Tongue Twisters

A message about the Decembrists in history. Who are the Decembrists? They were all nobles

Introduction

The first Russian revolutionaries - the Decembrists - were fighters against serfdom and autocracy.
In the name of this goal, they took up arms on December 14, 1825 - in St. Petersburg, the then capital of the Russian Empire, on Senate Square, where the monument to Peter I stands. Based on the month of the uprising - December - they are called Decembrists.
There is much that is surprising and original in this revolutionary movement. The young nobles - the Decembrists - themselves belonged to the privileged noble class, the support of tsarism. They themselves had the right to own serfs, live on their noble estates, doing nothing, on the income from free peasant labor, from corvee and quitrent. But they rose up to fight serfdom, considering it shameful. The nobles were the support of tsarism - they occupied all leading positions in the tsarist administration and in the army, and could count on top positions. But they wanted to destroy tsarism, autocracy and their privileges.
The replacement of the feudal system by the bourgeois system was an important stage in the history of mankind. The revolutionary destruction of the outdated feudal system and the establishment of a new system of bourgeois-democratic relations were the main tasks of revolutionary movements everywhere at that time. In Russia there is also an urgent need to eliminate the old, outdated feudal serf system. The Decembrist movement was the first manifestation of this urgent struggle.
Thus, the Decembrist uprising does not stand alone in the world historical process - it has its own specific place in it. The speech of the Decembrists is one of the components in the world-historical process of the revolutionary struggle against the dilapidated feudal serf system.

Decembrists.

1. Secret societies.

The Patriotic War and the subsequent war for the liberation of Europe created a high patriotic upsurge in Russian society and the Russian army, and a long stay abroad familiarized the intelligent circles of Russian officers with ideological trends, social relations and political institutions of various European countries. In Europe at that time, there were two types of organizations that set themselves liberation goals: the German national-patriotic society, which was preparing an uprising against Napoleon in Germany, and political conspiratorial organizations (such as the Italian “Carbonari”), which were preparing political coups with the aim of introducing liberal constitutions. Both of these types of organizations were later reflected in the circles of future Russian Decembrists.
In the advanced circles of the officers who returned after the war for the liberation of Europe to the country of “Arakcheevism” and serfdom, in 1816-1817 a society called the Union of Salvation, or faithful and true sons of the fatherland, was formed. Among the members of the Union, disputes arose regarding the nature of the organization, and in 1818 the Union of Salvation was renamed the Union of Prosperity, which aimed to “spread the true rules of morality and education among compatriots, to assist the government in raising Russia to the level of greatness and prosperity, to which it was intended by its Creator.” The union covered a fairly wide range of St. Petersburg officers (the number of its members reached 200 people); members of the Union sought, on the one hand, for political and social reforms, on the other, they were engaged in educational and charitable activities and were distinguished by their humane treatment of subordinate soldiers. The union existed almost openly, but after the events of 1820 it was declared closed (1821). Instead of the Union of Welfare, in 1821-1822 two secret unions or societies were formed, which were already of a directly revolutionary nature.
At the head of the Northern Society in St. Petersburg were the Muravyov brothers, Prince S. P. Trubetskoy, N. I. Turgenev, Prince E. P. Obolensky, and the poet Ryleev. Southern society was formed in Tulchin, where the main headquarters of the second army, located in the Kiev and Podolsk provinces, was located; Its branches were in Kamenka and Vasilkov. At the head of the Southern Society was the most outstanding among the members of the organization, the talented, educated, energetic and ambitious Colonel Pestel, who defended extreme revolutionary tactics, including regicide and even the extermination of the entire imperial family; the most active members of the Southern Society were General Prince S.G. Volkonsky, Yushnovsky, S. Muravyov-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin.
In addition to the Southern and Northern societies, at this time the Society of United Slavs also arose, which aimed to establish a federal republic of all Slavic peoples. The political program of the Nordic society was a constitutional monarchy, with a federal structure similar to the United States of America.
Pestel’s political program was called “Russian Truth”, or “Order to the Temporary Supreme Government”. Pestel was a republican and, in his words, “in nothing did he see greater prosperity and supreme bliss for Russia than in republican rule.” However, in his program, he completely rejects the federal principle: his republic is Jacobin in nature - his plan presupposes a strong central government and a completely homogeneous structure of all parts of the state, which should be leveled not only administratively and politically, but even culturally. Serfdom as a state “against humanity, contrary to natural laws, contrary to the holy Christian faith,” must be immediately destroyed by the “Temporary Supreme Government.” The lands in each volost should be divided into two halves, one of which should be “given under the name of public land into the ownership of the volost society,” and the other half remains the property of the treasury or private individuals.
At the end of 1825, members of secret societies, unexpectedly for themselves, had an opportunity to attempt a coup d'etat, when after the death of Alexander I a short interregnum began in Russia. Alexander died on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog. The heir to the throne was his brother Konstantin, but the latter refused to inherit the throne back in 1822, giving it to his next brother, Nicholas. In 1823, Alexander prepared a manifesto on the abdication of Constantine and appointed Nicholas as heir, but did not make it public. The news of Alexander's death was received in St. Petersburg on November 27. Nikolai did not find it possible to use the unpublished manifesto; he swore allegiance himself and led the troops to the oath of Emperor Constantine, about which he sent the latter a report to Warsaw; Constantine confirmed his abdication twice, and about two weeks passed in these negotiations.
The conspiratorial officers decided to use the created situation to agitate among the soldiers against the accession of Nicholas. The oath to Nicholas was scheduled for (December 4; the majority of the St. Petersburg garrison swore the oath without complaint, but some units refused the oath and went out with weapons to Senate Square. The conspirators had in mind to force the Senate to publish a manifesto to the people on the “destruction of the former government” and on the introduction of a number of important reforms, such as: the abolition of serfdom, “equalization of the rights of all classes,” freedom of the press (“free printing and therefore the abolition of censorship”), “free worship of all faiths,” a public trial with a jury, the establishment of elected “volost, district, provincial and regional boards", the destruction of military settlements, the reduction of military service, and, finally, the convening of the Great Council (i.e., the constituent assembly) to resolve the issue of the form of government. Prince Trubetskoy was elected "dictator" of the revolutionary forces, but he lost faith the success of the uprising and did not appear on Senate Square on December 14, which immediately brought confusion and confusion to the ranks of the rebels.Nicholas, for his part, for a long time did not dare to take military action against the rebels; Having gathered the troops who swore allegiance to him, he sent to the rebels with exhortations to submit one after another - the St. Petersburg military governor-general Miloradovich (one of the heroes of 1812), Metropolitan Seraphim, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich; all exhortations remained unsuccessful, and General Miloradovich was killed by a shot from one of the conspirators; then Nicholas sent the horse guards to attack, but the attack was repulsed; Finally, Nicholas ordered the cannons to be advanced and open fire with grapeshot, and the rebels quickly dispersed, suffering heavy losses. Members of the Southern Society (in the Kyiv province) raised the Chernigov infantry regiment in an uprising, but it was soon suppressed (in early January 1826).
For six months, an investigation into the “Decembrists” was carried out, in which Nikolai himself took an intimate part.
120 people were transferred to the court - most of the guards officers; of these, 36 people were sentenced to death, but the tsar approved the death sentence only against the five main conspirators: Pestel, Ryleev, Kakhovsky, S. Muravyov-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin; the remaining officers, participants in the rebellion, were exiled to Siberia, to hard labor or to a settlement, the soldiers were sent to the active Caucasian army.

2. The place and role of the Decembrists in the history of Russia.

In 1825, Russia saw for the first time a revolutionary movement against tsarism, and this movement was represented almost exclusively by the nobles.
The Decembrists not only put forward slogans of struggle against autocracy and serfdom, but for the first time in the history of the revolutionary movement in Russia they organized open action in the name of these demands.
Thus, the Decembrist uprising was of great importance in the history of the revolutionary movement in Russia. This was the first open attack against the autocracy with arms in hand. Until this time, only spontaneous peasant unrest had occurred in Russia.
Between the spontaneous peasant uprisings of Razin and Pugachev and the speech of the Decembrists, a whole period of world history lay: its new stage was opened by the victory of the revolution in France at the end of the 18th century, the question of eliminating the feudal-absolutist system and establishing a new one - capitalist - arose in full force before Europe. The Decembrists belong to this new time, and this is an essential aspect of their historical significance. Their uprising was politically conscious, set itself the task of eliminating the feudal-absolutist system, and was illuminated by the progressive ideas of the era. For the first time in the history of Russia we can talk about a revolutionary program, about conscious revolutionary tactics, and analyze constitutional projects.
The slogans of the struggle against serfdom and autocracy put forward by the Decembrists were not slogans of accidental and transitory significance: they had great historical meaning and remained effective and relevant in the revolutionary movement for many years.
With their bitter experience, the Decembrists showed subsequent generations that the protest of an insignificant handful of revolutionaries is powerless without the support of the people. With the failure of their movement, with all their, in Pushkin’s words, “sorrowful labor,” the Decembrists seemed to bequeath to subsequent revolutionaries to build their plans counting on the active participation of the masses. The theme of the people as the main force of the revolutionary struggle has since firmly entered the consciousness of the leaders of the revolutionary movement. “The Decembrists did not have enough people on St. Isaac’s Square,” said the successor of the Decembrists, Herzen, “and this thought was already the result of assimilating the experience of the Decembrists.
This is the point of view of the Soviet historical school.
At the same time, there are other approaches and assessments.
A shallow assimilation of the revolutionary teachings of the West and an attempt to apply them in Russia, according to Solovyov, constituted the main content of the Decembrist movement. Thus, the entire revolutionary tradition ends
In the 18th and first quarter of the 19th century, it was presented as an introduced phenomenon, alien to the organic development of Russia. Eliminating its revolutionary core from social thought, Solovyov tried to present history as a struggle between two principles - Russophile-patriotic and Western-cosmopolitan.
Soloviev did not leave any special works dedicated to the Decembrists. But a number of statements quite clearly characterize his views. Decembrist ideology seemed to him an echo of revolutionary ferment in the West, on the one hand, and a reaction to the miscalculations of government policy, on the other (the anti-national Peace of Tilsit, indifference to the fate of the rebel Greeks, the costs of Alexander's system of unions). However, pointing to the objective historical roots of the Decembrist uprising, Solovyov was far from justifying it. The very ideals and goals of the movement seemed to him a stillborn fruit of desk studies. “To thinking Russian people,” he wrote in “Notes,” “Russia seemed like a tabula rasa* on which one could write anything one wanted, write something thought out or even not yet thought through in the office, in a circle, after lunch or dinner.” He accused the leaders of Decembrism of being prone to dangerous political adventurism. This assessment was attached to P.I. Pestel’s promise to restore independent Poland within the borders of 1772, given in negotiations with the Poles. He even admitted that such a recklessly broad gesture could puzzle sober and prudent politicians - the Poles. The immaturity of Decembrist thought, he said, was expressed in the fact that “Bestuzhev, for example, proposed the introduction of an American form of government in Russia and Poland.”
But at the same time, his convictions were also disgusted by the official defamation of the Decembrist movement during the years of the Nikolaev reaction. In the distortion of the lessons of the Decembrist speech, Solovyov saw another confirmation of the isolation of the ruling layer from the people. The most annoying thing was that this vice in all its unsightly essence manifested itself precisely when, according to his ideas, special sensitivity to public opinion was required from the government. Civil society, which matured in the 19th century, demanded more flexible and sensitive treatment from government authorities. Soloviev was not alone in this conviction. Other historians of the bourgeois-liberal trend talked about the same thing, seeking favor from the government towards new amateur social formations (represented by the so-called “private unions” in the concept of Solovyov and V. O. Klyuchevsky, the classless intelligentsia - in the concept of A. A. Kornilov , “thinking society” - A. A. Kieswetter). While dealing with the grand dukes, Sergei Mikhailovich tried to get them to confirm the rule: “It is necessary to support collegial institutions, the elective principle, not to constrain, but at the same time vigilantly ensure that fragile unions do not allow themselves sloppiness and abuse.”
It is the comparison of points of view that allows us to see the whole picture of events and learn lessons.

Conclusion.

In the history of every country there are unforgettable memorable dates. Years pass, generations change, new and new people enter the historical arena, life, way of life, social outlook changes, but the memory of those events remains, without which there is no true history, without which national identity is unthinkable. December 1825 is a phenomenon of such an order, “ Senate Square" and "Chernigov Regiment" have long become historical cultural symbols. The first conscious movement for freedom - the first tragic defeat
His notes to S.P. Trubetskoy concludes with the following thoughts:
“The report published by the government at the end of the investigation carried out by the Secret Committee constituted for that purpose presented the then action of society as some kind of reckless malice of vicious and depraved people who extravagantly wanted only to create unrest in the Fatherland and did not have any noble goal other than the overthrow of the existing authorities and the establishment of anarchy in the Fatherland.
Unfortunately, the social structure of Russia is still such that military force alone, without the assistance of the people, can not only take the throne, but also change the form of government. A conspiracy of several regimental commanders is enough to renew phenomena similar to those that placed most of the reigning rulers on the throne. in the last century, especially Thanks to providence, now enlightenment has spread the concept that such palace coups do not lead to anything good, that a person who has concentrated in himself as a part cannot greatly arrange the well-being of the people in their present way of life, but that only an improved image of the state structure can time to punish the abuses and oppressions inseparable from autocracy, the person endowed with it, no matter how much it burns with love for the Fatherland, is not able to instill this feeling in the people to whom it must necessarily devote part of its power. The current state system cannot always exist and woe if it will change through a popular uprising. The circumstances surrounding the accession to the throne of the currently reigning sovereign were the most favorable for the introduction of a new order in the state structure and the safe participation of the people, but the highest state dignitaries either did not comprehend this or did not want its introduction. Resistance, which could be expected in spirit, Having captured the guards army, it had to wait, without any beneficial direction, it had to be resolved by a disorderly rebellion. The Secret Society took upon itself to turn it to a better goal.”

Bibliography

1. Memoirs of the Decembrists. - M.: Pravda, 1988. - 576 p.
2. M. V. Nechkina. Decembrists.- M.: Nauka, 1982.- 182 p.
3. S. G. Pushkarev Review of Russian history. - Stavropol, 1993. - 415 p.
4. S. M. Solovyov Public readings about Russian history. - M.: Respublika, 1992. - 350 p.
5. Reader on the history of Russia (19th century) / Ed. P.P. Epifanova, etc. - M.: Education, 1993 - 287 p.

A company of young nobles who dreamed of changing the state of affairs in Russia. In the early stages, quite a lot of people participated in the Decembrist secret societies, and later the investigation had to think about who to consider as a conspirator and who not. This is because the activities of these societies were limited exclusively to conversations. Whether the members of the Union of Welfare and the Union of Salvation were ready to take any active action is a moot point.

The societies included people of varying degrees of nobility, wealth and position, but there were several things that united them.

Decembrists at the mill in Chita. Drawing by Nikolai Repin. 1830s Decembrist Nikolai Repin was sentenced to hard labor for 8 years, then the term was reduced to 5 years. He served his sentence in the Chita prison and in the Petrovsky Factory. Wikimedia Commons

They were all nobles

Poor or wealthy, well-born or not, but they all belonged to the nobility, that is, to the elite, which implies a certain standard of living, education and status. This, in particular, meant that much of their behavior was determined by the code of noble honor. Subsequently, this presented them with a difficult moral dilemma: the code of the nobleman and the code of the conspirator apparently contradict each other. A nobleman, being caught in an unsuccessful uprising, must come to the sovereign and obey, the conspirator must remain silent and not betray anyone. A nobleman cannot and should not lie, a conspirator does everything that is required to achieve his goals. It is impossible to imagine the Decembrist living in an illegal position using forged documents - that is, the ordinary life of an underground worker in the second half of the 19th century.

The vast majority were officers

The Decembrists are people of the army, professional military men with the appropriate education; many went through battles and were heroes of wars, had military awards.

They were not revolutionaries in the classical sense

All of them sincerely considered their main goal to be service for the good of the fatherland and, had circumstances been different, they would have considered it an honor to serve the sovereign as state dignitaries. The overthrow of the sovereign was not at all the main idea of the Decembrists; they came to it by looking at the current state of affairs and logically studying the experience of revolutions in Europe (and not all of them liked this idea).

How many Decembrists were there in total?

Nikolai Panov's cell in the Petrovsky Zavod prison. Drawing by Nikolai Bestuzhev. 1830s Nikolai Bestuzhev was sentenced to hard labor forever, kept in Chita and in the Petrovsky Plant, then in Selenginsk, Irkutsk province.

In total, after the uprising on December 14, 1825, more than 300 people were arrested, 125 of them were convicted, the rest were acquitted. It is difficult to establish the exact number of participants in Decembrist and pre-Decembrist societies, precisely because all their activities boiled down to more or less abstract conversations in a friendly circle of young people, not bound by a clear plan or strict formal organization.

It is worth noting that the people who participated in the Decembrist secret societies and directly in the uprising are two not too intersecting sets. Many of those who participated in the meetings of the early Decembrist societies subsequently completely lost interest in them and became, for example, zealous security officials; in nine years (from 1816 to 1825), quite a lot of people passed through secret societies. In turn, those who were not members of secret societies at all or were accepted a couple of days before the rebellion also took part in the uprising.

How did they become Decembrists?

“Russian Truth” by Pavel Pestel. 1824 Program document of the Southern Society of Decembrists. The full name is the Reserved State Charter of the great Russian people, which serves as a testament for the improvement of Russia and contains the right order both for the people and for the temporary supreme government, which has dictatorial powers.

To be included in the circle of Decembrists, sometimes it was enough to answer the question of a not entirely sober friend: “There is a society of people who want the good, prosperity, happiness and freedom of Russia. Are you with us?" - and both could later forget about this conversation. It is worth noting that conversations about politics in the noble society of that time were not at all encouraged, so those who were inclined to such conversations, willy-nilly, formed closed circles of interests. In a certain sense, the Decembrist secret societies can be considered a way of socializing the then generation of young people; a way to get away from the emptiness and boredom of officer society, to find a more sublime and meaningful way of existence.

Thus, the Southern Society arose in the tiny Ukrainian town of Tulchin, where the headquarters of the Second Army was stationed. Educated young officers, whose interests are not limited to cards and vodka, gather in their circle to talk about politics - and this is their only entertainment; They would call these meetings, in the fashion of that time, a secret society, which, in essence, was simply a way characteristic of the era to identify themselves and their interests.

In a similar way, the Salvation Union was simply a company of comrades from the Life Guards Semyonovsky Regiment; many were relatives. Returning from the war in 1816, they organized their life in St. Petersburg, where life was quite expensive, according to the artel principle familiar to soldiers: they rent an apartment together, chip in for food and prescribe the details of general life in the charter. This small friendly company will subsequently become a secret society with the loud name of the Union of Salvation, or the Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland. In fact, this is a very small - a couple of dozen people - friendly circle, the participants of which wanted, among other things, to talk about politics and the ways of development of Russia.

By 1818, the circle of participants began to expand, and the Union of Salvation was reformed into the Union of Welfare, in which there were already about 200 people from Moscow and St. Petersburg, and all of them had never gathered together and two members of the union might no longer know each other personally. This uncontrolled expansion of the circle prompted the leaders of the movement to announce the dissolution of the Union of Welfare: to get rid of unnecessary people, and also to give the opportunity to those who wanted to seriously continue the business and prepare a real conspiracy to do so without unnecessary eyes and ears.

How were they different from other revolutionaries?

The first page of Nikita Muravyov's constitutional project. 1826 The Constitution of Nikita Mikhailovich Muravyov is a program document of the Northern Society. It was not officially accepted by the society, but was widely known and reflected the sentiments of the majority of its members. Compiled in 1822-1825. Project “100 Main Documents of Russian History”

In fact, the Decembrists were the first political opposition in the history of Russia, created on ideological grounds (and not, for example, as a result of the struggle of court groups for access to power). Soviet historians habitually began with them the chain of revolutionaries, which continued with Herzen, Petrashevists, Narodniks, Narodnaya Volya and, finally, the Bolsheviks. However, the Decembrists were distinguished from them primarily by the fact that they were not obsessed with the idea of revolution as such, and did not declare that any transformations were meaningless until the old order of things was overthrown and some utopian ideal future was proclaimed. They did not oppose themselves to the state, but served it and, moreover, were an important part of the Russian elite. They were not professional revolutionaries living within a very specific and largely marginal subculture - like everyone else who later replaced them. They thought of themselves as possible assistants to Alexander I in carrying out reforms, and if the emperor had continued the line that he had so boldly begun before their eyes by granting the constitution to Poland in 1815, they would have been happy to help him in this.

What inspired the Decembrists?

The Battle of Moscow at Borodino on September 7, 1812. Painting by Albrecht Adam. 1815 Wikimedia Commons

Most of all, the experience of the Patriotic War of 1812, characterized by a huge patriotic upsurge, and the Foreign Campaign of the Russian Army of 1813-1814, when many young and ardent people saw another life up close for the first time and were completely intoxicated by this experience. It seemed unfair to them that Russia lives differently from Europe, and even more unfair and even savage - that the soldiers with whom they won this war side by side are entirely serfs and the landowners treat them like a thing. It was these topics - reforms to achieve greater justice in Russia and the abolition of serfdom - that were the main ones in the conversations of the Decembrists. No less important was the political context of that time: transformations and revolutions after the Napoleonic Wars took place in many countries, and it seemed that Russia could and should change along with Europe. The Decembrists owe the very opportunity to seriously discuss the prospects for a change of system and revolution in the country to the political climate.

What did the Decembrists want?

In general - reforms, changes in Russia for the better, the introduction of a constitution and the abolition of serfdom, fair courts, equality of people of all classes before the law. In details, they diverged, often radically. It would be fair to say that the Decembrists did not have any single and clear plan for reforms or revolutionary changes. It is impossible to imagine what would have happened if the Decembrist uprising had been crowned with success, because they themselves did not have time and were unable to agree on what to do next. How to introduce a constitution and organize general elections in a country with an overwhelmingly illiterate peasant population? They did not have an answer to this and many other questions. The Decembrists’ disputes among themselves only marked the emergence of a culture of political discussion in the country, and many questions were raised for the first time, and no one had answers to them at all.

However, if they did not have unity regarding goals, they were unanimous regarding the means: the Decembrists wanted to achieve their goal through a military coup; what we would now call a putsch (with the amendment that if the reforms had come from the throne, the Decembrists would have welcomed them). The idea of a popular uprising was completely alien to them: they were firmly convinced that involving the people in this story was extremely dangerous. It was impossible to control the rebel people, and the troops, as it seemed to them, would remain under their control (after all, most of the participants had command experience). The main thing here is that they were very afraid of bloodshed and civil strife and believed that a military coup would make it possible to avoid this.

In particular, this is why the Decembrists, when bringing the regiments to the square, had absolutely no intention of explaining their reasons to them, that is, they considered conducting propaganda among their own soldiers an unnecessary matter. They counted only on the personal loyalty of the soldiers, to whom they tried to be caring commanders, and also on the fact that the soldiers would simply follow orders.

How did the uprising go?

Senate Square December 14, 1825. Painting by Karl Kohlman. 1830s Bridgeman Images/Fotodom

Unsuccessful. This is not to say that the conspirators did not have a plan, but they failed to carry it out from the very beginning. They managed to bring troops to Senate Square, but it was planned that they would come to Senate Square for a meeting of the State Council and the Senate, which were supposed to swear allegiance to the new sovereign, and demand the introduction of a constitution. But when the Decembrists came to the square, it turned out that the meeting had already ended, the dignitaries had dispersed, all decisions had been made, and there was simply no one to present their demands to.

The situation reached a dead end: the officers did not know what to do next and continued to keep the troops in the square. The rebels were surrounded by government troops and a shootout occurred. The rebels simply stood on Senate Street, not even trying to take any action - for example, to storm the palace. Several shots of grapeshot from government troops scattered the crowd and put them to flight.

Why did the uprising fail?

For any uprising to succeed, there must be an undoubted willingness to shed blood at some point. The Decembrists did not have this readiness; they did not want bloodshed. But it is difficult for a historian to imagine a successful rebellion, whose leaders make every effort not to kill anyone.

Blood was still shed, but there were relatively few casualties: both sides shot with noticeable reluctance, if possible over their heads. Government troops were tasked with simply scattering the rebels, but they fired back. Modern calculations by historians show that about 80 people died on both sides during the events on Senate Street. Talks that there were up to 1,500 victims, and about the heap of corpses that the police threw into the Neva at night, are not confirmed by anything.

Who judged the Decembrists and how?

Interrogation of the Decembrist by the Investigative Committee in 1826. Drawing by Vladimir Adlerberg Wikimedia Commons

To investigate the case, a special body was created - “the highly established Secret Committee to find accomplices of the malicious society that opened on December 14, 1825,” to which Nicholas I appointed mainly generals. To pass a verdict, a Supreme Criminal Court was specially established, to which senators, members of the State Council, and the Synod were appointed.

The problem was that the emperor really wanted to condemn the rebels fairly and according to the law. But, as it turned out, there were no suitable laws. There was no coherent code indicating the relative gravity of various crimes and the penalties for them (like the modern Criminal Code). That is, it was possible to use, say, the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible - no one has canceled it - and, for example, boil everyone in boiling tar or cut them on the wheel. But there was an understanding that this no longer corresponds to the enlightened 19th century. In addition, there are many defendants - and their guilt obviously differs.

Therefore, Nicholas I instructed Mikhail Speransky, a dignitary then known for his liberalism, to develop some kind of system. Speransky divided the charge into 11 categories according to the degree of guilt, and for each category he prescribed what elements of the crime corresponded to it. And then the accused were assigned to these categories, and for each judge, after hearing a note about the strength of his guilt (that is, the result of the investigation, something like an indictment), they voted on whether he corresponds to this category and what punishment to assign to each category. There were five outside the ranks, sentenced to death. However, the sentences were made “with reserve” so that the sovereign could show mercy and mitigate the punishment.

The procedure was such that the Decembrists themselves were not present at the trial and could not justify themselves; the judges considered only the papers prepared by the Investigative Committee. The Decembrists were only given a ready verdict. They later reproached the authorities for this: in a more civilized country they would have had lawyers and the opportunity to defend themselves.

How did the Decembrists live in exile?

Street in Chita. Watercolor by Nikolai Bestuzhev. 1829-1830 Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

Those who received a sentence of hard labor were sent to Siberia. According to the verdict, they were also deprived of ranks, noble dignity and even military awards. More lenient sentences for the last categories of convicts include exile to a settlement or to distant garrisons where they continued to serve; not everyone was deprived of their ranks and nobility.

Those sentenced to hard labor began to be sent to Siberia gradually, in small batches - they were transported on horses, with couriers. The first batch, of eight people (the most famous included Volkonsky, Trubetskoy, Obolensky), were especially unlucky: they were sent to real mines, to mining factories, and there they spent the first, really difficult winter. But then, fortunately for the Decembrists, in St. Petersburg they realized: after all, if you distribute state criminals with dangerous ideas among the Siberian mines, this also means dispersing rebellious ideas throughout the penal servitude with your own hands! Nicholas I decided, in order to avoid the spread of ideas, to gather all the Decembrists in one place. There was no prison of this size anywhere in Siberia. They set up a prison in Chita, transported there those eight who had already suffered at the Blagodatsky mine, and the rest were taken immediately there. It was cramped there; all the prisoners were kept in two large rooms. And it just so happened that there was absolutely no hard labor facility there, no mine. The latter, however, did not really worry the St. Petersburg authorities. In exchange for hard labor, the Decembrists were taken to fill up a ravine on the road or grind grain at a mill.

By the summer of 1830, a new prison was built for the Decembrists in Petrovsky Zavod, more spacious and with separate personal cells. There was no mine there either. They were led from Chita on foot, and they remembered this transition as a kind of journey through an unfamiliar and interesting Siberia: some along the way sketched drawings of the area and collected herbariums. The Decembrists were also lucky in that Nicholas appointed General Stanislav Leparsky, an honest and good-natured man, as commandant.

Leparsky fulfilled his duty, but did not oppress the prisoners and, where he could, alleviated their situation. In general, little by little the idea of hard labor evaporated, leaving imprisonment in remote areas of Siberia. If it were not for the arrival of their wives, the Decembrists, as the tsar wanted, would have been completely cut off from their past life: they were strictly forbidden to correspond. But it would be scandalous and indecent to prohibit wives from correspondence, so the isolation didn’t work out very well. There was also the important point that many still had influential relatives, including in St. Petersburg. Nicholas did not want to irritate this layer of the nobility, so they managed to achieve various small and not very small concessions.

Interior view of one of the courtyards of the casemate of the Petrovsky Plant. Watercolor by Nikolai Bestuzhev. 1830 Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

A curious social collision arose in Siberia: although deprived of nobility and called state criminals, for local residents the Decembrists were still aristocrats - in manners, upbringing, and education. Real aristocrats were rarely brought to Siberia; the Decembrists became a kind of local curiosity, they were called “our princes,” and the Decembrists were treated with great respect. Thus, that cruel, terrible contact with the criminal convict world, which happened to exiled intellectuals later, did not happen in the case of the Decembrists either.

A modern person, who already knows about the horrors of the Gulag and concentration camps, is tempted to regard the exile of the Decembrists as a frivolous punishment. But everything is important in its historical context. For them, exile was associated with great hardships, especially in comparison with their previous way of life. And, whatever one may say, it was a conclusion, a prison: for the first years they were all constantly, day and night, shackled in hand and leg shackles. And to a large extent, the fact that now, from a distance, their imprisonment does not look so terrible is their own merit: they managed not to give up, not to quarrel, maintained their own dignity and inspired real respect in those around them.

Introduction

Decembrists.

1. Secret societies.

The Patriotic War and the subsequent war for the liberation of Europe created a high patriotic upsurge in Russian society and the Russian army, and a long stay abroad familiarized the intelligent circles of Russian officers with ideological trends, social relations and political institutions of various European countries. In Europe at that time, there were two types of organizations that set themselves liberation goals: the German national-patriotic society, which was preparing an uprising against Napoleon in Germany, and political conspiratorial organizations (such as the Italian “Carbonari”), which were preparing political coups with the aim of introducing liberal constitutions. Both of these types of organizations were later reflected in the circles of future Russian Decembrists.
In the advanced circles of the officers, who returned after the war for the liberation of Europe to the country of “Arakcheevism” and serfdom, in 1816-1817 a society called the Union of Salvation, or faithful and true sons of the fatherland, was formed. Among the members of the Union, disputes arose regarding the nature of the organization, and in 1818 the Union of Salvation was renamed the Union of Prosperity, which aimed to “spread the true rules of morality and education among compatriots, to assist the government in raising Russia to the level of greatness and prosperity, to which it was intended by its Creator.” The union covered a fairly wide range of St. Petersburg officers (the number of its members reached 200 people); members of the Union sought, on the one hand, for political and social reforms, on the other, they were engaged in educational and charitable activities and were distinguished by their humane treatment of subordinate soldiers. The union existed almost openly, but after the events of 1820 it was declared closed (1821). Instead of the Union of Welfare, in 1821-1822 two secret unions or societies were formed, which were already of a directly revolutionary nature.
At the head of the Northern Society in St. Petersburg were the Muravyov brothers, Prince S. P. Trubetskoy, N. I. Turgenev, Prince E. P. Obolensky, and the poet Ryleev. Southern society was formed in Tulchin, where the main headquarters of the second army, located in the Kiev and Podolsk provinces, was located; Its branches were in Kamenka and Vasilkov. At the head of the Southern Society was the most outstanding among the members of the organization, the talented, educated, energetic and ambitious Colonel Pestel, who defended extreme revolutionary tactics, including regicide and even the extermination of the entire imperial family; the most active members of the Southern Society were General Prince S.G. Volkonsky, Yushnovsky, S. Muravyov-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin.
In addition to the Southern and Northern societies, at this time the Society of United Slavs also arose, which aimed to establish a federal republic of all Slavic peoples. The political program of the Nordic society was a constitutional monarchy, with a federal structure similar to the United States of America.
Pestel’s political program was called “Russian Truth”, or “Order to the Temporary Supreme Government”. Pestel was a republican and, in his words, “in nothing did he see greater prosperity and supreme bliss for Russia than in republican rule.” However, in his program, he completely rejects the federal principle: his republic is Jacobin in nature - his plan presupposes a strong central government and a completely homogeneous structure of all parts of the state, which should be leveled not only administratively and politically, but even culturally. Serfdom as a state “against humanity, contrary to natural laws, contrary to the holy Christian faith,” must be immediately destroyed by the “Temporary Supreme Government.” The lands in each volost should be divided into two halves, one of which should be “given under the name of public land into the ownership of the volost society,” and the other half remains the property of the treasury or private individuals.
At the end of 1825, members of secret societies, unexpectedly for themselves, had an opportunity to attempt a coup d'etat, when after the death of Alexander I a short interregnum began in Russia. Alexander died on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog. The heir to the throne was his brother Konstantin, but the latter refused to inherit the throne back in 1822, giving it to his next brother, Nicholas. In 1823, Alexander prepared a manifesto on the abdication of Constantine and appointed Nicholas as heir, but did not make it public. The news of Alexander's death was received in St. Petersburg on November 27. Nikolai did not find it possible to use the unpublished manifesto; he swore allegiance himself and led the troops to the oath of Emperor Constantine, about which he sent the latter a report to Warsaw; Constantine confirmed his abdication twice, and about two weeks passed in these negotiations.
The conspiratorial officers decided to use the created situation to agitate among the soldiers against the accession of Nicholas. The oath to Nicholas was scheduled for (December 4; the majority of the St. Petersburg garrison swore the oath without complaint, but some units refused the oath and went out with weapons to Senate Square. The conspirators had in mind to force the Senate to publish a manifesto to the people on the “destruction of the former government” and on the introduction of a number of important reforms, such as: the abolition of serfdom, “equalization of the rights of all classes,” freedom of the press (“free printing and therefore the abolition of censorship”), “free worship of all faiths,” a public trial with a jury, the establishment of elected “volost, district, provincial and regional boards", the destruction of military settlements, the reduction of military service, and, finally, the convening of the Great Council (i.e., the constituent assembly) to resolve the issue of the form of government. Prince Trubetskoy was elected "dictator" of the revolutionary forces, but he lost faith in the success of the uprising and on December 14 did not appear on Senate Square, which immediately brought confusion and confusion to the ranks of the rebels. Nicholas, for his part, hesitated for a long time to take military action against the rebels; Having gathered the troops who swore allegiance to him, he sent to the rebels with exhortations to submit one after another - the St. Petersburg military governor-general Miloradovich (one of the heroes of 1812), Metropolitan Seraphim, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich; all exhortations remained unsuccessful, and General Miloradovich was killed by a shot from one of the conspirators; then Nicholas sent the horse guards to attack, but the attack was repulsed; Finally, Nicholas ordered the cannons to be advanced and open fire with grapeshot, and the rebels quickly dispersed, suffering heavy losses. Members of the Southern Society (in the Kyiv province) raised the Chernigov infantry regiment in an uprising, but it was soon suppressed (in early January 1826).
For six months, an investigation into the “Decembrists” was carried out, in which Nikolai himself took an intimate part.
120 people were transferred to the court - most of the guards officers; of these, 36 people were sentenced to death, but the tsar approved the death sentence only against the five main conspirators: Pestel, Ryleev, Kakhovsky, S. Muravyov-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin; the remaining officers, participants in the rebellion, were exiled to Siberia, to hard labor or to a settlement, the soldiers were sent to the active Caucasian army.

2. The place and role of the Decembrists in the history of Russia.

In 1825, Russia saw for the first time a revolutionary movement against tsarism, and this movement was represented almost exclusively by the nobles.
The Decembrists not only put forward slogans of struggle against autocracy and serfdom, but for the first time in the history of the revolutionary movement in Russia they organized open action in the name of these demands.
Thus, the Decembrist uprising was of great importance in the history of the revolutionary movement in Russia. This was the first open attack against the autocracy with arms in hand. Until this time, only spontaneous peasant unrest had occurred in Russia.
Between the spontaneous peasant uprisings of Razin and Pugachev and the speech of the Decembrists, a whole period of world history lay: its new stage was opened by the victory of the revolution in France at the end of the 18th century, the question of eliminating the feudal-absolutist system and establishing a new one - capitalist - arose in full force before Europe. The Decembrists belong to this new time, and this is an essential aspect of their historical significance. Their uprising was politically conscious, set itself the task of eliminating the feudal-absolutist system, and was illuminated by the progressive ideas of the era. For the first time in the history of Russia we can talk about a revolutionary program, about conscious revolutionary tactics, and analyze constitutional projects.
The slogans of the struggle against serfdom and autocracy put forward by the Decembrists were not slogans of accidental and transitory significance: they had great historical meaning and remained effective and relevant in the revolutionary movement for many years.
With their bitter experience, the Decembrists showed subsequent generations that the protest of an insignificant handful of revolutionaries is powerless without the support of the people. With the failure of their movement, with all their, in Pushkin’s words, “sorrowful labor,” the Decembrists seemed to bequeath to subsequent revolutionaries to build their plans counting on the active participation of the masses. The theme of the people as the main force of the revolutionary struggle has since firmly entered the consciousness of the leaders of the revolutionary movement. “The Decembrists did not have enough people on St. Isaac’s Square,” said the successor of the Decembrists, Herzen, “and this thought was already the result of assimilating the experience of the Decembrists.
This is the point of view of the Soviet historical school.
At the same time, there are other approaches and assessments.
Shallow assimilation of the revolutionary teachings of the West and an attempt to apply them in Russia, according to Solovyov, constituted the main content of the Decembrist movement. Thus, the entire revolutionary tradition ends
In the 18th and first quarter of the 19th century, it was presented as an introduced phenomenon, alien to the organic development of Russia. Eliminating its revolutionary core from social thought, Solovyov tried to present history as a struggle between two principles - Russophile-patriotic and Western-cosmopolitan.
Soloviev did not leave any special works dedicated to the Decembrists. But a number of statements quite clearly characterize his views. Decembrist ideology seemed to him an echo of revolutionary ferment in the West, on the one hand, and a reaction to the miscalculations of government policy, on the other (the anti-national Peace of Tilsit, indifference to the fate of the rebel Greeks, the costs of Alexander's system of unions). However, pointing to the objective historical roots of the Decembrist uprising, Solovyov was far from justifying it. The very ideals and goals of the movement seemed to him a stillborn fruit of desk studies. “To thinking Russian people,” he wrote in “Notes,” “Russia seemed to be a tabula rasa* on which one could write anything one wanted, write something thought out or even not yet thought through in the office, in a circle, after lunch or dinner.” he accused Decembrism of being prone to dangerous political adventurism. This assessment was attached to P. I. Pestel’s promise to restore independent Poland within the borders of 1772, given in negotiations with the Poles. He even admitted that such a recklessly broad gesture could puzzle sober and prudent politicians - Poles. The immaturity of Decembrist thought, according to him, was expressed in the fact that “Bestuzhev, for example, proposed the introduction of an American form of government in Russia and Poland.”
But at the same time, his convictions were also disgusted by the official defamation of the Decembrist movement during the years of the Nikolaev reaction. In the distortion of the lessons of the Decembrist speech, Solovyov saw another confirmation of the isolation of the ruling layer from the people. The most annoying thing was that this vice in all its unsightly essence manifested itself precisely when, according to his ideas, special sensitivity to public opinion was required from the government. Civil society, which matured in the 19th century, demanded more flexible and sensitive treatment from government authorities. Soloviev was not alone in this conviction. Other historians of the bourgeois-liberal trend talked about the same thing, seeking favor from the government towards new amateur social formations (represented by the so-called “private unions” in the concept of Solovyov and V. O. Klyuchevsky, the classless intelligentsia - in the concept of A. A. Kornilov , “thinking society” - A. A. Kieswetter). Working with the grand dukes, Sergei Mikhailovich tried to ensure that they confirmed the rule: “It is necessary to support collegial institutions, the elective principle, not to constrain, but at the same time vigilantly ensure that fragile unions do not allow themselves sloppiness and abuse.”
It is the comparison of points of view that allows us to see the whole picture of events and learn lessons.

Conclusion.

In the history of every country there are unforgettable memorable dates. Years pass, generations change, new and new people enter the historical arena, life, way of life, social outlook changes, but the memory of those events remains, without which there is no true history, without which national identity is unthinkable. December 1825 is a phenomenon of such an order, “ Senate Square" and "Chernigov Regiment" have long become historical cultural symbols. The first conscious movement for freedom - the first tragic defeat
His notes to S.P. Trubetskoy concludes with the following thoughts:
“The report published by the government at the end of the investigation carried out by the Secret Committee constituted for that purpose presented the then action of society as some kind of reckless malice of vicious and depraved people who extravagantly wanted only to create unrest in the Fatherland and did not have any noble goal other than the overthrow of the existing authorities and the establishment of anarchy in the Fatherland.
Unfortunately, the social structure of Russia is still such that military force alone, without the assistance of the people, can not only take the throne, but also change the form of government. A conspiracy of several regimental commanders is enough to renew phenomena similar to those that placed most of the reigning rulers on the throne. in the last century, especially Thanks to providence, now enlightenment has spread the concept that such palace coups do not lead to anything good, that a person who has concentrated in himself as a part cannot greatly arrange the well-being of the people in their present way of life, but that only an improved image of the state structure can time to punish the abuses and oppressions inseparable from autocracy, the person endowed with it, no matter how much it burns with love for the Fatherland, is not able to instill this feeling in the people to whom it must necessarily devote part of its power. The current state system cannot always exist and woe if it will change through a popular uprising. The circumstances that accompanied the accession to the throne of the currently reigning sovereign were the most favorable for the introduction of a new order in the state structure and the safe participation of the people, but the highest state dignitaries either did not comprehend this or did not want its introduction. Resistance, which could be expected in spirit, Having captured the guards army, it had to wait, without any beneficial direction, it had to be resolved by a disorderly rebellion. The Secret Society took upon itself to turn it to a better goal.”

Bibliography

Decembrists

Russian revolutionaries who launched an uprising against autocracy and serfdom in December 1825 (they were named after the month of the uprising). D. were noble revolutionaries, their class limitations left their mark on the movement, which, according to its slogans, was anti-feudal and associated with the maturation of the preconditions for the bourgeois revolution in Russia. The process of decomposition of the feudal-serf system, clearly manifested itself already in the 2nd half of the 18th century. and strengthened at the beginning of the 19th century, was the basis on which this movement grew. V.I. Lenin called the era of world history between the Great French Revolution and the Paris Commune (1789-1871) “... the era of bourgeois-democratic movements in general, bourgeois-national ones in particular, the era of the rapid breakdown of outlived feudal-absolutist institutions” (Complete collected works, 5th ed., vol. 26, p. 143). The D. movement was an organic element of the struggle of this era. The anti-feudal movement in the world-historical process often included elements of noble revolutionism, which were strong in the English Revolution of the 17th century and in the Spanish liberation struggle of the 1820s. and were especially clearly manifested in the Polish movement of the 19th century. Russia was no exception in this regard. The weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie contributed to the fact that the revolutionary nobles became the “firstborn of freedom” in Russia. The Patriotic War of 1812, in which almost all the founders and many active members of the future Democratic movement were participants, and the subsequent foreign campaigns of 1813-14 were to a certain extent a political school for them.

In 1816, young officers A. Muravyov (See Muravyov), S. Trubetskoy, I. Yakushkin, S. Muravyov-Apostol (See Muravyov-Apostol) and M. Muravyov-Apostol (See Muravyov-Apostol), N. Muravyov (See Muravyov) founded the first secret political society - “Union of Salvation" , or “Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland.” Later P. Pestel and others joined it - about 30 people in total. Work to improve the program and the search for more advanced methods of action to eliminate absolutism and abolish serfdom led in 1818 to the closure of the “Union of Salvation” and the founding of a new, broader society - the “Union of Welfare” (See Union of Welfare) (about 200 people.) . The new society considered the main goal to be the formation of “public opinion” in the country, which was presented to D. as the main revolutionary force driving public life. In 1820, a meeting of the governing body of the “Union of Welfare” - the Root Council - based on Pestel’s report, unanimously spoke in favor of a republic. It was decided to make the army, led by members of the secret society, the main force of the coup. The performance in the Semenovsky regiment (1820) in St. Petersburg, which took place before D.’s eyes, additionally convinced D. that the army was ready to move (soldiers of one of the companies protested against the cruel treatment of the regiment commander Schwartz. The company was sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress. The remaining companies also refused to obey commanders, after which the entire regiment was sent to the fortress and then disbanded). According to D., the revolution had to take place for the people, but without their participation. Eliminating the active participation of the people in the upcoming coup seemed necessary to D. in order to avoid the “horrors of the people’s revolution” and retain a leading position in revolutionary events.

The ideological struggle within the organization, in-depth work on the program, the search for better tactics, more effective organizational forms required a deep internal restructuring of society. In 1821, the congress of the Root Council of the Union of Welfare in Moscow declared the society dissolved and, under the cover of this decision, which made it easier to weed out unreliable members, began to form a new organization. As a result, in 1821 the Southern Society of Decembrists was formed (in Ukraine, in the area where the 2nd Army was stationed), and soon the Northern Society of Decembrists with its center in St. Petersburg. The leader of the Southern Society was one of the outstanding D. - Pestel. Members of the Southern Society were opponents of the idea of the Constituent Assembly and supporters of the dictatorship of the Provisional Supreme Revolutionary Government. It was the latter who, in their opinion, should have taken power after a successful revolutionary coup and introduced a pre-prepared constitutional structure, the principles of which were set out in a document later called “Russian Truth” (See Russian Truth). Russia was declared a republic, serfdom was immediately abolished. The peasants were freed with land. However, Pestel’s agrarian project did not provide for the complete destruction of landownership. “Russian Truth” pointed to the need for the complete destruction of the class system and the establishment of equality of all citizens before the law; proclaimed all basic civil liberties: speech, press, assembly, religion, equality in court, movement and choice of occupation. “Russian Truth” recorded the right of every man over 20 years of age to participate in the political life of the country, to vote and be elected without any property or educational qualifications. Women did not receive voting rights. Every year in each volost the Zemstvo People's Assembly was supposed to meet, electing deputies to permanent representative bodies of local government. The unicameral People's Council - the Russian parliament - was endowed with full legislative power in the country; executive power in the republic belonged to the State Duma, which consisted of 5 members elected by the People's Assembly for 5 years. Every year one of them dropped out and one new one was chosen in return - this ensured the continuity and succession of power and its constant renewal. The member of the State Duma who had been a member of it for the last year became its chairman, in fact, the president of the republic. This ensured the impossibility of usurping supreme power: each president held office for only one year. The third, very unique supreme state body of the republic was the Supreme Council, which consisted of 120 people elected for life, with regular payment for the performance of their duties. The only function of the Supreme Council was control (“vigilant”). He had to ensure that the constitution was strictly observed. The “Russian Truth” indicated the composition of the future territory of the state - Russia was to include Transcaucasia, Moldova and other territories, the acquisition of which Pestel considered necessary for economic or strategic reasons. The democratic system had to spread absolutely equally to all Russian territories, regardless of what peoples they were inhabited by. Pestel was, however, a decisive opponent of the federation: all of Russia, according to his project, was supposed to be a single and indivisible state. An exception was made only for Poland, which was granted the right to secede. It was assumed that Poland, together with all of Russia, would take part in the revolutionary coup planned by D. and would carry out at home, in accordance with “Russian Truth,” the same revolutionary transformations that were expected for Russia. Pestel’s “Russian Truth” was repeatedly discussed at the congresses of the Southern Society, its principles were accepted by the organization. The surviving editions of Russkaya Pravda indicate continuous work on its improvement and development of its democratic principles. Being mainly the creation of Pestel, “Russian Truth” was edited by other members of the Southern Society.

The Northern Society of D. was headed by N. Muravyov; The leadership core included N. Turgenev, M. Lunin, S. Trubetskoy, E. Obolensky. The constitutional project of the Northern Society was developed by N. Muravyov. It defended the idea of a Constituent Assembly. Muravyov strongly objected to the dictatorship of the Provisional Supreme Revolutionary Government and the dictatorial introduction of a revolutionary constitution previously approved by the secret society. Only the future Constituent Assembly could, in the opinion of the Northern Society of Denmark, draw up a constitution or approve any of the constitutional projects. The constitutional project of N. Muravyov was supposed to be one of them. N. Muravyov’s “Constitution” is a significant ideological document of the D. movement. In its draft, class limitations were reflected much more strongly than in “Russkaya Pravda”. The future Russia was to become a constitutional monarchy with a simultaneous federal structure. The principle of federation, similar in type to the United States, did not take into account the national aspect at all - the territorial aspect prevailed in it. Russia was divided into 15 federal units - “powers” (regions). The program provided for the unconditional abolition of serfdom. Estates were destroyed. Equality of all citizens before the law and equal justice for all were established. However, N. Muravyov’s agrarian reform was limited by class. According to the latest version of the “Constitution”, peasants received only estate land and 2 dec. arable land per yard, the rest of the land remained the property of the landowners or the state (state lands). The political structure of the federation provided for the establishment of a bicameral system (a kind of local parliament) in each “power”. The upper house in the “power” was the State Duma, the lower house was the Chamber of elected deputies of the “power”. The Federation as a whole was united by the People's Assembly - a bicameral parliament. The People's Council had legislative power. Elections to all representative institutions were subject to high property qualifications. Executive power belonged to the emperor - the highest official of the Russian state, who received a large salary. The emperor did not have legislative power, but he had the right of “suspensive veto,” that is, he could delay the adoption of the law for a certain period and return it to parliament for a second discussion, but he could not completely reject the law. The “Constitution” of N. Muravyov, like Pestel’s “Russian Truth”, declared basic civil freedoms: speech, press, assembly, religion, movement and others.

In the last years of the activity of the secret Northern Society, the struggle of internal currents became more pronounced within it. The republican movement, represented by the poet K. F. Ryleev, who joined the society in 1823, as well as E. Obolensky, the Bestuzhev brothers (Nikolai, Alexander, Mikhail) and other members, intensified again. The entire burden of preparing the uprising in St. Petersburg fell on this republican group. Southern and Northern societies were in continuous communication and discussed their differences. A congress of the Northern and Southern Societies was scheduled for 1826, at which it was planned to develop general constitutional foundations. However, the current situation in the country forced D. to speak ahead of schedule. In preparation for an open revolutionary uprising, the Southern Society united with the Society of United Slavs (See Society of United Slavs). This society in its original form arose back in 1818 and, having undergone a series of transformations, set as its ultimate goal the destruction of serfdom and autocracy, the creation of a democratic Slavic federation consisting of Russia, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary (Hungarians were considered Slavs by members of the society), Transylvania , Serbia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Dalmatia and Croatia. Members of the Slavic society were supporters of popular revolutions. The “Slavs” accepted the program of the southerners and joined Southern society.

In November 1825, Tsar Alexander I suddenly died. His elder brother Constantine had renounced the throne long before, but the royal family kept his refusal a secret. Alexander I was to be succeeded by his brother Nicholas, who had long been hated in the army as a rude martinet and Arakcheevite (see Arakcheevshchina). Meanwhile, the army took the oath to Constantine. However, rumors soon spread about taking a new oath - to Emperor Nicholas. The army was worried, discontent in the country was growing. At the same time, members of D.'s secret society became aware that spies had discovered their activities (denunciations by I. Sherwood and A. Mayboroda). It was impossible to wait. Since the decisive events of the interregnum played out in the capital, it naturally became the center of the upcoming coup. Northern society decided on an open armed uprising in St. Petersburg and scheduled it for December 14, 1825 - the day when the oath to the new Emperor Nicholas I was supposed to take place.

The plan for a revolutionary coup, developed in detail at D.'s meetings in Ryleev's apartment, was to prevent the oath, raise troops sympathetic to D., bring them to Senate Square and, by force of arms (if negotiations did not help), prevent the Senate and the State Council from taking the oath to the new emperor. The delegation from D. was supposed to force the senators (if necessary, by military force) to sign a revolutionary manifesto to the Russian people. The manifesto announced the overthrow of the government, abolished serfdom, abolished conscription, declared civil liberties and convened a Constituent Assembly that would finally decide the question of the constitution and form of government in Russia. Prince S. Trubetskoy, an experienced military man, participant in the War of 1812, well known to the guard, was elected “dictator” of the upcoming uprising.

The first rebel regiment (Moscow Life Guards) came to Senate Square on December 14 at about 11 a.m. under the leadership of A. Bestuzhev, his brother Mikhail and D. Shchepin-Rostovsky (See Shchepin-Rostovsky). The regiment lined up in a square near the monument to Peter I. Only 2 hours later it was joined by the Life Guards Grenadier Regiment and the Guards naval crew. In total, about 3 thousand rebel soldiers gathered in the square under the banner of the uprising with 30 combat commanders - D-officers. The assembled sympathetic people greatly outnumbered the troops. However, the goals set by D. were not achieved. Nicholas I managed to swear in the Senate and State Council while it was still dark, when Senate Square was empty. “Dictator” Trubetskoy did not appear on the square. The square of rebels several times repelled with rapid fire the onslaught of the remaining guards cavalry loyal to Nicholas. Governor General Miloradovich's attempt to persuade the rebels was unsuccessful. Miloradovich was mortally wounded by the Decembrist P. Kakhovsky (See Kakhovsky). By evening, D. chose a new leader - Prince Obolensky, chief of staff of the uprising. But it was already too late. Nicholas, who managed to gather troops loyal to him to the square and surround the square of the rebels, was afraid that “the excitement would not be transmitted to the mob,” and ordered shooting with grapeshot. According to clearly underestimated government data, more than 80 “rebels” were killed on Senate Square. By nightfall the uprising was suppressed.

The news of the defeat of the uprising in St. Petersburg reached the Southern Society in the twentieth of December. Pestel had already been arrested by that time (December 13, 1825), but nevertheless the decision to speak was made. The uprising of the Chernigov regiment (see Chernigov regiment uprising) was led by Lieutenant Colonel S. Muravyov-Apostol and M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. It began on December 29, 1825 in the village. Triles (about 70 km to the southwest of Kyiv), where the 5th company of the regiment was stationed. The rebels (1,164 people in total) captured the city of Vasilkov and moved from there to join other regiments. However, not a single regiment supported the initiatives of the Chernigovites, although the troops were undoubtedly in a state of unrest. A detachment of government troops sent to meet the rebels met them with volleys of grapeshot. On January 3, 1826, the Danish uprising in the south was defeated. During the uprising in the south, D.'s appeals were distributed among the soldiers and partly the people. The revolutionary "Catechism", written by S. Muravyov-Apostol and Bestuzhev-Ryumin, freed the soldiers from the oath to the tsar and was imbued with republican principles of popular government.

579 people were involved in the investigation and trial in D.’s case. Investigative and judicial procedures were conducted in deep secrecy. Five leaders - Pestel, S. Muravyov-Apostol, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Ryleev and Kakhovsky - were hanged on July 13, 1826. Exiled to Siberia for hard labor and the settlement of 121 D. Over 1000 soldiers were driven through the ranks, some were exiled to Siberia for hard labor or settlement, over 2,000 soldiers were transferred to the Caucasus, where military operations were taking place at that time. The newly formed Chernigov penal regiment, as well as another consolidated regiment of active participants in the uprising, were also sent to the Caucasus.

The D. uprising occupies an important place in the history of the revolutionary movement of Russia. This was the first open action with arms in hand in order to overthrow the autocracy and eliminate serfdom. V.I. Lenin begins with D. the periodization of the Russian revolutionary movement. The significance of the D. movement was already understood by their contemporaries: “Your sorrowful work will not be wasted,” wrote A. S. Pushkin in his message to D. in Siberia. The lessons of the D. uprising were learned by their successors in the revolutionary struggle: Herzen, Ogarev, and subsequent generations Russian revolutionaries who were inspired by D.'s feat. The profiles of five executed D. on the cover of Herzen's Polar Star were a symbol of the struggle against tsarism.

A remarkable page in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement was the feat of the wives of those sentenced to hard labor in D., who voluntarily followed their husbands to Siberia. Having overcome numerous obstacles, the first to arrive (in 1827) at the mines of Transbaikalia were M.N. Volkonskaya, A.G. Muravyova (with her A.S. Pushkin conveyed the message to the Decembrists “In the depths of the Siberian ores”) and E.I. Trubetskaya. In 1828-31, the following came to Chita and the Petrovsky Plant: Annenkov's bride - Polina Gebl (1800-76), Ivashev's bride - Camille Le Dantu (1803-39), the wives of the Decembrists A. I. Davydov, A. V. Entaltseva (died 1858 ), E. P. Naryshkina (1801-67), A. V. Rosen (died 1884), N. D. Fonvizina (1805-69), M. K. Yushnevskaya (b. 1790), etc. Going to Siberia , they were deprived of noble privileges and transferred to the position of wives of exiled convicts, limited in the rights of movement, correspondence, disposal of their property, etc. They did not have the right to take their children with them, and returning to European Russia was not always allowed even after the death of their husbands. Their feat was poeticized by N. A. Nekrasov in the poem “Russian Women” (original title - “Decembrists”). Many other wives, mothers and sisters of D. persistently sought permission to travel to Siberia, but were refused.

D. made a significant contribution to the history of Russian culture, science and education. One of the prominent poets of the early 19th century. was K.F. Ryleev, whose work is permeated with revolutionary and civil motives. The poet A. Odoevsky is the author of D.'s poetic response to Pushkin's message to Siberia. From this answer, V.I. Lenin took the words “From a spark will ignite a flame” as an epigraph to the Iskra newspaper. The author of numerous works of art and critical articles was A. A. Bestuzhev. A significant literary legacy was left by the poets-D.: V.K. treatises on history, economics, etc., valuable technical inventions. Peru D. - G.S. Batenkova, M.F. Orlova, N.I. Turgeneva - works on issues of the Russian economy. The problems of Russian history are reflected in the works of N. M. Muravyov, A. O. Kornilovich, P. A. Mukhanov, V. I. Shteingel (See Shteingel). D. - D. I. Zavalishin, G. S. Batenkov, N. A. Chizhov, K. P. Thorson made an important contribution to the development of Russian geographical science. Materialist philosophers were D. - V. F. Raevsky, A. P. Baryatinsky, I. D. Yakushkin, N. A. Kryukov and others. N. M. Muravyov, P. I. Pestel, I. G. Burtsov left a number of works on military affairs and military history. D.'s activities in the field of Russian culture and science had a strong impact on the development of many social ideas and institutions in Russia.

D. were passionate educators. They fought for advanced ideas in pedagogy, constantly promoting the idea that education should become the property of the people. They advocated advanced, anti-scholastic teaching methods adapted to child psychology. Even before the uprising, D. took an active part in the spread of schools for the people according to the Lancastrian system of education (V. Kuchelbecker, V. Raevsky, etc.), which pursued the goals of mass education. D.'s educational activities played a big role in Siberia.

Source: Decembrist Uprising. Materials and documents, vol. 1-12, M. - L., 1925-69; Decembrists and secret societies in Russia. Official documents, M., 1906; Decembrists. Unpublished materials and articles, M., 1925; Decembrist revolt, L., 1926; Decembrists and their time, vol. 1-2, M., 1928-32; In memory of the Decembrists. Sat. materials, vol. 1-3, L., 1926; Decembrists. Letters and archival materials, M., 1938; Secret societies in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. Sat. materials, articles, memoirs, M., 1926; Decembrists-literators, book. 1-2, M., 1954-56 (Literary heritage, vol. 59-60); Decembrists. New materials, M., 1955; Decembrists in Transbaikalia, Chita, 1925; Volkonskaya M.N., Notes, 2nd ed., Chita, 1960; Annenkova P., Memoirs, 2nd ed., M., 1932; Pyx Decembrists in Ukraine. , Har., 1926.

Works: Selected socio-political and philosophical works of the Decembrists, vol. 1-3, M., 1951; Decembrists. Poetry, drama, prose, journalism, literary criticism, M. - L., 1951.

Lit.: Lenin V.I., Complete. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 5, p. thirty; ibid., vol. 26, p. 107; ibid., vol. 30, p. 315; Plekhanov G.V., December 14, 1825, Works, vol. 10, M. - P., 1924; Shchegolev P. E., Decembrists, M. - L., 1926; Gessen S. [Ya.], Soldiers and sailors in the Decembrist uprising, M., 1930; Aksenov K.D., Northern Society of Decembrists, L., 1951; Decembrists in Siberia. [Sb.], Novosibirsk, 1952; Gabov G.I., Socio-political and philosophical views of the Decembrists, M., 1954; Essays on the history of the Decembrist movement. Sat. Art., M., 1954; Nechkina M.V., Decembrist Movement, vol. 1-2, M., 1955; Olshansky P.N., Decembrists and the Polish national liberation movement, M., 1959; Chernov S.N., At the origins of the Russian liberation movement, Saratov, 1960; Wives of the Decembrists. Sat. Art., M., 1906; Gernet M.N., History of the Tsar’s Prison, 3rd ed., vol. 2, M., 1961; Shatrova G.P., Decembrists and Siberia, Tomsk, 1962; Bazanov V.G., Essays on Decembrist literature. Journalism. Prose. Kritika, M., 1953; his, Essays on Decembrist literature. Poetry, M., 1961; Lisenko M. [M.], Decembrist revolution in Ukraine. K., 1954; Decembrist movement. Index of literature, 1928-1959, M., 1960.

M. V. Nechkina.

Decembrist revolt.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .