In January 1831, during the November Uprising, the commander-in-chief of Russian troops Ivan Diebitsch issued the summons to the Polish soldiers. This proclamation was a result of the Marshal obtaining information about the internal situation in the Kingdom of Poland. It is a typical element of propaganda used before the start of a military action and was therefore maintained in a conciliatory tone. Diebitsch used well rounded rhetoric here. At the beginning of  is manifesto he praised the bravery of Polish soldiers. Then he presented the benefits that Poles would allegedly receive from Tsar Alexander and from Russia. In subsequent passages, he called on Polish soldiers to withdraw from rebellion against their rightful ruler and side with the Russian army entering the Kingdom of Poland. He also threatened those who would not listen to his  roclamation with dire consequences.

Among many charitable initiatives undertaken in Podolia in the period between the national uprisings that were to benefit the Polish political exiles and their families was the informal “Care Committee”, also known as “Charity Work” or “Siberia Campaign”, organised by Róża Sobańska, Ksawera Grocholska, Eliza Brzozowska, Tekla Bołsunowska and Zygmunt Szczęsny Feliński. It is an important example of a well-organised charity project that operated over a very long period of time and positively affected not only the Polish exiles in Siberia but also many who stayed in the country and were persecuted for their patriotic attitude. The aim of this article is to offer a new perspective on said organisation, expanding on the previous historiographic research in order to highlight the scope and impact of this charitable undertaking amongst the Polish community on the both sides of the Ural Mountains in the period between the national uprisings.

The January Uprising, a well-researched topic in historiography already, is still marred by “blank spots” that need to be filled. One of such “blank spots” that is still insufficiently researched are women’s activities during this national uprising. Another issue worth attention is the everyday life in January 1863. The selection of sources for such research topics remains an open question. The article uses an ego-document, which is the diary of a woman highly involved in the uprising – Jadwiga Prendowska, a courier who worked closely with the dictator Marian Langiewicz. Her memories were analyzed in biographical terms of a woman living in the 19th century, who actively participated in the national uprising, going far beyond the stereotype of the “good Samaritan”caring for the wounded insurgents. A woman whose new role was de facto traditionally carried outby men. An ambitious woman and a patriot through and through, who often felt discouraged or tired while fulfilling her courier duties. A daughter, a wife and a mother, but also a Pole who dreamt of an independent homeland. This multiplicity of roles and a number of various responsibilities were incorporated into her everyday life during the unusual times of the January Uprising.

The aim of the article is to present the insurgent activity of Marian Dubiecki, secretary of Ruthenia in the Polish National Government of January Uprising. During his tenure, he was one of Romuald Traugutt’s closest collaborators, occupying the outbuilding next to his apartment, and a person who introduced the later dictator at the meeting of The Polish National Government. Dubiecki’s duties included correspondence with other representatives of the insurgent administration and negotiations with the “Progressive Ruthenia Group”. After minister of state Józef Kajetan Janowski left Warsaw, the secretary of Ruthenia undertook action to combine both functions. As a result of his insurgent activity, Marian Dubiecki was arrested and sentenced to exile, from which he returned in 1883. The figure of the secretary of Ruthenia has not yet been the subject of an extensive historiographical research that would comprehensively analyze his biography.

The January Uprising of 1863, unlike all the earlier Polish independence uprisings, postulated the creation of the Republic of Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia. Military operations against Russia initiated in May 1863 in Podolia, Volhynia and Kiev region, ended in a defeat for the Poles in July 1863 (battle of Radyviliv). In the summer of 1863, it was planned to reactivate the uprising, including the participation of the Polish and Ruthenian population from the Austrian partition – Galicia. However, an attempt to involve the Ruthenians in the uprising ended in failure. The reason were the discrepancies between the interests of Poles and Ruthenians. They had been apparent for several months, dating back to the outbreak of the Uprising, or even earlier. The article analyzes the Polish texts published in Lviv’s democratic daily newspaper Gazeta Narodowa and the Ruthenian, russophilic newspaper Slovo. The discrepancies concerned a number of issues: the attitude to the borders of future Poland, the recognition of the right to Ruthenians’ national identity, the attitude to the Orthodox Church, the noble nature of the uprising, and the oppression of peasants by the Polish nobility etc. The analysis of these texts shows the lack of divergence in the interests of the Polish and Ruthenian communities in Galicia in the face of the national uprising.

In the years 1870–1914, out of 199 presidents (Lviv, Caracow) and mayors of 30 larger Galician cities, at least 19 were former January insurgents. In 1863, the younger ones took an active part in the fight, while the older ones acted in the power structures, as everyone supported the uprising in a way that was accessible to them. Under their rule, the cities developed the legal basis for functioning and began the process of modernization. They held important political  unctions at the country and state level, they were socially active and they were successful in their professional lives. Their courage, commitment to serving the public and resourcefulness in action were appreciated by the society, which expressed its gratitude in various forms (occasional appearances, manifest funerals, patronage of streets, monuments). Merits, however, did not protect against criticism, which was mostly of the character flaws, and less often of mistakes in the actions taken.

Józef Białynia-Chołodecki was a publicist, social worker, historian and one of the most active non-professional researchers of the post-partition history of Poland at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and the interwar period. The January Uprising held a special place in his historiographical work. Due to his family’s involvement and his own participation as a witness to the uprising, he developed a special interest in the events of 1863/1864. During his lifetime, he took part in many activities aimed at cultivating the memory of the fallen insurgents, as well as helping veterans and their families. His historical work had a popularizing, but often also pioneering character.

The article presents the impact of the January Uprising on the fate of a Polish noble family in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which had been involved in the independence uprising of 1863. The research method – case study – was used, in order to present the phenomena occurring at that time on the example of a selected Morgiewicz family living in Hanelki farmstead in Lida district of Vilnius governorate. Its members, although not directly involved in the armed struggle, participated in insurrectionary preparations or helped rebel units, for which they were subjected to repression, exile, sequestration and confiscation of property. Studying the fate of this family, it can be noted that the legal acts issued by the Russian authorities in 1863–1864, which introduced severe punishments against those involved in insurgent activities, threatened destruction of Polishness, in Lida district included. Fortunately for the Poles, they were not implemented consistently in the long run. In the aforementioned district, the procedure of the formal confiscation of property was mostly not completed and finally discontinued in 1873 due to the slowness of the Tsarist administration, and the land was returned to many of the original owners or their heirs.

The subject of the article is the issue of widely understood social and economic aspects related to the history of the landed gentry in the Kingdom of Poland in the post-January decade. The adopted border turning points were marked by the failure of the uprising and the introduction of the enfranchisement reform (1864) and the death of governor Fiodor Berg as well as the agricultural exhibition in Warsaw (1874). That decade was a clearly outlined period – important above all in the economic history of the country and in the context of the experiences that the village and the manor households had. Those years were crucial for the gentry as well. The consequences of enfranchisement, in a reality of the brutally suppressed independence uprising and in the atmosphere of post-January terror, brought the end to the era of manor and serf economy. The door was opened for the development of capitalist relations, which combined with a comprehensive reconstruction of the agricultural system, led many estates into ruin and forced many heirs to be declassed. For others, it was a challenge to thoroughly transform and modernize farming methods, which not always resulted in later economic successes. The new deal brought social and mental transformations as well as the rejection of traditional habits and state prejudices, to the agenda. All these interdependent phenomena created a picture that shimmered with different colours, which I think is worth re-drawing in the anniversary year.

The aim of this article is to showcase the complex problem of the attitude of Catholic Church, and specifically its clergy, to the Polish uprisings in the 19th century. Ludwik Łętowski was a member of the Senate of the Republic of Cracow, who first strongly supported the November Uprising – this “historical mission of Poles,” – and then, as an auxiliary bishop of Cracow, strongly opposed the Cracow Uprising, which he called a “comic brawl.” Łętowski also criticized the January Uprising. It is difficult to unequivocally assess the attitude of the Catholic Church to the Polish national uprisings. It can certainly be said that the clergy in the Polish lands were involved in great national events and tried not to stand aside. Łętowski was a man of paradoxes, which was also reflected in his attitude to Polish uprisings in the 19th century. The attitude of the Polish clergy and its role in the 19th-century struggles for independence have not yet been exhaustively discussed in historiography, and the example of Łętowski does not allow to make simple generalizations.