Book Review: Hard Times, by Vasily Sleptsov

The novel is set in the aftermath of serf emancipation in Russia, which, apparently, merely transformed the serfs into peons, because they had to pay onerous redemption levies and received very little of the best land to which they had once belonged. Worse, paternalism remained alive and well, as many of the newly emancipated peasants languished in some kind of dependent relationship with their erstwhile masters. Early in the book (pp. 36-39), when the ex-serfs of the “liberal” Shchetinin perform shoddy construction work for him, he thinks only of “punishing” rather than firing them. When a peasant woman complains of being beaten by her husband, Shchetinin can only recommend “take her away from him.” (p. 47) Peasants must doff their caps whenever their betters pass by; if they fail to do so, they are locked up in the barn to be taught a lesson. (pp. 117, 128-129)

The radical in the story, Riazanov, somewhat understandably, sees through the façade of paternalism to a society in constant conflict. He considers it “war” when peasants steal wood or even if they indulge in drink. (pp. 104-105) When a “mediator” of gentry-peasant relations criticizes the landlords, Riazanov, to prove his unsentimental point, applies the criticism to the peasants, too:

“What haven’t they done to those unfortunate peasants? You can’t imagine what sort of people they are. Where they can possibly squeeze the peasants, they do so, never missing a chance.”

“Well, and do the peasants miss any chances?”

“Of course, to tell the truth, the peasants stand up for themselves: one way or another, they wear down the landowner.”

“In other words, it’s mutual exhaustion.” (p. 131)

Riazanov is really echoing the zero-sum economics of Marxism, upon which he expands in due time:

“If only one portion of bread is issued to two people, and of these two, one is stronger than the other, then from the point of view of the stronger, the most natural outcome would be to take the bread away from the weaker person….

“I see a diligent peasant; I see that he digs the earth and earns his bread by the sweat of his brow; then I observe that at a certain distance from him stand some people I’ve recently met and they’re patiently waiting while the diligent landowner enjoys the work and produces a yield; then they’ll approach this peasant and, in the most polite manner, take from him all that they can according to the rules for the good of enlightenment, and they’ll leave him with only as much as he needs for his own use to maintain ‘the form of a slave’ and not perish from starvation.” (pp. 173-174)

By the end of the novel, Riazanov is motivated to shed his nihilism and apply himself to the task of “organizing the artels,” referring to peasant and worker cooperatives (p. 178), thus coming full circle to embrace a new, revolutionary form of paternalism: Since the days of lord and serf are ended, he will become cadre to the proletariat.

A note about the style: Much of the novel consists of dialogue, and almost all of the dialogue is choppy and excruciating to read. This defect may be the fault of the translator, the writer, the language, or the alcohol consumed by the characters.

Book Review: The Mighty Revolution, by Charles Lewis Wagandt

My purpose in reading this book was to learn more about the revolution of popular opinion against slavery that took place before and during the Civil War. The abolition of slavery by the adoption of a new state constitution in Maryland would count as a critical example of this shifting in opinion, presumably an inspiring one.

The Mighty Revolution certainly provides many of the facts attendant to this shift, but the presentation of them falls somewhat short of inspiring. Wagandt’s focus is the political realm of electoral hustings, factions, and patronage. The idealism is largely left out. There is more information here about schemes to capture the comptroller’s office than there are meditations on the meaning of freedom. Of course, idealism often depends upon pragmatism for its advancement, and The Mighty Revolution offers a detailed illustration of how ideas become reality in this country. We Americans should probably be grateful that we are able to alter our destiny by means of backroom deals and ambiguously-worded ballot initiatives, without recourse to the guillotine.

The narrative of The Mighty Revolution hinges upon three turning points. The latter two are elections: the November 4, 1863 election for state legislature and other offices that was marred by army interference; and the October 12-13, 1864 vote on the new constitution, abolishing slavery, that carried only after soldiers’ absentee votes were counted. Again, it’s not a very rousing story. The fact that the emancipationist effort succeeded in the 1863 election in part because of the lack of a secret ballot (the emancipationist party ballots were yellow, permitting the army to discard others) does not exactly inspire one to plan an additional Thanksgiving dinner — although it does say a lot about the commitment of the boys in blue.

The earlier and perhaps most important turning point is the April 20, 1863 mass meeting of the Union League at the Maryland Institute in Baltimore, which does indeed herald the popular shift against slavery. “Never before in the war,” Wagandt writes, “had emancipation sentiments been advanced at a public meeting.” (p. 99) The Union League was “a civilian organization of obscure origins” that swelled as the war progressed. By 1863,

the Union Leagues extended their spheres of operations into the political arena….Preservation of the nation involved the fierce debate over slavery, a debate which found no sympathy in the conservative leadership of the Union Party [Maryland’s version of the Republican Party]. This created a need for some organized expression of aims among those who wished to move with, rather than against, the revolutionary times….Then there were politicians within the organization who tried to capitalize upon the League to further their ambitions.” (pp. 97-98)

The balance of Wagandt’s narrative describes the machinations of these ambitious politicians. As they “capitalized” upon the emancipationist sentiment of the League, they crystalized it and made it a reality. Such is the ugly beauty of our system.

Both in Maryland’s Civil War history and in Wagandt’s recounting of it, the focus on pragmatism over idealism affords only scattered suggestions that the white Marylander’s hatred of slavery translated into affection or even sympathy for the slave. In the early 1864 debate in the Maryland General Assembly that led to the constitutional convention, Henry S. Stockbridge, citing a letter from a former slave-owner’s son, asserted that abolition should be pursued because “it is right. Right between man and man – right before God.” (p. 194) A subsequent newspaper editorial called slavery “a great moral wrong, injurious to both master and slave.” (p. 203) A delegate to the constitutional convention named Frederick Schley voted in favor of the abolition article for reasons of “patriotism, justice, and humanity,” as well as for Maryland “honor” and popular “welfare.” (p. 225) Often it seems that Wagandt may be glossing over Marylanders’ anti-slavery arguments, perhaps in the belief that they are obvious and well-known, and perhaps because he’s more interested in the political maneuverings anyway.

For the most part, as emerges in these pages, the rationale behind Marylanders’ overthrow of slavery is couched in terms of class warfare and political jealousy. At their April 20, 1863 meeting, Union League members denounced slavery as “an instrument in the hands of traitors to build an oligarchy…on the ruins of republican liberty;” and they resolved “That the safety and interest of…Maryland, and especially of her white laboring people, require that Slavery should cease to be recognized by the law of Maryland.” (p. 99)

This refrain, that abolition was advanced as something that was good for certain white people, rings constantly throughout the book. No egalitarian sentiments are shown here to have been expressed, except in one ironic case:  Radical candidates from Allegany County in the vote on the constitutional convention on April 6, 1864 were said to have been “the real friends of the colored people” – by their opponents, and they subsequently spent much energy to deny the slander. (p. 217)

Still, for all the denial of common humanity that seems to have been necessary for its success, the overthrow of slavery was a success, and thus The Mighty Revolution should be counted as a valuable case study of the working reality of freedom.