SECTION II.
SLAVERY IN RUSSIA.
Russia now remains, we believe, the only nation of Europe that still contains within its borders large numbers of hereditary bondmen. The people, from whom the term Slave was originally derived—the Slavonian or Slavonic race—is still the one, and the only remaining one in Europe, among whom exists the condition of slavery. The number of people there held in bondage is indeed immense and startling to hear. In Russia (including Poland) there are upwards of forty millions of Slaves,—more than ten times the number of those in the United States of America. It is common, indeed, to call these people serfs; but that is only a different term for the same thing—the word serf (from the Latin servus) signifying a slave. As the term serf, however, conveys no very distinct idea to the English mind, we prefer to use one that is clearly defined—viz, slaves; for they are truly slaves. "Slavery," as defined by Paley, "is the obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant:" and such, certainly, is the condition of these 40,000,000 of persons. They toil for a master without compensation; they are his property, and are called things rather than persons; they are bought and sold — usually, though not always, with the land — their price varying from 700 to 2,000 roubles each; they are subject to the master’s absolute will, and may be punished by the lash or in any other manner the master may choose, and to any extent, saving life and limb. They cannot marry but at his pleasure or with his consent. If they run away, they may be pursued and brought back; or if found at any time, even though it be ten years after, they must be returned to the owner.[1] A "fugitive-slave law" is there in full force; and indeed what else is to be expected, Wherever slavery exists at all? If a slave could obtain his freedom, simply by becoming a fugitive, that is, by running away, slavery, of course, could not long continue, whether in Russia or elsewhere. The Russian government, also, interdicts every kind of instruction to the serfs: ignorance is the necessary guard of slavery. Moreover, it is very difficult for the serfs even to purchase their freedom — as the pride of the nobles renders them oftentimes unwilling to sell at any price. There are, indeed, some ameliorating circumstances attending Russian servitude. It is, for instance, forbidden by the Russian law, to announce in the public papers any sale of serfs without lands, or to proceed publicly to such sales at fairs or markets. Proprietors, moreover, cannot divide families, separating husband from wife, or unmarried children from their parents.[2] But notwithstanding these modifications, the condition of this immense and unfortunate class is bad enough.[3]
The abject misery of a great part of her inhabitants was probably a chief cause of the downfall of Poland. It was called a Republic, because the monarchy was elective: but what sort of a republic was that, in which but 100,000 of the citizens were freemen, and the remaining eleven millions, serfs or slaves — whose only spur to industry was the master’s lash? We deplore the misfortunes of that oppressed country, and are apt to wonder that an overruling Providence should permit such wrong. But if we look more deeply into the state of the case, we shall find that in this as in most other instances, it is man’s own evils that bring upon him what are called misfortunes. The partition of Poland could never have taken place had it been united within itself, and had its people been bound together by the firm bands of truth. and justice. Ninety-nine hundredths of the people were bondmen, with no voice whatever in the government, and with no rights to defend. "The Polish serf," says a writer, "drowned in brandy all activity of mind, for his motto was, — ‘Only what I drink is mine.’ At the same time the masters were divided among themselves, engaged in perpetual dissensions, and living in luxury and corruption. The throne was sold to the highest bidder. In its moral tone, too, which aimed at uniting French wit and frivolousness with excess and rudeness, Poland had gone back many steps towards the times of violence. Religious animosities, also, raged through the country. Encroachments were made by the Catholics on the constitutional rights of the Dissidents, that is, the Protestants and Greek Church; and this destruction of religious freedom was a main cause of the civil war which plunged Poland into the wildest disorder, and accelerated the ruin of the state. Russia embraced the cause of the Dissidents; foreign troops laid waste the country; and the lawless conduct of some of the Polish party chiefs excited among the neighboring Powers such a contempt of the natural rights of the Poles, that, to use the expression of Catherine, they deemed Poland. a country in which it was ‘only necessary to stoop to pick up something.’"[4] Such was the distracted state of the nation when the infamous plan of partition was formed by the three neighboring Powers; and this, their own death-warrant, was, under Russian compulsion, signed by the Polish Diet itself. Could any-thing have brought the nation to such ignominy, but their own internal weakness, the result of moral unworthiness? No excuse whatever, indeed, is this for the infamous conduct of the oppressors and partitioners of Poland: the weakness or debased condition of his victim is no justification of the robber. But a true view of the case is highly important, as the means of justifying or explaining to our minds the dispensations or permissions of Divine Providence, which could allow such an unhappy result to be brought about. The original and essential cause, we see, of Poland’s destruction, was her own internal disorder. Thus it is, that moral evil, whether in individuals or in nations, ever leads to physical suffering.
Russia, too, has herself suffered, and must continue to suffer — internally, at least, if not from any foreign aggression — in consequence of so many of her people being held in bondage. A census of Russia, published about the year 1848, rates the whole population at fifty-three. millions, five hundred thousand souls 3 of which number only eleven millions and a half are free persons — the remaining forty — two millions being serfs or slaves. Of the latter, fifteen millions belong to the crown,[5] and twenty-seven millions to private individuals. Thus, in Russia, only one man in five is free: four — fifths of the inhabitants are slaves[6] What widespread suffering must be the consequence of such a state of things! Slaves to the absolute will of masters, who are, many of them, in a semi-barbarous state, in a severe climate, too, like that of Russia, and with the soil but half-cultivated — What sufferings must the serfs often endure from cold and want, as well as from the cruelty of their masters! "These feudal lords," says Mr. Thompson,[7] "are of extravagant and profligate habits, and occasionally harass their serfs with the most grinding oppression and extortion, while their neglect or inability to provide the stores and magazines directed by the government, reduce their serfs, in unpropitious seasons, to want and the most horrible sufferings from famine. This occurred to a frightful extent in 1840, in the governments of Toula, Riazan, and Kalouga, when the people were driven for subsistence to the bark of trees. The summer of 1839 was so excessively hot, that the parched land yielded no produce, and that of 1840 was so cold and wet, that the crops entirely failed. The consequence was, that the most dreadful distress prevailed, and thousands perished from starvation." Insurrections, also, have occasionally occurred, rivaling the horrors of St. Domingo. "Intoxicated with the belief," says the same writer, "that they might emancipate themselves, they organized a powerful conspiracy; and arming themselves, desolated the country around them with fire and sword, perpetrating horrors not to be exceeded by the sanguinary scenes of St. Domingo, or the worst days of the French Revolution. It is stated that they cut off the legs and arms of their victims, beating them to death with the mutilated members, and stifling their dreadful cries by thrusting the mangled feet into their mouths."[8] Such is the terrible retaliation that sometimes follows a long course of Oppression and wrong.
To Show the summary and arbitrary manner in which the house-serfs are punished for occasional carelessness or neglect, the following circumstance is related by the author already quoted: — "Attached to every house is a man called a dvornik or yard-man, whose duty it is to keep the street clean in front of his master’s house, to scrape the snow from off the pavement, and to strew it with sand, to prevent accidents to foot passengers. The Emperor, in walking the street, slipped and fell. He took down the name of the house he was passing, and going straight to the nearest police-station, directed the dvornik of that house to be seized and flogged. Short was the shrift allowed the offender; a Persian bastinado would not have been more prompt. Surrounded by all the dvorniks of the neighborhood, collected for the purpose of being edified by the example, stood the unfortunate culprit, in the presence of the Whole staff of the police of the district. In the centre of the yard lay a form and two bundles of birchen rods, and all was anxious expectation. At a signal, every head was uncovered, in deference, probably, to the authority represented by the punishment; and though the thermometer was at ten degrees below freezing — point, the offender was seized, stripped, and laid flat on the bench. One man sat on his legs, another held his arms crossed beneath the bench; while, on each side of him, with a bundle of rods under their arms, stood two others, cutting away alternately at him, and exchanging the rods as often as they got dull, until the whole were expended.[9] "Such," says the writer, "is the paternal discipline" of the Russian autocrat. How would this Imperial master[10] feel, if the slight lapses from duty, of which he, as every man, before God is guilty, were as severely visited?
This, however, was a light punishment, compared with the terrible one of the knout, to which the Russian slaves who are guilty of weightier offences, such as crimes, are subjected. One hundred to one hundred and twenty strokes of this terrible instrument are considered equivalent to death! indeed, it is often more dreaded than death itself, so that a criminal has been known to bribe the executioner to kill him instead. Howard, the philanthropist, while in Russia, witnessed this painful punishment, and thus describes it: — "The knout-whip is fixed to a wooden handle, a foot long, and consists of several thongs about two feet in length, twisted together 3 to the end of which is fastened a single tough thong of a foot and a half, and capable of being changed by the executioner, when too much softened by the blood of the criminal. I saw two criminals," he says, "a man and a woman, suffer the punishment of the knout. They were conducted from prison by about fifteen hussars and ten soldiers. When they arrived at the place of punishment, the hussars formed themselves into a ring round the whipping-post — the drum beat a minute or two — and then some prayers were read, the populace taking off their hats. The woman was taken first; and after being roughly stripped to the waist, her hands and feet were bound with cords to a post made for the purpose, a man standing before the post, and holding the cords to keep them tight. A servant attended the executioner, and both were stout men. The servant first marked his ground and struck the woman five times on the back. Every stroke seemed to penetrate deep into her flesh. But his master thinking him too gentle, pushed him aside, took his place, and. gave all the remaining strokes himself, which were evidently more severe. The woman received twenty-five and the man sixty. I pressed through the hussars, and counted the number as they were chalked on a board: both seemed but just alive, especially the man, who yet had strength enough to receive a small donation, with some signs of gratitude. They were conducted back to prison in a little waggon. I afterwards saw the woman in a very weak condition, but could not find the man any more."[11]
Suspecting that this punishment frequently occasioned the death of the sufferer, and that it was sometimes intended to produce this effect, Howard visited the executioner, and assuming an air of authority, demanded truthful replies to certain interrogations: "Can you inflict the knout in such a manner as to occasion death in a short time?" "I can," was the reply. "In how short a time?" — "In a day or two." "Have you ever so inflicted it?" — "Yes! the last man who was punished by my hands with the knout, died of the punishment!" "In what manner do you thus render it mortal?" — "By one or more strokes on the sides, which carry off large pieces of flesh!!" "Do you receive orders thus to inflict the punishment?" — "I do."[12]
O cruel man! more savage than the beasts of the forest, — heartless and hard as the stones under his feet! How has he departed from the image of his Maker! how has he turned love into hate! what miseries is he willing to inflict upon his fellow-man!
Mr. Thompson also saw a female slave who, for the crime of arson, had suffered the punishment of the knout, and had recovered from it. "While visiting the prison," says he, "I expressed to Dr. Haas (a philanthropic individual, who has spent his whole life and fortune, after the example of our Howard, in attempting to mitigate the horrors of a prison, and to reform its inmates) a wish to see the effects of the knout. He immediately called out and desired any person who had undergone the punishment, to come forward; when a young woman, of about twenty, presented herself, and, ‘ without the slightest hesitation or compunction, bared her back. A twelvemonth had elapsed since the punishment had been inflicted, which, in her case, had been confined to five lashes. The wounds-had, of course, long healed, and the skin was perfectly smooth over them; but five red marks of a finger’s breadth each, and of considerable length, were indelibly imprinted between her shoulders, as if branded by fire."[13]
Where is English sympathy? Is there none left for these forty-two millions of enslaved beings, still remaining in Europe, — subject, thus, to the rod, the lash, and the terrible knout, — liable, too, at times, to the horrors of starvation from the recklessness of their haughty masters? Is there no one to write a Russian "Uncle Tom,"[14] to bring the picture of their wrongs before the world? Forty-two millions! — a greater number of white men existing in bondage, this moment, in a single country of Europe, than all the blacks that have been exported from Africa, altogether, in two centuries and a half![15] Why is no pity felt for these? Doubtless, simply through ignorance. From the fact of America’s speaking the same language, and of there being constant communication between the two countries, everything that is done there is known: while Russia is comparatively locked up, and invisible to the mental view: yet as is the proportion of forty millions to three millions, so much greater must be the amount of suffering in Russia than in America.
And is not this fact sufficient to show us how narrow are our views of things, how little we know of the real condition of the world, as it appears before God’s All seeing eye, and how little able we are, consequently (when we go beyond our own immediate sphere), to form correct judgments and to direct our efforts aright? Not so with the All-wise Ruler of the world. He looks down upon Russia equally as on America: He hears and sees every lash inflicted on the slave, whether in New Orleans or in Moscow. Yet He is "silent."[16] But though-silent, He is not unobservant or inactive. He does not cry out, when crying out will effect nothing: but in His infinite wisdom, He is silently working to bring about a change and to remove the evil at the soonest possible moment. He is working,[17] but ever wisely, and according to the laws of His own Divine order, established for the greatest good of all. These He never violates. And the first of these, as already shown, is the preservation of man’s moral liberty, the power of moral choice, the liberty of turning to the right or to the left, of looking to God or from 'God, of taking the upward or the downward path. This first and greatest law of the Divine government He preserves ever inviolate above all others 3 because, take it away, and man ceases to be man — humanity perishes, and there is left nothing but a universe of inanimate stocks and stones, or only brute and irrational creatures, nothing worthy of God’s highest regard, nothing that can return to Him-thought for thought, 10% for love. As shown in the preceding Section, rationality and moral liberty are the distinguishing characteristics of man: if either of them be taken away humanity perishes. It was also shown that the existence of rationality and liberty implies the possibility of evil; for evil, as there defined, is in itself simply a perverted and disordered state of mind; — and moral liberty implies the power so to pervert the mind, if one will. This being so, the great purpose of the Divine Being, in His dealings with man, is — while leaving his moral freedom inviolable — still gently to bend him to good. This cannot be done violently and forcibly, for that would. be a contradiction: to leave man free and to force him are plainly contradictory. There is no such thing as forcing the will; for the will is the love, and love cannot be forced. This every one sees. It is indeed perfectly possible for the Divine Being to bring forth his thunderbolts — so to speak — and by violence and terror to sweep away slavery or any other evil institution or outward condition of things. But, after all, that would be merely to sweep away the stream, not to purify the fountain: as soon as the storm had passed over, the fountain would begin to pour forth its black waters again. God’s wise purpose is not merely to remove the effect, but to change the cause. His great end, it must be remembered, is to regenerate man’s heart, not merely to remove temporary suffering. He ever keeps eternity in view — the one end of existence, salvation, heaven. He loves every man, the master as well as the slave, and desires to save all who are willing to be saved. To take away suddenly and violently, therefore, any object of cherished love, even though it be an improper and evil one, would, in many cases, have the effect not of changing the heart or evil desire, but only of maddening it and confirming it more strongly in its evil purpose; the effect of which would be to destroy the soul. Consequently, in His Divine Wisdom, He acts gently, gradually; here a little and there a little, presenting inducements to good on the one hand, gently checking excesses of evil on the other, — introducing higher views, presenting to the mind nobler considerations, — thus gradually working on the spirit, till, at length, the man begins to be ashamed of his own evil course, to repent of it, and voluntarily to give it up and turn to better things. Then has the Divine Wisdom achieved a great triumph. He has not forced the man’s will, which would be fruitless or impossible, but He has quietly induced the man to change his own will — voluntarily to turn to the right path: and He has thereby saved a soul. Such is the manner of the Divine workings. Such is the reason for the permission of slavery and a thousand other evils, whether with individuals or with nations, for years and for ages: and by such a gentle and orderly process, also, will be accomplished their final removal, and the triumph of love, goodness, and happiness throughout the world;
To return. In regard to Russian slavery or serfdom, — it is pleasant to know that some few steps have of late years been taken in the direction of its removal. By a decree of the 2d of April, 1842, the nobles were empowered to emancipate their serfs, on making with them certain agreements. Says a Russian authority already quoted,[18] "I have hailed this decree as a forerunner of the emancipation of the serfs; in fact, trifling as it maybe, still a great deal has been done in broaching the question; and already the fear of seeing the Government one day out this knot, urges the nobles to prevent its direct interposition, and to remedy the present state of things in one way or another. By the method which the Government has adopted, it has declined the initiative, and thrown the responsibility on the nobles, by opening a clear field for their philanthropy. This was a politic proceeding on its part, and has singularly lightened its task. Having once got so far, no matter whether willingly or unwillingly, it would be pusillanimous to recede; and I seize its decree as a plank of safety. I call upon it, in the name of humanity, to fulfil the engagements which morally it has contracted before the face of the whole world. I think the decree good, because to me it appears moderate, and it respects the pretensions of each, leaving to the nobles, as to the serfs, full latitude to make such agreements as they shall deem advantageous." The author, however, afterwards adds, — "Thus far the results have not corresponded with the hopes entertained. The nobility have not shown that eagerness to enter the track opened for them, which we had a right to expect. Power has not brought the necessary perseverance to bear upon this point, and has incurred the suspicion of timidity or duplicity. The serfs have not sufficient intelligence to frame the conditions of their own enfranchisement, and would be afraid of compromising their future welfare. They distrust the Government more than their masters, and would rather remain serfs; than place themselves in a greater dependence on authority." — "The Russian nobles," he continues, "wish for the emancipation of the serfs, because they are ashamed to pass for slave-traders in the eyes of civilized Europe; because they begin to perceive some profit in emancipation, and to be apprehensive for their own safety, fearing that the serfs may by and by seize that liberty which is now refused them. The Government wishes for it, too, in order to appear well before foreign nations, and to augment its revenues. At this rate, there would be none but the serfs themselves who would not wish their freedom; for to listen to the partizans of the present order of things, their condition is insured at present, but would become quite precarious on the day of their emancipation. If, in fact, the nobles are determined not to part with any of their lands, — in that case, indeed, liberty would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of the serfs." The writer concludes, — "The Government, on the one hand, has not the courage to take a decisive measure, and, on the other, the serfs know not how to stipulate for their interests. The Emperor, yielding to foreign influences, would fain crown himself with an immortal laurel; but he knows not either how to avoid or to meet the dangers which emancipation presents. The half measures which Nicholas has hitherto taken are deficient in energy: it is therefore said that nothing great will be accomplished under this wretched system, and that the heir to the crown will inherit with it all the difficulties which his father was incapable of solving."[19]
Since the publication of the work from which the above extract is made, Alexander II. has succeeded to the throne, and, as is known, is already taking active measures for the emancipation of the serfs. The grand difficulty which attends emancipation in America — namely, the difference of race and color and the consequent impracticability of amalgamation — has no existence here. The nobles and the serfs are of the same nation and race: the distinction between them is purely artificial; and the law has consequently simply to remove that barrier, and the two classes will easily merge into one. Among the nobles, even now, there are instances of persons, who themselves or whose ancestors were once serfs. In fact, Russia, at the present time, is passing through a transition state similar to that which England and France passed through three or four centuries ago. At that period, as we know, the greater part of the inhabitants of those countries were in the condition of serfdom. But with the spread of light, knowledge, and civilization, and above all, of Christianity, the only true liberator, — that condition gradually passed away, and nothing of it now remains. And so, doubtless, will it be with Russia. As the light of truth, with its power, penetrates those hyper-borean regions, — as their commerce extends, and communication with the rest of Europe becomes more easy and frequent, — above all, as the warmth of Christian love gradually melts the ice of selfishness in the masters' bosoms, — the bonds of servitude will be relaxed more and more, and finally be dissolved: and the suns of another century will, we trust, shine on Russia, a nation of enlightened freemen.
- ↑ See "Russia under Nickolas," by Ivan Golovine, vol. ii., ch. i.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ "Alexander Herzen, a Russian, writing in one of the London journals, in November, 1853, says: "It is an established and constant practice to sell serfs, if not separately, at least by family. — The lord is under no obligation to his servants beyond supplying them with just enough food and clothing to prevent their perishing with hunger and cold — The lord has the right to have them flogged, only not to death." The writer adds, somewhat tartly: "Shall these monstrosities continue, without an incessant, universal protest? The mask must be torn from these Slaveholders the North, who go lounging over Europe, mingling with your affairs, assuming the rank of civilized beings, — nay, of liberal-minded men, who read ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ with horror, and shudder when they read of sellers of black flesh. Why, these same brilliant spies of the salons are the very ones who on their return to their domains, rob, flog, sell the white slave, and are served at table by their living property."
- ↑ Encyclopædia Americana, article "Poland."
- ↑ It thus appears that the Emperor of Russia is. by far the greatest slaveholder in the world, his own serfs numbering nearly five times all the slaves in the United States.
- ↑ Thompson’s Life in Russia, Letter xv.
- ↑ Life in Russia, Letter viii
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Thompson, Letter iii.
- ↑ The Emperor, here referred to, was not the present Emperor, but Nicholas.
- ↑ Mrs. Farrar’s Life of Howard, p. 148.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 149.
- ↑ Life in Russia, Letter xix.
- ↑ Uncle Tom's Cabin, by Mrs. Stowe.
- ↑ The sum total of these has been estimated at from sixteen to twenty millions.
- ↑ "The gloomiest problem of this mysterious life was constantly before his eyes: souls crushed and ruined, — evil triumphant and God silent."—Uncle Tom’s Cabin, chap.xxxvii.
- ↑ "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." — John v. 17.
- ↑ Ivan Golovine, author of Russia under Nicholas. 1846.
- ↑ Russia under Nicholas, vol. ii., chap. i.