serfdom

Those who participated in the Decembrist movement from its inception and disassociated themselves from it no later than the dissolution of the Union of Welfare (1821) were, in general, not subjected to retribution. Those who were released during the investigation (frequently even without personal participation in it) or emerged from the trial completely cleared of suspicion accounted for half of all the defendants (290 people). It is evident that a considerable proportion of individuals belonging to the secret society who evaded retribution and were subsequently punished indicates that one of the primary outcomes of the Decembrist movement was the edification of liberal-oriented figures during the second quarter and the middle of the 19th century. The article examines the attitudes of two generals and major administrators of the Nicholas I era towards the problem of exploitation of the labour of serfs. One such individual is V. A. Glinka, the chief head of the Ural mining plants, who, during his youth, was a member of the Decembrist Union of Prosperity society. The second is the director of the Imperial Military Academy and proprietor of metallurgical enterprises in the Urals, I. O. Sukhozanet, who is most renowned for personally directing the artillery bombardment of the Decembrist rebels on 14 December 1825. Sukhozanet advanced the argument that the manufacturer’s right to “baptised property” should be defended, proposing that for enlightened nobles, the management of serfs constituted a form of public service, an obligation to “direct the masses of uneducated people to strict subordination”. Glinka, however, was diametrically opposed to this. Without delving into the broader discourse on the prospects of serfdom, he advocated for stringent legislative oversight of the duties and rights of factory workers, thereby curtailing the prerogatives of the breeders.