Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă

The Free and Independent Faction or Free and Independent Fraction ( ro, Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă, sometimes ''Fracțiunea Liberală și Independentă'', "Independent Liberal Faction","Condeie", in '' România Liberă'', December 6 (18), 1886, p. 2Academicus, "Fapte și idei. Schopenhauer-iana", in ''România'', August 8, 1938, p. 2Liviu Rotman, "Un proiect de lege din 1871 privind protecția monumentelor", in ''Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor'', Vol. 1, 1975, p. 61 commonly ''Fracționiștii'', "The F(r)actionalists") was a nationalist and national liberal party in Romania, regionally centered on Western Moldavia. Originally informal, and defined by its adversaries, the Faction mainly comprised pupils and followers of the philosopher Simion Bărnuțiu. During most of its existence, it had as its recognized leader the academic and polemicist Nicolae Ionescu.

Consolidated during the election of Carol I as ''Domnitor'', the Faction opposed his rule, favoring either an elective monarchy with a native prince or a republican system. Secondary Factionalist leaders included Dimitrie Tacu, Alecu D. Holban and Nicu Ceaur-Aslan, who had varying levels of involvement with Western Moldavian separatism in 1866. The group's nativism bordered on violent xenophobia, endorsing economic antisemitism and anti-Germanism. The party also stood for democratization, including radical land reform and a reshaping of the census suffrage, while its regional ethos resulted in support for federalism, then communalism.

Such stances created tension between the Factionalists and most other groups on the left-liberal fringe, making the Faction an uneasy partner in the "Red" government alliances of the 1860s and '70s. For pragmatic reasons, Ionescu and his followers defended Carol against the conspiratorial movement known as "Republic of Ploiești", but did not entirely rejects its agenda. Soon after this incident, a conservative and monarchist movement emerged in Moldavia around ''Junimea'' club, with whom the Factionalists had a consuming rivalry. A Moderate Liberal Party, headed by Ionescu's rival Mihail Kogălniceanu, also drained the Faction of its votes after 1877. Prolonged controversies surrounded Factionalist participation in the local government of Iași city and Covurlui County. Within this setting, Factionalists participated in the effort to establish a National Liberal Party (PNL), but then withdrew from it.

Ionescu's career peaked in 1876, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the "Red" cabinet of Ion Brătianu, and began to separate himself from the Factionalists. He was deposed for his opposition to the war of independence, which also brought clashes between the PNL and the Faction over the issue of Jewish emancipation. In 1879, the Faction was narrowly prevented from forming the national government alongside conservative "Whites", after which it steadily declined in importance. In the early 1880s, after a brief alliance with the newly formed Conservative Party, most of the Faction dissolved into the PNL, which had emerged as the dominant "Red" group in the Kingdom of Romania. A Factionalist dissidence survived as part of the Conservative-ran Opposition Committees, but also lost members to the PNL; the last surviving Factionalist cell, formed around Holban, became a Conservative chapter in the 1890s. Some of the party tenets, in particular its antisemitism, were revived in the 1910s by A. C. Cuza and his Democratic Nationalists.

Beginnings

The origins of Bărnuțiu's movement can be traced back to "the very last years" of Alexandru Ioan Cuza's rule as ''Domnitor'' over the " United Principalities", which had confederated Moldavia with neighboring Wallachia. The group was centered on the last Moldavian capital, Iași, where Bărnuțiu and Ionescu were both active as educators. Following Bărnuțiu's death in 1864, the Faction had for its "chiefs" Alexandru Gheorghiu, Alecu D. Holban, Theodor Lateș, Dimitrie Tacu, Iorgu Tacu, alongside Constantin Corjescu and his brother Dimitrie. As noted by their one-time colleague George Panu, they were "students and disciples of Bărnuțiu", who "had hypnotized them, had inoculated into them his fanatical ideas; they spoke like him, they dressed like him, they walked like him, and quite clearly they thought like him." Defining itself as "national and liberal", Bărnuțianism was strongly nativist and primordialist, circulating the claim that old Romanian law was purely Roman law (''see Origin of the Romanians''). On such grounds, it conceived Romania as a modern reconstruction of the Roman Republic, secured by protectionism, anti-German sentiment, and economic antisemitism, going as far as to propose the expulsion of all foreigners from Romanian soil. Another eccentricity was the Factionalists' project for a complete land reform, redistributing all available land among Romanian nationals.

Like most other groups existing before the creation of an independent Kingdom of Romania in the 1880s, the "vaguely liberal" or "most originally liberal" Faction was somewhat diffuse, identified by voluntary allegiance rather than formal membership, and was mainly a parliamentary party. Its earliest rally point was the gazette ''Tribuna Română'' ("Romanian Tribune"), published in 1866 as the self-styled exponent of "truly liberal and independent convictions".Puiu (2010), p. 220 Despite having a longer history, the party was only formalized around January 1867, following a speech by its recognized leader, who was by then Nicolae Ionescu—his claim to speak for a "free and independent faction" was picked up as a derisive exonym by his adversaries, then accepted by the "Faction" itself; ideally, however, Ionescu favored non-partisan democracy.

A professor of law and brother of the agronomist Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Ionescu had played a marginal role the Moldavian and Wallachian Revolutions of 1848. In 1856–1858, he had also supported the unionist National Party, putting out the French edition of '' Stéoa Dunării'' from Brussels. His effort was partly financed by the Moldavian statesman Mihail Kogălniceanu, with whom Ionescu had an on and off friendship. Of the other Factionalists, Alecu Holban and Nicolae Voinov had a similar background: both had been arrested for unionist activity during the Moldavian election of 1858. Without seeking full independence from the Ottoman Empire, from 1860 Cuza's regime took steps toward solidifying the Principalities, which became the nucleus of modern Romania; however, it alienated the political class with its expansive authoritarianism. The liberal wing, or "Reds", envisioned a ceremonial role for the monarchy, within a democratized country: they "admired Cuza's democratism utdespised his Bonapartist methods". Another issue of contention was Cuza's favorable reception of Romanian Jews: in 1864, Holban published an antisemitic article which the ''Domnitor'' read with disgust; he and Kogălniceanu issued a warning against ''Constituționalul'' newspaper, which had issued it."Nota zilei", in ''Opinia'', March 22, 1913, p. 1

"Red" leaders joined conservatives and centrists in forming a " monstrous coalition" of conspirators, who toppled Cuza in February 1866 and began a search for a foreign ''Domnitor'' to inaugurate a hereditary monarchy. Eventually, after Philippe of Belgium withdrew from the race, Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen became a main candidate for the throne. The Faction itself took a distinct position against the Carlist consensus. Bărnuțian postulates allowed Factionalists to argue that a single Romanian vote against a foreign dynasty was the exercise of a natural right, and would invalidate all other opinions. Still frequenting the National Party, D. Tacu took a more moderate position: like Vasile Pogor and Titu Maiorescu, he was only opposed to Carol specifically, and demanded a prince from Romance-speaking Europe.

Those months also witnessed a collaboration between Holban and the independent radical Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu—together with Nicolae Nicoleanu and others, they put out a humorous paper, ''Satyrul'', using Chinese-sounding pseudonyms to comment on political developments and express a measure of sympathy for Cuza. Hasdeu also voiced his rejection of the reemerging Moldavian separatism, giving his conditional support to Carol "in the interest of preserving the Union". Eventually, a plebiscite on the monarchy confirmed Carol as ''Domnitor'', 685,969 votes to 224. Elected to the Constituent Chamber of Bucharest during the parallel race, six Factionalists abstained during the vote to proclaim Carol as the hereditary ruler. Seated among the left and far-left of Chamber, they were: Ionescu, Tacu, Lateș, Nicolae Iamandi, Ianache Lecca, and Ioan Negură. This group threatened to back another candidate for the throne, namely Nicolae Dabija. Iamandi, who had renounced his own ambitions for the throne to serve under Cuza, reputedly allowed Dabija to hold court in his Iași townhouse. Speaking from the Chamber rostrum, Ionescu, who represented six Moldavian counties,Puiu (2011), p. 99 voiced his admiration of Cuza's constitutional law, since "although despotic, it yielded decent fruit, being applied with a sense of liberalism."

1866 troubles

While their initial opposition to Carol had by then been reduced to abstentionism, the Factionalists' core constituency of Iași experienced a separatist rebellion, instigated by Calinic Miclescu, Nicu Ceaur-Aslan, Teodor Boldur-Lățescu, and Constantin Moruzi Pecheanu. The movement was almost immediately quashed, but moderate federalism was preserved by a plan of moving the Court of Cassation to Iași, making that city a judicial capital of Romania. In the city itself, the Faction's "group of electors" held meetings during which some advocated full federalism with a separate civilian government for Moldavia. A motion supporting a preferential treatment for Iași was proposed by the lawyer Gheorghe Cigaras with support from Ceaur-Aslan—and also signed by Gheorghiu, Holban, Alexandru M. Șendrea, Petre Suciu, Tacu, Sandu Dudescu, Grigore Cobălcescu, Anastasie Fătu and Vasile Gheorghian, alongside priests Iosif Bobulescu, Neofit Scriban, and Climent Nicolau. However, to the dismay of other deputies who endorsed decentralization (including Tacu and Lateș), Ionescu spoke out against the Court of Cassation proposal, as he expected Iași to be more thoroughly assisted by government.

Carol was ultimately able to take the throne, but, during the same period, there was a breakdown of consensus inside the "monstrous coalition", with heated debates over the passing of the Constitution. A "White" party, comprising centrist and conservative elements, backed Carol's hands-on and gradualist approach to institutional modernization. As claimed by Hasdeu, the emerging anti-liberal coalition, a "scandalous phenomenon", "always paralyzed Romanianism with alienism, and democracy with reaction". Although "too archaic", Hasdeu argued, the Faction "rekindled the Romanian spirit" and mounted resistance against "cosmopolitan ideas". Defining itself as "decentralist and anti-absolutist unionist", the Faction was organizing throughout Western Moldavia, relying on a network of academics, schoolteachers, and youths. At Bârlad, its "national-liberal" chapter was supported by local intellectuals, including brothers Ion and Constantin Codrescu, Ioan Popescu, and Scarlat Vârnav.

Within this context, a deeper controversy erupted over what Hasdeu referred to as "alienism": the issue of Jewish Emancipation, which the "Reds" and the Faction opposed. The latter upheld the notion that a national bourgeoisie could be consolidated "not through free competition, but with legislation that would expel Jews from the country." In May 1866, while a petition to block Jews from obtaining commercial rights was signed by Ionescu and circulated throughout Moldavia,Puiu (2010), p. 224 antisemitic riots possibly instigated by the Faction erupted in Iași, Bârlad, Roman and Botoșani. The clampdown was led by Prefect Grigore Sturdza, and resulted in the temporary arrest of various party leaders, including Fătu, Gheorghian, Gheorghiu, Holban and Suciu—alongside sympathizers such as Petru Poni. As noted by historian A. D. Xenopol (who was for a while a Factionalist sympathizer), antisemitism was only present "up front" within the Moldavian Faction and taken up in Wallachia by Cezar Bolliac, but also spread out, more discreetly, among the other political groups. Adolphe Stern, the Jewish community leader, decried the Faction's "mystical and intransigent dogmatism", infused with an "awful hatred" by the "pseudo-intellectual" Bărnuțiu.

Ionescu sided with the moderate-liberal Prime Minister, Ion Ghica, who wanted unrestricted freedoms to be codified by the Constitution. The "Reds" and the Factionalists were pushed into cooperating with each other, mainly because the "Reds" were virtually unrepresented in Moldavian cities, but remained distinct parties; in crucial moments, the Faction voted against radicalism, rallying with the centrists. The Factionalists' extreme nationalism and antisemitism embarrassed most of the "Reds", who generally refrained from directly associating with the Faction outside of elections. The other side of the alliance was also avoiding any direct association. Seen as a purely "egotistic" force by its allies, the Faction always feared that the liberals were secretly "right-wing". As noted in 1886 by Alecu Holban, the Faction also viewed "Reds" as "counterfeit Jacobins", or as cosmopolitans whose stance was essentially "anti-national". Alecu D. Holban, "Masca jos!", in ''Epoca'', October 1 (13), 1886, pp. 1–2

The core disputes of 1866 centered on the reestablishment of a Romanian Senate, with its implication of elitism. Hasdeu claimed at the time that "its maintenance costs us some millions a year, but provides us with no benefit, other than that it passes for a fine ornament and emanates a fragrance." Ionescu and Voinov proposed a number of successive projects, all of which were unicameral. While supporters of bicameralism insisted that the Senate would function as a Romanian House of Lords, the Factionalists and their allies ridiculed this claim when it came to boyar nobility. Hasdeu wrote that, in Romania, "most of the old oyarfamilies have gone extinct and were replaced by a make-believe aristocracy, newly born and lacking those glorious traditions which support English aristocrats; and on the other hand, most of our notabilities, political, literary and even parliamentary, have their roots in the mass of the people".

Faced with mounting support for bicameralism, Ionescu and Tacu conceded defeat but, alongside Christian Tell and Alexandru G. Golescu, still supported limiting the power of Senate to vote on the budget. However, they endorsed a bill which, if passed, would have given Senate the authority to try government ministers. Like various deputies on the left, they still resented the distribution of census suffrage, arguing that their bourgeois voters—portrayed by Ionescu's as a " third-estate" backbone of constitutionalism—were underrepresented in the 3rd Electoral College. Ionescu supported a two-college system and found it deplorable that, under the provisions for weighted voting, peasants had a 1:40,000 ratio of representation, and landowners a 1:40. The Faction, like the entire political class, rejected both universal suffrage and direct democracy, seeing Romanians, and peasants especially, as fundamentally immature for enfranchisement. However, Ionescu was upset by moves to outlaw all referendums, viewing these as instruments of popular emancipation.

Concordia alliance

In October 1866, after "difficult" negotiations with the Sublime Porte, Carol also secured his international recognition, which relieved the need for consensus and allowed party politics to develop further. Following the election of November, in which Ionescu became a perennial deputy for Roman County, the legislature was split evenly between "Reds", "Whites", and a heterogeneous coalition of Cuza loyalists and Moldavian separatists; the parties of "the left", including the Faction, had some 20 deputy seats between them. During later contests for the new Senate seats, a more complex "Red" coalition emerged. Formalized as the Concordia Agreement in March 1867, it also included a group of moderates led by Kogălniceanu. However, as a Kogălniceanu rival, Ionescu never signed up to the Concordia platform, and his colleagues only adhered to some of its tenets. That year, Kogălniceanu spoke out more favorably of Moldavian demands, including against Holban: while the latter proposed a national coat of arms that would feature the Moldavian aurochs '' inescutcheon'' (and therefore inferior to the Wallachian eagle), Kogălniceanu noted that such symbolism evoked "some sort of humiliation".

Changing the configuration of Chamber, this alliance toppled Prime Minister Ghica, producing three successive radical cabinets, respectively headed by Constantin A. Crețulescu, Ștefan Golescu, and Nicolae Golescu. These inaugurated investment in public works, modified electoral laws, and reduced the powers of the Senate. Support for Concordia divided the regional caucus: in May 1867, a crowd in Iași cheered Alecu Holban, who asked Moldavians to back the "truly liberal" Crețulescu cabinet; Boldur-Lățescu was heckled for attempting to convince the public that they were being "cheated", and that the Court of Cassation was never going to be awarded to Iași.

As Minister of Internal Affairs, "Red" doctrinaire Ion Brătianu worked to influence elections in favor the Concordia group, especially during December 1867. The new majority had some 85 seats in Chamber, of which some 14 were Factionalists—known to include Ionescu, Fătu, Gheorghiu, Alecu Holban, Lateș, Negură, Suciu, D. Tacu, Voinov, Ianache Lecca, Dumitru Lupașcu, Mantu Rufu, I. Strejescu, and Dumitru Țanu Vidrașcu."Revista politica", in '' Ghimpele'', Issue 4/1868, p. 1 S. Vârnav, winner of the 4th-college seat for Tutova, died mysteriously before confirmation. His partisans claimed that he had been poisoned by Jews, sparking another antisemitic riot. The Faction was awarded the Chamber Presidency, held by Fătu, but remained suspicious of the "Reds".

The staunch "ethnic protectionism" and "hysteric xenophobia" of both nationalist parties, including their claim that Jews were incapable of assimilating, ensured that the Constitution only granted citizenship to Christians. Moreover, at Internal Affairs, Brătianu went against Carol's advice, ordering "severe measures against the Jews and foreign 'vagabonds'." Such policies were reportedly advocated, and imposed on him, by the Faction. During the interval, thirty-one deputies, Fătu included, presented a bill with exceptionally harsh antisemitic provisions, but this was defeated by an ad-hoc Chamber majority. At the time, Lateș also proposed to only grant Christians the "political right" of owning land; his bill was also defeated. The xenophobic stance was reportedly gaining momentum in Moldavia, with Factionalist professors expressing "aversion" toward Westernization, and purposefully ignoring "foreign literature and art". Their protectionism blended with natalism in another proposal, advanced at one time by Suciu, which would have overtaxed bachelors.

From May 1867 to October 1870, in times of "maximum political strife", Ionescu put out the Factionalist newspaper ''Dreptatea'' ("Justice" or "Fairness"). As outlined here, the ideology of Factionalism also comprised fringe positions, including criticism of Christianity—Ionescu viewed Christianity as a worthy state religion, and conversion to it as a prerequisite of citizenship, but argued that the Romanian Orthodox Church was too indebted to Judaism and "the Greeks". Alongside the promise of full land reform, Moldavian regionalism resurfaced as communalism: the Faction believed that the executive should be closely monitored by the Chamber, and stood by the notion that communes were autonomous units of the state. On this point, Factionalists were irreconcilable with the "Reds", who favored quick centralization and a unitary state.

During July 1867, a group of Moldavian deputies issued an appeal for organizing a regional caucus to defend regional interests; signatories included Prefect Sturdza, alongside his former enemies Ceaur-Aslan and Iamandi, as well as Grigore Balș, Panait Balș, Grigore Vârnav, and Colonel Pavlov. This initiative was censured by "Red" centralists, whose letter of response noted that regional divides were unconstitutional. From September, the Tăutu brothers began printing Bacău's first newspaper, ''D̦iorile'' ("The Dawn"). Identified as a Factionalist venue, it was accused by other liberals of wanting to "divide the country into satrapies". Also at the time, Boldur-Lățescu and Nicolae Rosetti-Rosnovanu began putting out their own newspaper, ''Moldova'', which included such pronouncements as: "Wallachians are the Moldavians' eternal and natural enemies". This openly separatist group always maintained strong links with Ceaur-Aslan and Voinov.

Despite maintaining such principles, and although the Faction voted against development loans from the Oppenheim family, Ionescu also supported the common nationalist agenda, favoring a national currency and the construction of a centralized transport infrastructure. Beyond its advocacy of xenophobic restrictions, the Faction also viewed itself as a watchdog for individual freedoms, and lauded the introduction of jury trials as a testing ground for extended suffrage. Ionescu in particular favored a focus on civics, rather than vocational education, in the state-funded primary schools. From March 1868, Ionescu and Ianache Lecca were also instrumental in reforming the nationwide Civic Guard, which acted as a reserve and police force. Their project called for the Guard to no longer be a paramilitary wing of the "Red" caucus, and become a more reliable ''Landwehr''.

Brătianu confirmed Ionescu's suspicions in April 1868, when he canvassed direct support for the "Reds" at Iași. His trip was a disappointment, drawing a mob which protested violently against his schemes. In the July 1868 race, Ionescu took a seat in the Senate, where he remained until 1870. His leaving the Factionalist leadership in Chamber was deplored as a major loss by his replacement, Gheorghiu. However, the Faction still dominated Moldavian politics, enlisting affiliations from the moderate liberal Gheorghe Mârzescu and from urban professionals, variously including Dimitrie Anghel (father of the poet), Scarlat Pastia, Miltiade Tzony, and Ștefan Micle. Before 1868, it also had the support of Ion Creangă, a rebellious priest and aspiring writer who attended electoral meetings and Faction primaries. It was during these that Creangă clashed with the local "White" orator, Iacob Negruzzi.

''Junimea'' and "White" consolidation

Iași was by then home to a cultural and political club, called ''Junimea'', which soon presented a structured opposition to both Ionescu's group, and, from 1870, a distinct branch of the "White" movement; it was able to attract within its ranks some of the junior Factionalists, including Creangă, Panu, and Xenopol, as well as conservatives such as Negruzzi. ''Junimea''s Wallachian founder, Titu Maiorescu, published essays directly attacking the cornerstones of Bărnuțiu's politics, and Romanian liberalism as a whole, from the implicit position of liberal conservatism. In particular, he rejected the Faction's ideas on land reform as "communistic", expressing his astonishment that an anti-state party had been allowed to govern at all. Maiorescu's friend Petre P. Carp also attacked Factionalism through his newspaper, ''Térra'', which declared itself the voice of true liberalism in its constitutionalist, monarchist, version. Especially through Carp, ''Junimism'' condemned the Faction's xenophobia, and called for the protection of Romanian Jews; Maiorescu also described Ionescu's party "ephemeral", defined by its "hatred of foreigners, and in particular Jews."

The Factionalists took notice of such reactions, and the conflict between them and the ''Junimists'' became exceptionally bitter—the two camps were deadly enemies to one another. Factionalist propaganda portrayed the ''Junimists'' as "Freemasons" and as "hirelings" of the external enemies. This political dispute highlighted earlier rivalries, which began in 1864, when Maiorescu and Ionescu accused each other of adultery. Factionalists Suciu and Cobălcescu had also lodged a legal complaint against Maiorescu, claiming, spuriously so, that he lacked Romanian citizenship and was therefore ineligible for political office. On the ''Junimist'' side, the response was provided by Negruzzi, who published number of pamphlets depicting Ionescu and the Factionalists as irrational demagogues. ''Junimea'' also kept a record of "inanities" published in the Factionalist newspapers.

The "Red" series in government ended in November 1868, when Carol, troubled by the excesses of antisemitism, began selecting his ministers from the moderate right. Carol also apologized for the sufferings of his Jewish subjects, which led the Faction to issue a protest; its senators also voted against the N. Golescu government when it did the same. Ionescu supported Golescu and Brătianu's definition of the Jews as "vagabonds", but declared his disappointment at their moderation. As noted at the time by Carp, Brătianu was shying away from official antisemitism, and only instrumenting it through "anarchy" and "the rabble in the streets"; the Faction, he argued, was at least consistent in seeking out a legal method.

The Concordia alliance crumbled before the election of March 1869, with Kogălniceanu, who resented the Golescus' external policies, joining Dimitrie Ghica's ministry. The election itself was a sound defeat for the left: the "Reds" took 10 seats in Chamber and the Faction only 8, with the moderates and "Whites" sharing 120. However, there were widespread reports and complaints that Kogălniceanu had advised local authorities to condone fraud and to intimidate the opposition. According to several accounts, including his own, the defector Mârzescu, serving as Prefect of Iași County, personally ensured that Kogălniceanu won a deputy's seat against Ionescu."Corespondența politică din 1869 urmată între Ministru de interne Mihai Kogălniceanu și G. Mârzescu, prefectul județului Iași", in '' Mișcarea'', September 16 (29), 1909, p. 1 Mârzescu reports that he sided with Carp and the "intelligent dynastic youth" against Ionescu, and that the elections were free of interference—which is why the Factionalists had lost. He writes: "not one Factionalist was even elected; and in the evening of election day the Factionalists gathering at Borta Rece averncalculated the difference in votes, and consoled themselves in that their loss was not shameful, since their ratio of votes was 2 to 5."

In early 1870, a new majority of moderates was formed around D. Ghica and Manolache Epureanu—calling themselves the "Party of Order"—, with the adherence of Efrem Ghermani and Cezar Bolliac. According to Hasdeu, this was a "broth of boyars and democrats", existing only to keep "the Reds and the Faction" out of office. Hasdeu also accused Epureanu of wanting to naturalize and introduce Jews into the country, under the guise of constitutionalism: "So the Constitution will appear to be standing, although trampled upon by the Jews." He called for an antisemitic unification—of liberals, radicals and nationalists—into a "great party of action", "purified of all things bastard, all things cosmopolitan".

Republicanism

As noted by historian Silvia Marton, the marginalized "Reds" first began talking of republicanism in the early months of 1869—"chipping away at Carol's strength and authority" despite their setbacks. While Ionescu attended official functions honoring the ''Domnitor'' well into 1869, the Faction discarded its early project for a native dynasty (which it now deemed "the imperialistic regime") and embraced republicanism. Nevertheless, Factionalist deputies such as Ion Codrescu still expressed a hope that the throne could stand for "the country as a whole", and reaffirmed their conditional support for Carol. As reported by '' Gazet'a Transilvaniei'' in early 1869, republicanism remained "of little value in Europe"; the only journal to match the Factionalist platform outside Moldavia was Emanoil Quinezu's ''Electorulu Craiovei'', which exercised some influence in Oltenia.

A republican drift was accentuated during the elections of May 1870. These were entirely manufactured by Carol, who was arguably overstepping constitutional bounds. They took place in a climate of violence and uncertainty, with riots in Bucharest, Giurgiu, and Pitești. In his editorial of June 3, Hasdeu called Epureanu a "butcher", but warned that "a nation is like iron: the more you strike at it, the more it will harden."

Epureanu managed to set up a "Hen and Fledgling Cabinet" that included ''Junimist'' Carp at Foreign Affairs. This was an early sign of the success of anti-Factionalism in Moldavia, where ''Junimea'' was growing into a political movement. The election, however, produced 34 deputies who, according to Hasdeu, stood for the "independent current, whose banner, the one it raised only yesterday, has managed to overwhelm with its vigor the authoritarian school." Alongside Ionescu, I. Codrescu, Fătu, Gheorghiu, Alecu Holban, Negură, Suciu, Voinov, and Tacu, these were: Stroe Belloescu, Constantin Bosianu, Alexandru Lăzărescu-Laerțiu, Gheorghe Lecca, Costache Negri, Nicolae Gr. Racoviță, Nicolae Rosetti-Bălănescu, George D. Vernescu, I. Adrian, Ion Agarici, N. Bossie, Costin Brăescu, D. Comănăsceanu, Leon Eraclide, E. Filipescu, I. Gâlcă, Matei Ganea, P. Georgiade, Vasile Holban, Dumitru Lupașcu, George P. Mantu, L. Moldoveanu, Constantin Scafesu, George Sefendache, G. Vucenicu.

This count may include "Red" sympathizers: according to Marton, the Faction only had 25 deputies, and the "Reds" 32—at 57 seats, their alliance actually had a slim majority; government was backed by neutral "Whites", and by a slim majority of senators. Marton also includes Gheorghe Chițu in her count of 1870 Factionalists. Overall, the caucus of various liberal groups and tendencies was especially weak, ridiculed by outsiders as a "perfectly undecided" legislature. Of those included in Hasdeu's count, Sefendache moved between the "Reds" and the Factionalists, and had crucially sided with the "Party of Order" during the 1869–1870 legislature.

In Chamber, Voinov had verbal duels with moderates such as Constantin Boerescu over suspicions of electoral fraud by political bosses. During such bouts, he insisted that the Civic Guard had moral a duty to "rise up and protect" the people. There were other calls for a revolution in Wallachia, all sparked by popular support for the French Empire during the Franco-Prussian War—while Carol and some of his ministers favored the German coalition. In radical circles, despite an awareness that France was under an illiberal regime, the war was depicted as a struggle "between freedom and despotism." After some reluctance, with Ionescu noting that nobody in Europe cared about Romania's positioning, the Francophile tenets were also taken up by the Factionalists. In Chamber, Ionescu and Gheorghiu spoke against neutrality, asking Epureanu and Carp to at least express moral sympathy for France, and proposing that Chamber be put in control of foreign policies.

By August, Wallachian radicals became involved in the incident known as "Republic of Ploiești", which ended in a police round-up of prominent "Reds". Several were tried for sedition, but acquitted by a sympathetic jury. ''Dreptatea'' condemned the "ridiculous rebellion", arguing that its instigators were inconsistent democrats, and dwelling on the older critique of Wallachian centralism; the "republic", Ionescu theorized, would only have reinforced the subjugation of Moldavian communes, while also imposing a one-party regime. This denunciation, Marton notes, was possibly prompted by fear of prosecution—in Chamber, Negură and Ionescu pushed through a declaration that denounced sedition, but also proclaimed their support for democratic change and for more parliamentary control. In addition, Ionescu expressed solidarity with the chief conspirator, Alexandru Candiano-Popescu.Puiu (2011), p. 102 Interrogated by the authorities in August 1870, Hasdeu denied his involvement in the conspiracy, while also distancing himself from the "Reds" and calling himself a member of the Faction. Hasdeu also reported that Factionalist doctrines meant a "governance always and everywhere Romanian, and on the basis of democracy."

The Faction announced its alternative program to devolve the country into an elective monarchy, as a necessary transition to full republicanism. The resulting dispute led to a motion of no confidence, and Epureanu was deposed. This marked Ion Ghica's return as Prime Minister, a temporary arrangement which seemed to satisfy both the "Reds" and the Faction. Faced with mounting opposition, Carol threatened to resign, and another conspiracy, headed by Eugeniu Carada, prepared to take over government; the status quo was preserved only after Brătianu asked Carada to rescind. The "Reds" reverted to an earlier stance, and endorsed Carol as the legitimate ''Domnitor''; Ionescu and the Faction agitated for the election of a Romanian monarch, but superficially endorsed legalism, and recognized Carol as a legitimate ruler.

Catargiu's ascendancy

The period was also marked by another controversy, called "Strousberg Affair", which tarnished the early history of Romanian railways, rekindled xenophobia, and endangered Romania's relations with the German Empire. This scandal emerged from laws that the Faction had approved of or abstained on. Although Lăzărescu-Laerțiu was an early opponent of the deal, Gheorghiu was seen by the left-nationalist paper '' Ghimpele'' as endorsing railways "no matter how" they were purchased. ''Ghimpele'' attacked the Faction's antisemitism as hypocritical, since they now accepted Jewish investments and even Moldavia's settlement by "Jewish thistles".

The resulting fiasco was popularly attributed to German and Jewish scheming. Following the anti-German riot at Casa Capșa, which he blamed on poor crowd control, Carol ordered Ghica's cabinet to resign. After again threatening to abdicate, he eventually settled on creating a "White" cabinet under Lascăr Catargiu. The situation upset Factionalist deputies. During renewed agitation in January 1871, Ionescu had openly celebrated Carol's decision to leave—an irresponsible attitude, according to his ally Brătianu. Alongside their "Red" colleague Nicolae Fleva

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases