A MODERATE (NOT A LIBERAL) CZAR ALEXANDER III WHO LIVES LONGER

Deleted member 116192

Of the twenty Romanov Tsars five died violent deaths (Ivan VI, Peter III, Paul I, Alexander II, and Nicholas II). Star Alexander III The Tsar of All The Russias also known as Tsar liberator, was assassinated by a bomb on March 13 (Old Style Date March 1), 1881 in St. Petersburg, Russia. Born in 1818, he was the eldest child of TSAR Nicholas I and Princess Charlotte who was known as Alexandra Feodorovna after her marriage. In 1841, Alexander married Princess Marie of Hesse , known as Maria Alexandrovna after her marriage. Although the marriage produced 8 children Alexander had a number of lovers, the chief one being his long-time mistress Chathrine dolgarokova with whom he had 3 children .Maria Alexandrovna was frequently ill and died of tuberculosis in 1880. Less than a month after her death, Alexander married Catherine Dolgorukova morganatically. This marriage caused a scandal in the Imperial Family and violated Russian Orthodox regarding the waiting period for remarriage following the death of a spouse. Alexander granted his new wife the title of Princess Yurievskaya and legitimized their children.

In 1855, Alexander became Emperor of All Russia upon the death of his father. He is known as the most reforming tsar since Peter the Great. His foremost accomplishment was the Emancipation of serfs in 1861. In addition, Alexander II reorganized the judicial system, established local self-government called Zemstvo, instituted universal military service in which sons of the rich and the poor were required to serve, ended some of the privileges of the nobility, and promoted higher education in the universities.

A liberal-leaning ruler, Alexander was subjected to several assination attempts including two attempts in 1879 and 1880 by The peoples's will a radical revolutionary group whose goal was a social revolution. After the failed attempts, a committee of The People’s Will members called on March 1 and began to plan the next attack on Alexander II. The group was led by Anderi Zelyabov who was arrested a few days before the planned attack, and his lover Sophia perovskaya .

On March 13, 1881, Alexander II signed an order creating several commissions, composed of government officials and prominent private individuals, to prepare reforms in various branches of the government. Afterward, he attended Mass with the Imperial Family, the usual custom on Sunday. Before leaving the Winter Palace, Alexander’s wife begged him not follow his usual route home because of the reports of possible terrorist attacks. He promised he would return to the palace via the Catherine Canal Embankment instead. Alexander left the Winter Palace and attended a parade at the Michael Riding School and then visited his cousin Grand Duchess Catherine Michaelovna. The conspirators had laid dynamite mines in tunnels dug under the Tsar’s usual route. When Sophia Perovskaya saw that Alexander visited his cousin and might return to the palace using a different route, she arranged her co-conspirators along the Catherine Canal Embankment, the most logical alternate route.

Alexander II was riding in a bomb proof carriage, a gift from Emperor Napoleon III of France. As the carriage turned onto the Catherine Canal Embankment, a bomb was thrown. The carriage was damaged and several onlookers were wounded, but the tsar was unharmed. Next, Alexander II made the mistake that cost him his life. Unaware that another conspirator was leaning against a railing about six feet away, he left the carriage to inspect the damage and check on the wounded people, and a bomb was thrown directly between the tsar’s legs. The noise from the bomb was deafening, smoke filled the air, wounded people were screaming, and the snow was drenched with blood. When the smoke cleared, Alexander II lay mortally wounded, his legs crushed and torn from the blast of the bomb. Alexander asked to be taken to the Winter Palace so he could die there.

As they heard the news (and some of them heard the two bombs), members of the Imperial Family arrived at the Winter Palace. The sight that greeted them was grim. Alexander II’s face and body were intact, but his legs were basically gone up to his knees. The room began to get crowded as more family members arrived. Alexander II’s eldest son Alexander and his Danish wife Dagmar arrived. Dagmar was still wearing her skating costume and carrying her ice skates as she had been planning to go ice skating. Dagmar’s husband stood in disbelief and their eldest son 13-year-old Nicholas was clinging on to a cousin for comfort. The tsar’s wife Catherine Dolgorukova (Princess Yurievskaya) hysterically ran into the room, threw herself on her husband’s body, kissed his hands, and called out his name. For 45 minutes, those in the room watched as Emperor Alexander II’s life ebbed away. At 3:35 PM, the emperor died, and as the Imperial Family knelt to pray, his wife fainted and was carried from the room, her clothes drenched with his blood.

CZAR ALEXANDER THE THIRD, THE PEACE MAKER

He was succeeded by his the second son of Alexander III, Alexander III had not been prepared to reign. He became heir to the throne only at the age of twenty, after the death of his older brother, Nicholas. Only then did he begin to receive an extensive education,. He came of age in the mid-1860s, when the contradictory results of the reforms were becoming apparent: the difficult circumstances of the emancipated peasantry, the conflicts between the administration and the institutions of self-government, the rise of the revolutionary movement, and the embezzlements and other abuses that marked the era of “concession fever.” Alexander began to criticize his father’s reforms, and his antipathy to liberal principles and attempts to follow Western models steadily increased. The conservatives in his entourage confirmed his views. Alexander developed particularly close relations with his former tutor, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. In the 1870s the heir’s court became a center of attraction for various forces that were unhappy with the government’s policies. They included not only outright reactionaries but men of broader views, such as Pan-Slavists and Slavophiles who did not reject reform but wanted to give it a distinct national character. Through Pobedonostsev, Alexander made the acquaintance of Fyodor Dostoevsky, studied the works of Iury Samarin, and attentively followed the activities of Ivan Aksakov. At a time when European models were influencing government policies, reactionaries and conservatives of various stripes formed a united front. Alexander criticized Dmitry Miliutin’s military reforms for violating Russia’s historical traditions, and in the mid-1870s the heir and his entourage demanded an active Russian policy in the Balkans. When military operations began, Alexander went to the Balkans and in 1877–78 commanded a large Russian military unit, the Rushchuk Detachment. In the social and political crisis that marked the late 1870s and the early 1880s, Alexander demanded a ruthless campaign against the revolutionaries and the formation of a dictatorship to pursue it. He played an important part in the creation in 1880 of the Supreme Administrative Commission that Mikhail Loris-Melikov headed. In the first months of the “dictatorship,” after the death of Czar liberator Alexander III and Loris-Melikov maintained fairly close relations. As Loris-Melikov began to give priority to liberal and reformist principles, however, they grew estranged. The assassination of Alexander II seriously undermined Loris-Melikov’s position . On first coming to the throne, Alexander III did not openly declare his political course. .Loris-Melikov’s reform plan, which Alexander II had approved, was in a sense the political testament of the deceased emperor, and it was awkward for his son to disregard it. Fear of the terrorists persisted, and their strength remained unknown. Zemstvos and private individuals addressed numerous petitions to the emperor insisting that reform must continue. Personally, however, Alexander III was not inclined to adopt liberal measures, and the conservatives encouraged him to oppose them. Mikhail Katkov wrote articles blaming the liberals for the death of the Tsar-Liberator, while Pobedonostsev deluged Alexander with letters urging him to dismiss the “liberal dictator.” At a March 8 meeting to discuss Loris-Melikov’s plan, Pobedonostsev gave a thunderous speech denouncing the innovations of the 1860s and the 1870s as fruitless and harmful chatter, and the plan itself as an attempt to introduce a constitution, “an instrument of all kinds of injustice, an instrument of all kinds of intrigue . . . a deception based on a foreign model that is unsuitable for Russia.”

Though under the influence of conservatives like pobedonoatev and others, the Czar much like his father harboured doubts as to the effectiveness of the harsh police expressions and other extra judicial methods. While his father czar liberator had lost entire faith in harsh repressive measures to combat terrorism and revolutionary activities, his son Czar the peace maker was of the belief that harsh measures are appropriate given the situation and that too in moderation, the belief and the political views and policy of czar Alexander the III can be characterized as juicy carrot and bayonet or carrot and stick. The czar not wanting to reverse all the reforms made by his father was content in changing or un doing those reforms which he viewed as a threat to the Empire. While he viewed some of his fathers reforms as being too liberal he did agree that most of the reforms was necessary for the stabiltyof the empire .

Much to the dismay of his conservative allies the czar accepted the loris- melikov reforms, the last major reforms of his father. But the czar ensured that all reference to the Constitution and any liberal ideas were purged and the word constitution was removed and in its place the word report was used
The "Report" of Loris-Melikov envisaged only the most timid steps towards the constitutional restriction on autocracy . The main idea was to involve the public in cooperation with the government, and representatives of the third estate (large cities and zemstovs) - to lawmaking activity by means of a single convocation of a representative body with legislative rights.but The right of legislative initiative was retained by the monarch.

In the image and likeness of the committee of 1858, working on the draft of the abolition of serfdom , the emperor was to appoint (on an interim basis) two commissions - financial and administrative. For their consideration, it was intended to present the drafts of the reform of the provincial administration (revision of the zemstvo and city regulations) and the continuation of the peasant reform (transfer of former serfs to compulsory redemption with a reduction in redemption payments).

At the next stage it was planned to discuss these bills by commissions with the participation of elected representatives of significant cities and zemstvo administration. And only at the last stage of the most "experienced" of these representatives (number from 10 to 15), selected by the sovereign himself, was supposed to be admitted to the permanent legislative body the state council of the Russian empire for final drafting of the draft laws.


1. The ZEMSTVOS REFORMS of czar Alexander the III

Zemsky reform - one of the " great reforms " of Alexander II , envisaging the creation of a system of local self government in the countryside - zemstvo institutions or simply zemstvos . The main act of the reform was the publication on January 1, 1864 .of provision on provincial and district zemstvos of 1864

The draft zemstvo reform was developed since 1859 by the commission under the ministry of internal affairs (chairman NA .MILYUTIN , ). Reformers sought to replace the system of bureaucratic management in the regional institutions, in which the regional life was governed by directives from the center, which led to erroneous and belated decisions. The main argument in support of the reform was the belief that local conditions are well known only to the permanent residents of the region, and the sent officials accurately implement the program received in the center, without taking into account local specifics. The "Regulations" of 1864 reflected the various interests of noble groups.

REFORMS

Most of these were continuation of previous reforms of czar Alexander II but certain changes were made .

In the course of the reform, provincial and district zemstvo and zemstvo council , both elected and appointed, were created on the basis of population of provinces . Voters were divided into 3 groups : county landowners, city voters and elective from rural societies . The right of participation in elections for the 1st group was enjoyed by owners of not less than 200 hectares of land, owners of industrial, commercial enterprises or other immovable property worth not less than 15 thousand rubles. or yielding at least 6 thousand rubles. a year, as well as authorized representatives of , societies and institutions that owned not less than 1/20 of the qualification of the 1st group . The voters of the urban group were persons who had merchant certificates, owners of enterprises or trade establishments with an annual turnover of not less than 6 thousand rubles, as well as owners of immovable property in the amount of 500 rubles. (in small towns) to 3 thousand rubles. (in large cities). Elections for the peasant group were multi-level: rural societies elected representatives to collectives those - electors latter representatives to the district zemstvo assembly. Who elected their representatives to provincial zemstvo .

Provincial and district zemstvo councils consisted of 6 people appointed by zemstvo meetings. Meetings were convened once a year, but in emergency situations they could meet more often. The administrations worked on an ongoing basis. The assemblies gave orders and controlled their implementation, and the councils themselves were engaged in the implementation of decisions. The leaders and members of district and provincial zematvo were the members of the nobility .

Zemstvo meetings and councils were deprived of the right as an institution to communicate with other zematvo and they did not have coercive power, since the police were not bound to obey them; their activities were controlled by the governor and the ministry of internal affairs who had the right to suspend the execution of any zemsky order .

The zemstvo assemblies and administrations were in charge of local economic affairs: the content of the means of communication; construction and maintenance of schools and hospitals ; hiring physicians and paramedics; the organization of courses for the training of the population and the installation of a sanitary unit in towns and villages; "Care" about the development of local trade and industry, provision of national food (the organization of grain stores, seed depots); care for cattle and poultry; levying taxes on local needs, and so on.

The powers of the district zemstvo institutions were extended to the following subjects:
  • Collection of provincial and district zemstvo duties and management of own capital;
  • The care of the development of public education and the participation in the management of educational institutions at the expense of the zemstvos, established by laws;
  • Maintenance of the roads, roads, shorelines, and marinas outside the settlements;
  • Management zemsky medical and charitable institutions, care of charity (that is, integrated social assistance) poor, incurable sick and insane;
  • Mutual management of mutual property insurance;
  • Rendering food aid to the population;
  • Participation in sanitary and veterinary measures;
  • Prevention and extinguishing of fires;
  • The structure and content of zemstvo mail;
  • The promotion of local agriculture, trade and industry.
Post 1895
In 1895 more powers were devolved to the provinces but there was the introduction of dyarchy which literally means the rule of the two that is the rule of the chairman of provincial zemstvo and the governor. While the governor had the power to make laws on reserve subjects that is important matters of state without the approval of the zemstvo but with regards to non reserve subjects provincial zemstvo and its council was supreme. And the governor couldn't overrule the decision of the zemstvo. This dyarchy remained in force till 1945 when it was abolished and the office of governor became an elected one.


THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER BETWEEN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ZEMSTVO

  1. Medicine. Zemstvos contained all medical institutions in the counties and the vast majority of hospitals in the provincial cities, state hospitals existed only in the capitals and the largest cities. Zemstvos paid for the maintenance of poor, incurable and psychiatric patients in public hospitals and hospitals of other zemstvos.
  2. Education. The zemstvos kept (with the state allowance) primary schools; while Zemsky schools were under the guidance of the Ministry of Education. In parallel, there was a network of schools independent of the zemstvos of the Spiritual Department. Ministerial (fully state) primary schools were rare. Primary schools of a higher type (county and city schools, ) were mainly held by the state. The primary schools in the cities were kept both by the zemstvos and by the municipal governments. Specialized incomplete secondary schools (agricultural, technical schools, etc.) were kept partly by zemstvos, partly by the state (different departments) without the established system. Secondary and incomplete secondary education , as well as higher education were state ones.
  3. Social help. Zemstvos, without fail, kept at their expense foundlings and orphans. Social assistance to the rest of the population was unsystematic.
  4. Road economy. The main transit roads were kept by the state. Minor roads connecting the provinces, and all roads within the provinces were kept by the zemstvos.
  5. Sanitary-epidemiological and veterinary service. Participation of the state was minimal, at the level of provincial medical and veterinary inspectors with several assistants. All the rest of the work was done by the zemstvos.
  6. Protection of law and order. Completely carried out by the state, with the participation of the rural police in the volosts. The zemstvos kept arrest houses, for zemstvo bosses and city judges who were arrested on orders.
  7. Accomplishment of settlements. City improvement was entirely entrusted to city self-government, improvement in rural areas - to rural communities.
  8. Agronomical assistance. All kinds of agronomic aid (counseling, the maintenance of experimental farms, trade in agricultural implements, special education for peasants) almost completely turned out to the population zemstvos. The state preferred to subsidize this activity of zemstvos, and not to lead it independently.
  9. Small loan. The system of small loan institutions was intended for concessional lending to the peasants, mainly through cooperatives and partnerships. The state itself was engaged in a small loan without the participation of the zemstvos
Post 1895

In 1895 more powers were devolved to the provinces but there was the introduction of dyarchy which literally means the rule of the two that is the rule of the chairman of provincial zemstvo and the governor. While the governor had the power to make laws on reserve subjects that is important matters of state without the approval of the zemstvo but with regards to non reserve subjects provincial zemstvo and its council was supreme. And the governor couldn't overrule the decision of the zemstvo. This dyarchy remained in force till 1945 when it was abolished and the office of governor became an elected one. And the provinces were renamed oblast

Oblast Reaponsiblities

1. Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military or Air force or any other armed force of the Empire or of any other force subject to the control of the EMPIRE or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid of the civil power).

2. Police (including railway and village police) subject to the provisions of any law made by Imperial Duma

3. Officers and servants of the High Court of the oblast, procedure in rent and revenue courts; fees taken in all courts except the Privy council

4. Prisons, reformatories, Borstal institutions and other institutions of a like nature, and persons detained therein; arrangements with other States for the use of prisons and other institutions.

5. Local government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration.

6. Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries.

7. Pilgrimages, other than pilgrimages to places outside Russia

8. Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors.

9. Relief of the disabled and unemployable.

10. Burials and burial grounds; cremations and crematoriums

11. Affairs of tribal or nomadic pastoralists

12. Libraries, museums and other similar institutions controlled or financed by the oblast ; ancient and historical monuments and records other than those declared by or under law made by Imperial duma to be of national importance.

13. Communications, that is to say, roads, bridges, ferries, and other means of communication not specified in List I; municipal tramways; ropeways; inland waterways and traffic thereon subject to the provisions of List I and List III with regard to such waterways; vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles.

14. Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases.

15. Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.

16. Pounds and the prevention of livestock trespass.

17. Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of laws made by imperial duma

18. Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization.

19. Minor irrigation works

20. Forest and forest products

21. Fisheries.

22. Courts of wards subject to the provisions of law my the duma encumbered and attached estates.

23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of the laws by the duma

24. Industries subject to the provisions of laws made by imperial duma

25. Gas and gas-works.

26. Trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions of decree of the Emperor

27. Production, supply and distribution of goods subject to the provisions of decree of the emperor

28. Markets and fairs.

29. Land development

30. Money-lending and money-lenders; relief of agricultural indebtedness.

31. Inns and inn-keepers.

32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, and universities; unincorporated trading, literacy, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies.

33. Theaters and dramatic performances; cinemas subject to the provisions of entry 60 of List 1; sports, entertainments and amusements.

34. Betting and gambling.

35. Works, lands and buildings vested in or in the possession of the State.

36. Maintaining the place of religious worship

37. Elections to the Legislature of the oblast subject to the provisions of any law made by Duma

38. Salaries and allowances of members of the Legislature of the oblast ,of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the oblast Assembly and, if there is a oblast Council, of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman thereof.

39. Powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and of the members and the committees thereof, and, if there is a oblast Council, of that Council and of the members and the committees thereof; enforcement of attendance of persons for giving evidence or producing documents before committees of the Legislature of the oblast

40. Salaries and allowances of Ministers for the State.

41.oblast public services; oblast public Service Commission.

42. State pensions, that is to say, pensions payable by the State or out of the Consolidated Fund of the oblast .

43. Public debt of the oblast

44. Treasure trove.

45. Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation of revenues.

46. Taxes on agricultural income.

47. Duties in respect of succession to agricultural land.

48. Estate duty in respect of agricultural land.

49. Taxes on lands and buildings.

50. Taxes on mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Duma by law relating to mineral development.

51. Duties of excise on the following goods manufactured or produced in the oblast and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods manufactured or produced elsewhere in Russia

(a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption;

(b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics; but not including medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol or any substance included in sub-paragraph (b) of this entry.

52. Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein.

53. Taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity.

54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of law amde by the Imperial duma

55. Taxes on advertisements other than advertisements published in the newspapers and advertisements broadcast by radio or television.

56. Taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or on inland waterways.

57. Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of power of the duma

58. Taxes on animals and boats.

59. Tolls.

60. Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments.

61. Captivation taxes.

62. Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling.

63. Rates of stamp duty in respect of documents other than those specified in the provisions of List I with regard to rates of stamp duty.

64. Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in this List.

65. Jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the privy council with respect to any of the matters in this List.

66. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court.

In the initial days Zemstvo meetings included elective members and members from the government in office. Who are ex officio
The duties of the members were performed free of charge.
Zemstvo meetings according to the law should have been at least annual, if necessary, could meet more often. The order for the opening of the zemstvo meetings came from the governor. As a rule, zemstvo meetings lasted for 5-10 days per meeting .

In the meetings of the provincial assemblies was a broader range of issues were discussed : the layout of fees between the counties; distribution of real estate in the conduct of the district and provincial zemstvos; the permission of fairs, trades and bazaars; cases of mutual zemstvo insurance; the permission of loans for Zemstvo needs.

Both the provincial and district meetings, within their budgets and institutions, resolved the following issues: verifying the actions and reports of the administrations; elections to the government and the establishment of monetary layout for members of the governing bodies; consideration of zemstvo estimates and layouts; determination of the size of the land charges; write-off of arrears of land fees; the definition of rules for the management of special funds of zemstvos; buying and selling real estate.

Czar Alexander the third changed the composition of the zemstovs

Members of the district zemstvo assembly
The meeting was attended, under the chairmanship of the the leader of nobility of the district
  • elected members (separately selected by peasants, land owners - nobles, businessmen );
  • Representatives of the departments of agriculture and land management (if there were state or specific lands in the county);
  • a deputy from the spiritual department (if the diocesan authorities deem it useful to appoint him);
  • The mayor of the city ;
  • inspector of agriculture (at the invitation of the chairman, with an advisory voice).
Participants of the provincial zemstvo assembly
In the meeting participated, under the chairmanship of the leader of nobility of the provincial level

  • elected vowels (from district zemstvo assemblies);
  • Leaders of nobility of various counties ;
  • the chairmen of district zemstvo boards (since 1899);
  • chiefs of the provincial Directorate of Agriculture and State Property, administering the Specific Districts (where they were);
  • a deputy from the spiritual department (if the diocesan authorities deem it useful to appoint him);
  • a representative of the ministry of industry and trade . (where there are official mining or salt mines);
  • inspector of agriculture (at the invitation of the chairman, with an advisory voice).
Zemstvo councils

The Zemstvo councils consisted of a chairman and two members, according to the decision of the zemstvo assembly, the number of members could be increased to four, and by the permission of the Minister of the Interior - up to six. The service life of these persons was three years.

The chairmen of the provincial zemstvo were confirmed to the post by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the chairmen of the county zemstvo by the governors . If these persons were not approved in positions, the meetings should either be held immediately to select reserve candidates, or hold a repeat election. If the second candidate was not confirmed, the position was replaced by a person appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The chairmen and members of the zemstvo boards were considered to be state employees and wore uniforms, their work was paid. The chairmen of the provincial administrations were in the fifth grade ( state councillor ), the chairmen of the county governments and members of the provincial administrations - in the sixth grade ( collegiate advisor ), the members of the county governments in the 7th form (the councillor ).

The councils were entrusted with the direct administration of all affairs of the zemstvo economy and administration.

Division of powers between provincial and district zemstvo institutions

The law did not establish any requirements for the separation of both zemstvo duties and duties between provincial and district zemstvos. In each province the distribution was established individually. On average, provincial zemstvos spent 20-30% of the total budget of the zemstvos, the rest was distributed among the district zemstvos.

As a rule, county zemstvos contained secondary Zemsky roads, primary zemstvo schools, almshouses in the counties, precinct medical stations and hospitals in the counties, veterinary services in the counties, and also organized a small part of the agronomic aid.

The provincial zemstvos contained more significant roads, specialized educational institutions, provincial hospitals, the provincial part of the veterinary service, organized the bulk of agronomic aid activities, and managed the special capital of zemstzemstvo

While more reforms would take place post 1905 but for the first part of the reign of Tsar Alexander III the zemstvo administration was responsible for local affairs and the assembly and the council was undemocratic in nature with the majority of members being the representative of the government who are the members of the assembly in their exofficio capacity and the control of governor and the miniofy ovf the interior over the zemstvo was very strong
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CZAR ALEXANDER THE THIRD, THE PEACE MAKER

He was succeeded by his the second son of Alexander III, Alexander III had not been prepared to reign. He became heir to the throne only at the age of twenty, after the death of his older brother, Nicholas. Only then did he begin to receive an extensive education, and until the end of his life he displayed serious gaps in his knowledge.

Education of the Russian emperors is a very tricky issue and an assumption that they were getting a serious education is somewhat idealistic. Nicholas I acknowledged that he (and his brother Michael) simply was not interested in the subjects he was taught. Alexander II was allowed to participate in the state activities from a relatively early age (but being formally a chairman of various commissions does not mean being a specialist in anything). His education had been supervised by Vasily Zhukovsky, one of the leading Russian poets and famous translator but we don't know if Alexander ended up being proficient in anything but the foreign languages.

It seems that Alexander III got education along the similar lines. The rest was up to him to pick up.

The peculiarities of Alexander’s intellect exacerbated his educational deficiencies. Although strong-willed and honest, he had a highly inflexible mind that led him to oversimplify reality.

Taking into an account that his presumably well-educated and fully prepared father managed to make a mess out of pretty much everything he touched from the domestic policies all the way to the major international screw-ups, while Alexander III manage to navigate through the numerous problems left by his father while avoiding getting Russia into any international trouble, probably this part of a criticism can be safely ignored. :)

Yes, his contemporaries liked to make fun of his personal habits from being fond of the uniforms and all the way to playing trombone but he was the 1st emperor who introduced military uniform that was close to the national costume and thus convenient for the soldiers (and with the minor changes survived all the way to the end of the Soviet times).

He came of age in the mid-1860s, when the contradictory results of the reforms were becoming apparent: the difficult circumstances of the emancipated peasantry, the conflicts between the administration and the institutions of self-government, the rise of the revolutionary movement, and the embezzlements and other abuses that marked the era of “concession fever.” Alexander began to criticize his father’s reforms, and his antipathy to liberal principles and attempts to follow Western models steadily increased.

Which clearly indicates that he was intelligent enough to understand that something was fundamentally wrong with his father's policies. Hardly identifies him as a fool.
 

Deleted member 116192

Next three reforms that I will
Education of the Russian emperors is a very tricky issue and an assumption that they were getting a serious education is somewhat idealistic. Nicholas I acknowledged that he (and his brother Michael) simply was not interested in the subjects he was taught. Alexander II was allowed to participate in the state activities from a relatively early age (but being formally a chairman of various commissions does not mean being a specialist in anything). His education had been supervised by Vasily Zhukovsky, one of the leading Russian poets and famous translator but we don't know if Alexander ended up being proficient in anything but the foreign languages.

It seems that Alexander III got education along the similar lines. The rest was up to him to pick up.



Taking into an account that his presumably well-educated and fully prepared father managed to make a mess out of pretty much everything he touched from the domestic policies all the way to the major international screw-ups, while Alexander III manage to navigate through the numerous problems left by his father while avoiding getting Russia into any international trouble, probably this part of a criticism can be safely ignored. :)

Yes, his contemporaries liked to make fun of his personal habits from being fond of the uniforms and all the way to playing trombone but he was the 1st emperor who introduced military uniform that was close to the national costume and thus convenient for the soldiers (and with the minor changes survived all the way to the end of the Soviet times).



Which clearly indicates that he was intelligent enough to understand that something was fundamentally wrong with his father's policies. Hardly identifies him as a fool.
Well I know all the points that you have raised, I watched the Romanov series produced by the ministry of culture of the Russian Federation in that series his description was a warm and kind hearted person who loved his family especially his wife. There is a ton of story about the guy which is why I just think he is the personification of the idea of the supreme autocrat of all the Russians. The book from which I produced those lines is a anglo Russian author who had somewhat of a hatred towards the man and ridiculed Nicholas the second the last czar of Russia

I'll remove it since it's historically inaccurate but ill rely upon the work from which I quoted as it has lots of first hand accounts and information

Now about czar liberator well in my opinion he made a huge mess of the economy and can be comparable to Yelstin or lenin administration and his handling of Poland was at best catastrophic and he was inconsistent In his policy in general and towards Poland in particular

Well a lot of people don't know much about czar Alexander III except for the fact that he was huge and remember him as a reactionary and if I do put him in favourable light I may be accused of being a Russophile
 
Next three reforms that I will

Well I know all the points that you have raised, I watched the Romanov series produced by the ministry of culture of the Russian Federation in that series his description was a warm and kind hearted person who loved his family especially his wife. There is a ton of story about the guy which is why I just think he is the personification of the idea of the supreme autocrat of all the Russians. The book from which I produced those lines is a anglo Russian author who had somewhat of a hatred towards the man and ridiculed Nicholas the second the last czar of Russia.

Well, there are plenty of the 1st hand accounts related to him and his reign, both positive and negative. But Witte, the greatest figure of those contemporaries, left a generally positive description of him and the very fact that Alexander III noticed and promoted him tells a lot about his ability to see and use the available talents.

W. S. Kriwenko in the memoir about his service in the Ministry of Court (which had been dealing with the personal property of the imperial family) described how Alexander had been cutting off the frivolous expenses of the Grand Dukes and, IIRC, during his reign he passed a regulation cutting off a number of the "Imperial Highnesses" (and the related expenses). Unlike his father and his son he managed to keep his closest relatives under control (as much as it was practically possible).

Now about czar liberator well in my opinion he made a huge mess of the economy and can be comparable to Yelstin or lenin administration and his handling of Poland was at best catastrophic and he was inconsistent In his policy in general and towards Poland in particular

It took him to be killed by the terrorists for the same people who had been providing the moral and financial support to the terrorist organizations to start saying something good about him. Handling of Poland, as bad as it was, had been peanuts comparing to the fundamental screw-up of the Russian-Turkish War (which he should not start at all) and its political follow-up: basically, Alexander II destroyed the traditional relations without any gain for Russia leaving his successors to deal with the consequences. OTOH, modernization of the Russian economy did start during his reign so he can't be described as a complete disaster.




Well a lot of people don't know much about czar Alexander III except for the fact that he was huge and remember him as a reactionary and if I do put him in favourable light I may be accused of being a Russophile


Well, you see, as soon as one gets a tag "reactionary" he is routinely dismissed as stupid, inefficient, etc. However, Bismark in his memoirs explicitly called himself a reactionary and he was definitely not an inefficient fool. :)

In the case of Alexander III situation he inherited was not giving any indication that continuation of the chaotic social reforms will produce some positive results. So he concentrated on the economic reforms making Witte Minister of Ways and Communications (which he made hugely profitable, over 100M gold rubles per year) and then Minister of Finance thus allowing sweeping reforms in many areas (including "commercial" schools producing trained personnel for industry), conclusion of the trade agreement with Germany favorable for Russia, etc. It does not look like his political conservatism was staying on the way of the economic development and it is necessary to remember that, while looking nice and progressive on paper, Russian "zemstvo" (local self-rule structures) was, in general, at least as corrupt and inefficient as the governmental structures. However, Alexander was flexible enough to increase role of these organizations during a big famine.

Not sure what's good or bad in being labeled as "Russophile" as long as you are trying to be objective in your approach to the history. Would "Anglophile" also be bad? You know, with all these colonies. :biggrin:
 

Deleted member 116192

Well, there are plenty of the 1st hand accounts related to him and his reign, both positive and negative. But Witte, the greatest figure of those contemporaries, left a generally positive description of him and the very fact that Alexander III noticed and promoted him tells a lot about his ability to see and use the available talents.

W. S. Kriwenko in the memoir about his service in the Ministry of Court (which had been dealing with the personal property of the imperial family) described how Alexander had been cutting off the frivolous expenses of the Grand Dukes and, IIRC, during his reign he passed a regulation cutting off a number of the "Imperial Highnesses" (and the related expenses). Unlike his father and his son he managed to keep his closest relatives under control (as much as it was practically possible).



It took him to be killed by the terrorists for the same people who had been providing the moral and financial support to the terrorist organizations to start saying something good about him. Handling of Poland, as bad as it was, had been peanuts comparing to the fundamental screw-up of the Russian-Turkish War (which he should not start at all) and its political follow-up: basically, Alexander II destroyed the traditional relations without any gain for Russia leaving his successors to deal with the consequences. OTOH, modernization of the Russian economy did start during his reign so he can't be described as a complete disaster.







Well, you see, as soon as one gets a tag "reactionary" he is routinely dismissed as stupid, inefficient, etc. However, Bismark in his memoirs explicitly called himself a reactionary and he was definitely not an inefficient fool. :)

In the case of Alexander III situation he inherited was not giving any indication that continuation of the chaotic social reforms will produce some positive results. So he concentrated on the economic reforms making Witte Minister of Ways and Communications (which he made hugely profitable, over 100M gold rubles per year) and then Minister of Finance thus allowing sweeping reforms in many areas (including "commercial" schools producing trained personnel for industry), conclusion of the trade agreement with Germany favorable for Russia, etc. It does not look like his political conservatism was staying on the way of the economic development and it is necessary to remember that, while looking nice and progressive on paper, Russian "zemstvo" (local self-rule structures) was, in general, at least as corrupt and inefficient as the governmental structures. However, Alexander was flexible enough to increase role of these organizations during a big famine.

Not sure what's good or bad in being labeled as "Russophile" as long as you are trying to be objective in your approach to the history. Would "Anglophile" also be bad? You know, with all these colonies. :biggrin:
Not to forget
Alexander the third's tariff reform of 1881 to 1892 which provided protection to the infant Russian Industries and brought in much needed revenue. This is the best reform or counter reform depending upon how you see the tsar peacemaker.

Making financial and fiscal reform needed which eventually resulted in Russia moving towards gold standard

Monopolizing alchohol trade which brought in further revenue

Reduction of peasent redemption payment and the abolition of poll tax

Giving the go ahead to build the trans Siberian railway and actually beginning it's construction in 1890 . There is a interesting story as to how his son Nicholas came to be involved in the project. S W Witte was quite concerned as to the fact that heir to the throne was not reciving sufficient training in the matters of state who expressed his concern to the czar who just laughed it off and said that he has a long time to live and his son is just a child though he looks like a adult and that he will learn things eventually, but Serge Witte was quite adamant and eventually got the czar to entrust Nicholas with the task of overseeing the railway construction though he wasn't directly involved in day day planning and execution

The completion of trans Caspian railway

Turning railway from a loss making enterprise to the treasury into a net revenue contributor to the treasury though the credit should go to Witte and his tariff rationalizing plan but the czar gave him the freedom and authority to act

His criticism are

Well one cannot forget the may laws which target the Jews of the empire and during his reign a lot of Jewish progrom was organized in the pale pa settlement which resulted in large migration of Jews to the USA

As for the repressive power used against the revolutionary movements well it did work, the terrorist attacks reduced to zero and there was a atmosphere of law and order in his reign which promoted economic growth

He can also be critized for his policies of russification of many ethnic groups but by that logic one must also critized the Americanization of various migrant groups who migrated to USA though many would argue that both are not the same but it is a fact that most of the excess of russification of the minority groups have been greatly exaggerated

the tsar Alexander the 3rd government, like Nicholas the first , saw its support in the nobility and considered it necessary to strengthen its shaken over the years of the reform of the situation. This explains the all-round support of the landed estates, which became "scanty" because of the abolition of serfdom . To subsidize the latter in 1885, the noble bankbank created . Measures are being taken to strengthen the power of the local nobility at the expense of the peasantry, which consolidate the old order in the countryside. Complicated land redistribution and family sections, which blocks the peasants from the community.

By these measures the government wanted to slow down the disintegration of the patriarchal family, but the laws only increased the social tension in the village: henceforth it was difficult for the peasant to show economic initiative to get out of growing poverty
 
Not to forget

Monopolizing alchohol trade which brought in further revenue

Not all alcohol, just vodka. The production of the wines, cognac and flavored vodkas remained in the private hands. There is an interesting book on the subject written by Smirnoff (grandson of the founder and one who managed to escape to the US after Russian Revolution with a recipe of Smirnoff vodka).

He can also be critized for his policies of russification of many ethnic groups but by that logic one must also critized the Americanization of various migrant groups who migrated to USA though many would argue that both are not the same but it is a fact that most of the excess of russification of the minority groups have been greatly exaggerated

IIRC, his policy of Russification was somewhat an answer to the policy of Germanization. Both had been different (as far as I can tell) from "Americanization" which was not enforced: it was happening because people had been interested in becoming a "mainstream" (and because at that time the government was not bending backward trying to accommodate the ethnic minorities). OTOH, government's interest in having language uniformity is at least partially understandable both in the terms of a civic administration and in the military (how to deal with the soldiers who do not speak the prevailing language?).

the tsar Alexander the 3rd government, like Nicholas the first , saw its support in the nobility and considered it necessary to strengthen its shaken over the years of the reform of the situation. This explains the all-round support of the landed estates, which became "scanty" because of the abolition of serfdom . To subsidize the latter in 1885, the noble bankbank created .

Actually, the first state bank of that type existed since either late XVIII or early XIX (see "Eugene Onegin" ;)). During the time of Alexander III such a thing made a lot of commercial sense because only the reasonably big estates could afford purchase of the modern equipment, hiring of the specialists and other things needed for raising productivity. But in 1883 the Peasants' Land Bank was created as well to help peasants purchase their own farms and the Poll Tax (paid only by the peasants) was abolished.

Measures are being taken to strengthen the power of the local nobility at the expense of the peasantry, which consolidate the old order in the countryside. Complicated land redistribution and family sections, which blocks the peasants from the community.

By these measures the government wanted to slow down the disintegration of the patriarchal family, but the laws only increased the social tension in the village: henceforth it was difficult for the peasant to show economic initiative to get out of growing poverty

What to do was anything but clear at that time. An idea of the rural community was quite popular and even much later Stolypin's reforms had been criticized by the people as different as Lev Tolstoy and Witte. And even reaction of peasantry to these reforms was not uniforms: a significant segment of peasantry was sticking to the existing system because they had been used to it and did not have skills or inclinations needed for the individual farming.
 

Deleted member 116192

Not all alcohol, just vodka. The production of the wines, cognac and flavored vodkas remained in the private hands. There is an interesting book on the subject written by Smirnoff (grandson of the founder and one who managed to escape to the US after Russian Revolution with a recipe of Smirnoff vodka).



IIRC, his policy of Russification was somewhat an answer to the policy of Germanization. Both had been different (as far as I can tell) from "Americanization" which was not enforced: it was happening because people had been interested in becoming a "mainstream" (and because at that time the government was not bending backward trying to accommodate the ethnic minorities). OTOH, government's interest in having language uniformity is at least partially understandable both in the terms of a civic administration and in the military (how to deal with the soldiers who do not speak the prevailing language?).



Actually, the first state bank of that type existed since either late XVIII or early XIX (see "Eugene Onegin" ;)). During the time of Alexander III such a thing made a lot of commercial sense because only the reasonably big estates could afford purchase of the modern equipment, hiring of the specialists and other things needed for raising productivity. But in 1883 the Peasants' Land Bank was created as well to help peasants purchase their own farms and the Poll Tax (paid only by the peasants) was abolished.



What to do was anything but clear at that time. An idea of the rural community was quite popular and even much later Stolypin's reforms had been criticized by the people as different as Lev Tolstoy and Witte. And even reaction of peasantry to these reforms was not uniforms: a significant segment of peasantry was sticking to the existing system because they had been used to it and did not have skills or inclinations needed for the individual farming.
Hmmm..... Interesting facts about vodka

I do have some question on the imperial Russian civil service, how was it organised? Was it a commission based civil service with competitive exams and training like the British imperial service? Or was it a system the prevalied in the USA before the rise of professional civil service or was it like the German imperial civil service more or less dominated by the nobility with some position filled by none noble men
 
Hmmm..... Interesting facts about vodka

I do have some question on the imperial Russian civil service, how was it organised? Was it a commission based civil service with competitive exams and training like the British imperial service? Or was it a system the prevalied in the USA before the rise of professional civil service or was it like the German imperial civil service more or less dominated by the nobility with some position filled by none noble men

Russian civic service was based upon the Table of the Ranks created by Peter I. In general, person would enter service on a bottom level and, AFAIK, in the late XIX there would be an exam to get the lowest class in the table (person could serve without passing such an exam but he'd not be able to grow). As I understand, such an exam was quite formal, just to check an education level so probably person with at least a gymnasium diploma would be accepted without it (I can be wrong on that). After that person kept growing based on his abilities, luck and/or connections. You can say that it was a professional civic service.

A former military could get into the civic service getting a civilian rank corresponding to his military ranks (as defined in the Table of the Ranks).

There was no explicit requirement of a noble birth and upon reaching certain rank (civic or military) a serviceman could get a personal nobility and higher rank (or certain award like, IIRC, Order of the White Eagle) was giving a hereditary nobility. Of course, it was easier to make career if you are a noble and well-connected so the aristocracy had an obvious advantage. Nonetheless, quite a few people managed to make it on their own both in the military and civic administration.
 

Deleted member 116192

Yeah, I know the table of ranks but had no idea that it was one of the basis of organizing a civil service I thought it was a elaborate system of determining privilege and benefits that a person was entitled to.

From 1905 onwards the requirement of gymnasium diploma was done away with and the civil service was thrown open to all subjects except the Jews
 
Yeah, I know the table of ranks but had no idea that it was one of the basis of organizing a civil service I thought it was a elaborate system of determining privilege and benefits that a person was entitled to.

No, it had nothing to do with the privileges and benefits. It was, as I said, a formal list of positions and ranks in the military, government, and court of Imperial Russia. The purpose was to have a clear correlation between the ranks in these 3 branches thus identifying person's position within the Russian Empire (keep in mind that at the time of Peter I all nobility had been serving). It also provided a convenient tool for handling person's transfer from one branch to another.
 
Top