Emancipation Reforms Dbq Essay

As early as 1649, Russian landowners were granted complete control over the peasant serfs living in their land. Overtime serfdom had become a rising controversy in Russia, taking the blame for many of her problems. This led to Tsar Alexander II’s establishment of the Emancipation Reform of 1861. Although we see benefits since the Emancipation Reform of 1861, these benefits are connected to oppression, proven by many sources containing evidence of peasant land being mistreated, as well as evidence that they were still fighting for freedom from oppression.
While reform did create an emancipated peasantry, it also created a false sense of hope for the freed serfs, as they would soon become conscious of. Tsar Alexander freed the serfs with the Emancipation Reform of 1861, a seemingly progressive decision at the time. At this time, as seen in a chart labeled ‘Provinces of European

Russia Affected by Peasant Rebellions’, peasant uprisings were popular across Russia before and as the Emancipation Reform took place (Doc 1).

After this an initial drop in uprisings took place. One would assume that freedom for the serfs brought peace to this issue, but contrary to this belief, the uprisings began to rise again in 1896 and kept rising up until 1907. This shows the ex-serfs gradual development of consciousness, as it was then obvious to them that the efforts of emancipation were not sufficient enough to protect them from further oppression. Another seemingly beneficial development that occurred due to the emancipation of serfs was the rise of literacy rates after the reform. According to a chart labelled ‘Russian Literacy Rates’ released by the Russian Government, Russian literacy

rates increased greatly in the years following the Emancipation Reform of 1861 (Doc 7). More specifically, the chart shows the literacy rates of Russia’s rural population growing from 6% in 1860 to 25% in 1910. These statistics show a growth in literacy among ex-serfs after the Emancipation Reform, which seem like a beneficial result of the reform, but these results may be due to a need for education due to oppression. This topic will be later explored as more evidence of Russia’s ex-serf population having to fight for less oppression even after they are freed.
One controversial issue after the Emancipation Reform of 1861 was the issue of land distribution. One example of this issue comes from a journal article by Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin. His journal entry claims, “‘Order’ is land taken from the peasant in order to raise cattle to feed the wealthy; ‘order’ is land left fallow rather than restored to the peasant who asks for nothing more than land for cultivation” (Doc 3). As a Russian Anarchist, Kropotkin speaking out against the behavior previously stated in his journal entry is of his nature. He makes claims to raise awareness of the treatment the ex-serfs are given regarding their land. This is only one example of the misfortune peasants have when it comes to the effects of the emancipation reforms. Another example comes from a speech given to the Duma by Sakhno, a representative of the Russian peasantry. Sakhno claims, “When peasants sent me here they instructed me to demand that all state, private and church lands be redistributed without compensation. A hungry man cannot sit quietly when he sees that in spite of all his suffering, the powers are on the side of the landlords” (Doc 6). As a representative of the peasants, Sakhno makes requests that would be typical of an ex-serf to advocate, although they may not be one. The speech calls for all of the land unfairly distributed after the reform to be distributed fairly back to the peasants. This, as well as the previous document, show the peasants struggle for fair distribution of property after the Emancipation Reform of 1861.
The result of the Emancipation Reform of 1861 to be mentioned is the obvious struggle against oppression, seen in many sources after the reform. As mentioned previously, there is a definite desire for education on the peasant’s part after the reform took place. This struggle is highlighted in memoirs of Katerina Breshkovskaia’s revolutionary work. She claims, “The peasants intensely desired education for their children, for they realized that this was the only way in which they could escape the slavery they themselves had endured” (Doc 4). Being of the Social Revolutionary Party, Katerina’s findings could be seen as her claim to support the ex-serfs. She notices that many of the ex-serfs and their children have extremely advanced knowledge, which is surprising considering their environment. This fight against oppression is also visible in the private letters of Serge Witte, Minister of Finance, to Tsar Nicholas in 1898. One letter in particular claimed, “It is not enough to free the peasant from the serf owner-it is still necessary to free him from the slavery of despotism, to give him a legal system…and to educate him” (Doc 5). As a man of high status, it is important to note the understanding that Witte provides when it comes to the oppression of the ex-serfs. He sees that the reform made in 1861 is not sufficient for the basic needs of the peasants and even takes action by writing a private letter to Tsar Nicholas II. It is also worth noting that in many cases, when looking into private letters you will find the pure opinions of these historical figures. These sources are plain evidence of the suffering peasants experienced after the reform, which shows the surprisingly negative effects of freedom for serfs.
Although the Emancipation Reform of 1861 may be seemingly beneficial, it is now evident that there were many negative effects highlighted as a result of these reforms. The oppression the ex-serfs suffered, although reforms were made, will remain a lesson of high value to Russia.