CLASS CONTENT
Click on link below to go to class material
Class One, Wednesday, January 9
Moodswings, Spiritual High, Moodfood, (Go to 50 seconds)
Class procedures. Five minute break.
No tests. No homework. However, you should explore our web site:
www.http://ollilef.weebly.com
There is a great deal of information available on this web site and I encourage you to investigate the narratives below as well as explore the links to more in-depth resources. You may access links on the web by clicking on the blue words in this site. For example, by clicking on these words, you can got to the internet;
Liberté égalité, fraternité
You will get more out of this course if you don't just rely on our classes.
Some introductory thoughts:
Where do we start? Can we understand W W I without considering the Franco Prussian War? Can we fully understand the Crimean War without considering Napoleon and Alexander I? Hegel's dialectic? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, which becomes another thesis opposed by an antithesis?
What is history? An examination of the past - a record - or a process? Is history a science? In science experiments are performed and hypotheses and conclusions can be made which can be repeated by others and verified. The past can be examined but not replicated, only interpreted. What is important implies a value judgement about what should be examined. Who determines what is important? The state (propaganda), education boards, historians, Universities, newspapers? Can history be objective or is the best we can do is an attempt to be objective?
Western View of history as a process of progress or decline. Christian eschatology, end of the world and salvation - good rewarded and bad punished. Norse view - Nibelungenlied - Triumph of evil and destruction of Valhalla after hero is vanquished by a fatal flaw his heel.
Eastern view of history as circular, repetition which could be ascending or descending.
How would you draw history?
The Great Man theory (Carlisle) "The history of what man has accomplished is the history of the great men who have worked her."
Tolstoy's response, “In historical events great men are but labels that serve to give a name to an event, and like labels, they have the least possible connection with the event itself. Every action of theirs that seems an act of their own free will is not free at all but in bondage to the whole course of previous history and predestined from all eternity.”
"Predestination - Can the future be predicted? God's omnipotence? Everything is pre-ordained? Extreme materialism, the view that if we could have all the personal information leading up to an action, we could see that our actions are not free, but determined by our past. (Sam Harris) This view believes that if I could have all the information about someone, I could tell you what they will have for dinner.
Or free will? (Mortimer Adler) Man is distinguished by the ability to choose - free will shapes history.
One view disputing free will is that if an important event occurred would God be as surprised as man?
"History has no libretto!" Herzen
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Santayana
"The past is prologue." Shakespeare
"Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child." Cicero
"Russia; a puzzle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Churchill
"History is but a fable agreed upon." Napoleon
"History is more or less bunk!" Henry Ford
"Governments have never learned anything from history or acted on principles deducted from it." Hegel
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." Marx
"History is a trick played by the dead on the living!" Voltaire
"History is written by the victors!" anon
"Dwell on history, you'll lose an eye. Forget history and you'll lose both!" Russian Proverb.
"History is who we are and how we came to be who we are." McCulloch.
"History! Just one damned thing after another!"
History; Perhaps the best reason to study history is the joy of history which might make us better people!
Units of history, people dates, events. How to remember?
Teachers often tell students what to do but seldom how. I.E. memorize the Presidents of the United States. Rote memorization.
Mnemonics, memory techniques. Examples; HOMES on a great lake. Mt Fujiyama. Lefty loosey, righty tighty. PEMDAS. Decimals to percent – d to p, p to d. 30 days hath September . . . (songs, poetry), Planets -MVEMJSUN
Example, Presidents Washington to Tyler. Pictures not words.
Challenge Presidents Wilson to Bush along with political parties in 12 minutes.
Facts, (names, dates, events) the building blocks of history.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Three words that changed the course of history.
Liberté égalité, fraternité
The concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity motivated political, economic and social reforms in the 19th century .
What is a RIGHT?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. John Locke, Life Liberty and Property.
Are there natural rights? Unalienable; cannot be taken away or denied.
What other rights do we possess?
The Bill of Rights
Human rights
Civil rights;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S83Dd-YN1rA
Have our rights expanded, increased?
Do I have the right to sing?
Colin Kaepernick's ten rights for children
Our classes will follow the tension between liberty and equality. The ancien regimes - monarchies, dictatorships, and aristocracies - were overthrown by revolutions and led to the establishment of nation-states. Monumental changes occurred in Europe during the 19th century. The foundations of socialism, anarchism, communism, populism, terrorism, feminism, and nationalism that altered the course of history for European nations will be examined.
We will explore European history from the French Revolution to the period just before the Russian Revolution. This course will follow movements that determined many of the 20th century developments still reverberating today. Concentrating on France and Russia, historical and fictional characters will be presented. In addition to historical records, art, music, poetry and literature will reflect how liberty, equality and fraternity changed the lives of millions and shaped the modern world.
To get started, let’s see if we can define these words. If you will, take a few moments and give a definition for each below.
Liberty:
Equality:
Fraternity
Liberty and equality are often in conflict. The 19th century found these ideas to be a powerful influence on human behavior. By examining these ideas in their political, economic, and social aspects, you can gain a greater appreciation of the movements of that century; movements that were not only for, but against these ideas.
Political liberty. The overthrow of autocratic regimes. Anarchy. Bakunin. The Paris Commune.
Political equality. The rise of democratic governments. The Paris Commune, Finland, Norway, women's suffrage, black accomplisments.
Economic liberty. Smith’s Laissez Faire, leave it alone. No government restrictions. Capitalism, capitalists. industrialization.
Economic equality, Marx’s communism, socialism. Blanqui.
Social liberty, women’s rights, rejection of religion. Divorce, property rights.
Social equality, slavery, serfdom, education.
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
Thomas Jefferson
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
The love of liberty is the love of others.
William Hazlitt
Give me Liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.
Stephen Douglas
Slavery cannot cannot tolerate free speech.
Frederick Douglass
Live free or Die
New Hampshire License Plates
Liberty, or freedom, implies freedom from control, interference restriction, the ability to act and speak as one chooses. The absence of constraints.
Equality implies a state of having the same rights and status, a correspondence in quality and degree.
The implications of fraternity led to nationalism; the sharing of common language, common religion, common culture, common goals. Fraternity was also very important in the development of labor associations and unions.
Mortimer Adler in his book, Six Great Ideas, discusses liberty and equality. Here are some of his thoughts;
LIBERTY (Freedom)
There are three major forms of freedom.
1- Natural freedom is distinct to humans (as is rational thought and syntactical speech). Natural freedom is inherent. We are born with it. It consists of freedom of the will, the ability to choose not based on instinct, conditioning or external conditions. We have the ability to shape our development, our character, by deciding on what to do, what we shall become. We are free to act differently from the choices we have made. And we can reflect on those choices for future actions.
2- Acquired liberty or moral freedom, choosing what we need to lead a good life. This freedom is a desire that appetites and passions modify when we choose what we want as opposed to what we need. We are influenced by society's precepts. Our freedom can be shaped by books, religions, customs or parents, among other influences. This freedom is based on free will and the ability to choose. If our conduct is not based on choices we make, how can we praise or blame someone for their actions? We cannot be morally responsible if we cannot choose. We have the ability for actions that can be approved or condemned.
3- Circumstantial Freedom. This is based on favorable or unfavorable external circumstances to do as we please. Our free choice to act as we wish might be limited or permitted by conditions outside our control. A man in prison is constrained from acting as he might wish. That man can choose to remain in jail or choose not to remain imprisoned. However, if the choice is not to remain in prison, the person is constrained from leaving the prison. Yet, he still possesses natural freedom and moral freedom. Epictetus considered himself a morally free man even as a slave in chains. People might wish to live at the Governor’s Club, but cannot because of their financial condition.
Someone does not possess circumstantial freedom if they are constrained by physical force, coercion, constraint, or duress.
Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.
Of these freedoms, we shall be mainly concerned with circumstantial freedom, the freedom to do as one pleases in society.
In societies and communities, what a person decides to do may be injurious to someone else. A just law may be violated or an action may be contrary to the interests of the community. Doing simply what one pleases may be called ‘license’ if it is illegitimate, unlawful or unjust. Everyone acting this way is anarchy. License is acting as a law unto oneself without regard to others. Only sovereign kings and princes possessed this autonomy. Slaves or serfs do not have political, economic or social liberty. They exist for the benefit of their masters. Subjects of absolute monarchs also do not have political liberty. Even if that monarch is benevolent subjects are disenfranchised and have no voice in government and do not participate in state decisions. This denial of political liberty diminishes their humanity.
Political liberty results when citizens live under a constitutional government with suffrage and a voice in making laws. They have a share in sovereignty. Aristotle said that man is a political animal and defines constitutional government as free men and equals ruling and being ruled. Political freedom is not freedom from having one’s conduct regulated by just laws. In society people do not possess unlimited liberty of action.
A just man suffers no loss of freedom by following just laws. He voluntarily refrains from what the law prohibits. Many criminals obey the law because they fear punishment.
EQUALITY
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal.”
What does this mean? Is Thomas claiming that all men are alike, that there are no differences among men? Should he have written that all men are created similar?
Would the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 be more appropriate?
“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”
(This did not include women.)
Aristotle said that to define something, you must tell what it is and what it is not. Let us look at equality and inequality.
When two things are compared, they are said to be equal if one is no more nor less than the other. (Some would argue that two entities can never be equal since they are separate and apart.)
Nevertheless, an inequality exists when one is more or less than the other.
Humans have an inequality or equality based on their natural, innate and generic capacities. Some babies have different weights when born as well as varied lengths. Some have blond hair, some red hair, some are white, some are black. Many have different dispositions. Some believe that people have different intelligence capabilities at birth while others claim equal intelligence exists at birth. Babies possess many natural, genetic equalities. They have two legs, arms, ears, etc. But even if they come into the world disfigured or challenged, they are all human beings. Some would say that all people have a soul or that everyone is equally human; no one is more or less human than anyone else. We are equal in kind. but different in degree.
However, if people are born with equal intelligence or physical capabilities those qualities are influenced by external circumstances as well as what talents and capabilities are developed during their lifetime. This leads to an inequality of attainment. These are acquired inequalities or equalities.
If Tom Brady has an under-inflated football and the other quarterback doesn't, he might have an inequality of opportunity over the opposing team. Even if both quarterbacks have the same under-inflated football, equality of conditions will usually lead to inequality of results due to natural or acquired differences. This is because people develop their endowments to a greater or lesser degree than others. Those people better endowed or trained will usually do better than those who have not applied themselves. We have equalities of kind attended by inequalities of degree. We recognize this especially in sports and also in life; there are gold, silver, and bronze medals, there are different recognitions, different financial rewards, different grades in school.
When examining equality and inequality, there are two aspects; descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive attempts to tell what is while prescriptive tells what should be. Since we are considering equality among people living in society, we have to ask what should that equality be?
Societies - governments - can establish certain political equalities. (Equality before the law is one example of political equality existing in democracies. Another is suffrage based on citizenship granted to all.) Examples of inequalities established by societies and governments are slavery, serfdom, distinctions based on property or heredity, and treatment of women.
There are political equalities and inequalities, economic equalities and inequalities, and social equalities and inequalities. The nineteenth century witnessed movements that advocated complete economic, political, and social equality of kind without any inequality of degree. Communists argued everyone should share in wealth equally. Suffragettes wanted political and social equality.
European philosophers and thinkers wrestled with prescriptive aspects of equality and liberty throughout the nineteenth century.
How would you describe yourself in terms of liberty and equality? What is more important?
Should there be a fourth word - JUSTICE ?
"Where there is law, no man has justice."
Tolstoy, War and Peace.
"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom."
Aristotle
"Justice consists of doing no one injury, decency in giving no one offense."
Cicero
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally."
Aristotle
Statue of Themis
The Meaning (s) of justice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eplF1TxAlsM
Class procedures. Five minute break.
No tests. No homework. However, you should explore our web site:
www.http://ollilef.weebly.com
There is a great deal of information available on this web site and I encourage you to investigate the narratives below as well as explore the links to more in-depth resources. You may access links on the web by clicking on the blue words in this site. For example, by clicking on these words, you can got to the internet;
Liberté égalité, fraternité
You will get more out of this course if you don't just rely on our classes.
Some introductory thoughts:
Where do we start? Can we understand W W I without considering the Franco Prussian War? Can we fully understand the Crimean War without considering Napoleon and Alexander I? Hegel's dialectic? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, which becomes another thesis opposed by an antithesis?
What is history? An examination of the past - a record - or a process? Is history a science? In science experiments are performed and hypotheses and conclusions can be made which can be repeated by others and verified. The past can be examined but not replicated, only interpreted. What is important implies a value judgement about what should be examined. Who determines what is important? The state (propaganda), education boards, historians, Universities, newspapers? Can history be objective or is the best we can do is an attempt to be objective?
Western View of history as a process of progress or decline. Christian eschatology, end of the world and salvation - good rewarded and bad punished. Norse view - Nibelungenlied - Triumph of evil and destruction of Valhalla after hero is vanquished by a fatal flaw his heel.
Eastern view of history as circular, repetition which could be ascending or descending.
How would you draw history?
The Great Man theory (Carlisle) "The history of what man has accomplished is the history of the great men who have worked her."
Tolstoy's response, “In historical events great men are but labels that serve to give a name to an event, and like labels, they have the least possible connection with the event itself. Every action of theirs that seems an act of their own free will is not free at all but in bondage to the whole course of previous history and predestined from all eternity.”
"Predestination - Can the future be predicted? God's omnipotence? Everything is pre-ordained? Extreme materialism, the view that if we could have all the personal information leading up to an action, we could see that our actions are not free, but determined by our past. (Sam Harris) This view believes that if I could have all the information about someone, I could tell you what they will have for dinner.
Or free will? (Mortimer Adler) Man is distinguished by the ability to choose - free will shapes history.
One view disputing free will is that if an important event occurred would God be as surprised as man?
"History has no libretto!" Herzen
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Santayana
"The past is prologue." Shakespeare
"Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child." Cicero
"Russia; a puzzle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Churchill
"History is but a fable agreed upon." Napoleon
"History is more or less bunk!" Henry Ford
"Governments have never learned anything from history or acted on principles deducted from it." Hegel
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." Marx
"History is a trick played by the dead on the living!" Voltaire
"History is written by the victors!" anon
"Dwell on history, you'll lose an eye. Forget history and you'll lose both!" Russian Proverb.
"History is who we are and how we came to be who we are." McCulloch.
"History! Just one damned thing after another!"
History; Perhaps the best reason to study history is the joy of history which might make us better people!
Units of history, people dates, events. How to remember?
Teachers often tell students what to do but seldom how. I.E. memorize the Presidents of the United States. Rote memorization.
Mnemonics, memory techniques. Examples; HOMES on a great lake. Mt Fujiyama. Lefty loosey, righty tighty. PEMDAS. Decimals to percent – d to p, p to d. 30 days hath September . . . (songs, poetry), Planets -MVEMJSUN
Example, Presidents Washington to Tyler. Pictures not words.
Challenge Presidents Wilson to Bush along with political parties in 12 minutes.
Facts, (names, dates, events) the building blocks of history.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Three words that changed the course of history.
Liberté égalité, fraternité
The concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity motivated political, economic and social reforms in the 19th century .
What is a RIGHT?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. John Locke, Life Liberty and Property.
Are there natural rights? Unalienable; cannot be taken away or denied.
What other rights do we possess?
The Bill of Rights
Human rights
Civil rights;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S83Dd-YN1rA
Have our rights expanded, increased?
Do I have the right to sing?
Colin Kaepernick's ten rights for children
- You have the right to be free.
- You have the right to be healthy.
- You have the right to be brilliant.
- You have the right to be safe.
- You have the right be loved.
- You have the right to be courageous.
- You have the right to be alive.
- You have the right to be trusted.
- You have the right to be educated.
- You have the right to know your rights.
Our classes will follow the tension between liberty and equality. The ancien regimes - monarchies, dictatorships, and aristocracies - were overthrown by revolutions and led to the establishment of nation-states. Monumental changes occurred in Europe during the 19th century. The foundations of socialism, anarchism, communism, populism, terrorism, feminism, and nationalism that altered the course of history for European nations will be examined.
We will explore European history from the French Revolution to the period just before the Russian Revolution. This course will follow movements that determined many of the 20th century developments still reverberating today. Concentrating on France and Russia, historical and fictional characters will be presented. In addition to historical records, art, music, poetry and literature will reflect how liberty, equality and fraternity changed the lives of millions and shaped the modern world.
To get started, let’s see if we can define these words. If you will, take a few moments and give a definition for each below.
Liberty:
Equality:
Fraternity
Liberty and equality are often in conflict. The 19th century found these ideas to be a powerful influence on human behavior. By examining these ideas in their political, economic, and social aspects, you can gain a greater appreciation of the movements of that century; movements that were not only for, but against these ideas.
Political liberty. The overthrow of autocratic regimes. Anarchy. Bakunin. The Paris Commune.
Political equality. The rise of democratic governments. The Paris Commune, Finland, Norway, women's suffrage, black accomplisments.
Economic liberty. Smith’s Laissez Faire, leave it alone. No government restrictions. Capitalism, capitalists. industrialization.
Economic equality, Marx’s communism, socialism. Blanqui.
Social liberty, women’s rights, rejection of religion. Divorce, property rights.
Social equality, slavery, serfdom, education.
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
Thomas Jefferson
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
The love of liberty is the love of others.
William Hazlitt
Give me Liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.
Stephen Douglas
Slavery cannot cannot tolerate free speech.
Frederick Douglass
Live free or Die
New Hampshire License Plates
Liberty, or freedom, implies freedom from control, interference restriction, the ability to act and speak as one chooses. The absence of constraints.
Equality implies a state of having the same rights and status, a correspondence in quality and degree.
The implications of fraternity led to nationalism; the sharing of common language, common religion, common culture, common goals. Fraternity was also very important in the development of labor associations and unions.
Mortimer Adler in his book, Six Great Ideas, discusses liberty and equality. Here are some of his thoughts;
LIBERTY (Freedom)
There are three major forms of freedom.
1- Natural freedom is distinct to humans (as is rational thought and syntactical speech). Natural freedom is inherent. We are born with it. It consists of freedom of the will, the ability to choose not based on instinct, conditioning or external conditions. We have the ability to shape our development, our character, by deciding on what to do, what we shall become. We are free to act differently from the choices we have made. And we can reflect on those choices for future actions.
2- Acquired liberty or moral freedom, choosing what we need to lead a good life. This freedom is a desire that appetites and passions modify when we choose what we want as opposed to what we need. We are influenced by society's precepts. Our freedom can be shaped by books, religions, customs or parents, among other influences. This freedom is based on free will and the ability to choose. If our conduct is not based on choices we make, how can we praise or blame someone for their actions? We cannot be morally responsible if we cannot choose. We have the ability for actions that can be approved or condemned.
3- Circumstantial Freedom. This is based on favorable or unfavorable external circumstances to do as we please. Our free choice to act as we wish might be limited or permitted by conditions outside our control. A man in prison is constrained from acting as he might wish. That man can choose to remain in jail or choose not to remain imprisoned. However, if the choice is not to remain in prison, the person is constrained from leaving the prison. Yet, he still possesses natural freedom and moral freedom. Epictetus considered himself a morally free man even as a slave in chains. People might wish to live at the Governor’s Club, but cannot because of their financial condition.
Someone does not possess circumstantial freedom if they are constrained by physical force, coercion, constraint, or duress.
Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.
Of these freedoms, we shall be mainly concerned with circumstantial freedom, the freedom to do as one pleases in society.
In societies and communities, what a person decides to do may be injurious to someone else. A just law may be violated or an action may be contrary to the interests of the community. Doing simply what one pleases may be called ‘license’ if it is illegitimate, unlawful or unjust. Everyone acting this way is anarchy. License is acting as a law unto oneself without regard to others. Only sovereign kings and princes possessed this autonomy. Slaves or serfs do not have political, economic or social liberty. They exist for the benefit of their masters. Subjects of absolute monarchs also do not have political liberty. Even if that monarch is benevolent subjects are disenfranchised and have no voice in government and do not participate in state decisions. This denial of political liberty diminishes their humanity.
Political liberty results when citizens live under a constitutional government with suffrage and a voice in making laws. They have a share in sovereignty. Aristotle said that man is a political animal and defines constitutional government as free men and equals ruling and being ruled. Political freedom is not freedom from having one’s conduct regulated by just laws. In society people do not possess unlimited liberty of action.
A just man suffers no loss of freedom by following just laws. He voluntarily refrains from what the law prohibits. Many criminals obey the law because they fear punishment.
EQUALITY
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal.”
What does this mean? Is Thomas claiming that all men are alike, that there are no differences among men? Should he have written that all men are created similar?
Would the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 be more appropriate?
“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”
(This did not include women.)
Aristotle said that to define something, you must tell what it is and what it is not. Let us look at equality and inequality.
When two things are compared, they are said to be equal if one is no more nor less than the other. (Some would argue that two entities can never be equal since they are separate and apart.)
Nevertheless, an inequality exists when one is more or less than the other.
Humans have an inequality or equality based on their natural, innate and generic capacities. Some babies have different weights when born as well as varied lengths. Some have blond hair, some red hair, some are white, some are black. Many have different dispositions. Some believe that people have different intelligence capabilities at birth while others claim equal intelligence exists at birth. Babies possess many natural, genetic equalities. They have two legs, arms, ears, etc. But even if they come into the world disfigured or challenged, they are all human beings. Some would say that all people have a soul or that everyone is equally human; no one is more or less human than anyone else. We are equal in kind. but different in degree.
However, if people are born with equal intelligence or physical capabilities those qualities are influenced by external circumstances as well as what talents and capabilities are developed during their lifetime. This leads to an inequality of attainment. These are acquired inequalities or equalities.
If Tom Brady has an under-inflated football and the other quarterback doesn't, he might have an inequality of opportunity over the opposing team. Even if both quarterbacks have the same under-inflated football, equality of conditions will usually lead to inequality of results due to natural or acquired differences. This is because people develop their endowments to a greater or lesser degree than others. Those people better endowed or trained will usually do better than those who have not applied themselves. We have equalities of kind attended by inequalities of degree. We recognize this especially in sports and also in life; there are gold, silver, and bronze medals, there are different recognitions, different financial rewards, different grades in school.
When examining equality and inequality, there are two aspects; descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive attempts to tell what is while prescriptive tells what should be. Since we are considering equality among people living in society, we have to ask what should that equality be?
Societies - governments - can establish certain political equalities. (Equality before the law is one example of political equality existing in democracies. Another is suffrage based on citizenship granted to all.) Examples of inequalities established by societies and governments are slavery, serfdom, distinctions based on property or heredity, and treatment of women.
There are political equalities and inequalities, economic equalities and inequalities, and social equalities and inequalities. The nineteenth century witnessed movements that advocated complete economic, political, and social equality of kind without any inequality of degree. Communists argued everyone should share in wealth equally. Suffragettes wanted political and social equality.
European philosophers and thinkers wrestled with prescriptive aspects of equality and liberty throughout the nineteenth century.
How would you describe yourself in terms of liberty and equality? What is more important?
Should there be a fourth word - JUSTICE ?
"Where there is law, no man has justice."
Tolstoy, War and Peace.
"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom."
Aristotle
"Justice consists of doing no one injury, decency in giving no one offense."
Cicero
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally."
Aristotle
Statue of Themis
The Meaning (s) of justice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eplF1TxAlsM
Class two, Wednesday, January 16
Review class one.
Natural 'rights' Some say we do not have natural rights to the things we want, only to those things we need.
A just man suffers no loss of freedom by following just laws. He voluntarily refrains from what the law prohibits.
Aristotle - man is a political animal and constitutional government consists of free men and equals ruling and being ruled.
Everyone is equally human; no one is more or less human than anyone else. We are equal in kind. but different in degree.
Equality of conditions will usually lead to inequality of results due to natural or acquired differences.
Here's a thought; can one have too much liberty? Equality? Should there be limitations on liberty and equality?
Libertarians emphasis on liberty places restrictions on equality. Egalitarians emphasis on equality of conditions infringes on individual freedom. Conflicts arise when extremists advocate one position over the other. Is justice the balance (Themis again) between liberty and equality? And another question, if you can have too much liberty and too much equality, can you ever have too much justice?
Does liberty impose limitations on the amount of freedom it allows while equality imposes limitations on the amount of equality it requires? Does justice regulate the pursuit of liberty and equality to resolve the extremism of the libertarian and the egalitarian?
For more on justice, go back to first class, or click on these words The Meaning of Justice .
Keep these thoughts as we explore the next nine weeks.
Faith and reason, the idealist and materialist.
Faith and reason - two myths.
Since we will be examining governments of states and individuals ruling and reacting to those governments, it is appropriate to start with the work that could be an important discussion of 'states'.
Plato’s Republic
In this dialogue, Plato has Socrates describe the ideal state.
Socrates (Plato) believed the man is a social animal and is divided into three social classes. Laborers and artisans are the ‘lower’ class. The second class is comprised of the military and police, while the third class is the ruling class, the philosophers. The two upper classes are the guardians of society.
Socrates relates a myth of how, when people were created, they were molded with dirt and three metals, gold, silver, and bronze. Those with a preponderance of bronze are the lower class. Those with more silver become the military and police class. And those with more gold are the philosopher kings. These three classes represent the nature of men. Man has intellect and rationality (the head). The military have spirit and courage (the Heart). And the workers have appetites and impulses (below the waist).
He believed the lower class to be incapable of philosophy and education. Since they are unfit for rule of reason, they must be motivated to provide society with goods and services. Therefore, they are allowed to have families, are rewarded financially and are permitted to have gold and silver decorations.
The military class is capable of philosophy and realize that their courage and determination are their own rewards. The ruling class (philosophers) and the military class live together in a communistic condition and are educated, whereas the lower class is denied education. It is possible for some in the military class, through education, to rise and become philosopher rulers. However, the lower classes are consigned to their class with no upward mobility.
These upper classes do not have property and are fed and supported by the laborers. The upper classes dine and live in common. The gold and silver they have are divine gifts in their souls. They do not drink from gold or silver goblets, do not adorn themselves with jewelry. These rulers, both the guardians and philosophers will not have families, no one shall have a wife and no child will know who the parent is. This insures that greed will not affect them, but greed will motivate the workers.
Conclusion, Summary.
The state is the individual writ large.
Three aspects of the individual; Rational, Spirited, Appetitive
Three aspects of the state; Rulers, Soldiers, Workers (European states later evolved to combine the rulers and military and added the church so that three aspects of the state were the aristocracy, the clergy and the peasants.)
Wisdom, Courage, Sensual, the mind, the heart, appetites.
Gold, Silver, Bronze
Rulers and soldiers live in communism. No property, no compensation, no marriage, eating and sleeping together.
Rulers and soldiers were educated but not the workers. (class distinctions).
Autocracy, oligarchy and democracy, all subject to decline over time with democracy being the worst form of government according to Plato and Aristotle.
Plato influenced concepts of government for more than two thousand years.
(Taken from CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATIONBill of Rights in Action
FALL 2010 (Volume 26, No. 1)
Fraternity; (From the latin, brother)
Beethoven's Ninth 4th movement - 10000 singers (Go to 6.45th minute)
ODE TO JOY (Friedrich Schiller)
Alle Menschen werden Brüder -
All men are brothers.
Daughter of Elysium
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
Beggars become Prince's brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
Mirriam Webster definition;
A group of people associated or formally organized for a common purpose, interest, or pleasure.
Wikipedia;
Fraternities can be organized for many purposes, including university education, work skills, ethics, ethnicity, religion, politics, charity, chivalry, other standards of personal conduct, asceticism, service, performing arts, family command of territory, and even crime. There is almost always an explicit goal of mutual support, and while there have been fraternal orders for the well-off there have also been many fraternities for those in the lower ranks of society, especially for national or religious minorities. Trade unions grew out of fraternities such as the Knights of Labor.
Nationalism
Italy and Verdi
Some critics believe that Verdi deliberately makes parallels in this opera between the Hebrews and the Italians, who in Verdi's time were living—some say suffering—under Austrian rule. In fact, after the curtain fell on the opera's final act at the conclusion of its premiere at La Scala on March 9, 1842, shouts of "Freedom for Italy," came from members of the audience, who recognized themselves in the Hebrews.
Context; Nicknamed Nabucco this four-act opera takes place in Jerusalem and Babylon in 583 B.C. It tells the story of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, and the Hebrews he has enslaved and then subsequently sent into exile. Against this tumultuous background, Verdi also gives us a triangular love story involving the characters of Ismaele, Fenena, and Abigaille.
The opera is still popular today and has remained a part of the Metropolitan Opera's roster since it premiered there in 1960. So beloved is this work that when the Metropolitan opened its season 11 days after 9/11, the chorus began by singing "Va, pensiero" in honor of the victims of the attack. This song takes place in the opera's third act after the Israelites have been captured and imprisoned in Babylon. It's reportedly this part of the libretto that got Verdi interested in writing the opera.
English Translation of "Va, Pensiero" (Go to 50 seconds)
Go, thoughts, on golden wings;
Go, settle upon the slopes and hills,
where warm and soft and fragrant are
the breezes of our sweet native land!
Greet the banks of the Jordan,
the towers of Zion ...
Oh my country so beautiful and lost!
Or so dear yet unhappy!
Or harp of the prophetic seers,
why do you hang silent from the willows?
Rekindle the memories within our hearts,
tell us about the time that have gone by
Or similar to the fate of Solomon,
give a sound of lament;
or let the Lord inspire a concert
That may give to endure our suffering.
The third and equally important of the themes of the French Revolution (Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite), helped in the transformation of Europe into "fraternities" of national states. This was not a universal (international) brotherhood as later espoused by communists. The ideology of nation-states was that people bound together by common language, culture, social traditions, religion and heritage (an association of shared identity), should unite into a political entity. An almost spiritual identity arose in many of the countries of Europe. National "exceptionalism", the belief in a country's special mission, remains a powerful theme in countries today. French and German intellectuals, as well as other European writers, claimed that their countries were special and had unique, quasi religious characteristics. This was especially true of Hegel and the German state. Today, the United States claims to be exceptional and tries to spread democracy.
Maps of Europe, 19th century
1000 years of European history
Are "fraternal" (national) organizations exclusive? Is there a sense of "otherness" - those not belonging to one's group?
Class consciousness, proletarians vs bourgeois, workers vs factory owners, whites vs blacks, Christians vs Moslems, French vs Prussians, Allies vs Axis, Republicans vs Democrats.
Whereas people with common interests might unite and feel a sense of brotherhood, do these groups discriminate and reject those not part of their association? Us against them?
Phrenology (from Greek: phren, “mind”; and logos, “knowledge”) is a defunct field of study, once considered a science, in which the personality traits of a person were determined by “reading” shapes, bumps and fissures in the skull or examining the size of brains. Phrenology attempted to discover categories of intelligence. Racial supremacy?
I.Q. tests were developed in 1904. The United States used these tests to screen immigrants of Jewish and Southern Europeans and deny entry from Ellis Island based on low "intelligence". Previously, the theory of four distinct categories of humans were developed by Louis Agassis, each race created by God in a separate Garden of Eden. And some preachers thundered from their pulpits the curse on Ham, Noah's son who had sinned against God. Ham being black. These beliefs denied that all men are equal - some were born with saddles on their back and others booted and spurred to ride them. Nationalism united countries while also sowing the seeds of racial superiority.
Urbanism; The growth of cities fostered nationalism (fraternalism).
The Industrial Revolution led to the growth of factories requiring laborers. Countries changed from agricultural to industrial economies. In England, tenant farmers were displaced as land-owners found it more profitable to raise sheep for wool that could be sold to clothing factories. Those dispossessed farmers drifted to cities and found employment which gave them a subsistence living. (In many cases they were compensated just enough to continue working.)
Traditional social arrangements no longer existed. In cities innovation and change were more important than tradition. New allegiances were formed replacing traditional loyalties.
Intellectuals and writers help to forge new identities. Governments established schools and universities where professors studied and taught about a country's common history and language. State schools replaced parochial schools. Government workers were paid by the city or state. Newspapers wrote daily about developments in a city and country. Museums and monuments extolled a country's accomplishments. And prosperity allowed for a class of writers and publishers to write and promote nationalism. In France, the mission of the revolution was to spread the idea of freedom and equality. France had contributed more than any other country to the ideals of liberty. In Poland, the nation was compared to Christ. Poland had been put to death after being persecuted. And like Christ, Poland would be resurrected and bring hope to the downtrodden. Poland would usher in a new age of freedom and equality. Italy would be inspired by Verdi's Nabbuco where the chorus of Hebrew slaves sang, "O my country, so lovely and so lost", with a clear reference to Italy's domination by other states. National composers contributed to the establishment of a county's heritage. Smetana - Ma Vlast. Liszt - Hungarian Rhapsodies. Enesco - Romanian Rhapsodies. Sibelius - Finlandia. Chopin - Poland. Grieg - Norway.
The nation state became the foundation of individual and collective identity.
Europe in the 17th century and the “Modern Age”
French and Industrial Revolutions mark the beginning of the modern age. These revolutions were a result of changes that began with the Protestant Reformation.
Before the Reformation, Europe was relatively unified as a Christian (Catholic) entity. Knowledge of the world and nature was largely gained through revelation. However, the Reformation, wars, and the emergence of a new scientific approach to knowledge of the world, fractured Europe into disparate parts.
Science in Northern, Protestant Europe was permitted to continue investigating and challenging accepted beliefs while southern, Catholic Europe was inhibited by Church dogma which considered changes to orthodoxy as conflicting with church dogma – i.e. Copernicus and Galileo’s works were condemned as heresy while Denmark's Tycho Brahe was able to continue his observations of the heliocentric theory of heavenly bodies.
Isaac Newton’s theories would not be permitted in a Catholic country, as it would be an assault on theology.
Values, attitudes and practices were changed, as people, divided by religions could not agree on what God had revealed.
Philosophers and scientists started to rely on the power of reason. Many rejected traditional beliefs and practices. They did not consider philosophical meditation, faith and divine revelation to be reliable ways to understand the world. They sought natural laws, not religious or spiritual experience. They came to believe that reason could be applied to the social, economic and political affairs of man. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers were anti-clerical and disparaged the traditional organization of the Church.
Here are some of the people who shaped the ideas that led to the Revolutions: (Please allow that these summations are incomplete and much too simple!)
As world exploration resulted in contact with isolated cultures in the 16th century, some considered ‘primitive’ and in a state of nature before civilization, men began to speculate on the origins of humans and society.
Thomas Hobbes (born 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada – Died 1679) speculated that man existed in a natural state of all against all.
“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The way weaker men could protect themselves from stronger individuals was to band together and form a “social contract” under a strong sovereign – a Leviathan.
Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition. Science should be dedicated to improving the life of mankind. Bacon rejected Aristotelian methods. His scientific system was inductive (going from the specific to the general). This reasoning is based on investigation of detailed facts and general principles, which are eventually used to reach a specific conclusion.
It is not deductive (going from the general to the specific).
For example, a deductive construct is;
All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
This is a rational and valid way to arrive at knowledge. However syllogisms can be misleading;
All presidents deserve respect
Trump is president
Therefore, Trump deserves respect
Democrats might disagree with that even though it is formally correct.
or; All slaves are lazy
Steppin Fetchit is a slave
Therefore, Steppin Fetchit is lazy
This seems valid, but is not necessarily true because a premise is incorrect. Other explanations based on examination might be sought.
However, inductive reasoning might best be exemplified by an idea that starts out as a hypothesis, or an educated guess as to why or how something is happening based on investigation.
When John eats shrimp,
He gets cramps,
Therefore he assumes that he gets cramps because he eats shrimp.
Hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can become a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments by many different experimenters, the stronger the scientific theory becomes. And, scientific theories can change as more data is collected. So science encourages investigation and repetition of results. And science is cumulative; it builds on previous principles and stands on the shoulders of the men who came before them.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626): Philosopher of the Scientific Method
A Revolution in Thinking; Francis Bacon advocated the inductive method of thinking. This is a method that moves from the particular to the general, which is the opposite of “deduction.” Deduction is when the conclusion of an argument follows logically from the initial premise. In other words, it moves from the general to the particular.
It cannot be certain that induction will lead to a true result. According to Jeremy Harwood, “Some philosophers, (notably David Hume and Karl Popper) have questioned whether it should be classed as a genuinely logical process, or as a psychological one.”
Francis Bacon showed strong faith in his new, revolutionary method, declaring that he would analyse and experiment, and that inevitable exclusions and rejections would ultimately lead him to a conclusion.
“He believed that science,” says Harwood, “if properly understood, offered humanity its best possibility of understanding the natural world and, by so doing, becoming master of it.”
Bacon was the ultimate Philosopher of Science, always maintaining that truth could not be reached through mere argument, and that only his new, revolutionary scientific method could advance scientific knowledge and truth.
Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) tried to construct a theory of knowledge to arrive at truth and considered as false, any theory that had the slightest doubt. Since we rely on our senses to interpret the world, it is possible that our senses could deceive us, that some mad demon is controlling our thoughts? Is it possible we are having a vivid dream that we are in a classroom? A modern example advanced is to consider that we have been in an accident and our brain has been removed to a jar of formaldehyde. There, it has been wired and a mad scientist is controlling our thoughts and has created an illusion of reality.
But what could be discovered that is beyond any skepticism?
What cannot be doubted is that he is thinking. Thus, "cogito ergo sum". Anything that possesses certainty which is clearly and distinctly understood has to be true. Descartes used mathematics as verification of general laws. He also believed that science is cumulative.
Both methods of Bacon and Descartes – inductive and deductive reasoning, empirical evidence and mathematics - resulted in a new scientific approach to truth.
John Newton (1642-1727) published Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. He explained three principles of motion and laws of gravitation on earth and in the solar system. He measured and predicted his theories by using mathematics. His book was the basis for science until the twentieth century.
He encouraged the belief that nature could be understood. This resulted in a belief of progress, of change. Thinkers tried to apply;y his reasoning to discover the "laws' of men and society.
John Locke (1632 – 1704) had many extremely important contributions to the Enlightenment. One was his view that people’s mind was a ‘tabula rasa’, a blank slate and therefore our environment determines beliefs, actions and understanding. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that people can be educated and were not consigned to a social class by heredity. People and societies can be changed.
John Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government early in the 1680s and published it in 1690. In it Locke proposed a social contract theory of government and argued against the idea of "divine right," which held that rulers had a legitimate claim on their office because they were God’s emissaries on earth. Locke believed men made an agreement to give up life in the state of nature in favor of life in a political or civil society and formed governments. They set up political society to guarantee their natural rights: life, liberty, and property. If governments did not fulfill their obligation to protect those rights, they were illegitimate and could be overthrown!
http://www.history.com/topics/john-locke
Natural 'rights' Some say we do not have natural rights to the things we want, only to those things we need.
A just man suffers no loss of freedom by following just laws. He voluntarily refrains from what the law prohibits.
Aristotle - man is a political animal and constitutional government consists of free men and equals ruling and being ruled.
Everyone is equally human; no one is more or less human than anyone else. We are equal in kind. but different in degree.
Equality of conditions will usually lead to inequality of results due to natural or acquired differences.
Here's a thought; can one have too much liberty? Equality? Should there be limitations on liberty and equality?
Libertarians emphasis on liberty places restrictions on equality. Egalitarians emphasis on equality of conditions infringes on individual freedom. Conflicts arise when extremists advocate one position over the other. Is justice the balance (Themis again) between liberty and equality? And another question, if you can have too much liberty and too much equality, can you ever have too much justice?
Does liberty impose limitations on the amount of freedom it allows while equality imposes limitations on the amount of equality it requires? Does justice regulate the pursuit of liberty and equality to resolve the extremism of the libertarian and the egalitarian?
For more on justice, go back to first class, or click on these words The Meaning of Justice .
Keep these thoughts as we explore the next nine weeks.
Faith and reason, the idealist and materialist.
Faith and reason - two myths.
Since we will be examining governments of states and individuals ruling and reacting to those governments, it is appropriate to start with the work that could be an important discussion of 'states'.
Plato’s Republic
In this dialogue, Plato has Socrates describe the ideal state.
Socrates (Plato) believed the man is a social animal and is divided into three social classes. Laborers and artisans are the ‘lower’ class. The second class is comprised of the military and police, while the third class is the ruling class, the philosophers. The two upper classes are the guardians of society.
Socrates relates a myth of how, when people were created, they were molded with dirt and three metals, gold, silver, and bronze. Those with a preponderance of bronze are the lower class. Those with more silver become the military and police class. And those with more gold are the philosopher kings. These three classes represent the nature of men. Man has intellect and rationality (the head). The military have spirit and courage (the Heart). And the workers have appetites and impulses (below the waist).
He believed the lower class to be incapable of philosophy and education. Since they are unfit for rule of reason, they must be motivated to provide society with goods and services. Therefore, they are allowed to have families, are rewarded financially and are permitted to have gold and silver decorations.
The military class is capable of philosophy and realize that their courage and determination are their own rewards. The ruling class (philosophers) and the military class live together in a communistic condition and are educated, whereas the lower class is denied education. It is possible for some in the military class, through education, to rise and become philosopher rulers. However, the lower classes are consigned to their class with no upward mobility.
These upper classes do not have property and are fed and supported by the laborers. The upper classes dine and live in common. The gold and silver they have are divine gifts in their souls. They do not drink from gold or silver goblets, do not adorn themselves with jewelry. These rulers, both the guardians and philosophers will not have families, no one shall have a wife and no child will know who the parent is. This insures that greed will not affect them, but greed will motivate the workers.
Conclusion, Summary.
The state is the individual writ large.
Three aspects of the individual; Rational, Spirited, Appetitive
Three aspects of the state; Rulers, Soldiers, Workers (European states later evolved to combine the rulers and military and added the church so that three aspects of the state were the aristocracy, the clergy and the peasants.)
Wisdom, Courage, Sensual, the mind, the heart, appetites.
Gold, Silver, Bronze
Rulers and soldiers live in communism. No property, no compensation, no marriage, eating and sleeping together.
Rulers and soldiers were educated but not the workers. (class distinctions).
Autocracy, oligarchy and democracy, all subject to decline over time with democracy being the worst form of government according to Plato and Aristotle.
Plato influenced concepts of government for more than two thousand years.
(Taken from CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATIONBill of Rights in Action
FALL 2010 (Volume 26, No. 1)
Fraternity; (From the latin, brother)
Beethoven's Ninth 4th movement - 10000 singers (Go to 6.45th minute)
ODE TO JOY (Friedrich Schiller)
Alle Menschen werden Brüder -
All men are brothers.
Daughter of Elysium
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
Beggars become Prince's brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
Mirriam Webster definition;
A group of people associated or formally organized for a common purpose, interest, or pleasure.
Wikipedia;
Fraternities can be organized for many purposes, including university education, work skills, ethics, ethnicity, religion, politics, charity, chivalry, other standards of personal conduct, asceticism, service, performing arts, family command of territory, and even crime. There is almost always an explicit goal of mutual support, and while there have been fraternal orders for the well-off there have also been many fraternities for those in the lower ranks of society, especially for national or religious minorities. Trade unions grew out of fraternities such as the Knights of Labor.
Nationalism
Italy and Verdi
Some critics believe that Verdi deliberately makes parallels in this opera between the Hebrews and the Italians, who in Verdi's time were living—some say suffering—under Austrian rule. In fact, after the curtain fell on the opera's final act at the conclusion of its premiere at La Scala on March 9, 1842, shouts of "Freedom for Italy," came from members of the audience, who recognized themselves in the Hebrews.
Context; Nicknamed Nabucco this four-act opera takes place in Jerusalem and Babylon in 583 B.C. It tells the story of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, and the Hebrews he has enslaved and then subsequently sent into exile. Against this tumultuous background, Verdi also gives us a triangular love story involving the characters of Ismaele, Fenena, and Abigaille.
The opera is still popular today and has remained a part of the Metropolitan Opera's roster since it premiered there in 1960. So beloved is this work that when the Metropolitan opened its season 11 days after 9/11, the chorus began by singing "Va, pensiero" in honor of the victims of the attack. This song takes place in the opera's third act after the Israelites have been captured and imprisoned in Babylon. It's reportedly this part of the libretto that got Verdi interested in writing the opera.
English Translation of "Va, Pensiero" (Go to 50 seconds)
Go, thoughts, on golden wings;
Go, settle upon the slopes and hills,
where warm and soft and fragrant are
the breezes of our sweet native land!
Greet the banks of the Jordan,
the towers of Zion ...
Oh my country so beautiful and lost!
Or so dear yet unhappy!
Or harp of the prophetic seers,
why do you hang silent from the willows?
Rekindle the memories within our hearts,
tell us about the time that have gone by
Or similar to the fate of Solomon,
give a sound of lament;
or let the Lord inspire a concert
That may give to endure our suffering.
The third and equally important of the themes of the French Revolution (Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite), helped in the transformation of Europe into "fraternities" of national states. This was not a universal (international) brotherhood as later espoused by communists. The ideology of nation-states was that people bound together by common language, culture, social traditions, religion and heritage (an association of shared identity), should unite into a political entity. An almost spiritual identity arose in many of the countries of Europe. National "exceptionalism", the belief in a country's special mission, remains a powerful theme in countries today. French and German intellectuals, as well as other European writers, claimed that their countries were special and had unique, quasi religious characteristics. This was especially true of Hegel and the German state. Today, the United States claims to be exceptional and tries to spread democracy.
Maps of Europe, 19th century
1000 years of European history
Are "fraternal" (national) organizations exclusive? Is there a sense of "otherness" - those not belonging to one's group?
Class consciousness, proletarians vs bourgeois, workers vs factory owners, whites vs blacks, Christians vs Moslems, French vs Prussians, Allies vs Axis, Republicans vs Democrats.
Whereas people with common interests might unite and feel a sense of brotherhood, do these groups discriminate and reject those not part of their association? Us against them?
Phrenology (from Greek: phren, “mind”; and logos, “knowledge”) is a defunct field of study, once considered a science, in which the personality traits of a person were determined by “reading” shapes, bumps and fissures in the skull or examining the size of brains. Phrenology attempted to discover categories of intelligence. Racial supremacy?
I.Q. tests were developed in 1904. The United States used these tests to screen immigrants of Jewish and Southern Europeans and deny entry from Ellis Island based on low "intelligence". Previously, the theory of four distinct categories of humans were developed by Louis Agassis, each race created by God in a separate Garden of Eden. And some preachers thundered from their pulpits the curse on Ham, Noah's son who had sinned against God. Ham being black. These beliefs denied that all men are equal - some were born with saddles on their back and others booted and spurred to ride them. Nationalism united countries while also sowing the seeds of racial superiority.
Urbanism; The growth of cities fostered nationalism (fraternalism).
The Industrial Revolution led to the growth of factories requiring laborers. Countries changed from agricultural to industrial economies. In England, tenant farmers were displaced as land-owners found it more profitable to raise sheep for wool that could be sold to clothing factories. Those dispossessed farmers drifted to cities and found employment which gave them a subsistence living. (In many cases they were compensated just enough to continue working.)
Traditional social arrangements no longer existed. In cities innovation and change were more important than tradition. New allegiances were formed replacing traditional loyalties.
Intellectuals and writers help to forge new identities. Governments established schools and universities where professors studied and taught about a country's common history and language. State schools replaced parochial schools. Government workers were paid by the city or state. Newspapers wrote daily about developments in a city and country. Museums and monuments extolled a country's accomplishments. And prosperity allowed for a class of writers and publishers to write and promote nationalism. In France, the mission of the revolution was to spread the idea of freedom and equality. France had contributed more than any other country to the ideals of liberty. In Poland, the nation was compared to Christ. Poland had been put to death after being persecuted. And like Christ, Poland would be resurrected and bring hope to the downtrodden. Poland would usher in a new age of freedom and equality. Italy would be inspired by Verdi's Nabbuco where the chorus of Hebrew slaves sang, "O my country, so lovely and so lost", with a clear reference to Italy's domination by other states. National composers contributed to the establishment of a county's heritage. Smetana - Ma Vlast. Liszt - Hungarian Rhapsodies. Enesco - Romanian Rhapsodies. Sibelius - Finlandia. Chopin - Poland. Grieg - Norway.
The nation state became the foundation of individual and collective identity.
Europe in the 17th century and the “Modern Age”
French and Industrial Revolutions mark the beginning of the modern age. These revolutions were a result of changes that began with the Protestant Reformation.
Before the Reformation, Europe was relatively unified as a Christian (Catholic) entity. Knowledge of the world and nature was largely gained through revelation. However, the Reformation, wars, and the emergence of a new scientific approach to knowledge of the world, fractured Europe into disparate parts.
Science in Northern, Protestant Europe was permitted to continue investigating and challenging accepted beliefs while southern, Catholic Europe was inhibited by Church dogma which considered changes to orthodoxy as conflicting with church dogma – i.e. Copernicus and Galileo’s works were condemned as heresy while Denmark's Tycho Brahe was able to continue his observations of the heliocentric theory of heavenly bodies.
Isaac Newton’s theories would not be permitted in a Catholic country, as it would be an assault on theology.
Values, attitudes and practices were changed, as people, divided by religions could not agree on what God had revealed.
Philosophers and scientists started to rely on the power of reason. Many rejected traditional beliefs and practices. They did not consider philosophical meditation, faith and divine revelation to be reliable ways to understand the world. They sought natural laws, not religious or spiritual experience. They came to believe that reason could be applied to the social, economic and political affairs of man. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers were anti-clerical and disparaged the traditional organization of the Church.
Here are some of the people who shaped the ideas that led to the Revolutions: (Please allow that these summations are incomplete and much too simple!)
As world exploration resulted in contact with isolated cultures in the 16th century, some considered ‘primitive’ and in a state of nature before civilization, men began to speculate on the origins of humans and society.
Thomas Hobbes (born 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada – Died 1679) speculated that man existed in a natural state of all against all.
“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The way weaker men could protect themselves from stronger individuals was to band together and form a “social contract” under a strong sovereign – a Leviathan.
Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition. Science should be dedicated to improving the life of mankind. Bacon rejected Aristotelian methods. His scientific system was inductive (going from the specific to the general). This reasoning is based on investigation of detailed facts and general principles, which are eventually used to reach a specific conclusion.
It is not deductive (going from the general to the specific).
For example, a deductive construct is;
All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
This is a rational and valid way to arrive at knowledge. However syllogisms can be misleading;
All presidents deserve respect
Trump is president
Therefore, Trump deserves respect
Democrats might disagree with that even though it is formally correct.
or; All slaves are lazy
Steppin Fetchit is a slave
Therefore, Steppin Fetchit is lazy
This seems valid, but is not necessarily true because a premise is incorrect. Other explanations based on examination might be sought.
However, inductive reasoning might best be exemplified by an idea that starts out as a hypothesis, or an educated guess as to why or how something is happening based on investigation.
When John eats shrimp,
He gets cramps,
Therefore he assumes that he gets cramps because he eats shrimp.
Hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can become a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments by many different experimenters, the stronger the scientific theory becomes. And, scientific theories can change as more data is collected. So science encourages investigation and repetition of results. And science is cumulative; it builds on previous principles and stands on the shoulders of the men who came before them.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626): Philosopher of the Scientific Method
A Revolution in Thinking; Francis Bacon advocated the inductive method of thinking. This is a method that moves from the particular to the general, which is the opposite of “deduction.” Deduction is when the conclusion of an argument follows logically from the initial premise. In other words, it moves from the general to the particular.
It cannot be certain that induction will lead to a true result. According to Jeremy Harwood, “Some philosophers, (notably David Hume and Karl Popper) have questioned whether it should be classed as a genuinely logical process, or as a psychological one.”
Francis Bacon showed strong faith in his new, revolutionary method, declaring that he would analyse and experiment, and that inevitable exclusions and rejections would ultimately lead him to a conclusion.
“He believed that science,” says Harwood, “if properly understood, offered humanity its best possibility of understanding the natural world and, by so doing, becoming master of it.”
Bacon was the ultimate Philosopher of Science, always maintaining that truth could not be reached through mere argument, and that only his new, revolutionary scientific method could advance scientific knowledge and truth.
Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) tried to construct a theory of knowledge to arrive at truth and considered as false, any theory that had the slightest doubt. Since we rely on our senses to interpret the world, it is possible that our senses could deceive us, that some mad demon is controlling our thoughts? Is it possible we are having a vivid dream that we are in a classroom? A modern example advanced is to consider that we have been in an accident and our brain has been removed to a jar of formaldehyde. There, it has been wired and a mad scientist is controlling our thoughts and has created an illusion of reality.
But what could be discovered that is beyond any skepticism?
What cannot be doubted is that he is thinking. Thus, "cogito ergo sum". Anything that possesses certainty which is clearly and distinctly understood has to be true. Descartes used mathematics as verification of general laws. He also believed that science is cumulative.
Both methods of Bacon and Descartes – inductive and deductive reasoning, empirical evidence and mathematics - resulted in a new scientific approach to truth.
John Newton (1642-1727) published Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. He explained three principles of motion and laws of gravitation on earth and in the solar system. He measured and predicted his theories by using mathematics. His book was the basis for science until the twentieth century.
He encouraged the belief that nature could be understood. This resulted in a belief of progress, of change. Thinkers tried to apply;y his reasoning to discover the "laws' of men and society.
John Locke (1632 – 1704) had many extremely important contributions to the Enlightenment. One was his view that people’s mind was a ‘tabula rasa’, a blank slate and therefore our environment determines beliefs, actions and understanding. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that people can be educated and were not consigned to a social class by heredity. People and societies can be changed.
John Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government early in the 1680s and published it in 1690. In it Locke proposed a social contract theory of government and argued against the idea of "divine right," which held that rulers had a legitimate claim on their office because they were God’s emissaries on earth. Locke believed men made an agreement to give up life in the state of nature in favor of life in a political or civil society and formed governments. They set up political society to guarantee their natural rights: life, liberty, and property. If governments did not fulfill their obligation to protect those rights, they were illegitimate and could be overthrown!
http://www.history.com/topics/john-locke
Class Three, Wednesday, January 23
Last week we discussed how Plato's (Socrate's) Views on governments influenced political structure for many years. Aristotle's views on slavery - as well as the Bible's acknowledgement of slavery - also gave justification for slavery.
Philosophers and slavery:
Question, Why would people from England and Europe go the Americas in the 17th century?
Jamestown, Plymouth colonies.
The French Revolution
By the 18th century, France became the most influential country of the Enlightenment. The philosophes, writers and thinkers, attempted to change the world and urged reforms. They believed in reason, progress and nature.
Baron Montesquieu (1680 – 1755) wrote the Persian Letters, correspondence between two Persians that was a satire on France. Good and bad, legal and illegal were not absolutes to Montesquieu. What is an appropriate and good law for one society may be inappropriate for another. He advocated for separation of powers with checks and balances. He challenged the absolute power of kings.
Denis Diderot (1713 – 1784) summarized knowledge with his Encyclopedia.
Voltaire (1694 – 1778) believed the Catholic Church was opposed intellectual freedom and change. He condemned religious intolerance. Voltaire promoted republican ideas.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) discussed the origins of inequality. His famous quote from The Social Contract, “Man is born free but is everywhere in chains.” argued for the link between freedom and equality. He is considered to be the father of Romanticism.
What these and other French thinkers challenged was the traditional social privileges of the aristocracy and the divine right of kings. They also challenged the foundations of traditional economic relations in Europe - guilds, taxes and serfdom. They influenced many reform movements and the French and American Revolutions as well as 19th century thinkers.
The tension between individual rights and equality would lead to conflicts in many nations during the 19th century.
BBC The Enlightenment
Bach Piano Concerto in G
Berlioz Romanticism, Symphonie Fantastique, 1730 (go to 41:10)
The Enlightenment- mind, rational, scientific - will give way to the Romantic - heart, emotional, alienation, periods of European history. Pendulums of history.
The Mind and the Heart; I have written;
The mind without the heart is sterile
The heart without the mind is foolish
And both the mind and the heart are necessary for action!
France and the French Revolution
French Revolution as seen by an art historian
The French Revolution
Kings, Emperors, Presidents of France (14 minutes)
Go to 5;40
French Monarchy (9 Minutes)
French Revolution video (4 Minutes)
The French Revolution (1 hour, 30 minutes)
The French Revolution
Philosophers and slavery:
Question, Why would people from England and Europe go the Americas in the 17th century?
Jamestown, Plymouth colonies.
The French Revolution
By the 18th century, France became the most influential country of the Enlightenment. The philosophes, writers and thinkers, attempted to change the world and urged reforms. They believed in reason, progress and nature.
Baron Montesquieu (1680 – 1755) wrote the Persian Letters, correspondence between two Persians that was a satire on France. Good and bad, legal and illegal were not absolutes to Montesquieu. What is an appropriate and good law for one society may be inappropriate for another. He advocated for separation of powers with checks and balances. He challenged the absolute power of kings.
Denis Diderot (1713 – 1784) summarized knowledge with his Encyclopedia.
Voltaire (1694 – 1778) believed the Catholic Church was opposed intellectual freedom and change. He condemned religious intolerance. Voltaire promoted republican ideas.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) discussed the origins of inequality. His famous quote from The Social Contract, “Man is born free but is everywhere in chains.” argued for the link between freedom and equality. He is considered to be the father of Romanticism.
What these and other French thinkers challenged was the traditional social privileges of the aristocracy and the divine right of kings. They also challenged the foundations of traditional economic relations in Europe - guilds, taxes and serfdom. They influenced many reform movements and the French and American Revolutions as well as 19th century thinkers.
The tension between individual rights and equality would lead to conflicts in many nations during the 19th century.
BBC The Enlightenment
Bach Piano Concerto in G
Berlioz Romanticism, Symphonie Fantastique, 1730 (go to 41:10)
The Enlightenment- mind, rational, scientific - will give way to the Romantic - heart, emotional, alienation, periods of European history. Pendulums of history.
The Mind and the Heart; I have written;
The mind without the heart is sterile
The heart without the mind is foolish
And both the mind and the heart are necessary for action!
France and the French Revolution
French Revolution as seen by an art historian
The French Revolution
Kings, Emperors, Presidents of France (14 minutes)
Go to 5;40
French Monarchy (9 Minutes)
French Revolution video (4 Minutes)
The French Revolution (1 hour, 30 minutes)
The French Revolution
Class Four, January 30
A diversion; Guns Germs and Steel
The pbs production
An excellent video
Another diversion for a rainy , snowy, icy, day
War and Peace, Anthony Hopkins
War and Peace, Russian Version, 1966
Go to 52:25
The French Revolution
Another link to the French Revolution
Exploring the French Revolution
"The greatest monarch on the proudest throne is obliged to sit on his own arse." Benjamin Franklin
By 1750, France had been at war for almost one hundred years. Another expensive war with Great Britain (The Seven Years War in Europe – The French and Indian in the American Colonies – 1754 to 1763 , (nine years?) resulted in a need to reform the tax system and raise revenue for Louis XVI.
The aristocracy viewed taxation as degrading their privileged position while the church was exempt from taxation. This left the Third Estate, peasants, merchants and lower classes as the source of new revenue. Nevertheless, the crown sought to revise the tax code and tax the upper classes. As the wealth of the aristocracy was declining this proposal created friction with the crown. Wealthy merchants – the bourgeoisie – had purchased land from the aristocrats and this created resentment against them. Peasants were angry that old feudal dues were maintained and increased.
A meeting of the Estates General was called as the alienation between classes increased. The growing middle classes and the peasants were in conflict as rising prices fell heavily on the lower classes. The peasants had to tithe the Church and pay rents to the nobility. In addition, prohibitions against hunting and appropriation of common lands further angered them. As the population growth on the lands reduced the size of farms (not primogeniture) a growing unrest and dissatisfaction stalked France.
When Louis XVI called for a new tax code in 1787, parlements resisted and the Estates General were convened for the first time since 1614. The aristocracy and the Church expected to dominate the proceedings but the growing Third Estate, led by radical lawyers, who were influenced by the Enlightenment writers, united with the first and second estates in opposition to policies of Louis XVI. When the Third Estate (the largest segment of the population) demanded the same or greater voice as the Aristocracy and the Church. This was denied. They left to meet at a tennis court and took an oath that the the Third Estate represented France and were the National Assembly of France. The King capitulated and the three estates met to draft legislation for a constitutional monarchy.
On July 14, 1789, Parisians stormed the Bastille and the French Revolution began. A National Assembly was held on August 4 and the Aristocrats renounced their social position and commuted feudal obligations into rental payments. The Bourgeoisie gave up their tax exemptions and the Church renounced the tithe. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was approved on August 26 and a moderate constitutional monarchy was established. Indirect elections, checks and balances, and confiscation of some church property which was sold to the peasants, were all part of the Constitution of 1791.
Within a year, the revolution became radicalized. Many of the nobility fled to Germany. The King attempted to leave the country and asked for help from his brother in law, Leopold II of Austria. Jacobin clubs were established as extreme radicals. Girondin groups were more moderate and cautious but still wished to go war to protect the Revolution.
Leopold II called for monarchs and kings to oppose the revolution and topple the government to restore Louis XVI. The National Assembly of France declared war on Austria in April 1792.
The war went poorly for France and many blamed the aristocratic officers. Inflation became rampant as more currency was printed. The radicals feared a clerical and aristocratic reaction. German princes announced they wanted to restore the monarchy.
The Jacobins believed that a counter-revolution would erase all gains of the past few years. They established a commune in Paris, demanded that Louis XVI should be deposed and wanted to establish a republic of France. In September 1792, massacres against the aristocrats and clergy – enemies of the republic – spread throughout France. The king was beheaded in January 1793 as Europe and Great Britain confronted the revolution. Civil war broke out as a Royal Catholic Army was formed. Lyons and Marseilles was taken by counter-revolutionaries. Inflation continued, the Jacobins confiscated all church property and fear of an invasion resulted in all moderates being expelled from the government.
The Reign of Terror began! Robespierre led the Committee of Public Safety that had the goals of winning the war, suppressing enemies of the state and establishing a “Republic of Virtue". A universal draft resulted in an army fighting for France and not the monarchy. Coalition forces were driven out of France as the revolutionary forces rallied around their nation. Surveillance committees were formed to root out enemies of the state. Almost twenty thousand were sent to the Guillotine. A new dress code, a new calendar and a new religion – the Cult of the Supreme Being - was established. Inflation was brought under control. National unity was rising; the international crisis seemed to be over as extreme measures were justified.
Robespierre
However, the excess of the Terror alienated many Frenchmen and the Thermidorian Reaction of July 1794 ended the Reign of Terror. Robespierre was executed on the same Guillotine that he condemned so many others to die. The Commune was disbanded and the Committee of Public safety abolished. The Period of the Directory (1795 – 1799) began.
The Directory elected deputies based on wealth or service in the military. It was a bicameral body with executive power vested in a five man Directory. It was a moderate body challenged by the left and the right. Although it was never popular, it wasn’t until 1799 that it was overthrown by a thirty year old general, Napoleon Bonaparte.
By 1799 many people yearned for a return to stability and one man promised to provide it - Napoleon Bonaparte. He first came to the public's notice in September 1795 when he suppressed a riot in Paris with a 'whiff of grapeshot'. In 1796-97 he became a hero when he led a brilliant campaign against the Austrians in North Italy. At first Napoleon was made 'First Consul'. There were two other consuls but Napoleon had the real power. The new constitution was accepted by the people in a referendum. Napoleon was made a consul for 10 years but in 1802 in another referendum the people voted that he should be made consul for life. Then in 1804 Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Napoleon kept some of the achievements of the French Revolution. Equality before the law was preserved and careers were open to anyone of talent and ability. There was no return to a privileged nobility.
On the other hand Napoleon introduced censorship of the press and even imprisonment without trial. Napoleon also appointed prefects to run the departments and he created a strong, centralized bureaucracy. He also reduced women's rights and reintroduced slavery to the French colonies. Napoleon also made a concordat (agreement) with the Pope in 1801. Furthermore Napoleon drew up a new code of laws to govern France. It was published in 1804 and was called the Code Napoleon.
The Triumverate (1799 – 1804) had three consuls, led by Napoleon. In 1802, Napoleon was elected by a plebiscite as first consul for life. In 1804, a rumor of a royalist plot resulted in the young general being elected emperor to save the country from a Bourbon restoration. This was ratified by a plebiscite.
The Empire had authoritative aspects as well as revolutionary features. Napoleon consolidated economic and social gains of the peasants and bourgeoisie, and this led to a period of domestic stability. He also instituted systems of merit to reward talented officers and administrators. The monarchs of Russia, Austria and ‘Germany’ could not overcome their mistrust of each other, nor adapt to new methods of warfare. Austria was defeated in 1804, Russia in 1805, Prussia in 1806, and Prussia and Russia again in 1807. By 1810, Napoleon ruled the largest empire since the time of the Caesars. He was not only Emperor of France, but his family became kings of Italy, Germany, Holland and Spain. The ‘Little Corporal’ married a Hapsburg princess in 1810, cementing an economic alliance with Austria. England remained outside his control and threatened his empire with the most powerful navy in the world. The Continental System attempted an embargo of any trade with Great Britain. Russia resisted this blockade and Napoleon invaded Russia.
An army marches on its stomach! Napoleon
The French Revolution
Effect of Napoleon's Wars on Europe
Timeline, France - 19th century
Paintings of Napoleon
25 Facts about Napoleon
Napoleon Bonaparte (45 minutes)
CLASS Five, February 6
Women and the French revolution
Women's Rights
FEMINISM
Seven things about feminism.
Questions: How are women like men? How are women unlike men?
Physically? Emotionally? Intellectually? What is the nature of women? Of man?
Women have different sex organs, they have reproductive organs, they are usually shorter, have higher voices, do not have facial hair (except for my seventh grade teacher, Mrs Swanstrom). Furthermore, they are not as strong, do not have the same athletic ability, do not possess the same endurance as men, are more emotional, are less rational, they are more caring,
Are some of these descriptions merely attitudes promulgated by a male dominated culture? Recall that not too long ago, women were banned from the Boston Marathon. And when women played basketball, the offense and defense were relegated to staying in a half court. Today, the UNC women's soccer team could easily have defeated the men's varsity soccer team of Hofstra in 1962. . Even with physical differences, do women have the same qualities as men?
Women’s Rights. What is a right?
What are your rights? What is a right? If you search for the word right in the dictionary, you will find it carries many different meanings. It might mean correct, or suitable, the opposite of left, a political label, a type of angle, to restore. For our purposes, let’s use the word in the sense of a privilege, something we are entitled to.
Do women have rights? Are these rights the same that men have?
In some Asian countries, female babies were killed at birth. This reflects a patriarchal society and the low status of women in that society. Male children grow up and by working in the fields, could support their parents. Also, this practice relieves a father from the expense of a dowry for his daughter.
Two examples:
The Bible tells of Jephtha, who asks God for victory in battle, and promises to sacrifice whoever first greets him when he returns home. His only daughter is first out the door of his house. She becomes a burnt offering, and Jephtha goes unpunished. When Agamemnon needed a fair wind to fill the sails of his ships so he could go to war at Troy, he sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia, to please the gods. Instead of being accused of filicide, his soldiers applauded him.
The Declaration of Independence states that all MEN are created equal. The Declaration of the Rights of MAN and Citizen makes no mention of women. Women were excluded from political activity.
Despite this, in the 1800’s women and some classes of men were concerned with equality and the right to participate in government.
When the United States Constitution was ratified it is estimated that half the population of white men were disenfranchised because of property qualifications. Women were prohibited from participating in government.
Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John when he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, “Remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or representation.”
Suffrage movement in England
Suffrage movement, the United States
Aint I a Woman?
Feminism embraces more than suffrage. In addition to political rights, women in the nineteenth century fought for social, cultural, economic and yes, even sexual rights. Although a few women had participated in government (Queen Elizabeth, Lucretia Borgia, Catherine Di Medici, Empress Maria Theresa, Czarinas Catherine, Anna, Elizabeth, and Catherine the Great) most women in the nineteenth century were consigned to a subservient role. Women outnumbered men in nineteenth century Europe but few men wanted them to participate in government. Every European country excluded women from the political process. In fact the French Revolution considered women to be a cause of that revolt pointing to the pernicious influence of women at Louis XVI’s court and the prevalence of the ‘salons’ where women acted as hostesses.
Olympe de Gourges wrote the Declaration of Rights of Woman and Female Citizen, calling for voting rights, freedom of speech, freedom to write, freedom to divorce, property rights, rights to higher education, and the right to participate in elected governments and the economy. She paraphrased the Rights of Man as follows, “All citizens including women are equally admissible to all public dignities, offices and employments, according to their capacity, and with no other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.” She was sent to the guillotine by the Jacobins!
In England, Mary Wollstonecraft published the Vindication of the Rights of Women. She died giving birth to daughter, Mary. Mary went on to write Frankenstein. She attacked Rousseau who claimed that women should only have a role in domestic life. Mary also wrote against the Divine Rights of husbands and compared it to the Divine Rights of kings.
Utopian socialists, Robert Owens and Saint Simone argued and published on behalf of women. William Thompson and Anna Wheeler published Appeal of One-Half the Human Race in 1825 stating that women have the unique ability to understand and work for the happiness of mankind. Therefore, they would make excellent legislators. Germaine de Stael wrote the first account of the French Revolution and also argued for the right to divorce. Publications under the title of The Free Woman appeared with female authors signing with their first name and an X since they did not want to use their father’s name. Jeanne Deroin wrote a journal, Women’s Opinion, and described women as less selfish because of their maternal instincts.
Emily Dickinson, A woman poet???
Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves, And Immortality.
We slowly drove, he knew no haste, And I had put away
My labour, and my leisure too, For his civility.
We passed the school where children played, Their lessons scarcely done;
We passed the fields of gazing grain, We passed the setting sun.
We paused before a house that seemed A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible, The cornice but a mound.
Since then 'tis centuries; but each Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads Were toward eternity.
Here is an example of one woman's assertion of her sexuality (?)
Wild Nights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvnqxz-Sfqk
John Adams, Wild Nights (stop at 4:40, begin again at 6:40)
This poem as an example of the Dionysian/Apollonian conflict? (Nietsche "The further development of art is bound up with the duality of the Apollonian and the Dionysian, just as reproduction depends upon the duality of the sexes.")
Nietsche on women reflecting a 19th century view?
"Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution—that is pregnancy."
The Anti-Feminists.
Should women be relegated solely to the domestic sphere? The world was changing (the Industrial Revolution, the growth of cities and less reliance on tradition and family, smaller families due to birth control). The opposition to women’s rights was based on sociological, biological, and psychological arguments.
Sociological; men have always enjoyed a hierarchical relation with women. Men know how to lead a well-organized society. Families are the model for the state and men are natural leaders. Men administer justice. They have aristocratic privileges.
Biological; women are physically different from men. Reproductive functions do not permit women to be rational. The menstrual cycle justifies exclusion from politics. (Donald Trump?) Men use reason to a greater extent. Women’s needs are all private and domestic. The Goncourt brothers, who wrote extensively on the Siege of Paris and the Paris Commune, stated that women’s strength is in the pelvic region. The strength of men is found in the upper regions of their bodies, the nobler parts. (Recall Plato’s three aspects of mankind, rationality, bravery, and the appetites.) A pseudo-science, phrenology, claimed that studies of brain size and shape indicated intelligence and men had high foreheads which made them more capable of learning and abstract thought than women. These theories were also used as a rationale for racism and later, Nazi policies.
Psychological; women are more emotional than men. Women are more sympathetic than men These qualities are in conflict with beliefs about Darwinian principles of survival and the imperialistic, militaristic and expansionist policies prevalent in European governments at that time.
George Sand, (Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin) wrote novels that challenged these theories. She was married to an abusive husband who opposed all independence for her. Divorce was illegal and she left him stating that she wanted to become, “as nearly a free woman as our wretched civilization permits.” She also said that she would rather be in prison than ever entering into a marriage again. Aurore carried on a number of affairs with many artists, including Frederick Chopin. And she shocked European society when rumors of a lesbian relationship arose. Her scandalous behavior included wearing pants, smoking cigarettes and living in sin.
John Stuart Mill promoted equality of the sexes, wrote The Subjection of Women and promoted women’s rights. Mill was famous for his Utilitarian theory of the greatest good for the greatest number. In the English Parliament he argued for the right of women to vote. He believed that all women were simply slaves and that the relationship between men and women amounted to legal subordination. The oppression of women was a relic of ancient times and these prejudices impeded the progress of humanity. He wanted to replace the word, “man”, with “person”. He stated that since women have never been given opportunities, we don’t know what they are capable of. Mill opposed the sociological, biological and psychological arguments of women’s inferiority.
Gradually, women were given the right to vote in Europe, but not until the twentieth century. France did not allow women to vote until 1944! Although women were permitted to divorce in France in 1792, that privilege was abolished in 1816 and was reinstated in 1884.
Slavery and Equality
Slavery In Europe,
International Slavery Museum, Liverpool
American Slavery
The Compromises
Congress, Senate and House (Slaves count as 3/5 for state representation.) Passing laws - slave states and free states. Balance in Senate - Senators appointed by states - Expansion, Northwest territory, Louisiana Territory, Texas Annexation, Mexican American War, Expeditions into Central America, Cuba to keep balance between slave and free states in the Senate.(Both Houses of Congress needed to pass any law.)
The Missouri Compromise
Compromise of 1850;
The Five Bills of the Compromise of 1850 The goal of the Compromise bills was to deal with the spread of slavery to territories in order to keep northern and southern interests in balance.
The Compromise of 1850 was key in delaying the start of the Civil War until 1861. It temporarily lessened the rhetoric between northern and southern interests, thereby delaying secession for 11 years.
The Fugitive Slave Act
The Kansas Nebraska Act
The Balance of Power in the Senate
Sectional disputes dominated debate during the Senate’s Golden Age, the period between the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 that brought to that chamber a group of talented legislators and powerful orators. In the Senate, where the Constitution established an equality of states, there existed a delicate balance between North and South, slave and free states. For many years, senators crafted legislation designed to resolve sectional conflicts and avoid secession and civil war. One of the first compromises was the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution which increased the southern population for purposes of the House of representatives and the electoral college. In the 1850s, however, further efforts at compromise failed. The Senate endured a violent and turbulent decade that brought an end to its Golden Age and propelled the nation to the brink of war.
The rapid expansion of the nation, as settlers moved west and new territories applied for statehood, repeatedly raised the issue of slavery. The Constitution allowed slavery to exist in the states but left Congress to decide its status in the territories. The Northern states, having abolished slavery, sought to prevent its spread, while the Southern states, having grown more dependent on slave labor, asserted the rights of Southerners to transport their way of life into the new territories. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise drew a line across the nation at the 36th parallel, above which slavery would be prohibited, and below which it could expand. When the war with Mexico, from 1846 to 1848, resulted in vast new territories in the southwest, the debate over expansion of slavery was renewed.
In 1850 Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky introduced a package of compromise measures to relieve the sectional tensions created by territorial expansion. Aware of the controversial nature of his proposals, Clay urged his colleagues to “beware, to pause, to reflect before they lend themselves to any purposes which shall destroy that Union.” On March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts rose from his Senate seat and declared: “I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American . . . I speak today for the preservation of the Union.” Other senators, most notably John Calhoun of South Carolina, opposed Clay’s plan. With Webster’s support, and with the assistance of Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, Congress passed revised versions of Clay’s bills, which became law in September 1850. The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state, left open the possibility of slavery in the territories of New Mexico and Utah, abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and created a stronger fugitive slave law.
Anxious to build a transcontinental railroad from Chicago to the West Coast, Senator Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 to organize those territories for statehood. To meet the objections of Southerners who were promoting a southern route for the railroad, the act opened the territories for settlement, but provided that the settlers, through “popular sovereignty,” could allow or prohibit slavery. This undermined the 1820 Missouri Compromise and further inflamed the passions in the North and the South. Both slaveholders and abolitionists flooded into the new territories to influence votes on state constitutions. Communities erupted into violence in what became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Intended to settle sectional disputes, the Kansas-Nebraska Act instead brought the nation closer to civil war.
Frederick Douglass, speech on Fourth of July
Dred Scott
Harriet Tubman
by ELI LEHRER April 21, 2016
Harriett Tubman was a gun-toting, Jesus-loving spy who blazed the way for women to play a significant role in military and political affairs. Indeed, her work on the Underground Railroad was mostly a prelude to her real achievements. Born into slavery as Araminta Ross, Tubman knew the slave system’s inhumanity firsthand: She experienced the savage beatings and family destruction that were par for the course. She eventually escaped and, like most who fled, freed herself largely by her own wits. Tubman’s work on the Underground Railroad was mostly a prelude to her real achievements. She later went back south — always carrying a gun she wasn’t afraid to use — to help guide her own family and many others out of the plantations. The courage and will that this took is difficult to fathom. But she’s really a secondary figure in the history of the Underground Railroad. Historians estimate that she led 300 or so people to freedom, while figures like William Sill and Levi Coffin helped bring freedom to thousands. This isn’t to say that Tubman is a minor figure. To the contrary, what she did during the Civil War secures her an important place in history. The Union, fighting a war mostly on southern soil, desperately needed good intelligence. Tubman’s exploits on the Underground Railroad, quick wits, mastery of stealth, knowledge of local geography, and personal bravery made her a near-perfect scout and spy. She could often “hide” in plain sight, since white-supremacist southerners probably were not inclined to consider a small African-American woman a threat.
Her quasi-memoir Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman (told to Sarah Bradford and written in the third person) explains how things worked. While African Americans were suspicious — often rightly — of Union soldiers, they were willing to trust Tubman. “To Harriet they would tell anything,” Bradford writes. “It became quite important that she should accompany expeditions going up the rivers, or into unexplored parts of the country, to control and get information from those whom they took with them as guides.” Tubman was one of the most valuable field-intelligence assets the Union Army had. She had hundreds of intelligence contacts and could establish new ones — particularly among African Americans — when nobody else could. Tubman was one of the most valuable field-intelligence assets the Union Army had. During one of her scouting missions along the Combahee River, she became the first woman and one of the first African Americans to command a significant number of U.S. troops in combat. The raid she organized and helped to command freed far more enslaved people than her decades of work on the Underground Railroad. She also was a strong advocate of allowing African Americans into the Union Army. She knew Robert Gould Shaw, who commanded the almost entirely African-American 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry regiment — the unit at the center of the 1989 film Glory. A (probably apocryphal) legend even has it that she cooked his last meal before the heroic assault in which he and much of his regiment perished. In her “retirement” — she never really stopped working until she became ill at the very end of her life — Tubman remained a political presence. A friend of Secretary of State William H. Seward, she settled in his hometown of Auburn, N.Y., on land he sold her. There, she helped to build both a church (she was devoutly religious) and a privately run retirement home. She also fought for women’s suffrage, supported Republican politicians, and advocated for fair treatment of black Civil War veterans, which they rarely received. In short, Harriet Tubman was a black, Republican, gun-toting, veterans’ activist, with ninja-like spy skills and strong Christian beliefs.
by ELI LEHRER April 21, 2016
Statements by Calhoun and Jefferson Davis;
Calhoun,
"The two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals."
Jefferson Davis
"I say that the lower race of human beings that constitute the substratum of what is termed the slave population of the South, elevates every white man in our community … It is the presence of a lower caste, those lower by their mental and physical organization, controlled by the higher intellect of the white man, that gives this superiority to the white laborer. Menial services are not there performed by the white man. We have none of our brethren sunk to the degradation of being menials. That belongs to the lower race—the descendants of Ham."
The Road to the Civil War
African Americans in the Civil War
Civil War and Reconstruction
Abraham Galloway
Blacks in the Civil War
Uncle Sam Wants You???
After Fort Sumter, the Union Army called for volunteers. The Hannibal guards from Pittsburgh and Crisps Attucks Guards from Ohio were thanked by Lincoln with the understanding that the war was "a white man's war". The Republican administration barred blacks from the army and returned escaped slaves to rebel masters. General George McClellan believed that if slaves rose in the South, Confederates would stop fighting the North and engage the insurrectionists to the benefit of the Union forces. When General John Fremont issued a proclamation freeing slaves of Missouri rebels, Lincoln revoked the proclamation. Propaganda campaigns began to call for colonizing blacks in central America. At a White House conference with leading black Americans, Lincoln stated that there were broad differences between the white and black races and added, "I think your race suffer greatly, many of them living among us, while ours suffer from your presence . . . it is better for us both . . . to be separated." ( see Before the Mayflower, p 192).
After suffering losses on the battlefield, Congress forbade Union forces from returning escaped slaves to their owners and gave Lincoln discretion to use blacks in the Union Army. In the summer of 1862, Lincoln formulated the draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. All that was needed so the President did not appear desperate was victory on the battlefield. That came at Antietam. the Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863.
Black regiments were formed and at the end of 1863, 50,000 blacks were enlisted in the Union Army, but racial prejudice persisted as blacks received seven dollars per month as opposed to the thirteen given to white privates. And confederate vengeance resulted in massacres of blacks prisoners at Fort Pillow, Tennessee in 1864. Official records show that 185,000 blacks served in the Union forces. It is estimated that 37,000 died fighting. This does not account for the thousands of deaths as citizens, not soldiers.
The Fight for Equal Rights: Black Soldiers in the Civil War (National Archives)
Broadside for Black Enlistment
"Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship." Frederick Douglass
Eric Foner on the Emancipation Proclamation.
Emancipation Proclamation
The issues of emancipation and military service were intertwined from the onset of the Civil War. News from Fort Sumter set off a rush by free black men to enlist in U.S. military units. They were turned away, however, because a Federal law dating from 1792 barred Negroes from bearing arms for the U.S. army (although they had served in the American Revolution and in the War of 1812). In Boston disappointed would-be volunteers met and passed a resolution requesting that the Government modify its laws to permit their enlistment.
The Lincoln administration wrestled with the idea of authorizing the recruitment of black troops, concerned that such a move would prompt the border states to secede. When Gen. John C. Frémont (photo citation: 111-B-3756) in Missouri and Gen. David Hunter in South Carolina issued proclamations that emancipated slaves in their military regions and permitted them to enlist, their superiors sternly revoked their orders. By mid-1862, however, the escalating number of former slaves (contrabands), the declining number of white volunteers, and the increasingly pressing personnel needs of the Union Army pushed the Government into reconsidering the ban.
As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 Lincoln presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee's first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized black regiments. Recruitment was slow until black leaders such as Frederick Douglass (photo citation: 200-FL-22) encouraged black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. (Two of Douglass's own sons contributed to the war effort.) Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of black soldiers.
By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman (photo citation: 200-HN-PIO-1), who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.
Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.
In addition to the perils of war faced by all Civil War soldiers, black soldiers faced additional problems stemming from racial prejudice. Racial discrimination was prevalent even in the North, and discriminatory practices permeated the U.S. military. Segregated units were formed with black enlisted men and typically commanded by white officers and black noncommissioned officers. The 54th Massachusetts was commanded by Robert Shaw and the 1st South Carolina by Thomas Wentworth Higginson—both white. Black soldiers were initially paid $10 per month from which $3 was automatically deducted for clothing, resulting in a net pay of $7. In contrast, white soldiers received $13 per month from which no clothing allowance was drawn. In June 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Black soldiers received the same rations and supplies. In addition, they received comparable medical care.
The black troops, however, faced greater peril than white troops when captured by the Confederate Army. In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it.
The document featured with this article is a recruiting poster directed at black men during the Civil War. It refers to efforts by the Lincoln administration to provide equal pay for black soldiers and equal protection for black POWs.
Freedom and Emancipation.
13th Amendment (1865)
Neither slavery not involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
14th Amendment (1868)
. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
15th Amendment (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The Thirteenth Amendment
Reconstruction
"Slavery was a bad thing, slaves prayed for freedom. But freedom of the kind we got with nothin' to live on was bad. Two snakes full of poison. . . . Their names was slavery and freedom. The snake called slavery lay with his head pointed south and the snake called freedom lay with his head pointed north. Both bit the nigger and they was both bad!"
Patsy Mitchner, Raleigh.
"Lincoln got the praise for freeing us. But did he do it? He give us freedom without giving us any chance to live to ourselves and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food and clothing. And he held us through our necessity and want in a state of servitude little better than slavery. . . . The Yankees helped free us but they let us be put back in slavery again."
Thomas Hall, Orange County.
Despite gaining their freedom, African-Americans faced struggles in the years after the Civil War. The Union victory in the Civil War in 1865 may have given some 4 million slaves their freedom, but the process of rebuilding the South during the Reconstruction period (1865-1877) introduced a new set of significant challenges. Under the administration of President Andrew Johnson in 1865 and 1866, new southern state legislatures passed restrictive “black codes” to control the labor and behavior of former slaves and other African Americans. Outrage in the North over these codes eroded support for the approach known as Presidential Reconstruction and led to the triumph of the more radical wing of the Republican Party. During Radical Reconstruction, which began in 1867, newly enfranchised blacks gained a voice in government for the first time in American history, winning election to southern state legislatures and even to the U.S. Congress. In less than a decade, however, reactionary forces–including the Ku Klux Klan–would reverse the changes wrought by Radical Reconstruction in a violent backlash that restored white supremacy in the South.
EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
At the outset of the Civil War, to the dismay of the more radical abolitionists in the North, President Abraham Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a goal of the Union war effort. To do so, he feared, would drive the border slave states still loyal to the Union into the Confederacy and anger more conservative northerners. By the summer of 1862, however, the slaves themselves had pushed the issue, heading by the thousands to the Union lines as Lincoln’s troops marched through the South. Their actions debunked one of the strongest myths underlying Southern devotion to the “peculiar institution”–that many slaves were truly content in bondage–and convinced Lincoln that emancipation had become a political and military necessity. In response to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed more than 3 million slaves in the Confederate states by January 1, 1863, blacks enlisted in the Union Army in large numbers, reaching some 180,000 by war’s end.
Did You Know? During Reconstruction, the Republican Party in the South represented a coalition of blacks (who made up the overwhelming majority of Republican voters in the region) along with "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags," as white Republicans from the North and South, respectively, were known. Emancipation changed the stakes of the Civil War, ensuring that a Union victory would mean large-scale social revolution in the South. It was still very unclear, however, what form this revolution would take. Over the next several years, Lincoln considered ideas about how to welcome the devastated South back into the Union, but as the war drew to a close in early 1865 he still had no clear plan. In a speech delivered on April 11, while referring to plans for Reconstruction in Louisiana, Lincoln proposed that some blacks–including free blacks and those who had enlisted in the military–deserved the right to vote. He was assassinated three days later, however, and it would fall to his successor to put plans for Reconstruction in place.
PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION
At the end of May 1865, President Andrew Johnson announced his plans for Reconstruction, which reflected both his staunch Unionism and his firm belief in states’ rights. In Johnson’s view, the southern states had never given up their right to govern themselves, and the federal government had no right to determine voting requirements or other questions at the state level. Under Johnson’s Presidential Reconstruction, all land that had been confiscated by the Union Army and distributed to the freed slaves by the army or the Freedmen’s Bureau (established by Congress in 1865) reverted to its prewar owners. Apart from being required to uphold the abolition of slavery (in compliance with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution), swear loyalty to the Union and pay off war debt, southern state governments were given free reign to rebuild themselves. As a result of Johnson’s leniency, many southern states in 1865 and 1866 successfully enacted a series of laws known as the “black codes,” which were designed to restrict freed blacks’ activity and ensure their availability as a labor force. These repressive codes enraged many in the North, including numerous members of Congress, which refused to seat congressmen and senators elected from the southern states. In early 1866, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau and Civil Rights Bills and sent them to Johnson for his signature. The first bill extended the life of the bureau, originally established as a temporary organization charged with assisting refugees and freed slaves, while the second defined all persons born in the United States as national citizens who were to enjoy equality before the law. After Johnson vetoed the bills–causing a permanent rupture in his relationship with Congress that would culminate in his impeachment in 1868–the Civil Rights Act became the first major bill to become law over presidential veto.
RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION
After northern voters rejected Johnson’s policies in the congressional elections in late 1866, Republicans in Congress took firm hold of Reconstruction in the South. The following March, again over Johnson’s veto, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which temporarily divided the South into five military districts and outlined how governments based on universal (male) suffrage were to be organized. The law also required southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment, which broadened the definition of citizenship, granting “equal protection” of the Constitution to former slaves, before they could rejoin the Union. In February 1869, Congress approved the 15th Amendment (adopted in 1870), which guaranteed that a citizen’s right to vote would not be denied “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” By 1870, all of the former Confederate states had been admitted to the Union, and the state constitutions during the years of Radical Reconstruction were the most progressive in the region’s history. African-American participation in southern public life after 1867 would be by far the most radical development of Reconstruction, which was essentially a large-scale experiment in interracial democracy unlike that of any other society following the abolition of slavery. Blacks won election to southern state governments and even to the U.S. Congress during this period. Among the other achievements of Reconstruction were the South’s first state-funded public school systems, more equitable taxation legislation, laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations and ambitious economic development programs (including aid to railroads and other enterprises).
RECONSTRUCTION COMES TO AN END
After 1867, an increasing number of southern whites turned to violence in response to the revolutionary changes of Radical Reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations targeted local Republican leaders, white and black, and other African Americans who challenged white authority. Though federal legislation passed during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in 1871 took aim at the Klan and others who attempted to interfere with black suffrage and other political rights, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South after the early 1870s as support for Reconstruction waned. Racism was still a potent force in both South and North, and Republicans became more conservative and less egalitarian as the decade continued. In 1874–after an economic depression plunged much of the South into poverty–the Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War. When Democrats waged a campaign of violence to take control of Mississippi in 1875, Grant refused to send federal troops, marking the end of federal support for Reconstruction-era state governments in the South. By 1876, only Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina were still in Republican hands. In the contested presidential election that year, Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes reached a compromise with Democrats in Congress: In exchange for certification of his election, he acknowledged Democratic control of the entire South. The Compromise of 1876 marked the end of Reconstruction as a distinct period, but the struggle to deal with the revolution ushered in by slavery’s eradication would continue in the South and elsewhere long after that date. A century later, the legacy of Reconstruction would be revived during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as African Americans fought for the political, economic and social equality that had long been denied them.
Pauli Murray
African Americans in the U.S. Congress
1866: The Birth of Civil Rights
Slaughter House Cases
According to Lerone Bennett, Jr. the Supreme Court ruling said there were two categories of citizenship, state and federal and the 14th Amendment only protected federal citizenship.
Civil Rights Cases, 1883
In 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875, forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
The Failure of Reconstruction.
Republicans compromised with the white south. They abandoned interference in the affairs of southern states in return for the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in the disputed election of 1877. Blacks began to move out of the South to western states such as Oklahoma, Indiana, and Kansas seeking opportunity denied them at homes. They were known as "Exodusters". Thousands of blacks left eastern North Carolina.
After Reconstruction
The KuKlux Klan
Who was Jim Crow?
A song and dance vaudville show? Minstrels, blackface, stereotypes?
A Negro?
A comic way of life?
An Ohio slave?
Derived from “Black as a crow”?
A slaveowner named Old Man Crow?
Jim Crow Museum
www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins.htm
Jim Crow
Jim Crow in Hollywood
A Brief History of Jim Crow
A Century of Segregation (PBS)
Birth of A Nation 1915
Stereotype of sexual predatiion
Sex! “Whenever the Constitution comes between me and the virtue of the white women in the South, I say to hell with the Constitution!” (Cole L Blease, South Carolinian.)
Southern laws;
White nurses forbidden to minister to blacks. White teachers forbidden to teach blacks. White and black mill workers forbidden to look out the same window. New Orleans segregated white and black prostitutes. Separate Bibles for whites and blacks. Whites cannot shake hands with blacks. Whites and blacks cannot play checkers together. Blacks must address white men as "sir". Restaurants and transportation segregated. No black playgrounds within two blocks of white playgrounds. Athletic events between whites and blacks illegal. Schools - $13.98 for white students, $2.57 for blacks (1915, South Carolina). There were no state sponsored black high schools as late as 1933 in Alabama. Blacks and whites forbidden to work together in factories. Marriage and sexual intercourse between whites and blacks illegal. Voting restrictions poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, Grandfather clauses.
North Carolina Laws; (among others) Textbooks: Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. Libraries: The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. Militia: The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers.
Approximately @10,000 blacks were lynched between 1878 and 1898. ((@500 per year, @41 per month, @1 1/2 per day)
SIXTH CLASS, FEBRUARY 13
The Industrial Revolution
http://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution
British Empire, Jeremy Paxson
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJg8MX5QStc&list=PLx6AngGF2_C77trCTuOrGlOM6qANVmDGD
A British Revolution in the 19th Century?
By Professor Eric Evans
While the French Revolution of 1789 reconfigured the political contours of Europe, Britain seemed impervious to revolutionary change. But how exceptional was Britain?
No violent political revolution has occurred in Britain since the civil wars of 1642-51. Yet in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries virtually every other state in Europe has experienced at least one forcible overthrow of government and its replacement by another, from the French Revolution of 1789 to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Why was Britain different?
The fall of the Bastille prison in Paris on 14th July 1789 is a key event in European history. It symbolised the beginning of a revolution in France, leading to the overthrow of the old regime and the execution of King Louis XVI, his wife and many leading members of the French aristocracy. Within a few years, as the new order struggled to assert itself, Napoleon Bonaparte emerged in France as one of the most extraordinary military and political leaders in history.
Under Napoleon's leadership, the French political, education and legal systems were fundamentally remodelled. Despite the reappearance - for a time - of the French monarchy, the Revolution reconfigured not only France but also the political contours of Europe as a whole. While the entire authority structure in France was overturned, the heady ideals of 'liberty, equality and fraternity' - proclaimed by the French revolutionaries and drawn from the European Enlightenment of the 18th century - seemed to offer a template for change across the whole of the continent, and beyond.
Britain, however, seemed impervious to revolutionary change. Though every other aspect of British life in the 19th century was transformed by industrial, social and cultural development, the country's rulers seemed somehow to avoid the mistakes of their continental counterparts. When Britain was at the peak of its imperial power at the end of the 19th century, historians charted the country's rise to greatness over the preceding hundred years or so. They were inclined to stress British genius for avoiding fundamental conflict between classes and social groups, and the country's ability to manage evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, political change.
On this analysis Britain's transformation was a major force for good. Its commercial and industrial revolutions offered the country's increasing population jobs and greater prosperity. In an age of widespread religious belief, many discerned the hand of God directing the progress of the British nation, first protecting it from invasion and then helping with its commercial and territorial expansion. In 1894, the famous imperial politician, Lord Curzon, could claim that Britain ruled, under God, over 'the greatest empire for good that the world has seen'.
Political repression
But how exceptional was Britain? Did it avoid revolution by divine intervention, by good management and wise statesmanship - or simply by luck? Historians nowadays are far less likely to ascribe Britain's largely peaceful progress in the 19th century to divine intervention. Some have argued that the threat of violent revolution was indeed real and that Britain escaped it, not by the hand of God but by the skin of its teeth.
The French Revolution inspired reformers in Britain as much as it frightened the British Crown and landowning classes. It is worth remembering that the Hanoverian dynasty, which provided Britain with its monarchs from 1714 to 1901, was only rarely popular, and was frequently criticised for its lack of understanding of the British people. Anti-government cartoons in the 1790s often included the most scabrous, even treasonable, representations of King George.
In that decade, a number of political movements emerged to press for parliamentary reform. Some, like the London Corresponding Society, were organised and directed by skilled craftsmen and depended on the support of working people. They embraced political objectives drawn directly from French examples. They wanted to replace royal and aristocratic rule with representative government based on the Rights of Man - the influential political pamphlet by Thomas Paine.
The government of William Pitt the Younger, already at war with revolutionary France, was thoroughly alarmed by the prospect that revolutionary ideas might be exported to Britain, and it responded to these ideas with political repression. From 1794, radical political leaders could be arrested without trial. In 1795, during a period of high food prices and severe public agitation, stones were thrown at the King's carriage as he went to Westminster to open a new session of parliament. In the fevered atmosphere of the time, such actions could easily be interpreted as portending revolution. Within weeks, a parliament dominated by fearful landowners had passed legislation that redefined the law of treason, and that made it almost impossible to hold public meetings in support of reform.
Disaffected radicals
Pitt's policies succeeded, at least on one level. Throughout the remainder of the wars with France, which went on until 1815, support for reform never again approached the heights of 1795. Support among all ranks in society for what was increasingly seen as a patriotic war also boosted the government. However, the most determined of the disaffected radicals were merely driven underground, and in the years 1796-1803 government spies found evidence of revolutionary conspiracy.
Much of this evidence centred around Irishmen. Radicals in fact attempted revolution in Ireland in 1798, against British domination of their lands. Had the hoped-for substantial French support for the insurgents been forthcoming, the endeavour might have come much closer to success. In the event, the most important consequence was the creation of a new 'United Kingdom' of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, to which substantial numbers of Irish folk were never reconciled. The Society of United Irishmen was undoubtedly a revolutionary organisation, whose objective was the forcible overthrow of the British government, linked through a series of secret networks to cells of English revolutionaries.
No doubt the numbers of such revolutionaries were small. However, few, if any, revolutions succeed because of weight of numbers - whatever the new revolutionary regimes might claim after they have installed themselves securely in power. Neither the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia, nor the Chinese revolution of 1949, could plausibly claim to have a democratic mandate. Assassins and revolutionaries may fail many times against superior forces. If they succeed once, however, they have achieved their objective. British politicians were well aware of this.
Revolutionary activities
Against the lowering and portentous backdrop of revolution in France, the most important influence on the political lives of two generations of politicians from the younger Pitt (1759-1806) to Robert Peel (1788-1850), all threats of revolution were taken seriously. The authorities hastily assembled an extensive spy network. Both the Irish-inspired Despard Conspiracy of 1803 and the so-called Cato Street Conspiracy of 1820 to blow up Lord Liverpool's cabinet - to take only the best-known examples of revolutionary activity in the period - were forestalled. Their leaders were executed amid a blaze of publicity designed to confirm the government's control of the situation. Beneath the surface, however, and despite overwhelming evidence of support from the propertied classes, politicians were more concerned than they could admit.
This was because support for radical parliamentary reform never disappeared. During periods of economic turbulence, such as 1815-20 and during the so-called Reform Act crisis of 1829-32, masses of people could appear on the streets in support of either democracy or republicanism. The most famous such occasion was in August 1819 when a large crowd assembled at St Peter's Fields in central Manchester to hear a pro-reform speech from Henry 'Orator' Hunt, the most gifted radical speaker of his day. Fearing uncontainable disorder, and perhaps even revolution, the Manchester authorities over-reacted. They sent in troops to disperse the crowd by force. Eleven people were killed and the radicals were given a huge propaganda boost by referring to the event as 'Peterloo', in a grim analogy with the Duke of Wellington's famous victory over Napoleon at Waterloo four years earlier.
During the European revolutionary wars of the 1790s British government propaganda could - just about - connect George III as the symbol of the nation. His eldest son, George, however, first as Prince Regent from 1810 and then as George IV from 1820 to 1830, provoked more contempt than respect. The early 19th-century monarchy was unable to inspire national unity. Indeed, it was part of the problem.
The claim that Britain came close to revolution in 1830-32 is by no means fanciful. Support for parliamentary reform reached unprecedented heights. 'Political unions' were formed in most large towns to press for radical change. The wife of the Russian ambassador wrote to her brother: 'We... in England, are just on the brink of a revolution.' In November 1830, the Duke of Wellington's Tory government was forced to resign after the Duke had asserted - against mountainous evidence to the contrary - that the people of Britain still had confidence in the unreformed political system that ruled their lives.
Parliamentary reform
Tory governments since the 1790s had provided a strong thread of anti-reformist continuity. The Whig government that followed it under Earl Grey, however, came into office with plans for parliamentary reform, and a succession of Whig leaders proclaimed that reform was necessary to secure the state. The presence of this pro-reform government heightened expectations outside parliament, but although Grey might have been committed to reform, support from some of his senior ministers, such as Melbourne and Palmerston, was decidedly lukewarm.
Meanwhile, it rapidly became clear that opposition to reform remained strong in the House of Commons and overwhelming in the House of Lords, and this led to the Whigs' first reform bill running into the parliamentary sands. A general election held in 1831 gave the Whigs an unassailable majority for reform in the Commons but it did little to change opinion in the Lords, and the Lords' rejection of the Whigs' second reform bill in October led to widespread rioting throughout Britain. For a time, the authorities lost control of Derby, Nottingham and Bristol. Castles and country houses were hastily reinforced against attack.
During the winter of 1831-32, the nation stood on a knife-edge. In the spring, the Lords showed signs of renewed recalcitrance, and the King, as a desperation measure, invited the Duke of Wellington back to form a government. In response, reform leaders made plans to bring the country to a halt by having their supporters withdraw funds from the banks, using the slogan: 'To stop the Duke, go for Gold'.
The crisis was averted. The Lords backed down and the Reform Bill was passed. But what if the Lords had stood firm? Historians will always debate 'might-have-beens' and no one can prove things one way or the other. However, the potential for revolution in 1831-32 is clear. Public support for parliamentary reform had never been greater. Outside London, no professional police force was in place and the mechanisms of control available to the authorities were old-fashioned and creaky. There was as yet no railway network to move troops rapidly to areas that were out of control. Revolutions have been mounted elsewhere on less.
The Whigs' perception that a measure of concession to popular opinion was necessary in the interests of national security was undoubtedly correct. But if they had not won over the King and the Lords in 1832, then the potential for a revolutionary response certainly existed. So, Britain avoided political revolution in the 19th century, but it is far from clear that it was bound to do so. In 1831-32, to adapt a phrase used by the Duke of Wellington about the Battle of Waterloo, it had been a pretty 'near run thing'.
Germany
Photos of 19th century Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAg95GhyYQU
Germany in the 19th century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2SlWfmwQik
The pbs production
An excellent video
Another diversion for a rainy , snowy, icy, day
War and Peace, Anthony Hopkins
War and Peace, Russian Version, 1966
Go to 52:25
The French Revolution
Another link to the French Revolution
Exploring the French Revolution
"The greatest monarch on the proudest throne is obliged to sit on his own arse." Benjamin Franklin
By 1750, France had been at war for almost one hundred years. Another expensive war with Great Britain (The Seven Years War in Europe – The French and Indian in the American Colonies – 1754 to 1763 , (nine years?) resulted in a need to reform the tax system and raise revenue for Louis XVI.
The aristocracy viewed taxation as degrading their privileged position while the church was exempt from taxation. This left the Third Estate, peasants, merchants and lower classes as the source of new revenue. Nevertheless, the crown sought to revise the tax code and tax the upper classes. As the wealth of the aristocracy was declining this proposal created friction with the crown. Wealthy merchants – the bourgeoisie – had purchased land from the aristocrats and this created resentment against them. Peasants were angry that old feudal dues were maintained and increased.
A meeting of the Estates General was called as the alienation between classes increased. The growing middle classes and the peasants were in conflict as rising prices fell heavily on the lower classes. The peasants had to tithe the Church and pay rents to the nobility. In addition, prohibitions against hunting and appropriation of common lands further angered them. As the population growth on the lands reduced the size of farms (not primogeniture) a growing unrest and dissatisfaction stalked France.
When Louis XVI called for a new tax code in 1787, parlements resisted and the Estates General were convened for the first time since 1614. The aristocracy and the Church expected to dominate the proceedings but the growing Third Estate, led by radical lawyers, who were influenced by the Enlightenment writers, united with the first and second estates in opposition to policies of Louis XVI. When the Third Estate (the largest segment of the population) demanded the same or greater voice as the Aristocracy and the Church. This was denied. They left to meet at a tennis court and took an oath that the the Third Estate represented France and were the National Assembly of France. The King capitulated and the three estates met to draft legislation for a constitutional monarchy.
On July 14, 1789, Parisians stormed the Bastille and the French Revolution began. A National Assembly was held on August 4 and the Aristocrats renounced their social position and commuted feudal obligations into rental payments. The Bourgeoisie gave up their tax exemptions and the Church renounced the tithe. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was approved on August 26 and a moderate constitutional monarchy was established. Indirect elections, checks and balances, and confiscation of some church property which was sold to the peasants, were all part of the Constitution of 1791.
Within a year, the revolution became radicalized. Many of the nobility fled to Germany. The King attempted to leave the country and asked for help from his brother in law, Leopold II of Austria. Jacobin clubs were established as extreme radicals. Girondin groups were more moderate and cautious but still wished to go war to protect the Revolution.
Leopold II called for monarchs and kings to oppose the revolution and topple the government to restore Louis XVI. The National Assembly of France declared war on Austria in April 1792.
The war went poorly for France and many blamed the aristocratic officers. Inflation became rampant as more currency was printed. The radicals feared a clerical and aristocratic reaction. German princes announced they wanted to restore the monarchy.
The Jacobins believed that a counter-revolution would erase all gains of the past few years. They established a commune in Paris, demanded that Louis XVI should be deposed and wanted to establish a republic of France. In September 1792, massacres against the aristocrats and clergy – enemies of the republic – spread throughout France. The king was beheaded in January 1793 as Europe and Great Britain confronted the revolution. Civil war broke out as a Royal Catholic Army was formed. Lyons and Marseilles was taken by counter-revolutionaries. Inflation continued, the Jacobins confiscated all church property and fear of an invasion resulted in all moderates being expelled from the government.
The Reign of Terror began! Robespierre led the Committee of Public Safety that had the goals of winning the war, suppressing enemies of the state and establishing a “Republic of Virtue". A universal draft resulted in an army fighting for France and not the monarchy. Coalition forces were driven out of France as the revolutionary forces rallied around their nation. Surveillance committees were formed to root out enemies of the state. Almost twenty thousand were sent to the Guillotine. A new dress code, a new calendar and a new religion – the Cult of the Supreme Being - was established. Inflation was brought under control. National unity was rising; the international crisis seemed to be over as extreme measures were justified.
Robespierre
However, the excess of the Terror alienated many Frenchmen and the Thermidorian Reaction of July 1794 ended the Reign of Terror. Robespierre was executed on the same Guillotine that he condemned so many others to die. The Commune was disbanded and the Committee of Public safety abolished. The Period of the Directory (1795 – 1799) began.
The Directory elected deputies based on wealth or service in the military. It was a bicameral body with executive power vested in a five man Directory. It was a moderate body challenged by the left and the right. Although it was never popular, it wasn’t until 1799 that it was overthrown by a thirty year old general, Napoleon Bonaparte.
By 1799 many people yearned for a return to stability and one man promised to provide it - Napoleon Bonaparte. He first came to the public's notice in September 1795 when he suppressed a riot in Paris with a 'whiff of grapeshot'. In 1796-97 he became a hero when he led a brilliant campaign against the Austrians in North Italy. At first Napoleon was made 'First Consul'. There were two other consuls but Napoleon had the real power. The new constitution was accepted by the people in a referendum. Napoleon was made a consul for 10 years but in 1802 in another referendum the people voted that he should be made consul for life. Then in 1804 Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Napoleon kept some of the achievements of the French Revolution. Equality before the law was preserved and careers were open to anyone of talent and ability. There was no return to a privileged nobility.
On the other hand Napoleon introduced censorship of the press and even imprisonment without trial. Napoleon also appointed prefects to run the departments and he created a strong, centralized bureaucracy. He also reduced women's rights and reintroduced slavery to the French colonies. Napoleon also made a concordat (agreement) with the Pope in 1801. Furthermore Napoleon drew up a new code of laws to govern France. It was published in 1804 and was called the Code Napoleon.
The Triumverate (1799 – 1804) had three consuls, led by Napoleon. In 1802, Napoleon was elected by a plebiscite as first consul for life. In 1804, a rumor of a royalist plot resulted in the young general being elected emperor to save the country from a Bourbon restoration. This was ratified by a plebiscite.
The Empire had authoritative aspects as well as revolutionary features. Napoleon consolidated economic and social gains of the peasants and bourgeoisie, and this led to a period of domestic stability. He also instituted systems of merit to reward talented officers and administrators. The monarchs of Russia, Austria and ‘Germany’ could not overcome their mistrust of each other, nor adapt to new methods of warfare. Austria was defeated in 1804, Russia in 1805, Prussia in 1806, and Prussia and Russia again in 1807. By 1810, Napoleon ruled the largest empire since the time of the Caesars. He was not only Emperor of France, but his family became kings of Italy, Germany, Holland and Spain. The ‘Little Corporal’ married a Hapsburg princess in 1810, cementing an economic alliance with Austria. England remained outside his control and threatened his empire with the most powerful navy in the world. The Continental System attempted an embargo of any trade with Great Britain. Russia resisted this blockade and Napoleon invaded Russia.
An army marches on its stomach! Napoleon
The French Revolution
Effect of Napoleon's Wars on Europe
Timeline, France - 19th century
Paintings of Napoleon
25 Facts about Napoleon
Napoleon Bonaparte (45 minutes)
CLASS Five, February 6
Women and the French revolution
Women's Rights
FEMINISM
Seven things about feminism.
Questions: How are women like men? How are women unlike men?
Physically? Emotionally? Intellectually? What is the nature of women? Of man?
Women have different sex organs, they have reproductive organs, they are usually shorter, have higher voices, do not have facial hair (except for my seventh grade teacher, Mrs Swanstrom). Furthermore, they are not as strong, do not have the same athletic ability, do not possess the same endurance as men, are more emotional, are less rational, they are more caring,
Are some of these descriptions merely attitudes promulgated by a male dominated culture? Recall that not too long ago, women were banned from the Boston Marathon. And when women played basketball, the offense and defense were relegated to staying in a half court. Today, the UNC women's soccer team could easily have defeated the men's varsity soccer team of Hofstra in 1962. . Even with physical differences, do women have the same qualities as men?
Women’s Rights. What is a right?
What are your rights? What is a right? If you search for the word right in the dictionary, you will find it carries many different meanings. It might mean correct, or suitable, the opposite of left, a political label, a type of angle, to restore. For our purposes, let’s use the word in the sense of a privilege, something we are entitled to.
Do women have rights? Are these rights the same that men have?
In some Asian countries, female babies were killed at birth. This reflects a patriarchal society and the low status of women in that society. Male children grow up and by working in the fields, could support their parents. Also, this practice relieves a father from the expense of a dowry for his daughter.
Two examples:
The Bible tells of Jephtha, who asks God for victory in battle, and promises to sacrifice whoever first greets him when he returns home. His only daughter is first out the door of his house. She becomes a burnt offering, and Jephtha goes unpunished. When Agamemnon needed a fair wind to fill the sails of his ships so he could go to war at Troy, he sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia, to please the gods. Instead of being accused of filicide, his soldiers applauded him.
The Declaration of Independence states that all MEN are created equal. The Declaration of the Rights of MAN and Citizen makes no mention of women. Women were excluded from political activity.
Despite this, in the 1800’s women and some classes of men were concerned with equality and the right to participate in government.
When the United States Constitution was ratified it is estimated that half the population of white men were disenfranchised because of property qualifications. Women were prohibited from participating in government.
Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John when he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, “Remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or representation.”
Suffrage movement in England
Suffrage movement, the United States
Aint I a Woman?
Feminism embraces more than suffrage. In addition to political rights, women in the nineteenth century fought for social, cultural, economic and yes, even sexual rights. Although a few women had participated in government (Queen Elizabeth, Lucretia Borgia, Catherine Di Medici, Empress Maria Theresa, Czarinas Catherine, Anna, Elizabeth, and Catherine the Great) most women in the nineteenth century were consigned to a subservient role. Women outnumbered men in nineteenth century Europe but few men wanted them to participate in government. Every European country excluded women from the political process. In fact the French Revolution considered women to be a cause of that revolt pointing to the pernicious influence of women at Louis XVI’s court and the prevalence of the ‘salons’ where women acted as hostesses.
Olympe de Gourges wrote the Declaration of Rights of Woman and Female Citizen, calling for voting rights, freedom of speech, freedom to write, freedom to divorce, property rights, rights to higher education, and the right to participate in elected governments and the economy. She paraphrased the Rights of Man as follows, “All citizens including women are equally admissible to all public dignities, offices and employments, according to their capacity, and with no other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.” She was sent to the guillotine by the Jacobins!
In England, Mary Wollstonecraft published the Vindication of the Rights of Women. She died giving birth to daughter, Mary. Mary went on to write Frankenstein. She attacked Rousseau who claimed that women should only have a role in domestic life. Mary also wrote against the Divine Rights of husbands and compared it to the Divine Rights of kings.
Utopian socialists, Robert Owens and Saint Simone argued and published on behalf of women. William Thompson and Anna Wheeler published Appeal of One-Half the Human Race in 1825 stating that women have the unique ability to understand and work for the happiness of mankind. Therefore, they would make excellent legislators. Germaine de Stael wrote the first account of the French Revolution and also argued for the right to divorce. Publications under the title of The Free Woman appeared with female authors signing with their first name and an X since they did not want to use their father’s name. Jeanne Deroin wrote a journal, Women’s Opinion, and described women as less selfish because of their maternal instincts.
Emily Dickinson, A woman poet???
Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves, And Immortality.
We slowly drove, he knew no haste, And I had put away
My labour, and my leisure too, For his civility.
We passed the school where children played, Their lessons scarcely done;
We passed the fields of gazing grain, We passed the setting sun.
We paused before a house that seemed A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible, The cornice but a mound.
Since then 'tis centuries; but each Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads Were toward eternity.
Here is an example of one woman's assertion of her sexuality (?)
Wild Nights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvnqxz-Sfqk
John Adams, Wild Nights (stop at 4:40, begin again at 6:40)
This poem as an example of the Dionysian/Apollonian conflict? (Nietsche "The further development of art is bound up with the duality of the Apollonian and the Dionysian, just as reproduction depends upon the duality of the sexes.")
Nietsche on women reflecting a 19th century view?
"Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution—that is pregnancy."
The Anti-Feminists.
Should women be relegated solely to the domestic sphere? The world was changing (the Industrial Revolution, the growth of cities and less reliance on tradition and family, smaller families due to birth control). The opposition to women’s rights was based on sociological, biological, and psychological arguments.
Sociological; men have always enjoyed a hierarchical relation with women. Men know how to lead a well-organized society. Families are the model for the state and men are natural leaders. Men administer justice. They have aristocratic privileges.
Biological; women are physically different from men. Reproductive functions do not permit women to be rational. The menstrual cycle justifies exclusion from politics. (Donald Trump?) Men use reason to a greater extent. Women’s needs are all private and domestic. The Goncourt brothers, who wrote extensively on the Siege of Paris and the Paris Commune, stated that women’s strength is in the pelvic region. The strength of men is found in the upper regions of their bodies, the nobler parts. (Recall Plato’s three aspects of mankind, rationality, bravery, and the appetites.) A pseudo-science, phrenology, claimed that studies of brain size and shape indicated intelligence and men had high foreheads which made them more capable of learning and abstract thought than women. These theories were also used as a rationale for racism and later, Nazi policies.
Psychological; women are more emotional than men. Women are more sympathetic than men These qualities are in conflict with beliefs about Darwinian principles of survival and the imperialistic, militaristic and expansionist policies prevalent in European governments at that time.
George Sand, (Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin) wrote novels that challenged these theories. She was married to an abusive husband who opposed all independence for her. Divorce was illegal and she left him stating that she wanted to become, “as nearly a free woman as our wretched civilization permits.” She also said that she would rather be in prison than ever entering into a marriage again. Aurore carried on a number of affairs with many artists, including Frederick Chopin. And she shocked European society when rumors of a lesbian relationship arose. Her scandalous behavior included wearing pants, smoking cigarettes and living in sin.
John Stuart Mill promoted equality of the sexes, wrote The Subjection of Women and promoted women’s rights. Mill was famous for his Utilitarian theory of the greatest good for the greatest number. In the English Parliament he argued for the right of women to vote. He believed that all women were simply slaves and that the relationship between men and women amounted to legal subordination. The oppression of women was a relic of ancient times and these prejudices impeded the progress of humanity. He wanted to replace the word, “man”, with “person”. He stated that since women have never been given opportunities, we don’t know what they are capable of. Mill opposed the sociological, biological and psychological arguments of women’s inferiority.
Gradually, women were given the right to vote in Europe, but not until the twentieth century. France did not allow women to vote until 1944! Although women were permitted to divorce in France in 1792, that privilege was abolished in 1816 and was reinstated in 1884.
Slavery and Equality
Slavery In Europe,
International Slavery Museum, Liverpool
American Slavery
The Compromises
Congress, Senate and House (Slaves count as 3/5 for state representation.) Passing laws - slave states and free states. Balance in Senate - Senators appointed by states - Expansion, Northwest territory, Louisiana Territory, Texas Annexation, Mexican American War, Expeditions into Central America, Cuba to keep balance between slave and free states in the Senate.(Both Houses of Congress needed to pass any law.)
The Missouri Compromise
Compromise of 1850;
The Five Bills of the Compromise of 1850 The goal of the Compromise bills was to deal with the spread of slavery to territories in order to keep northern and southern interests in balance.
The Compromise of 1850 was key in delaying the start of the Civil War until 1861. It temporarily lessened the rhetoric between northern and southern interests, thereby delaying secession for 11 years.
The Fugitive Slave Act
The Kansas Nebraska Act
The Balance of Power in the Senate
Sectional disputes dominated debate during the Senate’s Golden Age, the period between the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 that brought to that chamber a group of talented legislators and powerful orators. In the Senate, where the Constitution established an equality of states, there existed a delicate balance between North and South, slave and free states. For many years, senators crafted legislation designed to resolve sectional conflicts and avoid secession and civil war. One of the first compromises was the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution which increased the southern population for purposes of the House of representatives and the electoral college. In the 1850s, however, further efforts at compromise failed. The Senate endured a violent and turbulent decade that brought an end to its Golden Age and propelled the nation to the brink of war.
The rapid expansion of the nation, as settlers moved west and new territories applied for statehood, repeatedly raised the issue of slavery. The Constitution allowed slavery to exist in the states but left Congress to decide its status in the territories. The Northern states, having abolished slavery, sought to prevent its spread, while the Southern states, having grown more dependent on slave labor, asserted the rights of Southerners to transport their way of life into the new territories. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise drew a line across the nation at the 36th parallel, above which slavery would be prohibited, and below which it could expand. When the war with Mexico, from 1846 to 1848, resulted in vast new territories in the southwest, the debate over expansion of slavery was renewed.
In 1850 Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky introduced a package of compromise measures to relieve the sectional tensions created by territorial expansion. Aware of the controversial nature of his proposals, Clay urged his colleagues to “beware, to pause, to reflect before they lend themselves to any purposes which shall destroy that Union.” On March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts rose from his Senate seat and declared: “I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American . . . I speak today for the preservation of the Union.” Other senators, most notably John Calhoun of South Carolina, opposed Clay’s plan. With Webster’s support, and with the assistance of Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, Congress passed revised versions of Clay’s bills, which became law in September 1850. The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state, left open the possibility of slavery in the territories of New Mexico and Utah, abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and created a stronger fugitive slave law.
Anxious to build a transcontinental railroad from Chicago to the West Coast, Senator Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 to organize those territories for statehood. To meet the objections of Southerners who were promoting a southern route for the railroad, the act opened the territories for settlement, but provided that the settlers, through “popular sovereignty,” could allow or prohibit slavery. This undermined the 1820 Missouri Compromise and further inflamed the passions in the North and the South. Both slaveholders and abolitionists flooded into the new territories to influence votes on state constitutions. Communities erupted into violence in what became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Intended to settle sectional disputes, the Kansas-Nebraska Act instead brought the nation closer to civil war.
Frederick Douglass, speech on Fourth of July
Dred Scott
Harriet Tubman
by ELI LEHRER April 21, 2016
Harriett Tubman was a gun-toting, Jesus-loving spy who blazed the way for women to play a significant role in military and political affairs. Indeed, her work on the Underground Railroad was mostly a prelude to her real achievements. Born into slavery as Araminta Ross, Tubman knew the slave system’s inhumanity firsthand: She experienced the savage beatings and family destruction that were par for the course. She eventually escaped and, like most who fled, freed herself largely by her own wits. Tubman’s work on the Underground Railroad was mostly a prelude to her real achievements. She later went back south — always carrying a gun she wasn’t afraid to use — to help guide her own family and many others out of the plantations. The courage and will that this took is difficult to fathom. But she’s really a secondary figure in the history of the Underground Railroad. Historians estimate that she led 300 or so people to freedom, while figures like William Sill and Levi Coffin helped bring freedom to thousands. This isn’t to say that Tubman is a minor figure. To the contrary, what she did during the Civil War secures her an important place in history. The Union, fighting a war mostly on southern soil, desperately needed good intelligence. Tubman’s exploits on the Underground Railroad, quick wits, mastery of stealth, knowledge of local geography, and personal bravery made her a near-perfect scout and spy. She could often “hide” in plain sight, since white-supremacist southerners probably were not inclined to consider a small African-American woman a threat.
Her quasi-memoir Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman (told to Sarah Bradford and written in the third person) explains how things worked. While African Americans were suspicious — often rightly — of Union soldiers, they were willing to trust Tubman. “To Harriet they would tell anything,” Bradford writes. “It became quite important that she should accompany expeditions going up the rivers, or into unexplored parts of the country, to control and get information from those whom they took with them as guides.” Tubman was one of the most valuable field-intelligence assets the Union Army had. She had hundreds of intelligence contacts and could establish new ones — particularly among African Americans — when nobody else could. Tubman was one of the most valuable field-intelligence assets the Union Army had. During one of her scouting missions along the Combahee River, she became the first woman and one of the first African Americans to command a significant number of U.S. troops in combat. The raid she organized and helped to command freed far more enslaved people than her decades of work on the Underground Railroad. She also was a strong advocate of allowing African Americans into the Union Army. She knew Robert Gould Shaw, who commanded the almost entirely African-American 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry regiment — the unit at the center of the 1989 film Glory. A (probably apocryphal) legend even has it that she cooked his last meal before the heroic assault in which he and much of his regiment perished. In her “retirement” — she never really stopped working until she became ill at the very end of her life — Tubman remained a political presence. A friend of Secretary of State William H. Seward, she settled in his hometown of Auburn, N.Y., on land he sold her. There, she helped to build both a church (she was devoutly religious) and a privately run retirement home. She also fought for women’s suffrage, supported Republican politicians, and advocated for fair treatment of black Civil War veterans, which they rarely received. In short, Harriet Tubman was a black, Republican, gun-toting, veterans’ activist, with ninja-like spy skills and strong Christian beliefs.
by ELI LEHRER April 21, 2016
Statements by Calhoun and Jefferson Davis;
Calhoun,
"The two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals."
Jefferson Davis
"I say that the lower race of human beings that constitute the substratum of what is termed the slave population of the South, elevates every white man in our community … It is the presence of a lower caste, those lower by their mental and physical organization, controlled by the higher intellect of the white man, that gives this superiority to the white laborer. Menial services are not there performed by the white man. We have none of our brethren sunk to the degradation of being menials. That belongs to the lower race—the descendants of Ham."
The Road to the Civil War
African Americans in the Civil War
Civil War and Reconstruction
Abraham Galloway
Blacks in the Civil War
Uncle Sam Wants You???
After Fort Sumter, the Union Army called for volunteers. The Hannibal guards from Pittsburgh and Crisps Attucks Guards from Ohio were thanked by Lincoln with the understanding that the war was "a white man's war". The Republican administration barred blacks from the army and returned escaped slaves to rebel masters. General George McClellan believed that if slaves rose in the South, Confederates would stop fighting the North and engage the insurrectionists to the benefit of the Union forces. When General John Fremont issued a proclamation freeing slaves of Missouri rebels, Lincoln revoked the proclamation. Propaganda campaigns began to call for colonizing blacks in central America. At a White House conference with leading black Americans, Lincoln stated that there were broad differences between the white and black races and added, "I think your race suffer greatly, many of them living among us, while ours suffer from your presence . . . it is better for us both . . . to be separated." ( see Before the Mayflower, p 192).
After suffering losses on the battlefield, Congress forbade Union forces from returning escaped slaves to their owners and gave Lincoln discretion to use blacks in the Union Army. In the summer of 1862, Lincoln formulated the draft of the Emancipation Proclamation. All that was needed so the President did not appear desperate was victory on the battlefield. That came at Antietam. the Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863.
Black regiments were formed and at the end of 1863, 50,000 blacks were enlisted in the Union Army, but racial prejudice persisted as blacks received seven dollars per month as opposed to the thirteen given to white privates. And confederate vengeance resulted in massacres of blacks prisoners at Fort Pillow, Tennessee in 1864. Official records show that 185,000 blacks served in the Union forces. It is estimated that 37,000 died fighting. This does not account for the thousands of deaths as citizens, not soldiers.
The Fight for Equal Rights: Black Soldiers in the Civil War (National Archives)
Broadside for Black Enlistment
"Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship." Frederick Douglass
Eric Foner on the Emancipation Proclamation.
Emancipation Proclamation
The issues of emancipation and military service were intertwined from the onset of the Civil War. News from Fort Sumter set off a rush by free black men to enlist in U.S. military units. They were turned away, however, because a Federal law dating from 1792 barred Negroes from bearing arms for the U.S. army (although they had served in the American Revolution and in the War of 1812). In Boston disappointed would-be volunteers met and passed a resolution requesting that the Government modify its laws to permit their enlistment.
The Lincoln administration wrestled with the idea of authorizing the recruitment of black troops, concerned that such a move would prompt the border states to secede. When Gen. John C. Frémont (photo citation: 111-B-3756) in Missouri and Gen. David Hunter in South Carolina issued proclamations that emancipated slaves in their military regions and permitted them to enlist, their superiors sternly revoked their orders. By mid-1862, however, the escalating number of former slaves (contrabands), the declining number of white volunteers, and the increasingly pressing personnel needs of the Union Army pushed the Government into reconsidering the ban.
As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 Lincoln presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee's first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized black regiments. Recruitment was slow until black leaders such as Frederick Douglass (photo citation: 200-FL-22) encouraged black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. (Two of Douglass's own sons contributed to the war effort.) Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of black soldiers.
By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman (photo citation: 200-HN-PIO-1), who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.
Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.
In addition to the perils of war faced by all Civil War soldiers, black soldiers faced additional problems stemming from racial prejudice. Racial discrimination was prevalent even in the North, and discriminatory practices permeated the U.S. military. Segregated units were formed with black enlisted men and typically commanded by white officers and black noncommissioned officers. The 54th Massachusetts was commanded by Robert Shaw and the 1st South Carolina by Thomas Wentworth Higginson—both white. Black soldiers were initially paid $10 per month from which $3 was automatically deducted for clothing, resulting in a net pay of $7. In contrast, white soldiers received $13 per month from which no clothing allowance was drawn. In June 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Black soldiers received the same rations and supplies. In addition, they received comparable medical care.
The black troops, however, faced greater peril than white troops when captured by the Confederate Army. In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it.
The document featured with this article is a recruiting poster directed at black men during the Civil War. It refers to efforts by the Lincoln administration to provide equal pay for black soldiers and equal protection for black POWs.
Freedom and Emancipation.
13th Amendment (1865)
Neither slavery not involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
14th Amendment (1868)
. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
15th Amendment (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The Thirteenth Amendment
Reconstruction
"Slavery was a bad thing, slaves prayed for freedom. But freedom of the kind we got with nothin' to live on was bad. Two snakes full of poison. . . . Their names was slavery and freedom. The snake called slavery lay with his head pointed south and the snake called freedom lay with his head pointed north. Both bit the nigger and they was both bad!"
Patsy Mitchner, Raleigh.
"Lincoln got the praise for freeing us. But did he do it? He give us freedom without giving us any chance to live to ourselves and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food and clothing. And he held us through our necessity and want in a state of servitude little better than slavery. . . . The Yankees helped free us but they let us be put back in slavery again."
Thomas Hall, Orange County.
Despite gaining their freedom, African-Americans faced struggles in the years after the Civil War. The Union victory in the Civil War in 1865 may have given some 4 million slaves their freedom, but the process of rebuilding the South during the Reconstruction period (1865-1877) introduced a new set of significant challenges. Under the administration of President Andrew Johnson in 1865 and 1866, new southern state legislatures passed restrictive “black codes” to control the labor and behavior of former slaves and other African Americans. Outrage in the North over these codes eroded support for the approach known as Presidential Reconstruction and led to the triumph of the more radical wing of the Republican Party. During Radical Reconstruction, which began in 1867, newly enfranchised blacks gained a voice in government for the first time in American history, winning election to southern state legislatures and even to the U.S. Congress. In less than a decade, however, reactionary forces–including the Ku Klux Klan–would reverse the changes wrought by Radical Reconstruction in a violent backlash that restored white supremacy in the South.
EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
At the outset of the Civil War, to the dismay of the more radical abolitionists in the North, President Abraham Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a goal of the Union war effort. To do so, he feared, would drive the border slave states still loyal to the Union into the Confederacy and anger more conservative northerners. By the summer of 1862, however, the slaves themselves had pushed the issue, heading by the thousands to the Union lines as Lincoln’s troops marched through the South. Their actions debunked one of the strongest myths underlying Southern devotion to the “peculiar institution”–that many slaves were truly content in bondage–and convinced Lincoln that emancipation had become a political and military necessity. In response to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed more than 3 million slaves in the Confederate states by January 1, 1863, blacks enlisted in the Union Army in large numbers, reaching some 180,000 by war’s end.
Did You Know? During Reconstruction, the Republican Party in the South represented a coalition of blacks (who made up the overwhelming majority of Republican voters in the region) along with "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags," as white Republicans from the North and South, respectively, were known. Emancipation changed the stakes of the Civil War, ensuring that a Union victory would mean large-scale social revolution in the South. It was still very unclear, however, what form this revolution would take. Over the next several years, Lincoln considered ideas about how to welcome the devastated South back into the Union, but as the war drew to a close in early 1865 he still had no clear plan. In a speech delivered on April 11, while referring to plans for Reconstruction in Louisiana, Lincoln proposed that some blacks–including free blacks and those who had enlisted in the military–deserved the right to vote. He was assassinated three days later, however, and it would fall to his successor to put plans for Reconstruction in place.
PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION
At the end of May 1865, President Andrew Johnson announced his plans for Reconstruction, which reflected both his staunch Unionism and his firm belief in states’ rights. In Johnson’s view, the southern states had never given up their right to govern themselves, and the federal government had no right to determine voting requirements or other questions at the state level. Under Johnson’s Presidential Reconstruction, all land that had been confiscated by the Union Army and distributed to the freed slaves by the army or the Freedmen’s Bureau (established by Congress in 1865) reverted to its prewar owners. Apart from being required to uphold the abolition of slavery (in compliance with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution), swear loyalty to the Union and pay off war debt, southern state governments were given free reign to rebuild themselves. As a result of Johnson’s leniency, many southern states in 1865 and 1866 successfully enacted a series of laws known as the “black codes,” which were designed to restrict freed blacks’ activity and ensure their availability as a labor force. These repressive codes enraged many in the North, including numerous members of Congress, which refused to seat congressmen and senators elected from the southern states. In early 1866, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau and Civil Rights Bills and sent them to Johnson for his signature. The first bill extended the life of the bureau, originally established as a temporary organization charged with assisting refugees and freed slaves, while the second defined all persons born in the United States as national citizens who were to enjoy equality before the law. After Johnson vetoed the bills–causing a permanent rupture in his relationship with Congress that would culminate in his impeachment in 1868–the Civil Rights Act became the first major bill to become law over presidential veto.
RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION
After northern voters rejected Johnson’s policies in the congressional elections in late 1866, Republicans in Congress took firm hold of Reconstruction in the South. The following March, again over Johnson’s veto, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which temporarily divided the South into five military districts and outlined how governments based on universal (male) suffrage were to be organized. The law also required southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment, which broadened the definition of citizenship, granting “equal protection” of the Constitution to former slaves, before they could rejoin the Union. In February 1869, Congress approved the 15th Amendment (adopted in 1870), which guaranteed that a citizen’s right to vote would not be denied “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” By 1870, all of the former Confederate states had been admitted to the Union, and the state constitutions during the years of Radical Reconstruction were the most progressive in the region’s history. African-American participation in southern public life after 1867 would be by far the most radical development of Reconstruction, which was essentially a large-scale experiment in interracial democracy unlike that of any other society following the abolition of slavery. Blacks won election to southern state governments and even to the U.S. Congress during this period. Among the other achievements of Reconstruction were the South’s first state-funded public school systems, more equitable taxation legislation, laws against racial discrimination in public transport and accommodations and ambitious economic development programs (including aid to railroads and other enterprises).
RECONSTRUCTION COMES TO AN END
After 1867, an increasing number of southern whites turned to violence in response to the revolutionary changes of Radical Reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations targeted local Republican leaders, white and black, and other African Americans who challenged white authority. Though federal legislation passed during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in 1871 took aim at the Klan and others who attempted to interfere with black suffrage and other political rights, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South after the early 1870s as support for Reconstruction waned. Racism was still a potent force in both South and North, and Republicans became more conservative and less egalitarian as the decade continued. In 1874–after an economic depression plunged much of the South into poverty–the Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War. When Democrats waged a campaign of violence to take control of Mississippi in 1875, Grant refused to send federal troops, marking the end of federal support for Reconstruction-era state governments in the South. By 1876, only Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina were still in Republican hands. In the contested presidential election that year, Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes reached a compromise with Democrats in Congress: In exchange for certification of his election, he acknowledged Democratic control of the entire South. The Compromise of 1876 marked the end of Reconstruction as a distinct period, but the struggle to deal with the revolution ushered in by slavery’s eradication would continue in the South and elsewhere long after that date. A century later, the legacy of Reconstruction would be revived during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as African Americans fought for the political, economic and social equality that had long been denied them.
Pauli Murray
African Americans in the U.S. Congress
1866: The Birth of Civil Rights
Slaughter House Cases
According to Lerone Bennett, Jr. the Supreme Court ruling said there were two categories of citizenship, state and federal and the 14th Amendment only protected federal citizenship.
Civil Rights Cases, 1883
In 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875, forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
The Failure of Reconstruction.
Republicans compromised with the white south. They abandoned interference in the affairs of southern states in return for the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in the disputed election of 1877. Blacks began to move out of the South to western states such as Oklahoma, Indiana, and Kansas seeking opportunity denied them at homes. They were known as "Exodusters". Thousands of blacks left eastern North Carolina.
After Reconstruction
The KuKlux Klan
Who was Jim Crow?
A song and dance vaudville show? Minstrels, blackface, stereotypes?
A Negro?
A comic way of life?
An Ohio slave?
Derived from “Black as a crow”?
A slaveowner named Old Man Crow?
Jim Crow Museum
www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/origins.htm
Jim Crow
Jim Crow in Hollywood
A Brief History of Jim Crow
A Century of Segregation (PBS)
Birth of A Nation 1915
Stereotype of sexual predatiion
Sex! “Whenever the Constitution comes between me and the virtue of the white women in the South, I say to hell with the Constitution!” (Cole L Blease, South Carolinian.)
Southern laws;
White nurses forbidden to minister to blacks. White teachers forbidden to teach blacks. White and black mill workers forbidden to look out the same window. New Orleans segregated white and black prostitutes. Separate Bibles for whites and blacks. Whites cannot shake hands with blacks. Whites and blacks cannot play checkers together. Blacks must address white men as "sir". Restaurants and transportation segregated. No black playgrounds within two blocks of white playgrounds. Athletic events between whites and blacks illegal. Schools - $13.98 for white students, $2.57 for blacks (1915, South Carolina). There were no state sponsored black high schools as late as 1933 in Alabama. Blacks and whites forbidden to work together in factories. Marriage and sexual intercourse between whites and blacks illegal. Voting restrictions poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, Grandfather clauses.
North Carolina Laws; (among others) Textbooks: Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. Libraries: The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. Militia: The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers.
Approximately @10,000 blacks were lynched between 1878 and 1898. ((@500 per year, @41 per month, @1 1/2 per day)
SIXTH CLASS, FEBRUARY 13
The Industrial Revolution
http://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution
British Empire, Jeremy Paxson
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJg8MX5QStc&list=PLx6AngGF2_C77trCTuOrGlOM6qANVmDGD
A British Revolution in the 19th Century?
By Professor Eric Evans
While the French Revolution of 1789 reconfigured the political contours of Europe, Britain seemed impervious to revolutionary change. But how exceptional was Britain?
No violent political revolution has occurred in Britain since the civil wars of 1642-51. Yet in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries virtually every other state in Europe has experienced at least one forcible overthrow of government and its replacement by another, from the French Revolution of 1789 to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Why was Britain different?
The fall of the Bastille prison in Paris on 14th July 1789 is a key event in European history. It symbolised the beginning of a revolution in France, leading to the overthrow of the old regime and the execution of King Louis XVI, his wife and many leading members of the French aristocracy. Within a few years, as the new order struggled to assert itself, Napoleon Bonaparte emerged in France as one of the most extraordinary military and political leaders in history.
Under Napoleon's leadership, the French political, education and legal systems were fundamentally remodelled. Despite the reappearance - for a time - of the French monarchy, the Revolution reconfigured not only France but also the political contours of Europe as a whole. While the entire authority structure in France was overturned, the heady ideals of 'liberty, equality and fraternity' - proclaimed by the French revolutionaries and drawn from the European Enlightenment of the 18th century - seemed to offer a template for change across the whole of the continent, and beyond.
Britain, however, seemed impervious to revolutionary change. Though every other aspect of British life in the 19th century was transformed by industrial, social and cultural development, the country's rulers seemed somehow to avoid the mistakes of their continental counterparts. When Britain was at the peak of its imperial power at the end of the 19th century, historians charted the country's rise to greatness over the preceding hundred years or so. They were inclined to stress British genius for avoiding fundamental conflict between classes and social groups, and the country's ability to manage evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, political change.
On this analysis Britain's transformation was a major force for good. Its commercial and industrial revolutions offered the country's increasing population jobs and greater prosperity. In an age of widespread religious belief, many discerned the hand of God directing the progress of the British nation, first protecting it from invasion and then helping with its commercial and territorial expansion. In 1894, the famous imperial politician, Lord Curzon, could claim that Britain ruled, under God, over 'the greatest empire for good that the world has seen'.
Political repression
But how exceptional was Britain? Did it avoid revolution by divine intervention, by good management and wise statesmanship - or simply by luck? Historians nowadays are far less likely to ascribe Britain's largely peaceful progress in the 19th century to divine intervention. Some have argued that the threat of violent revolution was indeed real and that Britain escaped it, not by the hand of God but by the skin of its teeth.
The French Revolution inspired reformers in Britain as much as it frightened the British Crown and landowning classes. It is worth remembering that the Hanoverian dynasty, which provided Britain with its monarchs from 1714 to 1901, was only rarely popular, and was frequently criticised for its lack of understanding of the British people. Anti-government cartoons in the 1790s often included the most scabrous, even treasonable, representations of King George.
In that decade, a number of political movements emerged to press for parliamentary reform. Some, like the London Corresponding Society, were organised and directed by skilled craftsmen and depended on the support of working people. They embraced political objectives drawn directly from French examples. They wanted to replace royal and aristocratic rule with representative government based on the Rights of Man - the influential political pamphlet by Thomas Paine.
The government of William Pitt the Younger, already at war with revolutionary France, was thoroughly alarmed by the prospect that revolutionary ideas might be exported to Britain, and it responded to these ideas with political repression. From 1794, radical political leaders could be arrested without trial. In 1795, during a period of high food prices and severe public agitation, stones were thrown at the King's carriage as he went to Westminster to open a new session of parliament. In the fevered atmosphere of the time, such actions could easily be interpreted as portending revolution. Within weeks, a parliament dominated by fearful landowners had passed legislation that redefined the law of treason, and that made it almost impossible to hold public meetings in support of reform.
Disaffected radicals
Pitt's policies succeeded, at least on one level. Throughout the remainder of the wars with France, which went on until 1815, support for reform never again approached the heights of 1795. Support among all ranks in society for what was increasingly seen as a patriotic war also boosted the government. However, the most determined of the disaffected radicals were merely driven underground, and in the years 1796-1803 government spies found evidence of revolutionary conspiracy.
Much of this evidence centred around Irishmen. Radicals in fact attempted revolution in Ireland in 1798, against British domination of their lands. Had the hoped-for substantial French support for the insurgents been forthcoming, the endeavour might have come much closer to success. In the event, the most important consequence was the creation of a new 'United Kingdom' of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, to which substantial numbers of Irish folk were never reconciled. The Society of United Irishmen was undoubtedly a revolutionary organisation, whose objective was the forcible overthrow of the British government, linked through a series of secret networks to cells of English revolutionaries.
No doubt the numbers of such revolutionaries were small. However, few, if any, revolutions succeed because of weight of numbers - whatever the new revolutionary regimes might claim after they have installed themselves securely in power. Neither the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia, nor the Chinese revolution of 1949, could plausibly claim to have a democratic mandate. Assassins and revolutionaries may fail many times against superior forces. If they succeed once, however, they have achieved their objective. British politicians were well aware of this.
Revolutionary activities
Against the lowering and portentous backdrop of revolution in France, the most important influence on the political lives of two generations of politicians from the younger Pitt (1759-1806) to Robert Peel (1788-1850), all threats of revolution were taken seriously. The authorities hastily assembled an extensive spy network. Both the Irish-inspired Despard Conspiracy of 1803 and the so-called Cato Street Conspiracy of 1820 to blow up Lord Liverpool's cabinet - to take only the best-known examples of revolutionary activity in the period - were forestalled. Their leaders were executed amid a blaze of publicity designed to confirm the government's control of the situation. Beneath the surface, however, and despite overwhelming evidence of support from the propertied classes, politicians were more concerned than they could admit.
This was because support for radical parliamentary reform never disappeared. During periods of economic turbulence, such as 1815-20 and during the so-called Reform Act crisis of 1829-32, masses of people could appear on the streets in support of either democracy or republicanism. The most famous such occasion was in August 1819 when a large crowd assembled at St Peter's Fields in central Manchester to hear a pro-reform speech from Henry 'Orator' Hunt, the most gifted radical speaker of his day. Fearing uncontainable disorder, and perhaps even revolution, the Manchester authorities over-reacted. They sent in troops to disperse the crowd by force. Eleven people were killed and the radicals were given a huge propaganda boost by referring to the event as 'Peterloo', in a grim analogy with the Duke of Wellington's famous victory over Napoleon at Waterloo four years earlier.
During the European revolutionary wars of the 1790s British government propaganda could - just about - connect George III as the symbol of the nation. His eldest son, George, however, first as Prince Regent from 1810 and then as George IV from 1820 to 1830, provoked more contempt than respect. The early 19th-century monarchy was unable to inspire national unity. Indeed, it was part of the problem.
The claim that Britain came close to revolution in 1830-32 is by no means fanciful. Support for parliamentary reform reached unprecedented heights. 'Political unions' were formed in most large towns to press for radical change. The wife of the Russian ambassador wrote to her brother: 'We... in England, are just on the brink of a revolution.' In November 1830, the Duke of Wellington's Tory government was forced to resign after the Duke had asserted - against mountainous evidence to the contrary - that the people of Britain still had confidence in the unreformed political system that ruled their lives.
Parliamentary reform
Tory governments since the 1790s had provided a strong thread of anti-reformist continuity. The Whig government that followed it under Earl Grey, however, came into office with plans for parliamentary reform, and a succession of Whig leaders proclaimed that reform was necessary to secure the state. The presence of this pro-reform government heightened expectations outside parliament, but although Grey might have been committed to reform, support from some of his senior ministers, such as Melbourne and Palmerston, was decidedly lukewarm.
Meanwhile, it rapidly became clear that opposition to reform remained strong in the House of Commons and overwhelming in the House of Lords, and this led to the Whigs' first reform bill running into the parliamentary sands. A general election held in 1831 gave the Whigs an unassailable majority for reform in the Commons but it did little to change opinion in the Lords, and the Lords' rejection of the Whigs' second reform bill in October led to widespread rioting throughout Britain. For a time, the authorities lost control of Derby, Nottingham and Bristol. Castles and country houses were hastily reinforced against attack.
During the winter of 1831-32, the nation stood on a knife-edge. In the spring, the Lords showed signs of renewed recalcitrance, and the King, as a desperation measure, invited the Duke of Wellington back to form a government. In response, reform leaders made plans to bring the country to a halt by having their supporters withdraw funds from the banks, using the slogan: 'To stop the Duke, go for Gold'.
The crisis was averted. The Lords backed down and the Reform Bill was passed. But what if the Lords had stood firm? Historians will always debate 'might-have-beens' and no one can prove things one way or the other. However, the potential for revolution in 1831-32 is clear. Public support for parliamentary reform had never been greater. Outside London, no professional police force was in place and the mechanisms of control available to the authorities were old-fashioned and creaky. There was as yet no railway network to move troops rapidly to areas that were out of control. Revolutions have been mounted elsewhere on less.
The Whigs' perception that a measure of concession to popular opinion was necessary in the interests of national security was undoubtedly correct. But if they had not won over the King and the Lords in 1832, then the potential for a revolutionary response certainly existed. So, Britain avoided political revolution in the 19th century, but it is far from clear that it was bound to do so. In 1831-32, to adapt a phrase used by the Duke of Wellington about the Battle of Waterloo, it had been a pretty 'near run thing'.
Germany
Photos of 19th century Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAg95GhyYQU
Germany in the 19th century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2SlWfmwQik
Russia and France
|
Click to set custom HTML
|
On June 24, 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte crossed the Niemen River in Lithuania with almost 680,000 soldiers and declared war on Russia. After his pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Borodino, he found the road to Moscow open, and marched into the city on September 14, expecting to be greeted by an official delegation to surrender the city. No one came to meet him however and he discovered that the Russians did not surrender at Moscow, but only retreated and adopted a scorched earth policy. When the victorious Napoleon realized he conquered an abandoned and empty city, a city stripped of all supplies, a city which was being burnt by partisans, he decided to retreat to Paris. The tragic mistake he made was to go back the same way he entered Russia.
During the march back to Paris, the French trudged over land that had been stripped of food and fodder. Towns had been torched and fields abandoned. Since there were no grasses growing, the French were unable to feed the horses needed to pull the cannons, ammunitions, and supplies. The horses were dying of hunger, as were the famished French soldiers who began to eat the only means of transport for the army. They abandoned artillery and wagons, and their cavalry ceased to exist .As they trudged along, Russian guerillas and Cossacks harassed the French. On frigid nights, French soldiers cut open dead horses and crawled inside the bodies for warmth. When Napoleon’s Grand Armee recrossed the Niemen River, they numbered only 27,000. The French were defeated by a supply line that was stretched too thin, the scorched earth policy of the Russians, and the Russians’ most able commander, General Winter.
Previously, Napoleon's military genius allowed him to dominate Europe. In 1799 Austria, Russia and Britain formed a coalition against France. However Russia left the coalition in 1800. Austria was defeated in 1800 and forced to make peace in 1801. Britain made peace in 1802 but war began again in 1803. However in 1804 Russia, Austria and Britain formed a third coalition. Austria was defeated at Austerlitz in 1805. Prussia joined the war against France in 1806 but the Prussians were routed at Jena the same year. Then French and Spanish fleets were severely defeated at Trafalgar in October 1805 ending Napoleon's hopes of invading Britain. Despite that naval defeat, by 1807 Napoleon was at his peak. Military success failed the Emperor in 1812. Napoleon's invasion of Russia ended in disaster. and in 1813 Prussia joined the war against France. Austria and Sweden also joined and the French were badly defeated at the battle of Leipzig in October 1813.
In March 1814 the allies entered Paris and Napoleon was forced to abdicate. He was exiled to Elba. However in 1815 he returned to France and was welcomed by the people. Yet he was defeated at Waterloo in June and forced to abdicate again. This time Napoleon was exiled to the island of St Helena. He died in 1821.
Napoleon was replaced by Louis XVII's brother Louis XVIII. (Louis XVI's son died in 1795 but royalists insisted he became Louis XVII after his father's death in 1793). However Louis XVIII realized he could not turn the clock back completely so he allowed France a constitution.
Revolutions of 1830 and 1848
Louis XVIII also tried to restrain those who wanted to completely undo the revolution (they were called Ultra royalists). Yet, they gained influence after the Duc de Berry was assassinated in 1820. When Louis XVIII died in 1824 his brother Charles X became king. Charles claimed to rule by divine right and had no intention of compromising with the liberals. Not surprisingly therefore, he provoked an uprising in 1830 and he was forced to abdicate.
The French were afraid of creating a republic because the other European powers would have been hostile and might have taken military action.
Instead the Duc D'Orleans was made King Louis Philippe. He reigned for 18 years and the French constitution was made more liberal. More men were allowed the vote (but only the middle classes, the workers were still excluded). Meanwhile Under Charles X the French had invaded Algeria.
At home the industrial revolution began to change France. However industrialization was slower than in other countries like Britain and Germany and France remained mainly an agricultural country. Nevertheless by 1848 there were a considerable number of urban workers in certain cities. They lived and worked in dreadful conditions and in the mid-19th century they were influenced by socialists thinkers.
In 1846-47 France suffered an economic crisis and popular discontent seethed. Finally in February 1848 a demonstration was held in Paris. Soldiers fired on the demonstrators and triggered a revolution. Louis Philippe abdicated and fled. The July monarchy, as it was called, was really only a stopgap measure.
To reduce popular discontent the provisional government created national workshops in Paris for the unemployed (some unemployed workers from the provinces came to work in them). However the workers were dissatisfied and they still held demonstrations. In June 1848 the government decided to close the workshops and they ordered the workers to disperse. However the workers refused and they manned barricades in Paris. Eventually government troops crushed the uprising.
Then, in November 1848 the new constitution was published. All men were allowed to vote and there was to be a single elected assembly and a popularly elected president.
The Second French Empire
The first emperor of France was Napoleon Bonaparte.
Who was the Emperor of the Second French Empire?
Napoleon II
or
Napoleon III
His critics found him lacking in almost every quality except stealth. He was viewed as a cold, pale, slow man who always seemed like he was not quite awake. He was called a hat without a head, a sphinx without a riddle, a grotesque mediocrity, and Napoleon the Small. Bismarck called Napoleon “a great unrecognized incapacity.” Alexander Herzen said he was deformed and mentally retarded. Mikhail Bakunin thought that Napoleon III could not make a speech without subtracting from the total of French civilization. Napoleon’s cousin claimed that if she had married him, she would have cracked his head open to see what was inside.
In December 1848, Louis Napoleon, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte was elected president.
The constitution did not allow the president to serve a second term. Therefore on 2 December 1851 Napoleon led a coup. A referendum was held and the people agreed to allow the president to change the constitution. He did so and in December 1852 he made himself Emperor Napoleon III.
The Second Empire
(How about a French soap opera?}
Josephine, first wife of Napoleon Bonaparte, was forty years old in 1802 and still had not conceived a child with the emperor. An heir to the French throne was necessary to carry on the regime and Bonaparte’s legacy. Josephine’s only children—a son and a daughter—had been born when she was married to Alexandre Beauharnais, who was executed on the guillotine in 1794, during the Reign of Terror. Fearing that she might be abandoned, Josephine came up with a plan to give Napoleon Bonaparte a male heir by marrying her daughter, Hortense, to the emperor’s brother, Louis, the future King of Holland. The issue of that marriage would carry on the line of the Bonaparte dynasty. Napoleon, who adored his stepdaughter, approved, and the wedding took place. Although Hortense detested her husband, she bore him a son in 1804, Prince Louis Napoleon, the future Napoleon III. Many believed that Napoleon’s affection for his stepdaughter was not just paternal, and whispered that he himself was Prince Louis’s father. Josephine’s plan for a male heir through her daughter and Napoleon’s brother was frustrated when Napoleon divorced her and married Marie Louise, Archduchess of Austria. Their son, Francois Charles, was born in 1811. As the natural son of the emperor, Francois Charles (Napoleon II) would have been next in line as Emperor of France, if the empire were ever restored after Napoleon’s death. However, when Francois Charles died in 1832, Louis Napoleon became the next in line, the Pretender to the Throne, Napoleon III.
Exiled from France in 1816 by the restored Bourbon dynasty, and dreaming of bringing the name of Napoleon back to power, Napoleon III attempted to reestablish the empire by enlisting the army in a coup in 1836. In a farce worthy of an Offenbach operetta, Napoleon III failed to inspire a rebellion at a small garrison and was arrested. This misadventure resulted in deportation to the United States. Later offered asylum in Great Britain, Napoleon sailed for London from New York in 1838, and conspiracies against the Bourbons and the government of France began anew. In 1840, after another failed attempt to resurrect the national glory of the Bonapartes, he was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment at the Chateau de Ham, a 500-year-old prison at Saint Quentin. Ironically, shortly after Napoleon III was imprisoned, his uncle’s remains were returned to France with much pomp and glory, and interred at Les Invalides.
Napoleon III escaped from Ham disguised as a workman and fled to London in 1846. Having been either banished from France or imprisoned for thirty-three years of his life, he returned to Paris at the age of forty-four, after the failed revolution of 1848. France now desired peace and stability, and Napoleon III, representing the glorious days of his uncle, was elected president with almost 75 percent of the popular vote. His success was due to nostalgia for the days of the First Empire rather than any specific initiatives on his part. Once elected, he tried to appeal to all interests, but especially to those of the Catholics when he supported the reinstatement of Pope Pius IX in Rome. He initiated a policy of reform that surprised and offended the parliamentary assembly, which expected him to be little more than a figurehead. Here was a man who was not connected in any way with the February and June revolts of 1848. He was personally unknown, having spent years in exile, but he possessed a name known to every Frenchman. After the election, old soldiers would visit him at his suite in the Hotel du Rhin and relive their glory days. “Vive Napoleon!” and even “Vive l’empereur!” shouted the troops as he reviewed them. Frenchmen, tired of revolution and frightened of radicals who claimed that property was theft, rallied behind Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew.
Nearing the end of his four-year term and unable to run for president again, he dissolved the government and called for elections in a coup d’état on December 2, 1851. Supported by the military that gloried in his name; by the bourgeoisie who craved order and stability; by peasant farmers who, despite conservative fears, had not become radicalized; and by the workers because he defied Parliament, Napoleon was a national hero. The financial markets showed that he enjoyed the support of the business community, as the stock market rose five francs in two days. The threat of anarchy after the 1848 revolution had convinced people of the need for a strong conservative government. Still, liberals, constitutionalists, and monarchists who did not want another Napoleon dreaming of a French Empire opposed him. The night before the coup, Napoleon III had all military drums cut open so they could not beat a tattoo that might signal any regiment opposing him. His troops marched around Paris and brutally suppressed any opposition. Almost 27,000 people were arrested and nearly 10,000 deported to Algeria. In 1852, a plebiscite was held asking if the people of France wanted an emperor. They did. Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew was elected emperor. He received more than seven million votes, with less than 650,000 opposed. After years of exile, he had finally succeeded in becoming Emperor of France. The coronation took place on December 2, 1852, the same date as his uncle’s coronation in 1804, and the forty-seventh anniversary of the celebrated French victory over Austria at Austerlitz. His lineage, in his eyes, entitled him to be emperor and gave him a sense of destiny. Napoleon III would restore the grandeur of the French nation. He considered himself democracy’s representative. As such, France did not need direct democracy; he would exercise democracy on the country’s behalf. Although male citizens enjoyed universal suffrage and could elect the senate, it meant little since the emperor chose the candidates. The legislature was powerless, since only the executive initiated laws, and the legislature could not elect its own president or decide its own proceedings. All government bodies were subservient to the emperor.
Revolutionary songs and slogans were prohibited. Singing “The Marseillaise” and displaying the tricolor flag, both symbols of the French Revolution, were banned. The words Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité were removed from public buildings. On public buildings and at the boxes at the opera house, the initials of the Republic of France—RF—were replaced by the Emperor’s initials—LN. Censorship of the press restricted any commentary on the Second Empire. Free speech was limited, as criticism of the government was forbidden. Napoleon III, by decree, possessed the power to exile anyone deemed to be radical or revolutionary, and he used this decree to crush political opposition. Cafés and wine shops were licensed in order to prevent them from becoming meeting places for seditious activity. Spies sat in restaurants watching for subversives and socialists. Napoleon III did not want another revolution, so deportation without trial awaited anyone suspected of anti-government thought or activity. Police were vigilant, and speaking one’s mind in public could be dangerous. To prevent any popular armed uprisings, the National Guard, which had fraternized with the mob in 1848, was disbanded, leaving only the regular army to maintain internal order.
Napoleon III excelled at conspiracy, since he had been constantly engaged throughout his life in intrigues to restore the purple and gold to his family. He kept his thoughts to himself and trusted few. His critics found him lacking in almost every quality except stealth. He was viewed as a cold, pale, slow man who always seemed like he was not quite awake. He was called a hat without a head, a sphinx without a riddle, a grotesque mediocrity, and Napoleon the Small. Bismarck called Napoleon “a great unrecognized incapacity.” Alexander Herzen said he was deformed and mentally retarded. Mikhail Bakunin thought that Napoleon III could not make a speech without subtracting from the total of French civilization. Napoleon’s cousin claimed that if she had married him, she would have cracked his head open to see what was inside.
Adolphe Theirs, who would become President of the Republic after the Second Empire crumbled, said, “Napoleon is a cretin whom we will manage.” Karl Marx, referring to the Second Emperor and the Second Empire, acidly commented that all great historic facts and people appear twice, “… first as tragedy, then as farce.” And Eugenie, his wife, declared to the British Minister in Paris, “I think he is an imbecile!”
A popular verse of the time ended with, “… the uncle took our capitols, while the nephew takes our capital.” (Actually this ditty was pretty mild. When his wife, Eugenie, was alone at the Louvre when the Empire was crumbling, crowds gathered outside and sang that Napoleon became emperor by election while Eugenie became empress by erection!) Napoleon III was a despot ruling a police state with a few democratic frills. The nephew of Bonaparte ruled France as dictator and emperor, but not as tyrant.
Paris, France
At times, a tree severely damaged by winter storms will burst forth in springtime with a brilliant display of blossoms, only to succumb to disease and drought during the summer, its weakened state having been disguised by the vivid flourish of color and scent. So it was of Paris during the Second Empire under Napoleon III. The population of Paris grew from one million in 1836 to almost two million by 1861. The frenetic activity of its citizens hid the decay beneath all the gaiety. The streets were newly lit at night by gas lamps, and the cafés and avenues catered to all tastes in food, drink, and morals. It seemed that Paris had one purpose: the pursuit of pleasure. There was a carnival of hedonism in the city. It was gaudy and tawdry, reflecting the emperor, Louis Napoleon. His parties and balls were renowned for excess and extravagance. His affairs were notorious. It was reported that Napoleon’s woman of the day was usually escorted into the Tuileries, where she undressed in one room and was then led into the emperor’s room, where he was naked. She was told that she may kiss the emperor anywhere on his body except his lips. The wax on his mustache might run and cause it to droop.
Prior to the Second Empire, dark, decrepit tenements filled the districts, with only one in five homes having running water. Open sewage draining down the middle of streets was augmented by the contents of chamber pots emptied from the tenement windows. Sewers drained into the Seine, the main source of drinking water for the city. Epidemics of cholera in 1832 and 1848 kept the growing population in check. Public works were grandiose memorials, commemorating the deeds of France’s rulers, and were not designed to enhance the life of Parisians. The monuments of the first Napoleon—the Arc deTriomphe du Carrousel, the Colonne Vendome, and the initial work on the Arc de Triomphe de l’Étiole, with its commanding view of the Champs-Elysées—did little to improve living conditions in the early nineteenth century. Municipal renovations following the Restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy in 1814 did not alleviate the wretched lives of the worker and peasant.
Citizens might marvel at the monuments while strolling down boulevards, unaware that the same thoroughfares served Roman soldiers. Despite their age, these roads still existed in the nineteenth century as arteries in the inner city. Narrow streets built centuries earlier encumbered travel and commerce. Wagons and carriages fed into the boulevards, already jammed with congested traffic. The few avenues that could allow horse, coach, and large vehicle traffic were poorly suited to efficient transportation. Many Prefects of the Seine attempted to improve traffic flow, but the city’s governments possessed neither the will nor the means to address the problem of transportation and housing. New streets and homes were usually built only in affluent districts. For the most part, the Prefects waited for tenements and buildings to fall into complete disrepair before condemning them and razing them. These timid magistrates would not violate financial orthodoxy and borrow money for improvements, and politicians were beholden to private interests that did not want restrictions on private property. The monarchies were too weak and the political resolve too feeble to attempt any transformation of Paris.
In the early nineteenth century, the Farmers-General Wall bordered the city. It was an inner wall built in 1785 to collect taxes on goods entering the city. An outer wall, twenty-four miles long, served as a fortified first line of defense. This wall, finished in 1844, was the longest city wall in the world, and sixteen isolated forts stood outside its boundaries to repel any invader.
The crowded arrondissements in the southeastern part of the city, where the workers lived, were hotbeds of discontent that bred revolution. French governments always feared the insurgencies that festered up from these slums. Workers and revolutionaries had erected barricades eight times in twenty years. Industrialization and the reconstruction of Paris attracted migrant workers from the countryside, and this surplus of labor insured squalid conditions for the inhabitants, as the newly arrived peasants could only afford to live in overcrowded ghettos. Men, women, and children still labored for twelve hours or more each day. Wages remained low due to the abundance of workers.
Napoleon III wanted his capital to be the centerpiece of Europe, and he used public works to convert Paris into a modern city and to employ the masses of workers, thereby preventing discontent and revolution. He had spent years away from Paris and knew firsthand the other capitals of Europe and the cities of America. However, modernization and pride were not his only reasons for changing Paris. If rebellion were to occur, Napoleon III wanted the streets to be straight and wide for his artillery, so barricades could not protect the insurgents. To keep potential revolutionaries from erecting obstacles using the paving stones from streets, Napoleon’s Paris was the first city to have streets covered with asphalt. He hoped that public works, combined with festivities and public events, would mask the despotism of his regime.
Napoleon expropriated the fortunes and estates of the deposed Orleanists and used the money to finance hospitals, orphanages, and his lavish lifestyle. Some of that fortune was used to establish the Credit Foncier, a land bank that offered mortgages to help the bourgeoisie buy properties. Napoleon promoted trade and railroad construction, and the miles of train tracks, with Paris the hub of French transportation, more than quintupled. Material prosperity flourished and swept up the workers, the capitalists, the financiers, and the proprietors, converting them into supporters of his regime. Napoleon III wished to set an example of industry for his subjects. Instead, he set fashion trends of glamour and pomp with no substance.
By 1861, Napoleon III’s accomplishments reached their apex. A son, Eugene, had been born and his dynasty was assured. He had concluded a successful war, defeating Austria and commanding his armies in the field as his uncle had done. Austria ceded Nice and Savoy, enlarging the French state. Napoleon III signed a free trade agreement with Britain, opening French commerce to England and solidifying Anglo-French relations. France’s influence in Cambodia expanded, and the French army established a colony in Vietnam. France was also constructing the Suez Canal, and an expeditionary force had been dispatched to Syria, giving the French greater influence in the Middle East. In Asia, France and Great Britain had burned the Summer Palace in Peking during the Second Opium War, and the lucrative trade of selling opiates in China enriched France’s treasury. Napoleon III meddled in the Americas by sponsoring an expedition to establish a king of Mexico, while the United States was involved in its Civil War.
At home, Paris was dazzling and extravagant. The members of The Club of Large Stomachs met at the Restaurant Philippe every Saturday at six in the evening, and by noon of the next day, every member had consumed three enormous meals and washed them down with six bottles of wine and two bottles of champagne. The world’s first department store, Bon Marche, inspired numerous other merchandisers and made Paris a shopping mecca. Operettas by Offenbach amused European royalty, and lavish parties and balls at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs followed the performances. Operas had to have ballets, and young dancers found that they were in demand at the end of the third act, as rich dignitaries sought amusement and paid for lascivious private entertainment. The arts flourished as the Impressionists began to reject realism, and their canvases of the streets of Paris were bathed in light and color. Foreigners and heads of state made Paris the most popular city in Europe.
Napoleon III ushered in the era of Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann, the Prefect of the Seine, whom he appointed in 1853. Haussmann was charged with transforming Paris from a medieval town surrounded by a wall into a modern city of light. His task was formidable. He was granted dictatorial powers and the ability to borrow vast sums to finance construction. New banks were eager to lend money for his enterprises, so Haussmann was able to finance his projects. The Farmers-General Wall was torn down in 1859, and Paris spread to the outer wall, expanding from twelve districts to twenty. Fifteen thousand homes were destroyed. In their place new homes, parks, gardens, and public buildings were created. These public works, based on deficit spending, revitalized the economy and produced enormous, though unequal, wealth. Foreigners who visited France to attend the Universal Exhibition in 1855, were amazed at the transformation of Paris. It was truly becoming the City of Light.
By 1861, Napoleon’s debts were coming due. Soon they would be in arrears.
Napoleon's Apartments at the Louvre
Napoleon III was responsible for largely rebuilding Paris. He had lived in the United States and Britain and was impressed by their cities. Wide boulevards replaced narrow, dark streets and alleys. New sewers made Paris a healthier city. The construction work provided employment for many of the masses. Meanwhile industrialization continued in France. During Napoleon's time more railways were built and new banks were founded. The Paris economy expanded.
However Napoleon had a disastrous foreign policy. In 1854 he went to war with Russia (The Crimean War). Although the war ended successfully in 1856, France gained nothing. Then, in 1859 he fought a war with Austria. Again the war was successful but France gained little (only Savoy and Nice). Furthermore in 1862 France joined Britain and Spain in sending an expedition to collect debt from Mexico. Spain and Britain withdrew but Napoleon foolishly tried to make Maximillian, a prince of Austria, Emperor of Mexico. The Mexicans rebelled and in 1865 Napoleon was forced to withdraw his troops. Maximillian was shot. Realizing he was losing popularity after 1867 Napoleon made his regime more liberal. He relaxed press censorship and restrictions on public meetings. Workers were given the right to strike.
However in 1870 Napoleon went to war with Prussia. The French were utterly defeated at Sedan in September. Napoleon was captured and abdicated. He later fled abroad.
A provisional government was formed led by Adolphe Thiers. Meanwhile the Germans surrounded Paris and the inhabitants were reduced to virtual starvation. Finally on 28 January 1871 Paris surrendered. By the peace treaty France lost Alsace-Lorraine. She also had to pay an indemnity and German troops were stationed in northern France until it was paid.
Shortly after the surrender of Paris a National Assembly took control of the government. It met at Versailles. However the Parisians were outraged by the peace treaty and they rebelled. The Parisians formed their own municipal government called the commune. Thiers was determined to crush the revolt and on 21 May 1871 he sent in the army. While the Germans watched French soldiers took the city street by street with great loss of life.
Afterwards Thiers was named president and he quickly managed to pay the indemnity demanded by Germany. The last German soldiers left France in September 1873. Meanwhile in 1873 Thiers was replaced by Marshal MacMahon, a monarchist. Nevertheless in 1875 the National Assembly established the Third Republic by one vote.
By 1855, Napoleon III was the most powerful man in Europe. Fifteen years later, he was a sick, pathetic Prussian prisoner of war, putting on a red suit and white whiskers to play Santa Claus to the children of his German captors.
Napoleon Bonaparte III had a son who never ruled France and died while fighting with British troops in Africa.
Napoleon III
Nast Cartoon of Napoleon
Royal Blood
The Crimean War 1853-1855
Are you a caucassian ???
Loreena McKennitt - Middle Eastern influences/Celtic music
Marco Polo
Tolstoy
Hadji Murad, the greatest short story ever written? - 1851
Sebastopol Sketches The Crimea
The Crimean War
Maps of Crimea
The Crimean War
The Crimean Peninsula was invaded and settled by Scythians who called the kingdom, Taurus. Later, Greece established colonies there. Euripides wrote his famous play, Iphigenia In Taurus, imagining that the daughter of Agamemnon was not sacrificed for favorable winds to sail to Troy (opera Iphigenia in Aulis) but taken to Taurus by the goddess Artemis. Rome absorbed the Crimea into the Roman Empire in the first century, B.C. As Rome disintegrated, Goths, Huns and Bulgars, over-ran the area. In 988, Prince Vladimir of Kiev captured modern day Sevastopol and was converted to Christianity there. The Golden Horde swept into Crimea and established a Tatar Khanate in 1239. From there, raids into Ukraine captured slaves who were taken to the markets of Byzantium. It is estimated that more than a million people were sold into bondage. Crimean Tatars raided Moscow as late as 1572. Cossacks built forts to protect Russia and later launched attacks against the Tatars.
Russia, under Catherine the Great, conquered Crimea in 1783. The port of Sevastopol was constructed to accommodate the expanding Russian navy. Crimea was annexed into Russia in 1792 by Catherine the Great.
On June 24, 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte crossed the Niemen River in Lithuania with almost 600,000 soldiers and declared war on Russia. After his pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Borodino, he found the road to Moscow open, and marched into the city on September 14, expecting to be greeted by an official delegation to surrender the city. No one came to meet him however, and he discovered that the Russians did not surrender at Moscow, but only retreated and adopted a scorched earth policy. When the victorious Napoleon realized he conquered an abandoned and empty city, a city stripped of all supplies, a city which was being burnt by partisans, he decided to retreat to Paris. The tragic mistake he made was to go back the same way he entered Russia.
During the march back to Paris, the French trudged over land that had been stripped of food and fodder. Towns had been torched and fields abandoned. Since there were no grasses growing, the French were unable to feed the horses needed to pull the cannons, ammunitions, and supplies. The horses were dying of hunger, as were the famished French soldiers who began to eat the only means of transport for the army. They abandoned artillery and wagons, and their cavalry ceased to exist. As they trudged along, Russian guerillas and Cossacks harassed the French. When Napoleon’s Grand Armee recrossed the Niemen River, they numbered only 60,000. The French were defeated by a supply line that was stretched too thin, the scorched earth policy of the Russians, and the Russians’ most able commander, General Winter.
In 1854, France and Russia were again at war. Nicholas, the brother of Alexander I, and Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew, Napoleon III, now faced each other over an issue that began as a religious dispute between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in Palestine. When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, the Russian Orthodox Church became the legitimate successor to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Christians under Muslim domination, looked to Moscow for protection.
Nicholas Romanov I, the brother of Alexander I, assumed the mantle of both state and church when he became Czar of Russia in 1825. Treaties with Turkey acknowledged his status as the protector of Christians in Palestine. Nicholas dreamed of raising the Christian Cross over Saint Sophia’s dome. He stated that the welfare of the millions of Christians under Turkish rule were his main concern and something he would never compromise. He believed that the other Christian countries of Europe would unite with him and join Russia in a Crusade against the ‘sick man’ of Europe, Turkey.
Two prominent, outspoken Russian émigrés, Alexander Herzen and Mikhail Bakunin criticized his actions. Herzen said that Russia under Nicholas was a repressive government without flag or name, with the cord of slavery around its neck, knocking at history’s doors with pretensions of a Byzantine Empire; one foot in Germany, the other in the Pacific Ocean. Bakunin dismissed Nicholas as merely a pompous tyrant of German origin who didn’t understand the true needs or character of the Russian people.
France and England were suspicious of the Czar’s motives and considered his meddling a way to expand his empire at their expense. England had been trading in this region since the sixteenth century through the Levant Company. Napoleon III had designs in the Mid-East and would start construction of the Suez Canal in 1859. In addition, Bonaparte’s nephew had a score to settle with Nicholas. Like the royal houses of Europe, who viewed this relative of the first Napoleon as an interloper, and only reluctantly accepted him as one of their own, Russia was scornful of his elevation to Emperor of France. When he ascended the purple as emperor, Napoleon received a letter from Nicholas that addressed him as ‘Mon Cher ami’ - ‘My good friend’. Emperors were supposed to address each other as ‘Mon Cher frère’ - ‘My dear brother’. Napoleon shrugged off the insult by saying that one can choose his friends, but not his brothers, and added that one good friend is worth more than a bad brother. Nicholas was quoted as saying that one chooses his friends, but brothers are given by heaven. When Russia needed a brother to confront Turkey, France chose not to be a friend. Napoleon had a long memory and didn’t forget insults. In addition, France had its own imperialistic interests in that region.
The English also refused to enter in an alliance with Russia. They were suspicious of Russia’s expansion into the Black Sea and Asia, which threatened Britain’s Empire in the Middle East and India. They did not want Russia to dominate the Black Sea and the eastern entrance to the Mediterranean. France, England, and Turkey were determined to stand up to Russia. Meanwhile, Nicholas was combining gunpowder with incense and planning for a holy war.
In his book, On War, published in 1831, one year after his death, Karl von Clausewitz believed that war is a test of moral, not physical, strength. He argued that there are three elements of war: governments that have objectives in declaring war, the armies that fight the war, and the citizens who support the war. For a war to be successful, it must have the support of its people. Mobilizing that support was just as important as mobilizing armies. If one nation can destroy another nation’s spirit, it can be triumphant. A victorious nation not only tries to destroy an enemy’s army, but also tries to kill its enemy’s courage, its desire to fight, and its morale. When successful battles are not supported by public opinion, when the military loses the enthusiasm of its citizens, when the horror of war makes people question the objectives of military force, a war cannot be won. A nation can only attain military supremacy by maintaining popular support for war. Maintaining the will of the population is absolutely necessary for ultimate victory. A nation therefore has to offer compelling reasons to declare war, reasons enthusiastically accepted by its citizens. A nation’s people must believe in a cause that asks its youth to offer the ultimate sacrifice, a cause that sometimes requires parents to bury their sons and brings untold hardships upon its population. The weakest reason for declaring war concerns material gain. The strongest reason involves principles, especially if they are wrapped in sanctimonious robes. Many countries have cloaked their materialistic motives for economic and political exploitation in the garments of idealism, spirituality and religion. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Napoleon Bonaparte cried “Libert’e, Egalit’e, Fraternit’e”, while he sought economic and political domination of Europe.
In 1853, Napoleon III and Czar Nicholas would never have been able to justify the Crimean War if their true motives were disclosed. The stench behind their declarations and seemingly noble purposes for the Crimean War demands that their true motives be uncovered to examine the cesspool beneath them. Napoleon III claimed that France had historical and special rights to protect Catholics in the Holy Land. These rights, which lapsed during the atheistic days of the French Revolution and the emasculation of French military power after Napoleon’s exile in 1815, were very important to the honor of Napoleon III in 1853. Greek monks had infringed on Roman Catholic priests’ access to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The dispute involved possession of keys to doors of the Church and, incredibly, the sweeping of walks leading to the holy Christian sites. Louis Napoleon demanded that the Sultan of Turkey restore Catholic primacy in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and recognize France as the defender of Christianity in the Holy Lands. The Sultan capitulated to the French demands.
The Russian Czar, Nicholas, considered himself the heir to Rome and Constantinople, indeed ‘Czar’ is the Slavic pronunciation of ‘Caesar’, and Nicholas came to the defense of the Orthodox monks. He insisted that the Sultan rescind his concession to Napoleon III. Nicholas’ honor and the Orthodox Church had been sullied. The Sultan, ruling a country referred to as the ‘sick man of Europe’ by Czar Nicholas, agreed, then hesitated and tried to please both emperors. The Russians demanded ‘justice’ and the right to intervene in Turkish affairs. This would enable the Czar to expand his Black Sea Fleet into the Mediterranean. It would also allow the Russians to march to the Danube. Both sides sought allies in ‘defense of civilization’. The two nations went to war. The Russian Navy destroyed the Turkish fleet at Sinope along the southern shores of the Black Sea, opening the way to Constantinople and the warm-water ports sought by Russia.
France and Britain did not want Russia to control the Dardanelles and the Straits, and declared war on Russia. Here was a combustible mixture: France and Russia, a Napoleon and a Czar. Not wishing to invade Russia as his uncle did, Louis Napoleon and his ally, Queen Victoria, largely confined the war to the Baltic and Black Seas, with the Russian port of Sevastopol in Crimea as their main objective. The siege of Sevastopol lasted one year before the city finally yielded to continued bombardment. The capitulation, aside from being an embarrassment to Russia, gave no military advantage to France and England. Soon after the fall of this inconsequential port, Czar Nicholas died suddenly, and the new Czar, Alexander II asked for terms of peace fearing the Allied navies would turn their efforts to the Baltic and the cities of Helsingfors and Saint Petersburg.
The populations of each country initially greeted the war with enthusiasm. What was withheld from French citizens was Napoleon III’s need and desire for prestige and legitimacy as the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte. Indeed, he wrote to his fiancée, Eugenie, before the war began that he intended to promote loyalty in his army and prevent the possibility of any coup d’état by involving the country in a popular war. He also wanted to extend French influence into the Middle East in order to build a canal through Suez, giving France access to the markets and riches of the Far East. His defense of the Roman Church would ensure the political support of Catholics in France. It also solidified his standing in the Italian States in opposition to Austria, France’s rival, as the most powerful state in mainland Europe.
What was withheld from the Russian populace was Nicholas’ desire for a warm-water port to the Mediterranean and expansion into the Black Sea countries along Russia’s southern borders. What was withheld from the people of both Russia and France was the desire to pick apart the bones of the Ottoman Empire. National aggrandizement, political control, and economic hegemony were never offered as reasons for the nations’ sacrifice of their youth. Such worldly and materialistic explanations would hardly inspire young men to take up arms and die. But both countries found that their citizens would gladly perish for the Motherland and the Church, and for idealistic notions of honor and religion.
More than 375,000 French and English soldiers died while more than twice that number of Russian soldiers lost their lives.
What is remembered?
Florence Nightingale
The Charge of the Light Brigade, Tennyson
Dulce et Decorum Est, Wilfred Owen
Imperialism, colonialism,
The White Man's Burden
During the march back to Paris, the French trudged over land that had been stripped of food and fodder. Towns had been torched and fields abandoned. Since there were no grasses growing, the French were unable to feed the horses needed to pull the cannons, ammunitions, and supplies. The horses were dying of hunger, as were the famished French soldiers who began to eat the only means of transport for the army. They abandoned artillery and wagons, and their cavalry ceased to exist .As they trudged along, Russian guerillas and Cossacks harassed the French. On frigid nights, French soldiers cut open dead horses and crawled inside the bodies for warmth. When Napoleon’s Grand Armee recrossed the Niemen River, they numbered only 27,000. The French were defeated by a supply line that was stretched too thin, the scorched earth policy of the Russians, and the Russians’ most able commander, General Winter.
Previously, Napoleon's military genius allowed him to dominate Europe. In 1799 Austria, Russia and Britain formed a coalition against France. However Russia left the coalition in 1800. Austria was defeated in 1800 and forced to make peace in 1801. Britain made peace in 1802 but war began again in 1803. However in 1804 Russia, Austria and Britain formed a third coalition. Austria was defeated at Austerlitz in 1805. Prussia joined the war against France in 1806 but the Prussians were routed at Jena the same year. Then French and Spanish fleets were severely defeated at Trafalgar in October 1805 ending Napoleon's hopes of invading Britain. Despite that naval defeat, by 1807 Napoleon was at his peak. Military success failed the Emperor in 1812. Napoleon's invasion of Russia ended in disaster. and in 1813 Prussia joined the war against France. Austria and Sweden also joined and the French were badly defeated at the battle of Leipzig in October 1813.
In March 1814 the allies entered Paris and Napoleon was forced to abdicate. He was exiled to Elba. However in 1815 he returned to France and was welcomed by the people. Yet he was defeated at Waterloo in June and forced to abdicate again. This time Napoleon was exiled to the island of St Helena. He died in 1821.
Napoleon was replaced by Louis XVII's brother Louis XVIII. (Louis XVI's son died in 1795 but royalists insisted he became Louis XVII after his father's death in 1793). However Louis XVIII realized he could not turn the clock back completely so he allowed France a constitution.
Revolutions of 1830 and 1848
Louis XVIII also tried to restrain those who wanted to completely undo the revolution (they were called Ultra royalists). Yet, they gained influence after the Duc de Berry was assassinated in 1820. When Louis XVIII died in 1824 his brother Charles X became king. Charles claimed to rule by divine right and had no intention of compromising with the liberals. Not surprisingly therefore, he provoked an uprising in 1830 and he was forced to abdicate.
The French were afraid of creating a republic because the other European powers would have been hostile and might have taken military action.
Instead the Duc D'Orleans was made King Louis Philippe. He reigned for 18 years and the French constitution was made more liberal. More men were allowed the vote (but only the middle classes, the workers were still excluded). Meanwhile Under Charles X the French had invaded Algeria.
At home the industrial revolution began to change France. However industrialization was slower than in other countries like Britain and Germany and France remained mainly an agricultural country. Nevertheless by 1848 there were a considerable number of urban workers in certain cities. They lived and worked in dreadful conditions and in the mid-19th century they were influenced by socialists thinkers.
In 1846-47 France suffered an economic crisis and popular discontent seethed. Finally in February 1848 a demonstration was held in Paris. Soldiers fired on the demonstrators and triggered a revolution. Louis Philippe abdicated and fled. The July monarchy, as it was called, was really only a stopgap measure.
To reduce popular discontent the provisional government created national workshops in Paris for the unemployed (some unemployed workers from the provinces came to work in them). However the workers were dissatisfied and they still held demonstrations. In June 1848 the government decided to close the workshops and they ordered the workers to disperse. However the workers refused and they manned barricades in Paris. Eventually government troops crushed the uprising.
Then, in November 1848 the new constitution was published. All men were allowed to vote and there was to be a single elected assembly and a popularly elected president.
The Second French Empire
The first emperor of France was Napoleon Bonaparte.
Who was the Emperor of the Second French Empire?
Napoleon II
or
Napoleon III
His critics found him lacking in almost every quality except stealth. He was viewed as a cold, pale, slow man who always seemed like he was not quite awake. He was called a hat without a head, a sphinx without a riddle, a grotesque mediocrity, and Napoleon the Small. Bismarck called Napoleon “a great unrecognized incapacity.” Alexander Herzen said he was deformed and mentally retarded. Mikhail Bakunin thought that Napoleon III could not make a speech without subtracting from the total of French civilization. Napoleon’s cousin claimed that if she had married him, she would have cracked his head open to see what was inside.
In December 1848, Louis Napoleon, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte was elected president.
The constitution did not allow the president to serve a second term. Therefore on 2 December 1851 Napoleon led a coup. A referendum was held and the people agreed to allow the president to change the constitution. He did so and in December 1852 he made himself Emperor Napoleon III.
The Second Empire
(How about a French soap opera?}
Josephine, first wife of Napoleon Bonaparte, was forty years old in 1802 and still had not conceived a child with the emperor. An heir to the French throne was necessary to carry on the regime and Bonaparte’s legacy. Josephine’s only children—a son and a daughter—had been born when she was married to Alexandre Beauharnais, who was executed on the guillotine in 1794, during the Reign of Terror. Fearing that she might be abandoned, Josephine came up with a plan to give Napoleon Bonaparte a male heir by marrying her daughter, Hortense, to the emperor’s brother, Louis, the future King of Holland. The issue of that marriage would carry on the line of the Bonaparte dynasty. Napoleon, who adored his stepdaughter, approved, and the wedding took place. Although Hortense detested her husband, she bore him a son in 1804, Prince Louis Napoleon, the future Napoleon III. Many believed that Napoleon’s affection for his stepdaughter was not just paternal, and whispered that he himself was Prince Louis’s father. Josephine’s plan for a male heir through her daughter and Napoleon’s brother was frustrated when Napoleon divorced her and married Marie Louise, Archduchess of Austria. Their son, Francois Charles, was born in 1811. As the natural son of the emperor, Francois Charles (Napoleon II) would have been next in line as Emperor of France, if the empire were ever restored after Napoleon’s death. However, when Francois Charles died in 1832, Louis Napoleon became the next in line, the Pretender to the Throne, Napoleon III.
Exiled from France in 1816 by the restored Bourbon dynasty, and dreaming of bringing the name of Napoleon back to power, Napoleon III attempted to reestablish the empire by enlisting the army in a coup in 1836. In a farce worthy of an Offenbach operetta, Napoleon III failed to inspire a rebellion at a small garrison and was arrested. This misadventure resulted in deportation to the United States. Later offered asylum in Great Britain, Napoleon sailed for London from New York in 1838, and conspiracies against the Bourbons and the government of France began anew. In 1840, after another failed attempt to resurrect the national glory of the Bonapartes, he was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment at the Chateau de Ham, a 500-year-old prison at Saint Quentin. Ironically, shortly after Napoleon III was imprisoned, his uncle’s remains were returned to France with much pomp and glory, and interred at Les Invalides.
Napoleon III escaped from Ham disguised as a workman and fled to London in 1846. Having been either banished from France or imprisoned for thirty-three years of his life, he returned to Paris at the age of forty-four, after the failed revolution of 1848. France now desired peace and stability, and Napoleon III, representing the glorious days of his uncle, was elected president with almost 75 percent of the popular vote. His success was due to nostalgia for the days of the First Empire rather than any specific initiatives on his part. Once elected, he tried to appeal to all interests, but especially to those of the Catholics when he supported the reinstatement of Pope Pius IX in Rome. He initiated a policy of reform that surprised and offended the parliamentary assembly, which expected him to be little more than a figurehead. Here was a man who was not connected in any way with the February and June revolts of 1848. He was personally unknown, having spent years in exile, but he possessed a name known to every Frenchman. After the election, old soldiers would visit him at his suite in the Hotel du Rhin and relive their glory days. “Vive Napoleon!” and even “Vive l’empereur!” shouted the troops as he reviewed them. Frenchmen, tired of revolution and frightened of radicals who claimed that property was theft, rallied behind Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew.
Nearing the end of his four-year term and unable to run for president again, he dissolved the government and called for elections in a coup d’état on December 2, 1851. Supported by the military that gloried in his name; by the bourgeoisie who craved order and stability; by peasant farmers who, despite conservative fears, had not become radicalized; and by the workers because he defied Parliament, Napoleon was a national hero. The financial markets showed that he enjoyed the support of the business community, as the stock market rose five francs in two days. The threat of anarchy after the 1848 revolution had convinced people of the need for a strong conservative government. Still, liberals, constitutionalists, and monarchists who did not want another Napoleon dreaming of a French Empire opposed him. The night before the coup, Napoleon III had all military drums cut open so they could not beat a tattoo that might signal any regiment opposing him. His troops marched around Paris and brutally suppressed any opposition. Almost 27,000 people were arrested and nearly 10,000 deported to Algeria. In 1852, a plebiscite was held asking if the people of France wanted an emperor. They did. Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew was elected emperor. He received more than seven million votes, with less than 650,000 opposed. After years of exile, he had finally succeeded in becoming Emperor of France. The coronation took place on December 2, 1852, the same date as his uncle’s coronation in 1804, and the forty-seventh anniversary of the celebrated French victory over Austria at Austerlitz. His lineage, in his eyes, entitled him to be emperor and gave him a sense of destiny. Napoleon III would restore the grandeur of the French nation. He considered himself democracy’s representative. As such, France did not need direct democracy; he would exercise democracy on the country’s behalf. Although male citizens enjoyed universal suffrage and could elect the senate, it meant little since the emperor chose the candidates. The legislature was powerless, since only the executive initiated laws, and the legislature could not elect its own president or decide its own proceedings. All government bodies were subservient to the emperor.
Revolutionary songs and slogans were prohibited. Singing “The Marseillaise” and displaying the tricolor flag, both symbols of the French Revolution, were banned. The words Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité were removed from public buildings. On public buildings and at the boxes at the opera house, the initials of the Republic of France—RF—were replaced by the Emperor’s initials—LN. Censorship of the press restricted any commentary on the Second Empire. Free speech was limited, as criticism of the government was forbidden. Napoleon III, by decree, possessed the power to exile anyone deemed to be radical or revolutionary, and he used this decree to crush political opposition. Cafés and wine shops were licensed in order to prevent them from becoming meeting places for seditious activity. Spies sat in restaurants watching for subversives and socialists. Napoleon III did not want another revolution, so deportation without trial awaited anyone suspected of anti-government thought or activity. Police were vigilant, and speaking one’s mind in public could be dangerous. To prevent any popular armed uprisings, the National Guard, which had fraternized with the mob in 1848, was disbanded, leaving only the regular army to maintain internal order.
Napoleon III excelled at conspiracy, since he had been constantly engaged throughout his life in intrigues to restore the purple and gold to his family. He kept his thoughts to himself and trusted few. His critics found him lacking in almost every quality except stealth. He was viewed as a cold, pale, slow man who always seemed like he was not quite awake. He was called a hat without a head, a sphinx without a riddle, a grotesque mediocrity, and Napoleon the Small. Bismarck called Napoleon “a great unrecognized incapacity.” Alexander Herzen said he was deformed and mentally retarded. Mikhail Bakunin thought that Napoleon III could not make a speech without subtracting from the total of French civilization. Napoleon’s cousin claimed that if she had married him, she would have cracked his head open to see what was inside.
Adolphe Theirs, who would become President of the Republic after the Second Empire crumbled, said, “Napoleon is a cretin whom we will manage.” Karl Marx, referring to the Second Emperor and the Second Empire, acidly commented that all great historic facts and people appear twice, “… first as tragedy, then as farce.” And Eugenie, his wife, declared to the British Minister in Paris, “I think he is an imbecile!”
A popular verse of the time ended with, “… the uncle took our capitols, while the nephew takes our capital.” (Actually this ditty was pretty mild. When his wife, Eugenie, was alone at the Louvre when the Empire was crumbling, crowds gathered outside and sang that Napoleon became emperor by election while Eugenie became empress by erection!) Napoleon III was a despot ruling a police state with a few democratic frills. The nephew of Bonaparte ruled France as dictator and emperor, but not as tyrant.
Paris, France
At times, a tree severely damaged by winter storms will burst forth in springtime with a brilliant display of blossoms, only to succumb to disease and drought during the summer, its weakened state having been disguised by the vivid flourish of color and scent. So it was of Paris during the Second Empire under Napoleon III. The population of Paris grew from one million in 1836 to almost two million by 1861. The frenetic activity of its citizens hid the decay beneath all the gaiety. The streets were newly lit at night by gas lamps, and the cafés and avenues catered to all tastes in food, drink, and morals. It seemed that Paris had one purpose: the pursuit of pleasure. There was a carnival of hedonism in the city. It was gaudy and tawdry, reflecting the emperor, Louis Napoleon. His parties and balls were renowned for excess and extravagance. His affairs were notorious. It was reported that Napoleon’s woman of the day was usually escorted into the Tuileries, where she undressed in one room and was then led into the emperor’s room, where he was naked. She was told that she may kiss the emperor anywhere on his body except his lips. The wax on his mustache might run and cause it to droop.
Prior to the Second Empire, dark, decrepit tenements filled the districts, with only one in five homes having running water. Open sewage draining down the middle of streets was augmented by the contents of chamber pots emptied from the tenement windows. Sewers drained into the Seine, the main source of drinking water for the city. Epidemics of cholera in 1832 and 1848 kept the growing population in check. Public works were grandiose memorials, commemorating the deeds of France’s rulers, and were not designed to enhance the life of Parisians. The monuments of the first Napoleon—the Arc deTriomphe du Carrousel, the Colonne Vendome, and the initial work on the Arc de Triomphe de l’Étiole, with its commanding view of the Champs-Elysées—did little to improve living conditions in the early nineteenth century. Municipal renovations following the Restoration of the Bourbon Monarchy in 1814 did not alleviate the wretched lives of the worker and peasant.
Citizens might marvel at the monuments while strolling down boulevards, unaware that the same thoroughfares served Roman soldiers. Despite their age, these roads still existed in the nineteenth century as arteries in the inner city. Narrow streets built centuries earlier encumbered travel and commerce. Wagons and carriages fed into the boulevards, already jammed with congested traffic. The few avenues that could allow horse, coach, and large vehicle traffic were poorly suited to efficient transportation. Many Prefects of the Seine attempted to improve traffic flow, but the city’s governments possessed neither the will nor the means to address the problem of transportation and housing. New streets and homes were usually built only in affluent districts. For the most part, the Prefects waited for tenements and buildings to fall into complete disrepair before condemning them and razing them. These timid magistrates would not violate financial orthodoxy and borrow money for improvements, and politicians were beholden to private interests that did not want restrictions on private property. The monarchies were too weak and the political resolve too feeble to attempt any transformation of Paris.
In the early nineteenth century, the Farmers-General Wall bordered the city. It was an inner wall built in 1785 to collect taxes on goods entering the city. An outer wall, twenty-four miles long, served as a fortified first line of defense. This wall, finished in 1844, was the longest city wall in the world, and sixteen isolated forts stood outside its boundaries to repel any invader.
The crowded arrondissements in the southeastern part of the city, where the workers lived, were hotbeds of discontent that bred revolution. French governments always feared the insurgencies that festered up from these slums. Workers and revolutionaries had erected barricades eight times in twenty years. Industrialization and the reconstruction of Paris attracted migrant workers from the countryside, and this surplus of labor insured squalid conditions for the inhabitants, as the newly arrived peasants could only afford to live in overcrowded ghettos. Men, women, and children still labored for twelve hours or more each day. Wages remained low due to the abundance of workers.
Napoleon III wanted his capital to be the centerpiece of Europe, and he used public works to convert Paris into a modern city and to employ the masses of workers, thereby preventing discontent and revolution. He had spent years away from Paris and knew firsthand the other capitals of Europe and the cities of America. However, modernization and pride were not his only reasons for changing Paris. If rebellion were to occur, Napoleon III wanted the streets to be straight and wide for his artillery, so barricades could not protect the insurgents. To keep potential revolutionaries from erecting obstacles using the paving stones from streets, Napoleon’s Paris was the first city to have streets covered with asphalt. He hoped that public works, combined with festivities and public events, would mask the despotism of his regime.
Napoleon expropriated the fortunes and estates of the deposed Orleanists and used the money to finance hospitals, orphanages, and his lavish lifestyle. Some of that fortune was used to establish the Credit Foncier, a land bank that offered mortgages to help the bourgeoisie buy properties. Napoleon promoted trade and railroad construction, and the miles of train tracks, with Paris the hub of French transportation, more than quintupled. Material prosperity flourished and swept up the workers, the capitalists, the financiers, and the proprietors, converting them into supporters of his regime. Napoleon III wished to set an example of industry for his subjects. Instead, he set fashion trends of glamour and pomp with no substance.
By 1861, Napoleon III’s accomplishments reached their apex. A son, Eugene, had been born and his dynasty was assured. He had concluded a successful war, defeating Austria and commanding his armies in the field as his uncle had done. Austria ceded Nice and Savoy, enlarging the French state. Napoleon III signed a free trade agreement with Britain, opening French commerce to England and solidifying Anglo-French relations. France’s influence in Cambodia expanded, and the French army established a colony in Vietnam. France was also constructing the Suez Canal, and an expeditionary force had been dispatched to Syria, giving the French greater influence in the Middle East. In Asia, France and Great Britain had burned the Summer Palace in Peking during the Second Opium War, and the lucrative trade of selling opiates in China enriched France’s treasury. Napoleon III meddled in the Americas by sponsoring an expedition to establish a king of Mexico, while the United States was involved in its Civil War.
At home, Paris was dazzling and extravagant. The members of The Club of Large Stomachs met at the Restaurant Philippe every Saturday at six in the evening, and by noon of the next day, every member had consumed three enormous meals and washed them down with six bottles of wine and two bottles of champagne. The world’s first department store, Bon Marche, inspired numerous other merchandisers and made Paris a shopping mecca. Operettas by Offenbach amused European royalty, and lavish parties and balls at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs followed the performances. Operas had to have ballets, and young dancers found that they were in demand at the end of the third act, as rich dignitaries sought amusement and paid for lascivious private entertainment. The arts flourished as the Impressionists began to reject realism, and their canvases of the streets of Paris were bathed in light and color. Foreigners and heads of state made Paris the most popular city in Europe.
Napoleon III ushered in the era of Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann, the Prefect of the Seine, whom he appointed in 1853. Haussmann was charged with transforming Paris from a medieval town surrounded by a wall into a modern city of light. His task was formidable. He was granted dictatorial powers and the ability to borrow vast sums to finance construction. New banks were eager to lend money for his enterprises, so Haussmann was able to finance his projects. The Farmers-General Wall was torn down in 1859, and Paris spread to the outer wall, expanding from twelve districts to twenty. Fifteen thousand homes were destroyed. In their place new homes, parks, gardens, and public buildings were created. These public works, based on deficit spending, revitalized the economy and produced enormous, though unequal, wealth. Foreigners who visited France to attend the Universal Exhibition in 1855, were amazed at the transformation of Paris. It was truly becoming the City of Light.
By 1861, Napoleon’s debts were coming due. Soon they would be in arrears.
Napoleon's Apartments at the Louvre
Napoleon III was responsible for largely rebuilding Paris. He had lived in the United States and Britain and was impressed by their cities. Wide boulevards replaced narrow, dark streets and alleys. New sewers made Paris a healthier city. The construction work provided employment for many of the masses. Meanwhile industrialization continued in France. During Napoleon's time more railways were built and new banks were founded. The Paris economy expanded.
However Napoleon had a disastrous foreign policy. In 1854 he went to war with Russia (The Crimean War). Although the war ended successfully in 1856, France gained nothing. Then, in 1859 he fought a war with Austria. Again the war was successful but France gained little (only Savoy and Nice). Furthermore in 1862 France joined Britain and Spain in sending an expedition to collect debt from Mexico. Spain and Britain withdrew but Napoleon foolishly tried to make Maximillian, a prince of Austria, Emperor of Mexico. The Mexicans rebelled and in 1865 Napoleon was forced to withdraw his troops. Maximillian was shot. Realizing he was losing popularity after 1867 Napoleon made his regime more liberal. He relaxed press censorship and restrictions on public meetings. Workers were given the right to strike.
However in 1870 Napoleon went to war with Prussia. The French were utterly defeated at Sedan in September. Napoleon was captured and abdicated. He later fled abroad.
A provisional government was formed led by Adolphe Thiers. Meanwhile the Germans surrounded Paris and the inhabitants were reduced to virtual starvation. Finally on 28 January 1871 Paris surrendered. By the peace treaty France lost Alsace-Lorraine. She also had to pay an indemnity and German troops were stationed in northern France until it was paid.
Shortly after the surrender of Paris a National Assembly took control of the government. It met at Versailles. However the Parisians were outraged by the peace treaty and they rebelled. The Parisians formed their own municipal government called the commune. Thiers was determined to crush the revolt and on 21 May 1871 he sent in the army. While the Germans watched French soldiers took the city street by street with great loss of life.
Afterwards Thiers was named president and he quickly managed to pay the indemnity demanded by Germany. The last German soldiers left France in September 1873. Meanwhile in 1873 Thiers was replaced by Marshal MacMahon, a monarchist. Nevertheless in 1875 the National Assembly established the Third Republic by one vote.
By 1855, Napoleon III was the most powerful man in Europe. Fifteen years later, he was a sick, pathetic Prussian prisoner of war, putting on a red suit and white whiskers to play Santa Claus to the children of his German captors.
Napoleon Bonaparte III had a son who never ruled France and died while fighting with British troops in Africa.
Napoleon III
Nast Cartoon of Napoleon
Royal Blood
The Crimean War 1853-1855
Are you a caucassian ???
Loreena McKennitt - Middle Eastern influences/Celtic music
Marco Polo
Tolstoy
Hadji Murad, the greatest short story ever written? - 1851
Sebastopol Sketches The Crimea
The Crimean War
Maps of Crimea
The Crimean War
The Crimean Peninsula was invaded and settled by Scythians who called the kingdom, Taurus. Later, Greece established colonies there. Euripides wrote his famous play, Iphigenia In Taurus, imagining that the daughter of Agamemnon was not sacrificed for favorable winds to sail to Troy (opera Iphigenia in Aulis) but taken to Taurus by the goddess Artemis. Rome absorbed the Crimea into the Roman Empire in the first century, B.C. As Rome disintegrated, Goths, Huns and Bulgars, over-ran the area. In 988, Prince Vladimir of Kiev captured modern day Sevastopol and was converted to Christianity there. The Golden Horde swept into Crimea and established a Tatar Khanate in 1239. From there, raids into Ukraine captured slaves who were taken to the markets of Byzantium. It is estimated that more than a million people were sold into bondage. Crimean Tatars raided Moscow as late as 1572. Cossacks built forts to protect Russia and later launched attacks against the Tatars.
Russia, under Catherine the Great, conquered Crimea in 1783. The port of Sevastopol was constructed to accommodate the expanding Russian navy. Crimea was annexed into Russia in 1792 by Catherine the Great.
On June 24, 1812, Napoleon Bonaparte crossed the Niemen River in Lithuania with almost 600,000 soldiers and declared war on Russia. After his pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Borodino, he found the road to Moscow open, and marched into the city on September 14, expecting to be greeted by an official delegation to surrender the city. No one came to meet him however, and he discovered that the Russians did not surrender at Moscow, but only retreated and adopted a scorched earth policy. When the victorious Napoleon realized he conquered an abandoned and empty city, a city stripped of all supplies, a city which was being burnt by partisans, he decided to retreat to Paris. The tragic mistake he made was to go back the same way he entered Russia.
During the march back to Paris, the French trudged over land that had been stripped of food and fodder. Towns had been torched and fields abandoned. Since there were no grasses growing, the French were unable to feed the horses needed to pull the cannons, ammunitions, and supplies. The horses were dying of hunger, as were the famished French soldiers who began to eat the only means of transport for the army. They abandoned artillery and wagons, and their cavalry ceased to exist. As they trudged along, Russian guerillas and Cossacks harassed the French. When Napoleon’s Grand Armee recrossed the Niemen River, they numbered only 60,000. The French were defeated by a supply line that was stretched too thin, the scorched earth policy of the Russians, and the Russians’ most able commander, General Winter.
In 1854, France and Russia were again at war. Nicholas, the brother of Alexander I, and Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew, Napoleon III, now faced each other over an issue that began as a religious dispute between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in Palestine. When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, the Russian Orthodox Church became the legitimate successor to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Christians under Muslim domination, looked to Moscow for protection.
Nicholas Romanov I, the brother of Alexander I, assumed the mantle of both state and church when he became Czar of Russia in 1825. Treaties with Turkey acknowledged his status as the protector of Christians in Palestine. Nicholas dreamed of raising the Christian Cross over Saint Sophia’s dome. He stated that the welfare of the millions of Christians under Turkish rule were his main concern and something he would never compromise. He believed that the other Christian countries of Europe would unite with him and join Russia in a Crusade against the ‘sick man’ of Europe, Turkey.
Two prominent, outspoken Russian émigrés, Alexander Herzen and Mikhail Bakunin criticized his actions. Herzen said that Russia under Nicholas was a repressive government without flag or name, with the cord of slavery around its neck, knocking at history’s doors with pretensions of a Byzantine Empire; one foot in Germany, the other in the Pacific Ocean. Bakunin dismissed Nicholas as merely a pompous tyrant of German origin who didn’t understand the true needs or character of the Russian people.
France and England were suspicious of the Czar’s motives and considered his meddling a way to expand his empire at their expense. England had been trading in this region since the sixteenth century through the Levant Company. Napoleon III had designs in the Mid-East and would start construction of the Suez Canal in 1859. In addition, Bonaparte’s nephew had a score to settle with Nicholas. Like the royal houses of Europe, who viewed this relative of the first Napoleon as an interloper, and only reluctantly accepted him as one of their own, Russia was scornful of his elevation to Emperor of France. When he ascended the purple as emperor, Napoleon received a letter from Nicholas that addressed him as ‘Mon Cher ami’ - ‘My good friend’. Emperors were supposed to address each other as ‘Mon Cher frère’ - ‘My dear brother’. Napoleon shrugged off the insult by saying that one can choose his friends, but not his brothers, and added that one good friend is worth more than a bad brother. Nicholas was quoted as saying that one chooses his friends, but brothers are given by heaven. When Russia needed a brother to confront Turkey, France chose not to be a friend. Napoleon had a long memory and didn’t forget insults. In addition, France had its own imperialistic interests in that region.
The English also refused to enter in an alliance with Russia. They were suspicious of Russia’s expansion into the Black Sea and Asia, which threatened Britain’s Empire in the Middle East and India. They did not want Russia to dominate the Black Sea and the eastern entrance to the Mediterranean. France, England, and Turkey were determined to stand up to Russia. Meanwhile, Nicholas was combining gunpowder with incense and planning for a holy war.
In his book, On War, published in 1831, one year after his death, Karl von Clausewitz believed that war is a test of moral, not physical, strength. He argued that there are three elements of war: governments that have objectives in declaring war, the armies that fight the war, and the citizens who support the war. For a war to be successful, it must have the support of its people. Mobilizing that support was just as important as mobilizing armies. If one nation can destroy another nation’s spirit, it can be triumphant. A victorious nation not only tries to destroy an enemy’s army, but also tries to kill its enemy’s courage, its desire to fight, and its morale. When successful battles are not supported by public opinion, when the military loses the enthusiasm of its citizens, when the horror of war makes people question the objectives of military force, a war cannot be won. A nation can only attain military supremacy by maintaining popular support for war. Maintaining the will of the population is absolutely necessary for ultimate victory. A nation therefore has to offer compelling reasons to declare war, reasons enthusiastically accepted by its citizens. A nation’s people must believe in a cause that asks its youth to offer the ultimate sacrifice, a cause that sometimes requires parents to bury their sons and brings untold hardships upon its population. The weakest reason for declaring war concerns material gain. The strongest reason involves principles, especially if they are wrapped in sanctimonious robes. Many countries have cloaked their materialistic motives for economic and political exploitation in the garments of idealism, spirituality and religion. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Napoleon Bonaparte cried “Libert’e, Egalit’e, Fraternit’e”, while he sought economic and political domination of Europe.
In 1853, Napoleon III and Czar Nicholas would never have been able to justify the Crimean War if their true motives were disclosed. The stench behind their declarations and seemingly noble purposes for the Crimean War demands that their true motives be uncovered to examine the cesspool beneath them. Napoleon III claimed that France had historical and special rights to protect Catholics in the Holy Land. These rights, which lapsed during the atheistic days of the French Revolution and the emasculation of French military power after Napoleon’s exile in 1815, were very important to the honor of Napoleon III in 1853. Greek monks had infringed on Roman Catholic priests’ access to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The dispute involved possession of keys to doors of the Church and, incredibly, the sweeping of walks leading to the holy Christian sites. Louis Napoleon demanded that the Sultan of Turkey restore Catholic primacy in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and recognize France as the defender of Christianity in the Holy Lands. The Sultan capitulated to the French demands.
The Russian Czar, Nicholas, considered himself the heir to Rome and Constantinople, indeed ‘Czar’ is the Slavic pronunciation of ‘Caesar’, and Nicholas came to the defense of the Orthodox monks. He insisted that the Sultan rescind his concession to Napoleon III. Nicholas’ honor and the Orthodox Church had been sullied. The Sultan, ruling a country referred to as the ‘sick man of Europe’ by Czar Nicholas, agreed, then hesitated and tried to please both emperors. The Russians demanded ‘justice’ and the right to intervene in Turkish affairs. This would enable the Czar to expand his Black Sea Fleet into the Mediterranean. It would also allow the Russians to march to the Danube. Both sides sought allies in ‘defense of civilization’. The two nations went to war. The Russian Navy destroyed the Turkish fleet at Sinope along the southern shores of the Black Sea, opening the way to Constantinople and the warm-water ports sought by Russia.
France and Britain did not want Russia to control the Dardanelles and the Straits, and declared war on Russia. Here was a combustible mixture: France and Russia, a Napoleon and a Czar. Not wishing to invade Russia as his uncle did, Louis Napoleon and his ally, Queen Victoria, largely confined the war to the Baltic and Black Seas, with the Russian port of Sevastopol in Crimea as their main objective. The siege of Sevastopol lasted one year before the city finally yielded to continued bombardment. The capitulation, aside from being an embarrassment to Russia, gave no military advantage to France and England. Soon after the fall of this inconsequential port, Czar Nicholas died suddenly, and the new Czar, Alexander II asked for terms of peace fearing the Allied navies would turn their efforts to the Baltic and the cities of Helsingfors and Saint Petersburg.
The populations of each country initially greeted the war with enthusiasm. What was withheld from French citizens was Napoleon III’s need and desire for prestige and legitimacy as the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte. Indeed, he wrote to his fiancée, Eugenie, before the war began that he intended to promote loyalty in his army and prevent the possibility of any coup d’état by involving the country in a popular war. He also wanted to extend French influence into the Middle East in order to build a canal through Suez, giving France access to the markets and riches of the Far East. His defense of the Roman Church would ensure the political support of Catholics in France. It also solidified his standing in the Italian States in opposition to Austria, France’s rival, as the most powerful state in mainland Europe.
What was withheld from the Russian populace was Nicholas’ desire for a warm-water port to the Mediterranean and expansion into the Black Sea countries along Russia’s southern borders. What was withheld from the people of both Russia and France was the desire to pick apart the bones of the Ottoman Empire. National aggrandizement, political control, and economic hegemony were never offered as reasons for the nations’ sacrifice of their youth. Such worldly and materialistic explanations would hardly inspire young men to take up arms and die. But both countries found that their citizens would gladly perish for the Motherland and the Church, and for idealistic notions of honor and religion.
More than 375,000 French and English soldiers died while more than twice that number of Russian soldiers lost their lives.
What is remembered?
Florence Nightingale
The Charge of the Light Brigade, Tennyson
Dulce et Decorum Est, Wilfred Owen
Imperialism, colonialism,
The White Man's Burden
Class Seven, February 27
Breakfast Question
Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Liberty and Equality
Handout:
Summary of Smith and Marx
International Workingmen's Association; Marx and Bakunin
On September 28, 1864, French and English workers met at St. Martin’s Hall in London to discuss an international organization that would exchange information concerning all workers in all industrialized countries. Specifically, they discussed the importation of foreign strikebreakers and the ten-hour workday.
The American Civil War disrupted cotton supplies to England, causing the textile industry to suffer a slump beginning in 1862. Workers were laid off and, in response, trade unions became more active. The freeing of serfs in Russia, the emancipation of slaves in America, the suppressed Polish insurrection of 1863, and the nationalistic uprisings in Europe all contributed to growing liberal and revolutionary sentiments. A loose alliance of French socialists, English utopians, Italian republicans, German communists, radicals, and federations of various unions throughout Europe agreed to form the International Workingmen’s Association. The I.W.A. recognized that the workers of the world shared common grievances, interests, and abuses at the hands of capitalists. Although there was a high degree of enthusiasm and agreement on the need for the Association, the many disparate elements could have resulted in another well-intentioned but ineffective organization. The League of the Just, the International Committee, and the Communist League were earlier organizations devoted to workers in all industrialized countries, but each one had fallen apart in bickering and confusion. Someone was needed to unite the various elements and give the new organization direction and guidance. A strong hand and a disciplined mind had to be found; a man who could inspire confidence, and frame the plight of the workers in a coherent doctrine of grievances and action, was essential to the success of the organization.
Karl Marx, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto, spent fifteen years prior to 1864 writing Das Kapital and lost touch with the labor movement. Still, even though he was living in England, he was invited to be part of the German delegation to the IWA, and was elected to its General Council. He used his rigorous logic, acid observations, and economic insights to draft the organizing principles, which would guide the association and give it direction. His inaugural address traced the increasingly wretched conditions of the worker over the previous twenty years in England. He stated that despite promises that English pauperism would disappear, the degradation of the worker had only accelerated, and laborers had descended into abject poverty. Marx used one report by the House of Lords to show that workingmen were worse off than they had been twenty years before, and they lived lives more desperate than convicted criminals. He quoted another official English government report on public health, which stated that workers did not have enough food to avert starvation; and furthermore, workers could not afford any medical care to prevent sickness and death. The economic conditions of workingmen were producing “victims of broken health, tainted morals, and mental ruin.” And their children were condemned to repeat the wretched lives led by their parents in a never-ending descent into complete destitution, since there were no programs to improve living conditions.
Yet, industrialists and capitalists continued to grow increasingly prosperous at the expense of the lower classes. Marx cited statistics to show how workers were sinking further into penury, as the industrialists above them were rising into greater wealth. The differences were geometric, not arithmetic. The disparities between rich and poor were multiplying, and the gap was becoming wider and wider. Despite this reality, the House of Commons was told that conditions for the English worker had improved to a degree never seen before in any country.
Marx, in his address, told the assembled delegates that what they possessed as a potential element of their success was their numbers. But he warned that numbers were only effective if the members were united in pursuit of a collective goal. Marx concluded that emancipation of the workers needed fraternal concurrence and knowledge of their governments’ international policies. Then they could counteract the abuses of those governments and vindicate simple laws of morality and justice, which ought to govern governments as well as individuals.
“Workers of all nations, unite!” he concluded.
After this address, the General Council gladly accepted the Rules of the Association that Marx drafted. The Rules included a preamble, which listed the reasons for the International:
The goal of the International is the emancipation of the working classes. This does not involve a struggle for class privileges for the worker, but an end to all privileges, and an end to all class rule through the establishment of equal rights and duties.
Servitude, social misery, mental degradation and political dependence result from economic exploitation of the worker by the industrialists.
Emancipation of the worker is therefore the great end, and political activity is the means to that end.
All efforts in attaining that end have failed due to the lack of solidarity of the workers in each country, and the absence of a fraternal bond between workers in those countries.
The emancipation of labor is a social problem in modern society and depends on the progress made in the most advanced countries.
The revival of the labor movement needs a united international organization to avoid the errors of the past.
Marx declared the International Workingmen’s Association would acknowledge that truth, justice, and morality were the bases of conduct for all men without regard to color, creed, or nationality. Everyone should claim the universal rights of man and citizen for himself and for all who did their duty. There were no rights without duties and no duties without rights. One of Marx’s Rules of the International stated that membership was open to anyone who acknowledged and defended the principles of the International Association. Another stated that the cost of membership was one shilling.
Within six years the Association’s membership grew to more than eight hundred thousand, and the IWA possessed a sizable treasury. The Association helped prevent the importation of foreign strikebreakers and provided financial aid to workers on strike. It published pamphlets in the millions and spread ideas about the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, and the inevitable triumph of socialism.
For years, Karl Marx was the guiding hand of rationalism and provided foresight for the Association. The most serious challenge to his leadership came from Mikhail Bakunin, the father of anarchism. When the IWA met in Basel, Switzerland, in August 1869, both men put forward distinct ideas about the nature and future of the communist movement, and they struggled for the leadership of the IWA. Marx prevailed and Bakunin was expelled. But each exerted a tremendous impact on the future of the labor movement and socialist thought.
Karl Marx
Brief Biography of Marx - Youtube
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism … The modern laborer, instead of rising with the process of industry sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. . .
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution. . .
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles … What the bourgeoisie therefore produces are their own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory the proletariat are equally inevitable. . .
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, unite!
These are excerpts from The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. During that year, Europe was in turmoil, and violent revolutions threatened to overthrow nations. Undemocratic governments ruled in Europe. Prussia was without a parliament, did not have freedom of speech, the right of assembly, or freedom of the press. Russia, under Czar Nicholas, was a cornerstone of despotism, reactionary policies, and repression. Italy was a number of small principalities. France was a repressive empire. Austria was a polyglot of people and countries, ruled by the whims of an emperor.
Adam Smith, who wrote the book Wealth of Nations, assumed that capitalism would improve the condition of workers. This, sadly, proved to be an illusion. Smith believed that the “invisible hand” of greed and competition would lead society to self-correction and happiness. Therefore, governments should follow a policy of laissez-faire and allow economic processes to follow their own course.
When capitalism did not improve the fate of the downtrodden, Smith’s theories were replaced by Utopian socialist reformers who, according to Marx, merely had good intentions while their theories lacked coherence and consistency.
The living conditions of the worker during the industrial revolution degenerated to the point where their lives as human beings were almost meaningless. The factory system not only paid mere subsistent wages, it separated labor from the fruits of that labor. The worker sold his labor to become a part of the process producing commodities, commodities that the worker did not use and had no pride in creating. Automatons, dividing their efforts into mindless repetitions of mass production, replaced craftsmen and artisans. Laborers became mutilated individuals. Alienated from the products they helped manufacture, workers’ dignity and worth disappeared.
Sporadic revolutions and demands for improved living and working conditions were followed by brutal suppressions and draconian restrictions on freedoms of assembly, speech, and press. Socialist revolutions occurred, but did not overthrow regimes of autocracy, capitalism, and oppression.
Still, Marx and the communists were not disappointed. Their theory of scientific socialism proved without question that revolutions would continue until the final Armageddon. The revolutions of 1848 were only a small rehearsal for the giant conflagration that simply had to occur. And just as unavoidable as the defeat of capitalism, was the ascension of a socialist society after a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Communist Manifesto was a philosophy of history, an explanation of inexorable forces that Marx believed to be infallible. Like the laws of motion, the ultimate revolution was inevitable. Communists were not dreamy idealists hoping for man to change; they had discovered the laws of history! Communists did not believe that their system was desirable. They believed it was a fact that was destined to happen.
Karl Marx was the architect of these theories. He wrote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!” He stated that the theory of communism could be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property!
Born in 1818, Marx was a stocky, powerful man with a dark complexion. His children called him the Moor. He was sloppy and plodding, smoked cigars, and surrounded himself with a dense, yellow haze of smoke. Cigar ashes would hang precariously from a half-smoked cigar on his lips, ready to fall off at any time. His wife complained about the ash-turds on her threadbare rug that resembled droppings of geese. Often Marx would get up from his desk after poring over his papers, which were always in disarray, and shuffle around his study, mumbling to himself—sometimes in German, sometimes in thickly accented English—and cursing his enemies, and even his friends. He spent years in poverty going to the British Museum, sitting in the uncomfortable wooden chairs of the circulation room, researching and formulating his theories. He claimed this was responsible for his hemorrhoids, still another reason for Marx to hate the capitalists.
His family was Jewish, but converted to Christianity so his father, a lawyer, would not be restricted in his profession and career. Young Karl attended the University of Berlin. There he fought a duel, was arrested for disturbing the peace after an all-night drinking binge, abandoned his study of law, and began to study philosophy. He received his doctorate of philosophy in 1841. Marx married his childhood sweetheart, Jenny, four years older than he, and moved to Paris in 1843. He was expelled from France because of his revolutionary writings, moved to Brussels, and traveled to London to work with the Communist League. He gave up his Prussian citizenship, had three children, and was able to return to Paris in 1848. He left Paris to join the German revolution in Cologne, was expelled from Prussia, and finally went to London via Paris in 1849, where he lived the rest of his life in exile.
Marx shared a life of destitution and poverty with his uncomplaining, devoted wife and his friend and collaborator, Friedrich Engels. Three of his six children died because Marx could not afford medicine and doctors. He would pawn his clothes in order to purchase paper for his articles. Jenny was reduced to begging in order to buy a coffin for their daughter, who died before her first birthday.
Yet Marx never abandoned his studies and writing, never became a “worker,” a proletariat, to support his family. He attempted to secure employment only once, as a railway ticket clerk, and was rejected due to poor handwriting. The Marx family suffered terribly, yet Karl ignored all the hardships his wife and children endured, remaining consumed by his economic theories and belief in the coming revolution.
Marx’s theory of communism took shape when he became a disciple of Hegel’s doctrines at the University of Berlin. Hegel died in a cholera epidemic five years before Marx enrolled at the university. Marx joined the young Hegelian radicals, became a militant atheist, but then gradually rejected the content, if not the form, of Hegel’s philosophy. Eventually, Marx came to believe Hegel had almost discovered fundamental laws of human development, but rejected Hegel’s idealism in favor of materialism. According to Marx, Hegel mistakenly gave an idealistic interpretation to philosophy. Marx, on the other hand, gave Hegel’s view of reality a materialistic foundation. Some said that Hegel believed God was recognizing himself through man on earth. In contrast, it is said that Marx believed that man was recognizing himself as god on earth.
Marx used Hegel’s dialectic as the basis for an analysis of society. By applying the dialectic to economic events, Marx explained the history, purpose, and future of man, and called this scientific socialism. He claimed that all ideas are a result of economic relationships. History was placed at the foundation of materialistic analysis. Before mankind could be involved in any activity such as politics, religion, philosophy, or a struggle for supremacy, people must first eat, drink, find shelter, and clothe themselves. As a result, man’s entire life was determined by how he satisfied his basic needs, and society was organized into activities to provide for materialistic production. This economic structure gave rise to all other relationships in a community. A person’s relationship to the means of production determined his class, and thus, his class-consciousness.
Marx believed that at one time man lived in a form of primitive communism, with nature dominating society. Man was in harmony with himself since he was able to personally use what he made with his own labor. As societies became more complex, divisions of labor appeared and private property developed. Man’s material and economic needs forced him to treat nature and other men as objects, which set the stage for the ownership of property, as well as the ownership of other human beings through slavery. Therefore, man progressed through stages of historical materialism. He started with primitive communism and then developed other systems, which included slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Capitalism would eventually develop into the final stage, communism.
Marx stated that all previous societies were characterized by struggles between classes. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, oppressor and oppressed; each stood in constant opposition to the other. These opposites carried on a battle that always ended in a revolutionary reconstitution of society. For instance, feudalism was destroyed by its own inherent contradictions and gave birth to capitalism. The North American colonies developed incompatibilities with English colonialism, and a new nation resulted. Nature also reflects this creative conflict. A bud on an apple tree is destroyed by the flower. The flower is destroyed by the fruit. The fruit disintegrates and its seeds become a tree in the next stage, producing buds in a cycle wherein everything contains the germ of its own destruction.
Marx’s analysis of economics showed that a capitalist society developed its own contradictions. The class of bourgeoisie (the thesis), owners of the means of production, oppressed the proletariat (the antithesis). This class of workers produced by the capitalists would soon rise to overthrow their oppressors, and socialism (the synthesis) would result.
Workers became estranged from themselves under the capitalist system, as the mechanization and specialization of labor in factories resulted in end products that workers only partially produced. To fully realize himself and escape from alienation caused by a system of private property, man had to abolish private property. Laws protecting private property came about with the rise of the industrialists, and were based on the interests of the ruling class, the capitalists. Private property merely exploited workers. “Free” competition allowed the capitalists to enslave the proletariat. But capitalism made man an object of sterile labor, where men do not use what they produce, and thus capitalism was destined to be overthrown by a capitalist creation: the proletariat.
Marx declared his theories openly and, supremely confident in his analysis of society, contemptuously rejected the use of secret cells to bring about the revolution. History was inexorable; the communist revolution would occur. Marx discovered scientific socialism, laws of society that were just as true as Newtonian physics. The International Workingmen’s Association was simply another step in awakening the workers’ consciousness, leading to revolution.
Marx would tolerate no threat to his leadership, no revision to his theory that foretold of revolution, followed by a brutal period of dictatorship of the proletariat, ultimately leading to a classless and stateless society. To Marx, Hegel almost discovered the laws of human development. Marx rejected the content, but not the form of Hegel’s philosophy. He believed that he could lead the proletariat to the promised land of communism. The only real challenge to Marx’s leadership of the International Workingmen’s Association and the proletarian movement came from Mikhail Bakunin, a refugee from Russia.
Replacing Liberty Equality, Fraternity?
Anarchism, Terrorism, and Nihilism
Bakunin and Nechayev, Herzen and Ogarev.
Photo of Herzen and Ogarev
Photo of Nechayev
The "isms" of the nineteenth century.
How many can we name?
Handouts;
Definitions, Anarchism et al.
The only revolution that can save the people is one that eradicates the entire state system
and exterminates all state traditions of the regime and all classes on Earth.
Mikhail Bakunin
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion - the revolution. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose - to destroy it.
Sergei Nechayev
DEFINITIONS
Anarchism is the political belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members. The Russian writer Alexander Herzen was greatly influenced by the anarchist-socialism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Forced into exile, Herzen established the Free Russian Press in London that published a series of journals including The Polar Star, Voices from Russia and The Bell. In The Bell Herzen predicted that because of its backward economy, socialism would be introduced into Russia before any other European country. "What can be accomplished only by a series of cataclysms in the West can develop in Russia out of existing conditions."
Nihilism; theory of revolution popular among Russian extremists until the fall of the czarist government (1917); the theory was given its name by Ivan Turgenev in his novel Fathers and Sons (1861). Nihilism stressed the need to destroy existing economic and social institutions. The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has either truth or a real existence. (negativity · cynicism · pessimism · disbelief)
Populism is a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite. Populism is an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice". The most influential person in the early days of Populism was Bakunin. While Bakunin was able to stir up the peasant’s revolutionary fervour, he was a poor organiser. Bakunin believed that once the peasants had been suitably educated in revolutionary ideas, they, through their own endeavours, would overthrow the tsarist regime.
Socialism; political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
Communism; a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Mikhail Bakunin
Bakunin was born to an aristocratic family in 1814, the oldest of ten brothers and sisters, and grew up on an estate with five hundred serfs and servants. His mother controlled and dominated everything. Bakunin later said that the love of liberty and fascination with destruction arose in response to his mother’s despotic character; and he would claim that destruction and creation were two sides of the same coin. He confessed a love for one of his sisters, but never seemed to be attracted to women sexually. It was rumored that Bakunin was impotent, but his fascination and involvement with Sergei Nechayev suggests otherwise. In any case, women were captivated by Bakunin’s charm and character. He carried on platonic affairs with married women, convinced them to abandon their husbands, persuaded them to finance his activities since he was penniless, and ultimately, disappointed them by not becoming their lover.
Bakunin was an officer in the Imperial Russian Artillery Corps, but resigned a commission to travel to Berlin in 1840. There, he was determined to study Hegel and join the intellectual ferment in Europe. In Paris in 1844, he met Karl Marx, both of them one step ahead of the police. Their backgrounds were similar: neither was a worker, but both spoke for the proletariat; and both rejected the privileges they were born into in order to study philosophy and devote themselves to the plight of the worker. They were both indebted to friends, and shamelessly borrowed and accepted money in order to study and agitate. They published articles in the same newspapers and magazines, and passionately believed in the coming revolution. But Bakunin was far more fervent about the destructive potential of the coming Armageddon, and ecstatically dreamed of a giant conflagration, where, “the whole of Europe with Russian, French, and English capitals would burn into giant rubbish heaps.”
Bakunin and Marx started out as potential collaborators, but over the course of thirty years, they evolved into bitter enemies despite, or even because of, their similarities. Since Bakunin believed that Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” would simply be another form of government oppression, their friendship ended. Bakunin did not trust any form of government, and believed workers would be as oppressive as the capitalists if they became the governing class. Unlike Marxist theory, revolution had to originate in the slums, the factories, and the criminal class, not from an intellectual elite. Bakunin was adamantly opposed to inheritance while Marx was tolerant of it, since inheritance was merely a symptom and the result of the problem of private property, not its cause. If private property were abolished, there would be no inheritance. To Bakunin, inheritance was an indispensable factor in the oppression of the worker. The communism of Bakunin, committed to secrecy and underground subversive activity, involved a small cadre of revolutionists who could act as midwives in the birth of the socialist revolution. Marx, on the other hand, believed there was no need for concealment and subversion, since scientific socialism was inevitable.
Despite fantasies of death and destruction, Bakunin was endowed with exhilaration for life, and loved to drink and sing Russian songs. A living contradiction, a giant in body and spirit but always a boy at heart, he was a burly, unkempt man who glowed with brotherly love for revolutionaries and socialists. At the same time, he advocated the obliteration of society, always spoke passionately about destruction, and actively tried to incite workers to revolution.
Bakunin lived in exile in various European cities after leaving his estate in Russia. In Paris during the revolution of February 1848, in Germany, in Czechoslovakia, and in Berlin, he participated in the revolts flaring up under the banner of communism. In 1849, Bakunin traveled to Prague, where a new government had been announced by insurgents. He took charge of a small band of militia, using his military training to set up the resistance against a Prussian force sent to quell the rebellion. Under fire, most of the revolutionaries fled; and, rather than abandon the last defenders and take flight himself, Bakunin stayed with them and was arrested. The anarchist was sent to Konigstein, a prison fortress in Germany, and was held in isolation for thirteen months, sentenced to die by beheading. When led to the guillotine and on the scaffold, the executioners announced his sentence had been changed to life imprisonment. Bakunin was then sent to Austria because of his subversive activities in the Czech rebellion and imprisoned there. After eleven months spent chained to a wall, he was extradited to Russia and consigned to the Peter and Paul Fortress. His health deteriorated, his teeth were lost to scurvy, and his body began to wither away because of poor food and only thirty minutes of exercise outside the cell each week. In 1857, he asked his brother to bring poison during a visit in case a final appeal to the new czar, Alexander II, failed. Bakunin was saved by Czar Alexander’s programs of reform and liberalization, and was exiled to Siberia. Employed as a clerk in the Far East Trading Company and married to a woman not even half his age, Bakunin became the father to two children his wife had with a friend, since he was apparently incapable of sexual union with a woman.
By 1861, Bakunin established enough trust and credibility with the trading company that he was allowed to travel to the Pacific on the company’s behalf. He eluded authorities and boarded a ship sailing to Japan. There, he wrangled a voyage to San Francisco and borrowed money to sail to Panama, crossed the isthmus, journeyed to New York, and then made his way to England. In London he joined the Russian émigré community surrounding Alexander Herzen. He borrowed more money and traveled all over Europe.
His charm with women allowed Bakunin to continue his agitation for revolution. In Italy, a rich Russian woman succumbed to his magnetism and became a patron. From her estate near Lake Como, Bakunin continued his activities by joining the International Workingmen’s Association, now convinced that revolution would not be confined to Europe, and would include Russia.
At a meeting of the International Workingmen’s Association in Switzerland, Bakunin made an indelible impression. One delegate reported that he did not recall what Bakunin said, but was astounded by the passion of this giant of a man, by his fiery eloquence and the revolutionary phrases in the speech. Here was a man of the revolution who defied emperors and kings of Europe, a man who had spent years rotting in prison, a man who had traveled around the world and come back to Europe to help the proletariat in their battle against oppression.
Whenever he appeared at a congress, workers always rose as one, and thunderous cheers and applause would rock the halls for this man of action, in recognition of his sacrifices. He was a true hero of the coming revolution, the revolution that Bakunin believed with all his heart would begin in his lifetime.
Nechayev
April 2,1869
Town Hall
Geneva, Switzerland
“Excuse me,” the young man interrupted the conversation between Nicholas Ogarev and a deputy of the International Workingmen’s Association. Ogarev ignored him and continued talking with the delegate. The young man was insistent. “Excuse me . . .” He was a short, thin man, obviously a radical, a man of no more than twenty or so years, clad in a wrinkled black jacket, white shirt, and black cravat, with a clean-shaven face, and hair combed straight back. Except for an intense stare, he resembled a homeless peasant.
Ogarev was displeased. Undeterred, the young man again interrupted, “Excuse me, I was told you might help me.”
Ogarev glowered and addressed the man, “Young man, can’t you see I’m conversing with someone.”
“Yes, but it can’t be as important as what I have to say.”
Ogarev excused himself from the deputy, and promised to continue later. Exasperated, he took the young man by his arm and led him away to a quiet corner of the room.
“Yes, what is it?”
Sergei Nechayev’s small eyes narrowed a bit as he spoke. They seemed to penetrate to the core of Ogarev’s being. His thin lips curled into a mocking smile, “Nicholas Ogarev? You are Nicholas Ogarev, aren’t you?”
“Yes! But I don’t think we have been introduced.”
“No, we haven’t. I am Sergei Nechayev. I have a very important message for Mikhail Bakunin, and I was told you might help me deliver it.”
“Bakunin isn’t expected on the floor until tomorrow morning. He’s in a meeting with the International Alliance. Perhaps you’ll be able to deliver the message to him by yourself.”
“I think you’ll find the message as interesting as your friend will.”
“Perhaps. Who is the message from?”
“The Russian Revolutionary Committee.”
“I’ve never heard of them.”
“You will. I have been chosen by the Executive Council to come here as an official delegate to represent the Committee and ask for help. They chose me after I was arrested and escaped from the Peter-Paul Prison, the same jail where Bakunin spent years in solitary confinement.
“No one escapes from that prison!”
“I did! Things have changed since you left Russia. The guards, the military, the officials, the people, they’re all ready to come over to our side. Some already have. We are prepared to purify, to exterminate by fire and sword, anyone who stands in the way of our freedom. The day of the peasant revolt is near.”
“I don’t think Bakunin will find that any more interesting than I do. The date of the peasant revolt has always been near. We have been patiently awaiting it for years.”
“It is less than a year away. Do you know the significance of February 19, 1870?”
“No, not at all.”
“It is the ninth anniversary of the Emancipation Manifesto.”
“And?”
“That’s the date the former serfs must either formally agree to finish buying land they’ve been paying for the last nine years, or terminate the agreement and have the land revert back to the landowner. However, the former serfs will not continue to pay for the land, nor will they surrender the land that they have worked on all their lives. On February 19, serfs will finally rise up and throw off the shackles of the Empire. A Programme of Revolutionary Action has already been issued.”
“How do you know all this?”
“Our Russian Revolutionary Committee has been working in villages and organizing the peasants. We have cells throughout Russia preparing the Intelligentsia, the students, and the city workers. You and Bakunin have been publishing The People’s Cause and calling for students to unite in the cause of social revolution. We have united! You have written that the business of revolutionaries is to rise up, and free the people by destroying the state. We have risen! You have been writing that we should no longer be strangled by the state as it tries to preserve itself. It’s happened! We have thrown off the ropes around our necks and have spoken! These are some of your words and some of our answers. Your words have inspired us to action. Did you hear of the student arrests last spring? When the students published a manifesto and announced they were prepared to perish in a dungeon rather than submit to the authorities and be suffocated and crippled spiritually and morally in the universities?”
“Yes, we’ve heard of the arrests, but it is difficult to learn the details. The police have arrested hundreds, including the leaders of the radical movement, and have destroyed the students’ printing presses, so there is little information coming out of Moscow or St. Petersburg.” Ogarev thought about what the young man represented to his hopes before continuing. “We have been awaiting the Russian insurrection. You might be a Godsend, Sergei, that’s your name, isn‘t it? Can you tell me more?”
“Yes, but only with Bakunin present. I would also have Herzen there, but I’m told he is in Paris. We have to meet in some quiet location where no secret agents of Alexander might be listening.”
“Yes. Tomorrow. Come to the meeting here tomorrow morning. Bakunin is addressing the convention at ten. I’ll introduce you. We can find some quiet place after his speech. Maybe Herzen’s house.”
“I’ll be here at eight. I must know more about Bakunin before I meet him. You must tell me more about him.”
“Why is that?”
Nechayev did not say it, but believed that knowledge is not only power but also control, and needed to know everything about Bakunin, Ogarev, and Herzen to enlist not only their moral and financial support, but direct them and dominate them as he saw fit.
He smiled and his eyes pierced Ogarev’s soul. “Because the lives of great revolutionaries are the inspiration for our cause.”
Bakunin and Nechayev
THE CATECHISM OF A REVOLUTIONARY
THE REVOLUTIONARY MAN
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no interests of his own, no affairs, no feelings, no attachments, no belongings, not even a name. Everything in him is absorbed by a single exclusive interest, a single thought, a single passion: the revolution.
PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE REVOLUTIONARY MUST BE GUIDED AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS HIMSELF
In the very depths of his being, not only in words but in deeds, he has broken all ties with the civil order and the entire cultivated world, with its laws, proprieties, social conventions and ethical rules. He is an implacable enemy of this world, and if he continues to live in it, it is only to destroy it more effectively.
The revolutionary despises all doctrinarism, rejects the mundane sciences, leaving them to future generations. He knows of only one science, the science of destruction. To this end, and this end alone, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. He will study day and night the living science: people, their characters, and all features of the present social order at all possible levels. His sole and constant object is the immediate destruction of this vile order.
He despises public opinion. He despises and abhors the existing social ethic in all its manifestations and expressions. For him, everything that assists the triumph of revolution is moral. To him, what is immoral and criminal is anything and everything that stands in his way.
The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless towards the state and towards the whole of educated and privileged society in general, and he must expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or undeclared, an unceasing and irreconcilable war of life and death.
Hard towards himself, he must be hard towards others also. All tender and effeminate emotions of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude, and honor must be stifled by a cold and single-minded passion for the revolutionary cause. There exists only one delight, one consolation, one reward and one gratification: the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim: merciless destruction. In cold-blooded and tireless pursuit of this aim, he must be prepared both to die and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the way of the success of the revolution.
The nature of the true revolutionary has no place for any romanticism, sentimentality, rapture, or enthusiasm. He has no place either for personal hatred or vengeance. The revolutionary passion, which in him becomes a habitual state of mind, must at every moment be combined with cold calculation. Always and everywhere, he must not be what the promptings of his personal inclinations would have him be, but what the general interest of the revolution prescribes.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS HIS COMRADES IN THE REVOLUTION
The revolutionary considers his friend, and holds dear only a person who has shown himself in practice to be as much a revolutionary as he is himself. The extent of his friendship, devotion, and obligation towards his comrades is determined solely by their degree of usefulness in the practical work of total revolutionary destruction. The need for solidarity among revolutionaries is self-evident. In it lays the whole strength of revolutionary work. Comrades who possess the same degree of revolutionary understanding and passion should discuss all-important matters together and come to unanimous decisions. But in implementing a plan, decided upon in this manner, each man should, as far as possible, rely on himself. In performing a series of destructive actions each man must act for himself and have recourse to the advice and help of his comrades only if necessary for the plan’s success.
Each comrade should have under him several revolutionaries of a second or third category, that is, comrades who are not completely initiated. He should regard them as portions of a common fund of revolutionary capital, placed at his disposal. He should expend his portion of this capital economically, always attempting to derive the utmost possible benefit from it, and should regard himself as capital consecrated to the triumph of the revolutionary cause; capital that may not be disposed of independently without the complete consent of fully initiated comrades.
When a comrade gets into trouble, the revolutionary, in deciding whether he should be rescued, must think not in terms of his personal feelings, but only of the revolutionary cause. Therefore he must balance, on the one hand, the usefulness of the comrade, and on the other, the amount of revolutionary energy necessarily expended for his deliverance, and must settle for whichever is the weightier consideration.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS SOCIETY
The admission of a new member, who has proved himself not by words but by deeds, may be decided upon only by unanimous agreement.
The revolutionary enters into the world of the state, class, and so-called culture, and lives in it only because he has faith in its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he feels pity for anything in this world. If he is able to, he has to face the annihilation of a situation, of a relationship, or of any part of this world; everything and everyone must be equally odious to him. All the worse for him if he has family, friends, or loved ones in this world; he is no revolutionary if he can stay his hand.
Aiming at merciless destruction, the revolutionary can and sometimes must live within society while pretending to be quite other than what he is. The revolutionary must penetrate everywhere, among all the lowest and the middle classes, into the houses of commerce, the church, the mansions of the rich, the world of the bureaucracy, the military, literature, the Third Section, and even the Winter Palace.
The next important category is that of women. They should be divided into three main types: first, those frivolous, thoughtless, and fluff-headed women whom we may use as we use the third category of men; second, women who are ardent, gifted, and devoted, but do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a real, passionless, and practical revolutionary understanding; and finally there are the women who are with us completely, that is, women who have been fully initiated and have accepted our program in its entirety. We should regard these women as the most valuable of our treasures, women whose assistance we cannot do without.
THE ATTITUDE OF OUR SOCIETY TOWARDS THE PEOPLE
Our revolutionary society has only one aim: the total emancipation and happiness of the people, the common laborers. But, convinced that their emancipation and the achievement of their happiness can be realized only by means of an all-destroying popular revolution, our society will employ its power and its resources in order to promote an intensification of those calamities and horrors that must finally exhaust the patience of the people and drive them to a popular uprising. By ‘popular revolution’ our society does not mean a regulated movement on the classical French model, a movement that has always been restrained by the notion of property and the traditional social order of our so-called civilization and morality, which has until now always confined itself to the overthrow of one political structure merely to substitute another, to create the so-called revolutionary state. The only revolution that can save the people is one that eradicates the entire state system and exterminates all state traditions of the regimes and classes on Earth.
Therefore, our society does not intend to impose on the people any organization from above. Any future organization will undoubtedly arise through the movement and life of our people, but that is a task for future generations. Our task is terrible, total, universal, merciless destruction.
Therefore, in drawing closer to the people, we must ally ourselves above all with those elements of the popular life which, ever since the very foundation of the state power of Moscow, have never ceased to protest, not only in words but in deeds, against everything directly or indirectly connected with the state: against the nobility, against the bureaucracy, against the priests, against the world of the merchant guilds, and against the tight-fisted, estate-owning, land pirates. But we shall ally ourselves with the intrepid world of brigands, who are the only true revolutionaries in Russia. To knit this world into a single invincible and all destroying force, that is the purpose of our entire organization, our conspiracy, and our task.
Alexander Herzen
"Well, now we know what the reactionaries have always known: liberty, equality, and fraternity are like three rotten apples in the barrel of privilege" - Herzen
"It is possible to lead astray an entire generation, to strike it blind, to drive it insane, to direct it towards a false goal. Napoleon proved this." Herzen
Excerpt from www.the-american-interest.com/v/michael-mcdonald The American Reader, The Brilliant Rage of Alexander Herzen:
A Herzen Reader
by Alexander Herzen
edited and translated from the Russian with an introduction by Kathleen Parthé, with a critical essay by Robert Harris
After Russia had labored under a harsh dictatorship for decades, unexpectedly a new ruler assumed power. For a few years political liberalization took hold; to most outside observers it seemed as though Russia was finally becoming a “normal” Western-style state. But then the authoritarian nature of the governing regime reasserted itself, and civil liberties were once more harshly curtailed. Can we make sense of this turbulent period in Russian history? If you’re interested in the Gorbachev-to-Yeltsin-to-Putin era, many talented “historians of the moment”—Albert Camus’s felicitous phrase for investigative journalists—can explain how Russia moved from glasnost and perestroika to gangsterism and Pussy Riot over the past two decades. But there is an earlier, Czarist version of this same pattern of harsh political repression, followed by glimmers of hope, followed by a return to repression. It began with the autocratic reign of Nicholas I, which ended with his death in 1855. His son Alexander II succeeded him. While Nicholas’s reign was one of the darkest hours of 19th-century Russian authoritarianism, Alexander II freed the serfs and undertook important electoral and judicial reforms before losing much of his youthful enthusiasm for change amid three failed assassination attempts. A fourth attempt succeeded in 1881. Alexander II was followed by his son, Alexander III, whose taste for authoritarian nastiness nearly equaled that of Nicholas.
If your interest runs more to this earlier period, there is only one investigative rabble-rousing journalist worth consulting: Alexander Herzen. Fortunately, an exceptional collection of Herzen’s journalism has recently appeared. A Herzen Reader is edited, annotated and translated from the Russian by Kathleen Parthé, who bridges the formidable gulf of language and culture that separate us from Herzen’s time and place. She judiciously supplements Herzen’s articles with explanatory footnotes and prefaces each with comments explaining the context in which it was written. Most fundamentally, however, she deserves great praise for translating Herzen’s writing into a lucid and contemporary English that preserves both the urgency and the irony underlying his prose.
Excerpt from the Coast of Utopia, Tom Stoppard
The exiled Russian, Alexander Herzen, was preparing to publish another issue of The Bell, the radical Russian journal smuggled into Russia. The Bell was considered the voice of a second government, and even Czar Alexander read it. Not subject to the mutilation of censorship, the journal could discuss the abolition of serfdom, freedom of speech and the press, representative government, and other reforms.
In 1857, four years before the Emancipation Edict of February 19, 1861, Herzen had written of the newly crowned Czar Alexander II, “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!” Herzen heaped this exaggerated and undeserved praise on Alexander, because Herzen had learned that with regard to emancipation, the czar had said that it is better change comes from above, rather than from below. Herzen wrote that what was needed was not change from above, but revolution from above. The Bell optimistically stated that the czar was working with the reformers for “the future greatness of Russia.” Herzen was hopeful that emancipation could be attained through a peaceful solution; and went on to write that the current bondage of the peasants in Russia satisfied no one, and in the heart of every man was a preference for peaceful human development as opposed to bloodshed. Meanwhile, radicals denounced Herzen for his patience with, and faith in, the good intentions of the emperor.
In February 1861, Herzen believed freedom was indeed obtained with the stroke of a pen. The serfs were emancipated. Deliverance came about without a peasant revolt drenching Russian soil with blood. Herzen and his friend and collaborator on the journal, Nicholas Ogarev, feared peasants might take up the ax, but were relieved when all that was needed was a broom. Herzen was now reconciled with the radicals who had advocated violence, saying he had disagreed only with their methods, not their aims. Herzen felt that his “Free Russian Press” swayed not only public opinion, but also the czar himself, and had helped promote a peaceful resolution to the serf question. The Bell proclaimed that first measures had been taken; now the question of complete freedom must be given full attention.
When serfs were first emancipated, Herzen and Ogarev celebrated and rejoiced, and decided to give a banquet for all the Russian émigrés and abolitionists in London. They planned to propose a toast and a speech to their liberated peasant brothers, to their motherland Russia, and to their ruler, Alexander Nikolaevitch. They proclaimed that neither history nor the Russian people would ever forget Czar Alexander, and The Bell hailed him as The Liberator.
However, the toast was never given, and the speech was forgotten. Herzen and Ogarev read and reread the decree, and came to the conclusion that the czar had cheated the people. The Great Emancipator was a fraud, a charlatan who had deceived the serfs into a different form of bondage. The Edict was 360 pages long, written in legalese, and far too complicated for the simple, uneducated peasants to understand. It allowed landlords to keep two-thirds of the land, while the peasants were left with only the poorest lands. The good land that they had lived on and worked for generations would escheat to the gentry. Moreover, small harvests and exorbitant redemption fees guaranteed that peasants would not be able to pay for the less arable land they were forced to take. Furthermore, they would now be responsible for new taxes, and would have no representation in the apportionment of those taxes or the administration of their districts, which remained in the hands of the nobility.
Herzen and Ogarev were also upset, because the liberal ministers and nobles who initially worked on the legislation were cursorily thanked and immediately dismissed from government service. Conservatives and reactionaries who opposed the Edict now replaced them.
Herzen watched with apprehension as the Emancipation Edict proclaimed in February was followed not by parades and festivities, but by violent peasant revolts and uprisings in March and April. In one village, peasants rallied around Anton Petrov, who claimed that the czar had given all the land to the serfs, but greedy landholders had ignored the czar and were withholding property from the emancipated farmers. Thousands came from nearby hamlets and joined Petrov in petitioning the czar for protection of their rights. Troops were sent to arrest him, and when the people of the village refused to surrender Petrov, the soldiers fired into the crowd shielding him. Four hundred men, women, and children were murdered. Other demonstrations and uprisings throughout Russia were suppressed with bloodshed and violence.
Student protests broke out at St. Petersburg University in support of the peasants. Students demonstrated against increased taxation on the peasants, restrictions that did not permit former serfs to leave their villages, and the stern measures used in putting down peasant revolts. They also wanted the czar to summon a national assembly to address all issues facing the Russian Empire. The insulted czar—the Little Father— responded by instituting military discipline at the university, expelling students, and cancelling all financial scholarships.
In addition to ordering the shocking suppression of the students, Czar Alexander sent troops into Poland that year, and blood was spilled on the streets of Warsaw. Herzen realized that Alexander remained an oppressor, not only of the newly freed serfs, but also of students, Polish nationalists, and all liberal movements within the Russian Empire. Herzen and Ogarev could not raise a glass to this dictator, and their party and celebration was cancelled. Herzen considered what course of action he would now advocate in The Bell to help liberal reforms in his homeland. The conclusion he reached was that peasants needed useful and applied knowledge; knowledge only teachers, doctors, and engineers could supply. Reacting to the disturbances at the universities, Herzen agitated for greater freedom for university students. He united the problems of the peasants and the university students, and saw that their plights complemented each other.
This gadfly of Russia came up with a new program and slogan: Go to the People! He believed students and peasants shared a common cause. He now encouraged students to go into the country to educate and mobilize the emancipated serfs. This would be the cause that he and Ogarev would promote in The Bell.
Arrest of a Propagandist, Repin
April 16, 1865
Chateau de la Boissierre
Geneva, Switzerland
Alexander Herzen was waiting on his front porch for Nicholas Ogarev’s coach to arrive. He was as anxious as he had been ten years ago in London, when they met for the first time since leaving Russia. At that time, he feared that the bonds of friendship between him and his childhood comrade had frayed, and that they no longer shared the same hopes and dreams. Now, he was concerned about Ogarev’s drinking, his epileptic fits, and most of all, about the situation between himself and Ogarev’s wife, Natalie.
These two Russian émigrés were socialists and champions of freedom, equality, and change in the land they had left many years ago. When Herzen was only fourteen, both he and Ogarev stood on Sparrow Hill overlooking Moscow and vowed to oppose tyranny and autocracy. They rejected the subservient role which society assigned to women, and became advocates of women’s political, social, and personal rights, especially with regard to marriage and matters of the heart. They had become “new men.” However, it was one thing to profess a belief based on the principles of equality and personal freedom between the sexes; it was another thing to actually experience the consequences of those beliefs.
When Herzen’s first wife fell in love with his good friend, the German poet George Herwegh, the emotional toll was devastating. Herzen rationalized and excused his wife’s infidelity by considering that her happiness was paramount. Since he loved her so much, and he loved his beliefs about the relations between men and women even more, her happiness was more important than his feelings. A woman was not the property of her husband, and there was no place for jealousy in the equal relationship between a man and a woman. Nevertheless, he resented her and, although they reconciled, their relationship was never the same. If she had not died in childbirth a few years later, Herzen probably would have justified having affairs by the twisted logic of romantic revenge. Her death saved the memory of his marriage. She became a holy saint to him, sanctified by grief and regret. Now Herzen had placed his best friend, Ogarev, in the same circumstances he’d found himself in fifteen years ago. Herzen was in love with Ogarev’s wife. Betrayed by both Natalie and Herzen, Ogarev seemed able to accept their unfaithfulness for the same reason that Herzen had attempted to justify and tolerate his wife’s infidelity. He sacrificed his feelings for the happiness and freedom of others.
Herzen realized that Ogarev was much more the “new man” than he was. Ogarev was the socialist who granted complete liberty to his wife to take up with a lover. He accepted the reality of the situation, and actually lived in the same communal house with them before Herzen left London for the Continent. All of this was something that Herzen, no matter how much he had rationalized it, had not been able to do when his wife had her affair with Herwegh.
Although Herzen and Ogarev were socialists, Herzen was a wealthier socialist. He had inherited estates and money from his father and had invested successfully, financing his extravagant life as a celebrated Russian émigré. Ogarev, more faithful to ideals of liberty and equality, freed the 1,870 serfs on an estate he inherited from his father, and then sold the land to those liberated peasants at a very cheap price. Herzen had never freed his serfs, despite owning many more “souls” and land than his best friend. Eventually, Ogarev became dependent on Herzen for financial support. Ogarev, the poet, the idealist, the revolutionary, the “new man,” came to realize his beliefs could not be reconciled with the circumstances of his life; and he found it easier to escape reality by drinking. Herzen knew that the affair with Natalie was partly the cause of his friend’s melancholy, and his actions had contributed to the depression and drinking problems that overwhelmed Ogarev, who could only find solace in vodka and poetry.
Herzen even blamed himself for the bouts of madness that periodically plagued Natalie. Their two illegitimate children, three-year-old twins with the last name of Ogarev, had died on the way to Geneva during a diphtheria epidemic. Six months before that, Herzen had left London for Geneva to resuscitate his failing publication, The Bell, and he blamed himself for the children’s deaths, since he had insisted on leaving London. If they had remained in England, the twins would still be alive. Grief once again descended on Herzen, as it had after his mother and son died in a shipwreck in 1851. The only way he could find solace was to suppress his sorrow by concentrating on his work to promote a peasants’ revolution, a revolution he hoped would be led by Russian serfs, who would unite with the West’s industrialized proletariat to overthrow social, political, and economic slavery under the banner Herzen called Land and Liberty.
A coach pulled up on the mud-covered drive. An old man and an attractive young woman, whom Herzen did not recognize, preceded Ogarev out of the coach. Ogarev took the arms of the man and the woman and led them up the stairs to the porch. A boy and a girl jumped out onto the muddy drive and followed the adults.
“Alexander Herzen,” Ogarev said, “here is your old friend, Alexander Poggio. He has brought Madame Perovskaya and her children with him. She is the wife of the governor general of St. Petersburg, Lev Perovsky.” Ogarev approached Herzen and hugged him, kissing him on his cheeks.
Poggio, who had aged considerably since the last time Herzen saw him, stood to the side and said, “I am honored to be with you once more, Alexander.” Poggio’s voice retained a youthful vigor completely at odds with the man’s appearance. He, too, embraced Herzen and kissed his cheeks. Poggio then introduced the woman. “This is Madame Perovskaya. She is here to visit her brother-in-law, Pyotr Perovsky. Have you met him yet? He is the former Russian ambassador to China. Unfortunately, his health is in question and he is in Geneva to consult with Swiss doctors. We know how much better off he is here rather than in St. Petersburg.”
“I am delighted to meet you, Monsieur Herzen.” Madame Perovskaya extended her hand. “My husband always reads your papers and pamphlets. It seems that you know more about St. Petersburg living abroad than we do living in the city.”
“No, Madame, not more. I only report what I am told by people who can speak freely. The difference is simply that I am permitted to write what I know and believe.”
“Soon you may be able to do that in Russia,” said Poggio. “The czar has not finished with his reforms. Here I am, proof that Alexander II means well. Otherwise, I should still be in Siberia.”
“Your presence in Switzerland and not Russia,” Herzen said, “is proof enough for me that the ‘Great Reformer’ is not as benevolent as people hoped. Otherwise, you would be in Moscow.”
“You have not lost your wit, Alexander!”
The Perovsky children came up the stairs. Herzen, who had suffered the worst fate to befall a father, loved children and was thrilled to see these two. A little twelve-year-old girl with short brown hair above a high forehead and sad gray blue eyes took two steps at a time as she bounded up to the landing. Her brother, three years older and obviously displeased at having to make this social call, lagged behind. They were dressed in play clothes, which were not at all suitable for visiting.
“Monsieur Herzen, here are my children. This is Sophia. And here is Vasia.”
Sophia stood still and merely nodded while her brother confidently shook Herzen’s hand. “I am pleased to meet you,” said the boy as he bowed slightly and held out his hand, obviously schooled in proper etiquette.
“Would you mind if they played in the garden?” Madame Perovskaya asked. “They have been cooped up far too long.” She stroked Vasia’s blond hair.
“No, not at all. They might enjoy the backyard. There are swings and a path leading down to the lake.” As Herzen said this, a pang of regret over his dead children shot through his heart. He wondered if the swings and the path made for the twins would now be filled again with children’s laughter.
He knew his friend wished to distract him from his thoughts when Ogarev said, “Where is Mikhail Bakunin? Poggio wants to see him. It’s been years since they took tea together. Actually, they probably never had tea together, but if you have some vodka, that would bring back old memories. Isn’t that right, Poggio?”
The old man laughed and started to cough, a dry hacking cough.
Herzen’s expression brightened. “Ogarev, Bakunin is in the back gardens or down by the lake. Why don’t you take the children while you hunt for that bear?”
“Is there really a bear by the lake?” Sophia asked.
Ogarev laughed. “Oh, he’s a bear all right. A big fuzzy bear! Here, follow me. We’re on a bear hunt.”
Ogarev bounded off into the woods, while Herzen led Poggio and Madame Perovskaya into the house, saying he would call for refreshments.
Herzen and his guests chatted amiably in the large porch at the rear of the house. Herzen was curious to hear the gossip making the rounds in the capital, while Madame Perovskaya was interested to learn about Russians living in Geneva. She hoped her children could see their uncle once more since his health was not good, and went on to say how she worried about the children wasting away in St. Petersburg. Madame Perovskaya was glad to be away from all the social obligations and soirees that were part of her husband’s duties, and explained that her children always seemed happier outside in the open air than in drawing rooms. Sophia, in particular, was having a difficult time adjusting to St. Petersburg after so much time at their Caucasus estate. As for herself, she admitted she did not possess the social graces necessary for a governor general’s wife, and her husband was probably embarrassed when they entertained and attended receptions. She added that in that regard, Sophia was definitely her child.
Poggio inquired about Mikhail Bakunin and whether he still believed that a revolution was imminent.
“Yes,” Herzen answered. “And he still believes that history can be analyzed and the future predicted.”
“Aha! He is the same man I knew in Tomsk.” As Poggio spoke, the two children entered the porch, giggling and holding the hands of a large, rotund balding man with a thick flowing beard that made him appear to be an Old Testament prophet. His eyes were dark and puffy, and when he smiled, it was immediately apparent that he had no teeth. Permanent wrinkles creased his bulbous forehead and curved above bushy eyebrows that resembled two hairy caterpillars, giving him an inquiring expression and suggesting he was always ready to ask a question.
Poggio looked up. “Aha! Speak of the devil and he appears! Mikhail, it has been so many years since we last saw each other.”
“Poggio! What wind blows you here?”
“An autumn wind, one that will give us a good harvest. Look at you, Mikhail. It seems that you have been enjoying yourself, much more than when we last shared bread!” As he spoke, Poggio held his stomach, indicating that Bakunin’s girth had grown since they last met.
“Poggio, you old Decembrist! You know I swore I would never go hungry again! Being imprisoned at the Peter and Paul Fortress convinced me I should eat every meal as if it were my last. I have many years to make up for, too many years of black bread, years of no cigars, no wine, and no fine food.”
The old friends laughed and gave each other an extended hug, neither wishing to break off the embrace of old friends who had suffered so much together.
Little Sophia ran to her mother. “Mama, Mama! Mikhail promised he would take us boating.”
“You mean Monsieur Bakunin, Sophia. Mind your manners.”
“No, he has already become our friend. He said we could call him Mikhail. We’ve been playing with him in the gardens.”
Bakunin beamed at Madame Perovskaya, “Your children are delightful. I can see where they get their fine features and zest for life. It is a pleasure to meet a mother who allows her children freedom to enjoy fresh air and gardens without worrying their clothes might get dirty.”
“Monsieur Bakunin, I assure you that I have little to say about the children enjoying the outdoors and”—she laughed—“even less about their soiled clothing. They would be content with a tarp and a blanket and would happily sleep under the stars. They have inherited an affinity with nature from my side of the family, peasants from the country. They would rather romp in the fields and woods of the Crimea than go to school in St. Petersburg. Sometimes I think Sophia would be happiest as a farmer. Her father simply cannot get her to act as a young lady.”
“I have just the book for her,” Bakunin said. “Notes of a Huntsman. Sophia, come here!” He walked to the bookshelf and—without asking permission from Herzen, because communists held all things in common—he pulled down the book and gave it to Sophia.
“I want you to know that the man who wrote this book was forbidden by the czar to leave his estate for one year, simply because he wrote about Russia, a real book about real people. His name is Turgenev, Ivan Turgenev. This book is about serfs, about true people, about humanity.”
Herzen interrupted, “Mikhail, perhaps her father might object to her reading that book.”
Madame Perovskaya had a sour look on her face, and replied to Herzen, “Her father would object to her reading any book. He says there is no reason for women to read books. But I’ll encourage her to read it before we leave Geneva and return it to you.”
“Women shouldn’t read a book?” Bakunin slammed his fist down on a table. “Truth doesn’t recognize differences between men and women. Everyone is entitled to truth and honesty!”
He went on, seething. “What kind of country is it that makes people afraid to read books within its borders? What kind of country is it that punishes artists for writing the truth, for singing, for painting reality? Do you see my friend Herzen here?” He addressed Madame Perovskaya. “He was exiled because he was at a party where a song was sung, a simple student song. A song! The emperor was afraid of a song! The lyrics insulted his Exalted Person! And equally outrageous, listen to this, Czar Nicholas’s policy was that every student studying music or painting at the Imperial Academy of Arts had to wear a uniform. Imagine an artist like Leonardo being forced to wear a uniform. When one student at the Academy balked at wearing a uniform and expressed a desire to paint Russian peasant scenes, rather than copy works of classical antiquity, he was expelled. Before he could even clean out his room, that Supreme Patron of the Arts, Czar Nicholas himself, ordered him to report to the army and serve a twenty-five-year enlistment! I guess we should be happy with small steps toward a more enlightened Russia. Today, he would only have to serve sixteen years under the Great Emancipator, Alexander.”
A master at creating a dramatic moment, Bakunin paused for effect. “The worst kind of tyranny,” he continued, “is tyranny of the mind. That is why all governments must be destroyed. Mankind must be freed from all forms of tyranny. At the same time, freedom must be paired with justice. Freedom without socialism is injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery!”
Herzen interjected, talking to no one and everyone in the room, “Bakunin has always been able to say lofty things that don’t make any sense, but sound as if they are deeply meaningful.”
Poggio addressed Madame Perovskaya. “Madame, my friend Bakunin still has the same views he held in Siberia. He has not changed a bit.”
“That’s not true, Poggio. I have kept the core of my views, but I have changed. The Liberator Czar has helped me change.”
“How do you mean?”
“I am now convinced that his government, in fact, all governments must be overthrown. See what he has done with the emancipation. The czar was too frightened to grant a real emancipation. His nobles tried to talk him out of it completely. They said if he freed the serfs, they would just go off and sell their lands, buy vodka, drink themselves into a stupor as they always do when they have money, and become homeless burdens to the state. So they came up with a brilliant solution. The nobles sold their lands, the worst parcels, not to the serfs, but to the village, to the mir. The landowners kept the meadows and sold the marshes. Land that sold for ten rubles before the emancipation is now sold to peasants for forty rubles. Now it costs the mir twice as much to cultivate land than before, when the landowners owned serfs. The mir borrows from the government to pay the landowners for land that barely supports serfs and their families. So now, based on the number of former serfs in the village, they all have to pay a share of the loan.”
As Bakunin talked, little Sophia Perovskaya moved closer to him, apparently fascinated by the anarchist’s outrage.
“In addition,” he went on, “they pay new taxes levied on the mir. To make sure that the ‘emancipated’ serf didn’t just throw his hands up and run away, the government broke the manacles on his wrists and put them on his legs. He is forbidden to leave the mir without written permission from the village elder. Of course, the village elder is not about to reduce the base of taxpayers and have those who remain pay more. Written permission is never given. So how is the serf better off than before Alexander’s great edict? Because he can no longer be sold for a hunting dog? Because he can’t leave the village? He is burdened with the collective debt owed to the government that supposedly gave him freedom. He continues to owe taxes through the mir. Is there any wonder that serfs rose up in rebellion? The sty that was his home, and his father’s home before him, prior to emancipation, still remains his house. He still remains tied to the village. He still continues living hand to mouth, eking out a meager existence farming. But now he is crushed by a debt that he and his children cannot repay. In his simple way, he believes the ‘Little Father’ in St. Petersburg truly granted him freedom, but the nobles and administrators are cheating him. So of course the serfs rose up in rebellion. You might not have heard about the Kazan rebellion, where ten thousand peasants demanded their freedom. More than a hundred were either shot on the spot or executed! The government has forbidden any reports or discussion of this affair. We know there were five hundred peasant rebellions in the last few years of Nicholas’s reign. We don’t know how many have occurred since Alexander’s emancipation. And The Great Reformer remains as oppressive as his father when it comes to freedom of the press. So when you talk of the emancipation, I have to ask, what emancipation? How is the serf better off than before 1861?”
Bakunin paused, out of breath. “And what of Poland? It’s not even a name anymore. We have absorbed that country into Russia. No longer can they speak their native tongue. Russian is the only language permitted now. The czar’s brother administers the country. And what of our universities? Our universities were given fresh air, a glimpse of freedom, and are now closed. Alexander will not allow our people to be educated in the liberal arts. He fears knowledge. A tyrant is always afraid of books. If you read certain books, you can be exiled. The road to Siberia has been worn smooth by the footsteps of exiles. Nicholas sent only nine thousand exiles a year to Siberia. The ‘Liberator,’ not to be outdone, sends more than twice that number to the frozen tundra.”
Bakunin paused again, once more trying to catch his breath, as overweight people were apt to do when they were excited. Herzen warned Madame Perovskaya, “Madame, watch out. Bakunin will try to convert you. My friend is zealous. He believes the passion for destruction is a creative passion. And he naively believes that revolution is instinct rather than thought.”
“We have to destroy the Russian government! That includes the czar and all his toadies. The czar has to be removed!”
Everyone realized what Bakunin was calling for. Ogarev, pouring another brandy, added, “Has everyone here heard that the President of the United Sates was assassinated? The assassin shouted ‘Sic semper tyrannis’—‘thus always to tyrants’—and escaped. Lincoln freed the slaves, and I wonder what he might have given to the Negroes of America after the war ended. More than our czar gave to the serfs, I’m sure. Perhaps this might inspire a Russian revolutionary to take action. Then we can start all over and truly unshackle the serfs. The czar must be assassinated.”
Herzen winced at this remark. “Only among savage and decadent nations is history made by assassination. Assassins are the syphilis of our revolutionary lust. Nothing positive will happen if the czar is killed. There will simply be another czar. What is needed is a peasants’ revolt, started by the peasants themselves, a real revolution that will inspire all the oppressed in Russia and Europe to overthrow their governments, not just the people who run them. Only Russian peasants can save Europe. Their communes don’t need capitalist development. The commune is the basis of socialism, and it already exists in Russia. What is needed is to go to the people, to educate them.”
“Education combined with agitation, Herzen,” Ogarev commented, and finished his brandy.
“What is needed is the destruction of the government.” Bakunin sat down heavily on the sofa. “That will be the spark to ignite the flame of revolution. As you point out, Herzen, the only consequence of an assassination would be sympathy and support for a new czar. We can agree on that. Yet, you have changed so much in the past few years. I remember the dedication for your book, From the Other Shore, the words you wrote to your son. I have memorized them, Herzen.”
Bakunin closed his eyes. “‘We do not build, we destroy; we do not proclaim a new truth, we abolish an old lie. Contemporary man only builds the bridge; another, unknown man of the future will walk across it. You, my son, perhaps will see it. I beg of you: do not remain on this shore.’”
He opened his eyes and looked accusingly at Herzen. “You are not the same man, Herzen.”
“No, I am not a young Hegelian anymore. None of us are Hegelians anymore. I have already seen too much blood in my lifetime, Bakunin. I can’t call for the ax when I have the slightest hope for a solution without the ax. I am disgusted, sickened, and repelled by all the revolutions of Europe. Everyone is ready to kill and die for some abstract noun. These revolutionaries are ready to sacrifice themselves and others for a future happiness, a cause that leads to an end that they can never enjoy. The purpose of life is not some future life. It is not death. It is life itself, now, a happy life as much as we can have it. You would destroy everything, but our civilization has contributed much to the happiness and pleasure of humanity. Would you destroy the works of Goethe, of Beethoven, of Pushkin, of Rembrandt, of Raphael? There are fine works of art that do not deserve the torch. But even from a practical standpoint, would you destroy a shoe factory, a bakery, a dairy? I ask you, Bakunin, are you intent on opening the eyes of mankind or do you want to pluck them out? Reason and tolerance, Bakunin, not dogma and the guillotine. Political liberty and socialism, not authoritative communism.”
Sophia watched as Herzen challenged Bakunin. She was fascinated and completely absorbed by the arguments of each of these revolutionaries. She wondered what Bakunin would say next.
“Tell me,” Bakunin said, “how your works of art benefit the peasant, the proletariat? How does art make the laborer happy? How can you have happiness when others do not? You have become a dilettante, Herzen. I can only be happy when everyone shares happiness. I can only be free when everyone is free! My imprisonment and exile to Siberia have only strengthened my resolve. In that, I have not changed. The revolution will come, it will happen, and I will be happy when it occurs. I live for the revolution. Not a political revolution, but a social revolution. What must be destroyed is the present order under which people live, the state that is founded on property, exploitation, and authority. I call for complete anarchy, and not merely to replace one form of oppression with another. No dictatorship of the proletariat. Government from the bottom up, not from the top down.”
Bakunin turned to Ogarev, trying to justify himself to Herzen’s friend. “Ogarev, killing the czar is not the answer, but if it happens, it is merely an unfortunate consequence based on the hatreds festering in the oppressed masses.” His attention went back to Herzen. “So you see, Herzen, I can agree with you. I work for a revolution that does not have violence as its goal. Destruction is my goal. Destruction of the institutions of all society. A new beginning. But violence might be inevitable, since the propertied class will not voluntarily give up its privileges. And I will be fulfilled when all authority, all governments, have been eradicated. To be free is to have an absence of domination. Our only mission is destruction. Destruction of private property, of the state! There is no other undertaking. Free people will decide what happens after the conflagration. You, Herzen, seem to have abandoned our ship.”
“Yes, it’s true, Bakunin, I have changed. I once believed as you did, that Hegel’s philosophy was the algebra of revolution, a revolution that was to have begun in Europe. But now Europe has become soft, materialistic. I see what Europe is now: shopkeepers and merchants supported by the working class. Two camps exist today, those who have and refuse to give up their monopolies, and those who have nothing and want only to tear wealth out of the grip of the propertied class. On one hand, you have miserliness and on the other, envy. One class triumphs over the other in wave after wave of victory and defeat, changing places from the side of envy to the side of miserliness according to the bank balance of each. The goal has become unbridled acquisition. They have a magnet in their breasts that is always attracted to gold! Morality has been reduced to an obligation to try to gain wealth by every possible means on the part of those who have not, and to preserve and increase their property on the part of those who have. Life has been reduced to a perpetual struggle for money. And the result? Seeming instead of being, behaving decorously instead of behaving well, keeping up with respectability instead of inner dignity. Hypocrisy and cunning. Atrophy of the mind, dystrophy of the will, and hypertrophy of the self!”
Herzen was on his feet now. The room was silent except for his calm yet enraged voice.
“Your prophets talk of inevitability and design. They cook it with some philosophical seasoning and feed it to the oppressed. Enslavement to an idea, a doctrine, is only another form of human sacrifice and cannibalism. You talk of historical development, of inevitability, but there is much in history that is fortuitous, stupid, confused, and subject to the throw of the dice. There is no purpose in history, only chance. History has no libretto! History is the autobiography of a madman.”
Ogarev was at the brandy decanter. “Bakunin is right, Herzen. You are not wrong, but Bakunin is right. We need a social revolution. Nevertheless, I would still start with the assassination of the czar. But what is important is not the end of our journey but the journey itself. Our effort, whether we see it or not, must be to bring about revolution, to change the conditions which chain men and women. We must change the world so the next generation”—he pointed to Sophia—“will be our best hope, and our children will not have to take on what is our responsibility.” Ogarev concluded by challenging Herzen, “We must live for each other, for humanity, for liberty and equality. That is our destiny. Yours, mine, and Bakunin’s!”
“It is true, Ogarev,” Herzen said, “I once believed as you do, but I now see the dangers of the arrogance of absolute knowledge. Throughout history we have seen the tragedy wrought by those who have attained absolute knowledge. Whether they use the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, theories of the divine right of kings, colonialism, mercantilism, imperialism, ‘Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité,’ or the Communist Manifesto. No matter the dogma, the result is the same. Those acolytes cannot tolerate dissent from their doctrine—they have categorical truth! And this truth of theirs is the betrayal of human nature, the betrayal of the human spirit. It is doctrine without compassion or tolerance, or the possibility of error. It is destruction, war, and ignorance. It does not matter whether it is the voice of their god, their politics, their belief in scientific socialism, their doctrine of racial superiority, their confidence in economic inevitability, or another infallible principle, the consequences are the same. Destruction and unhappiness!”
Herzen’s mood seemed to change at once, from confrontation to pleading. “We are always at the edge of human discovery, of further knowledge. We are always at the edge of error. Only tyrants and demigods are absolutely certain of their beliefs. They will kill in the name of their god, their belief. All our knowledge is limited because our discoveries always lead to new, not final, understanding. We can never have absolute certainty.”
He paused and then said, “The only war we can wage is a war with those who, in their arrogance, behave as though they cannot be mistaken, and who would have us believe as they do or destroy us. Our duty must be to have the courage to always question our convictions. We have to be brave enough to ask, is it possible we are wrong? Oliver Cromwell, the man who led the overthrow of the English Monarchy said, 'I beseech you, by the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken!' Our war must be waged with the weapons of education. We must reject the belief that the end justifies the means. We cannot be blind to the sufferings that are visited on the innocent. This requires us to believe in, and to teach, humility of knowledge, tolerance, and the sanctity of human life. We cannot escape our destiny. It is man’s fate to be in error, for that is the basis not of ignorance, but of intelligence. We must not become like those whom we oppose. It is possible to lead an entire generation astray, to strike it blind, to direct it to the barricades of a false god. No revolution will succeed in Europe …”
He paused again. He was about to say more but stopped, frustrated and discouraged.
Bakunin changed the subject. He always had trouble putting his instincts into words. “Ogarev, please get me a brandy. Madame Perovskaya, would you like a drink? It helps to get the juices flowing.”
“No, thank you, Monsieur Bakunin. There is enough excitement in the room right now.”
Poggio smiled. “Yes, I would like a brandy. Especially since you are having one, my old friend.”
Bakunin burst out, “No, I don’t want one. I want two! Ogarev, please put two drinks in one glass for me. And give my friend a double as well!”
Herzen collected his thoughts and continued in a calm voice. “The revolution can no longer succeed in the west. Success will occur only in Russia, a country which history has passed by. Russia, a poor woman impregnated by a European man, will give birth to a savior. The seed of socialism will find fertile soil in the steppes and villages of Russia. We can leap over the stage of industrialization experienced by Europe. We don’t need the growth of a middle class built on the pauperization of the working class.”
“Thank you, Ogarev.” Bakunin swirled the brandy in the snifter and inhaled the sharp odor. “But Herzen, the proletariat of Europe—”
Herzen interrupted immediately. “The proletariat? In Europe, the proletarians only wish to become like the petite bourgeoisie whom they hate. They want to live for the moment and not for some distant goal. What I saw in England and France was the petite bourgeoisie promoting the most boring and tedious society. They are energetic but mindless, all blood flowing to their muscles and not a drop left for their brains. They are tempted by contentment. They have pretensions to everything and strength for nothing. They are only concerned with how they live and not why. They are in the fourth age. They follow Rome, Christianity, the Enlightenment, and if they can count to four, our age, which has yet to be named. They are seduced by prosperity as men are by cold, quiet, starlit lakes in the night that promise nothing in their dreary chill, their flickering embrace, nothing but the grave. My ideals have been replaced by disillusionment and reality. The revolution will not come in France, Germany or England. It is only in Russia that our hopes for a new world will be fulfilled. It is our misfortunes, my friend, to live when the world is dying and not being born. But it is not that great a misfortune. We are not many, and soon we will all be extinct.”
Bakunin disagreed. “Herzen, you have a wonderful way with words. You make sense and I agree with you, but I do not exist in the same world as you do. I agree, the revolution will begin in Russia with the Slavs and spread to other Slavic countries, then Europe. But I do not think, I act! If you want to kill the snake, chop off the head. That is what must be done! The czar must go. The Slavic race will unite in a struggle for liberation and destroy all authority. The Slavs are instinctive socialists and adversaries of domination of any kind. The table must be cleared so we can sit down to a new meal, where everyone will be able to eat as much as they want.”
“Right now, Bakunin, the Russian peasant is only interested in eating, sleeping, working, and procreating, and not necessarily in that order. Before the revolution can occur, they must be educated.”
“You are right, Herzen. They must be educated and led. Educated and led by men and women who are the vanguards of revolution. Men and women who are—”
“Are the messiahs? Who are these future men? The nihilists who are above morality? Who don’t give a damn how many bodies are left in their wake? And you, Bakunin, do you think that you are William Tell now that you are in Switzerland? Where is your crossbow, the one which you will use to slay the czar and free the people?”
Bakunin looked surprised. “My crossbow? I am armed only with a certainty of the revolution. I might not lead it, but like a midwife, I will help to bring it into existence. It will be a terrible and glorious revolution, such as the world has never seen. It will not be moderated by European civilization. It will be a Russian revolution!”
Little Sophia Perovskaya quietly watched and listened, as Herzen, Ogarev, and Bakunin continued their discussions of revolution and criticisms of Russia and the czar.
CLASS EIGHT, MARCH 6
Bakunin and Herzen
Bakunin burst into Herzen’s study. Without saying hello, and with desperation in his voice, he pleaded, “Herzen, I need your help. I’ve made a grave mistake.”
Herzen was accustomed to Bakunin’s pleas involving money. “I’m not sure I can help you anymore, Mikhail.”
“But Alexei, you’ve always been generous, too generous. I know I have overstepped … I mean, I have taken advantage … I have not been…”
Bakunin began to sob. Herzen had never seen his friend cry. It was said that Bakunin never broke down, not even under questioning by the secret police, or from deprivations or torture, when he’d been a prisoner in Prussia, Austria, and Russia. He took out a handkerchief and covered his face in shame. Herzen sat still, embarrassed and curious about what would cause Bakunin such sorrow. He listened as Bakunin tried to talk through his tears.
“I have compromised you, my friends, myself with … stupid behavior. I would—I would commit suicide, but I am too much of a coward. I would only foul it up anyway … just like everything else, and merely cripple or maim myself. I—I have no one else to turn to, Alexander. I need your … help. You are my last hope. I— No one else can help.”
He was now convulsed with sobs. Herzen reached over and put his hand on his shoulder. Bakunin was pitiable. His eyes were red, his nose ran, and tears streamed down his cheeks.
“I don’t deserve any help. But—but …”
Herzen got up, walked to a table, and poured a glass of water from a pitcher. Returning to Bakunin, he said, “Here, Mikhail, drink this. Calm down. Whatever is disturbing you can’t be that bad. You’ve always shown strength to overcome any adversity.” Herzen tried to chide him. “Besides, look at what you are doing to my slipcovers. It will take a day to dry them out.”
Bakunin drank the water, blew his nose, wiped his eyes, and tried to compose himself. “Thank you, Alexei. I’m sorry. I just don’t know what to do.”
“You can start by telling me what’s causing this deluge.”
Bakunin blinked and rubbed his nose. He inhaled and then exhaled in spasms. He shook his head. “I’m being blackmailed.”
“Blackmailed? By whom?”
"It should come as no surprise. Nechayev.”
“Nechayev? How can he blackmail you?”
“He stole my papers. Our papers. More importantly, they’re a disgrace! My disgrace. My letters.” Bakunin hung his head down as he cradled his temples in his hands. “My letters.”
“I don’t understand. Your letters?”
“Yes, my personal letters. You see, Alexei, he was more than a protégé to me.”
Herzen knew immediately what he had long suspected.
“And Alexei, he is trying to implicate you, your daughter, and Ogarev in some scandal. He wants twenty thousand pounds.”
Herzen was stunned. “What do mean, my daughter? How is she involved with this fool?”
“She isn’t. He tried to compromise her, use her. She wouldn’t have anything to do with him. He thought he could get to your money through her. There were some letters between them. I don’t know how he will twist them around, but if it’s possible, he’ll do it. I don’t know how this all came about. I only know it’s my fault.”
“But how, Bakunin? How?”
“I don’t know. I don’t know! Damn it to hell!”
“Oh, Bakunin. You fool. You trusting fool! Your nature was made for this betrayal. You are all heart and no mind. The very qualities that I admire so much in you are your downfall. Generosity, trust, love for the workers, compassion, sympathy, all the wonderful things that I lack, you have. Unfortunately, I can also add gullibility and overenthusiasm. But can’t you see what these traits have done to you, Bakunin? They have all but ruined you.”
“I know, Herzen. You’re the only one I can turn to, the only one who can help me. He wants money. Only then will he return all the papers and letters in his possession. He’s blackmailing me for twenty thousand pounds, the remainder of the revolutionary fund.”
“Hah! You trust this Machiavellian? What makes you think he’ll keep his part of any bargain? Can I remind you about the little collaboration you two worked on, your ‘Catechism’? What did you expect? It’s all there in writing, that the revolutionary must evaluate the usefulness of his friends. Friends? Hah! He has no friends. He uses people. Everyone, everything, you included, Bakunin, sacrificed to his goal of destroying society. I must admit I was surprised when you claimed co-authorship, but not that he produced such a hateful document. He took you in, and you let that little weasel spit out his bile. I even tried to warn you about him, but you wouldn’t listen. In love, I guess, is that it?”
“I have never loved anyone as much as Nechayev. It’s easy for you to condemn me now, and I don’t deny I deserve it. But you, Herzen, you are a romantic at heart, and you know well how love makes you blind to another’s faults. You know how devastating it is to trust someone and be betrayed. All I ask for now is some understanding and help.”
“Yes, you’ll get both, Bakunin, but not before I tell you a few things. Do you think you can divorce politics and the revolution from morality or ethics? Your friend thinks so. Abolish the spiritual side of man and you are left with only the satisfaction of your desires and passions. You are left with a view of humanity as only rapacious pieces of breathing meat. You can’t have a society based on the ends justifying the means. You can’t—you don’t want to live in a society of lying, treacherous citizens, mouths dripping red, hands covered in blood. How can you even communicate with this scum, when he brazenly tells you straight out that he would lie to advance his cause? His cause, Bakunin, is whatever he believes in at the moment! How do you deal with someone you can’t trust? The only honest thing he told you was that he is dishonest. He would lie, cheat, steal, or stab you in the back! Is this your new world, Bakunin? Your new man? This Nechayev and his world, they are both ugly, violent, and evil. He believes that the pursuit of power is the highest, perhaps the only, human quality. This Nech—I choke on his name—is a shepherd who tends to his sheep for one reason only: he likes lamb chops. You were one of his lambs, Bakunin, and he flattered and used you. This man is a predator, a hawk that guiltlessly eats the helpless sparrow. Do you know he is wanted in Russia for killing one of his followers? Someone he suspected of not being loyal or submissive enough? Someone who threatened to leave his circle of conspirators?”
Herzen had worked himself up into a frenzy while Bakunin sat perfectly still, his eyes bulging, only nodding in agreement with Herzen’s words.
“I also know that he threatened the life of your publisher, the man who expected you would complete the translation of Marx he paid you to do. I suppose you shared the money he advanced you with this—this Nechayev.”
Bakunin’s silence confirmed Herzen’s accusation. Herzen began pacing the room.
“I’ll pay the bastard, Bakunin. I’ll pay him on certain conditions. What letters, what compromising letters of yours, are in his possession?”
“The ones I wrote after he left here for St. Petersburg.”
“What is in those letters? How bad are they?”
“They would ruin me and my standing in the workers’ movement.”
“Do you know how many you sent him?”
“Yes. I wrote him once a week.”
“You are to get them and burn them, understood?”
“Yes.”
“I want any of my papers he may have stolen. Search his flat if you must, but get them! What about my daughter? What about Ogarev? Have they been compromised? Does Nechayev have any correspondence from them, anything else that can be twisted?”
“No, I don’t think so, but I’ll get any letters he might still have. He only wanted to threaten you to get what he wanted.”
“The man doesn’t threaten. He acts. I want it made clear to him that after he receives the money, he is to leave Switzerland. He is to leave you in peace. If he ever contacts my daughter, I’ll shoot him. If he ever does any harm to anyone dear to me, and that included you at one time, Bakunin, I’ll expose him as a pervert. I’ll do that even if it brings your relationship with him out in the open. I’ll help you now out of remembrance of our youthful friendship.
“You always had my admiration for your heart and the sincerity of your actions, actions that sprang from deep in your soul. Your heart was always greater than your mind, Bakunin. You never understood that a good life needs the mind as well as the heart to spur you to action. You would only listen to your heart, and a heart without a mind is foolish and impetuous. Your mind became emaciated from lack of use. You are my opposite, Bakunin, because my heart weakened, almost died, and my mind began to dominate. My heart diminished not because of too little use, but too much, too many disappointments. The result is the same. I cultivated the mind and let the heart wither. My fate is to now have an intellect without heart, without emotion and commitment. I am barren and sterile. Intellect without emotion is empty, as my life is now a void. Emotion without intellect is blind, as you are now, Bakunin. We are each without a faculty necessary to be fully human, and our lives are unbalanced. We could have been invincible together, Bakunin. You with your heart, and me with my mind. But it is too late now, way too late.”
“No, Herzen, it can never be too late. We still have the revolution ahead of us.”
“Ah, Bakunin. Do you see what I mean about your heart, your enthusiasm? Only now, believe me, it’s too late.”
Herzen stood up. “The last condition, the only other condition I have for giving the money to Nechayev, is that I never see or hear of you again from this moment on!” Herzen stormed out of the room, slamming the door behind him.
Herzen soon left Switzerland and moved to Paris, his revolutionary ardor all but spent. He spent the next few months, the last of his life, traveling and visiting his son and daughters in Italy and France. He busied himself following, but not writing about, the January 1870 events in Paris, which would lead to the Franco Prussian War. Now only a wealthy Russian émigré, he was ignored and irrelevant to the events developing in Europe and his homeland. He died in Paris on January 21, 1870. Only his daughters and a few friends accompanied his cortege to the Cimetière du Père-Lachaise. A month later, his body was removed to Nice to rest in a family tomb.
Bakunin’s political and personal association with Nechayev became a scandal, and he stopped attending meetings of the International Workingmen’s Association. When Paris was besieged in September 1870, he went to Lyons to start a communist insurrection and proclaim a new government, but French troops appeared. No longer wishing to fight to the death or be taken prisoner, Bakunin fled to Marseilles and suffered the indignity of cutting his hair and beard to disguise himself. He left for the safety of Italy and watched the events of the Paris Commune unfold from a distance. In 1872, Karl Marx falsely claimed Bakunin was a czarist agent, and Bakunin was formally expelled from the IWA. He started his own international organization, but since it was a group of people who didn’t believe in any form of government, it suffered from the disorder it promoted and fell apart.
The old anarchist continued to believe that a revolution would usher in a world without government. After one more year, he finally became disillusioned and cursed the workers who would not become fervent radicals to promote their own cause. Without income, Bakunin was completely reliant on friends for support. He persisted in his hostility to inheritance, but accepted money from his father’s estate. He wrote a letter to all his supporters, announcing that he was resigning from the workers’ struggle.
He complained that workers had lost their enthusiasm and instinct for revolution, but this merely reflected his own weariness. Bakunin became convinced that military growth in Europe would lead to a world war. He spent his last year reminiscing about the family estate he had left thirty-six years earlier as a revolutionary firebrand. A few days before passing away, Bakunin, the man who wanted to destroy all of Europe’s accomplishments, lamented to a friend that all their efforts would be forgotten, but that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony would live forever. Bakunin died in Switzerland on July 1, 1876.
Sergei Nechayev left Switzerland and traveled to London, where he wrote diatribes against Herzen in The Commune, a journal published with the money extorted from Herzen. He went to Paris during the Commune of 1871, but did not participate in the uprising. From there he went to Zurich, where he felt safe since that city would not extradite anyone to Russia, because of its repressive form of government.
Bakunin, still holding a place for Nechayev in his heart, sent a man to warn that the police were about to arrest him. Nechayev ignored the warning, suspicious of his old collaborator. Kidnapped by the prefect of police in Zurich, who was paid 20,000 francs by the czar’s Third Section, he was sent to Russia in 1873. In St. Petersburg, he was tried for the murder of Ivan Ivanoff. A member of Nechayev’s conspiracy, Ivanoff had not only questioned Nechayev’s claims of secret societies, but had also threatened to resign from the nihilist organization Nechayev had founded. Ivanoff was beaten unconscious by four members of Nechayev’s group, and then shot in the head by Nechayev. At the trial, Nechayev claimed that the act was political and not criminal, but this plea was rejected. When Nechayev tried to defend himself, he was taken from the courtroom and beaten. Convicted of murder and sent to the Alexis Ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress, Nechayev was kept in solitary confinement. On one occasion, a general visited him. He so enraged the young anarchist that Nechayev slapped the general. For this infraction, he was chained to the wall for weeks, unable to sit or lie down.
Eventually, his entreaties and explanations to the guards about the injustice of the Russian monarchy won their sympathy. He appealed to their Russian patriotism, saying that he had been jailed because he was a man of the people, and the guards, being men of the people themselves, should help the cause of revolution. He convinced them, as he had convinced Bakunin and Ogarev, that he was the head of a large subversive organization that would bring about an armed insurrection. He even claimed that the heir to the throne, Alexander III, was part of his organization. The guards were taken in and allowed him to correspond with other terrorist cells outside the prison walls.
The “Catechism of a Revolutionary” stated that when deciding if a revolutionary should be rescued, only the cause of revolution should be considered. It advised that the usefulness of the comrade should be balanced against the energy employed to rescue him. Nechayev wanted the energy of the revolutionaries expended only on the goal of destroying the Russian state, and advised those cells not to help in his escape. Instead, they were to concentrate all efforts on the assassination of Czar Alexander II. In 1881, the czar was killed by a small group of radicals calling themselves The People’s Will. Investigations over the next year found that Nechayev had counseled this group on terror and policy, and this subjected him to even more savage conditions. The prisoner-terrorist wrote his last letter to the new czar in his own blood, warning that he must relinquish the throne. This enraged Alexander III, and Nechayev began to be severely beaten each day. In 1882, at the age of thirty-five, he died, his death listed as a suicide. A martyr to the revolution, Nechayev had clung to the principles of the “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” the document he and Bakunin had composed thirteen years before.
Nicholas Ogarev soon left for England with Mary Sutherland, a prostitute who became his mistress in 1858. He had met her at a London pothouse, when he had sought refuge from his wife’s infidelity and his best friend’s betrayal. She appealed to his idealism and desire to reform a fallen woman, and became an indispensable part of his life. It was now Mary’s turn to try to comfort and improve the life of a needy person, a man who had taken her and her fatherless son off the streets. Ogarev’s epileptic seizures increased, and Mary patiently tended to his fits and tried to prevent him from hurting himself. When a seizure began, he would stare straight ahead, complaining of buzzing inside his head, flashing lights before his eyes, and strange noises. He would keep repeating words and phrases, while his legs began to tremble and jerk uncontrollably. The fit worsened as his eyes rolled, his lids fluttering so that only white could be seen in his sockets, and he drifted into black unconsciousness. Mary would help him sit or lie down, so he would not hurt himself by crashing to the floor.
Despite her support, Ogarev continued to drink heavily. She would often find him sitting alone, perhaps reminiscing, perhaps drunk, perhaps composing a new poem that would never leave the forgotten recesses of his mind. He seemed to be at the door to madness. Only Mary prevented him from entering that dark, unknown room where he would be completely alone, isolated and protected from the world’s pains.
They spent his last years living in one room filled with mementos of younger, happier years. A picture of himself, flanked by Herzen and Bakunin, hung on the wall. Drinking at the local pub became more frequent, and when he rambled on, people were not sure if he was drunk or simply losing his mind. At the age of sixty-two, knowing that the inevitable revolution would not be realized in his lifetime, Ogarev lost his desire to live. On his deathbed, he began to speak in Russian, sometimes whispering incoherently and other times, calling for his old friend, Alexander Herzen.
Ogarev died on June 12, 1877. On his former estate, the serfs whom Ogarev had freed almost forty years earlier remembered their benefactor by establishing an annual mass in his memory, which would continue up to the 1917 Revolution.
A few days after Ogarev’s funeral, Mary was evicted from the flat. As she emptied out the drawers of Ogarev’s desk, she came across a sheaf of his poems, yellow with age. They had been written by a young man full of optimism and defiance. Memories of their conversations about hopes, dreams, and ideals flooded into her mind. She read the poems and wept in anguish and overwhelming grief.
GOD’S PRAYERS
My words fell as seeds among men.
Not understanding, they gathered them and placed them in sacks.
And buried those sacks in shallow holes, dug with the tools of ignorance.
In spring, the seeds germinated and sprouted, and flowers bloomed and rustled in the breeze.
And my whispers were said to be the wind talking.
Although my words bore fruit, Man listened not.
For he thought he would hear with ears.
Only children understood my wind-talk.
For they would gather those flowers
And smell the fragrance with closed eyes.
And dream of future days.
Who among you would be my moon? Who among you would be accused of causing madness?
Who among you would dwell among the stars?
O Man, you would be your own sun.
Would you live in darkness and futility?
Could you live above the lightening?
Could you ignite the darkest sky?
Who among you would journey while others sleep?
And dream, and when awake cannot remember their dreams?
Who among you would look through the blind eye of Morpheus and try to see eternity?
Who among you would be my pale prince of night?
And reflect in darkness,
The light of God.
Help me become God, O Man.
As I helped you become yourselves.
Help me become your dreams, as I am your aspiration.
Help satisfy my thirst and hunger, as I am your nourishment.
I created you. As you created me.
Your weakness shows my imperfect nature
And my injustice shows your shallow comprehension.
Give me your expectations while I give you hope.
Let me be your God of destiny
You shall be my children of love.
Together we shall forget our parents.
I have no beginning, you have no end.
Your conception of me determines our fate.
Help me become perfect, for as I grow, you shall also.
Pray for your children and help me become a more perfect God, O Man.
My son was born.
At the Nativity Feast, my fathers were proud and they asked me,
“What would you have us present your son?”
In my youth and foolishness, I said,
“Give him tomorrow.”
They were troubled and replied,
“Reconsider this, for the only certainty of tomorrow is death.”
“Yes!” I answered. “That allows me to give him my gift; that of hope.”
My fathers frowned, “You ask for time, for an interval between deaths.
This is something we would not have asked, even for you. Let your son be and not become.”
That was when I created a devil. For I said,
“I ask of tomorrow for my son so I might have today and give to my fathers yesterday. I am poor enough to give the rich a gift. I would burden my son with numbers, not words. I give him a future to glorify myself, full knowing I shall be his yesterday, as you are mine. I ask of tomorrow so he might one day think of you and remember me. I would create his future to give you a past. I would have a son of desire. For I am a God of becoming.”
The sun burst forth, glowing blood red.
Bloated, it was about to give birth to seven white moons.
Pregnant with love for the night, it destroyed its love as the first day dawned.
Clouds scattered westward, fearful their essence would dissolve in heat and light.
Birds stretched forth their wings, took flight, and went to hide in trees.
Serpents hissed, and crawled into holes and under rocks.
Creatures of the night saw shadows and sought caves.
Only the man-animal raised his head toward heaven, and like flowers awakened from the gloom of winter, opened his heart to my compassion.
His spirit brightened,
Her soul glowed.
But in my heart, the darkest shadows are cast by my brightest light.
And stillness remained in my valley.
Shrouded by mist.
Surrounded by fog,
Enveloped in my soul.
The Franco Prussian War, 1870
Franco Prussian War
Soon after he became emperor, Charles Louis Napoleon, Napoleon III, proclaimed in a speech at Bordeaux, “The empire is peace …” He was applauded, and perhaps, in their enthusiasm, his listeners did not hear the emperor add, “… because France desires it, and when France is satisfied, the world is peaceful.” However, during the reign of this autocrat, France never appeared to be satisfied. The Second Empire was involved in four major wars, and the soldiers of France served not only in Europe, but also in Asia and the Americas. Napoleon’s involvement in Italian affairs began in 1849, when France, with its large Catholic population, sent ten thousand soldiers into Italy to help restore Pope Pius IX to Rome. French soldiers remained in the Holy City during all of Napoleon’s reign.
The Crimean War, fought from 1854 to 1856, was the first real contradiction in Napoleon’s foreign policy, coming less than a year and a half after he was crowned. French soldiers were dispatched to the Black Sea theater, obviously because France was dissatisfied. Napoleon went to war with Austria in 1859, another attempt to establish the creation of an Italian state. That year also saw a dissatisfied France establish a colony in Cochinchina in Vietnam, as well as a French protectorate in Cambodia. A military expedition was sent to Syria in 1860; and in the same year, discontented French and British troops burned the Summer Palace in Peking during the Second Opium War. One year later, Napoleon sponsored a military adventure in Mexico to establish a Catholic empire under Archduke Maximilian of Austria. An unsatisfied Napoleon, currying favor with the Hapsburgs of Austria in an attempt to check and balance the growing power of Prussia, graciously endorsed Maximilian. This escapade ended in humiliation for Napoleon in 1867, when Maximilian was executed by a Mexican firing squad. The world was never peaceful during Napoleon III’s reign, obviously because France was never satisfied.
In 1869, liberal candidates in French elections met with success and strengthened their opposition to Napoleon’s regime. That same year, the finances of Baron Haussmann’s administration were investigated. A scandal ensued, ending in Haussmann’s dismissal in January 1870.
The empire desperately needed a diversion, a foreign adventure, perhaps even a war, to take attention away from Napoleon’s domestic failures. The final coda to Napoleon’s concerto of the absurd came when he was outmaneuvered by Otto von Bismarck, chief minister of Prussia. Bismarck was attempting to establish a greater Germany under King Wilhelm’s rule, and needed a cause to unite the German principalities into an empire. Napoleon obliged in early 1870 over the issue of the vacant throne of Spain.
Prince Leopold, a distant relative of King Wilhelm of Prussia, was proposed as a candidate to become king of Spain. Troubled at the thought of the Holy Roman Empire encircling France again, Napoleon III declared this succession in Spain to be intolerable. He believed the Prussians would probably intervene in the internal affairs of Spain within three years, and the balance of power in Europe would tip in favor of Prussia. War fever was in the air and on the lips of bellicose French politicians, who cried, “To Berlin! To Berlin!” Napoleon declared France would “… do her duty toward a power that places a prince on the throne of Charles V.” It seemed the only way to prevent hostilities was for Leopold to withdraw his acceptance of the throne. He did, and the crisis seemed over.
But not quite. In their arrogance, the French seemed to be saying, “Give me what I want, will you? Well, I want more!” The French ambassador to Prussia, on instructions from Paris, intercepted King Wilhelm while he was walking in Berlin’s Staatspark, and demanded that Wilhelm renounce Leopold’s candidacy forever. The ambassador insisted that Wilhelm sign a proclamation stating Leopold had renounced the throne at the insistence of Prussia. Wilhelm was relieved that the question of Spain was settled, but when confronted with this demand, he refused, saying, “I have nothing more to add.” Bismarck, eager for a war with France in order to mobilize the German states in a common cause, altered a telegram about the incident and enraged the French. He boasted that he would brandish “the red flag to the French Bull.” In the edited telegram, it appeared, incorrectly, that Wilhelm had insulted the French.
The imbecility of the Second Empire was underestimated. The honor of France was sullied! France was dissatisfied! “French Prestige!” “Gallic respect!” “Napoleon Bonaparte’s campaigns beyond the Rhine!” “Prussian insolence!” “France’s rank in the world!” “We cannot tolerate the Hun’s impudence!” “A slap in the face!” “German barbarians!” “Prussian blood!”
These words appeared in French newspapers, and incited France to enter a war for which she was totally unprepared. France declared war on July 18, 1870. As usual, Bismarck was thoroughly prepared, and in just over two weeks, Prussia amassed almost 1,200,000 men in the field.
Paris was now gripped by war fever. “The Marseillaise,” which had been banned by Napoleon III, was sung to the delight of French patriots. The tricolor flag, also banned in the Second Empire, was displayed throughout the city, as Parisians joked that they would be meeting in the cafés of Berlin by the middle of August. Napoleon III was encouraged to emulate his uncle and lead his army into battle. He and his son, the fourteen-year-old prince imperial, left Paris for the front on July 28.
Napoleon III believed that the heroic blood of Napoleon Bonaparte coursed through his veins, and that somehow he had inherited the greatness that had distinguished his uncle. However, his military bearing, such as it was, was compromised by agonizing kidney stones that made sitting on a horse painful and awkward. Napoleon Bonaparte had inspired his troops with his military bearing and courage, while his nephew seemed insipid and detached.
When Napoleon III left Paris to take command of his troops, it was at the insistence of Empress Eugenie, who said that a Napoleon did not stay in the rear. A Napoleon led his soldiers in battle and brought back honor and victory. But Napoleon III left Paris not as a warrior on a horse or in a military carriage, but in a train, sitting in the imperial coach as though he were going on vacation. The pain from his kidney stones left him no alternative. He tried to inspire the troops, and addressed them, proclaiming that, “… whatever road we take, we shall find glorious traces of our fathers and we will prove worthy of them.” But it was not his father who was inspiring Louis Napoleon. It was his uncle who was haunting him.
The Prussians prepared for war in direct inverse proportion to the French preparations. French reservists lacked uniforms and arms, and many passed the first weeks drinking and carousing while awaiting trains to take them to the front. Supply trains that waited idly for assignment blocked the movement of troops. Officers could not find their troops, and troops searched for their commanders. Meanwhile, the Prussians were establishing a reputation of ruthless efficiency that would make their army the most feared in Europe. The Germans married technology with tactics and strategy, and ushered in a new and deadly age of warfare. The artillery of Krupp, proudly displayed in Paris at the Grand Exposition a few years earlier, was now being demonstrated on the battlefield with deadly effect.
Hopes of France for a military alliance with other European countries were impossible because of Napoleon’s disastrous policies. He had waged war with Austria, a country recently humiliated by Prussia. Italy would not help, as French troops remained in Rome. Russia’s Czar Alexander II, a friend of Wilhelm, still remembered the assassination attempt in Paris, the hostility of the French press, and how the people in France supported Poland’s independence. Britain disdained any war that was based on a “point of etiquette” and remained above the fray. France was totally alone.
Twenty-two days after he declared war, the French emperor sent a telegram to his wife, who was acting as regent, and asked her to prepare Paris for a state of siege. Overmatched in men, materiel, and strategy, Napoleon would show his inept leadership by giving an order and then countermanding it a few hours later. What little military intelligence he could obtain told him that his position was hopeless. On August 9, Marshal Bazaine was appointed commander in chief, and Napoleon wired Eugenie, announcing his return to Paris. Her furious response made him change his mind; he preferred to face the Prussians rather than confront his wife. Her pride would not permit the name of Napoleon to be disgraced, and she feared his return to Paris would set off riots. So, he reluctantly remained at the front. However, by August 14, the emperor fled Metz. Not to Paris, where his wife would not welcome him, but to the remains of MacMahon’s army at Chalons, still literally licking its wounds with brandy and beer after a defeat at Froschwiller. The Prussians now surrounded Bazaine’s army at Metz, and its situation was hopeless.
Empress Eugenie wired Napoleon that under no circumstance was he to leave the front lines. Humiliated, Napoleon and his son were soon following his staff from one retreat to another. His carriages, full of food, champagne, fine dinnerware, and linens, passed by soldiers trudging off in defeat. The hungry troops, now living on meager rations, watched in disgust as the carriages went by. The overindulged emperor seemingly mocked and belittled their sacrifice and hardships. The common soldier soon began calling Napoleon Emperor Baggage, while his son was called the Little Prince of Baggage.
By August 31, the Prussians surrounded one French army at Metz. A second army was retreating to Sedan, a town surrounded by hills, thereby providing a perfect site for Prussian cannons. An exuberant Prussian general surveyed the situation and bragged, “We have them in a mousetrap!” The “pointed helmets” soon took the heights above Sedan and proceeded to decimate the French army. The French were slaughtered. Seeing the situation as hopeless, Napoleon III rode out with a patrol on a sally, hoping to die an honorable death on the battlefield. His incompetence extended to this futile gesture. Disappointed at not being shot, he sullenly rode back to his troops and ordered a white flag raised. He was again humiliated as a French general refused his order and continued the futile engagement. The battle was lost, more troops perished, and when the emperor gave the order once more, the general did not countermand it.
In letters discussing the terms of surrender of the French troops, Napoleon and Wilhelm referred to each other as brothers; and, in contrast to the carnage that had just taken place, their correspondence was the model of civility. The telegram Napoleon sent to Eugenie to inform her of these terrible developments was never received, and the news of the emperor’s defeat, surrender, and abdication reached her in a separate telegram, two days later, on September 3, 1870.
By that time, the emperor was a prisoner of war and the Prussians were marching on Paris, to begin a siege that would last for six months. The Paris Commune would arise from the ruins of the Second Empire. The empire crumbled into dust just as an ancient, decayed corpse would disintegrate when its casket was opened and exposed to air and sunlight.
On January 18, 1871, Otto von Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm, and the princes of Germany celebrated the unification and establishment of a new state, Germany. They dined elegantly and drank fine French wines in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. By then, the people of Paris were eating rats.
SURRENDER AND REVOLUTION, 1871
On January 28, 1871, the Government of National Defense, the so-called Men of September 4, surrendered to the Prussians. This ended the charade that the provisional government had been playing since the fall of the empire almost five months earlier. Despite the continued public announcements of resistance to the siege, government leaders finally abandoned all hope of breaking the encirclement. General Trochu privately declared all resistance was just “heroic madness.” He stated that holding out against a Prussian siege was folly. A courageous folly, but nevertheless a folly. His chief of staff believed Paris could not defend itself, and said the only result of resistance might be to soften Bismarck’s demands. Another patriotic official declared Parisians would defend themselves “for honor’s sake, but all hope was mere illusion.” Another acknowledged that the Prussians would enter Paris as easily as a knife goes through butter.
These sentiments stood in stark contrast to public pronouncements intended to placate the citizens, especially patriotic workers and laborers. Heroic cries for resistance and defiance rang out, while negotiations for surrender took place behind the scenes. The Government of National Defense feared the National Guard, the citizens’ army, as much as the Prussians. This was especially true since the Guard elected its own officers, and these men controlled battalions that would probably rise up against the government if Paris surrendered. Jules Favre, the vice president, wrote that the government was not defending itself against the Prussians, but against the workingmen of Paris. Favre had hypocritically bragged that “not an inch of territory, not one stone of our fortresses, would be ceded,” fully knowing that resistance was impossible. Trochu publicly proclaimed that Paris was impregnable. The Men of September bought time and promised that a national army, an army of the provinces, would relieve the city and join the forces within Paris to break the blockade. This promise of relief, begun in September, continued through the autumn and into winter. Meanwhile, the government officials were desperately visiting the nations of Europe, promising to replace the republic with a king, if those countries would prevail on the Prussians to lift the siege and discuss an armistice.
Keeping the working classes of Paris from turning to revolution was just as important as confronting the Huns. To keep the National Guard busy, the government had them patrol ramparts surrounding the city. The guardsmen were also kept separate from the regular army, so as not to infest the soldiers with any thoughts of insurrection. Believing that the devil finds work for idle hands, the National Guard was assigned meaningless tasks that didn’t require arms or armaments. Not until November 23 did the National Guard exchange fire with the Germans.
The Government of National Defense hesitated to conduct a full engagement against the Prussians. If Wilhelm’s forces decimated the regular forces, the provisional government would not be able to quell an uprising within Paris. Instead, small sorties were sent out, giving the impression of resistance while the Prussians moved ever closer to the city.
Finally, under pressure to act, Trochu mounted an attempt to break out on November 29. The Parisians took Champigny, a suburb of the city, and were encouraged by news from the south of France that the French Army of the Loire had recaptured Orleans. But the Prussians reoccupied both cities, and the French retreated with heavy losses. The only accomplishment was a truce on December 2, which allowed French and Germans to clear the battlefield of casualties and bury their dead. With 12,000 killed, the French trudged back to Paris on December 6, after receiving word that the Army of the Loire was defeated. Winter temperatures soon dropped to -12°C, and food and fuel could not be found in the workingmen’s arrondissements. Trochu announced on January 7 that the Army of the North was marching to rescue Paris. The same day he issued a proclamation: The Governor of Paris Will Not Capitulate! He was able to keep his word only because he resigned two weeks later and was no longer the governor of Paris. On January 22, the reds of Paris marched on the Hotel de Ville, and the army fired on them. The Men of September knew they faced certain insurrection from the starving citizens, and Jules Favre requested a meeting with Bismarck. The inevitable armistice followed on January 28.
The National Defense Government agreed that the Mobile Guard, the regular army, would surrender its arms, and the forts surrounding the city would be occupied by the Prussians. The Prussians feared the workers of Paris might not accept these generous concessions agreed to by Favre and his puppets, and sharing the French government’s fears of an uprising, allowed the National Guard, 300,000 strong, to keep their weapons. Bismarck demanded that a new government be elected eight days later to decide whether to continue the war or formally surrender. This National Assembly, elected in February, met at Bordeaux and elected Adolphe Thiers as chief executive. Communists, not the Prussians, were the major worry of Adolph Thiers, the leader of the new provisional government at Versailles.
The peace treaty ceded Alsace and Lorraine to the Germans, and obligated the French to pay an indemnity of five billion francs to Germany. Prussian troops entered Paris on March 1 in a symbolic occupation, marching down the Champs Elysees with brass bands while Parisians watched in disgust. Those troops left two days later, after camping near the Arc de Triomphe and parading in front of the Kaiser beneath Bonaparte’s monument. Parisians seethed at this humiliation, and an angry crowd ransacked two cafés that had served German soldiers.
Paris was disgraced by the Prussians and incensed at the National Assembly when new taxes were levied, new credit laws were passed, and rents were reinstated. More than 150,000 Parisians were thrown into bankruptcy. There were few jobs, and the National Guard’s pay was suspended. The National Assembly—known as the Rurals, since its members were from the countryside—feared the reaction of Paris and relocated to Versailles. Rumors spread about the intention of Thiers and his government to take away the Paris artillery, paid for by donations from the Parisians. Parisians would not permit this to happen, and were prepared to resist the dictates of the National Assembly. When the National Guard elected a Central Committee, Thiers sent in troops to disarm them, but they did not succeed. The Central Committee, quickly formed by socialists, issued a revolutionary manifesto to the army.
Soldiers and Children of the Revolution!
Those traitors who organized the defeat of Paris and the partition of France, those who have given up our gold, and deny their responsibility in giving rise to a civil war, those who impose intolerable laws and taxes on us, now threaten to take away our arms.
We, the people of Paris, only wish to preserve our arms, choose our own leaders, and dismiss them when they no longer serve the peoples’ interests. We declare an end to a permanent army serving the will of an oppressive government. We demand the right of everyone in the nation to be armed!
The government responded with a manifesto of its own, posted on trees and street lamps throughout Paris:
Citizens of Paris!
Malicious and subversive men, claiming to be resisting the Prussians who are no longer besieging you, have set themselves up as authorities in parts of the city. The guns, which they have stolen from France, will be taken back and sent to the arsenals for the protection of all. We ask your help in carrying out this sensible act of justice and reason. Let all good citizens separate from the bad by helping the forces of public good and not resisting those beneficent forces.
Citizens! Order demands that you approve our actions if we resort to force to obtain these weapons. Your well-being and the safety of your city require that order must be reinstated immediately and unalterably.
Thiers tried to take the guns on March 8 and failed. Since these weapons were manufactured in Paris and paid for by local citizens, the National Guard refused to surrender them. On March 18, the regular army was dispatched under the command of General LeComte to take the cannons at Montmartre. A few Federates, along with unarmed men, women, and children, confronted them. While General LeComte waited for harnesses to take the cannon away, the crowd mingled with his soldiers, offering them wine and cakes. The National Guard was alerted and appeared, and confronted the troops. LeComte, concerned about fraternization, ordered his troops to fix bayonets and then commanded them to fire on the Guard, shouting at the citizen army, “Scum! You are finished!”
His troops refused to fire, and the people embraced the soldiers in gratitude. General LeComte was arrested and taken to a house on Rue des Rosiers. He was joined by General Clement Thomas, who had been arrested while walking along the street. He was the officer who had ordered troops to fire on the workers during the 1848 Revolution. A kangaroo court convened and quickly condemned both men. They were shot that afternoon. Street by street, insurrection spread and barricades were set up. Soon, a mob was marching on the Hotel de Ville. Thiers, uncertain of the ability of the army to protect ministers meeting there, left Paris and fled to Versailles.
A new Central Committee, created by the rebellious workers, allowed troops loyal to the National Assembly to leave Paris peacefully for Versailles, and called for elections of a Commune on March 26. Loyalists and the bourgeoisie staged a demonstration at the Place Vendome in support of the Versailles government, but the National Guard dispersed them, and they also fled to the safety of Versailles. The forces of the Central Committee could have marched on Versailles, but they chose not to incite a civil war, content to control Paris.
The Commune met and elected twenty-five delegates, subject to recall at any time. All teachers, judges, and magistrates were to be elected, also subject to recall, and paid no more than 6000 francs, the wages of the working classes. The National Guard replaced the regular army. State payments to religious institutions were abolished, and free education, with no church influence, was established. Rent payments from October 1870 to April 1871 were suspended, relieving a financial burden on the workers. The Commune deferred debts of small business and ended mortgage foreclosures. Pawnshops were closed. The guillotine, the symbol of past governments, was publicly burned. Factories closed by owners were reopened as cooperatives by workers who had been previously employed in them. The Commune was encouraged by news of other communes being established in Lyons, Marseilles, and Narbonne. Yet they refused to establish a national government. One Communard said, “We will not create laws for France; we have suffered too much under hers.” Paris was declared a “free city,” as the Paris Commune sought only its own autonomy and respected the rights of other communes.
Meanwhile, Thiers arranged with the Prussians to release French prisoners of war taken at Sedan and Metz. The siege and bombardment of Paris by the hated Prussians was forgiven and forgotten by Thiers. He needed the cooperation of the Germans to put down the insurrection by the Communards. The forces of the National Assembly now replaced the hated Germans and laid siege to Paris. Paris was bombarded from forts that Bismarck had returned to the Versailles government. The National Assembly, supposedly representing France, waged war to crush the rebellion in Paris. Their fury exceeded that of the Prussians. Prisoners from the Commune were tortured and executed. In response, the Communards imprisoned the Archbishop of Paris and hundreds of priests. They threatened to kill these hostages in retaliation for execution of captured communards, but resisted until the last throes of the revolution.
The weather during April was magnificent, and most Parisians tried to resume their normal lives. They went to restaurants, fell in love, married, gave birth, continued to stroll down avenues, attended the theater, went to parks, and shopped at stores still depleted, because of the new siege by the National Assembly. Outdoor concerts were given and cafés were filled, even though shells, not of Krupp, but of the ‘Rurals’, again rained down on the City of Light. The extent of Thiers’s hatred for these people was evident after the fall of the Commune, when he abolished all certificates of births, deaths, and marriages that had occurred during the Paris Commune.
On May 21, the French Army of Versailles entered Paris. Barricades were erected and defended. Unable to withstand the attacks, the Communards withdrew to the working class districts and, as they did, set fire to the Hotel de Ville, the Palais de Justice, the Royal Palace, and the Tuileries. That night, a clear night, flames emblazoned the sky, as whirlwinds of smoke and ash swirled above the city. The sound of guns and the impact of shells added to the mayhem.
Thiers gave a speech saying the cause of justice, humanity, order, and civilization would triumph, and the law would guide his troops. As the Versailles troops continued toward Belleville, they shot anyone who wore shirts, pants, or even the shoes of the National Guard. Anyone who was foreign—Italian, Polish, or German—was shot. Troops entered hospitals and executed the wounded. Women found alone on the street were murdered, since they might be petroleuses, the female revolutionaries who set fire to buildings. At a courtyard near La Roquette, nineteen hundred people were executed in one night. A general of the French Army issued orders to shoot all prisoners with gray hair, since they must have lived during, and possibly participated in, the Revolution of 1848. Prisoners were arbitrarily chosen from lines as they marched to detention camps and shot, not in reprisal, but in madness and insanity. If tall, short, or distinguished in any manner, a prisoner risked being singled out for execution. General Marquis de Galliffet inspected a column of prisoners and selected a pretty young woman. She threw herself down on her knees and begged the general, pleading innocence of any offense. The general looked at her in contempt and said, “Please, madame, I have been to every theater in Paris and have seen actresses of the highest standard. This role you are playing, I have seen before, and it will not affect me in the slightest.” She was shot.
Like that woman, more than a hundred prisoners were randomly chosen for execution, including one miserable soul whose broken nose marked him as different from the other wretches. The fortunate but hapless prisoners who were not chosen moved on, leaving the doomed behind. Rifle retorts could be heard for more than fifteen minutes, as unlucky prisoners were shot and left in hastily dug graves.
Firing squads continued to operate until the end of June, executing anyone suspected of being associated with the Commune. The Army of Versaillais massacred more than 30,000 people and arrested another 38,000 in just one week. The Communards, on their part, executed 480 hostages.
The Communards’ last stand was May 28, in Cimetière du Père-Lachaise, at the place now known as the Wall of the Communards. As the army rounded up the last insurgents, the socialists were lined up in front of that wall and executed by mitrailleuses, French machine guns. Rifles were not efficient enough to dispatch so many to a workers’ heaven.
The last resistance of the Communards was swept into a mass grave and covered with the black soil of abandoned dreams.
The Paris Commune, 1871, images
Paris Commune
Anarchy and the Commune
Paris commune summary
Trailer for Paris Commune, Brooklyn Academy
Songs and scenes, Paris Commune
A Brief History of Russia
The Hapsburg Empire
Ahttps://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?
Russia
One of the problems of studying anything about Russia is the language. Russians use the Cyrillac alphabet which differs from our alphabet. For example, if you were looking for a restaurant in Moscow and you saw Pectopah, go in and find a table! The P is an R, the C is an S and the H is an N. So if you pronounce it, you will say Restoran! When I was at the Moscow Airport, I couldn't understand the sign above a ticket counter until I pronounced "Бизнес-класс" and it said, "Business Class". (I knew I was in the wrong area since I fly coach.) Some helpful Russian words; Da (Yes), Nyet (No), Zdra-stvooy-tye (Hello), Spa-se-e-ba (Thank you), Do-bra-ye-o-otra (Good Morning), Do-bri-dyen (Good day), Da-svee-da-nee-ya (Good bye), Pa-zhal-sta (you are welcome)
Another problem is names. Feminine names usually end in an A, (Anna Karinina, Tsarina, Ekaterina, Natasha) while men's names do not, (Dmitry Shostakovitch, Ivan Turgenev, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Nikolai Ulyanov). Ivan Naryshkin's sister is Natalia Naryshkina. One's middle name reflects your father's name, (Aleksei Nikolaevitch Romanov - Aleksei son of Nikolai - Anna Petrovna Romanov - Anna, daughter of Peter).
Dates are also another problem. Before the 18th century, Russians used a calendar that dated back to 5508 B.C., the year they believed the earth was created. Then the Russian calendar was changed to conform with the Julian calendar in 1699. And in 1918, Lenin had the Soviet Union adopt the Gregorian, western, calendar which was 13 days ahead of the Julian. Therefore, the Great October Revolution holiday was changed from October 25 to November 7.
Russia has 1/6 the land mass of earth. At its zenith, Russia stretched across three continents from the Baltic to Alaska and California. It spanned more than 6,600 miles and ten time zones. The distance from St Petersburg to the eastern end of the Russian Empire is the same distance from Moscow to Chicago traveling west. There are more than 60 different ethnic groups, including Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Moldavians, Georgians, Jews, Armenians, Germans and of course, Ukrainians. Although Russian is the official language, there are 27 official languages and over 100 minority languages spoken in Russia.
Ancient Russian history is shrouded in mystery and myth. The broad rivers flowing south from north connected the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was a trade route for the flow of goods from the Swedes, Finns, Lithuanians, Varangians, and Norsemen to the riches of Byzantium where a flourishing slave market bought captives from the Russian invaders.
It is said that the princes around Novgorod, tired of fighting each other, sent for a Varangian warrior, Riurik, and pleaded, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us according to the law. Our land has no order to it, come and rule it!" It is also possible that this story was created by Riurik after he came as a mercenary, defeated the enemy tribes of Novgorod, then turned on those who brought him there. His successor, Oleg, conquered Kiev @ 882, A.D. and they established the dynasty that lasted from 882 A.D. until Ivan the Terrible died at the end of the 16th century.
Russia was created between Asia and Europe and has fluctuated between both while establishing its own unique path!
The Growth of the Russian State.
Map of Russia
Maps of Russian expansion
Timeline of Russian History
Russian Czars, 1533 - 1917
A primitive Slavonic state existed in Russia during the the period from about 600 A.D. to the end of the tenth century A.D. As the Norsemen and Varangians (Vikings, Scandinavians) invaded Russia to reach the Black Sea and Byzantium, they became mercenaries for city states as the princes of Russia fought amongst themselves. The nobles of Kiev sent for Riurik, a Varangian, asking him to come and rule them since they were always fighting and quarreling among themselves.
Novgorod and Kiev became the dominant cities. Kiev established diplomatic and economic contacts with with the west. Under Vladimir, Grand Prince of Kiev, Orthodox Christianity was adopted and it replaced pagan worship in Russia (988 A.D.). Vladimir was originally the Prince of Novgorod and his brother, Svyatoslav Yaropolk, was the Prince of Kiev. They vied with each other for dominance and Vladimir besieged Kiev. When Vladimir asked for negotiations, Yaropolk attended and was killed by his brother. Vladimir was then the Grand Prince of Kiev. He was a pagan who expanded the territory of the Rus and erected temples where human sacrifice was practiced.
Wishing to unite all of Russia, Vladimir decided to adopt a monotheistic religion. (Olga, Vladimir's grandmother was an Orthodox Christian when the prince was born.) The choices were Judaism, Islam, Catholicism or the Orthodox Church in Byzantium. Ambassadors were sent to the major religions to explore the beliefs of the world’s different faiths.
He considered Judaism, but rejected that religion since the Jews had no state. “Where is their country?” he asked. When the Jews responded that they possessed no land since the wrath of God had punished them for their sins, he was dismayed and did not want to embrace the beliefs of a people whom God had abandoned. He considered Islam, but its restrictions on food (pork) and alcohol were too great a price to pay. "Little water", the name for vodka, was too enjoyable to sacrifice. Catholicism, on the other hand, was a religion of countries of the west that had invaded Russia and Russia was an Asiatic country. Kievian ambassadors visited the Hagia Sophia in Byzantium and they exclaimed that "they didn't know whether they were on earth or in heaven" as the opulence of the church overwhelmed them. The ambassadors reported on the beauty and magnificence of the Orthodox Mass compared with the Latin Mass.
Pictures of Hagia Sophia, (Construction finished, 537 A.D.)
At that time, Byzantium was under threat from the Bulgars. Vladimir, in exchange for military aid, was promised the hand of Anna, sister of Emperor Basil II. Then Basil hesitated and Vladimir, enraged, started a campaign against Byzantium and threatened to invade the city of Constantinople. Basil finally agreed to the marriage, but only if Vladimir converted to the Christian religion. The Grand Prince adopted the religion of the Eastern Roman Empire as the state religion of Russia in 988 AD. The now Christian prince ordered the baptism of all people in Kiev and Novgorod in the waters of local rivers. He built churches and established schools throughout his realm. The Orthodox religion was a unifying force that helped define Russian identity.
The church was subordinated to the ruler, unlike the Catholic Church that claimed superiority to many temporal rulers. Vladimir was made a saint of the church in 1015.
Vladimir and Christianity, 988 A.D.
Russian Icons
One of the more important aspects of the Russian Orthodox Church was the importance given to Icons (from the Greek word for "image".) The Bible states the 'Thou shalt have no graven image'. This would seem to forbid any representation of God, Jesus, the Holy family, or the Apostles. Besides, how can someone have an image of God that is not of this earth? This seemed to be a pagan tradition.
It was believed that St. Luke was not only an apostle, but a painter. Tradition has it that Luke painted the Virgin Mary and her baby, Jesus, in the maternal embrace both cheek to cheek. This gives some legitimacy to representing religious subjects in art. Another story tells of the King of Edessa in Turkey who wrote to Jesus to come and cure him of leprosy. Instead, Jesus sent the "Holy Napkin", a cloth that he had held up to his face and his image was preserved on the cloth (like the Shroud of Turin). The king gazed upon the image and was miraculously cured. This was known as the icon made without hands. These two stories gave legitimacy to accepting images in the Christian tradition. It also allowed illiterate people to follow important events in the Christian religion. Even today churches have stained glass windows that show how Christ lived and died.
During the sixth and seventh centuries, church elders questioned whether icons should be permitted. This was also the time when Islam was founded and they did not permit any representation of religious figures and also humans. These were the 'iconoclasts, the destroyers of icons. Today the word has taken on the meaning of 'destroyers of tradition'. Obviously, the iconoclasts did not prevail and when Russia adopted the Orthodox beliefs, they emphasized the importance of icons. Almost every serf hut had an icon corner and Alexandra (wife of Nicholas II, the last czar) had more than one hundred icons on the walls in her bedroom hoping the saints would intervene on her behalf and cure her son. Icons had slightly larger eyes and ears. This was because you could stare into the saint's eyes and hear an inner voice about God. The mouth was always closed as they weren't supposed to talk. There were few artists who were recognized as artists. Most icon painters were anonymous as they considered themselves merely the intermediary for God to communicate with the faithful. There was little artistic development as the painters only wanted to copy previous icons.
Icons were not to be worshipped. They were a way that people could commune with the saints and contemplate God and his goodness. Nevertheless, Russians prayed to the icon to bless them, to help insure a good harvest, to protect them from disease and even to help them in battle. Kutusov, the Russian General during the War of 1812, had an icon of the Lady of Kazan precede his troops into battle. More astounding was the fact that when Stalin faced the Nazi forces marching on Moscow, he had an icon placed on an airplane and it circled the city to protect his capitol. It seems that even though Communists were atheists, they were taking no chances.
More information about icons
Kiev prospered and rivaled many cities in Western Europe. With the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders, Kiev became even more important to trade between the east and west. The prince's court and the aristocracy developed into the class known as the boyars. The peasant class that worked the land were personally free and serfdom would not appear until more than two-hundred fifty years later. The rivalries between the princes and the sons of princes, as estates were divided and further divided, gradually weakened the rulers of Kiev. Furthermore, the growth of commerce weakened the ties among the city states as Kiev focused on trade with Byzantium, Novgorod with the Baltic and Riazin with the east. Boyars in these cities became more independent and less cooperation was the result. 1350 small duchies existed at this time, most independent of each other.
The Mongol invasions under Temuchin (Genghis Khan - Great Emperor) in 1223 and his grandson, Batu Khan, from 1237 to 1240, were successful partly due to the lack of a united front against the invaders.
http://www.rusliterature.org/the-tale-of-batus-capture-of-ryazan/#.VLPeMdZhOUc
Novgorod, not threatened by the Golden Horde, was being attacked by Teutons and Swedes. It is speculated the Alexander Nevski of Novgorod might have been able to save Russia from Batu. A brilliant strategist, Alexander was named Nevski after a victory near the Neva River. His renown was made even greater after his victory at Lake Peipus in Estonia when the invading Swedish forces fell through the winter ice while charging Novgorod's forces. Stalin used this account to rally the Russian people during the Nazi invasion and a motion picture was made with music by Prokoviev.
Alexander Nevsky (Battle On Ice)
Russia became isolated as the land fell under the Mongol yoke and Kiev was almost destroyed. But it is doubtful that even a united Russia could withstand the Mongol Horde. Their army consisted of a cavalry that was revolutionized by the stirrup. At first, the stirrup was simply two rings attached to a rope, slung over a horse. The big toe was placed in each ring and this freed the warrior's hands to shoot arrows with deadly accuracy. This was another invention from the east that had a profound impact on the west. Like silk, porcelain, gunpowder and tea, these inventions were closely guarded - under pain of death - and changed the world. The Tatars could cover enormous distances without provisions. According to Marco Polo, who lived among them for two months, Mongol horsemen could subsist for a month on mare's milk and blood drawn from the veins of their horses.
Batu's forces numbered 120,000 and they were interested in one thing - extortion, tribute. The nomads weren't interested in territory, altering customs of the vanquished, spreading a religion or establishing their language. They wanted taxes, men for their army, and slaves. They were merciless to any town that did not surrender and killed all the people in the resisting city without pity. After Kiev fell, the Tatars built a wooden platform on the backs of Russian soldiers who were lying on the ground. They then celebrated a victorious feast on the platform crushing the poor souls beneath. They set up districts where a Khan could collect taxes. Eventually, the Khans found it convenient to allow certain princes who had kowtowed before them to collect taxes on their behalf. They did not attempt to eliminate Russian political institutions. So, Russian Princes retained their positions and many were permitted to collect taxes at the pleasure of the Khans.
Ivan the Moneybag (1327) was the Grand Prince of Moscow and collected taxes for the Khan. Eventually the Khan expanded the territory for his collection of tribute and Ivan was successful in skimming money from the Mongols. He convinced the Khan to allow him to pass this arrangement onto his sons, establishing a dynasty. The Moscow River was at the headwaters of the Volga, Don and Dnieper, and trade began to flourish. Moscow’s territory expanded from 600 square meters to more than 2,350,000 square meters. Another event also helped Moscow's rise to prominence. A metropolitan, passing through Moscow, died in the city. It was prophesied that as long as the bones lay interred in the Kremlin, the city would be glorified. His remains were enshrined in Moscow and pilgrims journeyed to Moscow in homage. This gave the city a religious foundation to go along with its economic importance.
Soon, Russian Princes began to defy the Khan and refused to pay tribute. In 1380, an army largely composed of Muscovites, met the army of Khan Mamai and for the first time Russian forces were victorious over the Golden Horde. The rule of the Tatars was disintegrating, but would last another century.
Ivan III ruled Moscow beginning in 1462, and this was the beginning of the Gathering of the Lands. He annexed Novgorod and other city-states, increasing his realm fourfold. The armies of Ivan III and Khan Akmad faced each other in 1480. No battle was fought after three months and the Khan's forces retreated. Moscow then became an independent and powerful state in Eastern Europe and other cities stopped paying tribute.
With the fall of Byzantium in 1453, the Russian Church became the dominant spiritual successor to the Orthodox Church. Moscow now was the center of temporal and spiritual power in Russia. Ivan III was the Grand Prince of All Russia. He married Sofia, the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor. She claimed descent from the brother of Augustus Caesar's brother, Prus, and Ivan III traced his heritage by marriage to a Caesar (even though Augustus was the adopted son of Julius) and became Czar and autocrat of all Russia. He adopted the Byzantine crest of the double eagle, which remained a symbol of Russia until 1917.
Ivan Vasilievitch Grozny
Grozny meant powerful, awesome, feared by his enemies, respected and obeyed by his subjects. Ivan was born in Moscow, 1530. This was the age of Machiavelli, the Borgias, the Medicis, Henry VIII and the “Divine Right of Kings”.
Legend has it that storms thundered and flashed when Ivan was born. A portent of the future or simply another embellishment of fact? His father would die three years later. Elena, Ivan’s mother, was regent for her son and Russia faced incursions from Lithuanians as well as Tatar raids. Boyars struggled for power when Elena died in 1538. Ivan was convinced her death was from poison and always mistrusted the noblemen.
Ivan IV had a brother who was deaf and mute. There will be many instances where the royal families would have someone afflicted with a disability or disease. I believe the reason was because of intermarriage, improper infant care and probably, venereal diseases. The title ‘Czar’ demonstrates the obsession with heredity. One’s social standing demanded that when marrying, you had to marry at your level within that social strata. The licentious behavior of the czars is well documented. We will encounter disabilities many times as we explore the Romanovs, even up to the last czar’s son, Alexi, who suffered from Hemophilia.
Ivan was a toy that the boyars played with. He would be trotted out for official ceremonies, then taken back to be abused by the noblemen. He wore the second hand clothes of the boyar’s sons. One of his two boyhood friends was sent to a monastery while the other died of starvation in a prison. Ivan witnessed beatings and executions of nobles not in favor by the then controlling boyar family.
Moscow was in chaos as one family ascended then was replaced by another.
At a meeting of the boyars, Ivan – age 13 - stood and denounced the boyars and the abuses of the nobles. He ordered the arrest of Andrei Shuisky, one of the two families behind the throne, and executed thirty of his friends.
He had a cruel streak and would take dogs and cats to the towers of the Kremlin and throw them off the parapet. He considered himself religious but was mercurial, what has been diagnosed in our times as “bi-polar”. He prayed before icons and learned to read and write. He studied “The Lives of Saints” and could recite passages from the Bible. One day he might the cut out the tongue of someone who offended him. The next day he could be friendly, laughing and joking, followed the next day by being be holy and quiet.
When he was inaugurated, he was declared Czar of all the Russias, the first time any prince took that title. In 1547, Ivan married Anastasia who came from a royal family and had a calming influence on the young czar. Nevertheless when men from Pskov complained the their governor was corrupt, Ivan had them bound, poured alcohol on the heads and beards and set fire to them.
A fire ravaged Moscow in 1547 and Ivan was told the conflagration was because of his cruelty. In remorse he re-committed himself to the church and promised to be lenient and just. Legend has it that he cared for lepers in his palace. He spoke to the people of Moscow and pledged to be their judge and protector.
Ivan went to war against the Mongol Horde. He conquered Kazan, devising new siege techniques. To counter the effects of the Tatar archers, Ivan had portable huts built with wooden tops and three wooden sides with slits to shoot arrows. His troops could lift the structure and advance close to the walls of the city. He also had sappers, possibly for the first time, dig tunnels beneath the walls and explode gunpowder charges beneath the battlements. The Streltsy (shooters) were created and these musketeers would have tremendous influence as they expanded their role into palace guards. He brought to Moscow the venerated icon, “The Lady of Kazan”, an icon that Kutuzov the Russian general had placed in front of his attacking troops during the War of 1812. (An aside: during World War II, Stalin had a holy icon placed on an airplane and had the plane encircle Moscow to save the city when the Nazi Wehrmacht was approaching. This demonstrates the power of icons even when communists ruled Russia.)
Ivan celebrated his victory over Kazan by building St. Basil’s Cathedral. He summoned the architects when the cathedral was completed and asked if they could build another beautiful church like St. Basil. The architects, hoping for another commission said they could. Ivan had their eyes plucked out as he never wanted another church as magnificent as St. Basil to be built.
To the East, Ivan was angry when the Stroganovs defeated Tatars in Siberia without his permission. He threatened to execute them. His anger didn’t last long as the trade from their conquests filled his war chests and Siberia was colonized by Russia.
Ivan began trading with Elizabethan England via the White Sea. At one time, he even considered marrying Elizabeth. When an English ambassador did not take his hat off before the czar, it is told that Ivan nailed his hat to his head. The Russians also expanded west into Livonia (modern day Estonia and Latvia) He took the city of Livonia and increased trade with the west.
Ivan was at the height of his power and tragedy struck. His wife, Anastasia, died and with her, all restraint on Ivan’s sinister emotions were unleashed. He became paranoid, arrogant and completely unstable. Although he loved Anastasia dearly, he chose another wife eleven days after her death. In all he would have seven wives, beating Henry VIII by one!
In 1570, the czar suspected that Novgorod welcomed annexation to Poland. He attacked the city and the estimates of this massacre ran to sixty thousand. He established the oprichniki, bodyguards that terrorized the country. They wore black robes, rode black horses and carried a severed dog’s head and a broom. The oprichniki ravaged the land, raping and plundering, and displacing 12,000 landowners. Their headquarters was a small village where everyone, including Ivan led the simple life of a monk when they were not marauding the country. Arising at four a.m. these men prayed and listened to Ivan read from the Lives of Saints. For amusement, Ivan once had seven peasants with spears, placed in an arena, then set seven hungry bears on them. They alternated between devotions in the morning to orgies and drunkenness in the afternoon.
Ivan’s wars bankrupted the country and the nobles complained the peasants were fleeing their estates because of taxes, poor crops, and starvation. In 1581, Ivan decreed that peasants could no longer leave the lands and serfdom was established.
Ivan’s son, the Czarevitch Ivan, was forced to give up his first and second wife and relatives of his third wife were executed. His son and wife were sitting in a room at the Kremlin. Ivan the Terrible saw her as immodest since she was pregnant and slapped her. She miscarried a few days later. When father and son argued, Czar Ivan picked up his staff and hit his son. Blood gushed from his head as he fell to the floor. Five days later, on November 21, 1581 he was dead.
Four years later, while playing chess, Ivan collapsed and died.
Russia was by then, weak, disorganized and almost bankrupt.
He remained a hero to Josef Stalin who had Eisenstein make a movie of Ivan Vasilievitch Grozny.
Repin, Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
PAINTINGS OF ILYA REPIN
IVAN THE TERRIBLE
go to 37 minutes
The Times of Troubles.
Since Ivan killed his son, the Czarevitch Ivan, the next in succession was Feodor Ivanovitch, who was politely described as feebleminded and more accurately as an imbecile. The Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land) chose Boris Godounov as Feodor’s advisor. Feodor had a brother, Dmitri who died in 1591 of “mysterious knife wounds” at the age of nine. Godounov investigated and found the death to be accidental. When Feodor died in 1598, the House of Ruirik came to an end. Godounov was now Czar. In the third year of his reign, a famine swept through Russia. Russia was in a state of anarchy. Intrigue, rumors and treachery surrounded the Kremlin.
It was said that Dmitri had not died and the “False Dmitri”, a man named Grigori Ottrepiev, claimed he was the rightful Czar. He enlisted the aid of Poland and marched on Moscow. He was defeated, only to have another “False Dmitri” appear. Again, with Polish assistance, he occupied Moscow. While Moscow was controlled by Catholic Poland, Sweden marched on Novgorod. The Poles were expelled from the Kremlin by a rag tag force in 1612.
Another meeting of the Zemsky Sobor resulted in Michael Romanov, age sixteen, being chosen as Czar. He was the grandson of Ivan the Terrible’s beloved wife, Anastasia’s brother. The Romanovs would rule for more than three centuries.
History of Russia
Genealogy of the Romanovs
Genealogy of Romanovs wikipedia
Tolstoy, God Sees the Truth, But Waits.
The Seventeenth Century.
One of the most important events during this time was serfdom, estimates place their numbers around eighty percent of the population. The General Law Code established the legal enslavement of the serfs. Although different from slavery in the West, serfs became the property of the landowners. They could not move from one estate to another. They were given land and in return, they had to pay a quit rent, or work for the landlord two or three days a week. The serf paid taxes and could lodge a complaint against the landlord. He could be sold and could not marry without permission. He could be flogged or even sent to Siberia. In England at this time, John Locke was writing Two Treatises on Government that stated all people had natural rights including life, liberty and property!
Another important event concerned religious rituals and rites of the Orthodox Church. Patriarch Nikon introduced changes that included the spelling of ‘Jesus” was altered. He changed the way Russians made the sign of the cross, using three rather than two fingers. Halleluiah was to be chanted three times not twice during church services. Icons were to follow the Byzantine model. And all religious processions were to move in the direction of the sun. The peasants who resisted these changes were called the “Old Believers” and many of the blasphemers were burned at the stake or had their tongues cut out. Some thought the apocalypse was upon them and the world was about to end. Thirty seven mass immolations occurred between 1672 and 1691. A rebellion, led by Stenka Razin and supported by peasants and cossacks ravaged the country side.
Vasili Surikov, Morozova
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
Revolution, Terrorism, Assassination.
Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationalism.
Militarism, Imperialism, World War
"We were as twinned lambs that did frisk in the sun. What we changed was innocence for innocence. We knew not the doctrine of ill-doing, nor dreamed that any did!" Shakespeare
"Anarchy is loosed upon the world! The blood dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned." Yates
Peter The Great
Peter was the son of the second wife of Czar Alexis, Natalya Naryshkin. She entered a court dominated by the Miloslavskys, relatives of Alexis' first wife who had passed away. Jealousy was replaced by bitter hatred as the families vied for control. Peter was born in 1672 and his half brother, Feodor Miloslavsky, a sickly boy who had scurvy as a child, became Czar. He died in 1682. Feodor's brother, Ivan, was next in line but he was half-witted, suffered from epilepsy, was virtually blind and had a speech disorder. The Boyars wanted Peter and a struggle over the succession ensued as the Streltsy supported Ivan. A palace revolt occurred when the Streltsy was told that the Naryshkins had killed Ivan. Although Natalya appeared before the soldiers with both Ivan and Peter holding her hands, the soldiers were not completely appeased. Peter watched as Natalya's relatives and supporters were thrown from the Kremlin walls and cut to pieces by the rebellious soldiers. The Miloslavsky family succeeded in gaining power when Sofia, Ivan's sister and Peter's half sister, was made regent with both the young boys as co-Czars.
Peter and Natalya retired to a small village outside Moscow where they were safe from palace intrigue. There, Peter enjoyed the company of Europeans who were prohibited from having homes in Moscow.
Czars Ivan and Peter were mere figureheads as Sofia ruled Russia with her lover, Vasily Golitsen. During court ceremonies, Sofia was hidden behind a screen near the seated czars and she would whisper what she wanted them to say. In 1689, Peter overthrew Sofia and claimed the throne. He sent Sofia to a monastery and had Golitsen hanged outside Sofia’s cell where she could see his body dangling from a rope.
Ilya Repin's painting of Sophia
Peter wanted his country to adopt European ways and he traveled throughout Europe incognito, posing as a Russian nobleman on vacation. The journey lasted eighteen months, and his mission was to learn the technology, science, and crafts of the west. In Holland and England, he became familiar with shipbuilding firsthand, working as a carpenter and laborer in the shipyards of Zaandam and Deptford. His curiosity was insatiable. He even learned surgery as well as dentistry and the nobles accompanying him stopped complaining about toothaches after Peter successfully pulled out three teeth from three companions.
During Peter’s travels, his lack of manners astonished the noblemen and noblewomen of Europe. He disdained using knives and forks at meals, never used a handkerchief, spit on the floor, displayed a slovenly disregard for fashion, outraged his hosts at state functions, and was considered little more than a baptized bear. At one dinner, he reached across the table, picked up a morsel with his fingers from the plate of his astounded hostess, and ate it. This northern barbarian usually shocked his hosts as he and his entourage reveled in drunken feasts, destroying the halls and gardens where they were entertained. Peter was a giant of a man, standing six feet, eight inches tall, and could out-drink almost anyone. He took pleasure in drinking bouts, encouraging his friends to drink until they passed out. On his return, to put down another revolt of the Streltsy, Peter decreed that western clothes would be worn and beards would be shaved.
Peter recognized the superiority of Europe. He was determined to bring Russia out of the orient and into the orbit of western nations. Unlike Paris, London, Berlin, and other major cities of Europe that expanded without central planning, the entire design of St. Petersburg, Russia’s “window to the west” was created first as an idea. That idea came into being by following designs of Italian and German architects and engineers. They renounced the swirling onion domes and multi-colored roofs found in Moscow, and took the best construction traditions from the capitals of the west. Voltaire wrote succinctly about these developments: “Peter was born, Russia was formed.”
Peter the Great
Peter the Great (Go to you tube, Peter the Great - Discovery, by Matt)
Tsars reject Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
The Romanovs believed in absolute monarchy. They reasoned God had placed them on Russia’s throne to rule, and therefore, they were answerable only to God. Despite this justification of their reign by reference to God’s grace, they apparently did not believe all of God’s Ten Commandments applied to them. The czars ignored the Decalogue’s prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, and false witness. Executions, deceptions, and infidelities were the accepted way of life with almost all of these hereditary rulers. They apparently suffered no remorse or a sense of hypocrisy when they prayed in church, even if they had blood on their hands after ordering the flogging or execution of a soldier. They gave offerings to the church with money stolen from the work of serfs. And often, a mistress sat in the next pew. They were above the law. They were Romanovs, the rulers of Imperial Russia. They actually worshipped Mammon, Eros, Narcissus, and Ares.
It is ironic the members of the imperial dynasty of the Romanovs, beginning with Paul I, did not have any ancient Romanov blood coursing through their veins. Paul’s mother, Grand Duchess Catherine, who was born in Pomerania and later became known as Catherine the Great, married Grand Duke Peter, a Romanov with a passion for dolls and toy soldiers that he liked to keep in his bed. He also had a passion for military parade drills, and the officers and soldiers of the Guards came to resent these incessant, repetitive, and meaningless exercises. Peter did not know how to speak Russian when he came to St. Petersburg and worshipped Frederick the Great of Prussia. He reluctantly converted to the Orthodox Church and resented his situation. Peter changed the uniforms of the Russian army to resemble the Prussian army. He was considered to be unbalanced and sadistic. He alienated the clergy and the military and his drunken revels outraged the aristocracy.
The marriage of Peter and Catherine in 1745 was arranged to strengthen ties between Prussia and Russia. No one believed the emperor consummated his marriage with Catherine. They did not retire to the bridal chamber after the ceremonies, although avoiding the wedding bed was not unusual in a politically arranged marriage. The paintings that accompanied an emissary’s attempt to arrange a political union usually flattered the future wife or husband. Smallpox scars and natural imperfections were not in the palette of court artists. Therefore, seeing the person in the flesh often led to surprised disillusionment, if not repulsion. In one instance, a young Bavarian princess never attended her wedding ceremony but sent a portrait instead, and one of her ladies-in-waiting acted as her proxy. The princess finally met her husband almost three years after the ceremony. By that time, they had advanced through puberty and did not even recognize each other.
Peter was either incapable of union with Catherine or sterile. It was said that he did not know how to make love when he married at the age of seventeen. After ten years of court gossip about the absence of an heir, Czarina Elizabeth encouraged Catherine to take a lover and she finally became pregnant. Peter seemed to have learned cupid’s arts by then and was busy with mistresses. Peter wanted to be rid of Catherine. He hoped to prove her infidelity when she gave birth and then send her to a convent. But Catherine gave birth prematurely and smuggled her baby out of the Winter Palace in a fur skin, thwarting Peter’s scheme. Her son, Paul, was fathered by one of Catherine’s young lovers. Throughout Catherine’s marriage to Peter, she had many affairs, often with much younger men. When she was sixty years old, she carried on with an officer in the Guard who was twenty-two years old. (Perhaps that is why she known as the Great!) It was Catherine’s habit to court men of the nobility and the military who shared her view of Peter as an immature martinet.
Peter ascended the throne as Czar Peter III in 1762, but Catherine quickly deposed this hated and ridiculed czar after he reigned for only six months. According to the empress, Peter died one week after being taken prisoner by her supporters, of “severe colic during an attack of hemorrhoids.” She became Czarina in July 1762, and was the last woman to be sovereign. Her son, Paul I, always resented her involvement in his supposed father’s death, and believed she wanted to assassinate him as well by poisoning his food. Paul is considered to be the founder of the dynasty that ruled Russia in the nineteenth century.
However, even if Grand Duke Peter III was the natural father of Paul, the Romanovs of the nineteenth century were more German than Russian because the successive czars of that time married German women who took Russian names and converted to the Orthodox faith. Most of the czars spoke French or German, rather than Russian, as their first tongue.
Catherine ignored her baby in favor of her lovers. Paul did not meet her physical and mental standards. The homely, snub-nosed boy was disfigured by typhus when he was a child, and repelled her. He was raised by nursemaids and nannies, and then given over to male tutors, who introduced him to Western ideas and practices. When Paul married, his first wife complained that he did not have a weak character; rather, he possessed none at all. His second wife was more understanding and tolerant of his appearance and personality. He was mortified when Catherine took his children, Alexander, Constantin, Nicholas, and Mikhail, away from him to be educated under her tutelage. She bragged that her two oldest grandchildren, with the names Alexander and Constantin, embodied her desire of a greater Russian Empire. She instilled in them the belief that Russia was heir to Alexander the Great’s conquests, and that people of the Orthodox faith should rule Constantinople. She hoped to make Alexander czar of all Russia and Constantin ruler of the Byzantine Empire, leaving Paul out entirely. She died before these plans could be carried out.
Catherine the Great
Eight things about Catherine the Great
The Nineteenth Century
Paul lived at a remote estate, far from the activities of the court, so he would not be involved in state affairs. When he became Czar Paul I in 1796, one of his first acts was to restore his father’s reputation by having his remains placed among Russia’s rulers at the Peter and Paul Cathedral. After exhuming his father’s decomposed body, Paul insisted his family kiss the forehead of his father’s skull. He went on to imprison, without trial, twelve thousand Russians he imagined were opposed to his rule. He exiled Russians who read French books or dressed in the fashions of Paris, forbidding shoelaces and round hats. He decreed that the universities no longer teach about the “revolution” of heavenly bodies for fear it might inspire rebellion. After a mere four years, Paul suffered the same fate as his father: a palace coup. He was strangled and replaced by his son, Alexander, the favorite grandson of Catherine the Great. His death was officially attributed to apoplexy.
Alexander I played a part in the conspiracy, believing his father would only be forced to abdicate. His guilt over his father’s murder was compounded by the fact that no conspirator was ever brought to justice. Alexander came to power in 1801, at the age of twenty-three, and immediately began the progressive reforms that promised an enlightened government. He ruled until 1825, reaching the zenith of his power during the Napoleonic Wars, when the “Oppressor of Europe” was defeated and Alexander’s troops marched all the way to Paris. There was talk of a constitutional monarchy, reforms, and the emancipation of serfs. However, decrees went unsigned, and liberal ideals were forgotten as Alexander began to embrace religion and mysticism, probably trying to atone for his involvement in patricide.
Alexander died without an heir in November 1825, after ruling for twenty-four years. His brother, Constantin, should have succeeded him, but he had secretly renounced the throne. Nicholas, as the younger brother of Alexander and Constantin, was next in line. However, Nicholas was unaware of Constantin’s renunciation and that he would become czar on Alexander’s death. He had devoted all his energies to the military as commander of the First Guards, Infantry Division. His obsession with order, discipline, military bearing, and uniforms later became the distinctive features of his reign.
Since only three people knew of Alexander’s decree regarding the succession to the throne, everyone swore allegiance to Constantin, but he refused to take the crown. For a brief period, Russia was without a ruler. Finally, Nicholas became czar, and his first challenge was the Decembrist Revolt, an insurrection by army officers who campaigned in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. They had been introduced to liberal ideas, and now wanted to replace absolute autocracy with a constitutional monarchy. When Nicholas demanded that complete allegiance be sworn to him, officers in the army mutinied. As officers yelled “Constitution!” to rally the troops, soldiers began cheering, mistakenly believing they were supporting Constantin and his wife, “Constitutzya.” The Decembrist Revolt was brutally suppressed when Nicholas ordered canons to fire point blank into the ranks of the mutinous soldiers.
Nicholas’s reign was shaped by this event, and he ruled despotically in the belief that God had placed on his shoulders the fate of Russia. He believed “despotism is ideally suited by the Lord to the nature and spirit of the Russian people.” To ensure absolute power and control, this grandson of Catherine the Great censored the press and set up the Third Department, the secret police who would report any subversion to the czar. So Nicholas began his reign with suppression, spies, and informers. Subjects such as philosophy were forbidden at universities. Discussing politics, reading Western journals or books, singing certain songs, being in the company of anyone suspected of insubordination, suggesting reform or any type of change, even praising the government—any of these actions could and did result in exile. Nicholas’s fixation on regulations and appearance manifested itself when he prescribed the types of uniforms to be worn by government employees and students at the universities. His decrees included the prohibition of mustaches for anyone not in the armed forces. Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality were the cornerstones of his government.
Nicholas was crowned King of Poland in 1825. When the Polish parliament attempted to depose him after years of suppression, he suspended their constitution, crushed revolts of Polish nationals, executed leaders, and reduced Poland to a Russian satrapy. He intervened in Europe whenever and wherever autocratic regimes were threatened by rebellion and nationalism, assured that the Almighty commanded him to protect Europe from godless revolutionaries. This “Gendarme of Europe” possessed the largest army on earth, and saw Russia as a giant barracks, a nation of soldiers.
Nicholas thought Russia was destined to put an end to Turkish rule over Orthodox Christians. “Take heed, O nations, for God is with us,” he proclaimed at the start of the Crimean War. He died during that war, bitterly disappointed, realizing that his dream of Russian dominance over the Ottomans and control of the Black Sea would never be fulfilled during his life.
Czar Nicholas
Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Liberty and Equality
Handout:
Summary of Smith and Marx
International Workingmen's Association; Marx and Bakunin
On September 28, 1864, French and English workers met at St. Martin’s Hall in London to discuss an international organization that would exchange information concerning all workers in all industrialized countries. Specifically, they discussed the importation of foreign strikebreakers and the ten-hour workday.
The American Civil War disrupted cotton supplies to England, causing the textile industry to suffer a slump beginning in 1862. Workers were laid off and, in response, trade unions became more active. The freeing of serfs in Russia, the emancipation of slaves in America, the suppressed Polish insurrection of 1863, and the nationalistic uprisings in Europe all contributed to growing liberal and revolutionary sentiments. A loose alliance of French socialists, English utopians, Italian republicans, German communists, radicals, and federations of various unions throughout Europe agreed to form the International Workingmen’s Association. The I.W.A. recognized that the workers of the world shared common grievances, interests, and abuses at the hands of capitalists. Although there was a high degree of enthusiasm and agreement on the need for the Association, the many disparate elements could have resulted in another well-intentioned but ineffective organization. The League of the Just, the International Committee, and the Communist League were earlier organizations devoted to workers in all industrialized countries, but each one had fallen apart in bickering and confusion. Someone was needed to unite the various elements and give the new organization direction and guidance. A strong hand and a disciplined mind had to be found; a man who could inspire confidence, and frame the plight of the workers in a coherent doctrine of grievances and action, was essential to the success of the organization.
Karl Marx, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto, spent fifteen years prior to 1864 writing Das Kapital and lost touch with the labor movement. Still, even though he was living in England, he was invited to be part of the German delegation to the IWA, and was elected to its General Council. He used his rigorous logic, acid observations, and economic insights to draft the organizing principles, which would guide the association and give it direction. His inaugural address traced the increasingly wretched conditions of the worker over the previous twenty years in England. He stated that despite promises that English pauperism would disappear, the degradation of the worker had only accelerated, and laborers had descended into abject poverty. Marx used one report by the House of Lords to show that workingmen were worse off than they had been twenty years before, and they lived lives more desperate than convicted criminals. He quoted another official English government report on public health, which stated that workers did not have enough food to avert starvation; and furthermore, workers could not afford any medical care to prevent sickness and death. The economic conditions of workingmen were producing “victims of broken health, tainted morals, and mental ruin.” And their children were condemned to repeat the wretched lives led by their parents in a never-ending descent into complete destitution, since there were no programs to improve living conditions.
Yet, industrialists and capitalists continued to grow increasingly prosperous at the expense of the lower classes. Marx cited statistics to show how workers were sinking further into penury, as the industrialists above them were rising into greater wealth. The differences were geometric, not arithmetic. The disparities between rich and poor were multiplying, and the gap was becoming wider and wider. Despite this reality, the House of Commons was told that conditions for the English worker had improved to a degree never seen before in any country.
Marx, in his address, told the assembled delegates that what they possessed as a potential element of their success was their numbers. But he warned that numbers were only effective if the members were united in pursuit of a collective goal. Marx concluded that emancipation of the workers needed fraternal concurrence and knowledge of their governments’ international policies. Then they could counteract the abuses of those governments and vindicate simple laws of morality and justice, which ought to govern governments as well as individuals.
“Workers of all nations, unite!” he concluded.
After this address, the General Council gladly accepted the Rules of the Association that Marx drafted. The Rules included a preamble, which listed the reasons for the International:
The goal of the International is the emancipation of the working classes. This does not involve a struggle for class privileges for the worker, but an end to all privileges, and an end to all class rule through the establishment of equal rights and duties.
Servitude, social misery, mental degradation and political dependence result from economic exploitation of the worker by the industrialists.
Emancipation of the worker is therefore the great end, and political activity is the means to that end.
All efforts in attaining that end have failed due to the lack of solidarity of the workers in each country, and the absence of a fraternal bond between workers in those countries.
The emancipation of labor is a social problem in modern society and depends on the progress made in the most advanced countries.
The revival of the labor movement needs a united international organization to avoid the errors of the past.
Marx declared the International Workingmen’s Association would acknowledge that truth, justice, and morality were the bases of conduct for all men without regard to color, creed, or nationality. Everyone should claim the universal rights of man and citizen for himself and for all who did their duty. There were no rights without duties and no duties without rights. One of Marx’s Rules of the International stated that membership was open to anyone who acknowledged and defended the principles of the International Association. Another stated that the cost of membership was one shilling.
Within six years the Association’s membership grew to more than eight hundred thousand, and the IWA possessed a sizable treasury. The Association helped prevent the importation of foreign strikebreakers and provided financial aid to workers on strike. It published pamphlets in the millions and spread ideas about the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, and the inevitable triumph of socialism.
For years, Karl Marx was the guiding hand of rationalism and provided foresight for the Association. The most serious challenge to his leadership came from Mikhail Bakunin, the father of anarchism. When the IWA met in Basel, Switzerland, in August 1869, both men put forward distinct ideas about the nature and future of the communist movement, and they struggled for the leadership of the IWA. Marx prevailed and Bakunin was expelled. But each exerted a tremendous impact on the future of the labor movement and socialist thought.
Karl Marx
Brief Biography of Marx - Youtube
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism … The modern laborer, instead of rising with the process of industry sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. . .
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution. . .
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles … What the bourgeoisie therefore produces are their own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory the proletariat are equally inevitable. . .
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, unite!
These are excerpts from The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. During that year, Europe was in turmoil, and violent revolutions threatened to overthrow nations. Undemocratic governments ruled in Europe. Prussia was without a parliament, did not have freedom of speech, the right of assembly, or freedom of the press. Russia, under Czar Nicholas, was a cornerstone of despotism, reactionary policies, and repression. Italy was a number of small principalities. France was a repressive empire. Austria was a polyglot of people and countries, ruled by the whims of an emperor.
Adam Smith, who wrote the book Wealth of Nations, assumed that capitalism would improve the condition of workers. This, sadly, proved to be an illusion. Smith believed that the “invisible hand” of greed and competition would lead society to self-correction and happiness. Therefore, governments should follow a policy of laissez-faire and allow economic processes to follow their own course.
When capitalism did not improve the fate of the downtrodden, Smith’s theories were replaced by Utopian socialist reformers who, according to Marx, merely had good intentions while their theories lacked coherence and consistency.
The living conditions of the worker during the industrial revolution degenerated to the point where their lives as human beings were almost meaningless. The factory system not only paid mere subsistent wages, it separated labor from the fruits of that labor. The worker sold his labor to become a part of the process producing commodities, commodities that the worker did not use and had no pride in creating. Automatons, dividing their efforts into mindless repetitions of mass production, replaced craftsmen and artisans. Laborers became mutilated individuals. Alienated from the products they helped manufacture, workers’ dignity and worth disappeared.
Sporadic revolutions and demands for improved living and working conditions were followed by brutal suppressions and draconian restrictions on freedoms of assembly, speech, and press. Socialist revolutions occurred, but did not overthrow regimes of autocracy, capitalism, and oppression.
Still, Marx and the communists were not disappointed. Their theory of scientific socialism proved without question that revolutions would continue until the final Armageddon. The revolutions of 1848 were only a small rehearsal for the giant conflagration that simply had to occur. And just as unavoidable as the defeat of capitalism, was the ascension of a socialist society after a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Communist Manifesto was a philosophy of history, an explanation of inexorable forces that Marx believed to be infallible. Like the laws of motion, the ultimate revolution was inevitable. Communists were not dreamy idealists hoping for man to change; they had discovered the laws of history! Communists did not believe that their system was desirable. They believed it was a fact that was destined to happen.
Karl Marx was the architect of these theories. He wrote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!” He stated that the theory of communism could be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property!
Born in 1818, Marx was a stocky, powerful man with a dark complexion. His children called him the Moor. He was sloppy and plodding, smoked cigars, and surrounded himself with a dense, yellow haze of smoke. Cigar ashes would hang precariously from a half-smoked cigar on his lips, ready to fall off at any time. His wife complained about the ash-turds on her threadbare rug that resembled droppings of geese. Often Marx would get up from his desk after poring over his papers, which were always in disarray, and shuffle around his study, mumbling to himself—sometimes in German, sometimes in thickly accented English—and cursing his enemies, and even his friends. He spent years in poverty going to the British Museum, sitting in the uncomfortable wooden chairs of the circulation room, researching and formulating his theories. He claimed this was responsible for his hemorrhoids, still another reason for Marx to hate the capitalists.
His family was Jewish, but converted to Christianity so his father, a lawyer, would not be restricted in his profession and career. Young Karl attended the University of Berlin. There he fought a duel, was arrested for disturbing the peace after an all-night drinking binge, abandoned his study of law, and began to study philosophy. He received his doctorate of philosophy in 1841. Marx married his childhood sweetheart, Jenny, four years older than he, and moved to Paris in 1843. He was expelled from France because of his revolutionary writings, moved to Brussels, and traveled to London to work with the Communist League. He gave up his Prussian citizenship, had three children, and was able to return to Paris in 1848. He left Paris to join the German revolution in Cologne, was expelled from Prussia, and finally went to London via Paris in 1849, where he lived the rest of his life in exile.
Marx shared a life of destitution and poverty with his uncomplaining, devoted wife and his friend and collaborator, Friedrich Engels. Three of his six children died because Marx could not afford medicine and doctors. He would pawn his clothes in order to purchase paper for his articles. Jenny was reduced to begging in order to buy a coffin for their daughter, who died before her first birthday.
Yet Marx never abandoned his studies and writing, never became a “worker,” a proletariat, to support his family. He attempted to secure employment only once, as a railway ticket clerk, and was rejected due to poor handwriting. The Marx family suffered terribly, yet Karl ignored all the hardships his wife and children endured, remaining consumed by his economic theories and belief in the coming revolution.
Marx’s theory of communism took shape when he became a disciple of Hegel’s doctrines at the University of Berlin. Hegel died in a cholera epidemic five years before Marx enrolled at the university. Marx joined the young Hegelian radicals, became a militant atheist, but then gradually rejected the content, if not the form, of Hegel’s philosophy. Eventually, Marx came to believe Hegel had almost discovered fundamental laws of human development, but rejected Hegel’s idealism in favor of materialism. According to Marx, Hegel mistakenly gave an idealistic interpretation to philosophy. Marx, on the other hand, gave Hegel’s view of reality a materialistic foundation. Some said that Hegel believed God was recognizing himself through man on earth. In contrast, it is said that Marx believed that man was recognizing himself as god on earth.
Marx used Hegel’s dialectic as the basis for an analysis of society. By applying the dialectic to economic events, Marx explained the history, purpose, and future of man, and called this scientific socialism. He claimed that all ideas are a result of economic relationships. History was placed at the foundation of materialistic analysis. Before mankind could be involved in any activity such as politics, religion, philosophy, or a struggle for supremacy, people must first eat, drink, find shelter, and clothe themselves. As a result, man’s entire life was determined by how he satisfied his basic needs, and society was organized into activities to provide for materialistic production. This economic structure gave rise to all other relationships in a community. A person’s relationship to the means of production determined his class, and thus, his class-consciousness.
Marx believed that at one time man lived in a form of primitive communism, with nature dominating society. Man was in harmony with himself since he was able to personally use what he made with his own labor. As societies became more complex, divisions of labor appeared and private property developed. Man’s material and economic needs forced him to treat nature and other men as objects, which set the stage for the ownership of property, as well as the ownership of other human beings through slavery. Therefore, man progressed through stages of historical materialism. He started with primitive communism and then developed other systems, which included slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Capitalism would eventually develop into the final stage, communism.
Marx stated that all previous societies were characterized by struggles between classes. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, oppressor and oppressed; each stood in constant opposition to the other. These opposites carried on a battle that always ended in a revolutionary reconstitution of society. For instance, feudalism was destroyed by its own inherent contradictions and gave birth to capitalism. The North American colonies developed incompatibilities with English colonialism, and a new nation resulted. Nature also reflects this creative conflict. A bud on an apple tree is destroyed by the flower. The flower is destroyed by the fruit. The fruit disintegrates and its seeds become a tree in the next stage, producing buds in a cycle wherein everything contains the germ of its own destruction.
Marx’s analysis of economics showed that a capitalist society developed its own contradictions. The class of bourgeoisie (the thesis), owners of the means of production, oppressed the proletariat (the antithesis). This class of workers produced by the capitalists would soon rise to overthrow their oppressors, and socialism (the synthesis) would result.
Workers became estranged from themselves under the capitalist system, as the mechanization and specialization of labor in factories resulted in end products that workers only partially produced. To fully realize himself and escape from alienation caused by a system of private property, man had to abolish private property. Laws protecting private property came about with the rise of the industrialists, and were based on the interests of the ruling class, the capitalists. Private property merely exploited workers. “Free” competition allowed the capitalists to enslave the proletariat. But capitalism made man an object of sterile labor, where men do not use what they produce, and thus capitalism was destined to be overthrown by a capitalist creation: the proletariat.
Marx declared his theories openly and, supremely confident in his analysis of society, contemptuously rejected the use of secret cells to bring about the revolution. History was inexorable; the communist revolution would occur. Marx discovered scientific socialism, laws of society that were just as true as Newtonian physics. The International Workingmen’s Association was simply another step in awakening the workers’ consciousness, leading to revolution.
Marx would tolerate no threat to his leadership, no revision to his theory that foretold of revolution, followed by a brutal period of dictatorship of the proletariat, ultimately leading to a classless and stateless society. To Marx, Hegel almost discovered the laws of human development. Marx rejected the content, but not the form of Hegel’s philosophy. He believed that he could lead the proletariat to the promised land of communism. The only real challenge to Marx’s leadership of the International Workingmen’s Association and the proletarian movement came from Mikhail Bakunin, a refugee from Russia.
Replacing Liberty Equality, Fraternity?
Anarchism, Terrorism, and Nihilism
Bakunin and Nechayev, Herzen and Ogarev.
Photo of Herzen and Ogarev
Photo of Nechayev
The "isms" of the nineteenth century.
How many can we name?
Handouts;
Definitions, Anarchism et al.
The only revolution that can save the people is one that eradicates the entire state system
and exterminates all state traditions of the regime and all classes on Earth.
Mikhail Bakunin
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion - the revolution. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose - to destroy it.
Sergei Nechayev
DEFINITIONS
Anarchism is the political belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members. The Russian writer Alexander Herzen was greatly influenced by the anarchist-socialism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Forced into exile, Herzen established the Free Russian Press in London that published a series of journals including The Polar Star, Voices from Russia and The Bell. In The Bell Herzen predicted that because of its backward economy, socialism would be introduced into Russia before any other European country. "What can be accomplished only by a series of cataclysms in the West can develop in Russia out of existing conditions."
Nihilism; theory of revolution popular among Russian extremists until the fall of the czarist government (1917); the theory was given its name by Ivan Turgenev in his novel Fathers and Sons (1861). Nihilism stressed the need to destroy existing economic and social institutions. The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has either truth or a real existence. (negativity · cynicism · pessimism · disbelief)
Populism is a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite. Populism is an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice". The most influential person in the early days of Populism was Bakunin. While Bakunin was able to stir up the peasant’s revolutionary fervour, he was a poor organiser. Bakunin believed that once the peasants had been suitably educated in revolutionary ideas, they, through their own endeavours, would overthrow the tsarist regime.
Socialism; political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
Communism; a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Mikhail Bakunin
Bakunin was born to an aristocratic family in 1814, the oldest of ten brothers and sisters, and grew up on an estate with five hundred serfs and servants. His mother controlled and dominated everything. Bakunin later said that the love of liberty and fascination with destruction arose in response to his mother’s despotic character; and he would claim that destruction and creation were two sides of the same coin. He confessed a love for one of his sisters, but never seemed to be attracted to women sexually. It was rumored that Bakunin was impotent, but his fascination and involvement with Sergei Nechayev suggests otherwise. In any case, women were captivated by Bakunin’s charm and character. He carried on platonic affairs with married women, convinced them to abandon their husbands, persuaded them to finance his activities since he was penniless, and ultimately, disappointed them by not becoming their lover.
Bakunin was an officer in the Imperial Russian Artillery Corps, but resigned a commission to travel to Berlin in 1840. There, he was determined to study Hegel and join the intellectual ferment in Europe. In Paris in 1844, he met Karl Marx, both of them one step ahead of the police. Their backgrounds were similar: neither was a worker, but both spoke for the proletariat; and both rejected the privileges they were born into in order to study philosophy and devote themselves to the plight of the worker. They were both indebted to friends, and shamelessly borrowed and accepted money in order to study and agitate. They published articles in the same newspapers and magazines, and passionately believed in the coming revolution. But Bakunin was far more fervent about the destructive potential of the coming Armageddon, and ecstatically dreamed of a giant conflagration, where, “the whole of Europe with Russian, French, and English capitals would burn into giant rubbish heaps.”
Bakunin and Marx started out as potential collaborators, but over the course of thirty years, they evolved into bitter enemies despite, or even because of, their similarities. Since Bakunin believed that Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” would simply be another form of government oppression, their friendship ended. Bakunin did not trust any form of government, and believed workers would be as oppressive as the capitalists if they became the governing class. Unlike Marxist theory, revolution had to originate in the slums, the factories, and the criminal class, not from an intellectual elite. Bakunin was adamantly opposed to inheritance while Marx was tolerant of it, since inheritance was merely a symptom and the result of the problem of private property, not its cause. If private property were abolished, there would be no inheritance. To Bakunin, inheritance was an indispensable factor in the oppression of the worker. The communism of Bakunin, committed to secrecy and underground subversive activity, involved a small cadre of revolutionists who could act as midwives in the birth of the socialist revolution. Marx, on the other hand, believed there was no need for concealment and subversion, since scientific socialism was inevitable.
Despite fantasies of death and destruction, Bakunin was endowed with exhilaration for life, and loved to drink and sing Russian songs. A living contradiction, a giant in body and spirit but always a boy at heart, he was a burly, unkempt man who glowed with brotherly love for revolutionaries and socialists. At the same time, he advocated the obliteration of society, always spoke passionately about destruction, and actively tried to incite workers to revolution.
Bakunin lived in exile in various European cities after leaving his estate in Russia. In Paris during the revolution of February 1848, in Germany, in Czechoslovakia, and in Berlin, he participated in the revolts flaring up under the banner of communism. In 1849, Bakunin traveled to Prague, where a new government had been announced by insurgents. He took charge of a small band of militia, using his military training to set up the resistance against a Prussian force sent to quell the rebellion. Under fire, most of the revolutionaries fled; and, rather than abandon the last defenders and take flight himself, Bakunin stayed with them and was arrested. The anarchist was sent to Konigstein, a prison fortress in Germany, and was held in isolation for thirteen months, sentenced to die by beheading. When led to the guillotine and on the scaffold, the executioners announced his sentence had been changed to life imprisonment. Bakunin was then sent to Austria because of his subversive activities in the Czech rebellion and imprisoned there. After eleven months spent chained to a wall, he was extradited to Russia and consigned to the Peter and Paul Fortress. His health deteriorated, his teeth were lost to scurvy, and his body began to wither away because of poor food and only thirty minutes of exercise outside the cell each week. In 1857, he asked his brother to bring poison during a visit in case a final appeal to the new czar, Alexander II, failed. Bakunin was saved by Czar Alexander’s programs of reform and liberalization, and was exiled to Siberia. Employed as a clerk in the Far East Trading Company and married to a woman not even half his age, Bakunin became the father to two children his wife had with a friend, since he was apparently incapable of sexual union with a woman.
By 1861, Bakunin established enough trust and credibility with the trading company that he was allowed to travel to the Pacific on the company’s behalf. He eluded authorities and boarded a ship sailing to Japan. There, he wrangled a voyage to San Francisco and borrowed money to sail to Panama, crossed the isthmus, journeyed to New York, and then made his way to England. In London he joined the Russian émigré community surrounding Alexander Herzen. He borrowed more money and traveled all over Europe.
His charm with women allowed Bakunin to continue his agitation for revolution. In Italy, a rich Russian woman succumbed to his magnetism and became a patron. From her estate near Lake Como, Bakunin continued his activities by joining the International Workingmen’s Association, now convinced that revolution would not be confined to Europe, and would include Russia.
At a meeting of the International Workingmen’s Association in Switzerland, Bakunin made an indelible impression. One delegate reported that he did not recall what Bakunin said, but was astounded by the passion of this giant of a man, by his fiery eloquence and the revolutionary phrases in the speech. Here was a man of the revolution who defied emperors and kings of Europe, a man who had spent years rotting in prison, a man who had traveled around the world and come back to Europe to help the proletariat in their battle against oppression.
Whenever he appeared at a congress, workers always rose as one, and thunderous cheers and applause would rock the halls for this man of action, in recognition of his sacrifices. He was a true hero of the coming revolution, the revolution that Bakunin believed with all his heart would begin in his lifetime.
Nechayev
April 2,1869
Town Hall
Geneva, Switzerland
“Excuse me,” the young man interrupted the conversation between Nicholas Ogarev and a deputy of the International Workingmen’s Association. Ogarev ignored him and continued talking with the delegate. The young man was insistent. “Excuse me . . .” He was a short, thin man, obviously a radical, a man of no more than twenty or so years, clad in a wrinkled black jacket, white shirt, and black cravat, with a clean-shaven face, and hair combed straight back. Except for an intense stare, he resembled a homeless peasant.
Ogarev was displeased. Undeterred, the young man again interrupted, “Excuse me, I was told you might help me.”
Ogarev glowered and addressed the man, “Young man, can’t you see I’m conversing with someone.”
“Yes, but it can’t be as important as what I have to say.”
Ogarev excused himself from the deputy, and promised to continue later. Exasperated, he took the young man by his arm and led him away to a quiet corner of the room.
“Yes, what is it?”
Sergei Nechayev’s small eyes narrowed a bit as he spoke. They seemed to penetrate to the core of Ogarev’s being. His thin lips curled into a mocking smile, “Nicholas Ogarev? You are Nicholas Ogarev, aren’t you?”
“Yes! But I don’t think we have been introduced.”
“No, we haven’t. I am Sergei Nechayev. I have a very important message for Mikhail Bakunin, and I was told you might help me deliver it.”
“Bakunin isn’t expected on the floor until tomorrow morning. He’s in a meeting with the International Alliance. Perhaps you’ll be able to deliver the message to him by yourself.”
“I think you’ll find the message as interesting as your friend will.”
“Perhaps. Who is the message from?”
“The Russian Revolutionary Committee.”
“I’ve never heard of them.”
“You will. I have been chosen by the Executive Council to come here as an official delegate to represent the Committee and ask for help. They chose me after I was arrested and escaped from the Peter-Paul Prison, the same jail where Bakunin spent years in solitary confinement.
“No one escapes from that prison!”
“I did! Things have changed since you left Russia. The guards, the military, the officials, the people, they’re all ready to come over to our side. Some already have. We are prepared to purify, to exterminate by fire and sword, anyone who stands in the way of our freedom. The day of the peasant revolt is near.”
“I don’t think Bakunin will find that any more interesting than I do. The date of the peasant revolt has always been near. We have been patiently awaiting it for years.”
“It is less than a year away. Do you know the significance of February 19, 1870?”
“No, not at all.”
“It is the ninth anniversary of the Emancipation Manifesto.”
“And?”
“That’s the date the former serfs must either formally agree to finish buying land they’ve been paying for the last nine years, or terminate the agreement and have the land revert back to the landowner. However, the former serfs will not continue to pay for the land, nor will they surrender the land that they have worked on all their lives. On February 19, serfs will finally rise up and throw off the shackles of the Empire. A Programme of Revolutionary Action has already been issued.”
“How do you know all this?”
“Our Russian Revolutionary Committee has been working in villages and organizing the peasants. We have cells throughout Russia preparing the Intelligentsia, the students, and the city workers. You and Bakunin have been publishing The People’s Cause and calling for students to unite in the cause of social revolution. We have united! You have written that the business of revolutionaries is to rise up, and free the people by destroying the state. We have risen! You have been writing that we should no longer be strangled by the state as it tries to preserve itself. It’s happened! We have thrown off the ropes around our necks and have spoken! These are some of your words and some of our answers. Your words have inspired us to action. Did you hear of the student arrests last spring? When the students published a manifesto and announced they were prepared to perish in a dungeon rather than submit to the authorities and be suffocated and crippled spiritually and morally in the universities?”
“Yes, we’ve heard of the arrests, but it is difficult to learn the details. The police have arrested hundreds, including the leaders of the radical movement, and have destroyed the students’ printing presses, so there is little information coming out of Moscow or St. Petersburg.” Ogarev thought about what the young man represented to his hopes before continuing. “We have been awaiting the Russian insurrection. You might be a Godsend, Sergei, that’s your name, isn‘t it? Can you tell me more?”
“Yes, but only with Bakunin present. I would also have Herzen there, but I’m told he is in Paris. We have to meet in some quiet location where no secret agents of Alexander might be listening.”
“Yes. Tomorrow. Come to the meeting here tomorrow morning. Bakunin is addressing the convention at ten. I’ll introduce you. We can find some quiet place after his speech. Maybe Herzen’s house.”
“I’ll be here at eight. I must know more about Bakunin before I meet him. You must tell me more about him.”
“Why is that?”
Nechayev did not say it, but believed that knowledge is not only power but also control, and needed to know everything about Bakunin, Ogarev, and Herzen to enlist not only their moral and financial support, but direct them and dominate them as he saw fit.
He smiled and his eyes pierced Ogarev’s soul. “Because the lives of great revolutionaries are the inspiration for our cause.”
Bakunin and Nechayev
THE CATECHISM OF A REVOLUTIONARY
THE REVOLUTIONARY MAN
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no interests of his own, no affairs, no feelings, no attachments, no belongings, not even a name. Everything in him is absorbed by a single exclusive interest, a single thought, a single passion: the revolution.
PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE REVOLUTIONARY MUST BE GUIDED AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS HIMSELF
In the very depths of his being, not only in words but in deeds, he has broken all ties with the civil order and the entire cultivated world, with its laws, proprieties, social conventions and ethical rules. He is an implacable enemy of this world, and if he continues to live in it, it is only to destroy it more effectively.
The revolutionary despises all doctrinarism, rejects the mundane sciences, leaving them to future generations. He knows of only one science, the science of destruction. To this end, and this end alone, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. He will study day and night the living science: people, their characters, and all features of the present social order at all possible levels. His sole and constant object is the immediate destruction of this vile order.
He despises public opinion. He despises and abhors the existing social ethic in all its manifestations and expressions. For him, everything that assists the triumph of revolution is moral. To him, what is immoral and criminal is anything and everything that stands in his way.
The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless towards the state and towards the whole of educated and privileged society in general, and he must expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or undeclared, an unceasing and irreconcilable war of life and death.
Hard towards himself, he must be hard towards others also. All tender and effeminate emotions of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude, and honor must be stifled by a cold and single-minded passion for the revolutionary cause. There exists only one delight, one consolation, one reward and one gratification: the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim: merciless destruction. In cold-blooded and tireless pursuit of this aim, he must be prepared both to die and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the way of the success of the revolution.
The nature of the true revolutionary has no place for any romanticism, sentimentality, rapture, or enthusiasm. He has no place either for personal hatred or vengeance. The revolutionary passion, which in him becomes a habitual state of mind, must at every moment be combined with cold calculation. Always and everywhere, he must not be what the promptings of his personal inclinations would have him be, but what the general interest of the revolution prescribes.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS HIS COMRADES IN THE REVOLUTION
The revolutionary considers his friend, and holds dear only a person who has shown himself in practice to be as much a revolutionary as he is himself. The extent of his friendship, devotion, and obligation towards his comrades is determined solely by their degree of usefulness in the practical work of total revolutionary destruction. The need for solidarity among revolutionaries is self-evident. In it lays the whole strength of revolutionary work. Comrades who possess the same degree of revolutionary understanding and passion should discuss all-important matters together and come to unanimous decisions. But in implementing a plan, decided upon in this manner, each man should, as far as possible, rely on himself. In performing a series of destructive actions each man must act for himself and have recourse to the advice and help of his comrades only if necessary for the plan’s success.
Each comrade should have under him several revolutionaries of a second or third category, that is, comrades who are not completely initiated. He should regard them as portions of a common fund of revolutionary capital, placed at his disposal. He should expend his portion of this capital economically, always attempting to derive the utmost possible benefit from it, and should regard himself as capital consecrated to the triumph of the revolutionary cause; capital that may not be disposed of independently without the complete consent of fully initiated comrades.
When a comrade gets into trouble, the revolutionary, in deciding whether he should be rescued, must think not in terms of his personal feelings, but only of the revolutionary cause. Therefore he must balance, on the one hand, the usefulness of the comrade, and on the other, the amount of revolutionary energy necessarily expended for his deliverance, and must settle for whichever is the weightier consideration.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS SOCIETY
The admission of a new member, who has proved himself not by words but by deeds, may be decided upon only by unanimous agreement.
The revolutionary enters into the world of the state, class, and so-called culture, and lives in it only because he has faith in its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he feels pity for anything in this world. If he is able to, he has to face the annihilation of a situation, of a relationship, or of any part of this world; everything and everyone must be equally odious to him. All the worse for him if he has family, friends, or loved ones in this world; he is no revolutionary if he can stay his hand.
Aiming at merciless destruction, the revolutionary can and sometimes must live within society while pretending to be quite other than what he is. The revolutionary must penetrate everywhere, among all the lowest and the middle classes, into the houses of commerce, the church, the mansions of the rich, the world of the bureaucracy, the military, literature, the Third Section, and even the Winter Palace.
The next important category is that of women. They should be divided into three main types: first, those frivolous, thoughtless, and fluff-headed women whom we may use as we use the third category of men; second, women who are ardent, gifted, and devoted, but do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a real, passionless, and practical revolutionary understanding; and finally there are the women who are with us completely, that is, women who have been fully initiated and have accepted our program in its entirety. We should regard these women as the most valuable of our treasures, women whose assistance we cannot do without.
THE ATTITUDE OF OUR SOCIETY TOWARDS THE PEOPLE
Our revolutionary society has only one aim: the total emancipation and happiness of the people, the common laborers. But, convinced that their emancipation and the achievement of their happiness can be realized only by means of an all-destroying popular revolution, our society will employ its power and its resources in order to promote an intensification of those calamities and horrors that must finally exhaust the patience of the people and drive them to a popular uprising. By ‘popular revolution’ our society does not mean a regulated movement on the classical French model, a movement that has always been restrained by the notion of property and the traditional social order of our so-called civilization and morality, which has until now always confined itself to the overthrow of one political structure merely to substitute another, to create the so-called revolutionary state. The only revolution that can save the people is one that eradicates the entire state system and exterminates all state traditions of the regimes and classes on Earth.
Therefore, our society does not intend to impose on the people any organization from above. Any future organization will undoubtedly arise through the movement and life of our people, but that is a task for future generations. Our task is terrible, total, universal, merciless destruction.
Therefore, in drawing closer to the people, we must ally ourselves above all with those elements of the popular life which, ever since the very foundation of the state power of Moscow, have never ceased to protest, not only in words but in deeds, against everything directly or indirectly connected with the state: against the nobility, against the bureaucracy, against the priests, against the world of the merchant guilds, and against the tight-fisted, estate-owning, land pirates. But we shall ally ourselves with the intrepid world of brigands, who are the only true revolutionaries in Russia. To knit this world into a single invincible and all destroying force, that is the purpose of our entire organization, our conspiracy, and our task.
Alexander Herzen
"Well, now we know what the reactionaries have always known: liberty, equality, and fraternity are like three rotten apples in the barrel of privilege" - Herzen
"It is possible to lead astray an entire generation, to strike it blind, to drive it insane, to direct it towards a false goal. Napoleon proved this." Herzen
Excerpt from www.the-american-interest.com/v/michael-mcdonald The American Reader, The Brilliant Rage of Alexander Herzen:
A Herzen Reader
by Alexander Herzen
edited and translated from the Russian with an introduction by Kathleen Parthé, with a critical essay by Robert Harris
After Russia had labored under a harsh dictatorship for decades, unexpectedly a new ruler assumed power. For a few years political liberalization took hold; to most outside observers it seemed as though Russia was finally becoming a “normal” Western-style state. But then the authoritarian nature of the governing regime reasserted itself, and civil liberties were once more harshly curtailed. Can we make sense of this turbulent period in Russian history? If you’re interested in the Gorbachev-to-Yeltsin-to-Putin era, many talented “historians of the moment”—Albert Camus’s felicitous phrase for investigative journalists—can explain how Russia moved from glasnost and perestroika to gangsterism and Pussy Riot over the past two decades. But there is an earlier, Czarist version of this same pattern of harsh political repression, followed by glimmers of hope, followed by a return to repression. It began with the autocratic reign of Nicholas I, which ended with his death in 1855. His son Alexander II succeeded him. While Nicholas’s reign was one of the darkest hours of 19th-century Russian authoritarianism, Alexander II freed the serfs and undertook important electoral and judicial reforms before losing much of his youthful enthusiasm for change amid three failed assassination attempts. A fourth attempt succeeded in 1881. Alexander II was followed by his son, Alexander III, whose taste for authoritarian nastiness nearly equaled that of Nicholas.
If your interest runs more to this earlier period, there is only one investigative rabble-rousing journalist worth consulting: Alexander Herzen. Fortunately, an exceptional collection of Herzen’s journalism has recently appeared. A Herzen Reader is edited, annotated and translated from the Russian by Kathleen Parthé, who bridges the formidable gulf of language and culture that separate us from Herzen’s time and place. She judiciously supplements Herzen’s articles with explanatory footnotes and prefaces each with comments explaining the context in which it was written. Most fundamentally, however, she deserves great praise for translating Herzen’s writing into a lucid and contemporary English that preserves both the urgency and the irony underlying his prose.
Excerpt from the Coast of Utopia, Tom Stoppard
The exiled Russian, Alexander Herzen, was preparing to publish another issue of The Bell, the radical Russian journal smuggled into Russia. The Bell was considered the voice of a second government, and even Czar Alexander read it. Not subject to the mutilation of censorship, the journal could discuss the abolition of serfdom, freedom of speech and the press, representative government, and other reforms.
In 1857, four years before the Emancipation Edict of February 19, 1861, Herzen had written of the newly crowned Czar Alexander II, “Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!” Herzen heaped this exaggerated and undeserved praise on Alexander, because Herzen had learned that with regard to emancipation, the czar had said that it is better change comes from above, rather than from below. Herzen wrote that what was needed was not change from above, but revolution from above. The Bell optimistically stated that the czar was working with the reformers for “the future greatness of Russia.” Herzen was hopeful that emancipation could be attained through a peaceful solution; and went on to write that the current bondage of the peasants in Russia satisfied no one, and in the heart of every man was a preference for peaceful human development as opposed to bloodshed. Meanwhile, radicals denounced Herzen for his patience with, and faith in, the good intentions of the emperor.
In February 1861, Herzen believed freedom was indeed obtained with the stroke of a pen. The serfs were emancipated. Deliverance came about without a peasant revolt drenching Russian soil with blood. Herzen and his friend and collaborator on the journal, Nicholas Ogarev, feared peasants might take up the ax, but were relieved when all that was needed was a broom. Herzen was now reconciled with the radicals who had advocated violence, saying he had disagreed only with their methods, not their aims. Herzen felt that his “Free Russian Press” swayed not only public opinion, but also the czar himself, and had helped promote a peaceful resolution to the serf question. The Bell proclaimed that first measures had been taken; now the question of complete freedom must be given full attention.
When serfs were first emancipated, Herzen and Ogarev celebrated and rejoiced, and decided to give a banquet for all the Russian émigrés and abolitionists in London. They planned to propose a toast and a speech to their liberated peasant brothers, to their motherland Russia, and to their ruler, Alexander Nikolaevitch. They proclaimed that neither history nor the Russian people would ever forget Czar Alexander, and The Bell hailed him as The Liberator.
However, the toast was never given, and the speech was forgotten. Herzen and Ogarev read and reread the decree, and came to the conclusion that the czar had cheated the people. The Great Emancipator was a fraud, a charlatan who had deceived the serfs into a different form of bondage. The Edict was 360 pages long, written in legalese, and far too complicated for the simple, uneducated peasants to understand. It allowed landlords to keep two-thirds of the land, while the peasants were left with only the poorest lands. The good land that they had lived on and worked for generations would escheat to the gentry. Moreover, small harvests and exorbitant redemption fees guaranteed that peasants would not be able to pay for the less arable land they were forced to take. Furthermore, they would now be responsible for new taxes, and would have no representation in the apportionment of those taxes or the administration of their districts, which remained in the hands of the nobility.
Herzen and Ogarev were also upset, because the liberal ministers and nobles who initially worked on the legislation were cursorily thanked and immediately dismissed from government service. Conservatives and reactionaries who opposed the Edict now replaced them.
Herzen watched with apprehension as the Emancipation Edict proclaimed in February was followed not by parades and festivities, but by violent peasant revolts and uprisings in March and April. In one village, peasants rallied around Anton Petrov, who claimed that the czar had given all the land to the serfs, but greedy landholders had ignored the czar and were withholding property from the emancipated farmers. Thousands came from nearby hamlets and joined Petrov in petitioning the czar for protection of their rights. Troops were sent to arrest him, and when the people of the village refused to surrender Petrov, the soldiers fired into the crowd shielding him. Four hundred men, women, and children were murdered. Other demonstrations and uprisings throughout Russia were suppressed with bloodshed and violence.
Student protests broke out at St. Petersburg University in support of the peasants. Students demonstrated against increased taxation on the peasants, restrictions that did not permit former serfs to leave their villages, and the stern measures used in putting down peasant revolts. They also wanted the czar to summon a national assembly to address all issues facing the Russian Empire. The insulted czar—the Little Father— responded by instituting military discipline at the university, expelling students, and cancelling all financial scholarships.
In addition to ordering the shocking suppression of the students, Czar Alexander sent troops into Poland that year, and blood was spilled on the streets of Warsaw. Herzen realized that Alexander remained an oppressor, not only of the newly freed serfs, but also of students, Polish nationalists, and all liberal movements within the Russian Empire. Herzen and Ogarev could not raise a glass to this dictator, and their party and celebration was cancelled. Herzen considered what course of action he would now advocate in The Bell to help liberal reforms in his homeland. The conclusion he reached was that peasants needed useful and applied knowledge; knowledge only teachers, doctors, and engineers could supply. Reacting to the disturbances at the universities, Herzen agitated for greater freedom for university students. He united the problems of the peasants and the university students, and saw that their plights complemented each other.
This gadfly of Russia came up with a new program and slogan: Go to the People! He believed students and peasants shared a common cause. He now encouraged students to go into the country to educate and mobilize the emancipated serfs. This would be the cause that he and Ogarev would promote in The Bell.
Arrest of a Propagandist, Repin
April 16, 1865
Chateau de la Boissierre
Geneva, Switzerland
Alexander Herzen was waiting on his front porch for Nicholas Ogarev’s coach to arrive. He was as anxious as he had been ten years ago in London, when they met for the first time since leaving Russia. At that time, he feared that the bonds of friendship between him and his childhood comrade had frayed, and that they no longer shared the same hopes and dreams. Now, he was concerned about Ogarev’s drinking, his epileptic fits, and most of all, about the situation between himself and Ogarev’s wife, Natalie.
These two Russian émigrés were socialists and champions of freedom, equality, and change in the land they had left many years ago. When Herzen was only fourteen, both he and Ogarev stood on Sparrow Hill overlooking Moscow and vowed to oppose tyranny and autocracy. They rejected the subservient role which society assigned to women, and became advocates of women’s political, social, and personal rights, especially with regard to marriage and matters of the heart. They had become “new men.” However, it was one thing to profess a belief based on the principles of equality and personal freedom between the sexes; it was another thing to actually experience the consequences of those beliefs.
When Herzen’s first wife fell in love with his good friend, the German poet George Herwegh, the emotional toll was devastating. Herzen rationalized and excused his wife’s infidelity by considering that her happiness was paramount. Since he loved her so much, and he loved his beliefs about the relations between men and women even more, her happiness was more important than his feelings. A woman was not the property of her husband, and there was no place for jealousy in the equal relationship between a man and a woman. Nevertheless, he resented her and, although they reconciled, their relationship was never the same. If she had not died in childbirth a few years later, Herzen probably would have justified having affairs by the twisted logic of romantic revenge. Her death saved the memory of his marriage. She became a holy saint to him, sanctified by grief and regret. Now Herzen had placed his best friend, Ogarev, in the same circumstances he’d found himself in fifteen years ago. Herzen was in love with Ogarev’s wife. Betrayed by both Natalie and Herzen, Ogarev seemed able to accept their unfaithfulness for the same reason that Herzen had attempted to justify and tolerate his wife’s infidelity. He sacrificed his feelings for the happiness and freedom of others.
Herzen realized that Ogarev was much more the “new man” than he was. Ogarev was the socialist who granted complete liberty to his wife to take up with a lover. He accepted the reality of the situation, and actually lived in the same communal house with them before Herzen left London for the Continent. All of this was something that Herzen, no matter how much he had rationalized it, had not been able to do when his wife had her affair with Herwegh.
Although Herzen and Ogarev were socialists, Herzen was a wealthier socialist. He had inherited estates and money from his father and had invested successfully, financing his extravagant life as a celebrated Russian émigré. Ogarev, more faithful to ideals of liberty and equality, freed the 1,870 serfs on an estate he inherited from his father, and then sold the land to those liberated peasants at a very cheap price. Herzen had never freed his serfs, despite owning many more “souls” and land than his best friend. Eventually, Ogarev became dependent on Herzen for financial support. Ogarev, the poet, the idealist, the revolutionary, the “new man,” came to realize his beliefs could not be reconciled with the circumstances of his life; and he found it easier to escape reality by drinking. Herzen knew that the affair with Natalie was partly the cause of his friend’s melancholy, and his actions had contributed to the depression and drinking problems that overwhelmed Ogarev, who could only find solace in vodka and poetry.
Herzen even blamed himself for the bouts of madness that periodically plagued Natalie. Their two illegitimate children, three-year-old twins with the last name of Ogarev, had died on the way to Geneva during a diphtheria epidemic. Six months before that, Herzen had left London for Geneva to resuscitate his failing publication, The Bell, and he blamed himself for the children’s deaths, since he had insisted on leaving London. If they had remained in England, the twins would still be alive. Grief once again descended on Herzen, as it had after his mother and son died in a shipwreck in 1851. The only way he could find solace was to suppress his sorrow by concentrating on his work to promote a peasants’ revolution, a revolution he hoped would be led by Russian serfs, who would unite with the West’s industrialized proletariat to overthrow social, political, and economic slavery under the banner Herzen called Land and Liberty.
A coach pulled up on the mud-covered drive. An old man and an attractive young woman, whom Herzen did not recognize, preceded Ogarev out of the coach. Ogarev took the arms of the man and the woman and led them up the stairs to the porch. A boy and a girl jumped out onto the muddy drive and followed the adults.
“Alexander Herzen,” Ogarev said, “here is your old friend, Alexander Poggio. He has brought Madame Perovskaya and her children with him. She is the wife of the governor general of St. Petersburg, Lev Perovsky.” Ogarev approached Herzen and hugged him, kissing him on his cheeks.
Poggio, who had aged considerably since the last time Herzen saw him, stood to the side and said, “I am honored to be with you once more, Alexander.” Poggio’s voice retained a youthful vigor completely at odds with the man’s appearance. He, too, embraced Herzen and kissed his cheeks. Poggio then introduced the woman. “This is Madame Perovskaya. She is here to visit her brother-in-law, Pyotr Perovsky. Have you met him yet? He is the former Russian ambassador to China. Unfortunately, his health is in question and he is in Geneva to consult with Swiss doctors. We know how much better off he is here rather than in St. Petersburg.”
“I am delighted to meet you, Monsieur Herzen.” Madame Perovskaya extended her hand. “My husband always reads your papers and pamphlets. It seems that you know more about St. Petersburg living abroad than we do living in the city.”
“No, Madame, not more. I only report what I am told by people who can speak freely. The difference is simply that I am permitted to write what I know and believe.”
“Soon you may be able to do that in Russia,” said Poggio. “The czar has not finished with his reforms. Here I am, proof that Alexander II means well. Otherwise, I should still be in Siberia.”
“Your presence in Switzerland and not Russia,” Herzen said, “is proof enough for me that the ‘Great Reformer’ is not as benevolent as people hoped. Otherwise, you would be in Moscow.”
“You have not lost your wit, Alexander!”
The Perovsky children came up the stairs. Herzen, who had suffered the worst fate to befall a father, loved children and was thrilled to see these two. A little twelve-year-old girl with short brown hair above a high forehead and sad gray blue eyes took two steps at a time as she bounded up to the landing. Her brother, three years older and obviously displeased at having to make this social call, lagged behind. They were dressed in play clothes, which were not at all suitable for visiting.
“Monsieur Herzen, here are my children. This is Sophia. And here is Vasia.”
Sophia stood still and merely nodded while her brother confidently shook Herzen’s hand. “I am pleased to meet you,” said the boy as he bowed slightly and held out his hand, obviously schooled in proper etiquette.
“Would you mind if they played in the garden?” Madame Perovskaya asked. “They have been cooped up far too long.” She stroked Vasia’s blond hair.
“No, not at all. They might enjoy the backyard. There are swings and a path leading down to the lake.” As Herzen said this, a pang of regret over his dead children shot through his heart. He wondered if the swings and the path made for the twins would now be filled again with children’s laughter.
He knew his friend wished to distract him from his thoughts when Ogarev said, “Where is Mikhail Bakunin? Poggio wants to see him. It’s been years since they took tea together. Actually, they probably never had tea together, but if you have some vodka, that would bring back old memories. Isn’t that right, Poggio?”
The old man laughed and started to cough, a dry hacking cough.
Herzen’s expression brightened. “Ogarev, Bakunin is in the back gardens or down by the lake. Why don’t you take the children while you hunt for that bear?”
“Is there really a bear by the lake?” Sophia asked.
Ogarev laughed. “Oh, he’s a bear all right. A big fuzzy bear! Here, follow me. We’re on a bear hunt.”
Ogarev bounded off into the woods, while Herzen led Poggio and Madame Perovskaya into the house, saying he would call for refreshments.
Herzen and his guests chatted amiably in the large porch at the rear of the house. Herzen was curious to hear the gossip making the rounds in the capital, while Madame Perovskaya was interested to learn about Russians living in Geneva. She hoped her children could see their uncle once more since his health was not good, and went on to say how she worried about the children wasting away in St. Petersburg. Madame Perovskaya was glad to be away from all the social obligations and soirees that were part of her husband’s duties, and explained that her children always seemed happier outside in the open air than in drawing rooms. Sophia, in particular, was having a difficult time adjusting to St. Petersburg after so much time at their Caucasus estate. As for herself, she admitted she did not possess the social graces necessary for a governor general’s wife, and her husband was probably embarrassed when they entertained and attended receptions. She added that in that regard, Sophia was definitely her child.
Poggio inquired about Mikhail Bakunin and whether he still believed that a revolution was imminent.
“Yes,” Herzen answered. “And he still believes that history can be analyzed and the future predicted.”
“Aha! He is the same man I knew in Tomsk.” As Poggio spoke, the two children entered the porch, giggling and holding the hands of a large, rotund balding man with a thick flowing beard that made him appear to be an Old Testament prophet. His eyes were dark and puffy, and when he smiled, it was immediately apparent that he had no teeth. Permanent wrinkles creased his bulbous forehead and curved above bushy eyebrows that resembled two hairy caterpillars, giving him an inquiring expression and suggesting he was always ready to ask a question.
Poggio looked up. “Aha! Speak of the devil and he appears! Mikhail, it has been so many years since we last saw each other.”
“Poggio! What wind blows you here?”
“An autumn wind, one that will give us a good harvest. Look at you, Mikhail. It seems that you have been enjoying yourself, much more than when we last shared bread!” As he spoke, Poggio held his stomach, indicating that Bakunin’s girth had grown since they last met.
“Poggio, you old Decembrist! You know I swore I would never go hungry again! Being imprisoned at the Peter and Paul Fortress convinced me I should eat every meal as if it were my last. I have many years to make up for, too many years of black bread, years of no cigars, no wine, and no fine food.”
The old friends laughed and gave each other an extended hug, neither wishing to break off the embrace of old friends who had suffered so much together.
Little Sophia ran to her mother. “Mama, Mama! Mikhail promised he would take us boating.”
“You mean Monsieur Bakunin, Sophia. Mind your manners.”
“No, he has already become our friend. He said we could call him Mikhail. We’ve been playing with him in the gardens.”
Bakunin beamed at Madame Perovskaya, “Your children are delightful. I can see where they get their fine features and zest for life. It is a pleasure to meet a mother who allows her children freedom to enjoy fresh air and gardens without worrying their clothes might get dirty.”
“Monsieur Bakunin, I assure you that I have little to say about the children enjoying the outdoors and”—she laughed—“even less about their soiled clothing. They would be content with a tarp and a blanket and would happily sleep under the stars. They have inherited an affinity with nature from my side of the family, peasants from the country. They would rather romp in the fields and woods of the Crimea than go to school in St. Petersburg. Sometimes I think Sophia would be happiest as a farmer. Her father simply cannot get her to act as a young lady.”
“I have just the book for her,” Bakunin said. “Notes of a Huntsman. Sophia, come here!” He walked to the bookshelf and—without asking permission from Herzen, because communists held all things in common—he pulled down the book and gave it to Sophia.
“I want you to know that the man who wrote this book was forbidden by the czar to leave his estate for one year, simply because he wrote about Russia, a real book about real people. His name is Turgenev, Ivan Turgenev. This book is about serfs, about true people, about humanity.”
Herzen interrupted, “Mikhail, perhaps her father might object to her reading that book.”
Madame Perovskaya had a sour look on her face, and replied to Herzen, “Her father would object to her reading any book. He says there is no reason for women to read books. But I’ll encourage her to read it before we leave Geneva and return it to you.”
“Women shouldn’t read a book?” Bakunin slammed his fist down on a table. “Truth doesn’t recognize differences between men and women. Everyone is entitled to truth and honesty!”
He went on, seething. “What kind of country is it that makes people afraid to read books within its borders? What kind of country is it that punishes artists for writing the truth, for singing, for painting reality? Do you see my friend Herzen here?” He addressed Madame Perovskaya. “He was exiled because he was at a party where a song was sung, a simple student song. A song! The emperor was afraid of a song! The lyrics insulted his Exalted Person! And equally outrageous, listen to this, Czar Nicholas’s policy was that every student studying music or painting at the Imperial Academy of Arts had to wear a uniform. Imagine an artist like Leonardo being forced to wear a uniform. When one student at the Academy balked at wearing a uniform and expressed a desire to paint Russian peasant scenes, rather than copy works of classical antiquity, he was expelled. Before he could even clean out his room, that Supreme Patron of the Arts, Czar Nicholas himself, ordered him to report to the army and serve a twenty-five-year enlistment! I guess we should be happy with small steps toward a more enlightened Russia. Today, he would only have to serve sixteen years under the Great Emancipator, Alexander.”
A master at creating a dramatic moment, Bakunin paused for effect. “The worst kind of tyranny,” he continued, “is tyranny of the mind. That is why all governments must be destroyed. Mankind must be freed from all forms of tyranny. At the same time, freedom must be paired with justice. Freedom without socialism is injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery!”
Herzen interjected, talking to no one and everyone in the room, “Bakunin has always been able to say lofty things that don’t make any sense, but sound as if they are deeply meaningful.”
Poggio addressed Madame Perovskaya. “Madame, my friend Bakunin still has the same views he held in Siberia. He has not changed a bit.”
“That’s not true, Poggio. I have kept the core of my views, but I have changed. The Liberator Czar has helped me change.”
“How do you mean?”
“I am now convinced that his government, in fact, all governments must be overthrown. See what he has done with the emancipation. The czar was too frightened to grant a real emancipation. His nobles tried to talk him out of it completely. They said if he freed the serfs, they would just go off and sell their lands, buy vodka, drink themselves into a stupor as they always do when they have money, and become homeless burdens to the state. So they came up with a brilliant solution. The nobles sold their lands, the worst parcels, not to the serfs, but to the village, to the mir. The landowners kept the meadows and sold the marshes. Land that sold for ten rubles before the emancipation is now sold to peasants for forty rubles. Now it costs the mir twice as much to cultivate land than before, when the landowners owned serfs. The mir borrows from the government to pay the landowners for land that barely supports serfs and their families. So now, based on the number of former serfs in the village, they all have to pay a share of the loan.”
As Bakunin talked, little Sophia Perovskaya moved closer to him, apparently fascinated by the anarchist’s outrage.
“In addition,” he went on, “they pay new taxes levied on the mir. To make sure that the ‘emancipated’ serf didn’t just throw his hands up and run away, the government broke the manacles on his wrists and put them on his legs. He is forbidden to leave the mir without written permission from the village elder. Of course, the village elder is not about to reduce the base of taxpayers and have those who remain pay more. Written permission is never given. So how is the serf better off than before Alexander’s great edict? Because he can no longer be sold for a hunting dog? Because he can’t leave the village? He is burdened with the collective debt owed to the government that supposedly gave him freedom. He continues to owe taxes through the mir. Is there any wonder that serfs rose up in rebellion? The sty that was his home, and his father’s home before him, prior to emancipation, still remains his house. He still remains tied to the village. He still continues living hand to mouth, eking out a meager existence farming. But now he is crushed by a debt that he and his children cannot repay. In his simple way, he believes the ‘Little Father’ in St. Petersburg truly granted him freedom, but the nobles and administrators are cheating him. So of course the serfs rose up in rebellion. You might not have heard about the Kazan rebellion, where ten thousand peasants demanded their freedom. More than a hundred were either shot on the spot or executed! The government has forbidden any reports or discussion of this affair. We know there were five hundred peasant rebellions in the last few years of Nicholas’s reign. We don’t know how many have occurred since Alexander’s emancipation. And The Great Reformer remains as oppressive as his father when it comes to freedom of the press. So when you talk of the emancipation, I have to ask, what emancipation? How is the serf better off than before 1861?”
Bakunin paused, out of breath. “And what of Poland? It’s not even a name anymore. We have absorbed that country into Russia. No longer can they speak their native tongue. Russian is the only language permitted now. The czar’s brother administers the country. And what of our universities? Our universities were given fresh air, a glimpse of freedom, and are now closed. Alexander will not allow our people to be educated in the liberal arts. He fears knowledge. A tyrant is always afraid of books. If you read certain books, you can be exiled. The road to Siberia has been worn smooth by the footsteps of exiles. Nicholas sent only nine thousand exiles a year to Siberia. The ‘Liberator,’ not to be outdone, sends more than twice that number to the frozen tundra.”
Bakunin paused again, once more trying to catch his breath, as overweight people were apt to do when they were excited. Herzen warned Madame Perovskaya, “Madame, watch out. Bakunin will try to convert you. My friend is zealous. He believes the passion for destruction is a creative passion. And he naively believes that revolution is instinct rather than thought.”
“We have to destroy the Russian government! That includes the czar and all his toadies. The czar has to be removed!”
Everyone realized what Bakunin was calling for. Ogarev, pouring another brandy, added, “Has everyone here heard that the President of the United Sates was assassinated? The assassin shouted ‘Sic semper tyrannis’—‘thus always to tyrants’—and escaped. Lincoln freed the slaves, and I wonder what he might have given to the Negroes of America after the war ended. More than our czar gave to the serfs, I’m sure. Perhaps this might inspire a Russian revolutionary to take action. Then we can start all over and truly unshackle the serfs. The czar must be assassinated.”
Herzen winced at this remark. “Only among savage and decadent nations is history made by assassination. Assassins are the syphilis of our revolutionary lust. Nothing positive will happen if the czar is killed. There will simply be another czar. What is needed is a peasants’ revolt, started by the peasants themselves, a real revolution that will inspire all the oppressed in Russia and Europe to overthrow their governments, not just the people who run them. Only Russian peasants can save Europe. Their communes don’t need capitalist development. The commune is the basis of socialism, and it already exists in Russia. What is needed is to go to the people, to educate them.”
“Education combined with agitation, Herzen,” Ogarev commented, and finished his brandy.
“What is needed is the destruction of the government.” Bakunin sat down heavily on the sofa. “That will be the spark to ignite the flame of revolution. As you point out, Herzen, the only consequence of an assassination would be sympathy and support for a new czar. We can agree on that. Yet, you have changed so much in the past few years. I remember the dedication for your book, From the Other Shore, the words you wrote to your son. I have memorized them, Herzen.”
Bakunin closed his eyes. “‘We do not build, we destroy; we do not proclaim a new truth, we abolish an old lie. Contemporary man only builds the bridge; another, unknown man of the future will walk across it. You, my son, perhaps will see it. I beg of you: do not remain on this shore.’”
He opened his eyes and looked accusingly at Herzen. “You are not the same man, Herzen.”
“No, I am not a young Hegelian anymore. None of us are Hegelians anymore. I have already seen too much blood in my lifetime, Bakunin. I can’t call for the ax when I have the slightest hope for a solution without the ax. I am disgusted, sickened, and repelled by all the revolutions of Europe. Everyone is ready to kill and die for some abstract noun. These revolutionaries are ready to sacrifice themselves and others for a future happiness, a cause that leads to an end that they can never enjoy. The purpose of life is not some future life. It is not death. It is life itself, now, a happy life as much as we can have it. You would destroy everything, but our civilization has contributed much to the happiness and pleasure of humanity. Would you destroy the works of Goethe, of Beethoven, of Pushkin, of Rembrandt, of Raphael? There are fine works of art that do not deserve the torch. But even from a practical standpoint, would you destroy a shoe factory, a bakery, a dairy? I ask you, Bakunin, are you intent on opening the eyes of mankind or do you want to pluck them out? Reason and tolerance, Bakunin, not dogma and the guillotine. Political liberty and socialism, not authoritative communism.”
Sophia watched as Herzen challenged Bakunin. She was fascinated and completely absorbed by the arguments of each of these revolutionaries. She wondered what Bakunin would say next.
“Tell me,” Bakunin said, “how your works of art benefit the peasant, the proletariat? How does art make the laborer happy? How can you have happiness when others do not? You have become a dilettante, Herzen. I can only be happy when everyone shares happiness. I can only be free when everyone is free! My imprisonment and exile to Siberia have only strengthened my resolve. In that, I have not changed. The revolution will come, it will happen, and I will be happy when it occurs. I live for the revolution. Not a political revolution, but a social revolution. What must be destroyed is the present order under which people live, the state that is founded on property, exploitation, and authority. I call for complete anarchy, and not merely to replace one form of oppression with another. No dictatorship of the proletariat. Government from the bottom up, not from the top down.”
Bakunin turned to Ogarev, trying to justify himself to Herzen’s friend. “Ogarev, killing the czar is not the answer, but if it happens, it is merely an unfortunate consequence based on the hatreds festering in the oppressed masses.” His attention went back to Herzen. “So you see, Herzen, I can agree with you. I work for a revolution that does not have violence as its goal. Destruction is my goal. Destruction of the institutions of all society. A new beginning. But violence might be inevitable, since the propertied class will not voluntarily give up its privileges. And I will be fulfilled when all authority, all governments, have been eradicated. To be free is to have an absence of domination. Our only mission is destruction. Destruction of private property, of the state! There is no other undertaking. Free people will decide what happens after the conflagration. You, Herzen, seem to have abandoned our ship.”
“Yes, it’s true, Bakunin, I have changed. I once believed as you did, that Hegel’s philosophy was the algebra of revolution, a revolution that was to have begun in Europe. But now Europe has become soft, materialistic. I see what Europe is now: shopkeepers and merchants supported by the working class. Two camps exist today, those who have and refuse to give up their monopolies, and those who have nothing and want only to tear wealth out of the grip of the propertied class. On one hand, you have miserliness and on the other, envy. One class triumphs over the other in wave after wave of victory and defeat, changing places from the side of envy to the side of miserliness according to the bank balance of each. The goal has become unbridled acquisition. They have a magnet in their breasts that is always attracted to gold! Morality has been reduced to an obligation to try to gain wealth by every possible means on the part of those who have not, and to preserve and increase their property on the part of those who have. Life has been reduced to a perpetual struggle for money. And the result? Seeming instead of being, behaving decorously instead of behaving well, keeping up with respectability instead of inner dignity. Hypocrisy and cunning. Atrophy of the mind, dystrophy of the will, and hypertrophy of the self!”
Herzen was on his feet now. The room was silent except for his calm yet enraged voice.
“Your prophets talk of inevitability and design. They cook it with some philosophical seasoning and feed it to the oppressed. Enslavement to an idea, a doctrine, is only another form of human sacrifice and cannibalism. You talk of historical development, of inevitability, but there is much in history that is fortuitous, stupid, confused, and subject to the throw of the dice. There is no purpose in history, only chance. History has no libretto! History is the autobiography of a madman.”
Ogarev was at the brandy decanter. “Bakunin is right, Herzen. You are not wrong, but Bakunin is right. We need a social revolution. Nevertheless, I would still start with the assassination of the czar. But what is important is not the end of our journey but the journey itself. Our effort, whether we see it or not, must be to bring about revolution, to change the conditions which chain men and women. We must change the world so the next generation”—he pointed to Sophia—“will be our best hope, and our children will not have to take on what is our responsibility.” Ogarev concluded by challenging Herzen, “We must live for each other, for humanity, for liberty and equality. That is our destiny. Yours, mine, and Bakunin’s!”
“It is true, Ogarev,” Herzen said, “I once believed as you do, but I now see the dangers of the arrogance of absolute knowledge. Throughout history we have seen the tragedy wrought by those who have attained absolute knowledge. Whether they use the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, theories of the divine right of kings, colonialism, mercantilism, imperialism, ‘Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité,’ or the Communist Manifesto. No matter the dogma, the result is the same. Those acolytes cannot tolerate dissent from their doctrine—they have categorical truth! And this truth of theirs is the betrayal of human nature, the betrayal of the human spirit. It is doctrine without compassion or tolerance, or the possibility of error. It is destruction, war, and ignorance. It does not matter whether it is the voice of their god, their politics, their belief in scientific socialism, their doctrine of racial superiority, their confidence in economic inevitability, or another infallible principle, the consequences are the same. Destruction and unhappiness!”
Herzen’s mood seemed to change at once, from confrontation to pleading. “We are always at the edge of human discovery, of further knowledge. We are always at the edge of error. Only tyrants and demigods are absolutely certain of their beliefs. They will kill in the name of their god, their belief. All our knowledge is limited because our discoveries always lead to new, not final, understanding. We can never have absolute certainty.”
He paused and then said, “The only war we can wage is a war with those who, in their arrogance, behave as though they cannot be mistaken, and who would have us believe as they do or destroy us. Our duty must be to have the courage to always question our convictions. We have to be brave enough to ask, is it possible we are wrong? Oliver Cromwell, the man who led the overthrow of the English Monarchy said, 'I beseech you, by the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken!' Our war must be waged with the weapons of education. We must reject the belief that the end justifies the means. We cannot be blind to the sufferings that are visited on the innocent. This requires us to believe in, and to teach, humility of knowledge, tolerance, and the sanctity of human life. We cannot escape our destiny. It is man’s fate to be in error, for that is the basis not of ignorance, but of intelligence. We must not become like those whom we oppose. It is possible to lead an entire generation astray, to strike it blind, to direct it to the barricades of a false god. No revolution will succeed in Europe …”
He paused again. He was about to say more but stopped, frustrated and discouraged.
Bakunin changed the subject. He always had trouble putting his instincts into words. “Ogarev, please get me a brandy. Madame Perovskaya, would you like a drink? It helps to get the juices flowing.”
“No, thank you, Monsieur Bakunin. There is enough excitement in the room right now.”
Poggio smiled. “Yes, I would like a brandy. Especially since you are having one, my old friend.”
Bakunin burst out, “No, I don’t want one. I want two! Ogarev, please put two drinks in one glass for me. And give my friend a double as well!”
Herzen collected his thoughts and continued in a calm voice. “The revolution can no longer succeed in the west. Success will occur only in Russia, a country which history has passed by. Russia, a poor woman impregnated by a European man, will give birth to a savior. The seed of socialism will find fertile soil in the steppes and villages of Russia. We can leap over the stage of industrialization experienced by Europe. We don’t need the growth of a middle class built on the pauperization of the working class.”
“Thank you, Ogarev.” Bakunin swirled the brandy in the snifter and inhaled the sharp odor. “But Herzen, the proletariat of Europe—”
Herzen interrupted immediately. “The proletariat? In Europe, the proletarians only wish to become like the petite bourgeoisie whom they hate. They want to live for the moment and not for some distant goal. What I saw in England and France was the petite bourgeoisie promoting the most boring and tedious society. They are energetic but mindless, all blood flowing to their muscles and not a drop left for their brains. They are tempted by contentment. They have pretensions to everything and strength for nothing. They are only concerned with how they live and not why. They are in the fourth age. They follow Rome, Christianity, the Enlightenment, and if they can count to four, our age, which has yet to be named. They are seduced by prosperity as men are by cold, quiet, starlit lakes in the night that promise nothing in their dreary chill, their flickering embrace, nothing but the grave. My ideals have been replaced by disillusionment and reality. The revolution will not come in France, Germany or England. It is only in Russia that our hopes for a new world will be fulfilled. It is our misfortunes, my friend, to live when the world is dying and not being born. But it is not that great a misfortune. We are not many, and soon we will all be extinct.”
Bakunin disagreed. “Herzen, you have a wonderful way with words. You make sense and I agree with you, but I do not exist in the same world as you do. I agree, the revolution will begin in Russia with the Slavs and spread to other Slavic countries, then Europe. But I do not think, I act! If you want to kill the snake, chop off the head. That is what must be done! The czar must go. The Slavic race will unite in a struggle for liberation and destroy all authority. The Slavs are instinctive socialists and adversaries of domination of any kind. The table must be cleared so we can sit down to a new meal, where everyone will be able to eat as much as they want.”
“Right now, Bakunin, the Russian peasant is only interested in eating, sleeping, working, and procreating, and not necessarily in that order. Before the revolution can occur, they must be educated.”
“You are right, Herzen. They must be educated and led. Educated and led by men and women who are the vanguards of revolution. Men and women who are—”
“Are the messiahs? Who are these future men? The nihilists who are above morality? Who don’t give a damn how many bodies are left in their wake? And you, Bakunin, do you think that you are William Tell now that you are in Switzerland? Where is your crossbow, the one which you will use to slay the czar and free the people?”
Bakunin looked surprised. “My crossbow? I am armed only with a certainty of the revolution. I might not lead it, but like a midwife, I will help to bring it into existence. It will be a terrible and glorious revolution, such as the world has never seen. It will not be moderated by European civilization. It will be a Russian revolution!”
Little Sophia Perovskaya quietly watched and listened, as Herzen, Ogarev, and Bakunin continued their discussions of revolution and criticisms of Russia and the czar.
CLASS EIGHT, MARCH 6
Bakunin and Herzen
Bakunin burst into Herzen’s study. Without saying hello, and with desperation in his voice, he pleaded, “Herzen, I need your help. I’ve made a grave mistake.”
Herzen was accustomed to Bakunin’s pleas involving money. “I’m not sure I can help you anymore, Mikhail.”
“But Alexei, you’ve always been generous, too generous. I know I have overstepped … I mean, I have taken advantage … I have not been…”
Bakunin began to sob. Herzen had never seen his friend cry. It was said that Bakunin never broke down, not even under questioning by the secret police, or from deprivations or torture, when he’d been a prisoner in Prussia, Austria, and Russia. He took out a handkerchief and covered his face in shame. Herzen sat still, embarrassed and curious about what would cause Bakunin such sorrow. He listened as Bakunin tried to talk through his tears.
“I have compromised you, my friends, myself with … stupid behavior. I would—I would commit suicide, but I am too much of a coward. I would only foul it up anyway … just like everything else, and merely cripple or maim myself. I—I have no one else to turn to, Alexander. I need your … help. You are my last hope. I— No one else can help.”
He was now convulsed with sobs. Herzen reached over and put his hand on his shoulder. Bakunin was pitiable. His eyes were red, his nose ran, and tears streamed down his cheeks.
“I don’t deserve any help. But—but …”
Herzen got up, walked to a table, and poured a glass of water from a pitcher. Returning to Bakunin, he said, “Here, Mikhail, drink this. Calm down. Whatever is disturbing you can’t be that bad. You’ve always shown strength to overcome any adversity.” Herzen tried to chide him. “Besides, look at what you are doing to my slipcovers. It will take a day to dry them out.”
Bakunin drank the water, blew his nose, wiped his eyes, and tried to compose himself. “Thank you, Alexei. I’m sorry. I just don’t know what to do.”
“You can start by telling me what’s causing this deluge.”
Bakunin blinked and rubbed his nose. He inhaled and then exhaled in spasms. He shook his head. “I’m being blackmailed.”
“Blackmailed? By whom?”
"It should come as no surprise. Nechayev.”
“Nechayev? How can he blackmail you?”
“He stole my papers. Our papers. More importantly, they’re a disgrace! My disgrace. My letters.” Bakunin hung his head down as he cradled his temples in his hands. “My letters.”
“I don’t understand. Your letters?”
“Yes, my personal letters. You see, Alexei, he was more than a protégé to me.”
Herzen knew immediately what he had long suspected.
“And Alexei, he is trying to implicate you, your daughter, and Ogarev in some scandal. He wants twenty thousand pounds.”
Herzen was stunned. “What do mean, my daughter? How is she involved with this fool?”
“She isn’t. He tried to compromise her, use her. She wouldn’t have anything to do with him. He thought he could get to your money through her. There were some letters between them. I don’t know how he will twist them around, but if it’s possible, he’ll do it. I don’t know how this all came about. I only know it’s my fault.”
“But how, Bakunin? How?”
“I don’t know. I don’t know! Damn it to hell!”
“Oh, Bakunin. You fool. You trusting fool! Your nature was made for this betrayal. You are all heart and no mind. The very qualities that I admire so much in you are your downfall. Generosity, trust, love for the workers, compassion, sympathy, all the wonderful things that I lack, you have. Unfortunately, I can also add gullibility and overenthusiasm. But can’t you see what these traits have done to you, Bakunin? They have all but ruined you.”
“I know, Herzen. You’re the only one I can turn to, the only one who can help me. He wants money. Only then will he return all the papers and letters in his possession. He’s blackmailing me for twenty thousand pounds, the remainder of the revolutionary fund.”
“Hah! You trust this Machiavellian? What makes you think he’ll keep his part of any bargain? Can I remind you about the little collaboration you two worked on, your ‘Catechism’? What did you expect? It’s all there in writing, that the revolutionary must evaluate the usefulness of his friends. Friends? Hah! He has no friends. He uses people. Everyone, everything, you included, Bakunin, sacrificed to his goal of destroying society. I must admit I was surprised when you claimed co-authorship, but not that he produced such a hateful document. He took you in, and you let that little weasel spit out his bile. I even tried to warn you about him, but you wouldn’t listen. In love, I guess, is that it?”
“I have never loved anyone as much as Nechayev. It’s easy for you to condemn me now, and I don’t deny I deserve it. But you, Herzen, you are a romantic at heart, and you know well how love makes you blind to another’s faults. You know how devastating it is to trust someone and be betrayed. All I ask for now is some understanding and help.”
“Yes, you’ll get both, Bakunin, but not before I tell you a few things. Do you think you can divorce politics and the revolution from morality or ethics? Your friend thinks so. Abolish the spiritual side of man and you are left with only the satisfaction of your desires and passions. You are left with a view of humanity as only rapacious pieces of breathing meat. You can’t have a society based on the ends justifying the means. You can’t—you don’t want to live in a society of lying, treacherous citizens, mouths dripping red, hands covered in blood. How can you even communicate with this scum, when he brazenly tells you straight out that he would lie to advance his cause? His cause, Bakunin, is whatever he believes in at the moment! How do you deal with someone you can’t trust? The only honest thing he told you was that he is dishonest. He would lie, cheat, steal, or stab you in the back! Is this your new world, Bakunin? Your new man? This Nechayev and his world, they are both ugly, violent, and evil. He believes that the pursuit of power is the highest, perhaps the only, human quality. This Nech—I choke on his name—is a shepherd who tends to his sheep for one reason only: he likes lamb chops. You were one of his lambs, Bakunin, and he flattered and used you. This man is a predator, a hawk that guiltlessly eats the helpless sparrow. Do you know he is wanted in Russia for killing one of his followers? Someone he suspected of not being loyal or submissive enough? Someone who threatened to leave his circle of conspirators?”
Herzen had worked himself up into a frenzy while Bakunin sat perfectly still, his eyes bulging, only nodding in agreement with Herzen’s words.
“I also know that he threatened the life of your publisher, the man who expected you would complete the translation of Marx he paid you to do. I suppose you shared the money he advanced you with this—this Nechayev.”
Bakunin’s silence confirmed Herzen’s accusation. Herzen began pacing the room.
“I’ll pay the bastard, Bakunin. I’ll pay him on certain conditions. What letters, what compromising letters of yours, are in his possession?”
“The ones I wrote after he left here for St. Petersburg.”
“What is in those letters? How bad are they?”
“They would ruin me and my standing in the workers’ movement.”
“Do you know how many you sent him?”
“Yes. I wrote him once a week.”
“You are to get them and burn them, understood?”
“Yes.”
“I want any of my papers he may have stolen. Search his flat if you must, but get them! What about my daughter? What about Ogarev? Have they been compromised? Does Nechayev have any correspondence from them, anything else that can be twisted?”
“No, I don’t think so, but I’ll get any letters he might still have. He only wanted to threaten you to get what he wanted.”
“The man doesn’t threaten. He acts. I want it made clear to him that after he receives the money, he is to leave Switzerland. He is to leave you in peace. If he ever contacts my daughter, I’ll shoot him. If he ever does any harm to anyone dear to me, and that included you at one time, Bakunin, I’ll expose him as a pervert. I’ll do that even if it brings your relationship with him out in the open. I’ll help you now out of remembrance of our youthful friendship.
“You always had my admiration for your heart and the sincerity of your actions, actions that sprang from deep in your soul. Your heart was always greater than your mind, Bakunin. You never understood that a good life needs the mind as well as the heart to spur you to action. You would only listen to your heart, and a heart without a mind is foolish and impetuous. Your mind became emaciated from lack of use. You are my opposite, Bakunin, because my heart weakened, almost died, and my mind began to dominate. My heart diminished not because of too little use, but too much, too many disappointments. The result is the same. I cultivated the mind and let the heart wither. My fate is to now have an intellect without heart, without emotion and commitment. I am barren and sterile. Intellect without emotion is empty, as my life is now a void. Emotion without intellect is blind, as you are now, Bakunin. We are each without a faculty necessary to be fully human, and our lives are unbalanced. We could have been invincible together, Bakunin. You with your heart, and me with my mind. But it is too late now, way too late.”
“No, Herzen, it can never be too late. We still have the revolution ahead of us.”
“Ah, Bakunin. Do you see what I mean about your heart, your enthusiasm? Only now, believe me, it’s too late.”
Herzen stood up. “The last condition, the only other condition I have for giving the money to Nechayev, is that I never see or hear of you again from this moment on!” Herzen stormed out of the room, slamming the door behind him.
Herzen soon left Switzerland and moved to Paris, his revolutionary ardor all but spent. He spent the next few months, the last of his life, traveling and visiting his son and daughters in Italy and France. He busied himself following, but not writing about, the January 1870 events in Paris, which would lead to the Franco Prussian War. Now only a wealthy Russian émigré, he was ignored and irrelevant to the events developing in Europe and his homeland. He died in Paris on January 21, 1870. Only his daughters and a few friends accompanied his cortege to the Cimetière du Père-Lachaise. A month later, his body was removed to Nice to rest in a family tomb.
Bakunin’s political and personal association with Nechayev became a scandal, and he stopped attending meetings of the International Workingmen’s Association. When Paris was besieged in September 1870, he went to Lyons to start a communist insurrection and proclaim a new government, but French troops appeared. No longer wishing to fight to the death or be taken prisoner, Bakunin fled to Marseilles and suffered the indignity of cutting his hair and beard to disguise himself. He left for the safety of Italy and watched the events of the Paris Commune unfold from a distance. In 1872, Karl Marx falsely claimed Bakunin was a czarist agent, and Bakunin was formally expelled from the IWA. He started his own international organization, but since it was a group of people who didn’t believe in any form of government, it suffered from the disorder it promoted and fell apart.
The old anarchist continued to believe that a revolution would usher in a world without government. After one more year, he finally became disillusioned and cursed the workers who would not become fervent radicals to promote their own cause. Without income, Bakunin was completely reliant on friends for support. He persisted in his hostility to inheritance, but accepted money from his father’s estate. He wrote a letter to all his supporters, announcing that he was resigning from the workers’ struggle.
He complained that workers had lost their enthusiasm and instinct for revolution, but this merely reflected his own weariness. Bakunin became convinced that military growth in Europe would lead to a world war. He spent his last year reminiscing about the family estate he had left thirty-six years earlier as a revolutionary firebrand. A few days before passing away, Bakunin, the man who wanted to destroy all of Europe’s accomplishments, lamented to a friend that all their efforts would be forgotten, but that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony would live forever. Bakunin died in Switzerland on July 1, 1876.
Sergei Nechayev left Switzerland and traveled to London, where he wrote diatribes against Herzen in The Commune, a journal published with the money extorted from Herzen. He went to Paris during the Commune of 1871, but did not participate in the uprising. From there he went to Zurich, where he felt safe since that city would not extradite anyone to Russia, because of its repressive form of government.
Bakunin, still holding a place for Nechayev in his heart, sent a man to warn that the police were about to arrest him. Nechayev ignored the warning, suspicious of his old collaborator. Kidnapped by the prefect of police in Zurich, who was paid 20,000 francs by the czar’s Third Section, he was sent to Russia in 1873. In St. Petersburg, he was tried for the murder of Ivan Ivanoff. A member of Nechayev’s conspiracy, Ivanoff had not only questioned Nechayev’s claims of secret societies, but had also threatened to resign from the nihilist organization Nechayev had founded. Ivanoff was beaten unconscious by four members of Nechayev’s group, and then shot in the head by Nechayev. At the trial, Nechayev claimed that the act was political and not criminal, but this plea was rejected. When Nechayev tried to defend himself, he was taken from the courtroom and beaten. Convicted of murder and sent to the Alexis Ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress, Nechayev was kept in solitary confinement. On one occasion, a general visited him. He so enraged the young anarchist that Nechayev slapped the general. For this infraction, he was chained to the wall for weeks, unable to sit or lie down.
Eventually, his entreaties and explanations to the guards about the injustice of the Russian monarchy won their sympathy. He appealed to their Russian patriotism, saying that he had been jailed because he was a man of the people, and the guards, being men of the people themselves, should help the cause of revolution. He convinced them, as he had convinced Bakunin and Ogarev, that he was the head of a large subversive organization that would bring about an armed insurrection. He even claimed that the heir to the throne, Alexander III, was part of his organization. The guards were taken in and allowed him to correspond with other terrorist cells outside the prison walls.
The “Catechism of a Revolutionary” stated that when deciding if a revolutionary should be rescued, only the cause of revolution should be considered. It advised that the usefulness of the comrade should be balanced against the energy employed to rescue him. Nechayev wanted the energy of the revolutionaries expended only on the goal of destroying the Russian state, and advised those cells not to help in his escape. Instead, they were to concentrate all efforts on the assassination of Czar Alexander II. In 1881, the czar was killed by a small group of radicals calling themselves The People’s Will. Investigations over the next year found that Nechayev had counseled this group on terror and policy, and this subjected him to even more savage conditions. The prisoner-terrorist wrote his last letter to the new czar in his own blood, warning that he must relinquish the throne. This enraged Alexander III, and Nechayev began to be severely beaten each day. In 1882, at the age of thirty-five, he died, his death listed as a suicide. A martyr to the revolution, Nechayev had clung to the principles of the “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” the document he and Bakunin had composed thirteen years before.
Nicholas Ogarev soon left for England with Mary Sutherland, a prostitute who became his mistress in 1858. He had met her at a London pothouse, when he had sought refuge from his wife’s infidelity and his best friend’s betrayal. She appealed to his idealism and desire to reform a fallen woman, and became an indispensable part of his life. It was now Mary’s turn to try to comfort and improve the life of a needy person, a man who had taken her and her fatherless son off the streets. Ogarev’s epileptic seizures increased, and Mary patiently tended to his fits and tried to prevent him from hurting himself. When a seizure began, he would stare straight ahead, complaining of buzzing inside his head, flashing lights before his eyes, and strange noises. He would keep repeating words and phrases, while his legs began to tremble and jerk uncontrollably. The fit worsened as his eyes rolled, his lids fluttering so that only white could be seen in his sockets, and he drifted into black unconsciousness. Mary would help him sit or lie down, so he would not hurt himself by crashing to the floor.
Despite her support, Ogarev continued to drink heavily. She would often find him sitting alone, perhaps reminiscing, perhaps drunk, perhaps composing a new poem that would never leave the forgotten recesses of his mind. He seemed to be at the door to madness. Only Mary prevented him from entering that dark, unknown room where he would be completely alone, isolated and protected from the world’s pains.
They spent his last years living in one room filled with mementos of younger, happier years. A picture of himself, flanked by Herzen and Bakunin, hung on the wall. Drinking at the local pub became more frequent, and when he rambled on, people were not sure if he was drunk or simply losing his mind. At the age of sixty-two, knowing that the inevitable revolution would not be realized in his lifetime, Ogarev lost his desire to live. On his deathbed, he began to speak in Russian, sometimes whispering incoherently and other times, calling for his old friend, Alexander Herzen.
Ogarev died on June 12, 1877. On his former estate, the serfs whom Ogarev had freed almost forty years earlier remembered their benefactor by establishing an annual mass in his memory, which would continue up to the 1917 Revolution.
A few days after Ogarev’s funeral, Mary was evicted from the flat. As she emptied out the drawers of Ogarev’s desk, she came across a sheaf of his poems, yellow with age. They had been written by a young man full of optimism and defiance. Memories of their conversations about hopes, dreams, and ideals flooded into her mind. She read the poems and wept in anguish and overwhelming grief.
GOD’S PRAYERS
My words fell as seeds among men.
Not understanding, they gathered them and placed them in sacks.
And buried those sacks in shallow holes, dug with the tools of ignorance.
In spring, the seeds germinated and sprouted, and flowers bloomed and rustled in the breeze.
And my whispers were said to be the wind talking.
Although my words bore fruit, Man listened not.
For he thought he would hear with ears.
Only children understood my wind-talk.
For they would gather those flowers
And smell the fragrance with closed eyes.
And dream of future days.
Who among you would be my moon? Who among you would be accused of causing madness?
Who among you would dwell among the stars?
O Man, you would be your own sun.
Would you live in darkness and futility?
Could you live above the lightening?
Could you ignite the darkest sky?
Who among you would journey while others sleep?
And dream, and when awake cannot remember their dreams?
Who among you would look through the blind eye of Morpheus and try to see eternity?
Who among you would be my pale prince of night?
And reflect in darkness,
The light of God.
Help me become God, O Man.
As I helped you become yourselves.
Help me become your dreams, as I am your aspiration.
Help satisfy my thirst and hunger, as I am your nourishment.
I created you. As you created me.
Your weakness shows my imperfect nature
And my injustice shows your shallow comprehension.
Give me your expectations while I give you hope.
Let me be your God of destiny
You shall be my children of love.
Together we shall forget our parents.
I have no beginning, you have no end.
Your conception of me determines our fate.
Help me become perfect, for as I grow, you shall also.
Pray for your children and help me become a more perfect God, O Man.
My son was born.
At the Nativity Feast, my fathers were proud and they asked me,
“What would you have us present your son?”
In my youth and foolishness, I said,
“Give him tomorrow.”
They were troubled and replied,
“Reconsider this, for the only certainty of tomorrow is death.”
“Yes!” I answered. “That allows me to give him my gift; that of hope.”
My fathers frowned, “You ask for time, for an interval between deaths.
This is something we would not have asked, even for you. Let your son be and not become.”
That was when I created a devil. For I said,
“I ask of tomorrow for my son so I might have today and give to my fathers yesterday. I am poor enough to give the rich a gift. I would burden my son with numbers, not words. I give him a future to glorify myself, full knowing I shall be his yesterday, as you are mine. I ask of tomorrow so he might one day think of you and remember me. I would create his future to give you a past. I would have a son of desire. For I am a God of becoming.”
The sun burst forth, glowing blood red.
Bloated, it was about to give birth to seven white moons.
Pregnant with love for the night, it destroyed its love as the first day dawned.
Clouds scattered westward, fearful their essence would dissolve in heat and light.
Birds stretched forth their wings, took flight, and went to hide in trees.
Serpents hissed, and crawled into holes and under rocks.
Creatures of the night saw shadows and sought caves.
Only the man-animal raised his head toward heaven, and like flowers awakened from the gloom of winter, opened his heart to my compassion.
His spirit brightened,
Her soul glowed.
But in my heart, the darkest shadows are cast by my brightest light.
And stillness remained in my valley.
Shrouded by mist.
Surrounded by fog,
Enveloped in my soul.
The Franco Prussian War, 1870
Franco Prussian War
Soon after he became emperor, Charles Louis Napoleon, Napoleon III, proclaimed in a speech at Bordeaux, “The empire is peace …” He was applauded, and perhaps, in their enthusiasm, his listeners did not hear the emperor add, “… because France desires it, and when France is satisfied, the world is peaceful.” However, during the reign of this autocrat, France never appeared to be satisfied. The Second Empire was involved in four major wars, and the soldiers of France served not only in Europe, but also in Asia and the Americas. Napoleon’s involvement in Italian affairs began in 1849, when France, with its large Catholic population, sent ten thousand soldiers into Italy to help restore Pope Pius IX to Rome. French soldiers remained in the Holy City during all of Napoleon’s reign.
The Crimean War, fought from 1854 to 1856, was the first real contradiction in Napoleon’s foreign policy, coming less than a year and a half after he was crowned. French soldiers were dispatched to the Black Sea theater, obviously because France was dissatisfied. Napoleon went to war with Austria in 1859, another attempt to establish the creation of an Italian state. That year also saw a dissatisfied France establish a colony in Cochinchina in Vietnam, as well as a French protectorate in Cambodia. A military expedition was sent to Syria in 1860; and in the same year, discontented French and British troops burned the Summer Palace in Peking during the Second Opium War. One year later, Napoleon sponsored a military adventure in Mexico to establish a Catholic empire under Archduke Maximilian of Austria. An unsatisfied Napoleon, currying favor with the Hapsburgs of Austria in an attempt to check and balance the growing power of Prussia, graciously endorsed Maximilian. This escapade ended in humiliation for Napoleon in 1867, when Maximilian was executed by a Mexican firing squad. The world was never peaceful during Napoleon III’s reign, obviously because France was never satisfied.
In 1869, liberal candidates in French elections met with success and strengthened their opposition to Napoleon’s regime. That same year, the finances of Baron Haussmann’s administration were investigated. A scandal ensued, ending in Haussmann’s dismissal in January 1870.
The empire desperately needed a diversion, a foreign adventure, perhaps even a war, to take attention away from Napoleon’s domestic failures. The final coda to Napoleon’s concerto of the absurd came when he was outmaneuvered by Otto von Bismarck, chief minister of Prussia. Bismarck was attempting to establish a greater Germany under King Wilhelm’s rule, and needed a cause to unite the German principalities into an empire. Napoleon obliged in early 1870 over the issue of the vacant throne of Spain.
Prince Leopold, a distant relative of King Wilhelm of Prussia, was proposed as a candidate to become king of Spain. Troubled at the thought of the Holy Roman Empire encircling France again, Napoleon III declared this succession in Spain to be intolerable. He believed the Prussians would probably intervene in the internal affairs of Spain within three years, and the balance of power in Europe would tip in favor of Prussia. War fever was in the air and on the lips of bellicose French politicians, who cried, “To Berlin! To Berlin!” Napoleon declared France would “… do her duty toward a power that places a prince on the throne of Charles V.” It seemed the only way to prevent hostilities was for Leopold to withdraw his acceptance of the throne. He did, and the crisis seemed over.
But not quite. In their arrogance, the French seemed to be saying, “Give me what I want, will you? Well, I want more!” The French ambassador to Prussia, on instructions from Paris, intercepted King Wilhelm while he was walking in Berlin’s Staatspark, and demanded that Wilhelm renounce Leopold’s candidacy forever. The ambassador insisted that Wilhelm sign a proclamation stating Leopold had renounced the throne at the insistence of Prussia. Wilhelm was relieved that the question of Spain was settled, but when confronted with this demand, he refused, saying, “I have nothing more to add.” Bismarck, eager for a war with France in order to mobilize the German states in a common cause, altered a telegram about the incident and enraged the French. He boasted that he would brandish “the red flag to the French Bull.” In the edited telegram, it appeared, incorrectly, that Wilhelm had insulted the French.
The imbecility of the Second Empire was underestimated. The honor of France was sullied! France was dissatisfied! “French Prestige!” “Gallic respect!” “Napoleon Bonaparte’s campaigns beyond the Rhine!” “Prussian insolence!” “France’s rank in the world!” “We cannot tolerate the Hun’s impudence!” “A slap in the face!” “German barbarians!” “Prussian blood!”
These words appeared in French newspapers, and incited France to enter a war for which she was totally unprepared. France declared war on July 18, 1870. As usual, Bismarck was thoroughly prepared, and in just over two weeks, Prussia amassed almost 1,200,000 men in the field.
Paris was now gripped by war fever. “The Marseillaise,” which had been banned by Napoleon III, was sung to the delight of French patriots. The tricolor flag, also banned in the Second Empire, was displayed throughout the city, as Parisians joked that they would be meeting in the cafés of Berlin by the middle of August. Napoleon III was encouraged to emulate his uncle and lead his army into battle. He and his son, the fourteen-year-old prince imperial, left Paris for the front on July 28.
Napoleon III believed that the heroic blood of Napoleon Bonaparte coursed through his veins, and that somehow he had inherited the greatness that had distinguished his uncle. However, his military bearing, such as it was, was compromised by agonizing kidney stones that made sitting on a horse painful and awkward. Napoleon Bonaparte had inspired his troops with his military bearing and courage, while his nephew seemed insipid and detached.
When Napoleon III left Paris to take command of his troops, it was at the insistence of Empress Eugenie, who said that a Napoleon did not stay in the rear. A Napoleon led his soldiers in battle and brought back honor and victory. But Napoleon III left Paris not as a warrior on a horse or in a military carriage, but in a train, sitting in the imperial coach as though he were going on vacation. The pain from his kidney stones left him no alternative. He tried to inspire the troops, and addressed them, proclaiming that, “… whatever road we take, we shall find glorious traces of our fathers and we will prove worthy of them.” But it was not his father who was inspiring Louis Napoleon. It was his uncle who was haunting him.
The Prussians prepared for war in direct inverse proportion to the French preparations. French reservists lacked uniforms and arms, and many passed the first weeks drinking and carousing while awaiting trains to take them to the front. Supply trains that waited idly for assignment blocked the movement of troops. Officers could not find their troops, and troops searched for their commanders. Meanwhile, the Prussians were establishing a reputation of ruthless efficiency that would make their army the most feared in Europe. The Germans married technology with tactics and strategy, and ushered in a new and deadly age of warfare. The artillery of Krupp, proudly displayed in Paris at the Grand Exposition a few years earlier, was now being demonstrated on the battlefield with deadly effect.
Hopes of France for a military alliance with other European countries were impossible because of Napoleon’s disastrous policies. He had waged war with Austria, a country recently humiliated by Prussia. Italy would not help, as French troops remained in Rome. Russia’s Czar Alexander II, a friend of Wilhelm, still remembered the assassination attempt in Paris, the hostility of the French press, and how the people in France supported Poland’s independence. Britain disdained any war that was based on a “point of etiquette” and remained above the fray. France was totally alone.
Twenty-two days after he declared war, the French emperor sent a telegram to his wife, who was acting as regent, and asked her to prepare Paris for a state of siege. Overmatched in men, materiel, and strategy, Napoleon would show his inept leadership by giving an order and then countermanding it a few hours later. What little military intelligence he could obtain told him that his position was hopeless. On August 9, Marshal Bazaine was appointed commander in chief, and Napoleon wired Eugenie, announcing his return to Paris. Her furious response made him change his mind; he preferred to face the Prussians rather than confront his wife. Her pride would not permit the name of Napoleon to be disgraced, and she feared his return to Paris would set off riots. So, he reluctantly remained at the front. However, by August 14, the emperor fled Metz. Not to Paris, where his wife would not welcome him, but to the remains of MacMahon’s army at Chalons, still literally licking its wounds with brandy and beer after a defeat at Froschwiller. The Prussians now surrounded Bazaine’s army at Metz, and its situation was hopeless.
Empress Eugenie wired Napoleon that under no circumstance was he to leave the front lines. Humiliated, Napoleon and his son were soon following his staff from one retreat to another. His carriages, full of food, champagne, fine dinnerware, and linens, passed by soldiers trudging off in defeat. The hungry troops, now living on meager rations, watched in disgust as the carriages went by. The overindulged emperor seemingly mocked and belittled their sacrifice and hardships. The common soldier soon began calling Napoleon Emperor Baggage, while his son was called the Little Prince of Baggage.
By August 31, the Prussians surrounded one French army at Metz. A second army was retreating to Sedan, a town surrounded by hills, thereby providing a perfect site for Prussian cannons. An exuberant Prussian general surveyed the situation and bragged, “We have them in a mousetrap!” The “pointed helmets” soon took the heights above Sedan and proceeded to decimate the French army. The French were slaughtered. Seeing the situation as hopeless, Napoleon III rode out with a patrol on a sally, hoping to die an honorable death on the battlefield. His incompetence extended to this futile gesture. Disappointed at not being shot, he sullenly rode back to his troops and ordered a white flag raised. He was again humiliated as a French general refused his order and continued the futile engagement. The battle was lost, more troops perished, and when the emperor gave the order once more, the general did not countermand it.
In letters discussing the terms of surrender of the French troops, Napoleon and Wilhelm referred to each other as brothers; and, in contrast to the carnage that had just taken place, their correspondence was the model of civility. The telegram Napoleon sent to Eugenie to inform her of these terrible developments was never received, and the news of the emperor’s defeat, surrender, and abdication reached her in a separate telegram, two days later, on September 3, 1870.
By that time, the emperor was a prisoner of war and the Prussians were marching on Paris, to begin a siege that would last for six months. The Paris Commune would arise from the ruins of the Second Empire. The empire crumbled into dust just as an ancient, decayed corpse would disintegrate when its casket was opened and exposed to air and sunlight.
On January 18, 1871, Otto von Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm, and the princes of Germany celebrated the unification and establishment of a new state, Germany. They dined elegantly and drank fine French wines in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. By then, the people of Paris were eating rats.
SURRENDER AND REVOLUTION, 1871
On January 28, 1871, the Government of National Defense, the so-called Men of September 4, surrendered to the Prussians. This ended the charade that the provisional government had been playing since the fall of the empire almost five months earlier. Despite the continued public announcements of resistance to the siege, government leaders finally abandoned all hope of breaking the encirclement. General Trochu privately declared all resistance was just “heroic madness.” He stated that holding out against a Prussian siege was folly. A courageous folly, but nevertheless a folly. His chief of staff believed Paris could not defend itself, and said the only result of resistance might be to soften Bismarck’s demands. Another patriotic official declared Parisians would defend themselves “for honor’s sake, but all hope was mere illusion.” Another acknowledged that the Prussians would enter Paris as easily as a knife goes through butter.
These sentiments stood in stark contrast to public pronouncements intended to placate the citizens, especially patriotic workers and laborers. Heroic cries for resistance and defiance rang out, while negotiations for surrender took place behind the scenes. The Government of National Defense feared the National Guard, the citizens’ army, as much as the Prussians. This was especially true since the Guard elected its own officers, and these men controlled battalions that would probably rise up against the government if Paris surrendered. Jules Favre, the vice president, wrote that the government was not defending itself against the Prussians, but against the workingmen of Paris. Favre had hypocritically bragged that “not an inch of territory, not one stone of our fortresses, would be ceded,” fully knowing that resistance was impossible. Trochu publicly proclaimed that Paris was impregnable. The Men of September bought time and promised that a national army, an army of the provinces, would relieve the city and join the forces within Paris to break the blockade. This promise of relief, begun in September, continued through the autumn and into winter. Meanwhile, the government officials were desperately visiting the nations of Europe, promising to replace the republic with a king, if those countries would prevail on the Prussians to lift the siege and discuss an armistice.
Keeping the working classes of Paris from turning to revolution was just as important as confronting the Huns. To keep the National Guard busy, the government had them patrol ramparts surrounding the city. The guardsmen were also kept separate from the regular army, so as not to infest the soldiers with any thoughts of insurrection. Believing that the devil finds work for idle hands, the National Guard was assigned meaningless tasks that didn’t require arms or armaments. Not until November 23 did the National Guard exchange fire with the Germans.
The Government of National Defense hesitated to conduct a full engagement against the Prussians. If Wilhelm’s forces decimated the regular forces, the provisional government would not be able to quell an uprising within Paris. Instead, small sorties were sent out, giving the impression of resistance while the Prussians moved ever closer to the city.
Finally, under pressure to act, Trochu mounted an attempt to break out on November 29. The Parisians took Champigny, a suburb of the city, and were encouraged by news from the south of France that the French Army of the Loire had recaptured Orleans. But the Prussians reoccupied both cities, and the French retreated with heavy losses. The only accomplishment was a truce on December 2, which allowed French and Germans to clear the battlefield of casualties and bury their dead. With 12,000 killed, the French trudged back to Paris on December 6, after receiving word that the Army of the Loire was defeated. Winter temperatures soon dropped to -12°C, and food and fuel could not be found in the workingmen’s arrondissements. Trochu announced on January 7 that the Army of the North was marching to rescue Paris. The same day he issued a proclamation: The Governor of Paris Will Not Capitulate! He was able to keep his word only because he resigned two weeks later and was no longer the governor of Paris. On January 22, the reds of Paris marched on the Hotel de Ville, and the army fired on them. The Men of September knew they faced certain insurrection from the starving citizens, and Jules Favre requested a meeting with Bismarck. The inevitable armistice followed on January 28.
The National Defense Government agreed that the Mobile Guard, the regular army, would surrender its arms, and the forts surrounding the city would be occupied by the Prussians. The Prussians feared the workers of Paris might not accept these generous concessions agreed to by Favre and his puppets, and sharing the French government’s fears of an uprising, allowed the National Guard, 300,000 strong, to keep their weapons. Bismarck demanded that a new government be elected eight days later to decide whether to continue the war or formally surrender. This National Assembly, elected in February, met at Bordeaux and elected Adolphe Thiers as chief executive. Communists, not the Prussians, were the major worry of Adolph Thiers, the leader of the new provisional government at Versailles.
The peace treaty ceded Alsace and Lorraine to the Germans, and obligated the French to pay an indemnity of five billion francs to Germany. Prussian troops entered Paris on March 1 in a symbolic occupation, marching down the Champs Elysees with brass bands while Parisians watched in disgust. Those troops left two days later, after camping near the Arc de Triomphe and parading in front of the Kaiser beneath Bonaparte’s monument. Parisians seethed at this humiliation, and an angry crowd ransacked two cafés that had served German soldiers.
Paris was disgraced by the Prussians and incensed at the National Assembly when new taxes were levied, new credit laws were passed, and rents were reinstated. More than 150,000 Parisians were thrown into bankruptcy. There were few jobs, and the National Guard’s pay was suspended. The National Assembly—known as the Rurals, since its members were from the countryside—feared the reaction of Paris and relocated to Versailles. Rumors spread about the intention of Thiers and his government to take away the Paris artillery, paid for by donations from the Parisians. Parisians would not permit this to happen, and were prepared to resist the dictates of the National Assembly. When the National Guard elected a Central Committee, Thiers sent in troops to disarm them, but they did not succeed. The Central Committee, quickly formed by socialists, issued a revolutionary manifesto to the army.
Soldiers and Children of the Revolution!
Those traitors who organized the defeat of Paris and the partition of France, those who have given up our gold, and deny their responsibility in giving rise to a civil war, those who impose intolerable laws and taxes on us, now threaten to take away our arms.
We, the people of Paris, only wish to preserve our arms, choose our own leaders, and dismiss them when they no longer serve the peoples’ interests. We declare an end to a permanent army serving the will of an oppressive government. We demand the right of everyone in the nation to be armed!
The government responded with a manifesto of its own, posted on trees and street lamps throughout Paris:
Citizens of Paris!
Malicious and subversive men, claiming to be resisting the Prussians who are no longer besieging you, have set themselves up as authorities in parts of the city. The guns, which they have stolen from France, will be taken back and sent to the arsenals for the protection of all. We ask your help in carrying out this sensible act of justice and reason. Let all good citizens separate from the bad by helping the forces of public good and not resisting those beneficent forces.
Citizens! Order demands that you approve our actions if we resort to force to obtain these weapons. Your well-being and the safety of your city require that order must be reinstated immediately and unalterably.
Thiers tried to take the guns on March 8 and failed. Since these weapons were manufactured in Paris and paid for by local citizens, the National Guard refused to surrender them. On March 18, the regular army was dispatched under the command of General LeComte to take the cannons at Montmartre. A few Federates, along with unarmed men, women, and children, confronted them. While General LeComte waited for harnesses to take the cannon away, the crowd mingled with his soldiers, offering them wine and cakes. The National Guard was alerted and appeared, and confronted the troops. LeComte, concerned about fraternization, ordered his troops to fix bayonets and then commanded them to fire on the Guard, shouting at the citizen army, “Scum! You are finished!”
His troops refused to fire, and the people embraced the soldiers in gratitude. General LeComte was arrested and taken to a house on Rue des Rosiers. He was joined by General Clement Thomas, who had been arrested while walking along the street. He was the officer who had ordered troops to fire on the workers during the 1848 Revolution. A kangaroo court convened and quickly condemned both men. They were shot that afternoon. Street by street, insurrection spread and barricades were set up. Soon, a mob was marching on the Hotel de Ville. Thiers, uncertain of the ability of the army to protect ministers meeting there, left Paris and fled to Versailles.
A new Central Committee, created by the rebellious workers, allowed troops loyal to the National Assembly to leave Paris peacefully for Versailles, and called for elections of a Commune on March 26. Loyalists and the bourgeoisie staged a demonstration at the Place Vendome in support of the Versailles government, but the National Guard dispersed them, and they also fled to the safety of Versailles. The forces of the Central Committee could have marched on Versailles, but they chose not to incite a civil war, content to control Paris.
The Commune met and elected twenty-five delegates, subject to recall at any time. All teachers, judges, and magistrates were to be elected, also subject to recall, and paid no more than 6000 francs, the wages of the working classes. The National Guard replaced the regular army. State payments to religious institutions were abolished, and free education, with no church influence, was established. Rent payments from October 1870 to April 1871 were suspended, relieving a financial burden on the workers. The Commune deferred debts of small business and ended mortgage foreclosures. Pawnshops were closed. The guillotine, the symbol of past governments, was publicly burned. Factories closed by owners were reopened as cooperatives by workers who had been previously employed in them. The Commune was encouraged by news of other communes being established in Lyons, Marseilles, and Narbonne. Yet they refused to establish a national government. One Communard said, “We will not create laws for France; we have suffered too much under hers.” Paris was declared a “free city,” as the Paris Commune sought only its own autonomy and respected the rights of other communes.
Meanwhile, Thiers arranged with the Prussians to release French prisoners of war taken at Sedan and Metz. The siege and bombardment of Paris by the hated Prussians was forgiven and forgotten by Thiers. He needed the cooperation of the Germans to put down the insurrection by the Communards. The forces of the National Assembly now replaced the hated Germans and laid siege to Paris. Paris was bombarded from forts that Bismarck had returned to the Versailles government. The National Assembly, supposedly representing France, waged war to crush the rebellion in Paris. Their fury exceeded that of the Prussians. Prisoners from the Commune were tortured and executed. In response, the Communards imprisoned the Archbishop of Paris and hundreds of priests. They threatened to kill these hostages in retaliation for execution of captured communards, but resisted until the last throes of the revolution.
The weather during April was magnificent, and most Parisians tried to resume their normal lives. They went to restaurants, fell in love, married, gave birth, continued to stroll down avenues, attended the theater, went to parks, and shopped at stores still depleted, because of the new siege by the National Assembly. Outdoor concerts were given and cafés were filled, even though shells, not of Krupp, but of the ‘Rurals’, again rained down on the City of Light. The extent of Thiers’s hatred for these people was evident after the fall of the Commune, when he abolished all certificates of births, deaths, and marriages that had occurred during the Paris Commune.
On May 21, the French Army of Versailles entered Paris. Barricades were erected and defended. Unable to withstand the attacks, the Communards withdrew to the working class districts and, as they did, set fire to the Hotel de Ville, the Palais de Justice, the Royal Palace, and the Tuileries. That night, a clear night, flames emblazoned the sky, as whirlwinds of smoke and ash swirled above the city. The sound of guns and the impact of shells added to the mayhem.
Thiers gave a speech saying the cause of justice, humanity, order, and civilization would triumph, and the law would guide his troops. As the Versailles troops continued toward Belleville, they shot anyone who wore shirts, pants, or even the shoes of the National Guard. Anyone who was foreign—Italian, Polish, or German—was shot. Troops entered hospitals and executed the wounded. Women found alone on the street were murdered, since they might be petroleuses, the female revolutionaries who set fire to buildings. At a courtyard near La Roquette, nineteen hundred people were executed in one night. A general of the French Army issued orders to shoot all prisoners with gray hair, since they must have lived during, and possibly participated in, the Revolution of 1848. Prisoners were arbitrarily chosen from lines as they marched to detention camps and shot, not in reprisal, but in madness and insanity. If tall, short, or distinguished in any manner, a prisoner risked being singled out for execution. General Marquis de Galliffet inspected a column of prisoners and selected a pretty young woman. She threw herself down on her knees and begged the general, pleading innocence of any offense. The general looked at her in contempt and said, “Please, madame, I have been to every theater in Paris and have seen actresses of the highest standard. This role you are playing, I have seen before, and it will not affect me in the slightest.” She was shot.
Like that woman, more than a hundred prisoners were randomly chosen for execution, including one miserable soul whose broken nose marked him as different from the other wretches. The fortunate but hapless prisoners who were not chosen moved on, leaving the doomed behind. Rifle retorts could be heard for more than fifteen minutes, as unlucky prisoners were shot and left in hastily dug graves.
Firing squads continued to operate until the end of June, executing anyone suspected of being associated with the Commune. The Army of Versaillais massacred more than 30,000 people and arrested another 38,000 in just one week. The Communards, on their part, executed 480 hostages.
The Communards’ last stand was May 28, in Cimetière du Père-Lachaise, at the place now known as the Wall of the Communards. As the army rounded up the last insurgents, the socialists were lined up in front of that wall and executed by mitrailleuses, French machine guns. Rifles were not efficient enough to dispatch so many to a workers’ heaven.
The last resistance of the Communards was swept into a mass grave and covered with the black soil of abandoned dreams.
The Paris Commune, 1871, images
Paris Commune
Anarchy and the Commune
Paris commune summary
Trailer for Paris Commune, Brooklyn Academy
Songs and scenes, Paris Commune
A Brief History of Russia
The Hapsburg Empire
Ahttps://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?
Russia
One of the problems of studying anything about Russia is the language. Russians use the Cyrillac alphabet which differs from our alphabet. For example, if you were looking for a restaurant in Moscow and you saw Pectopah, go in and find a table! The P is an R, the C is an S and the H is an N. So if you pronounce it, you will say Restoran! When I was at the Moscow Airport, I couldn't understand the sign above a ticket counter until I pronounced "Бизнес-класс" and it said, "Business Class". (I knew I was in the wrong area since I fly coach.) Some helpful Russian words; Da (Yes), Nyet (No), Zdra-stvooy-tye (Hello), Spa-se-e-ba (Thank you), Do-bra-ye-o-otra (Good Morning), Do-bri-dyen (Good day), Da-svee-da-nee-ya (Good bye), Pa-zhal-sta (you are welcome)
Another problem is names. Feminine names usually end in an A, (Anna Karinina, Tsarina, Ekaterina, Natasha) while men's names do not, (Dmitry Shostakovitch, Ivan Turgenev, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Nikolai Ulyanov). Ivan Naryshkin's sister is Natalia Naryshkina. One's middle name reflects your father's name, (Aleksei Nikolaevitch Romanov - Aleksei son of Nikolai - Anna Petrovna Romanov - Anna, daughter of Peter).
Dates are also another problem. Before the 18th century, Russians used a calendar that dated back to 5508 B.C., the year they believed the earth was created. Then the Russian calendar was changed to conform with the Julian calendar in 1699. And in 1918, Lenin had the Soviet Union adopt the Gregorian, western, calendar which was 13 days ahead of the Julian. Therefore, the Great October Revolution holiday was changed from October 25 to November 7.
Russia has 1/6 the land mass of earth. At its zenith, Russia stretched across three continents from the Baltic to Alaska and California. It spanned more than 6,600 miles and ten time zones. The distance from St Petersburg to the eastern end of the Russian Empire is the same distance from Moscow to Chicago traveling west. There are more than 60 different ethnic groups, including Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Moldavians, Georgians, Jews, Armenians, Germans and of course, Ukrainians. Although Russian is the official language, there are 27 official languages and over 100 minority languages spoken in Russia.
Ancient Russian history is shrouded in mystery and myth. The broad rivers flowing south from north connected the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was a trade route for the flow of goods from the Swedes, Finns, Lithuanians, Varangians, and Norsemen to the riches of Byzantium where a flourishing slave market bought captives from the Russian invaders.
It is said that the princes around Novgorod, tired of fighting each other, sent for a Varangian warrior, Riurik, and pleaded, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us according to the law. Our land has no order to it, come and rule it!" It is also possible that this story was created by Riurik after he came as a mercenary, defeated the enemy tribes of Novgorod, then turned on those who brought him there. His successor, Oleg, conquered Kiev @ 882, A.D. and they established the dynasty that lasted from 882 A.D. until Ivan the Terrible died at the end of the 16th century.
Russia was created between Asia and Europe and has fluctuated between both while establishing its own unique path!
The Growth of the Russian State.
Map of Russia
Maps of Russian expansion
Timeline of Russian History
Russian Czars, 1533 - 1917
A primitive Slavonic state existed in Russia during the the period from about 600 A.D. to the end of the tenth century A.D. As the Norsemen and Varangians (Vikings, Scandinavians) invaded Russia to reach the Black Sea and Byzantium, they became mercenaries for city states as the princes of Russia fought amongst themselves. The nobles of Kiev sent for Riurik, a Varangian, asking him to come and rule them since they were always fighting and quarreling among themselves.
Novgorod and Kiev became the dominant cities. Kiev established diplomatic and economic contacts with with the west. Under Vladimir, Grand Prince of Kiev, Orthodox Christianity was adopted and it replaced pagan worship in Russia (988 A.D.). Vladimir was originally the Prince of Novgorod and his brother, Svyatoslav Yaropolk, was the Prince of Kiev. They vied with each other for dominance and Vladimir besieged Kiev. When Vladimir asked for negotiations, Yaropolk attended and was killed by his brother. Vladimir was then the Grand Prince of Kiev. He was a pagan who expanded the territory of the Rus and erected temples where human sacrifice was practiced.
Wishing to unite all of Russia, Vladimir decided to adopt a monotheistic religion. (Olga, Vladimir's grandmother was an Orthodox Christian when the prince was born.) The choices were Judaism, Islam, Catholicism or the Orthodox Church in Byzantium. Ambassadors were sent to the major religions to explore the beliefs of the world’s different faiths.
He considered Judaism, but rejected that religion since the Jews had no state. “Where is their country?” he asked. When the Jews responded that they possessed no land since the wrath of God had punished them for their sins, he was dismayed and did not want to embrace the beliefs of a people whom God had abandoned. He considered Islam, but its restrictions on food (pork) and alcohol were too great a price to pay. "Little water", the name for vodka, was too enjoyable to sacrifice. Catholicism, on the other hand, was a religion of countries of the west that had invaded Russia and Russia was an Asiatic country. Kievian ambassadors visited the Hagia Sophia in Byzantium and they exclaimed that "they didn't know whether they were on earth or in heaven" as the opulence of the church overwhelmed them. The ambassadors reported on the beauty and magnificence of the Orthodox Mass compared with the Latin Mass.
Pictures of Hagia Sophia, (Construction finished, 537 A.D.)
At that time, Byzantium was under threat from the Bulgars. Vladimir, in exchange for military aid, was promised the hand of Anna, sister of Emperor Basil II. Then Basil hesitated and Vladimir, enraged, started a campaign against Byzantium and threatened to invade the city of Constantinople. Basil finally agreed to the marriage, but only if Vladimir converted to the Christian religion. The Grand Prince adopted the religion of the Eastern Roman Empire as the state religion of Russia in 988 AD. The now Christian prince ordered the baptism of all people in Kiev and Novgorod in the waters of local rivers. He built churches and established schools throughout his realm. The Orthodox religion was a unifying force that helped define Russian identity.
The church was subordinated to the ruler, unlike the Catholic Church that claimed superiority to many temporal rulers. Vladimir was made a saint of the church in 1015.
Vladimir and Christianity, 988 A.D.
Russian Icons
One of the more important aspects of the Russian Orthodox Church was the importance given to Icons (from the Greek word for "image".) The Bible states the 'Thou shalt have no graven image'. This would seem to forbid any representation of God, Jesus, the Holy family, or the Apostles. Besides, how can someone have an image of God that is not of this earth? This seemed to be a pagan tradition.
It was believed that St. Luke was not only an apostle, but a painter. Tradition has it that Luke painted the Virgin Mary and her baby, Jesus, in the maternal embrace both cheek to cheek. This gives some legitimacy to representing religious subjects in art. Another story tells of the King of Edessa in Turkey who wrote to Jesus to come and cure him of leprosy. Instead, Jesus sent the "Holy Napkin", a cloth that he had held up to his face and his image was preserved on the cloth (like the Shroud of Turin). The king gazed upon the image and was miraculously cured. This was known as the icon made without hands. These two stories gave legitimacy to accepting images in the Christian tradition. It also allowed illiterate people to follow important events in the Christian religion. Even today churches have stained glass windows that show how Christ lived and died.
During the sixth and seventh centuries, church elders questioned whether icons should be permitted. This was also the time when Islam was founded and they did not permit any representation of religious figures and also humans. These were the 'iconoclasts, the destroyers of icons. Today the word has taken on the meaning of 'destroyers of tradition'. Obviously, the iconoclasts did not prevail and when Russia adopted the Orthodox beliefs, they emphasized the importance of icons. Almost every serf hut had an icon corner and Alexandra (wife of Nicholas II, the last czar) had more than one hundred icons on the walls in her bedroom hoping the saints would intervene on her behalf and cure her son. Icons had slightly larger eyes and ears. This was because you could stare into the saint's eyes and hear an inner voice about God. The mouth was always closed as they weren't supposed to talk. There were few artists who were recognized as artists. Most icon painters were anonymous as they considered themselves merely the intermediary for God to communicate with the faithful. There was little artistic development as the painters only wanted to copy previous icons.
Icons were not to be worshipped. They were a way that people could commune with the saints and contemplate God and his goodness. Nevertheless, Russians prayed to the icon to bless them, to help insure a good harvest, to protect them from disease and even to help them in battle. Kutusov, the Russian General during the War of 1812, had an icon of the Lady of Kazan precede his troops into battle. More astounding was the fact that when Stalin faced the Nazi forces marching on Moscow, he had an icon placed on an airplane and it circled the city to protect his capitol. It seems that even though Communists were atheists, they were taking no chances.
More information about icons
Kiev prospered and rivaled many cities in Western Europe. With the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders, Kiev became even more important to trade between the east and west. The prince's court and the aristocracy developed into the class known as the boyars. The peasant class that worked the land were personally free and serfdom would not appear until more than two-hundred fifty years later. The rivalries between the princes and the sons of princes, as estates were divided and further divided, gradually weakened the rulers of Kiev. Furthermore, the growth of commerce weakened the ties among the city states as Kiev focused on trade with Byzantium, Novgorod with the Baltic and Riazin with the east. Boyars in these cities became more independent and less cooperation was the result. 1350 small duchies existed at this time, most independent of each other.
The Mongol invasions under Temuchin (Genghis Khan - Great Emperor) in 1223 and his grandson, Batu Khan, from 1237 to 1240, were successful partly due to the lack of a united front against the invaders.
http://www.rusliterature.org/the-tale-of-batus-capture-of-ryazan/#.VLPeMdZhOUc
Novgorod, not threatened by the Golden Horde, was being attacked by Teutons and Swedes. It is speculated the Alexander Nevski of Novgorod might have been able to save Russia from Batu. A brilliant strategist, Alexander was named Nevski after a victory near the Neva River. His renown was made even greater after his victory at Lake Peipus in Estonia when the invading Swedish forces fell through the winter ice while charging Novgorod's forces. Stalin used this account to rally the Russian people during the Nazi invasion and a motion picture was made with music by Prokoviev.
Alexander Nevsky (Battle On Ice)
Russia became isolated as the land fell under the Mongol yoke and Kiev was almost destroyed. But it is doubtful that even a united Russia could withstand the Mongol Horde. Their army consisted of a cavalry that was revolutionized by the stirrup. At first, the stirrup was simply two rings attached to a rope, slung over a horse. The big toe was placed in each ring and this freed the warrior's hands to shoot arrows with deadly accuracy. This was another invention from the east that had a profound impact on the west. Like silk, porcelain, gunpowder and tea, these inventions were closely guarded - under pain of death - and changed the world. The Tatars could cover enormous distances without provisions. According to Marco Polo, who lived among them for two months, Mongol horsemen could subsist for a month on mare's milk and blood drawn from the veins of their horses.
Batu's forces numbered 120,000 and they were interested in one thing - extortion, tribute. The nomads weren't interested in territory, altering customs of the vanquished, spreading a religion or establishing their language. They wanted taxes, men for their army, and slaves. They were merciless to any town that did not surrender and killed all the people in the resisting city without pity. After Kiev fell, the Tatars built a wooden platform on the backs of Russian soldiers who were lying on the ground. They then celebrated a victorious feast on the platform crushing the poor souls beneath. They set up districts where a Khan could collect taxes. Eventually, the Khans found it convenient to allow certain princes who had kowtowed before them to collect taxes on their behalf. They did not attempt to eliminate Russian political institutions. So, Russian Princes retained their positions and many were permitted to collect taxes at the pleasure of the Khans.
Ivan the Moneybag (1327) was the Grand Prince of Moscow and collected taxes for the Khan. Eventually the Khan expanded the territory for his collection of tribute and Ivan was successful in skimming money from the Mongols. He convinced the Khan to allow him to pass this arrangement onto his sons, establishing a dynasty. The Moscow River was at the headwaters of the Volga, Don and Dnieper, and trade began to flourish. Moscow’s territory expanded from 600 square meters to more than 2,350,000 square meters. Another event also helped Moscow's rise to prominence. A metropolitan, passing through Moscow, died in the city. It was prophesied that as long as the bones lay interred in the Kremlin, the city would be glorified. His remains were enshrined in Moscow and pilgrims journeyed to Moscow in homage. This gave the city a religious foundation to go along with its economic importance.
Soon, Russian Princes began to defy the Khan and refused to pay tribute. In 1380, an army largely composed of Muscovites, met the army of Khan Mamai and for the first time Russian forces were victorious over the Golden Horde. The rule of the Tatars was disintegrating, but would last another century.
Ivan III ruled Moscow beginning in 1462, and this was the beginning of the Gathering of the Lands. He annexed Novgorod and other city-states, increasing his realm fourfold. The armies of Ivan III and Khan Akmad faced each other in 1480. No battle was fought after three months and the Khan's forces retreated. Moscow then became an independent and powerful state in Eastern Europe and other cities stopped paying tribute.
With the fall of Byzantium in 1453, the Russian Church became the dominant spiritual successor to the Orthodox Church. Moscow now was the center of temporal and spiritual power in Russia. Ivan III was the Grand Prince of All Russia. He married Sofia, the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor. She claimed descent from the brother of Augustus Caesar's brother, Prus, and Ivan III traced his heritage by marriage to a Caesar (even though Augustus was the adopted son of Julius) and became Czar and autocrat of all Russia. He adopted the Byzantine crest of the double eagle, which remained a symbol of Russia until 1917.
Ivan Vasilievitch Grozny
Grozny meant powerful, awesome, feared by his enemies, respected and obeyed by his subjects. Ivan was born in Moscow, 1530. This was the age of Machiavelli, the Borgias, the Medicis, Henry VIII and the “Divine Right of Kings”.
Legend has it that storms thundered and flashed when Ivan was born. A portent of the future or simply another embellishment of fact? His father would die three years later. Elena, Ivan’s mother, was regent for her son and Russia faced incursions from Lithuanians as well as Tatar raids. Boyars struggled for power when Elena died in 1538. Ivan was convinced her death was from poison and always mistrusted the noblemen.
Ivan IV had a brother who was deaf and mute. There will be many instances where the royal families would have someone afflicted with a disability or disease. I believe the reason was because of intermarriage, improper infant care and probably, venereal diseases. The title ‘Czar’ demonstrates the obsession with heredity. One’s social standing demanded that when marrying, you had to marry at your level within that social strata. The licentious behavior of the czars is well documented. We will encounter disabilities many times as we explore the Romanovs, even up to the last czar’s son, Alexi, who suffered from Hemophilia.
Ivan was a toy that the boyars played with. He would be trotted out for official ceremonies, then taken back to be abused by the noblemen. He wore the second hand clothes of the boyar’s sons. One of his two boyhood friends was sent to a monastery while the other died of starvation in a prison. Ivan witnessed beatings and executions of nobles not in favor by the then controlling boyar family.
Moscow was in chaos as one family ascended then was replaced by another.
At a meeting of the boyars, Ivan – age 13 - stood and denounced the boyars and the abuses of the nobles. He ordered the arrest of Andrei Shuisky, one of the two families behind the throne, and executed thirty of his friends.
He had a cruel streak and would take dogs and cats to the towers of the Kremlin and throw them off the parapet. He considered himself religious but was mercurial, what has been diagnosed in our times as “bi-polar”. He prayed before icons and learned to read and write. He studied “The Lives of Saints” and could recite passages from the Bible. One day he might the cut out the tongue of someone who offended him. The next day he could be friendly, laughing and joking, followed the next day by being be holy and quiet.
When he was inaugurated, he was declared Czar of all the Russias, the first time any prince took that title. In 1547, Ivan married Anastasia who came from a royal family and had a calming influence on the young czar. Nevertheless when men from Pskov complained the their governor was corrupt, Ivan had them bound, poured alcohol on the heads and beards and set fire to them.
A fire ravaged Moscow in 1547 and Ivan was told the conflagration was because of his cruelty. In remorse he re-committed himself to the church and promised to be lenient and just. Legend has it that he cared for lepers in his palace. He spoke to the people of Moscow and pledged to be their judge and protector.
Ivan went to war against the Mongol Horde. He conquered Kazan, devising new siege techniques. To counter the effects of the Tatar archers, Ivan had portable huts built with wooden tops and three wooden sides with slits to shoot arrows. His troops could lift the structure and advance close to the walls of the city. He also had sappers, possibly for the first time, dig tunnels beneath the walls and explode gunpowder charges beneath the battlements. The Streltsy (shooters) were created and these musketeers would have tremendous influence as they expanded their role into palace guards. He brought to Moscow the venerated icon, “The Lady of Kazan”, an icon that Kutuzov the Russian general had placed in front of his attacking troops during the War of 1812. (An aside: during World War II, Stalin had a holy icon placed on an airplane and had the plane encircle Moscow to save the city when the Nazi Wehrmacht was approaching. This demonstrates the power of icons even when communists ruled Russia.)
Ivan celebrated his victory over Kazan by building St. Basil’s Cathedral. He summoned the architects when the cathedral was completed and asked if they could build another beautiful church like St. Basil. The architects, hoping for another commission said they could. Ivan had their eyes plucked out as he never wanted another church as magnificent as St. Basil to be built.
To the East, Ivan was angry when the Stroganovs defeated Tatars in Siberia without his permission. He threatened to execute them. His anger didn’t last long as the trade from their conquests filled his war chests and Siberia was colonized by Russia.
Ivan began trading with Elizabethan England via the White Sea. At one time, he even considered marrying Elizabeth. When an English ambassador did not take his hat off before the czar, it is told that Ivan nailed his hat to his head. The Russians also expanded west into Livonia (modern day Estonia and Latvia) He took the city of Livonia and increased trade with the west.
Ivan was at the height of his power and tragedy struck. His wife, Anastasia, died and with her, all restraint on Ivan’s sinister emotions were unleashed. He became paranoid, arrogant and completely unstable. Although he loved Anastasia dearly, he chose another wife eleven days after her death. In all he would have seven wives, beating Henry VIII by one!
In 1570, the czar suspected that Novgorod welcomed annexation to Poland. He attacked the city and the estimates of this massacre ran to sixty thousand. He established the oprichniki, bodyguards that terrorized the country. They wore black robes, rode black horses and carried a severed dog’s head and a broom. The oprichniki ravaged the land, raping and plundering, and displacing 12,000 landowners. Their headquarters was a small village where everyone, including Ivan led the simple life of a monk when they were not marauding the country. Arising at four a.m. these men prayed and listened to Ivan read from the Lives of Saints. For amusement, Ivan once had seven peasants with spears, placed in an arena, then set seven hungry bears on them. They alternated between devotions in the morning to orgies and drunkenness in the afternoon.
Ivan’s wars bankrupted the country and the nobles complained the peasants were fleeing their estates because of taxes, poor crops, and starvation. In 1581, Ivan decreed that peasants could no longer leave the lands and serfdom was established.
Ivan’s son, the Czarevitch Ivan, was forced to give up his first and second wife and relatives of his third wife were executed. His son and wife were sitting in a room at the Kremlin. Ivan the Terrible saw her as immodest since she was pregnant and slapped her. She miscarried a few days later. When father and son argued, Czar Ivan picked up his staff and hit his son. Blood gushed from his head as he fell to the floor. Five days later, on November 21, 1581 he was dead.
Four years later, while playing chess, Ivan collapsed and died.
Russia was by then, weak, disorganized and almost bankrupt.
He remained a hero to Josef Stalin who had Eisenstein make a movie of Ivan Vasilievitch Grozny.
Repin, Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
PAINTINGS OF ILYA REPIN
IVAN THE TERRIBLE
go to 37 minutes
The Times of Troubles.
Since Ivan killed his son, the Czarevitch Ivan, the next in succession was Feodor Ivanovitch, who was politely described as feebleminded and more accurately as an imbecile. The Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land) chose Boris Godounov as Feodor’s advisor. Feodor had a brother, Dmitri who died in 1591 of “mysterious knife wounds” at the age of nine. Godounov investigated and found the death to be accidental. When Feodor died in 1598, the House of Ruirik came to an end. Godounov was now Czar. In the third year of his reign, a famine swept through Russia. Russia was in a state of anarchy. Intrigue, rumors and treachery surrounded the Kremlin.
It was said that Dmitri had not died and the “False Dmitri”, a man named Grigori Ottrepiev, claimed he was the rightful Czar. He enlisted the aid of Poland and marched on Moscow. He was defeated, only to have another “False Dmitri” appear. Again, with Polish assistance, he occupied Moscow. While Moscow was controlled by Catholic Poland, Sweden marched on Novgorod. The Poles were expelled from the Kremlin by a rag tag force in 1612.
Another meeting of the Zemsky Sobor resulted in Michael Romanov, age sixteen, being chosen as Czar. He was the grandson of Ivan the Terrible’s beloved wife, Anastasia’s brother. The Romanovs would rule for more than three centuries.
History of Russia
Genealogy of the Romanovs
Genealogy of Romanovs wikipedia
Tolstoy, God Sees the Truth, But Waits.
The Seventeenth Century.
One of the most important events during this time was serfdom, estimates place their numbers around eighty percent of the population. The General Law Code established the legal enslavement of the serfs. Although different from slavery in the West, serfs became the property of the landowners. They could not move from one estate to another. They were given land and in return, they had to pay a quit rent, or work for the landlord two or three days a week. The serf paid taxes and could lodge a complaint against the landlord. He could be sold and could not marry without permission. He could be flogged or even sent to Siberia. In England at this time, John Locke was writing Two Treatises on Government that stated all people had natural rights including life, liberty and property!
Another important event concerned religious rituals and rites of the Orthodox Church. Patriarch Nikon introduced changes that included the spelling of ‘Jesus” was altered. He changed the way Russians made the sign of the cross, using three rather than two fingers. Halleluiah was to be chanted three times not twice during church services. Icons were to follow the Byzantine model. And all religious processions were to move in the direction of the sun. The peasants who resisted these changes were called the “Old Believers” and many of the blasphemers were burned at the stake or had their tongues cut out. Some thought the apocalypse was upon them and the world was about to end. Thirty seven mass immolations occurred between 1672 and 1691. A rebellion, led by Stenka Razin and supported by peasants and cossacks ravaged the country side.
Vasili Surikov, Morozova
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
Revolution, Terrorism, Assassination.
Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationalism.
Militarism, Imperialism, World War
"We were as twinned lambs that did frisk in the sun. What we changed was innocence for innocence. We knew not the doctrine of ill-doing, nor dreamed that any did!" Shakespeare
"Anarchy is loosed upon the world! The blood dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned." Yates
Peter The Great
Peter was the son of the second wife of Czar Alexis, Natalya Naryshkin. She entered a court dominated by the Miloslavskys, relatives of Alexis' first wife who had passed away. Jealousy was replaced by bitter hatred as the families vied for control. Peter was born in 1672 and his half brother, Feodor Miloslavsky, a sickly boy who had scurvy as a child, became Czar. He died in 1682. Feodor's brother, Ivan, was next in line but he was half-witted, suffered from epilepsy, was virtually blind and had a speech disorder. The Boyars wanted Peter and a struggle over the succession ensued as the Streltsy supported Ivan. A palace revolt occurred when the Streltsy was told that the Naryshkins had killed Ivan. Although Natalya appeared before the soldiers with both Ivan and Peter holding her hands, the soldiers were not completely appeased. Peter watched as Natalya's relatives and supporters were thrown from the Kremlin walls and cut to pieces by the rebellious soldiers. The Miloslavsky family succeeded in gaining power when Sofia, Ivan's sister and Peter's half sister, was made regent with both the young boys as co-Czars.
Peter and Natalya retired to a small village outside Moscow where they were safe from palace intrigue. There, Peter enjoyed the company of Europeans who were prohibited from having homes in Moscow.
Czars Ivan and Peter were mere figureheads as Sofia ruled Russia with her lover, Vasily Golitsen. During court ceremonies, Sofia was hidden behind a screen near the seated czars and she would whisper what she wanted them to say. In 1689, Peter overthrew Sofia and claimed the throne. He sent Sofia to a monastery and had Golitsen hanged outside Sofia’s cell where she could see his body dangling from a rope.
Ilya Repin's painting of Sophia
Peter wanted his country to adopt European ways and he traveled throughout Europe incognito, posing as a Russian nobleman on vacation. The journey lasted eighteen months, and his mission was to learn the technology, science, and crafts of the west. In Holland and England, he became familiar with shipbuilding firsthand, working as a carpenter and laborer in the shipyards of Zaandam and Deptford. His curiosity was insatiable. He even learned surgery as well as dentistry and the nobles accompanying him stopped complaining about toothaches after Peter successfully pulled out three teeth from three companions.
During Peter’s travels, his lack of manners astonished the noblemen and noblewomen of Europe. He disdained using knives and forks at meals, never used a handkerchief, spit on the floor, displayed a slovenly disregard for fashion, outraged his hosts at state functions, and was considered little more than a baptized bear. At one dinner, he reached across the table, picked up a morsel with his fingers from the plate of his astounded hostess, and ate it. This northern barbarian usually shocked his hosts as he and his entourage reveled in drunken feasts, destroying the halls and gardens where they were entertained. Peter was a giant of a man, standing six feet, eight inches tall, and could out-drink almost anyone. He took pleasure in drinking bouts, encouraging his friends to drink until they passed out. On his return, to put down another revolt of the Streltsy, Peter decreed that western clothes would be worn and beards would be shaved.
Peter recognized the superiority of Europe. He was determined to bring Russia out of the orient and into the orbit of western nations. Unlike Paris, London, Berlin, and other major cities of Europe that expanded without central planning, the entire design of St. Petersburg, Russia’s “window to the west” was created first as an idea. That idea came into being by following designs of Italian and German architects and engineers. They renounced the swirling onion domes and multi-colored roofs found in Moscow, and took the best construction traditions from the capitals of the west. Voltaire wrote succinctly about these developments: “Peter was born, Russia was formed.”
Peter the Great
Peter the Great (Go to you tube, Peter the Great - Discovery, by Matt)
Tsars reject Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
The Romanovs believed in absolute monarchy. They reasoned God had placed them on Russia’s throne to rule, and therefore, they were answerable only to God. Despite this justification of their reign by reference to God’s grace, they apparently did not believe all of God’s Ten Commandments applied to them. The czars ignored the Decalogue’s prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, and false witness. Executions, deceptions, and infidelities were the accepted way of life with almost all of these hereditary rulers. They apparently suffered no remorse or a sense of hypocrisy when they prayed in church, even if they had blood on their hands after ordering the flogging or execution of a soldier. They gave offerings to the church with money stolen from the work of serfs. And often, a mistress sat in the next pew. They were above the law. They were Romanovs, the rulers of Imperial Russia. They actually worshipped Mammon, Eros, Narcissus, and Ares.
It is ironic the members of the imperial dynasty of the Romanovs, beginning with Paul I, did not have any ancient Romanov blood coursing through their veins. Paul’s mother, Grand Duchess Catherine, who was born in Pomerania and later became known as Catherine the Great, married Grand Duke Peter, a Romanov with a passion for dolls and toy soldiers that he liked to keep in his bed. He also had a passion for military parade drills, and the officers and soldiers of the Guards came to resent these incessant, repetitive, and meaningless exercises. Peter did not know how to speak Russian when he came to St. Petersburg and worshipped Frederick the Great of Prussia. He reluctantly converted to the Orthodox Church and resented his situation. Peter changed the uniforms of the Russian army to resemble the Prussian army. He was considered to be unbalanced and sadistic. He alienated the clergy and the military and his drunken revels outraged the aristocracy.
The marriage of Peter and Catherine in 1745 was arranged to strengthen ties between Prussia and Russia. No one believed the emperor consummated his marriage with Catherine. They did not retire to the bridal chamber after the ceremonies, although avoiding the wedding bed was not unusual in a politically arranged marriage. The paintings that accompanied an emissary’s attempt to arrange a political union usually flattered the future wife or husband. Smallpox scars and natural imperfections were not in the palette of court artists. Therefore, seeing the person in the flesh often led to surprised disillusionment, if not repulsion. In one instance, a young Bavarian princess never attended her wedding ceremony but sent a portrait instead, and one of her ladies-in-waiting acted as her proxy. The princess finally met her husband almost three years after the ceremony. By that time, they had advanced through puberty and did not even recognize each other.
Peter was either incapable of union with Catherine or sterile. It was said that he did not know how to make love when he married at the age of seventeen. After ten years of court gossip about the absence of an heir, Czarina Elizabeth encouraged Catherine to take a lover and she finally became pregnant. Peter seemed to have learned cupid’s arts by then and was busy with mistresses. Peter wanted to be rid of Catherine. He hoped to prove her infidelity when she gave birth and then send her to a convent. But Catherine gave birth prematurely and smuggled her baby out of the Winter Palace in a fur skin, thwarting Peter’s scheme. Her son, Paul, was fathered by one of Catherine’s young lovers. Throughout Catherine’s marriage to Peter, she had many affairs, often with much younger men. When she was sixty years old, she carried on with an officer in the Guard who was twenty-two years old. (Perhaps that is why she known as the Great!) It was Catherine’s habit to court men of the nobility and the military who shared her view of Peter as an immature martinet.
Peter ascended the throne as Czar Peter III in 1762, but Catherine quickly deposed this hated and ridiculed czar after he reigned for only six months. According to the empress, Peter died one week after being taken prisoner by her supporters, of “severe colic during an attack of hemorrhoids.” She became Czarina in July 1762, and was the last woman to be sovereign. Her son, Paul I, always resented her involvement in his supposed father’s death, and believed she wanted to assassinate him as well by poisoning his food. Paul is considered to be the founder of the dynasty that ruled Russia in the nineteenth century.
However, even if Grand Duke Peter III was the natural father of Paul, the Romanovs of the nineteenth century were more German than Russian because the successive czars of that time married German women who took Russian names and converted to the Orthodox faith. Most of the czars spoke French or German, rather than Russian, as their first tongue.
Catherine ignored her baby in favor of her lovers. Paul did not meet her physical and mental standards. The homely, snub-nosed boy was disfigured by typhus when he was a child, and repelled her. He was raised by nursemaids and nannies, and then given over to male tutors, who introduced him to Western ideas and practices. When Paul married, his first wife complained that he did not have a weak character; rather, he possessed none at all. His second wife was more understanding and tolerant of his appearance and personality. He was mortified when Catherine took his children, Alexander, Constantin, Nicholas, and Mikhail, away from him to be educated under her tutelage. She bragged that her two oldest grandchildren, with the names Alexander and Constantin, embodied her desire of a greater Russian Empire. She instilled in them the belief that Russia was heir to Alexander the Great’s conquests, and that people of the Orthodox faith should rule Constantinople. She hoped to make Alexander czar of all Russia and Constantin ruler of the Byzantine Empire, leaving Paul out entirely. She died before these plans could be carried out.
Catherine the Great
Eight things about Catherine the Great
The Nineteenth Century
Paul lived at a remote estate, far from the activities of the court, so he would not be involved in state affairs. When he became Czar Paul I in 1796, one of his first acts was to restore his father’s reputation by having his remains placed among Russia’s rulers at the Peter and Paul Cathedral. After exhuming his father’s decomposed body, Paul insisted his family kiss the forehead of his father’s skull. He went on to imprison, without trial, twelve thousand Russians he imagined were opposed to his rule. He exiled Russians who read French books or dressed in the fashions of Paris, forbidding shoelaces and round hats. He decreed that the universities no longer teach about the “revolution” of heavenly bodies for fear it might inspire rebellion. After a mere four years, Paul suffered the same fate as his father: a palace coup. He was strangled and replaced by his son, Alexander, the favorite grandson of Catherine the Great. His death was officially attributed to apoplexy.
Alexander I played a part in the conspiracy, believing his father would only be forced to abdicate. His guilt over his father’s murder was compounded by the fact that no conspirator was ever brought to justice. Alexander came to power in 1801, at the age of twenty-three, and immediately began the progressive reforms that promised an enlightened government. He ruled until 1825, reaching the zenith of his power during the Napoleonic Wars, when the “Oppressor of Europe” was defeated and Alexander’s troops marched all the way to Paris. There was talk of a constitutional monarchy, reforms, and the emancipation of serfs. However, decrees went unsigned, and liberal ideals were forgotten as Alexander began to embrace religion and mysticism, probably trying to atone for his involvement in patricide.
Alexander died without an heir in November 1825, after ruling for twenty-four years. His brother, Constantin, should have succeeded him, but he had secretly renounced the throne. Nicholas, as the younger brother of Alexander and Constantin, was next in line. However, Nicholas was unaware of Constantin’s renunciation and that he would become czar on Alexander’s death. He had devoted all his energies to the military as commander of the First Guards, Infantry Division. His obsession with order, discipline, military bearing, and uniforms later became the distinctive features of his reign.
Since only three people knew of Alexander’s decree regarding the succession to the throne, everyone swore allegiance to Constantin, but he refused to take the crown. For a brief period, Russia was without a ruler. Finally, Nicholas became czar, and his first challenge was the Decembrist Revolt, an insurrection by army officers who campaigned in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. They had been introduced to liberal ideas, and now wanted to replace absolute autocracy with a constitutional monarchy. When Nicholas demanded that complete allegiance be sworn to him, officers in the army mutinied. As officers yelled “Constitution!” to rally the troops, soldiers began cheering, mistakenly believing they were supporting Constantin and his wife, “Constitutzya.” The Decembrist Revolt was brutally suppressed when Nicholas ordered canons to fire point blank into the ranks of the mutinous soldiers.
Nicholas’s reign was shaped by this event, and he ruled despotically in the belief that God had placed on his shoulders the fate of Russia. He believed “despotism is ideally suited by the Lord to the nature and spirit of the Russian people.” To ensure absolute power and control, this grandson of Catherine the Great censored the press and set up the Third Department, the secret police who would report any subversion to the czar. So Nicholas began his reign with suppression, spies, and informers. Subjects such as philosophy were forbidden at universities. Discussing politics, reading Western journals or books, singing certain songs, being in the company of anyone suspected of insubordination, suggesting reform or any type of change, even praising the government—any of these actions could and did result in exile. Nicholas’s fixation on regulations and appearance manifested itself when he prescribed the types of uniforms to be worn by government employees and students at the universities. His decrees included the prohibition of mustaches for anyone not in the armed forces. Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality were the cornerstones of his government.
Nicholas was crowned King of Poland in 1825. When the Polish parliament attempted to depose him after years of suppression, he suspended their constitution, crushed revolts of Polish nationals, executed leaders, and reduced Poland to a Russian satrapy. He intervened in Europe whenever and wherever autocratic regimes were threatened by rebellion and nationalism, assured that the Almighty commanded him to protect Europe from godless revolutionaries. This “Gendarme of Europe” possessed the largest army on earth, and saw Russia as a giant barracks, a nation of soldiers.
Nicholas thought Russia was destined to put an end to Turkish rule over Orthodox Christians. “Take heed, O nations, for God is with us,” he proclaimed at the start of the Crimean War. He died during that war, bitterly disappointed, realizing that his dream of Russian dominance over the Ottomans and control of the Black Sea would never be fulfilled during his life.
Czar Nicholas
aid that St. Petersburg
Russian Palaces
St Petersburg
The Russian Ark - trailer.
The Russian Ark, The Hermitage
In the nineteenth century, St. Petersburg was renowned as the most magnificent city in the world. It was the child of Peter Alekseyevich Romanov, who gave himself the title of “the Great,” a designation that would have been disputed by the hundreds of thousands of serfs and peasants who worked and perished building his capital. St. Petersburg was founded on May 27, 1703, and was inspired by Amsterdam and its canals; a city the sea created, and a city that brought trade and wealth to the Netherlands. A few years before founding his city, Peter had traveled throughout Europe incognito, posing as a Russian nobleman on vacation. The journey lasted eighteen months, and his mission was to learn the technology, science, and crafts of the west. In Holland and England, he became familiar with shipbuilding firsthand, working as a carpenter and laborer in the shipyards of Zaandam and Deptford. His curiosity was insatiable.
Unlike Paris, London, Berlin, and other major cities of Europe that expanded without central planning, the entire design of St. Petersburg, Russia’s “window to the west” was created first as an idea. That idea came into being by following designs of Italian and German architects and engineers. They renounced the swirling onion domes and multi-colored roofs found in Moscow, and took the best construction traditions from the capitals of the west. Voltaire wrote succinctly about these developments: “Peter was born, Russia was formed.”
The city was situated at the mouth of the Neva River, which flows into the Gulf of Finland. The location was completely unsuitable. There was no fresh water, no farmland to produce food and feed the inhabitants, and no forests to produce timber for the houses, boats, and ships for Peter’s navy. The obstacles to creating a major center of government and industry seemed insurmountable.
Nevertheless, the city would reflect Peter’s belief that man controlled nature. It began with a small fort built to defend land Peter had wrested from Sweden. Twenty thousand men toiled to construct the small garrison, which would later become the Peter and Paul Fortress. Two years after the fort was completed, forty thousand men arrived to construct the metropolis, each man required to bring stones with him for filling in the marshes. To provide still more stones for the burgeoning city, Peter stopped all construction of stone buildings in his empire and imposed a tax, to be paid in stones, on all wagons and ships entering the city.
Men battled to raise the city on Vasilievsky Island, a swampy, fetid, and inhospitable piece of land, frozen solid from November to March, and subject to severe and regular flooding. Spring deluges continued to be a problem for St. Petersburg for the next one hundred fifty years, until Nicholas I built locks to control the torrents created by the spring thaw of water rushing from Lake Lagoda into the Neva River. The peasants and serfs labored under hot, humid weather in summer and cold, biting winds in winter. Many perished from diseases carried by mosquitoes that thrived in the brackish waters. Wolves still roamed the streets that were covered in snow and ice in winter, rutted with muddy tracks from carriages in the spring, and full of dust in the summer and early fall.
After a few years, the center of the city shifted from Vasilievsky Island to the Admiralty, the compound and shipyard on the southern bank of the Neva. A tall, thin golden spire rising seventy-two meters above the ground on the Admiralty Building would soon identify the city. In 1712, Peter moved all government offices from Moscow to the new city. He ordered officials, shopkeepers, artisans, laborers, and noblemen to move to his capital to, as Pushkin described it, “here cut … your window through on Europe.”
Peter wanted the inhabitants of his city to be able seamen, so he did not permit any boats that plied the Neva River to have oars, forcing the sailors to learn the skills of sailing. To help raise money for his construction projects, and to break from Russian traditions and culture, Peter levied a one hundred ruble tax on beards, which the orthodox opposed. They believed that shaving was an affront to God, since God was bearded. Peter demanded that his court dress in western attire and adopt the fashions of Europe. As “Czar Transformer.” Peter tried to westernize St. Petersburg, and adorned the city parks with marble statues purchased from French and Italian sculptors. But these nude figures of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses horrified the citizens, who were accustomed to traditional ikons and formalized, fully-clothed depictions of the saints.
When Peter died in 1725, the population of St. Petersburg was almost thirty thousand. There were fifteen palaces, nineteen churches, ten large government buildings, and more than six thousand residences. After his death, most nobles were relieved that they were no longer required to live in Peter’s city and went back to the old capital, Moscow. But under Empress Anna, who began her reign in 1730, the city was revived and again made the seat of government. By 1750, its population had increased to 75,000, and astonishingly, stood at 220,000 by the beginning of the nineteenth century, By 1850, the population had doubled to a half million, and would double again by the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Empress Anna began an ambitious program of construction, and soon St. Petersburg boasted some of the world’s finest palaces. The original Winter Palace featured the Great Hall—one hundred eighty feet long, with gilded walls and colonnades separated by floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Neva. On her forty-first birthday, Anna gave Bartolomeo Rastrelli a budget of two hundred thousand rubles to refurbish the Winter Palace. This represented the yearly tax on 250,000 serfs. Within ten years, a summer palace, an opera house, stone palaces, and a riding academy were completed. The Empress wanted to raze the shabby wooden shacks and houses in the Admiralty Quarter, but feared the reaction of the merchants plying their trades there. Two suspicious fires, in 1736 and 1737, destroyed 520 wooden structures, allowing Anna to continue her ambitious program of building the city to display the might and grandeur of the Romanovs. She decreed that only the nobility could construct stone houses in that district. She established the St. Petersburg Construction Commission, responsible for the development of a master plan for the expanding city. Three main avenues were the spokes radiating out from the hub of the Admiralty. The most famous avenue was named for Alexander Nevsky, the heroic saint who saved Russia from the Swedes. Semicircular streets and canals connected these spokes to each other in a web of urban design.
Despite this facade of Europeanization, the inhabitants of St. Petersburg still retained their Muscovite behavior. They shocked diplomats, and foreign visitors were often amused by Russian attempts to emulate “civilized” countries. To St. Petersburg society, civilized meant having British etiquette and French architecture. One visitor commented that Russian women dressed up as gaudy opera singers in a vain attempt to imitate French manners and morals. The colorful dresses and costumes covered the crude and unrefined behavior typical of medieval courts. Empress Anna took delight in practical jokes, by having nobles dress as court jesters and squat in the corners of her room, cackling like hens.
Changes came in 1741 under Empress Elizabeth, who wanted to rebuild the foundations of the city bequeathed to her, and alter the vulgar, rough manners and mores of the Russian inhabitants. More swamps were drained and streets were widened. Restaurants prospered, parks and gardens gave graceful sanctuary to people, and gradually, a sense of elegance began to be displayed in society. Baroque churches and palaces were built. The Russians and their city were losing their oafish reputation, and were beginning to rival the opulence and decadence of the Court of Louis XIV. The summer palace Peterhof, begun by Peter the Great, who actually toiled in the ditches alongside the peasants, was twenty miles outside of St. Petersburg. When it was finally completed in 1755, its Hall of Mirrors, gardens, and fountains, fed by twenty-four miles of underground canals and pipes, rivaled Versailles. Other ostentatious and magnificent palaces, such as the palace at Tsarskoe Selo, with its magnificent amber room, ringed the city.
St. Petersburg flourished even more under the reign of Catherine the Great. She disliked the baroque style of architecture and introduced the classical style, emulating the Rome of the Caesars. St. Petersburg was now described as “elegant and imperial” by visiting German and French architects, who compared the city favorably to Berlin and Paris. Nobles decorated their homes in the European style. Florid mahogany furniture, crafted by German artisans, replaced the simple wooden chairs, tables, desks, bedsteads, and paneling brought from Moscow. In 1762, Catherine moved into the new Winter Palace, the mansion rebuilt by Anna, who never occupied it. The palace required eight years to build, boasted 1,054 rooms and 2,000 windows, and covered an area of more than 42,000 square feet. Catherine ordered the construction of an annex, the Little Hermitage, to house the collection of 255 masterwork paintings she purchased from Berlin. The Great Bazaar of Gostiny Dvor became the commercial center of the city. Catherine encouraged the building of private estates along the Neva, and financed new government buildings and churches. The opulent Marble Palace was built as a gift to her lover, Count Orlov.
Empress Catherine was educated and highly literate, and constructed the first public library in Russia. The Academy of Arts was built to encourage artists to emulate western styles and techniques. She corresponded with Voltaire, philosophers of the Enlightenment, and the French Encyclopedists, but was repelled by the excesses of the French Revolution. She commissioned the Bronze Horseman, a statue of Peter the Great, in an attempt to legitimize her reign and identify her sovereignty with the founder of the city. To amuse the citizens of St. Petersburg, she constructed sliding hills for sledding during the winter. She was among the first to be vaccinated against small pox to encourage others to follow her example and improve the health of St. Petersburg. By the end of her patronage, the number of brick and stone buildings in the city had increased threefold.
These czarinas all tried to outdo each other in developing St. Petersburg, and this era of St. Petersburg growth became known as the Petticoat Period. Yet the city would continue to grow, thrive, and prosper even more under the subsequent czars who ruled during the nineteenth century.
Catherine’s son, Pavel I, an unpopular czar, always feared for his life and retreated into the Mikhailovsky Castle, a mansion he had constructed to protect himself from assassination. However, the newly built castle proved ineffective: he was murdered in his bed in a coup approved by his son, Alexander I, who wanted to reestablish the policies of Catherine the Great.
The new architecture and monuments erected under the next two czars, Alexander and Nicholas, emphasized military might and the power of Russia. The Field of Mars, a training ground for the troops and cavalry of the empire, was drained of marshes and became the parade grounds for military exercises. Alexander I, who ruled from 1801-1825, finished the Kazan Cathedral, inspired by the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Basilica. French banners captured from Napoleon in the War of 1812 were placed in the cathedral alongside the Madonna Ikon, which Ivan the Terrible had saved after his victory at Kazan. Field Marshall Mikhail Kutuzov, who defeated Napoleon, was entombed there.
Nicholas would proudly review his troops from the Winter Palace’s balcony, as thousands of cavalry and fifty thousand troops paraded past the emperor, marching in Prussian precision for almost a mile from Senate Square to Palace Square. Completed in 1834, the Alexander Column resembled Trajan’s Column in Rome. The Admiralty was remodeled, and the Stock Exchange and Rostral Columns were built on Vasilievsky Island. Nicholas laid the cornerstone of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, but it would take forty more years to complete, being constructed entirely in granite and marble. Only St. Peter’s dome in Rome and St. Paul’s dome in London soared higher than the dome of St. Isaac’s Cathedral.
During the reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855), Pushkin, Glinka, and Dostoyevsky began their artistic careers, despite the conservative policies of the czar’s administration. Under Nicholas I, a railroad was built connecting St. Petersburg with Tsarskoe Selo, the summer retreat where Catherine the Great lived and died. He completed the St. Petersburg-Moscow railroad line only after his personal comfort was assured to his summer home. The Mariinsky Palace was built for Nicholas’s daughter, Duchess Maria, as a wedding present. Pineapples were grown in its greenhouse, and the State Council of Imperial Russia would later occupy the palace. Throughout Nicholas’s reign, grand dukes vied with one another in commissioning elaborate palaces and mansions.
Under Alexander II (1855-1881), the city began to become industrialized, as factories and manufacturing plants were established. Banks and industrial companies built headquarters on Nevsky Prospekt, now the spinal cord of the city.
These grandsons of Catherine the Great both expanded and centralized government, to the point where thirty million documents, mostly superfluous, were signed each year. Numerous clerks and copyists were needed to deal with the petitions, applications, and reports flooding into the capital. This demand attracted many educated people, who came to the city with a hope of advancing in government service, only to find themselves faceless automatons, scarcely able to afford an overcoat and sharing meager meals and rooms with other petty functionaries. Apartment buildings to house the burgeoning bureaucracy sprang up alongside the mansions of the aristocracy.
Alexander III, who ruled from 1881-1894, continued to expand the city. The church that was built on the site where his father was assassinated best demonstrates his conservatism, his rejection of the west, and his emphasis on Russian traditions. This beautiful Church on Spilled Blood resembles medieval Russian cathedrals, especially Moscow’s St. Basil’s Cathedral. Its swirling, colorful onion domes and mosaics seem out of place in St. Petersburg. Inside, a shrine embellished with precious stones of lazurite marks the spot where Alexander II was mortally wounded.
Under Nicholas II, who was murdered in 1918 after the Russian Revolution, international corporations, such as the Singer Sewing Company, built elaborate headquarters along Nevsky Prospekt. Shops and merchants made the street the busiest in the empire. Pictures displayed above the doors and in the shop windows enhanced Nevsky Prospekt’s color and charm. The paintings identifying businesses were needed, because peasants could not read. Before the nineteenth century ended, electric lights began to appear on the avenues and in homes. Railroads spanned fifteen time zones and linked St. Petersburg to the Pacific. Telephones connected the empire, and the nation was changing from an agrarian society to an industrial power.
Yet, beneath the growth and expansion, the glitter and the riches, the extravagance and the excesses, a proletariat, an underclass, seethed. The demand for goods and services by the wealthy attracted craftsmen and house serfs from all over Russia. Newly built cotton mills; iron foundries that produced the rails, engines, and cars for the railroads; armament factories that supplied the million-man army; navy yards to expand the Baltic fleet; and factories that arose from the Industrial Revolution all created demand for workers. By 1880, laborers numbered 150,000. They arrived in St. Petersburg in droves and shared tiny apartments with the already dispossessed. A worker might find a squalid, cramped room at the back of a house while a wealthy family lived in front, facing the street.
The space would smell of people who did not bathe, mixed in with the odor of cabbage soup and rancid meat simmering on a primitive stove. Entering the home through an alley, workers would finish their sixteen-hour day of toil sharing a small room with as many as fifty other unfortunates. A blanket or sheet would divide the living spaces of families. Or, if they were blessed, they might find a closet, or a stairwell beneath which they could sleep. Some would find shelter in a house where beds, mere wooden platforms covered in straw, were rented for twelve hours a day. There were no toilets, and the only running water might be a spigot in the backyard. Heavy rains or floods would wash sewage into the basement of these homes where people huddled together in dampness and cold. The government would warn the citizens when the Neva River was rising by firing a cannon shot, which roared across the river from the citadel. This warning drove the wretched residents to abandon their cellars to the rising polluted waters.
Workers would drink from the Neva River and the canals, which were filled with excrement and waste from the factories. Epidemics of cholera, typhoid, and syphilis were part of St. Petersburg’s living conditions at the end of the nineteenth century. Poverty forced people to beg on the streets, kneeling for all the hours of daylight, heads down and hands cupped open, praying for a kopek from a well-dressed shopper.
This squalor was the undercurrent of Peter’s city. It had the highest mortality rate of any city in Europe. Hiding behind the pomp and ceremony of the Romanovs, destitution and desperation stalked the streets, where people sold rags, sticks of firewood, stolen goods, and even their bodies to feed and shelter their children. Some became so desperate they sold their daughters into prostitution. These were the people Dostoyevsky wrote about. These were the people who would rise up and change the city and the world.
Nevertheless, by 1900 the city exhibited the veneer of power and prestige Russia had attained in the world. St. Petersburg became the magnificent and Europeanized city that Peter the Great had imagined when he established his “window to the west.”
Russian Palaces
St Petersburg
The Russian Ark - trailer.
The Russian Ark, The Hermitage
In the nineteenth century, St. Petersburg was renowned as the most magnificent city in the world. It was the child of Peter Alekseyevich Romanov, who gave himself the title of “the Great,” a designation that would have been disputed by the hundreds of thousands of serfs and peasants who worked and perished building his capital. St. Petersburg was founded on May 27, 1703, and was inspired by Amsterdam and its canals; a city the sea created, and a city that brought trade and wealth to the Netherlands. A few years before founding his city, Peter had traveled throughout Europe incognito, posing as a Russian nobleman on vacation. The journey lasted eighteen months, and his mission was to learn the technology, science, and crafts of the west. In Holland and England, he became familiar with shipbuilding firsthand, working as a carpenter and laborer in the shipyards of Zaandam and Deptford. His curiosity was insatiable.
Unlike Paris, London, Berlin, and other major cities of Europe that expanded without central planning, the entire design of St. Petersburg, Russia’s “window to the west” was created first as an idea. That idea came into being by following designs of Italian and German architects and engineers. They renounced the swirling onion domes and multi-colored roofs found in Moscow, and took the best construction traditions from the capitals of the west. Voltaire wrote succinctly about these developments: “Peter was born, Russia was formed.”
The city was situated at the mouth of the Neva River, which flows into the Gulf of Finland. The location was completely unsuitable. There was no fresh water, no farmland to produce food and feed the inhabitants, and no forests to produce timber for the houses, boats, and ships for Peter’s navy. The obstacles to creating a major center of government and industry seemed insurmountable.
Nevertheless, the city would reflect Peter’s belief that man controlled nature. It began with a small fort built to defend land Peter had wrested from Sweden. Twenty thousand men toiled to construct the small garrison, which would later become the Peter and Paul Fortress. Two years after the fort was completed, forty thousand men arrived to construct the metropolis, each man required to bring stones with him for filling in the marshes. To provide still more stones for the burgeoning city, Peter stopped all construction of stone buildings in his empire and imposed a tax, to be paid in stones, on all wagons and ships entering the city.
Men battled to raise the city on Vasilievsky Island, a swampy, fetid, and inhospitable piece of land, frozen solid from November to March, and subject to severe and regular flooding. Spring deluges continued to be a problem for St. Petersburg for the next one hundred fifty years, until Nicholas I built locks to control the torrents created by the spring thaw of water rushing from Lake Lagoda into the Neva River. The peasants and serfs labored under hot, humid weather in summer and cold, biting winds in winter. Many perished from diseases carried by mosquitoes that thrived in the brackish waters. Wolves still roamed the streets that were covered in snow and ice in winter, rutted with muddy tracks from carriages in the spring, and full of dust in the summer and early fall.
After a few years, the center of the city shifted from Vasilievsky Island to the Admiralty, the compound and shipyard on the southern bank of the Neva. A tall, thin golden spire rising seventy-two meters above the ground on the Admiralty Building would soon identify the city. In 1712, Peter moved all government offices from Moscow to the new city. He ordered officials, shopkeepers, artisans, laborers, and noblemen to move to his capital to, as Pushkin described it, “here cut … your window through on Europe.”
Peter wanted the inhabitants of his city to be able seamen, so he did not permit any boats that plied the Neva River to have oars, forcing the sailors to learn the skills of sailing. To help raise money for his construction projects, and to break from Russian traditions and culture, Peter levied a one hundred ruble tax on beards, which the orthodox opposed. They believed that shaving was an affront to God, since God was bearded. Peter demanded that his court dress in western attire and adopt the fashions of Europe. As “Czar Transformer.” Peter tried to westernize St. Petersburg, and adorned the city parks with marble statues purchased from French and Italian sculptors. But these nude figures of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses horrified the citizens, who were accustomed to traditional ikons and formalized, fully-clothed depictions of the saints.
When Peter died in 1725, the population of St. Petersburg was almost thirty thousand. There were fifteen palaces, nineteen churches, ten large government buildings, and more than six thousand residences. After his death, most nobles were relieved that they were no longer required to live in Peter’s city and went back to the old capital, Moscow. But under Empress Anna, who began her reign in 1730, the city was revived and again made the seat of government. By 1750, its population had increased to 75,000, and astonishingly, stood at 220,000 by the beginning of the nineteenth century, By 1850, the population had doubled to a half million, and would double again by the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Empress Anna began an ambitious program of construction, and soon St. Petersburg boasted some of the world’s finest palaces. The original Winter Palace featured the Great Hall—one hundred eighty feet long, with gilded walls and colonnades separated by floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Neva. On her forty-first birthday, Anna gave Bartolomeo Rastrelli a budget of two hundred thousand rubles to refurbish the Winter Palace. This represented the yearly tax on 250,000 serfs. Within ten years, a summer palace, an opera house, stone palaces, and a riding academy were completed. The Empress wanted to raze the shabby wooden shacks and houses in the Admiralty Quarter, but feared the reaction of the merchants plying their trades there. Two suspicious fires, in 1736 and 1737, destroyed 520 wooden structures, allowing Anna to continue her ambitious program of building the city to display the might and grandeur of the Romanovs. She decreed that only the nobility could construct stone houses in that district. She established the St. Petersburg Construction Commission, responsible for the development of a master plan for the expanding city. Three main avenues were the spokes radiating out from the hub of the Admiralty. The most famous avenue was named for Alexander Nevsky, the heroic saint who saved Russia from the Swedes. Semicircular streets and canals connected these spokes to each other in a web of urban design.
Despite this facade of Europeanization, the inhabitants of St. Petersburg still retained their Muscovite behavior. They shocked diplomats, and foreign visitors were often amused by Russian attempts to emulate “civilized” countries. To St. Petersburg society, civilized meant having British etiquette and French architecture. One visitor commented that Russian women dressed up as gaudy opera singers in a vain attempt to imitate French manners and morals. The colorful dresses and costumes covered the crude and unrefined behavior typical of medieval courts. Empress Anna took delight in practical jokes, by having nobles dress as court jesters and squat in the corners of her room, cackling like hens.
Changes came in 1741 under Empress Elizabeth, who wanted to rebuild the foundations of the city bequeathed to her, and alter the vulgar, rough manners and mores of the Russian inhabitants. More swamps were drained and streets were widened. Restaurants prospered, parks and gardens gave graceful sanctuary to people, and gradually, a sense of elegance began to be displayed in society. Baroque churches and palaces were built. The Russians and their city were losing their oafish reputation, and were beginning to rival the opulence and decadence of the Court of Louis XIV. The summer palace Peterhof, begun by Peter the Great, who actually toiled in the ditches alongside the peasants, was twenty miles outside of St. Petersburg. When it was finally completed in 1755, its Hall of Mirrors, gardens, and fountains, fed by twenty-four miles of underground canals and pipes, rivaled Versailles. Other ostentatious and magnificent palaces, such as the palace at Tsarskoe Selo, with its magnificent amber room, ringed the city.
St. Petersburg flourished even more under the reign of Catherine the Great. She disliked the baroque style of architecture and introduced the classical style, emulating the Rome of the Caesars. St. Petersburg was now described as “elegant and imperial” by visiting German and French architects, who compared the city favorably to Berlin and Paris. Nobles decorated their homes in the European style. Florid mahogany furniture, crafted by German artisans, replaced the simple wooden chairs, tables, desks, bedsteads, and paneling brought from Moscow. In 1762, Catherine moved into the new Winter Palace, the mansion rebuilt by Anna, who never occupied it. The palace required eight years to build, boasted 1,054 rooms and 2,000 windows, and covered an area of more than 42,000 square feet. Catherine ordered the construction of an annex, the Little Hermitage, to house the collection of 255 masterwork paintings she purchased from Berlin. The Great Bazaar of Gostiny Dvor became the commercial center of the city. Catherine encouraged the building of private estates along the Neva, and financed new government buildings and churches. The opulent Marble Palace was built as a gift to her lover, Count Orlov.
Empress Catherine was educated and highly literate, and constructed the first public library in Russia. The Academy of Arts was built to encourage artists to emulate western styles and techniques. She corresponded with Voltaire, philosophers of the Enlightenment, and the French Encyclopedists, but was repelled by the excesses of the French Revolution. She commissioned the Bronze Horseman, a statue of Peter the Great, in an attempt to legitimize her reign and identify her sovereignty with the founder of the city. To amuse the citizens of St. Petersburg, she constructed sliding hills for sledding during the winter. She was among the first to be vaccinated against small pox to encourage others to follow her example and improve the health of St. Petersburg. By the end of her patronage, the number of brick and stone buildings in the city had increased threefold.
These czarinas all tried to outdo each other in developing St. Petersburg, and this era of St. Petersburg growth became known as the Petticoat Period. Yet the city would continue to grow, thrive, and prosper even more under the subsequent czars who ruled during the nineteenth century.
Catherine’s son, Pavel I, an unpopular czar, always feared for his life and retreated into the Mikhailovsky Castle, a mansion he had constructed to protect himself from assassination. However, the newly built castle proved ineffective: he was murdered in his bed in a coup approved by his son, Alexander I, who wanted to reestablish the policies of Catherine the Great.
The new architecture and monuments erected under the next two czars, Alexander and Nicholas, emphasized military might and the power of Russia. The Field of Mars, a training ground for the troops and cavalry of the empire, was drained of marshes and became the parade grounds for military exercises. Alexander I, who ruled from 1801-1825, finished the Kazan Cathedral, inspired by the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Basilica. French banners captured from Napoleon in the War of 1812 were placed in the cathedral alongside the Madonna Ikon, which Ivan the Terrible had saved after his victory at Kazan. Field Marshall Mikhail Kutuzov, who defeated Napoleon, was entombed there.
Nicholas would proudly review his troops from the Winter Palace’s balcony, as thousands of cavalry and fifty thousand troops paraded past the emperor, marching in Prussian precision for almost a mile from Senate Square to Palace Square. Completed in 1834, the Alexander Column resembled Trajan’s Column in Rome. The Admiralty was remodeled, and the Stock Exchange and Rostral Columns were built on Vasilievsky Island. Nicholas laid the cornerstone of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, but it would take forty more years to complete, being constructed entirely in granite and marble. Only St. Peter’s dome in Rome and St. Paul’s dome in London soared higher than the dome of St. Isaac’s Cathedral.
During the reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855), Pushkin, Glinka, and Dostoyevsky began their artistic careers, despite the conservative policies of the czar’s administration. Under Nicholas I, a railroad was built connecting St. Petersburg with Tsarskoe Selo, the summer retreat where Catherine the Great lived and died. He completed the St. Petersburg-Moscow railroad line only after his personal comfort was assured to his summer home. The Mariinsky Palace was built for Nicholas’s daughter, Duchess Maria, as a wedding present. Pineapples were grown in its greenhouse, and the State Council of Imperial Russia would later occupy the palace. Throughout Nicholas’s reign, grand dukes vied with one another in commissioning elaborate palaces and mansions.
Under Alexander II (1855-1881), the city began to become industrialized, as factories and manufacturing plants were established. Banks and industrial companies built headquarters on Nevsky Prospekt, now the spinal cord of the city.
These grandsons of Catherine the Great both expanded and centralized government, to the point where thirty million documents, mostly superfluous, were signed each year. Numerous clerks and copyists were needed to deal with the petitions, applications, and reports flooding into the capital. This demand attracted many educated people, who came to the city with a hope of advancing in government service, only to find themselves faceless automatons, scarcely able to afford an overcoat and sharing meager meals and rooms with other petty functionaries. Apartment buildings to house the burgeoning bureaucracy sprang up alongside the mansions of the aristocracy.
Alexander III, who ruled from 1881-1894, continued to expand the city. The church that was built on the site where his father was assassinated best demonstrates his conservatism, his rejection of the west, and his emphasis on Russian traditions. This beautiful Church on Spilled Blood resembles medieval Russian cathedrals, especially Moscow’s St. Basil’s Cathedral. Its swirling, colorful onion domes and mosaics seem out of place in St. Petersburg. Inside, a shrine embellished with precious stones of lazurite marks the spot where Alexander II was mortally wounded.
Under Nicholas II, who was murdered in 1918 after the Russian Revolution, international corporations, such as the Singer Sewing Company, built elaborate headquarters along Nevsky Prospekt. Shops and merchants made the street the busiest in the empire. Pictures displayed above the doors and in the shop windows enhanced Nevsky Prospekt’s color and charm. The paintings identifying businesses were needed, because peasants could not read. Before the nineteenth century ended, electric lights began to appear on the avenues and in homes. Railroads spanned fifteen time zones and linked St. Petersburg to the Pacific. Telephones connected the empire, and the nation was changing from an agrarian society to an industrial power.
Yet, beneath the growth and expansion, the glitter and the riches, the extravagance and the excesses, a proletariat, an underclass, seethed. The demand for goods and services by the wealthy attracted craftsmen and house serfs from all over Russia. Newly built cotton mills; iron foundries that produced the rails, engines, and cars for the railroads; armament factories that supplied the million-man army; navy yards to expand the Baltic fleet; and factories that arose from the Industrial Revolution all created demand for workers. By 1880, laborers numbered 150,000. They arrived in St. Petersburg in droves and shared tiny apartments with the already dispossessed. A worker might find a squalid, cramped room at the back of a house while a wealthy family lived in front, facing the street.
The space would smell of people who did not bathe, mixed in with the odor of cabbage soup and rancid meat simmering on a primitive stove. Entering the home through an alley, workers would finish their sixteen-hour day of toil sharing a small room with as many as fifty other unfortunates. A blanket or sheet would divide the living spaces of families. Or, if they were blessed, they might find a closet, or a stairwell beneath which they could sleep. Some would find shelter in a house where beds, mere wooden platforms covered in straw, were rented for twelve hours a day. There were no toilets, and the only running water might be a spigot in the backyard. Heavy rains or floods would wash sewage into the basement of these homes where people huddled together in dampness and cold. The government would warn the citizens when the Neva River was rising by firing a cannon shot, which roared across the river from the citadel. This warning drove the wretched residents to abandon their cellars to the rising polluted waters.
Workers would drink from the Neva River and the canals, which were filled with excrement and waste from the factories. Epidemics of cholera, typhoid, and syphilis were part of St. Petersburg’s living conditions at the end of the nineteenth century. Poverty forced people to beg on the streets, kneeling for all the hours of daylight, heads down and hands cupped open, praying for a kopek from a well-dressed shopper.
This squalor was the undercurrent of Peter’s city. It had the highest mortality rate of any city in Europe. Hiding behind the pomp and ceremony of the Romanovs, destitution and desperation stalked the streets, where people sold rags, sticks of firewood, stolen goods, and even their bodies to feed and shelter their children. Some became so desperate they sold their daughters into prostitution. These were the people Dostoyevsky wrote about. These were the people who would rise up and change the city and the world.
Nevertheless, by 1900 the city exhibited the veneer of power and prestige Russia had attained in the world. St. Petersburg became the magnificent and Europeanized city that Peter the Great had imagined when he established his “window to the west.”
The Populists
An idealist needs something to idealize. After the Emancipation, students, artists, and socialists, found their apotheosis in the Russian peasant. The peasant had become an object of semi-mystical worship as a child of nature, a simple, honest, elemental creature, endowed with the wisdom of the ages. The peasants’ brutal existence was made noble, as the intelligentsia of Russia came to believe they possessed stoical endurance and fortitude. Their mundanity was exalted as saintliness. Alexander Herzen believed the peasant, and his communal life, would be the basis of a future socialistic society. He elevated the peasant into the epitome of all that was good and honorable in the Russian Slav, and for this, he was accused of seeking salvation in a sheepskin coat.
The arts celebrated this common man. In music, the Mighty Russian Five, Cui, Balakirov, Mussorgsky, Borodin, and Rimsky-Korsakov, created an original and distinctively Russian form of composition, using rustic melodies of farms and villages. They included folk songs, folk tales, Cossack dances, and peasant dress and costumes, operas, ballets, and symphonic poems. Mussorgsky claimed, “It is the people I want to write music about.” Tchaikovsky used Russian folk songs in his Second and Fourth Symphonies.
In his novel, War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy made the fictional character, Platov, the repository of all that was good and wise in the Russian soul. His short stories, God Sees the Truth But Waits, and What Men Live By, both ennoble the Christian peasant and ascribe the ideals of love, patience, compassion, and charity to his basic nature. In Anna Karenina the peasants are glorified, and the aristocracy living in the city are denigrated. Levin, a rich landowner, receives enlightenment about the meaning of life from the peasant, Fyodor, after rejecting the artificiality and insincerity of high society in Moscow. Writing A Sportsman’s Sketches, Ivan Turgenev relates how peasants are the unvarnished, virtuous, openhearted primitive, possessing the inner peace all men crave. Other authors contrasted the alienation of large cities with the fulfillment of life found in simple agrarian villages.
In painting, Ilya Repin exalted the peasants and established a movement toward realism in art with his famous canvases, ‘The Volga Boat Haulers’, and ‘The Zaporozhe Cossacks’. Vasily Surikov painted ‘Old Man in His Vegetable Garden’, showing an ancient, wise farmer, while Vasily Polenov portrayed the innocence of a simple peasant girl in her cart in the ‘Crossing of the River Oyat’. All these works spurned classical and traditional subjects, or society portraits, to embrace rustic scenes of common people. Not surprisingly, urbane and conservative critics vilified these masterpieces. Art is a reflection of society, and Russian artists of the 1870’s idealized peasants.
The Third Section was in a quandary. They were searching for the leaders of the movement known as ‘Going To the People’. They hunted in vain for the organizers, for the pamphlets and documents that explained the goals of this mass movement. They could find no organizer, no ringleader, no blueprint of action, and no mastermind of the movement, for one simple reason, there were no leaders. The movement arose almost spontaneously.
Thousands of students left universities and cities of Russia in 1873 and 1874. No formal, written rationale exhorted the youth to abandon their studies, their privileges, and their families. Perhaps the students were inspired by a few of the Chaykovists who set an example, and without a programme, idealistic young men and women took up their cause and followed them to the towns and villages. Perhaps, artists and writers, who took up the cause of the peasants, inspired the movement. The students might have read the words of Konstantin Aksakov, a Slavophile, who wrote, almost poetically, that the peasant village was the supreme manifestation of the people. He compared the commune to a moral choir, where an individual’s voice is not lost, but is heard as part of the whole group of singers. The individual in a commune renounces solitary self-interest, to attain harmony with all the members of the group. The mir, if only it could free itself from an oppressive government, could become the foundation of the power and strength inherent in the Russian people. It was as though all the lines of social awareness, revolution and socialism, anarchism and nihilism, thought and action, and art and literature, converged at this point of time.
The students were convinced that taxation, and redemption fees for land payments, caused the wretched condition of the peasants. If debts were not paid, the peasant was flogged, jailed, or exiled. The government would beat the taxes out of him. Since no one wanted to suffer the pain and humiliation of punishment, peasants tried to sell more of their produce to meet their payments. The increased supply resulted in lower prices, forcing peasants to produce more, adding to the supply and decreasing prices still further. In this buyer’s market, the peasants were at the mercy of the merchants and usurers. Traders and wholesalers set subsistence prices for crops, and peasants sold their produce cheaply out of fear nothing would be purchased. Fear resulted in surrender, compliance and submission. The peasants lost their dignity. Their work and labor could not feed and sustain their families.
To the students, the solution was the state must abandon redemption fees, and reduce taxation. If the state failed to do this, the state must be overthrown and in its place, Russian villages, the mirs, would take control of their own destiny.
Marxist analysis was proving to be correct; the Romanov state was involved in its own contradiction, which would destroy it. The agrarian class, a variation of the proletariat, would rise up and overthrow the oppressing class. In this way, the Romanov state would follow what Marx forecast: the expropriators would be expropriated.
How could the students explain this to the masses? They had to go to the people. They had to go through the people. They had to tell the people the truth, for the truth shall make them free. A new religion must arise, a religion of equality. The country must live according to nature, for nature bestows its gifts on all equally. Anyone who is hungry must be given land to cultivate. The landlords and the nobility did not have the right to own land, used only to exploit their brothers. People who made bread should eat it. Justice demands that land, tilled by their fathers and grandfathers, should be distributed to those people who work on it.
How could the students educate the peasants? How could their consciousness be raised? There are two ways to gain knowledge and understanding. The first may be called the scientific, the masculine. This involves observation, analysis, measurement, and breaking the whole into parts, then reassembling them. Whatever is studied is fragmented, and put back together, in an attempt to understand it. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts. There is no unity, no intimacy. It is a dispassionate, objective, and detached approach. Sometimes, the subject is destroyed in order to comprehend it. The scientist tries to learn about a subject.
The second way is more romantic, almost feminine. It is passionate, emotional, personal, subjective, and absorbs without analyzing. It assimilates and integrates. It enters into its subject and becomes part of it. It tries to experience the subject. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
A scientist might examine a chair and walk around it, measure its angles, its dimensions and its size, analyze its structure, and consider how it might be useful. A romantic would sit in the chair, accept it, become part of the chair, and use as many sense experiences as possible in order to enjoy it. A scientist might try to understand Buddhism by examining the beliefs, rituals, and history of the religion. A romantic would simply become a Buddhist in order to fully understand that faith. The romantic would experience Buddhism whereas the scientist would scrutinize it.
The Populists’ scientific analysis, of the condition of the peasant was insufficient. They had studied, read stories, and examined statistics and reports, on the life of the masses; but true understanding of their misery, and the destructive power of their destitution, must come from actual experience. They were romantics, and in their youth, the idea of renouncing their lives of privilege appealed to them. They had to become peasants and workers. The young socialists needed to make a sacrifice, an offering of their lives, to bring about change in Russia. Only after they became one of the people, could they know how to explain the causes of misfortune and wretchedness. Only then could they help lead the poor out of the wilderness. The students would serve a sacred cause to alleviate the suffering of the people. Many students believed that every person who served the people was inspired by God, and became socialist missionaries and proselytizers.
This spontaneous, impulsive, unorganized movement might have been prompted by a phrase used by Ogarev and Herzen more than ten years earlier: Go to the People! It echoed in the students’ mind as they left the universities to learn a trade and live among the peasants and develop a revolutionary spirit. All privileges and luxuries, all riches and families, all courses at the universities, everything was abandoned. The civilization of their fathers must be rejected. The Motherland must be delivered from the Czar. Any learning, which does not benefit the people, must be repudiated, and the simple, vigorous life must be embraced. It was as if a prophet commanded, “Follow thou me!” and told the students of those left behind, “Let the dead bury the dead!”
These idealists matched courage with foolishness and naïveté. Bakunin proclaimed that peasants were ready for revolution. Their mission was to tell the truth, so they spoke openly of revolution, and redistribution of the land. The peasants, for the most part, were amazed. They were surprised. They were suspicious. They wondered how these young workers could not hitch a plow, but could read. They thought it odd they claimed to be carpenters or seamstresses, yet produced poor work, and talked about something called scientific socialism.
Almost 4,000 students were taken in for questioning by the Third Section; 770 were arrested, and 265 arraigned, and put in jail to await a trial that didn’t start until three years later. Their jail became an incubator of terrorism. The resolve of the revolutionary leaders was forged into radical steel in that prison furnace.
Young socialists, who returned to the cities, learned they needed secrecy and conspiracy if their movement were to succeed. They brought dramatic attention to the plight of the poor and oppressed, and inspired new recruits to take the place of those martyrs languishing in the Peter-Paul Prison. Although the movement of ‘Going To the People’ was crushed by the state by the end of 1874, students and socialists were galvanized and revitalized. Had the state not intervened, the movement would have died on its own, through frustration and disillusionment with the peasants. A new, more powerful, and for the government, more sinister party arose from the ashes of this movement.
It was called Land and Liberty. It was an underground party, better organized and clear in its goals:
1- All land must be distributed to the agricultural working classes.
2- The Russian Empire must be dissolved.
3- Local governments must assume, and control all social functions of the state.
Underlying these goals, was the assumption that a new state could only be brought about by a violent revolution, and that violent revolution must first be prepared through agitation, strikes, and uprisings. Land and Liberty believed the Russian government must be disrupted and disorganized, to make it more susceptible of being overthrown. An extreme, radical group of revolutionaries was formed, and it rejected the lofty goal of raising the consciousness of the peasants. A small band would become the spark that would ignite the conflagration and act on behalf of the oppressed. The new socialists would soon come to embrace the ideals and tactics of the supreme terrorist, Nechayev.
The New Man, the New Morality.
Except ye become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (And Zarathustra pointed aloft with his hands.) "But we do not at all want to enter into the kingdom of heaven: we have become men,—SO WE WANT THE KINGDOM OF EARTH!"
The merging of "isms" Women's Rights and Populism.
History Channel, Assassination of Alexander II
Sophia Perovskaya
Arrest of a Propagandist, Repin
Sophia' Last Night
Peter-Paul Prison
St. Petersburg, Russia
The ringing in my ears is getting worse. It’s not really a ringing, it’s a hissing. It started right after the second bomb went off. The one that killed Alexander. I was standing far away when Rysakov threw the first bomb. He was too careful. He lobbed the bomb underhand so it would explode when it crashed to the ground. Only the carriage was damaged. I thought we failed. I signaled to Grinevitsky with my white handkerchief. I was ready to take his bomb and throw it myself. He hesitated. Alexander got out of the carriage. I thanked the fates. ‘The fool! He’s given us another chance!’ I saw his eyes. They weren’t the eyes of a coward. I expected they would be. They were full of concern for those who were injured. He looked at me, saw that I was unharmed, and I thought he was relieved I wasn’t hurt. He wasn’t thinking of his own safety. He refused to get back into his carriage. Someone said, ‘Are you hurt? ‘No thank God.’ That was when Rysakov said contemptuously, ‘You’re not safe yet.’ The Czar contemplated the carnage, ”But look at them,” he said. He was thinking of the soldiers, of the innocent who were injured, of the little boy. I thought I might have to shoot him. I put my hand on the cool metal of the pistol. Grinevitsky walked up to the Czar. He seemed reluctant. He looked right at me. I signaled for him to throw it. I took my handkerchief out. He threw it. The second bomb went off right at the Czar’s feet. A terrible noise, then silence, smoke, red snow. The Czar lay on the ground, legs mangled, bloody. I heard him whisper, ‘Take me to the Winter Palace. I want to die there.’
I was too close. Sometimes, at night, I think the hissing will drive me mad. Or maybe just remembering his eyes will make me a lunatic. But it won’t last much longer. By tomorrow morning, it will all be over. Everything will be over.
They say before you die, you remember everything. Maybe it’ll be true. Tomorrow, on the scaffold. Right now, all I can remember clearly is the last two years. It seems that everything, everything before we split with the Land and Freedom Party, was merely a dream. The People’s Will. The Will of the People. Narodnaya Volya. That’s when my life began. That’s when the death sentence on Alexander was passed. Once you decide to execute someone, you are so focused and intent on murder, the taking of a life, your mind develops a clarity that consumes your whole being. It must be like an animal stalking its prey. You have its scent. Your whole being is riveted, fixated, a torment of the mind concerned only with your quarry. You have become a hunter, a stalker. You are obsessed with only one thing: the destruction of another living being. I never thought I was capable of murder.
I never advocated violence. Not ever! None of us was in favor of terror. At least, not before there was no other possibility. He forced us to pass judgment. He changed us! He had to be amputated from our country. He was like an infected finger, a pinky. An insignificant finger. Let it fester and it gets worse. The gangrene that develops might spread to the hand, the wrist, the arm, and finally, the whole body. Cut it off! And that’s all he was, a small finger, nothing important except for showing off a tiny expensive ring. Or to hold it out when you are drinking tea. Superfluous! And the infection, the poison it carried could kill the whole body. He was killing the whole nation.
We knew he should be assassinated when we met at Lipetsk. Who would have thought of trying to find us there? It was a spa for his officials. For the nobles, the industrialists, the landowners, the aristocracy, the plutocracy. Mud baths and massages for those bloated bodies and minds, the bureaucrats, the supporters of the regime. June 1879. That’s when my life began. It was there that Zhelyabov gave my life meaning and purpose. His beard was dark, his hair raven black. Dark eyes that penetrated into my soul. His shoulders and chest, pure chalk white against his sunburned face, neck, and arms. His profile. I loved to watch him when he was talking; I’d listen, hoping he wouldn’t look at me, so I could continue to feast my eyes on him.
After everyone arrived, a clear, bright day with little puffy clouds in the sky, we went boating on the lake. The lake with no fish. Peter the Great built it. The peasants called him the Antichrist. That was why there were no fish in the lake. So the barren lake became known as Antichrist Lake. After we rowed to the island in the middle of the water, where no one could spy on us, we talked about how we would continue, what we could do when the police were picking up, jailing, torturing, and hanging the best of our comrades. We went underground, like the Troglodytes. They were arresting everyone. A little fourteen-year-old. Nine years for passing out a single piece of paper to a factory worker. No trials, just military tribunals. The Land and Freedom Party were too patient, too gradual. They wanted to wait until the peasants were ready, until the factory workers developed class-consciousness. They would be content with a constitution. Just another form of tyranny by a different class of oppressors. They would destroy and mutilate the best of us. They forced us to act. We became just like Nechayev, the man we reviled at one time. His Catechism was now our blueprint. He was right; there had to be a clandestine group with only one purpose. People with only one purpose; the destruction of the Empire. Dedicated people with no personal life, except that which helps to attain one end. Murder! What should be done? The simple answer was, we must act. We must unite. We agreed to continue to meet, to discuss what was to be done. We drank wine, ate cheese, talked, and discussed a new party. The People’s Will.
Zhelyabov said we must give history a push. What a wonderful thought! I agreed. Give history a push? How about a shove? I noticed his reaction after I spoke. He nodded in approval. I said that Alexander obliterated any good, any progress, any reforms of the 60’s, with his persecutions and pogroms against the populists in the 70’s. Should we consider any good deeds of his? No! No! He has committed too many evil acts. The people of Russia have suffered too much. He himself forfeited any consideration of mercy. What mercy did this Crowned Scoundrel bestow upon our comrades? Zhelyabov looked into my eyes. He said we must have a death for a death. He asked us to pass the death sentence on the Czar. The eleven of us were unanimous. He was guilty. The Czar was guilty. Zhelyabov acted as the judge before the rest of us, the jury. The death sentence was passed. Alexander the Hangman must die.
Zhelyabov asked me to see him in his room after the second day. He wanted to discuss what was to be done. What should be done? I put a few candles by the bottom of the door; afraid the Third Section might be following us. If the flames fluttered, we would know that someone opened an outside door and entered the hall. The candlelight entranced me. I had never been alone with a man in such a magical setting.
We spoke for hours. The serf’s son and the general’s daughter. We both escaped our parents, our class. I was amazed that this kind, intelligent, tender, handsome, compassionate man could carry enough hatred in him to consider murder. He was cold, calculating. It was the same for me. I thought of all those exiles in Siberia, all the unmarked graves, all those rotting and half-mad prisoners in the Schlusselberg Fortress. I thought of all those who were arrested merely for saying something inane or foolish, while an informer was listening. Anyone who insulted the Sacred Person of His Majesty, the coryphaeus of all Russia. Ten words? Ten years! We agreed that the Party’s mission was to overthrow the regime, and we could no longer wait for some historical moment when the people were ready. We were prepared to push, to shove. Alexander deserved the death sentence.
It was after midnight. Zhelyabov just finished telling me we were all like the prisoner described by Plato in his Myth of the Cave. We escaped the cave of insubstantial vestiges and mysteries. We threw off our shackles and saw the false images, the flickering shadows on the wall, the lies and hypocrisies of society. We threw off the chains that bound us to hallucinations. We ascended the steep path out of the cave to enter into the actual, the true world. We could walk in the sunshine of enlightenment, of truth, of justice, and genuine reality. And like that emancipated prisoner, we decided to go back to free the other prisoners still chained to their stations, eyes unable to see anything except false reflections dimly lit by the fires of deception. We tried to enlighten the captives about the nature of Russian society and they would not believe us. These prisoners were angry that their illusions were exposed. They hated us for exposing them to the truth. They clung to their chimeras. They did not believe us. They wanted to kill us because we spoke the truth. They were not ready for freedom from ignorance and tyranny. Like Socrates, we were accused of corrupting the youth, of blaspheming their religion, of teaching false doctrines. We faced death. Execution. Was I ready to accept that fate? Yes! Yes! That is the curse of martyrs. Give me the cup of hemlock! That is my lot. It was as if he were saying ‘Walk with me! Yes! Yes! Lead, and I shall follow. I will become your disciple.
Zhelyabov said it was too late to sneak back to my room at the hotel. He asked me to stay. I was panicked. I didn’t know what to do with him, what to do for him. How do you give a man pleasure? I had never been with a man. But he was so gentle, so patient. He could have asked me anything after the first night. I would have given up everything I fought for all my life. I would have married him, mothered his children. Yet, I was safe, I knew he wouldn’t ask me to do that. That’s partly why I loved him. He was the next stage in my life, my last stage, and a rational progression for my mind, for my heart, for my body, for my hands. I was ready to join Zhelyabov completely. We all joined him completely. We became the “Executive Committee”, the conspirators.
We needed to organize, to set up the principles of The People’s Will. Our first article stated only those who place their life and property at the disposal of the Party could become members of the Executive Committee. No one could ever leave once they joined. Anyone who betrays the party, anyone who reveals the secrets of The People’s Will, would forfeit their life. No one, if arrested, no one, may testify against the party. The majority rules! Everyone! Everyone must accept the decisions of the Committee. The Executive Committee would have agents, not party members. And these agents, these accomplices, would not know the other agents, would not influence the decisions made by the Executive Committee. They would have no say in our policies. They would only carry out the directives given them. Like the bomb throwers. They would be our surrogates, completely subordinate to The People’s Will. And no one could resign. On pain of death.
Our purpose was to seize power. Through terror. We said we wanted to set up a parliament, to give government to the peasants, to give the land to the peasants who worked the land, to give the factories to the workers, to give freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, to everyone. That was a lie. We only wanted to destroy the government. We needed the support of everyone, anyone. We said what people wanted to hear. We knew our only purpose. To execute Alexander. A life for a life. To start the Revolution.
The hissing. It won’t stop.
The Czar's eyes, gentle, tired. He looked at me. Did he see my hatred? Why haven’t the people arisen? Where is the revolution?
The Czar is dead! We pushed history, shoved it! The moment has come!
I must write to my mother. What can I say to her? That my only regret in my short life is the grief and sorrow I caused her? That is the only thing that tears at my breast. She must think of her other children, and not mourn for me. I must tell her that tomorrow morning doesn’t concern me in the least. I am resigned and await eternity in peace and tranquility, knowing I will share my last moments with Zhelyabov. We will hold hands on the way to Semeonovsky Square. If I could only hold his hand when they kick away the stool. If we could only die at the same moment. We knew that it would end like this. We were prepared from the beginning. The life that I led never seemed to be one in which I had a choice. I have lived according to the convictions that came to me as naturally as breathing. I could not have done anything differently. I am at peace, and my conscience is tranquil. My mother must know this when she thinks of me.
When my thoughts stop, the hissing grows louder. Those eyes. Resigned, sympathetic, almost peaceful.
‘Take me to the Winter Palace. I want to die there.’
Where is the revolution that would arise from this murder? The people were supposed to rise up and overthrow all the Romanovs. All that has happened is that another Alexander now rules, and he is worse than his father. The revolution, if it comes, will be with the next generation. The people aren’t ready now. They haven’t followed us. Who will be left to continue the fight? We thought all we needed was a few determined and dedicated men and women, a small group, a conspiracy, a party of idealists, to start the rebellion. And a lot of money. The Revolution has to be financed. Revolutionists must be thieves first. They have to steal the money of the capitalists and use it to defeat them. But now I know that these two things are not enough. What is needed is a national catastrophe, a war, a famine, national bankruptcy! Should we have waited?
Those eyes. Was everything in vain? Could we have been wrong?
This hissing! This hissing!
Perovskaya's Execution
Class Nine, Monday, March 20
I had six honest serving men
They taught me all I knew
Their names were what and where and when
And why and how and who
"Anarchy is loosed upon the world! The blood dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned." Yates
"We were as twinned lambs that did frisk in the sun. What we changed was innocence for innocence. We knew not the doctrine of ill-doing, nor dreamed that any did!" Shakespeare
The March to War
The Last Russian Czars
Tchaikovsky, Coronation March - Alexander III
Statue of Alexander III, "Hippopotamus
Alexander III
Alexander Alexandrovitch should not have been Czar. He was not born ‘heir to the throne’ since he was the second son of Alexander II. His brother, the Czarevitch, Nicholas Alexandrovitch, received the attention, affection and, after not succumbing to diseases of childhood, the intense education expected of the future ruler of the Russias. Nicholas was a serious, quick, and brilliant student who was respected and praised by his tutors. He learned all subjects taught to him, and earned evaluations above and beyond those grades the next emperor would be expected to achieve.
Alexander received no such accolades. While Nicholas was seen as elegant, intelligent, and handsome, Alexander was considered clumsy, slow, dull, and agonizingly shy. He showed little interest in academic subjects. Although Alexander loved military parades, drills, and the martial sciences, his aptitude did not match his enthusiasm, and he was not an exceptional student in any field. He avoided dances and balls, too self-conscious of his awkward movements as he tried to partner with a young lady. When he did go to social gatherings, he was content to stay in a corner, drink vodka with his friends, and watch his brother gracefully glide on the dance floor. He idolized his brother and was more than content to remain in his shadow. Instead of being called Sasha, he was nicknamed Pug by his uncle, due to his puppy-dog adulation of his brother. He was a large man, a strong man, who could bend horseshoes, and iron pokers, with his bare hands. With a broad forehead, a thick bushy beard, an open expression, hands like ham-hocks, he resembled a Siberian peasant, and it seemed he would be more comfortable hammering iron at a forge, or walking behind a plow, rather than the staterooms and halls of the Winter Palace. One observer said his physical growth left no room for emotional or intellectual development. As he grew older, he lost the name Pug, and began to be called Bulldog, due to his physical strength and stubbornness. His parents accepted him as a pleasant but slightly inadequate member of the royal line of Romanovs.
One day, a cousin visited the two brothers and, since they enjoyed physical activity, decided to have a wrestling match. The cousin declined to wrestle with Nicholas’ younger brother, Alexander, since a match with him would be equivalent to wrestling with a bear. Instead, he challenged the Czarevitch, Nicholas. While they grappled, Nicholas was thrown into a table, and injured his back on the sharp corner. Although he could hardly get up, the young prince refused assistance, and bravely tried to continue the match. Right after the injury, the Czar came into the room, and Nicholas pretended he was unhurt, afraid to admit in front of his father he was injured, and stoically tried to act as though nothing happened. He was embarrassed that anyone could throw him, the future Czar of Russia. He continued to ignore the pain, and complications set in over the next few weeks. During a foxhunt with his betrothed, Princess Dagmar of Denmark, Nicholas could hardly mount his horse. His father, not knowing the extent of his son’s injury, reprimanded him for walking around like an old veteran of the Crimean War.
“Stand up straight and stop walking like an old man!”
Nicholas continued to ignore the agony and complications of the injury, until he could no longer bear the pain. When he finally permitted the court physician to examine him, the injury to his spine had progressed to an alarming degree. Nicholas, the Czarevitch, was diagnosed with a fracture of the spine, and an infected of his entire nervous system. Other court doctors pronounced the injury had developed into tuberculosis of the vertebrae. He was sent to France for the curative waters, accompanied by his devoted, adoring younger brother, Sasha.
The waters did not help, and Nicholas’ condition worsened. It became obvious he was dying, and his family rushed to him. Stopping in Berlin, they received the best wishes of the heir’s Uncle Willy, the King of Prussia. They also stopped in Paris where Napoleon III expressed his concerns, and offered prayers for the health of Nicholas. When they arrived at the Czarevitch’s bedside, they were shocked to see his ashen face, and emaciated body. His fiancée arrived from Denmark right after the royal family, and all they could do was wait for the last hours of Nicholas’s life.
Before he died, he lapsed into delirium, and began talking of Russia coming to the aid of the Slavs, oppressed by the Turks. He rambled on and on, making speeches and talking incoherently. When he regained his senses, he opened his eyes and saw his brother and fiancée keeping vigil. He smiled at them, and placed Dagmar's hand in his brother’s hand, and asked Sasha to take good care of her. The younger brother considered that gesture to be a last wish, a wish he must honor.
At the funeral, Alexander II counseled his son, “Sasha, God has willed that you will be the next emperor. You will take your brother’s place now. You must think and act as your brother might have thought and acted.”
The new Czarevitch took his place, not only as heir, but also as the future husband of the Princess of Denmark. After a suitable period of mourning, their engagement was announced, and Alexander and Dagmar were married. The young Princess entered into the union not out of love, but out of a sense of honor to the memory of Nicholas, and an obligation to unite the royal houses of Denmark and Russia. It was a strong and devoted union. Unlike his father, the future Alexander III remained faithful to his wife, and never created a court scandal by carrying on with a mistress. He possessed an uncompromising view of morality, and could never condone his father’s betrayal of vows to his mother. He clashed with his father over this and many other matters, aligning himself with the conservatives, who believed the reforms and policies of Alexander II would lead to the dissolution of the Russian Empire. He saw the world in Manichean terms: of good and evil, black and white.
Immediately after his father’s assassination, Alexander III, moved his family from St. Petersburg to a palace at Gatchina, thirty miles south of St. Petersburg. Catherine the Great had given the manor to one of her lovers, Count Orlov. The estate was later passed on to her son, Pavel I, the militant martinet, obsessed with military discipline and parades. It had been renovated in military style, complete with a moat and drawbridge that pleased Alexander III. Alexander feared for his family’s safety, after his ascension in 1881, and since the family would be safer there, Gatchina, became Alexander’s permanent residence. Deep trenches were dug around the foundation to discourage revolutionaries who might tunnel beneath the walls, and attempt to blow up the palace. The family moved into a small side tower of the palace and, except for state receptions, concerts, or ballets, rarely went into St. Petersburg. At Gatchina, away from court intrigues and politicians, Alexander could walk his borzoi dogs, and tend to his garden. Visitors could easily mistake him for a yardman, walking around the grounds dressed in a black shirt and threadbare, patched trousers. His valet told friends the Czar did not like to throw anything away and proudly said his master would wear pants until the seams burst.
Alexander felt he was a man of the soil, a true Russian with love for simplicity and austerity. He was the first Czar to have a full beard since Ivan the Terrible and, when he wore an Astrakhan hat, he resembled a Russian from the days of the founding of the dynasty: scowling, primitive, terrible, and carnivorous. The new Czar was diligent and conscientious. He watched state expenditures prudently, and supervised the government’s budget as though it was his own. He hired no secretary, preferring to handle all correspondence, and personally read all state reports sent to him, to which he added his comments, sometimes crudely, in the margins.
Alexander believed his father’s assassination proved reforms failed, and was determined to revive the glory of the past by re-establishing the foundations of his grandfather’s reign. Before his father was buried, he changed Russia’s policies and shortly after, issued a manifesto that dispelled any questions about the nature of his regime. It stated;
In the midst of our great grief, God's voice commands us to stand courageously at the helm of the government, relying upon Divine Providence, with faith in the power and truth of the Autocracy which, for the benefit of the people, we are called upon to strengthen and guard from any encroachments.
Autocracy, Nationality, and Orthodoxy, not the ‘lies’ of liberalism, democracy, atheism, and western parliaments, would be the cornerstones of his government. Parliaments and democracy were schemes of the devil. Russia had a destiny. Alexander’s son, Nicholas, would also affirm this manifesto shortly after his coronation.
Alexander III maintained that Russia’s internal politics were like the seasons of winter and summer, and believed liberalism and reformist ideas produced a thaw that caused the frozen rivers to release torrents of high water, and wash everything away. Liberalism stood for destruction, warmth that produced the floods, which eroded the foundations of government. Frost and ice marked the ideals of unchanging conservatism. Russia was, and needed to be, cold and frozen, unchanging. If it were cold enough, you could walk on water. There was clean, fresh air in winter, not the stifling, hot, suffocating atmosphere that makes breathing difficult. The new Czar applied this analogy to his foreign policy. Like a glacier from the north, Alexander III believed Russia could slowly advance and spread over Central Asia and the Far East. His expansion into Turkmania and Afghanistan, threatening British interests in India, nearly resulted in war. When Britain prepared for conflict with Russia, the British Navy sailed for the Black Sea. However, Austria and Germany convinced the Turks to close the Bosporus Straits to her majesty’s ships, and the situation was defused. Alexander III claimed that Russia relied only on two allies: the army and navy. He began his rule allied with Germany against England, and ended it with France and Russia allied against Germany. The coalitions of World War I began under Alexander III, who disliked Kaiser Wilhelm. But, there was no major war during Alexander’s rule, and he became known as ‘The Peacemaker’.
Alexander ruled tyrannically for thirteen years, reversing all hope for reform. Just as his grandfather, Nicholas I, began his reign, he began his rule with the hanging of five people who tried to bring down the house of the Romanovs. The revolutionary movements, specifically the remnants of The People’s Will, which plagued his father, were brutally suppressed. Immediately after his father’s assassination, he passed the Statute of State Security. This edict allowed any part of the country to be placed under extraordinary protection. It prohibited meetings of more than twelve people. It allowed the government to close universities, dismiss officials, censor publications, and prosecute anyone suspected of subversive activities or political crimes. It was originally effective for only three years, but was extended every three years through the reign of Nicholas II, who eventually applied it to Finland.
Alexander ignored the twenty-fifth anniversary of the emancipation of the serfs, and let it pass without comment. He enacted the ‘Cook’s Law’, which prohibited children of cooks, servants, and laundresses from attending grammar school. He said it was unthinkable that the son of a serf could attend school. One of the expelled students, the son of a serf, became a painter’s apprentice when he couldn’t go to school. He taught himself English, became a translator, and eventually, a teacher and literary critic. He was so highly esteemed in the academic world that he was awarded the title, ‘Professor Emeritus’, at Oxford University, an honor received by Alexander I, and Alexander II, but not by Alexander III.
Alexander, the thirteenth Romanov Czar, wanted the Russian Empire to become entirely Russian: Russian in language, government, administration, and thought. He changed the alphabet of Lithuania from Latin to Cyrillic. The Poles lost their national currency. Fifteen Russian newspapers, which offended the Czar, were closed in one year. Criticism of officials, and articles disparaging the government were forbidden. In 1884, one hundred thirty three books were banned. The plays and stories of Tolstoy were suppressed. Alexander prohibited peasants from leaving their villages, condemning them to starvation during droughts and floods. He considered Jews to be the ‘murderers of Christ’, and permitted persecutions and pogroms which murdered the Anti-Christs. He wrote letters, which said Jews crucified the Lord and spilled his precious blood. Restricted to specific settlements by Alexander III, Jews were not permitted to take up certain trades, and were denied entry to higher education. Jews left Russia, and emigrated to the United States at the rate of 15,000 a year.
Despite these oppressive policies during thirteen years of his rule, Russia was at peace. In addition, capitalism and foreign investment brought a high degree of prosperity to Russia as the industrial growth rate of Russia was among the highest in the world. The oil fields of Baku produced half the world’s production of petroleum. Electricity replaced gas lamps on the streets of major cities, and apartment houses were provided with running water. As telephones came into use, Moscow acquired its own telephone exchange. National railways were expanded, and operated at a forty percent profit. The Trans-Siberian Railway connected Vladivostok, on the Sea of Japan, with St. Petersburg. For the first time in Russian history, the income of the state exceeded expenses.
As a true Russian, Alexander III loved to drink. His doctors believed this habit cost him his life. At the age of forty-nine, his health suddenly deteriorated. He was diagnosed with nephritis, an incurable disease of the liver. Seeking a cure, he went to Livadia, the family estate in the Crimea, hoping the warm climate would help his condition. Doctors advised him to stop drinking but he continued, hiding vodka in his desk. The Czar continued to decline, and in October 1894, he died quietly in his sleep, survived by a wife and four children. His son and wife dedicated a statue of Alexander III in his memory, showing him sitting massively, and awkwardly, astride an elephantine horse. It was a colossal edifice, and gained the nickname ‘Hippopotamus’, referring either to the horse or the Emperor, who actually hated horses and avoided riding them.
The oldest son of Dagmar and Alexander, Nicholas II, would inherit the crown and become the last Czar of Russia. The three-hundred-year reign of the Romanovs would come to an end in twenty-three years.
Nicholas II
Nicholas II
When Alexander III died on October 20, 1894, his son and heir, Nicholas II, said, “What is going to happen to Russia? I am not prepared to be Czar . . . I have no idea of how to talk to ministers.”
The Bolsheviks murdered him twenty-four years later and he was still unprepared to exercise the powers he inherited as ruler of all Russia. Nicholas was a good man, shy and gentle, with impeccable manners, a devoted husband, an affectionate father, and a compassionate, caring person. He was also an incompetent ruler.Nicholas was born on May 6, 1868, the feast day of Job, the afflicted and suffering worshipper of God. It was an inauspicious omen, and some peasants predicted dark days would descend on Russia. He was destined to be a perfect gentleman, and an unqualified disaster as the leader of 130 million people. Nicholas grew up at Gatchina, the palace safe from revolutionaries, in the shadow of his imposing father, Alexander III.
There, in the servants’ quarters, the family was raised in a Spartan atmosphere reflecting Alexander’s somber yet simple tastes. Nicholas would rise in the morning from a hard army cot, as his father did, take a cold bath, and eat a peasant’s breakfast of cabbage soup and kasha. He was tutored in the usual academic subjects, and displayed an aptitude for languages. Besides his native Russian, Nicholas was fluent in German, French, and English. He tried to model himself after his domineering father, but his good nature contrasted starkly with Alexander’s stern frugality and rigorous austerity.
When Nicholas was only nineteen, he was given command of a squadron of Hussars, and he reveled in the camaraderie of officers, and the regimented life of the army. He had few responsibilities, and the demands that might be placed on him as the future Czar lay in the distant future, since his father was such a young, dynamic, robust, and vital person. Colonel Nikolai Alexandrovitch Romanov spent his days attending to his limited military duties, and at night drank and partied with his fellow officers, often staying at the Restaurant Cuba until dawn. He attended the ballet at the Mariinsky Theater, went to plays at the Theatre Francais, enjoyed the latest German and Italian operas, and was invited to dinners, receptions, and balls where the Czar’s son was always a welcome and featured guest.
He embarked on a tour of the world in 1891, traveling to Egypt, India, China, and finally, Japan, where he was attacked by a nationalist fanatic, and narrowly missed being assassinated. After that incident, which left a scar on his forehead from the glancing blow of a Samurai sword, he usually referred to the Japanese as ‘monkeys’.
When he returned to Russia, he fell in love with a ballerina, and continued a carefree life, never concerning himself with involvement in the Russian government, and continued his debonair life as a bachelor. His father thought Nicholas was shallow, did not approve of him, and believed he lacked the temperament of a future Czar. Alexander III reluctantly consented for Nicholas to be appointed Chairman of the Trans-Siberian Railroad Committee, acidly commenting to his Minister of Finance, Count Sergei Witte, that his son was an absolute child with infantile judgments.
Nicholas did not meet his father’s standards, and was not included in matters of the Russian state. Quite often, a political leader is consumed by duties and obligations, that he neglects his son. The son, inheriting his father’s legacy, is then completely unprepared for responsibilities thrust upon him. Although given the opportunity and environment for political leadership and development, Nicholas lacked direction and encouragement from his father, and squandered his youth with privilege and excess.
Nicholas met his future bride, Princess Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt, the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, at a wedding. Alix’s older sister was married to one of Nicholas’ uncles, and she came to St. Petersburg for the ceremonies. At first, there was no romantic involvement, but on a subsequent visit two years later, Nicholas fell in love with the Princess. While still carrying on his affair with the ballerina, he wrote in his diary that he dreamt of marrying Princess Alix. Nicholas even confessed how much he loved Alix to his paramour. He was at the age when Victorian men started to think of marriage, and since he could never marry a commoner, Alix was the ideal person for him. She was forceful, domineering, opinionated, and the perfect match for a man who needed a woman like his strong-willed mother, someone he could be submissive to. Alix immediately converted to the Russian Orthodox faith after she was engaged, and took the name Alexandra.
She first appeared in public while attending the funeral of Alexander III, riding in a carriage behind his bier. She married Nicholas one week after the entombment of his father, and the peasants complained that the funeral became part of the wedding with Alix trading a black dress for a white one. This was a sign that misfortune would befall the country. The superstitious peasants and workers of Russia never developed any affection for the new Czarina. They grumbled she came from a town so small they had to bury the dead standing up.
The needs, strengths, and weaknesses of Nicholas and Alexandra matched each other, as he remained deferential and docile in their relationship throughout their marriage. This was evident in their correspondence. Once, she wrote one hundred letters to him in three months. In many of her letters, she referred to him as “boysy”, “lovey”, or “sweety mine”, and to herself as “wify”. In one letter she expressed her ardor saying, “I am burning for a kiss. Me want you.”
Before they were married, Alexandra wrote a letter to Nicholas when he was at Livadia, keeping vigil over Alexander III on his deathbed. In this letter, she told him to assert himself, to be firm, and tell the doctors to come directly to him with reports of his father’s condition, not to his mother or uncles. She told him to show his own mind, and not allow others to forget he was his father’s son, the next Czar. She continued to exhort him throughout all their years together, always insistently telling him to resist the demands of others, not aware her obstinate nagging contradicted her advice.
Years later, she wrote to Nicholas about her friend, the charlatan Rasputin, saying God sent him to Nicholas to provide assistance and council, obviously believing her husband needed assistance and advice. Another time, Alix wrote, “I wish I could pour my will into your veins, to overcome any weakness you might have.” In a letter written during World War I, and only a few months before his abdication, she referred to him as a tender, softhearted child, who needed guidance. She admonished Nicholas to act like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. He replied thanking her for the stern warning, and signed the letter, “Your poor weak-willed little hubby, Nicky”. Always acceding to her demands, he appointed or replaced ministers who pleased or offended her. Under the influence of Rasputin, she continued to harangue Nicholas with the opinions of a semi-literate village priest, and made him change his policies, or officials not favored by Rasputin. On the advice of their ‘friend’, she had Nicholas appoint a new Minister of Interior three times in two years. Writing she believed in the wisdom of ‘our friend’, she was convinced God spoke through him. Her religious fanaticism extended to their son suffering from hemophilia. She relied on incantations, prayers, and folk wisdom of a superstitious peasant, and ignored doctors attending the Czarevitch. The walls of her bedroom were filled with more than 800 icons, small wooden paintings of saints, to protect her family from harm.
Nicholas II did not like confrontations. On many occasions, a minister would have a meeting with the Czar, and leave with the impression his policies and actions were approved. The Czar would consult with another minister, hear a different view, then ask his mother’s opinion, hoping to discover what his late father would have decided. The next day, one of the ministers would open a letter from the Czar requesting his resignation.
Nicholas was barely five feet, seven inches tall, his wife was taller, and his uncles towered over him physically and verbally, pounding their fists on his desk, loudly demanding Nicholas enact legislation, or issue a decree they desired. The young Czar would always listen to everyone in polite silence, careful not to offend anyone. He was accused of being indecisive, and he was.
The only principle guiding his reign was the unyielding and total commitment to autocracy, and a complete aversion to democratic traditions in Europe. He vowed to continue the autocracy of his father. When he addressed town leaders of Tver, shortly before his coronation, Nicholas admonished them for their ‘senseless dreams’ about participation in government. He went on to declare that all his strength would be devoted to the welfare of the people, by upholding the principle of autocracy as firmly as his late, revered, and unforgettable father had. This speech echoed the sentiments of Alexander’s manifesto, protesting illusions of liberalism, democracy, atheism, and western parliaments, and stressed the importance of Autocracy, Nationality, and Orthodoxy. Nicholas continued the irrational persecution of the Jews, following the policy begun by his father. He also hated the Japanese, considered them to be an inferior race, and in the Russo Japanese conflict, tragically underestimated their ability to conduct warfare.
His view of himself is best seen in answers to the census of 1898. The census required everyone in Russia, including the Sovereign, to answer personal questions. He carefully wrote the answers ‘Russian’, ‘home-educated’, and ‘30’, to the questions on the census form asking about ‘nationality?’ ‘education?’ and ‘age?’ To the question of ‘occupation?’ he wrote, ‘Proprietor of the Russian land’.
Superstition, supernatural forces, and an irrational fear of the unknown, were characteristics of beliefs of the peasants in Russia. They believed that someone with an ‘evil eye’ could put a curse on you, believed in house spirits, river nymphs, evil creatures which lived behind their left shoulders, assorted phantoms of the forests, and they also believed in curses, bad luck, and portents of calamities.
Two events at Nicholas’ coronation gave the superstitious peasants added concern, and fueled their apprehension about the future of the new Czar, his German wife, and Russia. The motion picture pioneer, Louis Luminere filmed Nicholas’ coronation as Czar, when royalty and statesmen from most of the civilized world attended the three-day ceremony. The guests and peasants watched the Orthodox Church rites inside Moscow’s Upenski Church, standing uncomfortably during the long ceremony since Russian Orthodox churches do not have seats. During the investiture observances, the heavy, seven-pound chain of the Order of St. Andrew slipped from around Nicholas’ neck and shoulders, and fell to the floor of the Church, clattering on the stone floor. To the peasantry, this was another omen of misfortune for Russia.
The next day, Nicholas caused more anxiety about the future of the country, and alienated his superstitious subjects during the event known as the Khodynka Fields disaster. As part of the coronation ceremonies, the Czar wished to celebrate the occasion by giving his subjects free sausages, buns, spice cakes, and beer, the day after his official crowning. In addition, the Czar, at his own expense, arranged for beer to be given away in elaborate, commemorative coronation tankards. Almost five hundred thousand people joined the festivities, held at a military exercise field outside Moscow. The efficiency of new railroads had enabled a multitude of people from all over the empire, some from as far away as Siberia and the Caucasus, to attend and honor the crowning of the new Czar. The authorities were completely unprepared for the number of people coming to Moscow.
The night before the open-air reception, many revelers arrived at Khodynka Fields, and began their rejoicing by drinking a great deal of vodka and spirits. On the morning of the festivities, many more arrived, and the fields were a mass of humanity. Trenches used for military drills rutted the meadows, and when a rumor spread about beer and commemorative mugs running low, the crowd rushed to the stations in a frenzy. Attendants at the stations became alarmed, and began throwing picnic boxes out among the crowd. People scrambled to pick up the boxes and soon, the masses stampeded, and people were pushed into trenches and ditches, only to be trampled, pinned down, and suffocated by the milling and uncontrolled horde, rushing about in a panic. One woman said she was standing on a man’s chest but couldn’t move to get off him. At the other end of the field, the Moscow Conservatory Chorus sang God Save the Czar, as Nicholas received toasts to his health, completely unaware of the tragedy. Even after the catastrophe became known, the joyous wedding receptions and ceremonies continued, even as bodies of the dead were being thrown in wagons to be taken to the morgue. Because of unclear and competing instructions to the Moscow police, there were too few men assigned to control the crowds at the Khodynka Fields. It was an example of how Nicholas did not attend to details of governing. Czarist officials estimated that 1,400 men, women, and children were killed, and 1,300 injured. It is likely that these figures were low, and casualties greatly exceeded official numbers.
Nicholas was devastated, and wished to call off all further ceremonies, but his uncles were more concerned with not offending foreign dignitaries, and did not want to cancel any receptions. They claimed his father would not have called off the ceremonies, and pointed out it would insult the French Ambassador if the Czar did not attend the expensive ball in his honor. That night, Nicholas and Alexandra dined and danced in formal and jeweled attire, surrounded by the opulence of the French Embassy where tens of thousands of red and white roses had been sent from Provence. Meanwhile, the hospitals in Moscow were overwhelmed by the dead and injured, as relatives looked for missing family members. Despite Nicholas’ promise to pay the families of the deceased a thousand rubles, the superstitious peasant population saw Khodynka Fields as yet another omen of troubled times.
Their fears and apprehensions would be justified in the years to come.
Nicholas II, Who Did What In WWI
Fraternity and Nationalism
The Five "P's, Why nations go to war.
Power. A nation goes to war to increase its power or to limit the power of its enemies.
Prestige. A nation might want to enhance its standing of the rest of the world.
Principles. Ideals and forms of government are considered superior and valuable. Yet others might consider those principles to be base and worthless.
Profit. Economic interests to obtain raw materials. Markets or material gain as justification for war.
Protection. If a nation's citizens are endangered or if a nation is attacked. Preemptive war if a country feels threatened.
Nationalism and the Franco Prussian War (Ten Minutes)
Nationalism and WWI (Two and a half minutes)
M-A-I-N Causes of World War I (Six minutes)
Doomed Dynasties (Twenty three minutes)
Alliances before World War One (Four minutes)
Causes of WW I (Chart)
Tinder Box Europe (Seven Minutes)
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? From Innocence to Anarchy?
Did Darwin and Nietzsche influence the attitudes that developed in the twentieth century?
Darwin's the survival of the fittest, not the strongest! Nietzsche's concept of the "uber-mensch" and the new morality! (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
You should be able to visit the web site in the future and review/refresh any of the material we explored during the year.
And finally,
"It is an old and ancient saying, but a true and honest thought
That if you become a teacher, by your pupils you’ll be taught!" - The King and I.
So, help me become a better teacher and review our course. You can submit this anonymously if you like.
What would you have me de-emphasize and spend less time on (or even omit)?
What would you have me spend more time on?
Did you find my web site on Weebly helpful?
Did you find the handouts helpful? Should there be more handouts?
Were the videos interesting?
Do you have any suggestions about involving more class discussions?
Would you recommend this course to friends (or if you didn’t like it, to enemies)?
Please feel free to offer any suggestions to make this a better course.
Thanks for your attention and participation.
John . . . [email protected]