Every year we celebrate this day as one of the most important days in the history of Poland. According to prof. Andrzej Chwalba - there is nothing to celebrate.
It is customary to talk about the Constitution of May 3 in superlatives. Its pioneering nature and progressive approach to many issues are emphasized. Professor Andrzej Chwalba in his new book "Zwrotnice historów. Alternative stories of Poland ” it does not take away these qualities. He clearly emphasizes that “we should be proud of this document. It testified to our patriotism, the will to repair the state and an ambitious reformist vision. ”
The historian notes, however, that "the king and leading reform activists got carried away by the atmosphere." Their lack of political imagination led ... to the 2nd and 3rd partition of Poland . Here's how he justifies this claim:
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was laid to the grave by its neighbors, especially Russia. But it's true, we gave her a great excuse, almost forced her to intervene. If the constitution had not been passed on May 3, 1791, Russia would have had no reason to enter Poland by armed forces and the second partition would not have happened.
The Kościuszko Uprising would not have broken out, which would wipe out the Commonwealth from the map of Europe. These events constitute an indivisible whole. The constitution was the stone that caused the avalanche. It was a provocation to which Russia responded as it had to answer, protecting its imperial interests .
According to Professor Andrzej Chwalba, the adoption of the constitution was a provocation that must have caused a tough reaction from Russia.
I should have said "stop"
The professor also leaves the readers under no illusions about the mood prevailing at this turning point in Poland. The constitution - contrary to what many people take for granted - was not enthusiastically received at all . It was even, as the Krakow researcher emphasizes:
a challenge to the vast majority of the nobility who did not want any major changes in the political system. In order to defeat a strong national opposition and Russia, the reformers would have to have powerful military means and loyal allies at their disposal.
We all know very well what the final result of the clash with our eastern neighbor was. But could the fate of the Republic of Poland have gone differently? According to professor Chwalba - yes. One had to be satisfied with the achievements of the Great Sejm to date:
Statesmen, flesh-and-blood rational politicians would stop in April 1791. They would continue their reforms step by step. They would keep up their sleeve a ready-made document introducing the new political order in the country and wait for the opportune moment to put it into effect. […] After all, the achievements of the Sejm before May 3 were still impressive. At one point you had to say "stop" and not risk losing everything you had achieved .
What exactly were the achievements of the years 1788-1791 that the historian talks about? First, a fixed tax was imposed on the nobility and clergy. Thanks to it, it was finally possible to finance the creation of a 65,000 regular army. The tax administration was reformed, making it much more effective.
The Permanent Council, established under Russian bayonets and controlled by the Tsar's ambassador, was also abolished. Moreover, the law on cities was passed, which gave the townspeople much more privileges, and a thorough reform of the sejmiks was carried out. All this allowed us to look to the future with optimism.
Missed chance?
Someone will probably say that it sounds beautiful, but in the end Russia would not allow far-reaching reforms and excessive independence of the dominion, which the Republic of Poland has been for the last several decades. However, Professor Chwalba in the "Crossovers of history" points to circumstances that nevertheless spoke in favor of the "minimalist" option:
We could grow and wait for the next international shift. And then try the next steps on the way to strengthening the state or shedding the Russian guardianship. And the opportunity would come pretty soon. The boom has started.
If Poland had survived until Tsar Paul I took power, would it have a chance for further reforms and regaining sovereignty?
On November 17, 1796, Empress Catherine II Alekseevna died in St. Petersburg [...]. The Empress's son, Paul I, did not inherit her greatness. And he sincerely hated his mother. [...] Since Catherine II recommended a hard course towards Poland, it can be expected that Paul I would not be against further reforms in the Republic of Poland .
We will never know how history would have turned out if the constitution had not been adopted on May 3, but the arguments of Professor Andrzej Chwalba presented in "Zwrotnicach historów" certainly give food for thought. What do you think about it?
Source:
Trivia is the essence of our website. Short materials devoted to interesting anecdotes, surprising details from the past, strange news from the old press. Reading that will take you no more than 3 minutes, based on single sources. This particular material is based on the book:
- Andrzej Chwalba, Andrzej Harpula, Crossovers. Alternative histories of Poland , Wydawnictwo Literackie 2019.