CC BY
34
Section 3. History and archeology
Section 3. History and archeology
Bryzgalova Irina Genrikhovna E-mail: ibrizgalova@yandex.ru Bratolyubova Mariya Viktorovna, Southern Federal University, Associate Professors, Institute of history and international relations E-mail: m.bratolyubova2015@yandex.ru
February of 1917: the Cossacks’ approach to resolving the agrarian issue (based on materials of the Don, the Kuban and the Terek)
Abstract: The article analyses peculiarities and specifics of land matters on the Don, the Kuban and the Terek after February of1917, the Cossacks’ position in agrarian issue. The authors show that by February of1917 the system of the Cossacks’ land use and agrarian relations in the region were in constant historical conservation being based on customs and traditions that developed over a long historical period. The Cossacks when developing and resolving the agrarian issue used traditional and historically formed system of Cossacks’ land ownership and land use, the local authorities (Cossacks’ self-regulating bodies), and the attitudes of the Cossacks were based on key principles of protection of the interests of their class of society. The authors believe that consideration of this problem should be linked to both the general tendencies of social, economic and political development and the peculiarities of development of each Cossacks’ army.
Keywords: land ownership, land use, land issue, Cossacks, aboriginal peasants, non-Cossacks.
The agrarian issue even in modern Russia remains one of the most discussed social, economic and political problems. It includes a number of aspects, but what became the actual and unexpected aspect was the problem of allotment or return to the reviving Cossacks the land plots in the places of their constant living in case of complying with the interests of other categories of the population and the state in general.
It is interesting to note the approach of the Don, the Kuban and the Terek Cossacks to resolution of this problem after February of1917. It was time of very active apprehension of the whole specter of social, political and economic issues by different parties, social, public and political forces, state and regional authorities. The agrarian issue was not an exception and worried representatives of all social layers of the region and, firstly, the Cossacks due to their special position [1].
By February of1917 the system of the Cossacks’ land use and agrarian relations in the region remained in the state of constant historical conservation based on customs and traditions developed over a long period of time.
At the beginning of the 20th century the territories of the Cossacks’ armies witnessed substantial transformation the result of which was reconsideration of the status and roles of the Cossacks within the state. Reorganization involved almost all aspects of the Cossacks’ armies’ functioning and, first and foremost, the management, military service, land ownership and land use. The basis of the Cossacks’ military service was lying in system of land ownership and land use in Cossacks’
regions that from the historical point of view developed in the 19th century. The Don and the Kuban regions traditionally were agrarian regions of the country while the situation in the Terek region was different in line with different situation in the North Caucasus as a whole. North Caucasus was agrarian region with multinational population. Dozens of mountain nations have preserved the throwback elements of patriarchal ancestral and feudal relations.
At the beginning of the 20th century the Don and North Caucasus became the districts of trade farming, lease of army lands, here appears antagonism between the Cossacks and non-Cossacks (“alien population” that appeared in the region after abolition of serfdom).
Non-Cossack population had fewer rights than the Cossacks who had properly executed documents both for farming and for functioning of their organization which facilitated the improvement of their status.
All these processes affected the development of agrarian relations and defined them thereafter.
Just before the February revolution the economic development of the Don and North Caucasus had its own peculiarities. The industrial complex was at the 9th place among 20 districts represented in the statistics. The key element of its economy was agriculture which defined main lines of regional industry. The economy of the region had agrarian and industrial character. In the grain regions there was more bread per capita than in any other place of Russia. Even among
10
February of 1917: the Cossacks’ approach to resolving the agrarian issue (based on materials of the Don, the Kuban and the Terek)
the most developed agrarian districts of the country the bread fields of the Cossacks’ regions were characterized by high rates of the grain production [2, 17].
Of course, the war years changed the agriculture although in general it has preserved its key characteristics. The mobilization diverted majority of men from creative labor. Especially this affected Cossacks’ region as only the Don Cossacks supplied about 100 regiments, the Kuban Cossacks — about 90, the Terek Cossacks -18. The arable lands decreased as well as the cattle stock [3, 43-44] However the situation was not even within the region itself. The worst situation with agriculture during the war was on the Terek. North Ossetia, according to the agricultural census, the number of peasants without horses and land went from 30 % in 1913 to 62.3 % in 1917. The arable lands in different districts of the Terek region decreased by 34-44 % [4, 69]. However the situation on the Don and in the North Caucasus was different as compared to other regions of Russia. The population of the region was sufficiently different from the people of other regions of Russia in terms of their living standards. Practically in all criteria it was in a better position than other regions of the country. That is why the process of social contradictions deepened in the region gradually. This situation generated grounds for a softer resolution of the most important issues including the agricultural one despite the peculiarities of the region (social and national) [5-7].
After deposition of the tsars the land issue became more acute especially in the Cossacks’ regions where the relations of peasants and Cossacks were closely interlinked.
Throughout the whole history of the recent centuries the political development of the Don, the Kuban and the Terek had its own specific character different from that of the other parts of the empire: relatively high share of Cossacks population in the region served as a factor of social and political stability; social structure of town population corresponded to that of all-Russia, while the social structure of rural population had ethno-social peculiarities.
From the ethno-social perspective the population divided into Cossacks, aboriginal peasants and alien population. In the Don region the Cossacks comprised 38.6 %, aboriginal peasants — 23.5 %, alien population — 29 %, others — 8.9 %. In the Kuban region: 45.8 %, 13.7 %, 39 %, 1.5 %; in the Terek region: 20.0 %, 53.1 %, 24.6 %, 2.1 %. The most numerous groups in the region besides the Cossacks were alien population and aboriginal peasants. However the Cossacks played the key role (33 % of population) or over 70 % of all Russian Cossacks [8, 18-19]. The Cossacks were key landowners in the regions. They operated the lion’s share of land: in the Don region — 82.5 %, in the Kuban region — 92.9 %, in the Terek region — 94.1 % [9, 12- 13].
Based on this it was necessary to resolve three groups of issues in the sphere of land relations: settle land relations between the Cossacks and the peasants caused by their different class status; resolve the group land issues within the Cossacks’ class of society and the peasants’ class; resolve land issues of inter-ethnical character.
Provisional Government when considering the land issue relied upon the specific character of the region and the fact that the Cossacks are the main class of society. However consideration of this problem has to be linked to both the general trends and peculiarities of internal political development of each Cossacks’ army as the situation of each element of the region was different in social, political and economic character.
Resolving of the land issue on the Don had its peculiar character compared to other Cossacks’ regions. Population of the Don was very uneven. The Cossacks comprised only 43 % of the region’s population. And even though the Cossacks did not have quality advantage over other layers of society, 4/5th of the whole land in the Province of the Don Cossack Host belonged to the Cossacks. Therefore 12-15 million of land dessiatina (measure of land = 10,900 sq. metres or 2.7 acres) was in the hands of the Cossacks [10] Large share of this land bank was distributed among the Cossacks and the use of the other land — “army reserve" generated income used for operation of Cossacks’ administration, educational establishments and other needs. The Don Cossacks had a lot of rights and privileges. The most important right of the Host was land ownership as it defined the form of the Cossacks’ governance, their service and autonomy of the Host.
After February events the Provisional Government made “Address to the population of the Province of the Don Cossack Host” [11]. In fact this document formulated the government’s position on the land issue in the Cossacks’ regions. It noted that the land issue was complicated and intricate as the Cossacks population was increased relocated peasants one hundred and fifty years ago. After that began inflow of land owners, renters of yurt (Cossacks’ smallest settlement unit) and army’s lands. Substantial part of lands was transferred to non-Cossacks by the right of ownership. The land relations developed during dozens of years. New settlements appeared on yurt, army and landowners’ lands. This indicated the complexity of the land issue of the Don and the thoroughness it required.
The Cossacks followed their land rights closely at all levels. Objectively the Cossacks’ land ownership became an obstacle for resolution of land issue as its resolution was held back by closed character of the Cossacks’ society. Therefore the land issue was most discussed at all levels and the Cossacks devised their own position regarding it.
No exception was All-Cossacks Congress (March of 1917) where over 800 delegates from all Cossacks armies were present. The address of the Terek Cossacks at the March congress contained the attitudes and expectations of the Cossacks: “Not a sliver of army’s land shall be alienated without permission of the Army’s Krug (supreme governing body of a Cossacks’ army). All lands alienated from the Cossacks are to be returned to them according to the grounds to be set by Constituent Assembly” [12].
The Don, the Kuban and the Terek Cossacks have taken a special resolutions regarding the land issue: “Lands of Cossacks’ army are its property, the army shall use them independently” [13].
11
Section 3. History and archeology
During the congress it was highlighted that the Cossacks’ lands comprised an indispensable army’s property and all the private lands that were allotted out of them shall be returned subject to the principle of land alienation in favor of workers that was to be adopted by Constituent Assembly. The peasants would preserve the right to own the land plots they have received earlier [14].
The All-Cossacks Congress did not take the land disputed between the Cossacks and non-Cossacks but required its conservation hoping that the Constituent Assembly would finally resolve the issue.
The Provisional Government confirmed that the “Cossacks’ rights to land the way they have historically developed were to remain unchanged. Non-Cossack population of the region was to be satisfied to the extent possible in the order to be chosen by Constituent Assembly” [15].
It was then that for the first time after the February events the position of all the Cossacks in the land issue was singled out. The Cossacks have acted in a very consolidated way. Resolution of Petrograd Congress later were used as the basis of the Cossacks activities and activities of their local bodies and served as a certain plan of actions for all the Cossacks.
During district meetings in Novocherkassk (April of 1917) the delegates of stanitsas of Cherkassk, Rostov and Taganrog districts have made a special resolution regarding the land issue [16].
At the Host Congress of the Don Cossacks (April of1917) special provisions of land committee were devised. This document regulated land relations in the Don territory [17].
During the Cossacks’ meetings in Rostov and Nakhichevan an address of the delegates to the Don Cossacks Council was made: “all the Cossacks’ lands and arable lands both those of army and of stanitsas shall remain the property of the Cossacks. The lands of the state, monasteries shall be transferred to the army” [18].
The issue of preserving and strengthening of the land use was resolved by All-Russia Cossacks’ Congress (June of1917) in Petrograd. It has made a special resolution regarding the agrarian issue: “all lands of Cossacks’ army, forests, water and arable lands with all the subsoils are a historical heritage of the Cossacks and are an indispensable property of each Cossacks’ army. All the private lands allotted out of army territories through land grants and orders are to be returned into the ownership of each army” [19].
Therefore it is clear that even standard democratic claims of peasants having no or little land and residing in the regions were considered by the Cossacks as infringement of their land and their rights.
The disputes between the Cossacks and non-Cossack population in Cossacks’ regions were primarily due to the desire of the latter to have land replotting. While in the Don land a Cossack has a land plot of 19.3 to 30 dessiatina, locally born (aboriginal) peasant — 6.5 dessiatina and an alien peasant — 1.3 dessiatina, in the Terek regions this gap was even more complicated due to national contradictions. Here a strip of land of a Cossack was from 8 to 23 dessiatina, of a Chechen person — 1.2 dessiatina, of a Kabardian and Ingush — 0.3 dessiatina, in mountainous Ossetia — 0.4 dessiatina [20, 18-19].
All the above indicated that resolving of land issue was not easy and it had a national aspect and aspect related to division into social classes.
After the February Revolution and change in the state system the resolutions of supreme representative and executive bodies of all the Cossacks’ armies regarding the key internal political and internal army issues were in their majority similar which was due to similarity of fundamental aspects of the Cossacks’ living and character of the acute problems of the period. However each Cossacks’ army in the region despite common interests, objectives, goals and development outlooks had specific character and peculiar development that influenced the resolving ofthe most important political and social issues including the land issue. At the same time the specifics of each army affected the work of army’s krugs, radas and congresses, local governing bodies. For the Kuban army the key question was regulating of land relations and inter-ethnic relations were of a second priority while in the Don army the relations between Cossacks and non-Cossacks classes of society had priority over other issues. In the Terek army the relations of Cossacks and non-Cossacks population were closely linked with inter-ethnical relations.
After February of 1917 all Cossacks relied on traditional and historically developed system of land ownership and land use and Cossacks’ local bodies of self-governing in resolving the land issue. The attitudes of the Cossacks were based on key principles of protection of their social class interests.
The Cossacks in a very consolidated way tried to preserve and protect their specific system of land use. And all Cossacks’ armies were unanimous in this regard despite their social, class, ethnical and national development peculiarities.
However at this stage the resolution of such an urgent issue as the land issue was still possible in a legal, peaceful way as the position of both the Cossacks and the peasants in methods of resolving the issue was similar. Constituent Assembly was to resolve it and high hopes were put on it. However further procrastination in this issue settlement and inconsistent actions of the Provisional Government made the situation more and more acute and tangled.
References:
1. Bratolyubova M. V Drafts of agrarian issue resolution in program addresses of the Don liberals at the beginning of the ХХ century.//Kulturnaya zhizn Yuga Rossiyi. - 2010. - No. 1. - P. 55-58.
2. Kozlov A. I. Cossacks’ outskirts of Russia. - Rostov-on-Don, 1992. - 34 p.
3. Kozlov A. I. At a historical turn. - Rostov-on-Don, 1977. - 428 p.
4. Dolunts G. K. Kirov at the North Caucasus. - М., 1973. - 203 p.
12
February of 1917: the Cossacks’ approach to resolving the agrarian issue (based on materials of the Don, the Kuban and the Terek)
5. Bryzgalova I. G. Influence of economic, social and political peculiarities of the region’s development on the process of formation and character of governing institutes after February of 1917 (based on materials about Don and North Cauca-sus).//Collection of research papers “Urgent issues of modern science. Urgent issues of history and political science”. - Issue 18. - Novosibirsk: publishing house NGTU, 2011. - P. 43-58.
6. Same as above. February of1917: process of emerging of an opposition to autocracy at the Don and North Caucasus (character and peculiarities). Materials of the III International Scientific and Practical Conference “Liberal sciences in the XXI century”. July 30-August 1, 2011. - Moscow.//Liberal sciences issues, publishing house “Sputnik+”. - P. 6-14.
7. Same as above. February of 1917 on Don and North Caucasus: influence of peculiarities of revolutionary process on the specifics of formation of the new statehood bodies.//Collection of works of International Scientific and Practical Conference “Social sciences in the modern world: sociology, political science, philosophy, history”. July 4, 2011. - Novosibirsk, - P. 62-72.
8. October on the Don and the North Caucasus. - Rostov-on-Don, 1977. - 304 p.
9. Kozlov A. I. Cossacks’ outskirts of Russia. - Rostov-on-Don, 1992. - 34 p.
10. Volniy Don. Newspaper of Don Executive Committee, Don Cossacks’ Army Management Board (1917-1918). - 1917, 26th of April.
11. Priazovskiy krai. Daily political, economic and literature newspaper. - Rostov-on-Don. - 1917, 9th ofApril.
12. Volniy Don. Newspaper of Don Executive Committee, Don Cossacks’ Army Management Board (1917-1918). - 1917, 28th of April.
13. Central State Archive of North Ossetia (TsGA SO). - F. Р-2, op. 1, d. 2, l. 51.
14. Priazovskiy krai. Daily political, economic and literature newspaper. - Rostov-on-Don. - 1917, 4th of May.
15. Volniy Don. Newspaper of Don Executive Committee, Don Cossacks’ Army Management Board (1917-1918). - 1917, 26th of April
16. Volniy Don. Newspaper of Don Executive Committee, Don Cossacks’ Army Management Board (1917-1918). - 1917, 27th of April
17. Volniy Don. Newspaper of Don Executive Committee, Don Cossacks’ Army Management Board (1917-1918). - 1917, 28th of April
18. Priazovskiy krai. Daily political, economic and literature newspaper. - Rostov-on-Don. - 1917, 15th of April.
19. Priazovskiy krai. Daily political, economic and literature newspaper. - Rostov-on-Don. - 1917, 18th of April.
20. October on the Don and the North Caucasus. - Rostov-on-Don, 1977. - 304 p.
13
