The determination of the members of the Southern Society to begin the performance did not shake. Yes, and it was impossible to hesitate. On December 13, Pestel was arrested. And although he denied everything during the first interrogations, the southerners knew that the government, from the denunciations of Boshnyak and captain of the Vyatka regiment Mayboroda, had information about the composition of the Southern society and its activities. Following Pestel, other members of the Tulchin council were captured. Any day now, the remaining members of the Southern Society, and above all the leaders of the Vasylkiv council, could be arrested.
Having learned about Pestel's arrest, S. Muravyov-Apostol, together with his brother Matvey 24, went to Zhitomir to inform members of society of his intention to start a performance, relying on the Chernigov regiment, and to enlist their support. From Zhitomir the brothers left for Lyubar, where the Akhtyrsky Hussar Regiment was located, commanded by a member of the society A. Z. Muravyov. On December 27, shortly after the arrival of the Muravyov brothers in Lyubar, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin rode here, who reported that the regiment commander Gebel had received an order to arrest S. Muravyov, but, not finding him in Vasilkovo, he went with a gendarmerie officer to search for him .
S. Muravyov suggested that A. Muravyov immediately assemble the Akhtyrsky Regiment, go to Troyanov, take along the Alexandria Hussar Regiment located there, then move to Zhitomir and arrest the command of the 3rd Corps there.
A. Muravyov refused to speak out immediately, but promised to support the uprising of the Chernigov regiment. On December 28, Muravyov and his companions arrived in the village. Trilesy, where the 5th company of the Chernigov regiment was stationed, whose commander was a member of the Society of United Slavs A.D. Kuzmin.
By order of S. Muravyov, M. Bestuzhev went to Novograd-Volynsk to organize a performance there of units in which members of the secret society served. S. Muravyov sent a soldier to Vasilkov with a note and invited members of the society, company commanders, Kuzmin, M.A. Shchepillo, V.N. Solovyov to come to him. Having received the note, these, joined by I.I. Sukhinov, we immediately left for Trilesy. Having learned that the Muravyov brothers had been arrested by Gebel and a gendarmerie officer who had arrived here, members of the society released them. The liberation of S. Muravyov on December 29 was actually the beginning of the uprising of the Chernigov regiment.
S. Muravyov saw the immediate task as raising the entire Chernigov regiment. On the same day, the 5th company went to the village. Kovalevka, where it merged with the 2nd. On December 30, the rebels moved to Vasilkov, where the remaining companies of the Chernigov regiment were stationed, but before reaching it, they stopped in the town of Mytintsy. Here they were met by M. Bestuzhev, who was unable to get to Novograd-Volynsk. An attempt by Major Trukhin, who remained as regiment commander, to organize resistance was unsuccessful. The soldiers of the Chernigov regiment enthusiastically greeted the rebels and went over to their side.
In Vasilkovo, the regiment's food supplies passed into the hands of the rebels. “The night from December 30 to 31,” writes Gorbachevsky, “was spent in preparations for the campaign.”
In Vasilkov, a question arose about a plan for further action. At the military council convened to develop it, the Slavs - Sukhinov, Shchepillo, Kuzmin and Solovyov - spoke in favor of an immediate campaign against Kyiv.
The occupation of this large center in the south of the country opened up great prospects for the further course of the uprising.
S. Muravyov, in principle, did not object to the opportunity to Kyiv. “From Vasilkov I could act in three ways: 1st go to Kyiv, 2nd go to Bila Tserkva and 3rd move more quickly to Zhitomir and try to unite with the Slavs. Of these three plans, I leaned more towards the last and first,” S. Muravyov testified at the investigation. Zhitomir was located in the center of the location of units that were influenced by members of the secret society. The headquarters of the 3rd Infantry Corps was also located here. Capturing it and arresting its command would have prevented the possibility of organizing forces to suppress the uprising. That is why S. Muravyov preferred the third option. However, the headquarters of the uprising refused an immediate march to Zhitomir due to insufficient available forces and the failure of M. Bestuzhev’s attempts to establish contact with the Slavs and the nearby Kremenchug and Aleksopol regiments.
The council decided to move to Brusilov. This decision did not mean abandoning the plan to march on Kyiv or Zhitomir.
On December 31, in the afternoon, the regimental priest read the “Orthodox Catechism” to the soldiers of the Chernigov regiment and the residents of Vasilkov, a program document revealing the revolutionary goals of the uprising. It was compiled by S. Muravyov. In this document, the kings were declared “oppressors of the people” who stole their freedom. Dressed in religious form, the “catechism” was directed against autocracy and proclaimed the natural equality of all people.
After reading the catechism, S. Muravyov addressed the rebels with a short speech, in which he explained the content and meaning of the revolutionary slogans of the uprising. He spoke about the need to proclaim freedom in Russia, about reducing the length of military service, about easing the situation of the peasants, and called on soldiers to defend freedom.
On the same day, the rebels went to Brusilov. Along the way, the rebels proclaimed the freedom of the peasants. Local residents treated the rebels with great sympathy. During the guard tour, the peasants joyfully greeted Muravyov and said to him: “May God help you, our good colonel, our savior...” They cordially received his soldiers, took care of them and supplied them with everything in abundance, seeing them not as guests, and defenders.
Having learned about the movement of troops in the Brusilov area, the leaders of the uprising decided to move to Bila Tserkva. Here they were counting on the 17th Jaeger Regiment joining the Chernigovites. On January 2, 1826, the rebels set out towards the Belaya Tserkov and, not reaching 15 versts before it, stopped in the village. Canopies. Having learned that the 17th Jaeger Regiment had been withdrawn from Bila Tserkva, the rebels on January 3 headed again to Kovalevka and Trilesy, from where they began their performance, intending to move to Zhitomir to join the units in which members of the Society of United Slavs served.
However, time was lost. The command of the 3rd Corps seized the initiative and, concentrating large military forces, began encircling the rebels. On January 3, on the way from Kovalevka to Trilesy, the Chernigov regiment was met by a detachment of General Geismar, who opened fire on the rebels with grapeshot. The Chernigovites went on the attack, but being shot at point-blank range and suffering losses, they rushed back. S. Muravyov was seriously wounded in the head and could not control the battle. Shchepillo was killed, Kuzmin was wounded. The defeat of the rebels was completed by the cavalry.
The performance of the Chernigov regiment took place in unfavorable conditions for the Decembrists. The uprising in St. Petersburg was suppressed. The arrest of Pestel and the refusal of a number of members of the Southern Society to take decisive action and support the Chernigov Regiment made it easier for the government to fight the rebels. The uprising in the south, as well as in St. Petersburg, did not rely on the people. During the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, the same tactical mistakes were made as on Senate Square on December 14, 1825.
I.A.Mironova“...Their case is not lost”
In the history of every state there are uprisings and coups. Russia is no exception. The event on Senate Square, which took place on December 14, 1825, was a bright, dramatic performance by the best representatives of the noble military intelligentsia, who consciously decided to undertake a coup, a change in the political system. If almost every person in Russia knows about the events on Senate Square, then little was known about the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, which was a continuation of the Decembrists’ speech.
Prerequisites
Revolutionary trends swept Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. This was facilitated by disappointment in the reign of Emperor Alexander I, as well as the war of 1812, which shook all of Russia and united the entire people, from nobles to simple peasants. Victorious campaigns in the countries of Western Europe, the acquaintance of the enlightened part of the nobility with the progressive movements of the West evoked a double feeling in society.
On the one hand, there is pride in the people and the Fatherland, and on the other, there is a feeling of embarrassment for serfdom, for the oppression of compatriots, and an awareness of the country’s backwardness. The reactionary policy of Alexander I in relation to education in his country, participation in the suppression of revolutions in Europe led the most advanced part of citizens to the idea of the immediate need for changes, since serfdom was considered an insult to national dignity.
Creation of the Northern and Southern Society
What preceded the performance on Senate Square and the uprising of the Chernigov regiment? The very first political secret society was created in St. Petersburg in 1816. Its participants included 28 people, including P. Pestel, N. Muravyov and two Muravyov-Apostolov brothers. Two years later, a larger organization, the Union of Prosperity, was created in Moscow, which already included 200 people. Its branches were located in different cities of Russia. The union collapsed due to internal contradictions.
In St. Petersburg, N. Muravyov created the Northern Society. In Ukraine, the Southern Society is created, the leader of which is Colonel P. Pestel. The goal of the societies was the abolition of serfdom and the constitutional restriction of the monarchy, up to the murder of the emperor, the arrest of the royal family and the establishment of the rule of a dictator, who was supposed to appoint Prince Sergei Trubetskoy.
What predetermined the uprising
The main reason for the uprising was the controversial legal situation that arose around the rights to succession to the throne. Emperor Alexander I was childless. Konstantin Pavlovich, who was next in seniority to Alexander I, had previously written a renunciation of the throne, which gave the right to his younger brother Nikolai Pavlovich to take the throne. But he was extremely unpopular among the highest nobility, representing the military-bureaucratic elite. Under the influence of the Governor-General of St. Petersburg M. Miloradovich, he writes a renunciation of his legacy in favor of his older brother.
12/9/1825 (new style) the people swore allegiance to Constantine, that is, in form, the Russian Empire received a new emperor who did not accept the throne, but did not renounce it either. A situation called an interregnum was created. Later, Nikolai Pavlovich proclaims himself emperor. A new oath is appointed, which must take place on December 14, since Constantine again refused to accept the throne.
On the night of December 14, 1825, the Senate recognized the legality of the transfer of the throne to the future Emperor Nicholas I. The repeated oath was scheduled for the day. The conspirators decide to put their plans into action. But for a number of reasons this did not come true. The uprising on Senate Square was suppressed. All Decembrists were arrested. In addition, more than 600 soldiers and 62 sailors of the rebel regiments were arrested.
Reasons for the uprising of the Chernigov regiment
Having received news from St. Petersburg about the Decembrist uprising, the commander of the Chernigov regiment ordered S. Muravyov-Apostol, the regiment's lieutenant colonel, to be taken into custody, because his connection with the conspirators was well known. It was he who promised to act together with the Northern society, trying to win over other military units to his side with concrete actions.
Four officers of the Chernigov regiment, members of the “Society of United Slavs”, which had previously been part of the Southern Society, freed him and wounded Colonel Gebel, who gave the order for his arrest. There was no question of who would lead the uprising of the Chernigov regiment. Its leaders were S. Muravyov-Apostol and M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. They also wrote a proclamation called “Catechism”.
Revolt of the regiment
In the village of Trilesy, where the 5th company of the regiment was located, on December 29, 1825, an uprising of the Chernigov regiment began. The company marched in formation to the village of Kovalevka to join another company. Having united, they set out for the city of Vasilkov, where the rest of the regiment was quartered. The city was captured by the rebels, and weapons and the regimental treasury were in the hands of the rebels.
Next, the village of Motovilovka was occupied. This happened on December 31st. The goal of the regiment was a breakthrough in the city of Zhitomir, where a connection with military units should take place; according to the plan of the rebels, they were supposed to support them, since members of the “Society of United Slavs” served here. But government troops stood in the way, so the rebel regiment had only one thing left to do - turn towards Bila Tserkva.
Not all employees supported the uprising of the Chernigov regiment. The grenadier company under the command of Captain Kozlov went to the government forces. Near the village of Ustimovka on December 3, 1826, the regiment was fired upon and defeated, 6 officers and 895 soldiers were taken prisoner. S. Muravyov-Apostol, wounded in the head, was arrested. His brother was killed by buckshot.
Causes of defeat
The date of the uprising of the Chernigov regiment was tentatively set for the summer of 1826. However, events in St. Petersburg and the arrest of S. Muravyov-Apostol led to the fact that the uprising began earlier than expected.
The uprising of the Chernigov regiment in 1825 was doomed to defeat. The main reason is the complete absence of prerequisites for an uprising. The peasantry, which the rebels were going to liberate, was not ready for change and did not want it. The military, who dreamed of a constitution only at meetings, could not sacrifice their families, positions and go to the end. The hope that immediately after the uprising, according to the principle of a chain reaction, disturbances would begin in other parts was utopian. There were no revolutionary preconditions. Romantic naivety and political shortsightedness led to unnecessary casualties, repression, and broken destinies.
But nevertheless, pure, honest, noble romantic idealists, the color and conscience of the nation, who the Decembrists really were, changed the consciousness of enlightened people, lit sparks of the flame that almost 50 years later led to the abolition of serfdom, and 90 years later demolished the autocracy along with its bureaucratic apparatus.
Similar materials
Western Ukrainian lands as part of the Austrian Empire at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th century.
Content: 1. Creation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Political reforms in the empire and changes in the administrative-territorial structure of Western Ukrainian lands. 2. The socio-economic situation of Western Ukrainian lands in the second half of the 19th century. 3. The problem of agricultural overpopulation and the beginning of mass labor emigration of Western Ukrainians. 4. Ukrainian national and socio-political movements in Western Ukrainian lands in the second half of the 19th century. 4.1. Consequences of constitutional reforms in the Austrian Empire. 4.2. Muscophilism (Russophilism). 4.3. Narodovtsy. 4.4. "Enlightenment" 4.5. Radicals.
1. Creation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Political reforms in the empire and changes in the administrative-territorial structure of Western Ukrainian lands On February 8, 1867, as a result of negotiations between the Austrian government and the leaders of Hungarian political parties, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was created. On December 21, 1867, Emperor Franz Joseph I approved the Austro-Hungarian agreement and constitution. The Austrian Empire was transformed into dual (dualistic)state, called the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hungary gained political and administrative autonomy, it had its own government and parliament - the Sejm.
Some changes also occurred in the position of the Western Ukrainian lands that were part of the empire. Although Galicia was led by an Austrian governor from among the Polish magnates, the region received limited autonomy. Back in 1861, the Galician Regional Sejm began its work in Lviv. Polish landowners and entrepreneurs received an advantage in it, but the right to vote (the right to elect and be elected to the Galician Sejm) also had Ukrainians, in particular peasants. The imperial government refused to satisfy the long-standing Ukrainian demand - to divide Galicia into two administrative units - Ukrainian(Eastern Galicia) and Polish(Western Galicia). As before 1867, the “Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria” existed.
Internal self-government was also granted Bukovina, however, Ukrainian access to the Bukovina Sejm was limited: it was dominated by Romanians and Germans.
Transcarpathia became part of Hungary and did not receive any self-government.
2. The socio-economic situation of Western Ukrainian lands in the second half of the 19th century. Despite the industrial revolution, which began in the Austrian Empire back in the 30s - 40s, in the last third of the 19th century. Austria-Hungary remained one of backward European countries with numerous feudal remnants.
The development of industry and market relations in various regions of Austria-Hungary took place unevenly. The Czech Republic and Austria achieved the greatest industrial development, while Galicia, Bukovina, Transcarpathia, as well as Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and some other areas lagged significantly behind in their socio-economic development.
Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina, Transcarpathia were retained< strong>agrarian character economy, the majority of the population was employed in agriculture. The development of the economy in Western Ukrainian lands was increasingly determined by the interests of the large factory industry of the western and central provinces of the empire.
Industry of Western Ukrainian lands under the rule of Austria-Hungary in the last third of the 19th century. was almost entirely in the hands foreign capitalists (German, Austrian, Canadian). Throughout the 70s - 80s. XIX century an intensive process of formation also took place here factory industry, mainly in the oil-extracting, flour-grinding, alcohol-and-vodka, and timber-processing industries. Steam engines began to be widely used at these enterprises.
But in the economic structure of Austria-Hungary, Western Ukrainian lands were assigned a role sales market finished goods and a source of raw materials and labor for industrialized provinces. Western industry could not stand it competition cheap goods and began decline. The imperial government actually did not take measures to develop industry in Western Ukraine. Western Ukrainian entrepreneurs were not provided with tax benefits that were enjoyed in the western provinces. Access for Western Ukrainian goods to the markets of Austria-Hungary and neighboring countries was effectively closed. At the same time, there were benefits for the export of raw materials and semi-finished products from the region.
Proclaimed in 1848 peasant reform, the main position of which was cancellationserfdom, was carried out in the 50s. The government did everything to ensure that the losses of the landowners were minimal and that they received everything they needed to adapt to the new economic conditions.
After the reform, Western Ukraine remained a region landownerslatifundium. Large landowners who owned 5 thousand hectares or more owned more than 40% of all land. Despite large remnants of serfdom, agriculture in Western Ukraine in the second half of the 19th century. gradually developed in a market way: in Freelance workers worked on landowners' and rich peasant farms. By the end of the 19th century. in Western Ukrainian lands there were over 400 thousand permanently employed and periodically hired workers. Agricultural machinery was used more and more widely, and the specialization of regions deepened.
3. The problem of agricultural overpopulation and the beginning of mass labor emigration of Western Ukrainians. At the end of the 19th century. 75% of the total population was employed in agriculture and forestry in Western Ukraine. Active differentiation of the peasantry led to the fact that at the turn of the century in Western Ukrainian lands there were almost 80% poor peasants, 15% middle peasants and only 5% economically strong wealthy peasant farms. Peasant land ownership of this era was characterized by an increase in the number of peasant farms as a result of fragmentation, which was accompanied by progressive reduction of land plots.
On this basis, the problem of agrarian overpopulation in Western Ukrainian lands became acute and mass labor emigration of Western Ukrainians began. The main reasons for mass labor emigration were:
The impoverishment of the majority of peasants, the lack of land, the search for salvation from starvation;
- low earnings or their complete absence;
Fear of the not yet ruined peasants of future poverty;
The burden of national oppression and political lawlessness. Looking for a way out of a critical situation, Western Ukrainian peasants began travel abroad- to Canada, USA, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, etc. At the end of the 19th century. 250 thousand people emigrated from Eastern Galicia and Northern Bukovina, and 170 thousand from Transcarpathia. Subsequently, this process tended to grow.
At this time there was also temporary (seasonal) wage emigration from Western Ukraine to Hungary, Romania, Austria, Germany, France, Russia. But in general, labor emigration of Western Ukrainians (in total, before the First World War, over 1 million people went abroad) only partially solved the problem of agricultural overpopulation and alleviated the situation in the countryside.
4. Ukrainian national and socio-political movement in Western Ukrainian lands in the second half of the 19th century.
4.1. Consequences of constitutional reforms in the Austrian Empire. In Western Ukrainian lands, Ukrainian national and socio-political movements gained greater scope after constitutional reforms in the Austrian Empire in the 60s. These reforms created a solid foundation for the revitalization of the national and socio-political life of all peoples of the empire, and in particular the Ukrainian one. The establishment of parliamentarism gradually changed public psychology. The masses of the population turned from silent subjects into citizens who trusted the authorities. The declaration, albeit formal, of the equality of all peoples of the empire awakened national dignity - the first necessary basis for national revival.
In the 60s XIX century As a result of the actual ban on the Ukrainian language in the Russian Empire, the influx of Ukrainian literature in Galicia increased, which significantly intensified the processes of national self-determination here. But Galician Ukrainians split into Muscovophiles And populists, who competed with each other.
4.2. Muscophilism (Russophilism). Founders and leaders Muscovophilism were D. Zubritsky, B. Diditsky, N. Malinovsky, A. Dobryansky. It was generated by the difficult conditions of national life in Austria-Hungary. Initially it was relatively progressive. It united, on the one hand, resistance to forced Polishization, the loss of illusions and hopes for the Austrian government, which supported the course of suppressing Ukrainians in Galicia by the forces of the Polish nobility, and on the other hand, disbelief in the possibility of the Ukrainian nation and the search for support in an ethnically related state.< /p>
The prerequisites for the emergence of Muscovophilism were: the loss of the Ukrainian people’s own statehood; centuries of foreign enslavement; fragmentation and isolation of individual lands; denationalization of the educated elite; low level of national consciousness of the masses.
At first Muscovophilism had cultural direction, advocating that Russian become the literary language in Galicia. However, gradually it began to gain political overtones, promoting ideas about the ethnic identity of Russians, Ukrainians and Galician Rusyns, denying the existence of Ukrainians as a nation, asserting the need to unite all the Slavs under the patronage of Russia.
4.3. Narodovtsy. It was precisely in contrast to the Muscovophile movement in the early 60s. XIX century and peoples arose who focused on Ukrainian people and advocated the introduction of Ukrainian language and literature into all spheres of life.
The populist movement arose based on the ideas national revival, formulated by the “Russian Trinity” and the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood, and was formed under the influence of the creativity of T. Shevchenko, P. Kulish, N. Kostomarov. Based on the fact that Ukrainians are separate nation Living in the territory from the Caucasus to the Carpathians, the populists advocated the unity of all Ukrainian lands and the development of a single Ukrainian language based on folk dialects. People's activists defended the rights of the Ukrainian people to state life.
The leaders of the populists were Vasily Barvinsky, Yu. Romanchuk, V. Navrotsky, A. Ogonovsky, A. Vakhnyanin. They carried out a wide scientific and educational work. In particular, on their initiative, the first Ukrainian theater was founded in Lvov in 1864, the cultural and educational organization “Russian Conversation” was founded in 1861, and “Prosvita” was founded in 1861. Of great importance for the development of the Ukrainian language and literature was the creation in 1873 in Lvov of the Literary Society named after. T. Shevchenko, which in 1892 was reorganized into the Scientific Society named after. T. Shevchenko.
The impetus for the start of active political activity of the populists was the 1879 elections to the Galician Sejm, when the Ukrainians, led by the Muscovite Russian Council, were able to hold three of their representatives.
In 1890, Yu. Romanchuk, S. Sembratovich, O. Barvinsky, through the mediation of V. Antonovich, concluded a compromise agreement with Polish political circles and the Austrian government, called "New era". The agreement provided for concessions by the Austrian government to the Ukrainians and recognition of the rights of the Galician Ukrainians as a separate people. It was envisaged to provide Ukrainians with a certain number of seats in parliament in the Galician Sejm, the opening of gymnasiums in response to loyalty Ukrainians to the Austrian authorities. But already in 1894, the parties, dissatisfied with each other’s actions, abandoned the “New Erian POLICY”.
In 1890, a significant part of the populists united in Russian-Ukrainian Radical Party, sharply condemning the policies of the “New Era” and continued the opposition struggle. In 1899, the main part of the populists and the radicals formed Ukrainian nationaldemocraticparty.
4.4. "Education". "Prosvita"- Ukrainian cultural society founded in Lviv on December 8, 1868 by a group of populists. This was the first cell of “Enlightenment” in Ukrainian lands. The Prosvita society in Galicia was born in opposition to anti-Ukrainian trends in cultural life: colonialist, supported by the tsarist government, on the one hand, and Muscovite, on the other.
The main task society was to promote the education of the Ukrainian people in cultural, national-political and economic directions. In the early 90s. XIX century "Enlightenment" began to open its own reading rooms. The activities of the branches were coordinated by the main office in Lviv. The society published works of leading Ukrainian writers, school textbooks, popular brochures, newspapers and magazines, literary and scientific almanacs. Through printed publications, reading rooms, and a wide network of circles, “Enlightenment” brought culture, knowledge and national consciousness to the masses and was an important factor in the consolidation of Galician Ukrainians.
4.5. Radicals. In the mid-70s. in Galicia a young intelligentsia appears, which has become critically evaluate the activities of both Muscovophiles and Narodniks, and sought to give the Ukrainian movement a more revolutionary character. Under the influence of M. Drahomanov, young Ukrainian politicians I. Franko, M. Pavlik, O. Terletsky and others turned to socialism. This is how the so-called radical flow.
The radicals criticized the existing system, Muscovophiles and populists, and sought to defend the interests of peasants and workers in specific matters. They stood for the national and social liberation of the Ukrainian people, the reunification of Ukrainian lands into a single state.
The radicals intensified the activities of all Ukrainian patriots of Galicia. They came to realize the need to unite their efforts within a single organization. Such an organization became People's Council, created by the populists in 1885. This organization set itself the task of continuing the work of the Main Russian Council of 1848. The People's Council became the prototype of a political party. In 1890, in Lvov, radicals created Russian-Ukrainian Radical Party - first Ukrainian political
Uprising of the Chernigov Regiment
The uprising of the Chernigov priest began on December 29, 1825, when it was already known about the fate of the St. Petersburg uprising, some members of the Southern Society, incl. Pestel - arrested. 5 companies of the Chernigov regiment rebelled (970 soldiers and 8 officers. Headed by S.I. Muravyov-Apostol). On January 3, 1826, the rebels were shot with grapeshot near the village of Ustimovka.
There was an attempt to raise an uprising in the Lithuanian Pioneer Battalion (December 24, 1825 by members of the “Society of Military Friends” K.G. Igelstrom and A.I. Vegelin).
But the command managed to isolate the battalion that refused the oath and arrested the instigators. Another attempt was made on February 6, 1826 in Bobruisk in the Poltava Infantry Regiment by a member of the “Society of United Slavs” S.I. Trusov.
Investigation and trial of the Decembrists
The commission of inquiry into the case of the Decembrists in St. Petersburg worked from December 17, 1825 to June 17, 1826. At the same time, commissions worked in Bila Tserkva, Minsk, Bialystok, and Warsaw. In total, 316 people were arrested, 545 were brought into the investigation, and 289 were found guilty.
- On June 3, 1826, the Supreme Criminal Court began sitting and on July 12, it sentenced 121 defendants, and a total of 173 Decembrists were convicted by all courts.
- On July 13, K.F. was hanged. Ryleev, P.I. Pestel, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, P.G. Kakhovsky. This is how I.G. remembers the execution of the Decembrists. Schnitzler: “... They had just entered back into the fortress when five condemned to death appeared on the rampart. Due to the distance, it was difficult for spectators to recognize them in person; only gray overcoats with the tops raised were visible, which covered their heads. They ascended one after another onto the platform and onto the benches placed side by side under the gallows, in the order as prescribed in the sentence. Pestel was on the far right, Kakhovsky on the left. Each had a rope wrapped around his neck; the executioner stepped off the platform, and at the same moment the platform fell down. Pestel and Kakhovsky hung, but the three who were between them were spared death. A terrible sight was presented to the spectators. Poorly tightened ropes slid down the top of their greatcoats, and the unfortunates fell down into the gaping hole, hitting stairs and benches. Since the sovereign was in Tsarskoe Selo and no one dared to give an order to postpone the execution, they had, in addition to terrible bruises, to experience the death throes twice. The platform was immediately straightened and those who had fallen were lifted onto it. Ryleev, despite the fall, walked firmly, but could not resist a sorrowful exclamation: “So, they will say that I did not succeed in anything, not even to die.”
In addition, 88 people were sentenced to hard labor; 19 - exiled to Siberia; 9 officers were demoted to soldiers; about 120 people were punished by personal order of Nicholas I without trial.
When discussing the reasons for the defeat of the Decembrists, I would like to turn to the memoirs of the Russian general Evgeny Virtembergsky, who said the following:
“1) although there were reasons for displeasure against Emperor Alexander, nevertheless, he was still generally loved;
- 2) it cannot be denied that much in the Russian state structure and in the internal governance of the country left much to be desired, but this circumstance did not affect attachment to the imperial house;
- 3) the direction given to the entire enterprise was so shameful, stupid and meaningless that every cautious and prudent person should have rejected participation in such an undertaking;
- 4) the conspirators did not have at their disposal a person who would exercise decisive influence over the troops,
and 5) at the head of the conspirators there was no person who, occupying a high and influential position in the state, ... could manage the enterprise, promote the success of the business by choosing appropriate measures and protect the safety of the participants in the conspiracy.”
In just one tavern in Motovilovka, soldiers of the rebellious Chernigov infantry regiment consumed 360 buckets of “vodka and other drinks”
Sergei Ivanovich Muravyov-Apostol...........December 29, 1825 (January 10, 1826, hereafter dates according to the old style) the Chernigov infantry regiment, stationed in the villages of the Vasilkovsky district of the Kyiv province, rebelled. The mutiny, organized by officers who were members of the Southern Society, was a continuation of the coup attempt on December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg. Initially, in the plans of the conspirators, the performance in the south of the empire was listed as auxiliary: St. Petersburg was to perform first, the performance of the “southerners” was expected only after a signal from there of at least some success. But everything went wrong, and not only in the capital: even the day before the events there, on December 13, 1825, Colonel Pavel Pestel, commander of the Vyatka Infantry Regiment, the de facto head of the Southern Society, was arrested at the headquarters of the Second Army in Tulchin. The surviving threads of the conspiracy ended up in the hands of Lieutenant Colonel Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, the battalion commander of the Chernigov regiment, as well as his older brother Matvey, a retired lieutenant colonel.
But the brothers learned about the failure of the uprising in the capital only on December 24 at the entrance to Zhitomir, where they were heading to meet with the commanders of the Akhtyrsky and Alexandria Hussar Regiments, Colonels Artamon and Alexander Muravyov. In the light of fresh news, the “negotiation process” broke down, the hussar colonels, and most of the other conspirators cooled down on the idea of the rebellion and no longer saw the point in speaking out. Meanwhile, the commander of the Chernigov regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Gustav Gebel, received an order to arrest the brothers Sergei and Matvey Muravyov-Apostles. The zealous campaigner overtook the brothers in the early morning of December 29 in the village of Trilesy, in a hut where the commander of the 5th Musketeer Company of the Chernigov Regiment, Lieutenant Anastasy Kuzmin, who was also a member of a secret society, lodged. Accompanied by a gendarmerie lieutenant, Lieutenant Colonel Gebel took two loaded pistols from the brothers, announced the arrest, and called the guard. Then the prisoners invited Gebel... “to have tea, to which he readily agreed.” But then other conspirators got involved. As Gebel testified, staff captain Baron Veniamin Solovyov, lieutenants Anastasy Kuzmin, Mikhail Shchepillo and Ivan Sukhinov “started asking me why the Muravyovs would be arrested, when did I tell them that it was none of your business to know, and I don’t even know it myself, one of them Shchepillo, shouting at me: “You, barbarian, want to destroy Muravyov,” grabbed a gun from the guards and pierced my chest with a bayonet, and the other three also took up their guns.<…>All four officers rushed to stab me with bayonets, but I, defending myself as best I could, jumped out of the kitchen into the yard, but was overtaken by them and the Muravyovs.<…>Then the elder Muravyov inflicted a severe wound on me in the stomach, and others also stabbed me, but I somehow escaped from them here and ran away.”
Historian Oksana Kiyanskaya cited data from Gebel’s medical examination: “He received 14 bayonet wounds, namely: 4 wounds on the head, one in the inner corner of the eye, one on the chest, one on the left shoulder, three wounds on the belly, 4 wounds on the back. Moreover, there is a fracture in the radius bone of the right hand.” “Chain mad dogs,” as Solovyov, Kuzmin, Shchepillo and Sukhinov were called by their fellow conspirators, maybe because they were hungry for blood and rebellion because three of them, in their youth, had never smelled gunpowder in real battles? Only Sukhinov fought, having gone through the campaigns of 1812–1814 as a soldier and being distinguished, according to his comrades, by insane courage, cruelty and some kind of animal hatred of people. Kuzmin and Shchepillo can also hardly be called humanists: they, like Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, preferred exclusively stick-based, cruel methods of “educating” soldiers.
Five of the conspiratorial officers stabbed with bayonets - even in the back (!) - and beat with rifle butts the unarmed father-commander, an honored veteran of the Napoleonic campaigns of 1805–1807, the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Foreign Campaign, who distinguished himself in a number of the bloodiest battles, a cavalier of four military orders and the Golden Sword "For Bravery". They killed, but they never killed. It is difficult to say whether this indicates the weak ability of the conspirators, accustomed to swords and pistols, to wield soldier’s weapons, but the action itself was undoubtedly a complete dishonor and moral failure. All this happened before the eyes of the lower ranks, and the consequences were not long in coming: discipline collapsed almost immediately, the lower ranks went into disarray. The soldiers did not very willingly obey the orders, carrying them out... for money - it was the funds found in the opened regimental artel box that were used to bribe the soldiers and non-commissioned officers. The soldiers took the money willingly, but they were not eager to go on campaigns and battles “for freedom,” but “they asked permission to rob, but the lieutenant colonel forbade it.” This discouraged the soldiers for a short time: they stopped asking permission, they simply went to the taverns, began to rob and rape. In just three days of the campaign, the regiment from a united military unit turned into an armed riotous crowd, all of whose thoughts were to devour, get drunk, fight, rob and rape. Throughout their “combat path,” the never-drying soldiery went around and robbed all the drinking houses, extorted money and vodka from the villagers, plundering from them a countless number of boots, hats, underwear, skirts, stockings, and not without rape. It is documented how “revolutionary” soldiers did not even disdain to undress the newly deceased! And in just one tavern in Motovilovka, as many as 360 buckets of “vodka and other drinks” were consumed! They didn’t believe it at first, but the investigation established that it was so, although “the soldiers didn’t drink as much of it as they spilled it on the floor,” and they also poured vodka on each other generously.
It all ended on January 3 (15), 1826, near the village of Ustimovka, where the rebels’ campaign, which actually turned into a drunken raid on taverns, was stopped by canister artillery fire. The drunken Chernigov residents threw down their weapons without firing a shot. However, as it turned out, the rebels could not fight: an examination of the guns showed that most of them “were unloaded and had wooden flints”! Others were loaded in a very original way: “one was loaded on the contrary with a bullet at the bottom and gunpowder at the top, and the other had a piece of tallow candle instead of a charge.” The uprising clearly showed what could have awaited Russia if success, albeit temporarily, had accompanied the Decembrists on December 14, 1825 - an inevitable bloody mess of riots and rebellions. What the Decembrists themselves understood, it is no coincidence that Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin said with bitterness before his execution: “Our very success would be detrimental for us and for Russia.”
