Forever with Moscow

14
Forever with Moscow
“Forever with Moscow, forever with the Russian people” (1951). Painting by Mikhail Khmelko


prehistory


In 1653, Hetman of the Zaporozhian Army Bogdan Khmelnitsky sent an embassy to Moscow to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, consisting of military foreman Grigory Gulyanitsky and military clerk Ivan Vygovsky, with a request to accept “his entire Little Russia and the entire Zaporozhye Army into his eternal firm possession, citizenship and protection.”



In May 1653, the Zemsky Sobor met in Moscow to discuss the issue of annexing the Zaporozhian Army to the Russian Empire and the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In September 1653, the hetman's embassy arrived in Moscow, headed by Khmel's personal confidant, Chigirin Colonel Lavrin Kapusta. The colonel asked the tsarist government to immediately send military men with governors to the Russian Ukraine - to Kyiv and other cities.

On October 1 (11), 1653, the final meeting of the Council took place (How the historic decision was made to reunite the Russian land). Satisfying the desire of the people of Little Russia, the Zemsky Sobor unanimously decided “that the great sovereign, tsar and grand duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Rus', deigned that hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the entire Zaporozhye army, with their cities and lands, to accept under his sovereign high hand.” At the same time, it was decided to send troops to protect Russian Ukraine from Poland.

On October 9 (19), 1653, an embassy headed by Vasily Buturlin was sent from Moscow to the Hetmanate. In Pereyaslavl on January 8 (18), 1654, in the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Rada swore allegiance to the Russian Tsar (Reunification of Rus': “so that everyone may be one forever”).

At the Pereyaslav Rada, articles of the treaty were formulated in the form of a “petition to the great sovereign.” A new embassy was sent to Moscow, consisting of military judge Samoil Bogdanovich and Pereyaslavl Colonel Pavel Teteri.

During January and February 1654, the population of Kyiv, Nezhin, Chernigov, Bila Tserkva, Kanev, Cherkassk, Priluki and other cities, as well as the villages of the Zaporozhian Army, took the oath.

Khmelnitsky sends a station wagon to the colonels with a call to prepare for war with the lords: “so that you have enough gunpowder, lead, flour and all kinds of food, because I did not decree peace as the king of Lyadsky, and you beat the enemies of our Poles if they dare to attack us, and the Tsar of Moscow will help us.”


Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Unknown Western European artist.

"Live with great care"


In accordance with the agreement, the tsar's regiments arrive in Little Russia. The boyar and governor of Rostov, Prince Fyodor Kurakin, and the boyar and governor of Galicia, Prince Fyodor Volkonsky, were sent to Kyiv by the governors. The clerk of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, Andrei Nemirov, arrived. With them was a detachment of Colonel Yuri Golitsyn: 2 thousand soldiers, 500 archers, 100 boyar children and 5 gunners. The same detachments were sent to other cities.

The governors were ordered to “live with great care,” military men were forbidden to “repair damage” to local residents and take food and fodder from them for free. So that “the Cherkassy (Dnieper Cossacks were called “Cherkassy.” - Author) cities would not cause any harm to any people from anyone.” The order categorically indicated to protect the local residents in every possible way - “to defend, and not to hand them over into captivity or ruin.”

Kurakin and Volkonsky were ordered to strengthen the cordons so that no one would enter Kyiv unrecognized. “Give freedom” to all fugitive people and give them the opportunity to join the Cossacks or enroll as petty bourgeois.

The Tsar's regiment entered Kyiv on February 23, 1654. Even on the approaches to the city, he was joyfully greeted by the ordered Kiev colonel at the head of a thousand Cossacks with unfurled banners and the townspeople. The construction of the fortress began hastily. On March 17, the Kyiv governors reported that “we are building a prison and all kinds of fortresses with all the people, day and night, and we are standing ready.”

Pereyaslav articles


Immediately after returning from Pereyaslav, the hetman and the foreman meet in the office to develop the conditions for reunification. They were supposed to determine the position of the Hetmanate within the Russian kingdom. Many issues had already been discussed at the meetings of the hetman with the Russian ambassador Buturlin in Pereyaslavl in January 1654.

Thus, Khmelnitsky asked to confirm the rights to the lands owned by Orthodox monasteries and churches. Buturlin assured that the tsar would confirm these rights. The hetman also asked to preserve the rights of the Cossacks to the estate and liberties not only during service, but after death for his descendants. The hetman asked to convey to the tsar a request that the register be at least 60 thousand people. In conditions of war with Poland, the larger the register, the better.

On February 17, 1654, the Cossack foreman drew up a petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to confirm the rights and privileges of the Little Russian people. In Moscow they wanted Hetman Bogdan himself to come to the capital. But he could not leave; another military campaign was about to begin. Judge General Samoila Zarudny and Pereyaslavl Colonel Pavel Teterya left for the Russian capital.

On February 17, 1654, the embassy left Chigirin and on March 12 (22) it was solemnly received in Moscow and presented a petition, to which the clerks gave the name “articles”. Under the name “March articles”, “Articles of Bogdan Khmelnitsky” or “Pereyaslavl articles” they were included in history. On March 13 (23), 1654, the ambassadors were personally received by the Tsar and the Boyar Duma. Then the negotiations were conducted in the State Court by the Kazan governor boyar Alexei Trubetskoy, the governor of Tver and boyar Vasily Buturlin, the okolnichy and governor of Kashira Pyotr Golovin and the Duma clerk Almaz Ivanov. Most of the points were accepted immediately; the remaining ones required additional discussion.

On March 14 (24), 1654, 23 articles of the treaty were considered by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. A decision was made on all points. The last, 23rd point was introduced by the tsarist government.

The Tsar confirmed the internal autonomy of the Zaporozhian Army: “our military rights and liberties, as has happened for centuries in the Zaporozhye Army, that they narrowed their rights and had their liberties in property and in the courts, so that neither the governor, nor the boyar, nor the steward would intervene in military courts , and from their elders so that the partnership is narrowed: where there are three Cossacks, then two thirds should judge.”

The register was confirmed at 60 thousand Cossacks; the Orthodox gentry retained their former rights and liberties; spiritual and secular people also retained the rights and liberties received from princes and kings; in cities, police officers and other managers were elected “from among our people so that those worthy of it would be robbed”; The Zaporozhye army itself elected a new hetman; the military administration received the royal salary and income; the hetman retained the right to receive ambassadors of other powers, notifying Moscow, but enemy envoys had to be detained. It was forbidden to have relations with Turkey and Poland without the sovereign's permission.

Tsarist troops were sent to the Ukrainian border to protect against Poland. If the Crimean Khanate broke off friendly relations, then Russia had to launch a counter-offensive from Astrakhan, with the help of the Don Cossacks.

On March 27, 1654, a royal charter was announced preserving the rights and liberties of the Zaporozhye Army, the Orthodox gentry and the population of Little Russia. The Zaporozhye army passed under the high hand of the sovereign, retaining the previous rights and privileges that were given to them by the kings of Poland and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, the court was preserved according to the previous rights, a register of 60 thousand Cossacks, and free elections of the hetman. The Cossacks retained their former estates and lands; they were not taken away from widows and children.

With a special charter from the tsar dated April 12, 1654, sent to Khmelnitsky, all these rights and liberties were confirmed again.

In turn, the Zaporozhye Army pledged to serve the sovereign, beat all the sovereign’s enemies, “and be in our sovereign will and obedience in everything.” The tsarist government was given the right to have its own governors with troops in Kyiv and Chernigov, to control the collection of taxes and the relations of the Hetmanate with foreign powers.

Thus, the Zaporozhye Army and the Hetmanate received the status of autonomy within the Russian state.

Khmelnitsky and the foreman feared that the tsarist government would not listen to their requests and would decide everything in its own way. However, these fears were not justified.

The Polish king and lords, for their part, tried as best they could to disrupt the negotiations between Chigirin and Moscow. The “lovely” station wagons of King John Casimir and the Lithuanian Hetman Radziwill were distributed throughout Little Russia. The Cossacks were promised forgiveness, various long-standing freedoms and privileges, and were called upon to abandon the “traitor” Khmelnitsky and return to the rule of the king.

But this was of little use. The people did not believe the Poles who committed a bloody genocide in the Russian outskirts.

At the end of March, ambassadors Zarudny and Teterya returned from Moscow with royal letters. Khmel immediately informed the colonels about the decision of the tsarist government so that they would tell the people. Copies of the letters were sent to the Koshe chieftain in the Zaporozhye Sich.
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    20 February 2024 05: 19
    ***
    - “We want for ourselves such an autocrat, a master in our land, as your royal mercy, the Orthodox Christian king... We humbly surrender to the merciful feet of your royal majesty”...
    ---
    “To your royal majesty, the lowest servants Bogdan Khmelnitsky,
    hetman with the army of Zaporozhye"
    November 1648, XNUMX

    ***
  2. +1
    20 February 2024 05: 24
    Quote: Samsonov Alexander
    “his entire Little Russia and the entire Zaporozhye Army into his eternal firm possession, citizenship and protection”
    Skakly sought patronage not only in the Moscow state, but also in Poland and even in the Ottoman Empire. This is their whole essence wink
    1. +3
      20 February 2024 07: 16
      Those who spit on the past receive an answer from a howitzer. Round trip. laughing
      1. +4
        20 February 2024 11: 10
        Those who spit on the past receive an answer from a howitzer.
        Few people want to understand this, despite the fact that there is a funnel around
    2. +1
      21 February 2024 20: 00
      But they found it here, having received the patronage and protection of Russia.
      1. +1
        22 February 2024 04: 58
        Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
        But they found it here, having received the patronage and protection of Russia.

        Yes, we found it. But then they spat in our faces
  3. +3
    20 February 2024 07: 08
    Yes, .... both Khmelnitsky and the Zaporozhye Cossacks and Bolsheviks are very guilty that “three united people” in 1991 absolutely “put” all their great deeds and the fight with Poland, because sausage was not delivered from the warehouse to the store.
  4. -2
    20 February 2024 07: 21
    The tsarist authorities understood perfectly well what kind of person this Khmelnitsky was. He was also a shapeshifter. Under other circumstances, this entire outskirts could also have been brought to the Poles or even the Turks. It was necessary to lie under someone. Therefore, in Tsarist Russia this Khmelnitsky was not particularly glorified, and reunification with the outskirts of Russian lands was taken for granted...
    But in Soviet times, when Ukrainization flourished with the creation of a republic on these outskirts called the Ukrainian SSR, by the way, with its own parliament and with its own government, the Moscow party government, since the times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, was exhausted by the frenzy of “friendship of peoples” Khmelnitsky “wore” as a symbol of friendship. The same thing happened with Taras Shevchenko. In Tsarist Russia, the most flamboyant Russophobe Shevchenko almost fell off his chair after the poems “Haydamaky” and “Katerina”, and in the USSR Shevchenko was elevated to the throne of the people’s creator and symbol of the “friendship” of the two peoples. So in “Gaydamaky” Ukrainians famously cut down not only Muscovites, but also Poles and Jews. But especially for Muscovites. By the way, Shevchenko was respected and appreciated by both Bandera and OUN members, just as their descendant Shevchenko is valued today.
    1. -5
      20 February 2024 07: 50
      Quote: north 2
      and in the USSR Shevchenko was elevated to the throne of the people's creator

      It would be good to throw this creator off the throne now, this is not the time to glorify him. The sweat-smelling pig-nosed selyuk, personifying the friendship of peoples wink
  5. -1
    20 February 2024 08: 13
    The enemies of the USSR, to justify their seizure of the republics of the USSR, and out of hatred for each other, created their own evil, negative “history” of our centuries-old country.
    And those who captured one of the 15 republics of the USSR imagined that they had the right to the entire territory of the former USSR, and even the Russian Empire.
  6. +2
    20 February 2024 13: 40
    Quote: north 2
    But in Soviet times, when Ukrainization flourished with the creation of a republic on these outskirts called the Ukrainian SSR, by the way with its own parliament and with its own government, the Moscow party government since the times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev has been exhausted by the frenzy of “friendship of peoples”
    In my opinion, a huge mistake was made by Lenin during the formation of the USSR.
    As far as I remember, Stalin proposed an option in which those joining the RSFSR were formerly. The provinces will remain in the status of provinces or autonomies.
    Lenin insisted that they would formally join as INDEPENDENT STATES.
    Apparently Lenin at that moment saw this decision as a subtle political move and a temporary solution, because he seriously believed that the USSR was a temporary entity that would soon die out with the spread of communism throughout the world, just as the concept of the state itself would die out.
    And Stalin initially thought as a statist, but at that moment he had too little political weight and the majority accepted Lenin’s version.
    Then, when it was discovered that world communism had stalled, everything went by inertia and Stalin did not change the principles of the structure of the USSR, reasonably believing that the center controls everything and the secession of any republic from the USSR is impossible.
    And Stalin’s followers, naively believing that the power of the CPSU would last forever, for some reason began to encourage nationalism, not realizing that they were planting a time bomb in the state system.
    As a result, when in the late 80s the power of the center began to weaken, and nationalist sentiments sharply increased on the outskirts of the USSR (this started with the Baltic republics).
    As a result, this allowed the CIA to destroy the USSR because... a) formally the USSR consisted of independent states; b) these states had clearly defined borders; c) the power of the center was weakened (most likely weakened by Gorbachev deliberately)
    In the end, we have what we have.
    To strengthen the USSR it was necessary to a) erase interethnic differences and form a new single nationality, “Soviet people”; b) turn republics into provinces.
    As a result, now the country would most likely have a state system similar to that in the PRC with the same powerful industry
    It's so simplistic
    1. +2
      20 February 2024 22: 44
      Lewww
      As far as I understand, the Bolsheviks had the only way to unite a divided country - only to give some freedom of action to local nationalists. Guys, you will have your own visors, but you will walk under a common roof. The big mistake was the cultivation of national managerial elites. What would be normal would be the creation of just national cultural elites controlled by the Russian center. But the reins of government down to the smallest village should have been held by a Russian (Ukrainian or Belarusian), approved by the center. The state security organs were to consist of personnel also raised in the Russian center. But the police could well be national.
      No republic should have any preferences (like the republics of Transcaucasia, or the Tribaltic). During the years of repression, or during the Great Patriotic War, there were great opportunities to demolish the nationalist elite.
      Next, it was necessary to downgrade the status of the republics of the SSR to the status of regions. That is, for example, Ukraine, or Estonia, should have no more rights and votes than the Orenburg or Vologda region. As a result, a unitary state was supposed to emerge, which could not be so easily destroyed. True, we might have to (oh horror!) abandon the name “Soviet Union” and come up with something else. For example, the Russian People's Socialist Republic.
      In this unified state, any national culture would exist under the roof of Russian culture, and every inhabitant of the outback should know what he owes to the Russian people. By the way, in the absence of semi-sovereign republics, issues like Karabakh would not arise. The Armenian and Azerbaijani regions would be led by graduates of the Moscow Academy of Public Administration, and their staff would include both Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
      Preferences should have been created for migrants from one national territory to another. No national schools or universities! But, at the same time, in schools in national territories, along with teaching basic subjects in Russian, a number of subjects are taught in national languages. National identity is exclusively at the level of literature, architecture, cuisine and folklore, but nothing more! Encouraging cultural exchanges, the interpenetration of elements of different cultures, this is how shashlik, pilaf, manti and borscht have become common dishes in Russian cuisine. In the same way, the same okroshka, kvass, and borscht should have become common dishes in any remote point of the vast country.
      Encourage in every possible way the creation of branches of federal enterprises in national territories, but controlled by the center. No economic independence! Again, business trips of national specialists to the federal center, which should be an example for others, and everyone should want theirs to be no worse. Well, etc., in the same spirit.

      Alas, oh, but “history has no subjunctive mood.” Everyone is smart in hindsight, so this kind of thinking can only be useful in order not to lose what is left. We must adapt to living in current conditions.
      And do not forget about the expansion of the “Russian world”. Although it has shrunk, it has not gone away, and exists alongside the European world, the Spanish-speaking world, the former British Empire, the Chinese, Arab, Indian and Malay civilizations. Alas and ah, but other cultures are advancing, and nothing is being done to really protect and promote that very “Russian world”.
      Please do not consider this nationalism. Again, I did not intend to offend representatives of any people, I am for a friendly and happy life for everyone in a strong and prosperous state.
  7. BAI
    +1
    20 February 2024 16: 47
    because I did not decree the king of the Lyadsky world,

    The first letter "b" is missing in the definition of king
  8. 0
    26 February 2024 07: 08
    I see that a company of commentators of a level no lower than Mr. Mishustin has gathered here....... If we have such politicians “like dirt,” then why is the main political slogan of our blessed Fatherland the same for decades: “And for whom else...?"