Free and Independent Faction Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă (Fracționiștii) | |
|---|---|
 Personification of the Faction as a headless body (Ghimpele, February 1868) | |
| Leader | Nicolae Ionescu (first) Dimitrie Tacu (last) |
| Founder | Simion Bărnuțiu |
| Founded | c. 1864 |
| Dissolved | c. 1884 |
| Merged into | National Liberal Party Conservative Party |
| Headquarters | Iași |
| Newspaper | Tribuna Română (1866) Dreptatea (1867–1870) D̦iorile (c. 1868) Uniunea Liberală (c. 1871–1873) Gazeta de Bacău (c. 1871) Mișcarea Națională (c. 1880) |
| Ideology | Ethnic nationalism (Romanian) National liberalism (Romanian) Republicanism Regionalism (Western Moldavian) Federalism Communalism Nativism Economic antisemitism Anti-Germanism |
| Political position | Center-left tofar-left |
| National affiliation | Concordia (1867–1869) Unified Opposition Committees (1883) |
TheFree and Independent Faction orFree and Independent Fraction (Romanian:Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă, sometimesFracțiunea Liberală și Independentă, "Independent Liberal Faction",[1][2][3][4] commonlyFracționiștii, "The F(r)actionalists") was anationalist andnational liberal party inRomania, regionally centered onWestern Moldavia. Originally informal, and defined by its adversaries, the Faction mainly comprised pupils and followers of the philosopherSimion Bărnuțiu. During most of its existence, it had as its recognized leader the academic and polemicistNicolae Ionescu.
Consolidated during the election ofCarol I asDomnitor, the Faction opposed his rule, favoring either anelective monarchy with a native prince or a republican system. Secondary Factionalist leaders includedDimitrie Tacu,Alecu D. Holban andNicu Ceaur-Aslan, who had varying levels of involvement with Western Moldavian separatism in 1866. The group'snativism bordered on violentxenophobia, endorsingeconomic antisemitism andanti-Germanism. The party also stood for democratization, including radicalland reform and a reshaping of thecensus suffrage, while its regional ethos resulted in support forfederalism, thencommunalism.
Such stances created tension between the Factionalists and most other groups onthe 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 reject its agenda. Soon after this incident, a conservative and monarchist movement emerged in Moldavia aroundJunimea club, with whom the Factionalists had a consuming rivalry. A Moderate Liberal Party, headed by Ionescu's rivalMihail Kogălniceanu, also drained the Faction of its votes after 1877. Prolonged controversies surrounded Factionalist participation in the local government ofIași city andCovurlui County. Within this setting, Factionalists participated in the effort to establish aNational Liberal Party (PNL), but then withdrew from it.
Ionescu's career peaked in 1876, when he wasMinister of Foreign Affairs in the "Red" cabinet ofIon Brătianu, and began to separate himself from the Factionalists. He was deposed for his opposition to thewar of independence, which also brought clashes between the PNL and the Faction over the issue ofJewish 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 formedConservative Party, most of the Faction dissolved into the PNL, which had emerged as the dominant "Red" group in theKingdom 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 byA. C. Cuza and hisDemocratic Nationalists.
The origins of Bărnuțiu's movement can be traced back to "the very last years"[5] ofAlexandru Ioan Cuza's rule asDomnitor over the "United Principalities", which had confederatedMoldavia with neighboringWallachia. 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 colleagueGeorge 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."[6] Defining itself as "national and liberal",[7] Bărnuțianism was stronglynativist andprimordialist, circulating the claim thatold Romanian law was purelyRoman law (seeOrigin of the Romanians).[8] On such grounds, it conceived Romania as a modern reconstruction of theRoman Republic, secured byprotectionism,anti-German sentiment, andeconomic antisemitism,[9] going as far as to propose the expulsion of all foreigners from Romanian soil.[10] Another eccentricity was the Factionalists' project for acomplete land reform, redistributing all available land among Romanian nationals.[11] The agenda was not fully shared by Factionalists such asNicu Ceaur-Aslan, whoseBacău-based newspaper,Santinela de Bacău, had argued for preserving theboyar nobility and its large estates.[12]
Like most other groups existing before the creation of an independentKingdom of Romania in the 1880s, the "vaguely liberal"[13] or "most originally liberal"[14] Faction was somewhat diffuse, identified by voluntary allegiance rather than formal membership, and was mainly aparliamentary party.[15] Its earliest rally point was the gazetteTribuna Română ("Romanian Tribune"), published in 1866 as the self-styled exponent of "truly liberal and independent convictions".[16] Despite having a longer history, the party was only formalized around January 1867, following a speech by its recognized leader, who was by thenNicolae Ionescu—his claim to speak for a "free and independent faction" was picked up as a derisiveexonym by his adversaries, then accepted by the "Faction" itself; ideally, however, Ionescu favorednon-partisan democracy.[17]
A professor of law and brother of the agronomistIon Ionescu de la Brad, Ionescu had played a marginal role theMoldavian andWallachian Revolutions of 1848.[18] In 1856–1858, he had also supported the unionistNational Party, putting out the French edition ofStéoa Dunării from Brussels. His effort was partly financed by the Moldavian statesmanMihail Kogălniceanu, with whom Ionescu had an on and off friendship.[19] Of the other Factionalists, Alecu Holban andNicolae Voinov had a similar background: both had been arrested for unionist activity during theMoldavian election of 1858.[20] Without seeking full independence from theOttoman 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 [but] despised hisBonapartist methods".[21] Another issue of contention was Cuza's favorable reception ofRomanian Jews: in 1864, Holban published an antisemitic article which theDomnitor read with disgust; he and Kogălniceanu issued a warning againstConstituționalul newspaper, which had issued it.[22]
"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 foreignDomnitor to inaugurate ahereditary monarchy. Eventually, afterPhilippe 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 anatural right, and would invalidate all other opinions.[23] Still frequenting the National Party, D. Tacu took a more moderate position: likeVasile Pogor andTitu Maiorescu, he was only opposed to Carol specifically, and demanded a prince fromRomance-speaking Europe.[24]
Those months also witnessed a collaboration between Holban and the independent radicalBogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu—together withNicolae Nicoleanu,N. D. Popescu-Popnedea 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.[25] Hasdeu also voiced his rejection of the reemerging Moldavian separatism, giving his conditional support to Carol "in the interest of preserving the Union".[26] Eventually, aplebiscite on the monarchy confirmed Carol asDomnitor, 685,969 votes to 224.[27] Elected to theConstituent Chamber ofBucharest during theparallel 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.[28] This group threatened to back another candidate for the throne, namelyNicolae 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.[29] Speaking from the Chamber rostrum, Ionescu, who represented six Moldaviancounties,[30] voiced his admiration of Cuza's constitutional law, since "although despotic, it yielded decent fruit, being applied with a sense of liberalism."[31]
%2c_1866.png)
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 Ceaur-Aslan,Calinic Miclescu,Teodor Boldur-Lățescu, and Constantin Moruzi Pecheanu.[32] The movement was almost immediately quashed, but moderate federalism was preserved by a plan of moving theCourt of Cassation to Iași, making that city ajudicial 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 andVasile Gheorghian, alongside priestsIosif Bobulescu,Neofit Scriban, and Climent Nicolau.[33] 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.[34]
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 thepassing 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".[35] Although "too archaic", Hasdeu argued, the Faction "rekindled the Romanian spirit" and mounted resistance against "cosmopolitan ideas".[36] Defining itself as "decentralist and anti-absolutist unionist", the Faction was organizing throughout Western Moldavia, relying on a network of academics, schoolteachers, and youths.[37] AtBârlad, its "national-liberal" chapter was supported by local intellectuals, including brothers Ion and Constantin Codrescu, Ioan Popescu, andScarlat Vârnav.[38]
Within this context, a deeper controversy erupted over what Hasdeu referred to as "alienism": the issue ofJewish 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."[39] In May 1866, while a petition to block Jews from obtaining commercial rights was signed by Ionescu and circulated throughout Moldavia,[40] antisemitic riots possibly instigated by the Faction erupted in Iași, Bârlad,Roman andBotoșani. The clampdown was led byPrefectGrigore Sturdza, and resulted in the temporary arrest of various party leaders, including Fătu, Gheorghian, Gheorghiu, Holban and Suciu—alongside sympathizers such asPetru Poni.[41] As noted by historianA. D. Xenopol (who was for a while a Factionalist sympathizer),[42] antisemitism was only present "up front" within the Moldavian Faction and taken up in Wallachia byCezar Bolliac, but also spread out, more discreetly, among the other political groups.[43]Adolphe Stern, the Jewish community leader, decried the Faction's "mystical and intransigent dogmatism", infused with an "awful hatred" by the "pseudo-intellectual" Bărnuțiu.[44]
Ionescu sided with the moderate-liberalPrime Minister,Ion Ghica, who wanted unrestricted freedoms to be codified by the Constitution.[45] The "Reds" and the Factionalists were pushed into cooperating with each other, mainly because the "Reds" were virtually unrepresented in Moldavian cities,[46] but remained distinct parties; in crucial moments, the Faction voted against radicalism, rallying with the centrists.[47] The Factionalists' extreme nationalism and antisemitism embarrassed most of the "Reds", who generally refrained from directly associating with the Faction outside of elections.[48] The other side of the alliance was also avoiding any direct association. Seen as a purely "egotistic" force by its allies,[49] the Faction always feared that the liberals were secretly "right-wing".[50] As noted in 1886 by Alecu Holban, the Faction also viewed "Reds" as "counterfeitJacobins", or as cosmopolitans whose stance was essentially "anti-national".[51]
The core disputes of 1866 centered on the reestablishment of aRomanian 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."[52] Ionescu and Voinov proposed a number of successive projects, all of which wereunicameral.[53] While supporters ofbicameralism insisted that the Senate would function as a RomanianHouse of Lords, the Factionalists and their allies ridiculed this claim when it came to |boyar nobility.[54] Hasdeu wrote that, in Romania, "most of the old [boyar] families 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".[55]
Faced with mounting support for bicameralism, Ionescu and Tacu conceded defeat but, alongsideChristian Tell andAlexandru G. Golescu, still supported limiting the power of Senate to vote on the budget.[56] However, they endorsed a bill which, if passed, would have given Senate the authority to try government ministers.[57] Like various deputies on the left, they still resented the distribution ofcensus suffrage, arguing that their bourgeois voters—portrayed by Ionescu's as a "third-estate" backbone of constitutionalism—were underrepresented in the 3rd Electoral College.[58] Ionescu supported a two-college system and found it deplorable that, under the provisions forweighted voting, peasants had a 1:40,000 ratio of representation, and landowners a 1:40.[59] The Faction, like the entire political class, rejected bothuniversal suffrage anddirect democracy, seeing Romanians, and peasants especially, as fundamentally immature for enfranchisement.[60] However, Ionescu was upset by moves to outlaw all referendums, viewing regular consultation as an instrument of popular emancipation.[61]
In October 1866, after "difficult" negotiations with theSublime Porte,[62] Carol also secured his international recognition, which relieved the need for consensus and allowed party politics to develop further. Following theelection of November, in which Ionescu became a perennial deputy forRoman County,[63] 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.[64] 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.[65] However, as a Kogălniceanu rival, Ionescu never signed up to the Concordia platform, and his colleagues only adhered to some of its tenets.[66] That year, Kogălniceanu spoke out more favorably of Moldavian demands, including against Holban: while the latter proposed anational coat of arms that would feature theMoldavian aurochsinescutcheon (and therefore inferior to theWallachian eagle), Kogălniceanu noted that such symbolism evoked "some sort of humiliation".[67]
Changing the configuration of Chamber, this alliance toppled Prime Minister Ghica, producing three successive radical cabinets, respectively headed byConstantin A. Kretzulescu,Ștefan Golescu, andNicolae Golescu.[68] These inaugurated investment in public works, modified electoral laws, and reduced the powers of the Senate.[69] 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" Kretzulescu 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.[70]
AsMinister of Internal Affairs, "Red" doctrinaireIon Brătianu worked to influence elections in favor the Concordia group, especiallyduring December 1867.[71] The new majority had some 85 seats in Chamber,[72] 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.[73] S. Vârnav, winner of the 4th-college seat forTutova, died mysteriously before confirmation. His partisans claimed that he had been poisoned by Jews, sparking another antisemitic riot.[74] The Faction was awarded theChamber Presidency, held by Fătu, but remained suspicious of the "Reds".[75]
The staunch "ethnic protectionism" and "hysteric xenophobia" of both nationalist parties, including their claim that Jews were incapable ofassimilating,[76] 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'."[77] Such policies were reportedly advocated, and imposed on him, by the Faction.[78] 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.[79] At the time, Lateș also proposed to only grant Christians the "political right" of owning land; his bill was also defeated.[80] The xenophobic stance was reportedly gaining momentum in Moldavia, with Factionalist professors expressing "aversion" towardWesternization, and purposefully ignoring "foreign literature and art".[81] Their protectionism blended withnatalism in another proposal, advanced at one time by Suciu, which would have overtaxedbachelors.[82]
From May 1867 to October 1870, in times of "maximum political strife",[83] Ionescu put out the Factionalist newspaperDreptatea ("Justice" or "Fairness"). As outlined here, the ideology of Factionalism also comprised fringe positions, includingcriticism of Christianity—Ionescu viewed Christianity as a worthystate religion, and conversion to it as a prerequisite of citizenship,[84] but argued that theRomanian Orthodox Church was too indebted toJudaism and "the Greeks".[85] Alongside the promise of full land reform, Moldavian regionalism resurfaced ascommunalism: the Faction believed that the executive should be closely monitored by the Chamber, and stood by the notion thatcommunes were autonomous units of the state. On this point, Factionalists were irreconcilable with the "Reds", who favored quick centralization and aunitary state.[86]
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.[87] From September, the Tăutu brothers began printingBacău's first regular newspaper,D̦iorile ("The Dawn").[88] Identified as a Factionalist venue, it was accused by other liberals of wanting to "divide the country intosatrapies".[73] 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".[89] This openly separatist group always maintained strong links with Ceaur-Aslan and Voinov.[90]
Despite maintaining such principles, and although the Faction voted against development loans from theOppenheim family, Ionescu also supported the common nationalist agenda, favoringa national currency and the construction of a centralized transport infrastructure.[91] 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.[92] Ionescu in particular favored a focus oncivics, rather thanvocational education, in the state-funded primary schools.[93] 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 reliableLandwehr.[94]
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.[95] In theJuly 1868 race, Ionescu took a seat in the Senate, where he remained until 1870.[30] His leaving the Factionalist leadership in Chamber was deplored as a major loss by his replacement, Gheorghiu.[16] However, the Faction still dominated Moldavian politics, enlisting affiliations from the moderate liberalGheorghe Mârzescu[96] and from urban professionals, variously including Dimitrie Anghel (father ofthe poet),Scarlat Pastia,Miltiade Tzony, andȘtefan Micle.[97] Before 1868, it also had the support ofIon 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.[98]
Iași was by then home to a cultural and political club, calledJunimea, 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 ofliberal conservatism.[99] 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.[100] Maiorescu's friendPetre P. Carp also attacked Factionalism through his newspaper,Térra, which declared itself the voice of true liberalism in its constitutionalist, monarchist, version.[101] Especially through Carp,Junimism condemned the Faction's xenophobia, and called for the protection of Romanian Jews;[102] Maiorescu also described Ionescu's party as "ephemeral", defined by its "hatred of foreigners, and in particular Jews."[103]
The Factionalists took notice of such reactions, and the conflict between them and theJunimists became exceptionally bitter—the two camps were deadly enemies to one another.[104] Factionalist propaganda portrayed theJunimists as "Freemasons" and as "hirelings" of the external enemies.[105] This political dispute highlighted earlier rivalries, which began in 1864, when Maiorescu and Ionescu accused each other of adultery.[106] 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.[107] On theJunimist side, the response was provided by Negruzzi, who published number of pamphlets depicting Ionescu and the Factionalists as irrational demagogues.[108]Junimea also kept a record of "inanities" published in the Factionalist newspapers.[109]
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.[110] 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.[111] Ionescu supported Golescu and Brătianu's definition of the Jews as "vagabonds", but declared his disappointment at their moderation.[112] 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.[113]
The Concordia alliance crumbled before theelection of March 1869, with Kogălniceanu, who resented the Golescus' external policies,[114] joiningDimitrie 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.[115] However, there were widespread reports and complaints that Kogălniceanu had advised local authorities to condone fraud and to intimidate the opposition.[116] According to several accounts, including his own, the defector Mârzescu, serving as Prefect ofIași County, personally ensured that Kogălniceanu won a deputy's seat against Ionescu.[117][118] 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 [tavern] calculated the difference in votes, and consoled themselves in that their loss was not shameful, since their ratio of votes was 2 to 5."[117]
In early 1870, a new majority of moderates was formed around D. Ghica andManolache Epureanu—calling themselves the "Party of Order"—, with the adherence ofEfrem Ghermani andCezar Bolliac. According to Hasdeu, this was a "broth of boyars and democrats", existing only to keep "the Reds and the Faction" out of office.[119] 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."[120] 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".[121]
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.[122] While Ionescu attended official functions honoring theDomnitor well into 1869,[123] the Faction discarded its early project for a native dynasty (which it now deemed "the imperialistic regime") and embraced republicanism.[124] 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.[125] As reported byGazet'a Transilvaniei in early 1869, republicanism remained "of little value in Europe"; the only journal to match the Factionalist platform outside Moldavia wasEmanoil Quinezu'sElectorulu Craiovei, which exercised some influence inOltenia.[126]
A republican drift was accentuated during theelections of May 1870. These were entirely manufactured by Carol, who was arguably overstepping constitutional bounds.[127] They took place in a climate of violence and uncertainty, with riots in Bucharest,Giurgiu, andPitești.[128] 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."[129] Epureanu managed to set up a "Hen and Fledgling Cabinet" that includedJunimist Carp atForeign Affairs. This was an early sign of the success of anti-Factionalism in Moldavia, whereJunimea 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."[130] 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.[131]
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.[132] Marton also includesGheorghe Chițu in her count of 1870 Factionalists.[133] Overall, the caucus of various liberal groups and tendencies was especially weak, ridiculed by outsiders as a "perfectly undecided" legislature.[134] 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.[135]
In Chamber, Voinov had verbal duels with moderates such asConstantin Boerescu over suspicions of electoral fraud bypolitical bosses.[136] During such bouts, he insisted that the Civic Guard had moral a duty to "rise up and protect" the people.[137] There were other calls for a revolution in Wallachia, all sparked by popular support for theFrench Empire during theFranco-Prussian War—while Carol and some of his ministers favored theGerman 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."[138] After some reluctance, with Ionescu noting that nobody in Europe cared about Romania's positioning,[139] theFrancophile 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.[140]
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 asympathetic jury.[141]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.[142] 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.[143] In addition, Ionescu expressed solidarity with the chief conspirator,Alexandru Candiano-Popescu.[144] 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."[145]
The Faction announced its alternative program to devolve the country into anelective monarchy, as a necessary transition to full republicanism.[146] The resulting dispute led to amotion 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.[147] Faced with mounting opposition, Carol threatened to resign, and another conspiracy, headed byEugeniu Carada, prepared to take over government; the status quo was preserved only after Brătianu asked Carada to rescind.[148] The "Reds" reverted to an earlier stance, and endorsed Carol as the legitimateDomnitor; Ionescu and the Faction agitated for the election of a Romanian monarch, but superficially endorsed legalism, and recognized Carol as a legitimate ruler.[149]
The period was also marked by another controversy, called "Strousberg Affair", which tarnished the early history ofRomanian railways, rekindled xenophobia, and endangered Romania's relations with theGerman Empire.[150] This scandal emerged from laws that the Faction had approved of or abstained on. Although Lăzărescu-Laerțiu was an early opponent of the deal,[151] Gheorghiu was seen by the left-nationalist paperGhimpele 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".[152]
The resulting fiasco was popularly attributed to German and Jewish scheming.[153] Following the anti-German riot atCasa 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 underLascăr Catargiu.[154] 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.[155] Alongside their "Red" colleagueNicolae Fleva, Ionescu, Gheorghiu and Codrescu alleged that Catargiu was being forced on them by theRomanian military, and more discreetly by Germany.[156] In March, Alecu Holban, who led a parliamentary inquiry, intimated that Carol was legally answerable for having appointed adventurerOtto Victor Ambronn as a manager of the Romanian holdings in the Strousberg venture.[157]
In April, Carol and Foreign MinisterGheorghe Costaforu traveled to Moldavia, contacting the monarchist circles, in particularJunimea.[158] As noted by political historian Apostol Stan,Junimism was sponsored by Catargiu precisely because it would help "contain the spread of ideas upheld by the Free and Independent Faction".[159] At the time, arch-conservatives and some of theirJunimist backers caused a stir with their endorsement ofGrigore Sturdza's bills to amend the constitution. These proposed a stricter limitation of suffrage, the screening of senators by theDomnitor, thedeath penalty for murder, and curbs on press freedom.[160] More controversially, Sturdza and his allies also favored opening the country toGerman colonists.[161] These proposals went unanswered, with Ionescu and Kogălniceanu threatening a revolt of the people.[40] References to "national glory" and the importance of Orthodoxy were enforced in the art conservation bill of February 1871. It was sponsored by Factionalists Ionescu, Mantu, Negri and Vucenicu, but also by Bolliac andV. A. Urechia.[3]
Despite such resistance, the conservative trend was consolidated in theMay 1871 election. The opposition was again coalesced: the Factionalists, the "Reds", and Kogălniceanu all stood for the "convened liberal party" or "the left";[162] nevertheless, the "Whites" had a solid win. It inaugurated five years of conservative government, with Catargiu as Prime Minister, while conspiratorial republicans, including Brătianu andC. A. Rosetti, failed to win seats.[163] Speaking for the far-left opposition, Hasdeu claimed that the election had been rigged, since intellectuals and aristocrats such as Maiorescu and Sturdza had been elected by peasant voters in the 4th College.[164]
Catargiu's administration brought the "routinization of political conflict", which, although violent in tone, remained mindful of constitutional arrangements.[165] It also witnessed the peak of reciprocal attacks betweenJunimea and the Faction: as deputy, and then asEducation Minister, Maiorescu began investigating the politicization of higher learning, and in particular the work of Ionescu and other Factionalists atIași University.[166] Such measures prompted Cobălcescu, who represented the university, to resign from Senate.[167] However, both Maiorescu and Ionescu were incensed when a "White" minister,Christian Tell, forced provincial academics to choose between their chairs and their deputy seats in Bucharest.[168]
In 1871–1874, the dispute between Ionescu and Maiorescu focused on the rural communes, their administration and economy. The new law of 1874 imposed centralization, allowing government to select mayors from a pool of elected councilors.[169] In his interventions, Ionescu supported communal autonomy as the basis for democratic self-government. Instead, Maiorescu noted that the democratic experiment had only created frail institutions, and proposed to curb this with "feudalism", by giving rich landowners over-representation in communal councils.[170] In parallel, at Iași, Alecu Holban, Tacu and the Corjescus mounted the opposition against aJunimist communal administration, headed by MayorNicolae Gane and PrefectLeon C. Negruzzi (Iacob's brother). As Ceaur-Aslan lost an auction to pave the city streets, a Factionalist newspaper,Uniunea Liberală ("Liberal Union"), claimed that Gane's public works were a graft from the Catargiuspoils system.[171] In November 1872, Gane and Alecu Holban almost dueled over the insinuations.[172]
Ionescu was also highly critical of the Conservative laws on labor contracts, arguing that hired hands had been stripped of all means to pressure their landowning employers.[173] By then, Maiorescu also took a more protectionist stance than Sturdza, Costaforu, and Factionalists such as Ceaur-Aslan, demanding that foreign investors be barred from buying land in Romania for a period of ten years; his opponents only demanded a two-year term.[174] Ionescu, for his part, supported the establishment of nativecredit unions with the introduction of unrestricted capitalism, and spoke out against state monopolies for tobacco and alcohol.[175]
From early 1871,[176] the "Reds" began talks of fusion with the Factionalists and with all other liberal clubs. The cause was popularized by the two new Factionalist organs:Uniunea Liberală andGazeta de Bacău ("Bacău Gazette").[177] Members of both groups organized the ostentatious funeral ofDomnitor Cuza in May 1873. Ionescu delivered the funeral oration; the burial atRuginoasa was overseen by a National Committee, whose members included Anghel, Fătu, Pastia, Poni, Tacu, Șendrea and Suciu.[178] This ceremony allowed the "Reds" to obscure their participation in the 1866 coup and reemerge as legatees of the Cuza regime.[179]
As reported later by Alecu Holban, by 1874 the Faction had returned to its conspiratorial dealings, again promoting Dabija as Carol's would-be usurper; the planned coup was masterminded by Mârzescu, now recognized as a Factionalist leader, behind Ionescu. Eventually, it also obtained support from "Red" leaders, including Brătianu andDimitrie Sturdza (both of whom visited Dabija in Iași), as well as from GeneralAlexandru Cernat, Kogălniceanu, andTelemac Ciupercescu.[180] At the time, the radicals and the Moldavian localists were also publicly associated with one another. Based inBolgrad County, where he put out the newspaperFlagelulŭ in 1873, Boldur-Lățescu expressed his support for the republican agenda and a unified opposition caucus.[181] In August 1874, political journalistScipione "Bagyai" Bădescu referred to the Faction as to an "extremity of the red party", though still counting it as one of five distinct parties, separate from other liberals.[182]
The merger negotiations took years: a definitive alliance, also known as the coalition of "Mozhar Pasha", only transformed itself into theNational Liberal Party (PNL) in 1875 or after. According to some accounts, the Faction as a whole joined the coalition, but not the party.[183] In July 1875, Iași's National Liberal Party Committee had among its members Alecu Holban, Ionescu, Șendrea, Tacu, Tzony, Anghel, Ciupercescu, Cobălcescu, Gheorghian, Gheorghiu, Pastia and Negură.[184] Over the following months, some prominent Factionalists or former separatists, including Boldur-Lățescu, C. Corjescu,[185] Sefendache,[186] and Mantu Rufu,[187] openly announced that they were joining the consolidated group as regular members. Other sources suggest that both the urban and rural chapters of the Faction were now "folded into the bosom of the Liberal Party".[188] Rosetti himself was bitter about this rapprochement, noting that the Faction, alongside a liberal current led byGeorge D. Vernescu, reaped all the benefits of the alliance, without enduring any consequence.[189]
Theelections of that year created an understanding between Epureanu's "independent conservative" faction and Brătianu, allowing them to govern together.[190] In theelectoral sweep of June 1876, at least 18 Factionalists, including Ionescu, took seats as PNL deputies[191] (other estimates suggest that between 15 and 26 deputies were Faction affiliates).[192] The PNL's secure victory, and a subsequent rapprochement with Carol, toned down republicanism, which was only expressed by dissenters such as Rosetti and Carada.[193] Dabija's conspiracy also fell apart immediately after Carol agreed to designate Brătianu his Prime Minister,[180] though the Factionalists were still strong at Iași—taking two out of three in-play colleges during thelocal elections in October.[194] As leader of the Faction, his name absent from the cabinet proposal,[195] Ionescu also continued to voice the old credo, insisting that the republic was "the most liberal, most democratic, most perfect" regime.[196] However, he sent out conciliatory messages to Carol, assuring him that the Faction did not seek to have him appear in court over accusations of corruption.[197] Against the changing consensus, he also defended alleged perpetrators of antisemitic violence.[40]
With Brătianu in charge of government, Ionescu himself served briefly as Vice President of Chamber, under Rosetti.[198] This signaled problems between him and other Factionalists, most of whom opposed Rosetti's policies, preferring to align themselves with Epureanu's followers.[199] Following a government reshuffle, during which the moderates again withdrew and the Faction became an important partner in government,[200] Ionescu was appointed Foreign Minister. The younger Factionalist,Ștefan C. Șendrea, was one of his trusted secretaries.[1] Their policy still differed from the PNL's: Ionescu did not look favorably on the project to shed Ottoman suzerainty, and felt that Romania should declare herself aneutral country.[201] Since the guarantees of theTreaty of Paris would have been voided by independence, he feared that the country would end up under a foreign occupation,[202] and was especially troubled by any empowerment of theRussian Empire.[203] During his time in office, Ionescu also toned down his own protectionism. He supported fixedtariffs against Kogălniceanu's free-trade agenda, but argued thatimport substitution industrialization generated "bad, overpriced merchandise"; by 1877, he endorsed reciprocal free-trade agreements with the major exporters of Western Europe.[204] In other areas, the Faction took the initiative for asserting Romanian autonomy. By December 1876, Factionalist deputies, led byAndrei Vizanti, submitted a project to set up theNational Bank of Romania. The motion, criticized in the press as amateurish, was eventually defeated in that form.[205]
This period in government preceded the Faction's ultimate downfall. Now identified as one of the "center-left" parliamentary leaders, Ionescu parted with the Faction during his tenure, leaving his Moldavian colleagues in Chamber as an unaffiliated group.[206] As early as 1875, Ceaur-Aslan had joined G. Sturdza's branch of the "White" caucus in Iași, though opposing from within the ascendancy ofJunimist cadres.[207] In February 1877, Kogălniceanu, Vernescu and other moderates withdrew from the embryonic PNL, leaving it to be taken over by the "Reds"; the Faction remained aligned with the "Mozhar Pasha" group.[208] Its list of adversaries included, from April, a Moderate Liberal Party—formed in Moldavia by Kogălniceanu and Mârzescu, alongside Ciupercescu,Eugeniu Alcaz, andVasile Conta. Also antisemitic, this new group saw itself as a morally superior alternative on the left, specifically designed to replace the Faction.[209]
Kogălniceanu in particular criticized Ionescu's performance at Foreign Affairs, accusing him of incompetence and of wasting government resources on the Factionalistpolitical machine; he called on Brătianu to renounce his alliance with Ionescu's "insignificant liberal group".[210] He achieved this goal the same month, when he himself took up the position of Foreign Minister.[211] Other Factionalists continued to serve in more minor positions. Gheorghian was Prefect of Iași County, but was constantly pressured by the Moderate Liberals into resigning.[212] Holding a similar position inCovurlui County, Vasile Holban was denounced by prosecutor N. Moscachi of running a dictatorial administration to "satisfy the interests" of his more famous relative, Alecu.[213] The latter's career was explored by Kogălniceanu and Cobălcescu's newspaper,Steaua României, who alleged that Factionalist control over the Iași council had seen Jews turned into regular tax collectors, who were dependent on Holban's whims and paid himprotection fees.[214] The "Whites" similarly regarded Factionalist rule as disastrous, noting that adherents of that group had created a spoils system: those who rented from the state were granted rebates; others made fortunes as "middlemen between the state and the Jews".[215]
Managed by Brătianu and Kogălniceanu, and under a temporary truce between the PNL and the "Whites",[216] the countrypursued her independence, entering theRusso–Turkish War. On May 9, 1877, as Kogălniceanu proclaimed national sovereignty, Ionescu was one of two deputies to abstain.[217] As a Factionalist senator, Voinov voted against independence.[218] However, other Factionalists, including Vizanti and Tzony, enlisted for service in the Civic Guard of Iași, training alongside adversaries such as Carp, Maiorescu, and Pogor.[219] During the war, Ionescu resumed his campaigning for a more liberal regime for land-and-labor disputes. He and Vizanti proposed state regulations of contracts between landowners and peasants, as well as a continued system of land distribution from state property to landless veterans.[173]
By February 1878, various Factionalists were questioning Ionescu's authority, and considering a merger with either the PNL or the Moderate Liberals.[220] The PNL "Reds" were again nominally allied with the Faction, pushing aside Kogălniceanu—the latter's party sided instead with a Conservative-Liberal group, headed by the old anti-Factionalist G. Sturdza.[221] It also took up the cause of decentralization, while proposing generic protectionism.[222] During theelection of April, the PNL list in Iași was headlined by the formerJunimistVasile Alecsandri, with Fătu, Gheorghian, Gheorghiu, Alecu Holban, Pastia, and A. Șendrea among the lesser candidates;Junimea and the Conta–Mârzescu–Ciupercescu group ran on the Conservative-Liberal ticket.[223]
The resulting Chamber only had four or five members not affiliated or allied with the PNL.[224] However, the Faction was in the process of forming the parliamentary opposition. As Minister of the Interior, C. A. Rosetti visited Iași and met with the Factionalist leaders at România Hotel. Fearful of not losing electoral power and hence offices, they vetoed Rosetti's plan to rewrite the constitution.[225] The group restated its belief in regional autonomy, while returning to strongly anti-German and antisemitic language.[222] Ionescu and Alecu Holban staged a renewed effort to have Maiorescu removed from Parliament, this time by citing his appreciation for the philosophical works ofArthur Schopenhauer. Ionescu staged a "trial" of Schopenhauer in Iași; Holban, referring to himself as the voice of a "national, democratic, and liberal party", declared Schopenhauer and Maiorescu as standing for "materialism [...], concubinage, the right of beating people with a whip, contempt for patriotic love and for sentiments of honor."[2]
The debates over antisemitism were soon rekindled by theCongress of Berlin, which asked Romania to naturalize its Jews. The PNL divided itself over the issue, with Alecsandri claiming that the Congress would establish a "new Palestine" in Moldavia.[226] Such quarrels left the Factionalists with an opportunity to recapture of the nationalist vote. However, they found themselves unable to compete with a younger category of antisemitic activists, rallied by Conta.[227] Speaking in October 1878, Alecu Holban noted being "honored to belong [...] to that group which is dubbed a faction, namely the group of free and independent constitutionalists." He and his colleagues, Holban claimed, were not in a rush to see the Jews emancipated: "when things are normal both at home at abroad—that's when we are to solve the constitutional, social issues."[228] Tzony took a moderate position, advocating citizenship rights for Jewish war veterans and, "in due time", emancipation for the community as a whole.[229] Ionescu meanwhile objected to the liberalization of citizenship laws, describing the process as a "stain on modern Romanian society",[40] and calling Prime Minister Brătianu a "sold-over to the Israelites".[224] While Rosetti and hisRomânul advocated a compromise, Ionescu and Vernescu proposed defying the international consensus, even at the risk of Romanian independence not being recognized; they only recommended naturalizing those Jews "who will ask us to".[230]
During the Iași by-elections of November 1878, Factionalists were soundly defeated by the Moderates at Iași—only Pastia was able to win a 3rd-College seat, which he won by a difference of 3 or 4 votes.[215] Consequently, Factionalist clubs opened up to the right-wing opposition. In Brătianu's own words, the PNL was facing the prospect of a new cabinet being formed by "White gentlemen, the Senate opposition, two Factionalists, and two more men I would not know how to describe"; he reacted by calling fornew elections in 1879.[224] The Factionalists then endorsed Catargiu's catch-allConservative Party, and ran on a common list. They stood for naturalization on a case-by-case basis, while the PNL had settled on granting citizenship to all upper-class Jews.[231] Their alliance was defeated, obtaining only 15 seats in Chamber; a full merger between the two parties was not attempted, with the Conservatives noting that they "needed no such grafting."[232] Conservatives and Factionalists were still able to work together in their project for constitutional revision, which resulted in their naturalization principle emerging as triumphant. As one of the participants in this effort, Conservative Pavel Gorgos argues that the Faction had effectively ended its political existence upon reaching this core objective.[233]
By January 1880, with most of the Moderate Liberals absorbed into the PNL,[234] Ionescu and some who had debuted with the Faction, including Ștefan Șendrea, joined Vernescu's own Sincere Liberal Party, which sought to reclaim the middle-class vote.[1][235] Ionescu was for a while a member of the Central Committee of that party,[236] which was sometimes referred to as the "Vernescu–Ionescu liberal faction".[230] According to seething diary entries byDomnitor Carol, in 1881 Catargiu, Vernescu and Ionescu had formed "something like a party", and werefilibustering in Chamber against PNL laws.[236] From March 1880, the surviving Factionalists, or "independent liberals", rallied around a new daily newspaper calledMișcarea Națională ("National Movement").[237] It was managed by Tacu and his younger disciple,Constantin "Coco" Dimitrescu-Iași, and espoused strongly anti-government sentiments, being critical of Brătianu's "Byzantinism".[51]
Although allied with Vernescu against the PNL, the Faction remained an independent group in the 1880 legislature, with Alecu Holban serving as deputy forVaslui County.[238] Still a prominent antisemite, Ceaur-Aslan was returned to Chamber in the Iași by-elections of 1881.[239] Allied with Rosetti, Ionescu was unable to make the constitution itself more liberal, but, in 1882, managed to reform the labor contracts.[240] By then, he had renounced the cause of republicanism, backing theKingdom of Romania upon its proclamation in March 1881. He was also warning against anti-state agitation by the socialists and foreign "Nihilists", while rejecting a PNL project to place all radicals under police supervision.[241] Ionescu also distinguished between liberal and extreme socialists, arguing that the former should be granted full liberty to organize.[242] This stance was not shared by other politicians of the Factionalist tradition. In socialist circles, Alecu Holban and Tzony were known for participating in the crackdown against Moldavian socialism: allegedly, they engineered the persecution ofNikolai Sudzilovsky,Theodor Speranția, andIoan Nădejde.[243]
From 1880, the PNL chapters in Moldavia had begun a focused campaign to "coerce [the Faction] into merging with the National Liberal party."[244] As a sign of this rapprochement, in 1882 several old Factionalist parliamentarians, including Ionescu, supported measures to fold the Civic Guard into the regular army.[245] The group survived at Iași, and, duringlocal elections in January 1883, proposed a list that included (in descending order) Pastia, Teodor Tăutu, A. Șendrea, Tacu, Anghel, and Ștefan Emilian.[246] In June of that year, Carol, nowKing of Romania, visited Iași, with the old Factionalist allies Cernat, Chițu and Hasdeu at his side; the banquet was attended by Voinov.[247] PNL recruitment was resisted by more conservative Factionalists ahead of the1883 national campaign; they supported Kogălniceanu's effort to establish another national third party, called Unified Opposition Committees.[248] Ionescu was also drawn into this alliance: during the January 1886 by-elections ofPutna County, he joined Kogălniceanu in canvassing votes for the opposition candidates.[249] In early 1887, this Iași-centered movement was headed by Alecu C. Mavrocordat. Its affiliates included the Corjescus, Anghel, Ceaur-Aslan, Iamandi, Mârzescu and Tzony, alongside young leftists such asAlexandru Bădărău andGeorge Panu.[250]
Before theelection of 1884, Tacu, Ștefan Șendrea, Gheorghiu and their colleagues had left the Faction to take up PNL seats in Chamber, being criticized by the anti-Brătianu camp for their quick transformation into disciplined party cadres.[51][251] According to Conservative reports, in 1887 the Faction still existed as a distinct chapter within the PNL "collective", kept alive by thespoils system and working to "falsify public opinion" on the side of the PNL.[252] The Opposition Committees mounted the anti-PNL campaign in preparation for theJanuary 1888 election, forming the Iași League of Resistance. In addition to the older affiliates of the Committees, League members included Alecu Holban and Pogor.[253] Mârzescu voiced the group's criticism of Carol whom he accused of validating PNL-ist corruption.[254] Also in 1887, remnants of the Faction heckled Carol as he returned for a visit to Iași.[255]
Ionescu still held a deputy's seat at Roman in 1884, returning to Chamber for a final term in theOctober 1888 election, but at Iași.[256] His Sincere Liberals continued to exist, absorbing remnants of the Moderate Liberal Party.[257] Ionescu was also returning to his anti-Carol stance, objecting to the creation ofCrown Estates underIoan Kalinderu, and defending Tzony when the latter was indicted forlèse-majesté.[144] He also proposed limited electoral reform by inducting more peasant voters.[258] In early 1889, Ionescu became an unaffiliated deputy, though loosely associated with Panu and Bădărău'sRadical Party.[259] Ceaur-Aslan, also returned as Iași deputy. Having campaigned on a left-wing platform that drew votes from the socialists,[260] he turned again to antisemitism by asking for a parliamentary committee to report on the "Jewish Question".[261]
Ceaur-Aslan and Ionescu mounted the opposition against aJunimist cabinet underTheodor Rosetti, who proposed a limited land reform to calm peasant uprisings inIlfov County. As such, in March 1889 they were the only two of 139 deputies to vote against the law, with Ceaur-Aslan arguing that its land grants would have been insufficient.[262] Ionescu asked for a formal inquiry into the revolt—although he also supported the cabinet's focus on abalanced budget.[263] By then, Ionescu's own son Eugen had joinedJunimea's parliamentary group.[259] Alecu Holban also took that road, reemerging as one of Carp's foremost "devotees" in Iași.[2] He also joined the Conservative Party—which, after absorbing Vernescu's group, was styled "Liberal-Conservative Party". In this capacity, he spoke out against the Iași socialists, identifying them as proxies for the PNL.[264] He also backed theJunimist approach to land redistribution. This policy was central to his platform for the April 1889 by-election for Roman's 3rd College, which he won by a large margin against the socialistVasile Morțun.[265]
During early 1889, Catargiu formed a new Conservative cabinet that excluded theJunimists. Holban was offered theMinistry of Public Works, but refused to accept it, specifically because he had remained loyal to Theodor Rosetti.[266] In October 1889, Carol made another visit to Iași, finding himself reluctantly greeted by the same Holban—who was secretly still his "irreconcilable enemy".[267] By then, the PNL was negotiating with the Opposition Committees and obtaining backing from their left-wing remnants—those groups respectively led by Ceaur-Aslan, C. Corjescu, Mârzescu, and Panu.[268] Ionescu Sr was inducted by the PNL in 1890. Although he was awarded a seat on the PNL Central Committee,[269] his political involvement was reduced to occasional speeches.[270] Like Eugen, who also crossed the floor and joined the PNL, Ionescu remained essentially an outsider, "free and independent" within that party.[188]
Also in 1890, Gheorghian stepped down as the PNL leader in Iași, leaving his seat open for competition between Ștefan Șendrea, Vizanti, and Colonel Petrovan.[271] Ceaur-Aslan, Corjescu and Tzony joined Mârzescu and Constantin Langa in taking seats as Conservative allies during theMay 1891 election, which also marked a temporary split between the Conservatives andJunimea.[272] Their association, consolidated around 1889 as "a softened expression of the old separatist movements",[273] was officially introduced as a "League for the Defense of Moldavia's Interests".[274] TheJunimist paperEra Nouă argued that this group, derisively designated asLiga-Langa (the "Langa League"), was a front for Mârzescu's political machine, disguised as serving regionalism and the "Moldavian interests".[272] It participated in the subsequentcounty and communal elections, but was voluntarily dissolved (despite Corjescu's attempts to revive it) around October 1891.[275] The crisis had been sparked by Ceaur-Aslan, who withdrew from the alliance, declaring it a "cohort of political charlatans". In that context, he extended an invitation to the "young native Jews", asking for their input in drafting a compromise law on naturalization.[276] Langa's partisans maintained that the League had been brought down by "secretive intrigues" (uneltiri ascunse).[274]
Nationalist-liberal discourse was still at the center of Ceaur-Aslan's politics. He focused on questioning the Conservative administration's policies on immigration, insisting that measures be taken "to defend the borders and keep out foreign Jews"; he also proposed defeating Jewish retailers with state-sponsoredcounty fairs.[277] He was reelected as a Conservative ally in therace of February 1892, but "unable to find a place in any of today's parties", stood as an independent antisemite.[260] In that context, Ceaur-Aslan began circulating claims that Romanian Jews were a "political, economic, and commercial association"—and, according to the Jewish community weeklyEgalitatea, never provided verifiable evidence to support these.[278] During 1896, he proposed legislation that would have made one's house aninalienable piece of property. As argued at the time byEra Nouă, Ceaur-Aslan was courting the debt-stricken electorate ("What could be more popular in this country than helping the small owner with evading his debt payments?"), while also creating issues for the mainly Jewish creditors.[279] That year, Ceaur-Aslan joinedNicolae Fleva's parliamentary faction, which called for the enactment of "liberal reforms";[280] by 1897, he was a noted proponent of universal suffrage.[281]
In contrast, Alecu Holban, who still regarded himself as the Factionalist leader,[282] moved farther to the right and, by 1894, was one of the Conservative bosses in Iași—alongsideJunimists such as Pogor and the Negruzzis.[283] In the late 1890s, old Factionalists Mârzescu and Ștefan Șendrea also embraced a conservative and monarchist platform, joiningPetre S. Aurelian'sDrapelul group of PNL dissidents.[284] Withdrawn from active politics to serve as a functionary for the Court of Cassation, Tacu died in October 1895.[285] Tzony also died, vacating his senatorial seat, in March 1898.[286] Soon after, Vizanti disappeared from public life: a habitual gambler, he had embezzled funds allocated for the Kogălniceanu Statue, and escaped prosecution by resettling in America.[287] Reports from July 1899 suggest that he had eloped with a young woman fromReading, Pennsylvania, and had joined in theKlondike Gold Rush.[288]
Putting out the weeklyPrietenul Poporuluĭ in 1900, the aging Mârzescu returned to "almost anti-dynastic" feelings and "agitatorial, activist spirit of 1866".[289] In 1902 (the year of Ceaur-Aslan's retirement and death),[261] Hasdeu wrote the Faction's epitaph, noting that it had burned its "rather short fuse", whereasJunimea, being able to canvass outside Moldavia, "lasted longer."[290] Ionescu Sr died inBradu in January 1905, being commemorated as the "soul of the 'free and independent faction' group, and thereafter a steadfast national liberal".[291] Some two years later,A. C. Cuza, leader of the antisemitic trend in Moldavia, revisited Ionescu and Holban's stances with an article called "Our Folks".[180] In 1912, having established his ownDemocratic Nationalist Party (PND), Cuza openly deplored the Faction's demise—since, in the wake of Bărnuțianism, Iași's youth had come under the influence of "anarchic socialism".[292] According to PNL monarchists, the aged Holban was allowed by the Conservatives to publish "the most egregious attacks on our Sovereign [Carol]", whenever these were politically suitable—but only until 1911, when he was left entirely isolated in that party.[293] In 1913, he issued his old press contributions, including his 1864 antisemitic piece, as a brochure—seen byOpinia newspaper as an attempt to "reconnect with current affairs."[22]
Holban survived the early stages of World War I andRomanian participation in it. He died in May 1917 at Iași,[294] which was at the time the provisional capital—with all of southern Romania having been occupied by theCentral Powers. From late 1918, a series of events which reversed the situation also led to the establishment of aGreater Romania. Some tenets of Factionalist politics were still being upheld by Cuza and the PND. During the1919 elections, Cuza formed an alliance with the Brotherhood of Unified Moldavia (FMU), which raised awareness about the region's decline in the centralized state.[295] The FMU, seen by the National Liberals as a "political platform" for the PND,[296] included the old Factionalist Poni, who now called for a "moral decentralization" of Romania and a curb on French cultural imports.[297] Reflecting on Cuza's other policies, Apostol Stan describes the PND as in effect the Faction's successor, similarly encouraged by a "continuously rising" Jewish presence and by a perceived need to contain socialist influence.[298] Its activity helped rekindle antisemitism, leading up to theIași pogrom of 1941. As argued in 1948 by Jewish researcherMatatias Carp, this drift into extreme violence was a direct result of a "poison [which] ate away soul and conscience for over three quarters of a century", leading back to Ionescu and Ceaur-Aslan.[299]
