even before the uprising, and after his defeat during the investigation, openly declared: “... Pestel’s whole plan was contrary to my reason and way of thinking”*. In his draft Constitution, Muraviev left all the land to the landowners, preserving the economic basis of the rule of the nobility. In the first version on this issue, he put it this way: "The right of property, which contains one thing, is sacred and inviolable."
During the reign of serfdom in Russia, only the nobility and the free commercial and industrial class were endowed with the right to own property. Therefore, when N. M. Muravyov declared the inviolability and sacredness of property, this applied only to the ruling class - the nobles. The draft Constitution stated that "the lands of the landowners remain theirs." After reading the first version of the draft Constitution by individual members of the secret society of the Decembrists, N. M. Muravyov supplemented this thesis with the note that "the houses of the settlers with their vegetable gardens are recognized as their property with all agricultural tools and cattle belonging to them." I. I. Pushchin made a postscript in the margins: "If the garden, then the land" *.
S. P. Trubetskoy, M. S. Lunin, I. D. Yakushkin, M. F. Orlov and others were also supporters of the landless liberation of the peasants. The liberation of the peasants from the personal dependence of the landowners without land or with a meager piece of it did not solve the problem of eliminating the dependence of the peasants on the landowners. The replacement of non-economic coercion by economic bondage did not rule out an antagonistic, class contradiction between peasants and landlords.
Russkaya Pravda does not contain a developed program for the development of industry, trade and finance. But the attitude of the Decembrists to these questions can be judged from the writings of Turgenev, Bestuzhev and Orlov. Pestel, while attaching decisive importance to agriculture, did not deny the important role played by the development of industry and trade. Pestel, for example, believed that the economic policy of the state should actively promote the development of industry, trade, the establishment of the correct tax system, and for the sake of protecting backward domestic industry supported protectionist policies. Some Decembrists of the southern regions of Russia (I. I. Gorbachevsky (1800-1869) and others) gave industry priority over agriculture, arguing that the problem of eradicating poverty and poverty could be more successfully solved through the active development of industry. "... The people can be free only by becoming moral, enlightened and industrial," * wrote Gorbachevsky.
Pestel pointed out that the development of industry should be promoted by trade, both external and internal, but its growth was hindered by the existence of merchant guilds, which provided privileges to large merchants. Decembrists of all denominations believed that these privileges should be abolished, as they hindered the growth of trade.
According to Pestel, the tax policy should also be changed. After the proclamation of the equality of all citizens of Russia and the abolition of class privileges, taxes must be paid by all members of the Russian state, including the nobles. Pestel even suggested abolishing poll taxes, all in-kind and personal duties, establishing direct, differentiated property and income taxes that would not be ruinous for the poor. He was opposed to indirect taxes, especially on basic necessities. In order to help small-scale production in the countryside and city, the author of Russkaya Pravda proposed expanding the banking system, creating banks in each volost and issuing interest-free loans for long periods to peasants and townspeople to promote the development of their farms or crafts. All these proposals of Pestel essentially led to the creation of a new financial system, the purpose of which would be to assist the population in the development of the economy, and not to solve the fiscal problems of the state. The Decembrists did not have a unity of views on these questions either.
Representatives of the moderate wing created important works, as evidenced by the works of N. I. Turgenev ("Experience in the theory of taxes", 1818), N. A. Bestuzhev ("On freedom of trade and industry in general", 1831) and M. F. Orlov ( "On State Credit", 1833). The content of these works goes beyond the problems indicated in the title. They raise general issues of serfdom, economic state policy in trade, taxation, finance and credit. In the "Experience in the Theory of Taxes" Turgenev analyzes the history of taxes in various countries, the sources of tax payment, the forms of their collection, the significance of tax policy for the population, the development of industry, trade, public finance, etc. But the author saw his main task in the analysis of Russian history , in criticism of serfdom in defense of the idea of freedom. As Turgenev later recalled in his work "La Russie et les Russes" ("Russia and the Russians", 1847), "in this work (i.e., in the "Experience in the Theory of Taxes." - Auth.) I allowed myself a number of excursions into higher areas of politics. The poll tax gave me the opportunity to talk about slavery ... These side points were in my eyes much more important than the main content of my work "*.
Viewing Russia as an economically backward country, Turgenev, in contrast to Pestel, considered free trade as a policy that promotes the growth of industry. Here, of course, not only the influence of the teachings of A. Smith, fashionable at that time, but also concern for the interests of the landowners, affected. Of all the social strata of Russian society, the nobility was most closely associated with foreign trade as a supplier to the foreign market of bread, hemp, lard, leather and a buyer of fine cloth, silk, wine, spices, luxury goods, etc. Turgenev spoke approvingly of the new tariff of 1810 ., destroying customs barriers for foreign goods. However, his historical references to the example of England, which established a policy of free trade, are unsuccessful. It was impossible to mechanically transfer to Russian reality, where industry was poorly developed, the principles of free trade. Turgenev ignored the fact that England itself and almost all the countries of Western Europe built their industry under the protection of a policy of protectionism.
The prominent Decembrist P. G. Kakhovsky (1797-1826) did not understand the significance of the policy of protectionism for the development of industry in Russia. In his letters to Tsar Nicholas I, he stated that "the prohibitive system, which cannot be useful anywhere, has contributed greatly to the decline of trade and to the general ruin in the state, all the more harmful in our fatherland"*. N. M. Muravyov, N. A. Bestuzhev and others showed a negative attitude towards protectionism.
In his work "On Freedom of Trade and Industry in General" (1831), N. A. Bestuzhev (1791-1855) expressed an erroneous judgment about the negative consequences of prohibitive tariffs. The well-known formula "laissez faire, laissez passer" ("freedom of action, freedom of trade") he perceived uncritically, without taking into account the historical conditions of each state. Bestuzhev viewed protectionism as a belated reflection of the obsolete politics of mercantilism. In his opinion, countries rich in fertile lands and vast territories should produce mainly agricultural products and be their supplier to foreign markets. Small countries are forced to develop industry and enter the markets with manufactured goods. In this case, there should be free exchange between states. The free actions of private entrepreneurs should not be limited by government restrictions, including tariff policy. Bestuzhev did not oppose the development of industry, but was more inclined towards the development of the processing industry, which was in the hands of the nobility*.
N. I. Turgenev argued that the tax system, although indirectly, reflects the nature of a republican or despotic state, and emphasized that the correct organization of taxation can only be based on a thorough knowledge of political economy and "any government that does not understand the rules of this science ... must perish" from financial distress*. Giving an idealistic explanation of the origin of taxes on the basis of the theory of "social contract" J.-J. Rousseau, and considering the collection of them in principle correct, Turgenev opposed the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, because taxes must be paid by all sections of society in accordance with income. Although he took examples of unfair taxation from the history of France, he criticized the Russian order quite transparently, demanded the abolition of poll taxes and their replacement with a tax on "labor and land." The author especially opposed personal duties, considering it expedient to replace them with money dues. In despotic countries, taxes are heavy, burdensome, but they should not be ruinous for the people. Therefore, "the government should take as much as is necessary to meet the true needs of the state, and not as much as the people are able to give" **. It was proposed to levy taxes only on net income, without affecting fixed capital, and to establish a tax on landlord farming once every 100 years. This followed logically from his conception of the role of landlord farms in the development of capitalist agrarian relations. It should be emphasized the progressiveness of Turgenev's views on the tax policy directed against serfdom and tsarist arbitrariness.
Turgenev's statements about paper money, banks and credit are of known interest. He considered the use of paper money as a medium of circulation as a rational phenomenon, since they replaced the movement of metallic money. Turgenev emphasized that the amount of paper money functioning in the sphere of circulation should correspond to the size of the turnover. If this condition is violated, then the extra paper money leads to the depreciation of "pure money", that is, full-fledged money, which is, as it were, an additional tax on the working people. Turgenev criticized the government, which used the policy of covering the budget deficit by issuing money, believing that it was more economically rational to resort to state credit. He stressed that "all governments should direct their attention to the maintenance and preservation of public credit ... The age of paper money has passed for theory - and has passed irrevocably. The age of credit is coming for all of Europe"*.
Deeper systematic analysis of public credit gave the Decembrist General M. F. Orlov (1788-1842). His book "On State Credit" (1833) was one of the first in world literature, which outlined the bourgeois theory of state credit. Orlov was a supporter of large-scale capitalist industry and large-scale private ownership of the means of production. Until the end of his days, he adhered to the idea of the inviolability of private property. Unlike other Decembrists, Orlov connected progress in economic development Russia with the organization of large-scale production both in industry and in agriculture. But such development was hampered by the lack of large capital. To solve these problems, Orlov proposed to expand state credit (by the way, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, Russian finance ministers Guryev, Kankrin, and others were well-known opponents of this idea). The Decembrist overestimated the role of state credit, fetishized it, seeing it as a source of so-called initial accumulation, and proposed combining this with a moderate system of taxation. He noted that "if good system taxes are the first basis of credit, then the use of credit is the motive for the organization of the system of taxes.
Original was Orlov's proposal to make government loans a source of government credit. This meant not to return loans, but to pay their amount in the form of interest for a long time. This idea formed the basis of the theory of public credit. A developed system of state credit would require the creation of an extensive network of banks, which corresponded to the trend in the development of capitalism. Having written this book, M. F. Orlov declared himself as a serious theorist in the field of state credit not only in Russian, but also in world economic literature. There are references to his work in German literature.
Thus, the Decembrists not only acted as revolutionary fighters against serfdom and autocracy, but also left a serious mark on the history of economic thought. In their works, agrarian problems, questions of the economic policy of the state, especially foreign economic and tax policy, problems of public debt, credit, etc., received deep coverage. Their views, being essentially bourgeois, had a huge impact on the development of socio-economic thought in Russia.
V. I. Lenin gave a dialectical definition of the historical place of the Decembrist period of the liberation movement in Russia: “The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people. But their cause is not lost. The Decembrists woke up Herzen.
