American Historiography On Russian Peasant Reform Of1861

On February19,1861, the Tsar Alexander II signed the Emancipation Acts thatlifted the yoke of serfdom form22million lord peasants. The Emancipation Acts weremade up of17enactments, which related to the peasants’ land, rights and obligations,redemption, rural management and other issues. Shortly thereafter, the armyoverhauled, government finances and the banking system reformed, provincial andlocal administration revitalized, the judicial system restructured, censorship eased, theuniversities reorganized. Historians usually entitled the decade or so that followedRussian humiliating defeat in the Crimean War the Era of Great Reforms, which couldbe the most important period in the history of the empire between its establishmentearly in the18th century and its demise early in the20th.Therefore, to study RussianPeasant Reform of1861, will undoubtedly secure our understanding of the social,political and economic life of the late imperial Russia, and of development history ofImperial Russian Regime.The primary goal of the dissertation, or to say the main goal is, to sum up therepresentative views that American scholars held on Peasant Reform,based onextensive English literature created by American scholars first, on the ones created bySoviet scholars and Chinese scholars second.To achieve the aim, the paper is divided into four parts.The first part is the first chapter, which introduced background and significanceof topics, research reviews, research methods and writing ideas, as well as maininnovations and shortcomings.The second part is the second chapter, mainly made a historical overview ofAmerican scholars’ research on Reform, paid close attention to historicalperiodization, survey results, and analyzed the corresponding characteristics andcauses.The third part consists of three chapters, respectively explored Americanscholars’ research on the reasons, process and effects of Reform.The third chapter introduced what American scholars criticized Soviet scholarson some issues and American scholars’ representative views. American scholarsdenied Russian and Soviet scholars’ two viewpoint, i.e."revolutionary situations" and"economic factors", while American scholars endorsed influences of Crimean defeat,cultural factors, the Tsar and public opinion and so on. Different from Russian andSoviet scholars, American scholars deemed that Reform was stimulated by aconfluence of factors.The fourth chapter examined the factors what American scholars thoughtinfluenced the process of Reform, and other relevant representative views. Americanscholars made great contribution to Enlightened Bureaucrats, and intensively studiedTsar, Pavlovna, nobility, the economic crisis, as well as paid close attention to other issues in the Reform process, such as the characteristics of nobility, bureaucracy andthe process.The fifth chapter focused on the impacts of Reform, especially what Americanscholars studied since the1960s. There has been a heated discussion between theSecond Generation on the economic development level, land communes, relationshipbetween reform and revolution, reaction of peasants, limitations of reform, etc..Especially to deserve to be mentioned, American scholars’ research economicdevelopment level after the Reform, reflecting their solid theoretical foundation andforschung.The fourth part is the conclusion, which generalized the viewpoints of the thesisand history of American historiography from four aspects. First, it summarizedAmerican scholars’ representative view, as well as academics identity and criticismbetween them. Second, it summarized American scholars’ typical criticism on Russianand Soviet scholars’ views. Third, it looked into the dynamic development ofAmerican historiography, seeing from the minor issues. Fourth, it analyzeddifferences and about reviews, research methods and theory between the two scholars,to promote academic development.