Salt riot causes and results table. salt riot

To the 365th anniversary of the first Russian tax reform

The famous Moscow Salt Riot of 1648 was a reaction to Russia's first tax reform. The words "reform", "reformer" are thoroughly discredited in our country by mediocre and not selfish liberals, who under the guise of reforms were engaged in plundering the country. But the famous boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov (1590-1661), under whom the tax on salt was introduced, was, no matter how you treat him, a reformer in the positive sense of the word.

Back in 1633, under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, he was appointed uncle (teacher) of Tsarevich Alexei. In 1645, when the heir was only 16 years old, Mikhail Fedorovich died, followed by his wife. The mentor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, 55-year-old Boris Morozov, became the second (and in fact, until the tsar came of age, the first) person in the state. In 1645-1648, Morozov headed several orders at once - the Big Treasury, Foreign, New Quarter (drinking) and Streletsky, that is, he concentrated in his hands the management of finances, foreign policy, the armed forces and the state wine monopoly.

Historians' opinions about Morozov's role as regent-ruler of Russia are contradictory. For example, they talk about his abuses, about selfish motives for transformations. Is it so?

To answer this question, we must remember what the Russian state was like in 1645. It increased significantly to the east - by 4,267,200 square kilometers (eight modern France!). Only 10,000 pioneers lived on this vast territory, who founded new cities - Yakutsk, Olekminsk, Verkhoyansk, Nizhnekolymsk ... Moving deep into Siberia brought the state a new source of income, forgotten since princely times due to the depletion of the forest fauna of the European part - furs. Russian sable was bought by foreign merchants worth its weight in gold. At that time, furs sold to the West were for Russia about the same as oil and gas are now for modern Russia. But in order for the fur income to the treasury to be constant, considerable funds were required. Tens of thousands of new colonists and new transshipment points-forts were needed to develop the gigantic expanses of Siberia. All this cost a lot of money, which was not in the treasury.

Mikhail Fedorovich, the first tsar of the Romanov dynasty, ruled for 32 years. During this period, which is the life span of only one generation, Orthodox Russia, with great difficulty, managed to recover from the shock that threatened her with complete annihilation, and to live a normal life. However, the revived country did not yet have enough strength to regain the status of a great power, won by Ivan the Terrible. The foreign policy position of the state in the north, west and south was the same as after the Time of Troubles. The enemies of Russia still enjoyed the advantages that, not embarrassed by means, they obtained for themselves in 1605-1613. Russia was actually in the blockade of neighboring European states. In 1632, the Zemsky Sobor approved the decision of the "great sovereigns" - Patriarch Filaret and his son Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich - to recapture the Russian lands they had captured from the Poles. But the main thing was not in formal approval, but in the fact that the people, with the votes of "chosen from all the earth," agreed to bear the burden of war.

From merchants and merchants they took the "fifth of money" for the needs of the army, that is, one fifth of all income, and the nobility and high clergy were obliged to give "request money" - as much as they were asked.

A rather powerful army was formed (66,000 people with 158 guns), in which officers appeared for the first time, mostly foreigners. There was a whole regiment of mercenaries - Reiter.

The army moved to Smolensk. It worked successfully at first. Voivode Shein kept Smolensk under siege for 8 months, the Poles were preparing to surrender, but then King Vladislav came to their aid with a large army. At the same time, the Crimean Khan hit the Russians in the back. Now our army was surrounded near Smolensk. According to the Polyanovsky peace treaty, it had to be left to Poland.

A few years later, it became possible to break through to the Azov-Black Sea coast lost by Russia. On May 18, 1637, a detachment of Don Cossacks, led by Ataman Mikhail Tatarinov, took the well-fortified Turkish fortress of Azov at the mouth of the Don from a dashing raid. In the summer of 1641, the Turks sent a huge army and fleet (up to 200,000 people) to Azov. They ordered siege specialists from Europe, brought a hundred wall-beating guns. However, all their efforts were in vain. Azov did not give up. True, the Cossacks were extremely exhausted and asked Tsar Mikhail to send an army to help. The tsar gathered the boyar duma, then the Zemsky Sobor. But the unsuccessful war with Poland was still too fresh in the memory of 192 elected from different estates. The rich participants in the Council did not support the allocation of "fifth money", and even more so "request money", for a new war. In such conditions, the king did not dare to start it.

The Cossacks were sent a royal letter of commendation, 2000 rubles of salary, cloth, wine and various supplies, but were ordered to leave Azov. In 1643, they left the fortress with proudly deployed ensigns. I had to forget about going to the sea.

All these long overdue foreign and domestic political problems fell on the shoulders of the new Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his "premier" Boris Morozov. Not only was there no money in the country. As already mentioned, despite the way out of the crisis, it did not become the former Russia, as it was before 1605, when strong European neighbors considered it. The budgetary policy of the state was still extraordinary and went back to the “world sentence” of 1616: taxing a fifth of the income from merchants, and 120 rubles from the peasants from the plow (a huge amount at that time). The rich also had to pay extra taxes. From the boyars of the Stroganovs, for example, 16,000 rubles were due in 1616, but the Cathedral obliged them to pay another 40,000 rubles.

The tsar wrote to the Stroganovs: “Do not spare your bellies, although you will lead yourself to poverty. Judge for yourself: if from the Polish and Lithuanian people there will be the final ruin of the Russian state, our true faith, then at that time both you and all Orthodox Christians will have no stomachs and houses at all.

Naturally, after such appeals, all Orthodox paid - and the boyars, and merchants, and peasants. But they might not have paid if it was not about “final ruin”, but, say, about a new war, as in the days of the Azov sitting. It was quite obvious that the post-crisis policy, with its “patching holes” and local methods of solving problems, needed to be changed. The country needed a stable budget and a permanent military budget in particular. To do this, it was necessary to get away from the “sentences” of 1616, which were necessary at the time, from the “fifth money”, “request money”, from constantly invented numerous taxes that exhausted the poor population.

Boris Ivanovich Morozov began, as they say now, by cutting the expenses of the state apparatus. Let's listen to what foreign observers said about this, since the opinion of compatriots is often biased: after all, Morozov, having become the ruler, placed “his” people in the most important posts, as happens all the time, and had many enemies among the boyars removed from power. The court physician of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Englishman Samuel Collins, wrote in the book “The Current State of Russia” (1671): “Boris, who occupied the rank, similar to the Lord Protector, reduced the number of palace servants, left the rest on half salary, elevated customs, appointed envoys half the content and sent all the old princes to distant regions: Repnin to Belgorod, and Kurakin to Kazan.

Morozov established the regime of austerity throughout the state. The salaries of foreign officers, archers and gunners were cut. Overseas merchants increased taxes. But at the same time, Morozov replaced the numerous direct taxes introduced for this or that occasion with a single tax on salt. He began a census of the population in cities so that all citizens would pay state taxes evenly.

Morozov's fiscal policy, as you can see, was quite balanced and did not hit the poor exclusively, as is often the case. In general, the greed of Morozov the ruler and Morozov the landowner was, apparently, exaggerated by his enemies and is not confirmed by the documents that have come down to us. In the already cited book by S. Collins, it is said about Morozov: “He died ... at a ripe old age, seeing successful action of their advice(emphasis mine. - A.V.), beloved by the sovereign and mourned by all the people, except for the nobility, which still cannot fulfill its intentions.

So, Collins confirms that B.I. Morozov had many enemies among the nobles. It seems that it is here that one should look for the origins of the revolt that broke out against him in Moscow. No, I'm not suggesting that the poor people were happy with the onerous salt tax. But we note that the rebellion began on June 12, 1648, and the young tsar canceled the salt tax in January of the previous year (however, arrears on it continued to be charged), immediately after his wedding with Maria Ilyinichnaya Miloslavskaya. (The 58-year-old Morozov, by the way, then married Maria Ilyinichna's sister Anna and thus became related to the tsar).

The fact is that in Russia of that time (as well as in today's Russia) there was a paradoxical situation: there were many taxes, but there were also many people who did not pay them at all or paid them partially.

They lived mainly in settlements, that is, in settlements or urban areas, free, as their name implies, in whole or in part from taxes. Such benefits were used either by peasants and artisans from church settlements, or by owners of "strategic" professions at that time - archers, gunsmiths, blacksmiths, coachmen, etc. It is clear that the settlements, like the current "free economic zones", were forced measures the era of overcoming the crisis after the Troubles with its tactics of "patching holes". The normal tax policy of a stable state assumes that fiscal rules are the same for everyone. This is what Morozov was striving for when he realized, having headed the Order of the Great Treasury, that the policy of “free economic zones” had become obsolete, since almost half of the population of cities did not pay taxes. And these people were better off than, say, "black-haired" peasants who did not enjoy any benefits!

There were especially many settlements at that time in Moscow and the Moscow region. Naturally, Morozov's reforms did not arouse any enthusiasm among their inhabitants.

However, the experience of history shows that ordinary Russian people are not inclined to revolt just because some measure of the government hits their pockets. They revolt either because of completely unbearable living conditions, or at the instigation of authoritative people whom they tend to trust.

"Color revolutions" and "swamp" versions of them were not born today. The "salt riot" and its selective focus - personally against Morozov and his people in the government - had all the traces of the instigations of the disgraced Moscow nobility, which, however, having won, was forced, according to Collins, to act in the same direction as Morozov, but not so successful.

There is no doubt that Morozov was power-hungry and very jealous of those who, against his will, would like to enter the inner circle of the tsar, but tell me, what politician, even a Christian politician, is free from such shortcomings?

Maybe the salt tax itself was a mistake, because it led to an increase in prices for salted fish - the main food of poor Muscovites. However, new types of taxes and duties, such as, for example, the introduction of a state arshin for measuring fabrics, which cost ten times more than the "master's" arshin, which for some reason was always less than the state arshin (hence the saying "measure on your own arshin"), also not enjoyed, to put it mildly, popular. Fabrics, like fish, became more expensive, and merchants lost the opportunity to cheat, which is simply unbearable for other representatives of this profession.

But where did you see taxes that would suit everyone? For example, I know quite a few people who are not satisfied with the current 13% income tax. They say that the poor should pay no more than five, and the rich - 50 percent or even 75, as Hollande wanted in France (I am also emotionally in favor).

But suppose they introduce such a tax scale, and manufacturers immediately raise the price of their products, as was the case under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. What is called, wherever you throw, everywhere a wedge. One thing is clear: without a clear centralized taxation, Russia, which became a huge Eurasian state during the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, could not exist.

Morozov's fiscal policy, even in the absence of abuses "on the ground", would in any case have caused discontent. Another thing is that not every discontent leads to an uprising, as we have already noted. Apparently, Morozov's enemies considered that it was necessary to use the favorable moment, because otherwise could not be expected in case of success of Morozov's reforms.

I will not describe the fairly well-known picture of the Salt Riot, I will only say that its key moment was the refusal of the archers to follow the orders of Morozov. And the archers, let me remind you, also fell "under taxes."

The leaders of the people who broke into the Kremlin called Morozov "a traitor and an enemy of the common cause", which there was and could not be any evidence. The houses of Morozov and other boyars were devastated, the rebels beat to death with sticks the clerk N. Chisty, whose name was associated with the salt tax. The crowd demanded that Morozov and the chiefs of his orders be handed over for reprisal - that is, the entire government of that time. The situation had the distinct character of a planned coup d'état. The young tsar, having no firm support in the crafty archers, was forced to partially give in: he handed over the boyars L. Pleshcheev and P. Trakhaniotov to the rebels, for whom, perhaps, there were abuses, but they definitely did not commit crimes deserving the death penalty. However, it was not enough for the rebels to tear apart Pleshcheev and Trakhaniotov: they wanted the blood of Morozov. The patriarch went three times from the king to pacify the crowd, but achieved nothing.

Then, according to an anonymous Swedish author, an eyewitness of the events, Alexei Mikhailovich himself “went out to the people with a bare head and begged with tears in his eyes and for God’s sake asked them to calm down and spare Morozov for having rendered great services to his father.”

The tsar promised to remove Morozov from all state affairs. After that, there was some calm, and, taking advantage of it, Alexei Mikhailovich sent Morozov to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery under the strong guard of the archers.

At the end of August 1648, when the situation had stabilized enough, the tsar allowed Morozov to move to his Tver estate, and from there to Pavlovskaya Sloboda, near Moscow. In October, Boris Ivanovich already appeared in the capital at the christening of the royal first-born and soon again became the closest adviser to the tsar, but he never occupied such a position in the state as before May 1648. But here's what is curious: the new head of government, I.D. Miloslavsky, father-in-law B.I. Morozov, in May 1663 he asked for a loan of more than a thousand rubles (a very large amount in those days) from ... Morozov's widow Anna Ilyinichna. Judging by the fact that the money was not given on parole, as was then customary between relatives, but with an official entry in the income and expense book (“Loan to Boyar Ilya Danilovich”), it is unlikely that they were intended for Miloslavsky’s personal needs. Probably, the head of government, with the help of his rich daughter, was patching up another budget hole.

In the middle of 1664, Semyon Dezhnev brought from Siberia to the treasury huge money at that time - 17,340 silver rubles. He himself did not receive a salary for 19 years. What reward awaited the hero?

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich appointed Dezhnev a third of his salary in money - 126 rubles 20 kopecks in silver, and two-thirds in cloth. Even if he had given everything in money, it would have turned out to be 378 rubles. 60 kopecks, 19 rubles each 92 kop. in year. But, apparently, the king could not pay everything with money, money was in short supply. The state seems to have returned to 1645...

Fiscal reform was carried out in full only by Peter I, but in a much tougher version (especially for ordinary people) than Morozov assumed.

In the photo: painting by E. Lissner "Salt Riot on Red Square"

Based on media materials

Plan
Introduction
1 Causes of rebellion
2 Chronology of the riot
3 The results of the rebellion
Bibliography

Introduction

The Moscow uprising of 1648, the "Salt Riot", one of the largest urban uprisings of the middle of the 17th century in Russia, a mass uprising of the lower and middle strata of the townspeople, urban artisans, archers and courtyards.

1. Causes of rebellion

The Moscow uprising of 1648 was a reaction of the lower and middle strata of the population to the policy of the government of the boyar Boris Morozov, the educator and then brother-in-law of Tsar Alexei Romanov, the de facto head of state (together with I.D. Miloslavsky). Under Morozov, during the implementation of economic and social policy, corruption and arbitrariness developed, and taxes increased significantly. Various sectors of society demanded changes in state policy. In order to relieve the tension that arose in the current situation, the government of B. I. Morozov decided to partially replace direct taxes with indirect ones. Some direct taxes were reduced and even abolished, but in 1646 goods actively used in everyday life were subject to an additional duty. Salt was also taxed, which caused its price to rise from five kopecks to two hryvnias per pood, a sharp reduction in its consumption and discontent among the population. The reason for the dissatisfaction is that at that time it was the main preservative. Therefore, due to the rise in the price of salt, the shelf life of many foodstuffs was sharply reduced, which caused general indignation, especially among peasants and merchants. In connection with the newly growing tension in 1647, the salt tax was abolished, but the resulting arrears continued to be collected through direct taxes, including those that were abolished. Dissatisfaction was expressed primarily by the Chernoslobodchi, who were subjected (unlike the inhabitants of the White Sloboda) to the most severe oppression, but not for everyone.

The reason for the explosion of popular indignation was also the rampant arbitrariness of officials, as reported by Adam Olearius: “It is customary in Moscow that, by order of the Grand Duke, every month all tsarist officials and artisans receive their salaries on time; some even bring it home. He also made people wait for whole months, and when, after intensified requests, they finally received half, or even less than that, they had to issue a receipt for the entire salary. In addition, various restrictions on trade were arranged and many monopolies were introduced; who most of all brought gifts to Boris Ivanovich Morozov, he, with a gracious letter, cheerfully returned home. Another [of the officials] proposed to prepare iron arshins with an eagle in the form of a brand. After that, everyone who wanted to use a arshin had to buy for himself a similar arshin for 1 Reichstaler, which actually cost only 10 kopecks, a shilling, or 5 groszy. The old arshins, under the threat of a large fine, were forbidden. This measure, carried out in all the provinces, brought in revenues of many thousands of thalers.

2. Chronology of the rebellion

The immediate reason for the uprising was the unsuccessful delegation of Muscovites to the tsar on June 1, 1648. When Alexei Mikhailovich was returning from a pilgrimage from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, a large crowd of people on Sretenka stopped the tsar's horse and gave him a petition directed against influential dignitaries. One of the main points of the petition was the demand for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the approval of new legislative acts at it. Boyar Morozov ordered the archers to disperse the crowd. “Extremely indignant at this, the people grabbed stones and sticks and began to throw them at the archers, so that the persons accompanying His Majesty’s wife even partly suffered and received wounds”. The next day, the townspeople broke into the Kremlin and, not succumbing to the persuasion of the boyars, the patriarch and the tsar, again tried to hand over the petition, but the boyars, tearing the petition to shreds, threw it into the crowd of petitioners.

In Moscow, "a great turmoil broke out", the city was at the mercy of angry citizens. The crowd smashed and killed the "traitors" of the boyars. On June 2, most of the archers went over to the side of the townspeople. The people broke into the Kremlin, demanding the extradition of the head of the Zemsky order Leonty Pleshcheev, who was in charge of the management and police service of Moscow, the Duma clerk Nazariy Chisty - the initiator of the salt tax, the boyar Morozov and his brother-in-law, the roundabout Pyotr Trakhaniotov. The rebels set fire to the White City and Kitay-Gorod, defeated the courtyards of the most hated boyars, devious, clerks and merchants. On June 2, Chistoy was killed. The tsar had to sacrifice Pleshcheev, who on June 4 was taken by the executioner to Red Square and torn to pieces by the crowd. The rebels considered one of their main enemies to be the head of the Pushkarsky order, the roundabout Peter Tikhonovich Trakhaniotov, whom the people considered "the culprit of the duty imposed on salt shortly before." Fearing for his life, Trakhaniotov fled Moscow.

On June 5, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ordered Prince Semyon Romanovich Pozharsky to catch up with Trakhaniotov. “And seeing the sovereign tsar in the whole earth great confusion, and their traitors to the world great annoyance, sent from his royal person okolnichevo prince Semyon Romanovich Pozharskovo, and with him 50 people of Moscow archers, ordered Peter Trakhaniotov to drive on the road and bring the sovereign to him Moscow. And the roundabout Prince Semyon Romanovich Pozharsky snagged Peter's evo on the road near the Trinity in the Sergeev Monastery and brought it to Moscow bound on June 5th. And the sovereign, the tsar, ordered Peter Trakhaniotov to be executed for their treason and, for Moscow, he was burned in front of the world to be executed at the Fire. .

The tsar removed Morozov from power and sent him into exile on June 11 to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The nobles who did not participate in the uprising took advantage of the movement of the people and on June 10 demanded that the tsar convene the Zemsky Sobor.

In 1648, uprisings also took place in Kozlov, Kursk, Solvychegodsk and other cities. The unrest continued until February 1649.

3. The results of the rebellion

The tsar made concessions to the rebels: the collection of arrears was canceled and the Zemsky Sobor was convened to adopt a new Council Code. For the first time in a long time, Alexei Mikhailovich independently resolved the main political issues.

On June 12, by a special decree, the tsar postponed the collection of arrears and thereby brought some peace to the rebels. Prominent boyars invited archers to their dinners in order to make amends for former conflicts. By giving the archers a double cash and grain salary, the government split the ranks of its opponents and was able to carry out extensive repressions against the leaders and the most active participants in the uprising, many of whom were executed on July 3. On October 22, 1648, Morozov returned to Moscow and rejoined the government, but he no longer played such a big role in government.

Bibliography:

1. Babulin I. B. Prince Semyon Pozharsky and the Battle of Konotop, M., 2009. S. 24

2. Babulin I. B. Prince Semyon Pozharsky and the Battle of Konotop, M., 2009. S. 25

3. Babulin I. B. Prince Semyon Pozharsky and the Battle of Konotop, M., 2009. S. 26

Salt riot: how was it?

Journal: July 2018
Category: Main
Text: Russian Seven

Boyar Morozov

Salt worth its weight in gold

Petition. First try. Hassle

Petition. Second try. The beginning of the massacre

massacre

The fading of the riot

The results of the rebellion

Historians believe that the 17th century was a "rebellious" century. At this time, a large number of popular uprisings, uprisings and riots took place in the country. Among many, the Salt Riot of 1648 stands out, a distinctive feature of which was the large number of its participants.

Reasons for the rebellion

Riots, like other similar unrest, do not occur in a vacuum. So the rebellion of 1648 had its reasons.

First of all, it was associated with customs changes that affected the import of salt into the country. The government replaced direct taxes with indirect ones, embedding them in the price of goods. As a result, food prices have risen several times, and the main consequence was the rise in prices for salt. Here it is necessary to note the special place of salt in a number of food products. At that time, it was the only preservative used by the population to preserve food for a longer period.

Alexey Mikhailovich

Increased taxes for the "black settlements". Since the new customs rules for everyday goods only exacerbated economic problems, the government returned the previously abolished direct taxes and significantly increased them for the "black settlements", where the main population were small employees, merchants, artisans and others.

An important factor was the abuses of the government under the leadership of the boyar B. I. Morozov. Trying to increase the revenues of the treasury, the government did not take into account the interests of the taxable population. The people, of course, quickly developed an image of offenders and those responsible for the deterioration of their lives.

Course of events

It all started when the townspeople decided to go to the king and file a complaint with him. The moment for this was chosen when Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was returning from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. On June 1, 1648, the crowd stopped the royal train and tried to pass a petition. In their petition, the people asked to convene the Zemsky Sobor, reason with corrupt officials and get rid of the guilty boyars. Streltsy were involved in the dispersal, who dispersed the crowd and arrested 16 instigators.

On June 2, the unrest continued. The people gathered and moved to the Kremlin to the tsar. On the way, the crowd smashed the houses of the boyars, set fire to Bely and Kitay-gorod. The people blamed the boyars Morozov, Pleshcheev and Chisty for all their troubles. Streltsy were thrown into dispersal, but they, in fact, sided with the rebels.

The outrages of the crowd continued for several days. The rebels wanted blood, they needed sacrifices. First, Pleshcheev was extradited to them, who was killed without trial or investigation. The head of the Ambassadorial Department, Nazariy Chisty, was also killed. Trakhaniotov tried to escape from Moscow, but was captured and executed at the Zemsky yard. Only Morozov escaped, whom the tsar himself promised to remove from all affairs and exile him to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, which was done on the night of June 11-12. The nobles who did not participate in the uprising took advantage of the general discontent. They demanded the convening of the Zemsky Sobor.

The results of the uprising

The uprising was put down. The instigators were captured and executed. But it was one of the largest popular uprisings since the Troubles, and the authorities had to take measures to calm the disgruntled people:

On June 12, a special royal decree was issued, which postponed the collection of arrears and thereby relieved the general tension.

It was decided that it was necessary to convene the Zemsky Sobor and draw up a new code of laws.

The Council Code was adopted in 1649.

The king realized that circumstances and certain conditions can force people to unite, fight and win, defending their rights.

The seventeenth century is called the "age of revolt". And this is no accident. In Russia, in the period from 1601 to 1700, the people rebelled more often than in other centuries. The most famous unrest of that time are the Troubles, the Copper and Salt riots, the movement led by Stepan Razin and the uprising of the archers in 1682. And this is not the whole list. In the same article, we will consider in detail the Salt Riot in Moscow in 1648.

Causes of the Salt Riot

In fact, the main impetus for the rebellion was the changes in the Russian tax system. It was decided to fill the lack of funds in the treasury with the help of new direct taxes. After some time, due to the discontent of the population, they were partially canceled. Then there were indirect taxes on consumer goods (including salt, this was in 1646). The following year, the salt tax was abolished, and the government decided to collect arrears from the inhabitants of the black settlements (artisans and merchants who were personally independent, but paid taxes to the state). This prompted the people to revolt.

But there is another reason. The townspeople were dissatisfied with the arbitrariness of officials and the growing level of corruption. So, for example, people could not receive their salaries on time (and sometimes they did not receive them in full), monopolies were also introduced, which were presented as generous gifts to Boris Morozov and limited the right of other merchants to sell goods.

Participants of the Salt Riot

The following participated in the Salt Riot:

• the population of the settlement (specifically, the inhabitants of the black settlements: artisans, small traders, people engaged in fishing)
• peasants
• archers

The course of events of the Salt Riot

On June 1, 1648, the crowd stopped the tsar's cart and filed a petition with requests for him (about the requirements below). Seeing this, Boris Morozov ordered the archers to disperse the people, but they only got more angry.

On June 2, the people repeated the petition to the tsar, but the paper with requests again did not reach the tsar, it was torn up by the boyars. This pissed people off even more. People began to kill the boyars they hated, smash their houses, set fire to the White City and Kitay-gorod (Moscow districts). On the same day, the clerk Chistoy (the initiator of the salt tax) was killed, and part of the archers joined the rebels.

On June 4, Pleshcheev (head of police affairs in Moscow) was extradited for reprisal.
Later, Peter Trakhaniotov was executed, whom the people considered responsible for the introduction of one of the duties.

The main culprit behind the changes in tax policy, Boris Morozov, escaped with exile.

Salt Riot Rebellion Demands

The people demanded, first of all, the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the creation of new laws. Also, people wanted the most hated by them boyars , and in particular Boris Morozov (the king’s close associate who abused power), Petr Trakhaniotov (the culprit of establishing one of the duties), Leonty Pleshcheev (the head of police affairs in the city) and the clerk Chistoy (the initiator of the salt tax) were punished.

Results and results of the Salt Riot

Alexei Mikhailovich made concessions to the people, the main demands of the rebels were met. The Zemsky Sobor was convened (1649) and changes were made to the legislation. The boyars, whom the people blamed for raising taxes, were also punished. And as for the newly introduced taxes, which caused discontent among the population, they were canceled.

Main information. Briefly about the Salt Riot.

The salt riot (1648) was caused by a change in the tax policy of the state and the arbitrariness of officials. The uprising was attended by peasants, small merchants, artisans, later archers joined. The main demand of the people was the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and changes in legislation. Also, people wanted some representatives of the boyars to be punished. The king satisfied all these requirements. The main result of the Salt Riot was the adoption by the Zemsky Sobor of the Cathedral Code (1649).