In a message dated 4/16/01 2:28:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Thaddeus Stevens studied intently Czar Alexander II's
 emancipation of the serfs in Russia, noting among other things,
 that the freedmen were provided with land as part of their
 establishment as free men i >>

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it may be important in comparing the
two situations to point out that (I think) that there was a crucial
difference between being a Russian serf and an American slave.  The serf
generally belonged to the land, much like the "house and other appurtenances"
in Virginia deeds.  He was not the property of the land's owner to sell off
separately for whatever reason, while he kept the land.  Nor could the  owner
legally take the serf with him when he sold the land.  Interestingly, while
still putting the serf under the complete control of an elitist oligarchy it
gave him a bit more security than an American slave as the land wasn't going
anywhere??

As a result, in addition to having the American experience to draw upon, the
obligation to provide the serf with land upon emancipation may have been
stronger because it could not have been avoided.

An interesting side light to this might be that from a moral point of view,
owning land with serfs, though functioning like slaves, could be perhaps
easier for a conscience to "live with", than owning slaves as personal,
portable property.   Just a thought??

Janet Lee (Baugh) Hunter

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html