The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

RUSSIA AND the NORTH CAUCASUS IN the SECOND HALF of XIX - BEGINNING of the 20th century: EXPERIENCE of STRENGTHENING of the STATE UNITY



 © 2004 A. Matveev

RUSSIA AND the NORTH CAUCASUS IN the SECOND HALF of XIX - the BEGINNING of the 20th century:

EXPERIENCE of STRENGTHENING of the STATE UNITY

The detailed analysis of features Russian an elk to promote overcoming manifestations "on -

control systems in the North Caucasus predpri- tsionalny isolation and separatism" [10].

it nimatsya already in a number of the previous publications [1]. In result Supreme state the power in

In one of them it is made historiographic about- edge it was directly subordinated rossy-

Szohr of what was made by predecessors. Not to the sky emperor and surrounding him central

stopping on it in this research, still to government structures. As personal predsta-

we will note time that state a vitel of the monarch in the Caucasus the deputy had experience of strengthening neograni-

unities of Russia and the North Caucasus in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century it is not studied in all completeness so far. Meanwhile it is represented relevant and for the present. Small volumes of journal article allow to affect only a part of aspects of so extensive subject.

In the North Caucasus at establishment of unity with Russia including in northern parts of the region, historically there were two control systems: military and national and all-provincial. Military and national management was established for "foreign territories" in the Dagestan, Tersky, Kuban regions and the Sukhumi district [2], and all-provincial - since 1896 in Black Sea and since 1899 - in Stavropol provinces which coped since the end of the 19th century on the basis of the general provision on provinces only with insignificant retreats from it and submitted to regional and central all-provincial authorities [2, 3]. For the Black Sea province also submission to the chief of the Kuban region was in addition maintained [4].

In Transcaucasia military and national management existed in Karsky, Batumi regions and the Zakatal-sky district, and all-provincial - in Tiflissky, Kutaisi, Baku, Elisavetpolsky and Erivansky provinces [2]. In the same areas where the population was recognized as obedient, civil management was established in some cases. It extended and to the cities of all Caucasian region [5, 6].

We will consider subordination of the Caucasus and mainly its northern part of the highest government, i.e. that vertical on which the integrity of Russia as multidimensional universalist education depended. Initially Supreme government in the Caucasian region was provided to the deputy of his imperial majesty given the wide majestic rights in issues of local civil and military management [7].

His position and a rank of the commander-in-chief of the Caucasian army in 1883 were transformed to a position and a rank of the chief director of a civil part and the Caucasian military district [8]. In 1905 the namestnichestvo in the Caucasus under the decree of the tsar was again restored [9] that had to as predpolaga-

ceremonious political powers, worked at own discretion, and in case of "disorders" could also make decisions on use of force of weapon. To it positions and the ranks of the member of the State Council, Council and Committee of ministers, commander-in-chief of troops of the Caucasian military district and army nakazny ataman of the Caucasian Cossack troops were given [11].

The Caucasian deputy was not limited in the activity by the central authorities and did not fall even under influence of Council of ministers though on the status and it was equated to ministers. By a civil part he submitted directly to the tsar [12]. The count I.I. Vorontsov-Dashkov holding this position from 1905 to 1916 used as admitted, "exclusive situation in court circles" [13].

As in management of the Caucasian edge there were two various systems, military and national and all-provincial, at the deputy positions of assistants by civil and military parts were founded and special executive bodies are created: office for the areas consisting under the authority of military and national management and office on all-civil management [14]. Till 1883, regional military and national management submitted to the special chief at the deputy confirmed to the post after appointment as the royal order and decree of the Senate. Then it was abolished, and the provincial and regional managements consisting in its maintaining were subordinated to special office on this department at the chief director of a civil part in the Caucasus [15], and since 1905 it was again subordinated to the Caucasian deputy [16].

The top general management of all divisions of military and national management during transformations of 1883 was temporarily left behind the Ministry of Defence, then was transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and finally again is returned in the Ministry of Defence [17]. Nevertheless the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire where there were specialized divisions which were engaged, in particular, in spiritual affairs of Muslims steadily kept participation in issues of management on the outskirts including in the North Caucasus.

Its maintaining, for example, included influence within the competence on replacement of administrative positions. It is the certificate that the inoetnichesky periphery officially was recognized as a component of uniform Russian state space and concerning it discriminatory measures were not undertaken. Governors and the central regions of Russia [18] submitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

For comparison it should be noted that the staff of officials for the dependent countries from France was selected and appointed by the Colonial Office existing directly in the mother country [19]. Manzhouli, Mongolia, Tibet and other adjacent subordinates of the Chinese empire of the territory which were in fact the outskirts isolated from the central regions [20] treated Colonial Office.

As a namestnichestvo in the Caucasus also interaction with governors, vice governors and other heads of administrative structures of different levels entered. Governors and vice governors of the region were appointed and left the royal orders on civil department besides the Ministry of Internal Affairs through the I office of office of Council of ministers. In this office, affairs on the Caucasus [21] concentrated. Changes in attachment of a namestnichestvo in the Caucasus to the general system of public institutions were expected only at the very beginning of 1917 [22].

The highest civil and military management of the Dagestan area since 1883 was provided to the military governor (before there was a position of the chief of area), who at the same time was the commander of the troops located here [23]. On office hierarchy he submitted to the chief director of a civil part and the commander-in-chief of troops of the Caucasian military district, and since 1905 - to the Caucasian deputy [24].

The chiefs of administrative districts who had lower officer ranks were in turn subordinated to it. All power, thus, focused on regional and district levels at military command [7]. All elective offices in rural communities including the structure of rural courts, were approved as chiefs of districts, and decisions of regional national court were submitted for the approval of the military governor [25]. Thereby the independence of rural communal self-government was limited.

Powers of the military governor of the Dagestan area, apparently, were very wide. They corresponded to the governor general's position in the official subordination existing in that period in Russia also coinciding with providing command of troops [26]. The governor general as "the monarchic deputy" was allocated with very wide powers giving him the chance to exercise imperious supervision of all system of local management and legal proceedings.

It is necessary to notice that this position remained only as an exception "in view of any given political conditions..." only on the outskirts, whereas

countrywide it was withdrawn from among the general provincial positions in 1837 [27]. Nevertheless with them, except noted military functions, governor generals had no other distinctions [28]. It belonged also to the North Caucasus. Practice of appointment of the military governor to the Dagestan area remained up to overthrow of the monarchy. The last appointment took place on January 15, 1917. According to it B. Yermolov who had a rank of the major general [29] became the military governor of the Dagestan area.

A little in a different way management of the Kuban and Tersky regions was based. It was based unlike the Dagestan area on satisfaction of administrative and political requirements not only the local people, but also the Russian Cossacks [30]. In the Kuban region of 4.5% of local community there were under joint general management with the Cossack population making 53%, and in the Tersky region respectively 80 and 20% [31].

Military and national management in these areas, originally separate for each of them, is replaced in 1887 - 1888 with the general military zavedyvaniye with direct submission to his army nakazny ataman of the Caucasian Cossack troops given at the same time authority of the commander-in-chief of troops of the Caucasian military district and the chief director of a civil part. According to the government, it had to ". to lift and strengthen a martial spirit, economic welfare and closely related combat readiness of troops". After that there was an association in scales of edge of military authorities Kuban and tersky the Cossack troops, and the local and Cossack community in areas passed under joint management, united civil and military functions [32].

Since 1905 the head regional department of the Cossack areas and troops passes to the Caucasian deputy [33]. Such subordination of the supreme regional authority existed in all Russian Cossack troops: Xie-mirechensky, Turkestan, Siberian, Transbaikal, etc. [34]. Nevertheless the political and military dependence on the highest regional administration caused discontent the Kuban and tersky Cossacks. In 1914 their representatives in the State Duma made the legislative proposal on abolition of a position of the army nakazny ataman of the Caucasian Cossack troops with granting its Supreme rights to nakazny atamans of areas. The offer it was not satisfied and by 1917 the former order of submission was left without any changes [35].

Besides a namestnichestvo management of the Kuban and Tersky regions, according to "Establishment of management of the Caucasian edge" (1888), the Ministry of Defence was engaged: local community - General staff, the Cossack and all rest - Head department of the Cossack troops. Such duality in management of the local and Cossack community caused the necessity to unite management of them, having concentrated it only in Head department of the Cossack troops where there was all central civil and military office rossy-

sky Cossack troops. For this purpose in it the Mountain office was in addition formed [36].

In 1910. The head department of the Cossack troops as a part of the Ministry of Defence and its General staff was transformed to the Cossack department [37] under the authority of which cases on internal management and the civil device of the Cossack troops as separate territorial units began to arrive [38]. Then the Head department of the Cossack troops made the relevant decision on transfer of all cases on management of local community of the Kuban and Tersky regions to an Asian part of General staff [39].

At the head of each Cossack area and army the chief, as a rule, the Cossack general appointed the monarch and who had a rank of the army nakazny ataman was put. His position corresponded to a position of the governor general [40]. On military subordination nakazny the ataman was given authority the chief of a division and the army headquarters was under his supervision according to it. As for civil management, the nakazny ataman had to fulfill governor's duties [41]. All police guards also were at its disposal [37].

On places management also was under authority of the Cossack officers [42]. The higher authority, besides, concentrated in the regional boards which were executive bodies at regional chiefs [43]. Within the Kuban and Tersky regions the local community had the general administrative political system with the Cossacks [44]. Being independent communities with the economy and treasury, the Kuban and tersky Cossack troops which are territorially divided into departments led by atamans coped on the basis of special provisions [45].

Rural (aulny) societies had the of self-government, being under the power of foremen and national judges. Representatives of feudal elite and clergy which further statement was made by the Russian authorities with signs of reliability were most often elected to their positions. Behind self-government of inoetnichesky communities external supervision was without fail exercised: local - local chiefs and police officers, the general - atamans of departments (in the Kuban region) or chiefs of districts (in the Tersky region) and the highest - chiefs of areas and regional boards [46].

In the Stavropol and Black Sea provinces governors were engaged in the highest management [47]. Also the territory of the nomadic people in the Stavropol province submitted to the governor. On it the communal self-government based on original ethnic traditions and religious views was also established. For execution of administrative duties at the people leading a nomadic life foremen whose statement in positions was made by higher provincial institutions and the governor were elected. For them elements of military management were absent, but external supervision with

the features existed. It was made by the Russian police officers appointed by the authorities [48].

Thus, in the Cossack areas in the highest and local management there was a dual combination of the beginnings of the Russian state centralization and communal and ethnic autonomy to granting very wide rights of internal self-government to it. However independence of foreign communities as well as in the Dagestan area, it was put in a framework of external administrative political constraints. However, the same restrictions existed also for the Russian country and Cossack communities. In the Stavropol and Black Sea provinces the internal ethnic self-government on areas with establishment for it external Russian state restrictions was provided in administrative political system too.

It is necessary to notice that in the sphere of the civil rights the Russian power on all outskirts of the empire as well as in the Caucasus, avoided sharp withdrawal pains, reckoning with legal skills of the population, and left in operation in the operated territory and the constitution with diet in the Grand duchy Finnish, and Napoleon's code in the Kingdom Polish, and the Lithuanian statute in the Poltava and Chernihiv provinces, and the Magdebourg right in the Baltic region, and common law, local laws in Siberia, in the Turkestan region, etc. [49, page 84].

The Grand duchy which was on special situation Finnish had not only the constitution granted still by Alexander I but also the diet consisting of representatives of four estates (noblemen, clergy, citizens and peasants). He was convoked each five years and at Alexander III acquired in 1885 even the right of a legislative initiative. The senate appointed the emperor was the local government, and communication with all-imperial management was provided through the minister, the secretary of state for Finland [49, page 22].

In state system of the Russian Empire elements as federalizations (an ordered unification and identity of parts, their independence in lawful limits), and unitary centralization ("political inclusion and accretion") were combined. To them there corresponded also parallel superlinear state forms: corporate ("association at free will on the basis of the general interest") and constituent ("association not from below, and from above on the basis of guardianship and obedience"). Till 1917 the constituent (monarchic) form of government connected to corporate self-government of inoet-nichesky communities [50] that in other universalist formations in such ratio does not meet.

However these elements in all details were not balanced and had no full harmony in a combination and interaction. Their reduction to such state was destiny of future, not occurred transformations. Thus, federalization in arrangement of Russia existed in the form of local

corporationisms with a variation voluntary (contractual), vassal (associative) [51] and the unitary (centralizing) communications long before the radika-listsky withdrawal pains of 1917 which were followed by approach of a condition of their rasbalansirovannost and crisis. As I.A. Ilyin considers, unitary forms of the states are historically justified, dictated first of all by features of development and therefore all statements that they became obsolete and have no prospect, are groundless [50, page 54].

The system sovmeshchennost of the Russian state restrictions in military and national management with guarantees of non-interference to internal affairs demonstrates that final stabilization was reached by means of not suppression as some researchers believe, and the political compromise offered all mountaineers despite military defeat of unshakable followers of the theocratic doctrine and various orientations in its course. In its framework their official recognition, irrespective of the previous circumstances of occurrence, voluntary or compulsory, however, with differentiation for a transition period in trust of the authorities was provided, compatriots also supposed that most of mountaineers gradually nevertheless recognize over time Russia as the fatherland.

The highest and average administrative personnel on the North Caucasian outskirts consisted mainly of the Russian officials, and in the Cossack areas at its formation also class accessory was considered. At replacement of official positions of the highest and average category the monarchic principle of appointment was defining. Representatives of the native people were allowed on service in the lowest administrative structures on the basis of selectivity and the subsequent higher statement, and in the highest and average - in exceptional cases "for special merits and devotion I reign" [52].

As for the top and average management of administrative facilities, here an obstacle for representatives of the native population existed only short time in the course and at the final stages of the Caucasian war. Already in the second half of the 19th century the official installation on to involving officials from the central Russia on service in the region "without special need" begins to be implemented. At the same time measures "to creation of shots of officials from among educated natives" began to be undertaken [37, page 36].

And in officer corps in the Caucasus, designed to organize in case of need military actions, according to the modern researcher S.V. Lurye, they were allocated with the same rights, as well as Russians, even held general positions [53]. As the American historian D. Hosking established, in government of Russia in the XVIII-XIX centuries more than 40% of the highest officials were non-russian origin [54]. This trend had property only to expansion and was not exposed to fluctuations depending on any given circumstances about what

practice of management and on the North Caucasian outskirts, applied in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century testifies

For implementation of administrative functions in the North Caucasus thus also representatives of the local people were attracted. Mainly - the native aristocratic layers relating to feudal elite, put by hierarchical tradition in a privileged position and owing to the previous experience owning specific administrative skills. At the beginning preference was given those who did not take part in Shamil's movement and did not compromise himself with participation in a myuridizm. The Russian officers also underwent selection and "the knowing life and language of local community" were given assignment, as a rule, [55].

Quite often military officials who were engaged in the organization of management in an Asian part of Russia had excellent vostokovedchesky education, or learned the respective regions including the Caucasus, on own very long experience. Also knowledge of representatives of the local people arriving on the Russian service was used. During an era of accession of the Caucasus to Russia it was already told about value of historical knowledge of achievement of the geopolitical purposes in a number of special developments [56]. Many prominent orientalists were directly included also into various departments of General staff, mainly into its Asian part [57] where important details of east policy of Russia on concrete sites were also studied.

At the same time for these purposes historical researches were carried out. Employees from this department possessed deep and versatile special knowledge (understood even subtleties of drawing up Muslim manuscripts). Not casually experts of an Asian part of General staff as necessary addressed for explanations and councils for various specific questions [58]. Also army officers also quite often had excellent vostokovedchesky education, and could translate the Arab texts sometimes and the lowest in ranks.

Military officials left the most detailed information about all the fulfillments of an era, most important for the Fatherland, who observed directly or laboriously recreated on office archival funds. Though these data had empirical character in the prevailing degree, their information advantages are undoubted. Even such representative of nationalist North Caucasian foreign diaspora as A. Avtorkhanov who is negatively adjusted in relation to Russia, was forced to recognize that ". the best.... works about Kavka-

ze royal generals" wrote [59].

Independent researches within the outskirts falling within the scope of their activity carried out also military and historical departments at district headquarters [60]. S. Esadze who left the first description of management of the Caucasus and how were considered in it tuzem-

ny customs and traditions after entry of edge into structure of Russia, was an editor of such department [61].

In the countries dependent on France, employees were attracted in administrative facilities only from the mother country. The Colonial Office was engaged in their selection and appointment. Representatives of local community were allowed to the official building very seldom [19]. Withdrawal from prevalence of uniforms of the military of board was outlined in the English colonies in the second half of the 19th century and "indigenization" of administrative structures began to be allowed [62]. But, also as well as in Russia, all high-ranking officials, including governors, were appointed only by the Supreme royalty [63].

Such practice of completing of the high-ranking officials, as well as those who held various state positions became widespread most in the British Empire since 1858. In governing bodies the withdrawal began to come from prevention of the Indian employees only since 1831. But it extended only to the auxiliary and insignificant positions which had especially subordinated character. Officials from England were invited to replacement of the top posts in imperial structures. Thereof the prevalence of managers from locals in colonies of this European mother country was noticed at a boundary of the XIX-XX centuries only at the level of provinces. Despite numerous transformations, British could not establish in the dependent countries including in India, more close connection between indigenous people and the administration [64].

In the pursued policy in the North Caucasus the management, on the contrary, sought for maintenance of "prestige of the Russian power at foreigners" not only through firm board, but also showing to the actions that "the fatherland cares for them also they in it not strangers". According to the deputy count I.I. Vorontsov-Dashkov approved in resolutions by the emperor Nicholas II, such approach has to strengthen most of all the unity of the local people with Russia [65] which was traditionally ultimate goal of the policy pursued on the outskirts. For violation of this principle of arrangement of the outskirts of the empire and "... infringement of the rights. foreign population." authorities of different levels were quite often ousted and dismissed.

The local press in different peripheral parts of the British Empire of avarice of British when assigning to positions in administrative personnel constantly opposed "nobility of the Russian government" allowing the "Asian citizens" on the highest state posts. For verification of this information even the special commission was created. It managed to quash rumor about their high payment as all officials including in the central authorities, ". Russia was paid badly". However this commission confirmed lack of discrimination when assigning to the highest and average administrative positions of representatives from native societies on its outskirts [64].

In Muslim areas of the North Caucasus where the dual civilization inclination had pronounced east vector, the maintaining state and political stability demanded even more careful approaches to the organization of a control system. They paid off on gradualness of alleged changes and at the same time a nenaru-shimost of conditions of the established compromise with a rate on traditionalism and an Islamic component. The organization of local authorities at the same time had prevalence of elements of indirect management. But and how it was reached in reality, needs special detailed consideration.

Literature

1. See in more detail: V.A. Matveev. Features of administrative political system of the North Caucasian outskirts of Russia on the eve of the revolutions of 1917//Historical etudes. Issue 1. Under the editorship of V.E. Maksimenko, I.M. Uznarodov. Rostov N / D, 1993. Page 115-136; It. Whether Russia "prison of the people" was?//International relations today (Sb. nauch. tr.). Rostov N / D; Donetsk, 1994.

Page 47-62, etc.

2. RGVIA, t. 400, op. 3, 3041, l. 19 about, 20.
3. CGIA of the RG, t. 545, op. 1, 251, l. 8, 66; The first vseob-

shchy population census of the Russian Empire, 1897. T. 67. Stavropol province. SPb., 1905. Page 3.

4. The Caucasian calendar for 1917. General department. Tiflis, 1916. Page 250-252.
5. CGIA of the RG, t. 545, op. 1, 2960, l. 1; M.A. M.A. National-state construction in Dagestan ASSR (1920-1940). Makhachkala, 1960. Page 9.
6. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 1, l. 23, 33 about, 83 about; CGIA

RG, t. 242, op. 1, 91, l. 1; t. 416, op. 1,

70, l. 10 about, 11; North Caucasian region. 1917. On Feb. 10
7. RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 51999, l. 235ob.
8. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 940, l. 17.
9. CGIA of the RG, t. 13, op. 1, 749, l. 9 about.
10. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 1, l. 23, 33ob, 83ob; CGIA of the RG, t. 416, op. 1, 70, l. 11; Annexes to verbatim records of the State Duma. The 3rd convocation. Session 1, 1907 - 1908. T. 1. (No. 1-350). SPb., 1908. Page 1365.
11. Ismail Back D.I. Illarion Ivanovich Vorontsov is Dashkov//Historical silhouettes. M, 1991. Page 48.
12. Kuban courier. 1917. March 22.
13. CGIA of the RG, t. 13, op. 1, 749, l. 2; t. 242, op. 1,
91, l. 1.
14. In the same place, t. 229, op. 1, 4, l. 4; t. 416, op. 1, 70, l. 28-
29.
15. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 1, l. 96; 940, l. 17.
16. CGIA of the RG, t. 83-s, op. 1, 219, l. 9; t. 416, op. 1, 70, l. 28-29; t. 545, op. 1, 2960, l. 21, 28, 51ob.
17. V.I. Startsev. Domestic policy of Provisional government of the first structure. L., 1980. Page 193.
18. P.P Cherkasov of the empire. M, 1983. Page 53.
19. Parker R. China: its history. Destiny, policy and trade since the most ancient times up to now: Transl. from English SPb., 1903. Page 294.
20. GARF, t. 1800, op. 1, 49, l. 1.
21. North Caucasian region. 1917. On Jan. 4
22. CGIA RG, t. 416, op. 1, 70, l. 28-29; t. 545,

op. 1, 2960, l. 28.

23. RGIA, t. 866, op. 1, 38, l. 8ob, 9ob.
24. CGIA of the RG, t. 13, op. 11, 338, l. 36-37.
25. S.Yu. Witte. Chosen memoirs, 1849 - 1911. M, 1991. Page 90.
26. Russia. Encyclopedic dictionary (B. F. Brockhaus. And yes I.A. Efron. SPb., 1898.). L., 1991. Page 161-162.
27. I.A. Isaev. History of state and law of Russia: Course of lectures. M, 1993. Page 173.
28. Dagestan regional sheets. 1917. On Jan. 22
29. RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 68800, l. 1-14ob; t. 400, op. 1,
106, l. 5; CDNI RO, t. 4, op. 1, 61a, l. 14a.
30. The Caucasian calendar for 1917. Statistical department. SPb., 1916. Page 190-237; The Kuban collection for 1916. T. 21. Ekaterinodar, 1916. Page 4; The Report of the chief of the Kuban region and the nakazny ataman of the Kuban Cossack army on a condition of area for 1915 Ekateri-nodar, 1916. Page 4; The Report of the chief of the Tersky region and the nakazny ataman of tersky Cossack army for 1901 Vladikavkaz, 1903. Page 3; The Report of the chief of the Tersky region and the nakazny ataman of tersky Cossack army for 1913 Vladikavkaz, 1914. Page 3; State Duma. The 3rd convocation. Session 5. Verbatim record. Ch.4. Zased. 138. May 23, 1912. (Calculation of a bus).
31. CGIA of the RG, t. 229, op. 1, 1304, l. 1; t. 545, op. 1, 251, l. 8.
32. In the same place, t. 13, op. 1, 749, l. 27.
33. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 940, l. 16ob, 27; RGVIA, t.
330, op. 61, 1659, l. 2.
34. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 940, l. 16ob.
35. In the same place, l. 27; RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 61850, l. 1-2ob; 64527, l. 1-2; t. 330, op. 61, 1659, l. 2.
36. Yu.V. Horuyev. Class fight of peasants of the Tersky region at boundary H_H-HH of centuries of Ordzhonikidze, 1978. Page 23.
37. GARF, t. 393, op. 1, 105, l. 4-5.
38. CGIA of the RG, t. 13, op. 3, 1236, l. 257, 361; RGVIA, t.
1, op. 1, 61850, l. 1-2ob; 64527, l. 1-2.
39. The report of the chief of the Tersky region and the nakazny ataman of tersky Cossack army for 1901... Page 2; The Report of the chief of the Kuban region and the nakazny ataman of the Kuban Cossack army on a condition of area for 1915... Page 3-4.
40. Zasedateleva of L.B. Terskiye Cossacks (the middle of XVI - the beginning of the 20th century). Historical and ethnographic essays. M, 1974. Page 221.
41. State Duma. The 3rd convocation. Session 1. Verbatim record. T. 2. Zased. 21. On June 5, 1906
42. CGIA of the RG, t. 545, op. 1, 251, l. 8, 66; State Duma. The 3rd convocation. Session 5. Verbatim record.

Ch. 4. Zased. 138. On May 23, 1912

Rostov state university

43. RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 68800, l. 1-14ob: t. 400, op. 1, 106, l. 5.
44. GARF, t. 393, op. 1, 105, l. 3-4.
45. RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 28963, l. 114; GAKK, t. 454, op.
2, 1503, l. 43; Karaulov of M.A. Terskoye the Cossacks in the past and the present. (Instruction of the tersky Cossack). Vladikavkaz, 1912. Page 256; U. U. Karachay-Cherkess autonomous region//Life of nationalities. Prince 1. January, 1923. M, 1923. Page 112; P.N. Razhdayev. The main lines of the organization of country economy in the North Caucasus. Rostov N / D, 1925. Page 57.
46. CGIA of the RG, t. 13, op. 1, 20, l. 2; 735, l. 1;

f. 545, op. 1, 251, l. 8, 66.

47. RGVIA, t. 400, op. 1, 4171, l. 14-14ob; North Caucasian word. 1917. Jan. 19; 1917 in the Stavropol province / Under the editorship of F. Golovchenko. Stavropol, 1927. Page 26.
48. Oldenburg S.S. Reign of the emperor Nicholas II. M, 1992.
49. I.A. Ilyin. About the future Russia. The chosen articles / Under the editorship of N.P. Poltoratsky. St.-Trinity Monastery, 1991. Page 27, 174.
50. J. Boffa. History of the Soviet Union: In 2 t. T. 1. 1917 - 1941 of M., 1990. Page 18.
51. State Duma. The 3rd convocation. Session 5. Verbatim record. Ch.4. Zased. 138. On May 23, 1912
52. S.V. Lurye Russian Empire as ethnocultural phenomenon//Civilizations and cultures. Issue 1. M, 1994. Page 127.
53. D. Velikoye's Hosking, but not failed past? Reflections of the American historian about stories and the nation//the Homeland. 1995. No. 1. Page 39.
54. V.S. Galtsev. Decree. soch. Page 130.
55. See: V.A. Matveev. Russia and the Caucasus in a lens of historical knowledge. Armavir; Rostov N / D, 1998; It. Historical knowledge as factor of geopolitical fulfillments//Scientific thought of the Caucasus. 1998. No. 4. Page 20-
32.
56. RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 50572, l. 1; 64527, l. 1.
57. Shamil in the Caucasus and in Russia. Biographic essay / Sost. M.N. Chichagova. SPb., 1889. Page 196.
58. A. Avtorkhanov. Empire of the Kremlin. Soviet type of colonialism. Vilnius, 1990. Page 82.
59. CGIA of the RG, t. 1087, op. 1, 170, l. 7.
60. S. Esadze. A historical note about management of the Caucasus. Tiflis, 1907. T. 1.
61. RGVIA, t. 1300, op. 9, 180, l. 9ob.
62. A.S. Samoylo. The English colonies in North America in the 17th century of M., 1963. Page 43.
63. Sheye Zh. Modern India. Part 2. Native policy: The lane with fr. SPb., 1913. Page 254, 377-380, 391-393, 401.
64. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 250, l. 1, 40.

On June 15, 2003

Gibson Howard
Other scientific works: