Introduction
Less than two years before Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Tsar Alexander II released his Emancipation Manifesto on March 3, 1861, which declared that in two years’ time, all Russian serfs would receive full freedom. This announcement was made in the midst of the American Civil War, a time when the question of slavery was at the forefront of the American psyche.
Shortly after news of the liberation of the serfs reached the United States in early 1861, articles expounding on the virtues and failings of Tsar Alexander II’s edict, opinion pieces, and calls to action proliferated in U.S. newspapers. Southern newspapers that commented on the international event were staunchly opposed to the liberation of the serfs, believing it to be a threat to American slavery. In the North, some newspapers praised the benevolence of the Tsar, while others criticized the backwardness of Russian society for not freeing the serfs sooner. Some anti-slavery newspapers called out this hypocrisy, pointing out that if Russia was backwards, the United States was no better. One company even used the news to advertise their products. To put these articles into context, scholarly essays about predominant American views on slavery and Russia, as well as papers about the historical conversation surrounding serfdom and slavery, will be used.
Americans were accustomed to view Russia as a stunted nation that failed to move beyond the Middle Ages. This mindset was challenged for the first time through the peaceful liberation of the serfs, which threw the bloody civil war in which the United States was engaged over the issue of their own unfree labor system into relief. How did American reactions to the emancipation of the serfs in Russia compare to regional attitudes toward the institution of American slavery and the general political climate during the American Civil War? Also, how do these reactions demonstrate the shifting perception of Russia as a nation? These questions are important to consider because the answers can help map the effects the modernization of Russia had on international relations and move the conversation beyond the domestic sphere. Additionally, it can aid historians in better understanding the complexities of American views on unfree labor beyond slavery by placing slavery and serfdom into historical conversation with one another.
It is likely that media reactions to the emancipation of the serfs corresponded to the region in which that media was published; Northern publications would be more likely to endorse the emancipation than their Southern counterparts. Additionally, the freedom of the serfs likely caused Americans to reevaluate their view of Russia, since Russia, unlike the United States, was able to peacefully liberate their unfree laborers.
Northern sources
One of the first news outlets to cover the news of the potential freedom of the serfs was the renowned abolitionist newspaper The Liberator. Based in Boston, the newspaper published a collection of anti-slavery poems, taken from various publications, on January 18, 1861. “Eighteen Hundred and Sixty One” – originally published in Harvard Magazine – had broad anti-slavery overtones, but the first stanza discussed the imminent freedom of the Russian serfs as an omen of the year to come. The poet wrote,
“Bright year of promise! Ushered in
by ransomed millions’ loud acclaim
who now a nobler life begin,
Redeem’d from Slavery’s curse and shame!
The Russian serf, but yesterday
A slave to the insensate sod,
No more a tyrant must obey,
But bows before the freeman’s God.”
The poet drew a comparison between serfdom and slavery, describing freed serfs as “redeem’d from Slavery’s curse and shame!” and labeling the serf as “a slave to the insensate sod.” These devices frame serfdom and slavery as equally abusive systems that must both be destroyed. Furthermore, the poem was published in January 1861, when tensions in the United States had reached a fever pitch following the recent secession of eleven southern states. While the war did not break out for another three months, a conflict between North and South was beginning to seem unavoidable. The issue of slavery was at the forefront of most American minds due to this escalating pressure, and abolitionists hoped 1861 would be the year in which slavery would finally end. This poem showed that the liberation of the serfs was a source of inspiration for abolitionists. While the author did not directly praise Alexander II for his proclamation, the characterization of slavery as a “curse and shame” showed that they viewed the serfs’ freedom not as an inevitability, but as a gift from the tsar that augured a “bright year of promise.” The poem heralded the trend of abolitionist praise for Alexander II’s actions that was soon to come.
Other publications used the freedom of the serfs as an opportunity to condemn the secessionist southern states by overtly praising Alexander II – who had been viewed by most Americans as a despotic tyrant – for his decision to liberate the serfs. In an Albany Evening Journal article entitled “The Serf Emancipation in Russia: An Uncomfortable Comparison,” the author wrote:
“It would be impossible to praise too highly not only the act itself, but the manifesto to which it is announced…And all this from the lips of an “autocrat!” We blush to think that while the Democracy of the West is rending asunder the noblest political fabric of modern times, in order to rivet more tightly the chain of the African slave, the Autocrat of the North is seeking to cement his empire by an act which acknowledges and is based upon the common brotherhood of man.”
The author created an unfavorable dichotomy between the confederacy and the “autocrat” Alexander II by pointing out that, at the same time a civil war was tearing the United States apart, a supposedly backwards nation had freed their serfs with nothing but a manifesto that “would be impossible to praise too highly.” The international humiliation that came with a civil war was still raw, as the war had broken out less than a month before the article’s publication following the April 1861 attack on Fort Sumter. The author took advantage of the hypocrisy of characterizing Alexander II as a despot when, in contrast to the United States, his nation was capable of ending an equivalently longstanding institution without armed conflict. More praise of the tsar appeared in the Salem Observer, which lauded the “great event” that “shed undying glory on the reign of Alexander II.” This adulation, shared among Americans for the first time, demonstrated that praise of Alexander II was widespread among Northerners.
However, some Americans balked at the idea of tsarist Russia surpassing the United States in terms of freedom and democracy. In the article “Political Sentimentalism – Emancipation of the Russian Serfs,” published in the New York Herald, the author cautioned against overpraising the tsar for his “act of grace, as it is called,” describing those who commended him as “historically oblivious” and “extravagant.” The author asserted that the tsar’s manifesto was created out of pure political expediency, serving as “not a great democratic triumph, as some assume – but simply a victory of political economy over a vicious and worn-out system.” He further argued that Russia was not entering a “great phase of transformation,” but simply “emerging from her Middle Ages,” a phrase that highlights the determination of some Americans to continue to view themselves as more forward-thinking than the backwards Russians.
Both “The Serf Emancipation in Russia: An Uncomfortable Comparison” and “Political Sentimentalism – Emancipation of the Russian Serfs” held undercurrents of insecurity that reveal the widespread doubt Americans felt about the survival of their nation. Slavery had long been a divisive issue in the United States, and the outbreak of the Civil War highlighted these enduring national fault lines. It seems that many Americans felt the United States was losing reputation on the world stage, especially as Russia – a country believed to be the antithesis of the United States in terms of liberty – moved beyond them in terms of freedom. Evidently, the emancipation of the serfs in Russia served as a cultural touch point for Americans. Some viewed it as evidence of Russia’s advancement over the divided United States, while others clung to their belief that Russia remained a backwards, despotic nation that only freed the serfs for its political gain. Regardless of the conclusions individuals reached, serf emancipation forced Americans to examine Russia in a new light for the first time.
Increasing American identification with Russia even led to some business owners using the liberation of the serfs as a method to advertise their products. An article entitled “The Autocrat of the Russias!” appeared in the Barnstable Patriot on Date, and read in part,
“Alexander II is pre-eminently the reformer of the day. By the disenthrallment of myriads of his subjects, Serfdom is rapidly yielding to the light and mission of civilization. He is correcting time honored abuses, and gradually suiting the progress and emancipation of the Russian Serf, to the demands and intelligence of the times, so that the path of Muscovite Royalty is truly democratic and progressive. The status quo of the medical profession at the advent of Dr. Holloway in its midst, was really deplorable, –if not actually retrogressive, but like the Czar he burst the shackles which retarded its progress, and dissipated the fallacies that overshadowed it…The effect of his Pills and Ointment in coughs, colds, and tightness of the chest soon became apparent by the number of his patients, and the increasing demand for his medicines.”
Not only was Alexander II lauded as “the reformer of the day,” but he was also favorably compared to the manufacturer of the “Pills and Ointment” being sold. The word “autocrat” was again used to sarcastically describe the tsar, which stands in stark contrast to Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 comments that denigrated Russia as “some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty…where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.” A heroic image of the tsar fighting against corrupt nobles to free the serfs was used in this advertisement to illustrate Dr. Holloway’s fight against the corrupt medical industry to cure his patients, thereby showing, at least in Northern states like Massachusetts, an increased affinity with the tsar and an image of him as someone from whom to take inspiration. The shift in perception of the tsar was so strong that he became an advertising figure.
Southern sources
On the other side of the slavery spectrum, the Georgian newspaper the Daily Constitutionalist published “From the Field and Fireside: Profits and Troubles of Farming,” a defense of slavery published five months after Georgia’s secession from the United States. Signed by an “adopted citizen,” it served as a defense of slavery that characterized the institution as necessary to agricultural work. Furthermore, the anonymous author used the example of the emancipation of the serfs as an example of why free labor was doomed to fail. The author argued,
“Some talk much about the emancipation of the Russian serf. They reason as theorists. If they did know the peculiar institutions of that immense Russian Empire, they would at once perceive that the Mongil [sic.] will only change names. The serf will either be his master’s tenant, or a soldier for life….If we add to these considerations the asperities of the climate, the constant need the peasant stands in, to provide against frozen crops, scarcity of food, dangers of the wilderness, it will soon be evident that isolated settlements of freemen in those vast solitudes, where isolation is so often certain death, will prove to be impossible…So much for the serf. Now, in good faith, is a n***** not better off? He lives in a mild climate, suited to his organization, he knows no care; his master is interested in doing the best for him, and when old or sick, he is cared for…”
The adopted citizens’ argument for why the liberation of the serfs is doomed to fail are the same as those used by him later in the article to defend the necessity of slavery. However, serfdom did not have an ideology; it was not an idea, but a system that evolved over many centuries that was not even codified in law. There was no single model of serfdom, either, as policies differed from one estate to the next. Serfdom ran counter to slavery in that nobles had governmental obligations involving the serfs, such as the collection of taxes. Slave owners had no such duties; rather, to slavery supporters, slavery was considered an institution of benefit to the slaves wherein the master served as their benevolent father who took care of them at his own cost. Thus, the “adopted citizen” projected his own defense of slavery onto a defense of serfdom by applying American ideological defenses to serfdom. Through this projection, he demonstrated that he identified the situation in the United States with that of Russia, and thus identified with the Russian people.
Similarly, the Daily Missouri Republican published a July 18th letter, allegedly from St. Petersburg, which “gives a very unfavorable description of the Russian Empire” following the emancipation of the serfs. The letter read, “Far from improving, the internal state of the country is visibly becoming worse. All classes of society have arrived at such a state of irritation, that an explosion is imminent…It is evident that the resolution will infallibly produce an intestine struggle which will degenerate into a war of extermination.” The letter also told of “barbarous massacres which have spread terror among the nobility living on their lands.” However, no such massacres were actually occurring. The “going to the people” movement of 1874 was an attempt by wealthy Russians to foment rebellion among the peasants, but the movement failed due to participants’ inability to infiltrate into the peasant communities. The false assertion made by Southerners that Russia was descending into chaos following the liberation of the serfs reflected the persistent fears of slave owners of mass slave rebellions. These rebellions would result in “barbarous massacres” of Southern whites “living on their lands.” Herein the author explicitly identified the national situation of Russia with that of the United States through the manufacture of news of serf uprisings caused by the Emancipation Manifesto – uprisings that were strikingly similar to American slave rebellions that had happened in the past, and that slave owners feared would recur at any moment.
Conclusion
Taken together, these articles demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the change in opinion the American people had towards Russia, a shift that only came with Russia’s “yielding to the light and mission of civilization,” or liberating the serfs and entering into the modern era. Additionally, whether the authors agreed with the tsar’s decision corresponded to the state’s geographic location. Northern publications supported the emancipation, while Southern states did not. Not all of the publications agreed with the tsar’s decision, but the act itself caused them, consciously or otherwise, to identify themselves with the Russian people. The two momentous shifts in each nation’s labor systems forced Americans to recognize Russia as a nation on par with itself. With this realization came the embrace of Alexander II by some abolitionists as a liberator, and on the other side, Southern slaveholders’ identification with the Russian nobility who had just lost their free source of labor. It is clear that in American news coverage and opinion pieces about the liberation of the serfs, Americans began to identify with Russians for the first time in national memory, and started to view Russia as a potential international equal. This connection persists to the modern day; in 2011, Russia commemorated the 150th anniversary of the liberation of the serfs and the emancipation of American slaves in the same celebration. Both Russia and the United States underwent a national reckoning later than their international counterparts, and therefore found themselves in a similar situation for the first time in history.
Primary Source Bibliography
Breshkovskaia, Katerina. “Going to the People.” In Footman, David, “Killing an Emperor.” In
Thomas Riha, Readings in Russian Civilization, v.2. 344- 357. 368-377.
Dmytryshin. “The Emancipation Manifesto, March 3, 1861.” pp. 220-225.
“Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-One.” The Liberator (Boston, Massachusetts), January 18, 1861:
page 12. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A11B7FA0929E47AFD%40EANX-11C1A7269D85FFA8%402400794-11C1A726CCF62D20%403.
“Political Sentimentalism Emancipation of the Russian Serfs.” New York Herald (New York,
New York), no. 9025, May 26, 1861: 4. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A11A050B7B120D3F8%40EANX-11B0285EF98BAC98%402400922-11B0285F31E9C178%404-11B0285FE8042400%40Political%2BSentimentalism%2BEmancipation%2Bof%2Bthe%2BRussian%2BSerfs.
“Profits And Troubles Of Farming.” Daily Constitutionalist (Augusta, Georgia) 16, no. 138, June
9, 1861: [4]. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A1395DC574E208F55%40EANX-13C1195DF56B6A40%402400936-13B78F4752277600%403-13C5C5E54E7181AD%40Profits%2BAnd%2BTroubles%2BOf%2BFarming.
“Russia honors freedom of serfs, American slaves.” Reuters. February 25, 2011.
“Serf Emancipation in Russia.” Daily Missouri Republican (St. Louis, Missouri), August 17,
1861: 2. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A11060C9BED2269B0%40EANX-160CD3E6C3D80A10%402401005-160CBC688134CAC8%401-160CBC688134CAC8%40.
“The Autocrat of the Russias!” Barnstable Patriot (Barnstable, Massachusetts), February 12,
1861: 1. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A16399FC9696FAE1C%40EANX-1873284A586E19BF%402400819-18707F121AE09A22%400.
“The Serf Emancipation In Russia. An Uncomfortable Comparison.” Albany Evening Journal
(Albany, New York), May 8, 1861: 2. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A120FA88F2298A4EF%40EANX-12189D002C9D8DF8%402400904-1215F1BDB96C4970%401-1234943EA10AD8FF%40The%2BSerf%2BEmancipation%2BIn%2BRussia.%2BAn%2BUncomfortable%2BComparison.
“Twenty Million Serfs Made Free.” Salem Observer (Salem, Massachusetts) XXXIX, no. 19,
May 11, 1861: [1]. Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.princeton.edu/apps/readex/doc?p=EANX&docref=image/v2%3A123FC88F39A466E1%40EANX-14195E7610433928%402400907-1419250524880D00%400-14216CB37262091C%40Twenty%2BMillion%2BSerfs%2BMade%2BFree.
Secondary Source Bibliography
Freeman, Joanne. “Time Line of the Civil War.” Library of Congress.
Hine, William C. “American Slavery and Russian Serfdom: A Preliminary Comparison.” In
Phylon, Vol. 36, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 1975), pp. 378-384. https://www.jstor.org/stable/274636?seq=1).
Morris, Tom. “Lessons Learned: The Influence on Lincoln of Alexander II’s Emancipation of
Russian Serfs.” In The Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 43(2), 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/jala.4056).
Pravilova, Ekaterina. “The Abolition of Serfdom and the “Great Reforms” of the 1860s-1870s.”
History 360 – The Russian Empire: State, People, Nations, Lecture 13.
Pravilova, Ekaterina. “The ‘Roots of Revolution’: Populist movement of the 1860s-1880s.”
History 360 – The Russian Empire: State, People, Nations, Lecture 14.
Walther, Eric H. “The Slaveholding Crisis: Fear Of Insurrection And The Coming Of The
Civil War.” In Civil War Book Review: Vol. 20 : Iss. 1. 2018. DOI: 10.31390/cwbr.20.1.23 Available at: https://repository.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol20/iss1/18.
“Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous?” The Economist. March 27, 2017.
