View source for Free and Independent Faction

{{Infobox political party
| colorcode        = #F0DC82
| name             = Free and Independent Faction
| native_name      = Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă<br />(Fracționiștii)
| logo             = [[File:Tot ce e fracțiune nu póte fi un întreg și fracțiunea liberă și independentă nu póte fi representată, Ghimpele, 11 feb 1868.png|280px]]
| caption          = Personification of the Faction as a headless body (''[[Ghimpele]]'', February 1868)
| leader           = [[Nicolae Ionescu]] (first)<br />[[Dimitrie Tacu]] (last)
| founder          = [[Simion Bărnuțiu]]
| foundation       = {{circa}} 1864
| dissolution      = {{circa}} 1884
| split            =
| merged           = [[National Liberal Party (Romania, 1875)|National Liberal Party]]<br />[[Conservative Party (Romania, 1880–1918)|Conservative Party]]
| national         = Concordia (1867–1869)<br />Unified Opposition Committees (1883)
| headquarters     = [[Iași]]
| ideology         = [[Ethnic nationalism]] ([[Romanian nationalism|Romanian]])<br />[[National liberalism]] ([[Liberalism and radicalism in Romania|Romanian]])<br />[[Republicanism]]<br />[[Regionalism (politics)|Regionalism]] ([[Western Moldavia]]n)<br />[[Federalism]]<br />[[Municipalism|Communalism]]<br />[[Nativism (politics)|Nativism]]<br />[[Economic antisemitism]]<br />[[Anti-German sentiment|Anti-Germanism]]
| position         = [[Center-left]] to [[far-left]]
| newspaper        = ''Tribuna Română'' (1866)<br />''Dreptatea'' (1867–1870)<br />''D̦iorile'' ({{circa|1868}})<br />''Uniunea Liberală'' ({{circa|1871–1873}})<br />''Gazeta de Bacău'' ({{circa|1871}})<br />''Mișcarea Națională'' ({{circa|1880}})
| colours          =
| country          = Romania
}}
The '''Free and Independent Faction''' or '''Free and Independent Fraction''' ({{langx|ro|Fracțiunea Liberă și Independentă}}, sometimes ''Fracțiunea Liberală și Independentă'', "Independent Liberal Faction",<ref name="cndrol">"Condeie", in ''[[România Liberă]]'', December 6 (18), 1886, p. 2</ref><ref name="academicus">Academicus, "Fapte și idei. Schopenhauer-iana", in ''România'', August 8, 1938, p. 2</ref><ref name="lrpr1871">Liviu Rotman, "Un proiect de lege din 1871 privind protecția monumentelor", in ''Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor'', Vol. 1, 1975, p. 61</ref><ref>Scurtu, p. 154; Totu, pp. 123–124</ref> commonly ''Fracționiștii'', "The F(r)actionalists") was a [[Romanian nationalism|nationalist]] and [[National liberalism|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 of Romania|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 (politics)|nativism]] bordered on violent [[xenophobia]], endorsing [[economic antisemitism]] and [[Anti-German sentiment|anti-Germanism]]. The party also stood for democratization, including radical [[Land reform in Romania|land reform]] and a reshaping of the [[census suffrage]], while its regional ethos resulted in support for [[federalism]], then [[Municipalism|communalism]].
Such stances created tension between the Factionalists and most other groups on [[Liberalism and radicalism in Romania|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 reject 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 (Romania, 1875)|National Liberal Party]] (PNL), but then withdrew from it.
Ionescu's career peaked in 1876, when he was [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania)|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 [[Romanian War of Independence|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 (Romania, 1880–1918)|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 Nationalist Party (Romania)|Democratic Nationalists]].
==Beginnings==
The origins of Bărnuțiu's movement can be traced back to "the very last years"<ref>Marton, p. 26. See also Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 301</ref> 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."<ref>Panu, pp. 12–13</ref> Defining itself as "national and liberal",<ref>Maiorescu, p. 97</ref> Bărnuțianism was strongly [[Nativism (politics)|nativist]] and [[Primordialism|primordialist]], circulating the claim that [[Vlach law|old Romanian law]] was purely [[Roman law]] (''see [[Origin of the Romanians]]'').<ref>Gafița, p. 98; Marton, p. 144; Panu, pp. 13–14; Xenopol, pp. 504–506</ref> On such grounds, it conceived Romania as a modern reconstruction of the [[Roman Republic]], secured by [[protectionism]], [[anti-German sentiment]], and [[economic antisemitism]],<ref>Gafița, pp. 97–98; Puiu (2010), pp. 219, 221, 224, 228; Xenopol, pp. 504–506</ref> going as far as to propose the expulsion of all foreigners from Romanian soil.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 77–78, 98; Scurtu, p. 154</ref> Another eccentricity was the Factionalists' project for a [[Land reform in Romania|complete land reform]], redistributing all available land among Romanian nationals.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 78–79, 98; Marton, p. 144; Puiu (2010), p. 221, 228–229; Scurtu, p. 154; Xenopol, p. 505</ref> The agenda was not fully shared by Factionalists such as [[Nicu Ceaur-Aslan]], whose [[Bacău]]-based newspaper, ''Santinela de Bacău'', had argued for preserving the [[Boyars of Moldavia and Wallachia|boyar nobility]] and its large estates.<ref>Liviu Chiscop, "Primul periodic băcăuan. ''Santinela de Bacău''", in ''Ateneu'', Vol. 30, Issue 6, June 1993, p. 5</ref>
Like most other groups existing before the creation of an independent [[Kingdom of Romania]] in the 1880s, the "vaguely liberal"<ref>Ornea, p. 253</ref> or "most originally liberal"<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 219</ref> Faction was somewhat diffuse, identified by voluntary allegiance rather than formal membership, and was mainly a [[parliamentary party]].<ref>Marton, pp. 30–31, 241; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 128–130, 142</ref> 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".<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 220">Puiu (2010), p. 220</ref> 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]].<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 100, 103–104; Xenopol, pp. 504, 525</ref>
A professor of law and brother of the agronomist [[Ion Ionescu de la Brad]], Ionescu had played a marginal role the [[Moldavian Revolution of 1848|Moldavian]] and [[Wallachian Revolution of 1848|Wallachian Revolutions of 1848]].<ref>Gafița, pp. 91–95</ref> In 1856–1858, he had also supported the unionist [[National Party (Romania)|National Party]], putting out the French edition of ''[[Steaua Dunării|Stéoa Dunării]]'' from Brussels. His effort was partly financed by the Moldavian statesman [[Mihail Kogălniceanu]], with whom Ionescu had an on and off friendship.<ref>Gafița, pp. 95–96</ref> Of the other Factionalists, Alecu Holban and [[Nicolae Voinov]] had a similar background: both had been arrested for unionist activity during the [[1858 Moldavian Elective Assembly|Moldavian election of 1858]].<ref>Stoian, p. 102</ref> 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 [but] despised his [[Bonapartism|Bonapartist]] methods".<ref>Marton, p. 12</ref> Another issue of contention was Cuza's favorable reception of [[History of the Jews in Romania|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.<ref name="notaholban">"Nota zilei", in ''Opinia'', March 22, 1913, p. 1</ref>
"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 [[Prince Philippe, Count of Flanders|Philippe of Belgium]] withdrew from the race, [[Carol I of Romania|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 and legal rights|natural right]], and would invalidate all other opinions.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 76–77, 515; Panu, pp. 13–14; Xenopol, p. 505</ref> 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]].<ref>Xenopol, pp. 503, 506</ref>
Those months also witnessed a collaboration between Holban and the independent radical [[Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu]]—together with [[Nicolae 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.<ref>Oprișan, ''passim''</ref> Hasdeu also voiced his rejection of the reemerging Moldavian separatism, giving his conditional support to Carol "in the interest of preserving the Union".<ref>Oprișan, pp. 152–153, 154, 156–157</ref> Eventually, a [[1866 Romanian prince referendum|plebiscite on the monarchy]] confirmed Carol as ''Domnitor'', 685,969 votes to 224.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 9–10</ref> Elected to the [[Chamber of Deputies of Romania|Constituent Chamber]] of [[Bucharest]] during the [[April 1866 Romanian general election|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.<ref>Butnaru, p. 531; Marton, p. 146; Puiu (2011), p. 102; Xenopol, p. 506. See also Stan, pp. 40–41</ref> This group threatened to back another candidate for the throne, namely [[Nicolae Dabija (general)|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.<ref>Butnaru, pp. 529–531</ref> Speaking from the Chamber rostrum, Ionescu, who represented six Moldavian [[Counties of Romania|counties]],<ref name="Puiu 2011, p. 99">Puiu (2011), p. 99</ref> voiced his admiration of Cuza's constitutional law, since "although despotic, it yielded decent fruit, being applied with a sense of liberalism."<ref>Xenopol, p. 479</ref>
==1866 troubles==
{{multiple image
| align    = right
| image1   = Decĭ, să remănemŭ Ceĭa ce sîntemŭ. Satyrul, March 22 (April 3), 1866.png
| width1   = 308
| caption1 = Republican symbolism in ''Satyrul'', April 1866, with the couplet: ''Decĭ, să remănemŭ / Ceĭa ce sîntemŭ'' ("So let's just stay / Like we were anyway"), implying that the Romania was ''de facto'' a republic, and should have remained so
| image2   = Prefect Grigore M. Sturdza vs. the antisemites of Iaşi, May 25, 1866.jpg
| width2   = 240
| caption2 = [[Grigore Sturdza]]'s proclamation upon retaking control of [[Iași]] in May 1866, condemning the "barbaric propaganda" of local antisemites
}}
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.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 13–14, 329; Xenopol, pp. 482–500. See also Balan, pp. 70–71; Chelcu, p. 572; Marton, p. 146</ref> The movement was almost immediately quashed, but moderate federalism was preserved by a plan of moving the [[High Court of Cassation and Justice|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.<ref>Xenopol, pp. 492, 496–498</ref> 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.<ref>Xenopol, pp. 489–499</ref>
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 [[1866 Constitution of Romania|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".<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 269</ref> Although "too archaic", Hasdeu argued, the Faction "rekindled the Romanian spirit" and mounted resistance against "cosmopolitan ideas".<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 301</ref> Defining itself as "decentralist and anti-absolutist unionist", the Faction was organizing throughout Western Moldavia, relying on a network of academics, schoolteachers, and youths.<ref>Puiu (2010), pp. 220, 228. See also Scurtu, p. 154</ref> At [[Bârlad]], its "national-liberal" chapter was supported by local intellectuals, including brothers Ion and Constantin Codrescu, Ioan Popescu, and [[Scarlat Vârnav]].<ref>Antonovici, pp. XIV–XVII, 258</ref>
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."<ref>Stan, p. 71</ref> In May 1866, while a petition to block Jews from obtaining commercial rights was signed by Ionescu and circulated throughout Moldavia,<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 224">Puiu (2010), p. 224</ref> antisemitic riots possibly instigated by the Faction erupted in Iași, Bârlad, [[Roman, Romania|Roman]] and [[Botoșani]]. The clampdown was led by [[Prefect (Romania)|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]].<ref>Xenopol, pp. 510–512. See also Ancel, p. 428</ref> As noted by historian [[A. D. Xenopol]] (who was for a while a Factionalist sympathizer),<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", p. 112</ref> 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.<ref>Xenopol, pp. 518–519, 570</ref> [[Adolphe Stern]], the Jewish community leader, decried the Faction's "mystical and intransigent dogmatism", infused with an "awful hatred" by the "pseudo-intellectual" Bărnuțiu.<ref>Gafița, p. 98</ref>
Ionescu sided with the moderate-liberal [[Prime Minister of Romania|Prime Minister]], [[Ion Ghica]], who wanted unrestricted freedoms to be codified by the Constitution.<ref>Stan, pp. 43–45</ref> The "Reds" and the Factionalists were pushed into cooperating with each other, mainly because the "Reds" were virtually unrepresented in Moldavian cities,<ref>Brătescu, pp. 22–24; Maiorescu, pp. 19, 80; Ornea, p. 253; Puiu (2010), pp. 225–226; Stan, p. 72; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 134–135</ref> but remained distinct parties; in crucial moments, the Faction voted against radicalism, rallying with the centrists.<ref>Marton, p. 26; Puiu (2010), pp. 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 125, 128</ref> The Factionalists' extreme nationalism and antisemitism embarrassed most of the "Reds", who generally refrained from directly associating with the Faction outside of elections.<ref>Marton, pp. 26, 143–148</ref> The other side of the alliance was also avoiding any direct association. Seen as a purely "egotistic" force by its allies,<ref>Gafița, p. 99</ref> the Faction always feared that the liberals were secretly "right-wing".<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 223 and (2011), pp. 100, 103</ref> As noted in 1886 by Alecu Holban, the Faction also viewed "Reds" as "counterfeit [[Jacobin (politics)|Jacobins]]", or as cosmopolitans whose stance was essentially "anti-national".<ref name="masca">[[Alecu D. Holban]], "Masca jos!", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', October 1 (13), 1886, pp. 1–2</ref>
The core disputes of 1866 centered on the reestablishment of a [[Senate of Romania|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."<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 112</ref> Ionescu and Voinov proposed a number of successive projects, all of which were [[Unicameralism|unicameral]].<ref>Puiu (2010), pp. 222–223; Xenopol, pp. 525–528</ref> 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.<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 113; Stan, pp. 54–55</ref> 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".<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 113</ref>
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.<ref>Marton, p. 243</ref> However, they endorsed a bill which, if passed, would have given Senate the authority to try government ministers.<ref>Puiu (2011), p. 104</ref> 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 "[[Estates of the realm|third-estate]]" backbone of constitutionalism—were underrepresented in the 3rd Electoral College.<ref>Marton, pp. 32, 174–175, 244; Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), pp. 103–104; Xenopol, pp. 535–538</ref> 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.<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), pp. 103–104</ref> The Faction, like the entire political class, rejected both [[universal suffrage]] and [[direct democracy]], seeing Romanians, and peasants especially, as fundamentally immature for enfranchisement.<ref>Marton, p. 263; Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), pp. 103–104; Stan, p. 59</ref> However, Ionescu was upset by moves to outlaw all referendums, viewing regular consultation as an instrument of popular emancipation.<ref>Stan, p. 59</ref>
==Concordia alliance==
[[File:Assembly of Deputies of Romania, 1867 seat allocation.svg|thumb|330px|Allocation of Chamber seats following the [[1867 Romanian general election|elections of 1867]]. {{legend|#DE122D|Concordia: 68 seats}} {{legend|#E36C28FF|Free and Independent Faction (as Concordia allies): 17 seats (estimate)}} {{legend|#F5FCFC|Whites: 34 seats}} {{legend|#823985|Moderates: 30 seats}} {{legend|#B3B3B3|Independents: 8 seats}}]]
In October 1866, after "difficult" negotiations with the [[Sublime Porte]],<ref>Maiorescu, p. 12</ref> Carol also secured his international recognition, which relieved the need for consensus and allowed party politics to develop further. Following the [[November 1866 Romanian general election|election of November]], in which Ionescu became a perennial deputy for [[Roman County]],<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 99–100</ref> 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.<ref>Scurtu, p. 298</ref> 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.<ref>Brătescu, pp. 14–21; Marton, pp. 75–76, 183, 191; Puiu (2010), pp. 217–218; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 122–125, 128</ref> However, as a Kogălniceanu rival, Ionescu never signed up to the Concordia platform, and his colleagues only adhered to some of its tenets.<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 217; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 125, 128</ref> That year, Kogălniceanu spoke out more favorably of Moldavian demands, including against Holban: while the latter proposed a [[Coat of arms of Romania|national coat of arms]] that would feature the [[Coat of arms of Moldavia|Moldavian aurochs]] ''[[inescutcheon]]'' (and therefore inferior to the [[Coat of arms of Wallachia|Wallachian eagle]]), Kogălniceanu noted that such symbolism evoked "some sort of humiliation".<ref>Jean N. Mănescu, "Acvila României: simbol heraldic unitar al statului român modern", in ''[[Magazin Istoric]]'', April 1991, p. 34</ref>
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]].<ref>Brătescu, pp. 14–15; Marton, pp. 75–76, 143–144, 153, 191–200, 285; Puiu (2010), pp. 217–219, 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 122–125, 128. See also Maiorescu, pp. 80, 439, 515–517; Panu, p. 99; Totu, pp. 123–147</ref> These inaugurated investment in public works, modified electoral laws, and reduced the powers of the Senate.<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 218</ref> 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.<ref>"Bucurescĭ 13/15 Florarŭ", in ''[[Românul|Romanulu]]'', May 14, 1867, p. 393</ref>
As [[Ministry of Internal Affairs (Romania)|Minister of Internal Affairs]], "Red" doctrinaire [[Ion Brătianu]] worked to influence elections in favor the Concordia group, especially [[1867 Romanian general election|during December 1867]].<ref>Marton, pp. 191–200; Scurtu, p. 299</ref> The new majority had some 85 seats in Chamber,<ref>Scurtu, p. 299</ref> 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.<ref name="revp4-68">"Revista politica", in ''[[Ghimpele]]'', Issue 4/1868, p. 1</ref> S. Vârnav, winner of the 4th-college seat for [[Tutova County|Tutova]], died mysteriously before confirmation. His partisans claimed that he had been poisoned by Jews, sparking another antisemitic riot.<ref>"Bucurescĭ 28 Îndrea 1867/9 Cărindariŭ 1868", in ''[[Românul|Romanulu]]'', December 25–29, 1867, p. 1105; "D–luĭ Redactore alŭ d̦iaruluĭ Românulŭ", in ''Romanulu'', January 1–3, 1868, p. 3</ref> The Faction was awarded the [[President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania|Chamber Presidency]], held by Fătu, but remained suspicious of the "Reds".<ref>Brătescu, pp. 21–22</ref>
The staunch "ethnic protectionism" and "hysteric xenophobia" of both nationalist parties, including their claim that Jews were incapable of [[Jewish assimilation|assimilating]],<ref>Marton, p. 32</ref> 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'."<ref>Marton, pp. 24, 155</ref> Such policies were reportedly advocated, and imposed on him, by the Faction.<ref>Balan, p. 68; Brătescu, pp. 15–22; Gafița, pp. 97–98; Maiorescu, pp. 515–517; Puiu (2010), pp. 221–222, 225–226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 125; Totu, pp. 123–124</ref> 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.<ref>Brătescu, p. 22</ref> At the time, Lateș also proposed to only grant Christians the "political right" of owning land; his bill was also defeated.<ref>Xenopol, p. 519</ref> The xenophobic stance was reportedly gaining momentum in Moldavia, with Factionalist professors expressing "aversion" toward [[Westernization]], and purposefully ignoring "foreign literature and art".<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 49–50</ref> Their protectionism blended with [[natalism]] in another proposal, advanced at one time by Suciu, which would have overtaxed [[bachelor]]s.<ref>Maiorescu, p. 45; Săteanu, p. 169</ref>
From May 1867 to October 1870, in times of "maximum political strife",<ref>Marton, p. 143</ref> 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,<ref>"Principatele române unite", in ''[[Telegraful Român|Telegrafulu Romanu]]'', Issue 55/1866, p. 419; Puiu (2010), p. 224 and (2011), p. 101</ref> but argued that the [[Romanian Orthodox Church]] was too indebted to [[Judaism]] and "the Greeks".<ref>Marton, pp. 144, 147</ref> Alongside the promise of full land reform, Moldavian regionalism resurfaced as [[Municipalism|communalism]]: the Faction believed that the executive should be closely monitored by the Chamber, and stood by the notion that [[Communes of Romania|communes]] were autonomous units of the state. On this point, Factionalists were irreconcilable with the "Reds", who favored quick centralization and a [[unitary state]].<ref>Marton, pp. 147–149, 153–154</ref>
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.<ref>"Proclamațiune", in ''[[Românul|Romanulu]]'', July 9, 1867, p. 569; "Principatele române unite", in ''[[Telegraful Român|Telegrafulu Romanu]]'', Issue 56/1867, p. 224</ref> From September, the Tăutu brothers began printing [[Bacău]]'s first regular newspaper, ''D̦iorile'' ("The Dawn").<ref>Gheorghe Sibechi, "Din istoricul tipografiilor băcăuane pînă la 1918", in ''Carpica'', Vol. XIV, 1982, p. 245</ref> Identified as a Factionalist venue, it was accused by other liberals of wanting to "divide the country into [[satrap]]ies".<ref name="revp4-68"/> 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".<ref>"Gazetta ''Moldova'' séŭ Sibila depe stenca d-luĭ Rosnovanu", in ''[[Românul|Romanulu]]'', June 16, 1867, pp. 497–498</ref> This openly separatist group always maintained strong links with Ceaur-Aslan and Voinov.<ref>Stoian, pp. 109–110</ref>
Despite maintaining such principles, and although the Faction voted against development loans from the [[Oppenheim family]], Ionescu also supported the common nationalist agenda, favoring [[Romanian leu|a national currency]] and the construction of a centralized transport infrastructure.<ref>Puiu (2010), pp. 218, 225–226 and (2011), pp. 107–109</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 147, 258–261, 263</ref> Ionescu in particular favored a focus on [[civics]], rather than [[vocational education]], in the state-funded primary schools.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 130–138</ref> 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]]''.<ref>Totu, pp. 140–145</ref>
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.<ref>Brătescu, p. 23, See also Puiu (2010), p. 226</ref> In the [[1868 Romanian Senate election|July 1868 race]], Ionescu took a seat in the Senate, where he remained until 1870.<ref name="Puiu 2011, p. 99"/> His leaving the Factionalist leadership in Chamber was deplored as a major loss by his replacement, Gheorghiu.<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 220"/> However, the Faction still dominated Moldavian politics, enlisting affiliations from the moderate liberal [[Gheorghe Mârzescu]]<ref>Puiu (2010), pp. 219–220, 228</ref> and from urban professionals, variously including Dimitrie Anghel (father of [[Dimitrie Anghel|the poet]]), [[Scarlat Pastia]], [[Miltiade Tzony]], and [[Ștefan Micle]].<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", p. 102</ref> 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]].<ref>[[Vladimir Streinu]], "Ion Creangă", in [[Șerban Cioculescu]], [[Ovidiu Papadima]], [[Alexandru Piru]] (eds.), ''Istoria literaturii române. III: Epoca marilor clasici'', p. 260. Bucharest: [[Editura Academiei]], 1973. See also [[Mihail Sadoveanu]], ''Dumbrava minunată'', p. 170. Bucharest: [[Editura Tineretului]], 1966; Săteanu, pp. 172–173</ref>
==''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]].<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 301–303; Maiorescu, pp. 21, 48–50, 73–84; Marton, pp. 160–163; Ornea, pp. 77–78, 252–258</ref> 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.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 78–80, 99–109, 515–526</ref> 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.<ref>Balan, ''passim''; Marton, pp. 154–160</ref> Especially through Carp, ''Junimism'' condemned the Faction's xenophobia, and called for the protection of Romanian Jews;<ref>Gafița, pp. 98, 100–101; Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 301, 303; Marton, p. 155; Ornea, p. 253</ref> Maiorescu also described Ionescu's party as "ephemeral", defined by its "hatred of foreigners, and in particular Jews."<ref>Maiorescu, p. 19. See also Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 124–125</ref>
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.<ref>Gafița, pp. 97–102; Ghenghea, p. 116; Marton, p. 146; Ornea, p. 253; Panu, pp. 18–19, 26–29, 45–46, 48, 57, 64–65, 73, 105, 113; Puiu (2010), p. 227; Săteanu, pp. 7–12, 38–39, 42, 254, 331; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 125 and "Partidul...", p. 102</ref> Factionalist propaganda portrayed the ''Junimists'' as "[[Freemasonry in Romania|Freemasons]]" and as "hirelings" of the external enemies.<ref>Balan, p. 71; Gafița, p. 101. See also Panu, p. 73</ref> This political dispute highlighted earlier rivalries, which began in 1864, when Maiorescu and Ionescu accused each other of adultery.<ref>Gafița, p. 100; Săteanu, pp. 10–12</ref> 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.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 439–440; Săteanu, pp. 7–9</ref> On the ''Junimist'' side, the response was provided by Negruzzi, who published number of pamphlets depicting Ionescu and the Factionalists as irrational demagogues.<ref>Gafița, pp. 101–102; Panu, pp. 27–29</ref> ''Junimea'' also kept a record of "inanities" published in the Factionalist newspapers.<ref>Panu, p. 73</ref>
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.<ref>Brătescu, pp. 26–27; Marton, pp. 24, 28–29, 33, 74–76, 200–202. See also Maiorescu, pp. 19–20</ref> 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.<ref>Brătescu, pp. 25–26</ref> Ionescu supported Golescu and Brătianu's definition of the Jews as "vagabonds", but declared his disappointment at their moderation.<ref>Puiu (2011), p. 101</ref> 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.<ref>"Romani'a. Adunarea deputatiloru. Sedinti'a de la 26 aprilie 8 maiu 1868", in ''Federatiunea'', Issue 68/1868, p. 268</ref>
The Concordia alliance crumbled before the [[1869 Romanian general election|election of March 1869]], with Kogălniceanu, who resented the Golescus' external policies,<ref>Puiu (2010), pp. 216–217, 218; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 124–125, 128</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 23–25, 200–201, 215–219. See also Scurtu, p. 299</ref> However, there were widespread reports and complaints that Kogălniceanu had advised local authorities to condone fraud and to intimidate the opposition.<ref>Marton, pp. 201–219, 238–241, 286; Săteanu, p. 355</ref> 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.<ref name="cores1869">"Corespondența politică din 1869 urmată între Ministru {{sic}} de interne Mihai Kogălniceanu și G. Mârzescu, prefectul județului Iași", in ''[[Mișcarea]]'', September 16 (29), 1909, p. 1</ref><ref>Săteanu, p. 355</ref> 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."<ref name="cores1869"/>
In early 1870, a new majority of moderates was formed around D. Ghica and [[Manolache Costache Epureanu|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.<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 268–269</ref> 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."<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 271–272</ref> 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".<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 270–273</ref>
==Republican surge==
[[File:M. B. Baer - Trageţi dreptŭ la inimă, Ghimpele, 7 iun 1870.JPG|thumb|270px|June 1870 caricature in the "Red" gazette ''[[Ghimpele]]'', showing the [[Manolache Costache Epureanu|Epureanu]] cabinet (including [[Petre P. Carp]]) shooting down protesters in [[Pitești]]; the gibbon "Scarlat", a stand-in for [[Carol I of Romania|Carol I]], is depicted as ordering the alleged atrocity]]
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.<ref>Marton, pp. 23–25</ref> While Ionescu attended official functions honoring the ''Domnitor'' well into 1869,<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 221 and (2011), p. 111</ref> the Faction discarded its early project for a native dynasty (which it now deemed "the imperialistic regime") and embraced republicanism.<ref>Marton, pp. 26–28, 144–146</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, p. 255</ref> As reported by ''[[Gazeta Transilvaniei|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]].<ref>Unu abonatu, "Cronica esterna. Craiov'a 6 Martiu v.", in ''[[Gazeta Transilvaniei|Gazet'a Transilvaniei]]'', Issue 23/1869, pp. 3–4</ref>
A republican drift was accentuated during the [[1870 Romanian general election|elections of May 1870]]. These were entirely manufactured by Carol, who was arguably overstepping constitutional bounds.<ref>Marton, pp. 28–30, 157–158, 173, 221, 284–287</ref> They took place in a climate of violence and uncertainty, with riots in Bucharest, [[Giurgiu]], and [[Pitești]].<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 274; Marton, pp. 153, 221–241; Stan, p. 75</ref> 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."<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 274</ref> Epureanu managed to set up a "Hen and Fledgling Cabinet" that included ''Junimist'' Carp at [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania)|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."<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 275</ref> 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.<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 276</ref>
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.<ref>Marton, p. 221–222. See also Scurtu, p. 299</ref> Marton also includes [[Gheorghe Chițu]] in her count of 1870 Factionalists.<ref>Marton, p. 264</ref> Overall, the caucus of various liberal groups and tendencies was especially weak, ridiculed by outsiders as a "perfectly undecided" legislature.<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 226</ref> 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.<ref>"Nedreptatea d-lui Sefendache", in ''[[Ghimpele]]'', Issue 29/1869, p. 3</ref>
In Chamber, Voinov had verbal duels with moderates such as [[Constantin Boerescu]] over suspicions of electoral fraud by [[political boss]]es.<ref>Marton, pp. 223–225</ref> During such bouts, he insisted that the Civic Guard had moral a duty to "rise up and protect" the people.<ref>Totu, p. 239</ref> There were other calls for a revolution in Wallachia, all sparked by popular support for the [[Second French Empire|French Empire]] during the [[Franco-Prussian War]]—while Carol and some of his ministers favored the [[North German Confederation|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."<ref>Marton, pp. 17, 33–34, 133–136</ref> After some reluctance, with Ionescu noting that nobody in Europe cared about Romania's positioning,<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 280</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 246, 247–250, 264</ref>
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]].<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 285–287, 311–312; Maiorescu, pp. 19–26; Marton, pp. 42–69, 91–95, 124–132; Puiu (2011), p. 102; Totu, pp. 239–244</ref> ''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.<ref>Marton, pp. 145–146, 153–154</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 258–259, 263</ref> In addition, Ionescu expressed solidarity with the chief conspirator, [[Alexandru Candiano-Popescu]].<ref name="Puiu 2011, p. 102">Puiu (2011), p. 102</ref> 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."<ref>C. Popescu-Cadem, ''Document în replică'', pp. 41–42. Bucharest: Mihail Sadoveanu City Library, 2007.  {{ISBN|978-973-8369-21-4}}</ref>
The Faction announced its alternative program to devolve the country into an [[elective monarchy]], as a necessary transition to full republicanism.<ref>Stan, pp. 71, 80–81; Marton, pp. 145–146</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 250–252, 268–270; Stan, pp. 75–76. See also Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 289–295</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 141, 166, 264–272</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 268–272, 281. See also Puiu (2010), pp. 220–221</ref>
==Catargiu's ascendancy==
[[File:Paserile de prada, Asmodeu, 14 apr 1874.png|thumb|320px|April 1874 cartoon in the "Red" magazine ''Asmodeu'': Romania as a young warrior, stripped down by [[Boyars of Wallachia and Moldavia|boyar]] raptors and the [[Coat of arms of Prussia|Prussian eagle]]]]
The period was also marked by another controversy, called "[[Strousberg Affair]]", which tarnished the early history of [[Căile Ferate Române|Romanian railways]], rekindled xenophobia, and endangered Romania's relations with the [[German Empire]].<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 26–36, 247, 486–487; Marton, pp. 138, 272–284; Mocanu, ''passim''</ref> This scandal emerged from laws that the Faction had approved of or abstained on. Although Lăzărescu-Laerțiu was an early opponent of the deal,<ref>Th. I. Focșăneanul, "''Stroĭe Corbeanul'' de Alexandru Lazarescul (Laerțiŭ). Operă postumă, precedată de viața și operele luĭ. (Urmare)", in ''Revista Literară'', Issue 9/1892, pp. 142–143</ref> 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".<ref>"Revista politică", in ''[[Ghimpele]]'', Issue 2/1868, p. 1</ref>
The resulting fiasco was popularly attributed to German and Jewish scheming.<ref>Marton, pp. 138, 274–275, 282. See also Mocanu, ''passim''; Puiu (2010), p. 218</ref> 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]].<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 27–36; Marton, pp. 279–281</ref> 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.<ref>Stan, pp. 83, 85</ref> Alongside their "Red" colleague [[Nicolae Fleva]], Ionescu, Gheorghiu and Codrescu alleged that Catargiu was being forced on them by the [[Romanian Land Forces|Romanian military]], and more discreetly by Germany.<ref>Marton, pp. 280–284</ref> In March, Alecu Holban, who led a parliamentary inquiry, intimated that Carol was legally answerable for having appointed adventurer [[Otto Victor Ambronn]] as a manager of the Romanian holdings in the Strousberg venture.<ref>Mocanu, p. 175. See also Cuza, p. 46</ref>
In April, Carol and Foreign Minister [[Gheorghe Costaforu]] traveled to Moldavia, contacting the monarchist circles, in particular ''Junimea''.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 41–42</ref> 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".<ref>Stan, p. 104</ref> At the time, arch-conservatives and some of their ''Junimist'' backers caused a stir with their endorsement of [[Grigore Sturdza]]'s bills to amend the constitution. These proposed a stricter limitation of suffrage, the screening of senators by the ''Domnitor'', the [[Death penalty in Romania|death penalty]] for murder, and curbs on press freedom.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 54–71, 320–334; Ornea, pp. 258–262, 264–265</ref> More controversially, Sturdza and his allies also favored opening the country to [[Regat Germans|German colonists]].<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 297; Maiorescu, pp. 65–66, 69; Ornea, p. 259</ref> These proposals went unanswered, with Ionescu and Kogălniceanu threatening a revolt of the people.<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 224"/> 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 and [[V. A. Urechia]].<ref name="lrpr1871"/>
Despite such resistance, the conservative trend was consolidated in the [[1871 Romanian general election|May 1871 election]]. The opposition was again coalesced: the Factionalists, the "Reds", and Kogălniceanu all stood for the "convened liberal party" or "the left";<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 121</ref> nevertheless, the "Whites" had a solid win. It inaugurated five years of conservative government, with Catargiu as Prime Minister, while conspiratorial republicans, including Brătianu and [[C. A. Rosetti]], failed to win seats.<ref>Marton, pp. 13–15, 138–139</ref> 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.<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 295–297</ref>
Catargiu's administration brought the "routinization of political conflict", which, although violent in tone, remained mindful of constitutional arrangements.<ref>Marton, pp. 13–15, 165–173</ref> It also witnessed the peak of reciprocal attacks between ''Junimea'' and the Faction: as deputy, and then as [[Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (Romania)|Education Minister]], Maiorescu began investigating the politicization of higher learning, and in particular the work of Ionescu and other Factionalists at [[Alexandru Ioan Cuza University|Iași University]].<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 73–109, 234–240, 285–287, 342–384, 439–476, 504–528; Panu, p. 113; Puiu (2010), p. 227 and (2011), pp. 111–114; Ornea, pp. 262–269; Stan, pp. 104–105. See also Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 125</ref> Such measures prompted Cobălcescu, who represented the university, to resign from Senate.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 518–521</ref> 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.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 114–123; Ornea, p. 264</ref>
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.<ref>Marton, pp. 147–149</ref> 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.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 214–227. See also Puiu (2011), pp. 103–104</ref> In parallel, at Iași, Alecu Holban, Tacu and the Corjescus mounted the opposition against a ''Junimist'' communal administration, headed by Mayor [[Nicolae Gane]] and Prefect [[Leon 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 Catargiu [[spoils system]].<ref>Ghenghea, pp. 116–118. See also Săteanu, pp. 68–69</ref> In November 1872, Gane and Alecu Holban almost dueled over the insinuations.<ref>Ghenghea, p. 117</ref>
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.<ref name="Puiu 2010 p. 222">Puiu (2010), p. 222 and (2011), p. 105</ref> 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.<ref>Maiorescu, pp. 186–192</ref> Ionescu, for his part, supported the establishment of native [[credit union]]s with the introduction of unrestricted capitalism, and spoke out against state monopolies for tobacco and alcohol.<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 105–107</ref>
==1875 return==
[[File:Buĭmăcit de intrigĭ rătăcesce pe căĭ streine de căminu'i depărtat, Ghimpele, 6 mar 1877.png|thumb|360px|''Ghimpele'' cartoon of March 1877, showing [[Mihail Kogălniceanu]] undecided between the political camps of [[Ion Brătianu]], [[Lascăr Catargiu]], and [[Ion Ghica]]. Bottom left is the "Center", depicted as a headless calf ready for purchase]]
From early 1871,<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 297–300; Marton, pp. 281, 286–287; Puiu (2010), p. 226; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 121–126</ref> 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'' and ''Gazeta de Bacău'' ("Bacău Gazette").<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 298–300. See also Panu, p. 105; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 121</ref> Members of both groups organized the ostentatious funeral of ''Domnitor'' Cuza in May 1873. Ionescu delivered the funeral oration; the burial at [[Ruginoasa, Iași|Ruginoasa]] was overseen by a National Committee, whose members included Anghel, Fătu, Pastia, Poni, Tacu, Șendrea and Suciu.<ref>Mihalache, pp. 83, 85–86</ref> This ceremony allowed the "Reds" to obscure their participation in the 1866 coup and reemerge as legatees of the Cuza regime.<ref>Mihalache, p. 83</ref>
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 and [[Dimitrie Sturdza]] (both of whom visited Dabija in Iași), as well as from General [[Alexandru Cernat]], Kogălniceanu, and [[Telemac Ciupercescu]].<ref name="acc46">Cuza, p. 46</ref> At the time, the radicals and the Moldavian localists were also publicly associated with one another. Based in [[Bolgrad County]], where he put out the newspaper ''Flagelulŭ'' in 1873, Boldur-Lățescu expressed his support for the republican agenda and a unified opposition caucus.<ref>"Bucurescĭ, 25 Octombre", in ''Telegraphul'', October 26, 1873, p. 1</ref> In August 1874, political journalist [[Ioniță Scipione Bădescu|Scipione "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.<ref>"Budapesta, in 11 sept. n. 1874. ''Referintiele partideloru si spiritulu actualei Camere in Romania''", in ''Albina'', Issue 65/1874, p. 1</ref>
The merger negotiations took years: a definitive alliance, also known as the coalition of "[[Stephen Bartlett Lakeman|Mozhar Pasha]]", only transformed itself into the [[National Liberal Party (Romania, 1875)|National Liberal Party]] (PNL) in 1875 or after. According to some accounts, the Faction as a whole joined the coalition, but not the party.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 124–136 and "Partidul...", pp. 102, 105–111</ref> 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.<ref>"Bucuresci, 27 Iuliŭ 1875", in ''Telegraphul'', July 28, 1875, p. 2</ref> Over the following months, some prominent Factionalists or former separatists, including Boldur-Lățescu, C. Corjescu,<ref>"Programa partitei naționale-liberale. Adesiunĭ", in ''Telegraphul'', June 28, 1875, p. 2</ref> Sefendache,<ref>"Citim în ''Românul'': Comitatele partiteĭ naționale-liberale", in ''Alegĕtorul Liber'', August 6, 1875, p. 2</ref> and Mantu Rufu,<ref>"Programa partidelor naționale-liberale. Aderărĭ", in ''Alegĕtorul Liber'', August 20, 1875, pp. 2–3</ref> 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".<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 227">Puiu (2010), p. 227</ref> Rosetti himself was bitter about this rapprochement, noting that the Faction, alongside a liberal current led by [[George D. Vernescu]], reaped all the benefits of the alliance, without enduring any consequence.<ref>Știrbăț (2013), p. 198</ref>
The [[1875 Romanian general election|elections of that year]] created an understanding between Epureanu's "independent conservative" faction and Brătianu, allowing them to govern together.<ref>Ornea, pp. 269, 272–275; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 125–126. See also Maiorescu, pp. 192, 256–257, 320–334, 521–522, 580–582</ref> In the [[1876 Romanian general election|electoral sweep of June 1876]], at least 18 Factionalists, including Ionescu, took seats as PNL deputies<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 227; Scurtu, p. 300</ref> (other estimates suggest that between 15 and 26 deputies were Faction affiliates).<ref>Știrbăț (2013), pp. 201–202</ref> 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.<ref>Marton, pp. 138–143, 166</ref> Dabija's conspiracy also fell apart immediately after Carol agreed to designate Brătianu his Prime Minister,<ref name="acc46"/> though the Factionalists were still strong at Iași—taking two out of three in-play colleges during the [[1876 Romanian local elections|local elections in October]].<ref>"Cronica Locală. Alegeri", in ''Curierul. Foaea Intereselor Generale'', Issue 54/1876, p. 5</ref> As leader of the Faction, his name absent from the cabinet proposal,<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 132</ref> Ionescu also continued to voice the old credo, insisting that the republic was "the most liberal, most democratic, most perfect" regime.<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 221 and (2011), p. 102</ref> 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.<ref>Stan, p. 121</ref> Against the changing consensus, he also defended alleged perpetrators of antisemitic violence.<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 224"/>
With Brătianu in charge of government, Ionescu himself served briefly as Vice President of Chamber, under Rosetti.<ref>Puiu (2011), p. 99; Știrbăț (2013), p. 202</ref> This signaled problems between him and other Factionalists, most of whom opposed Rosetti's policies, preferring to align themselves with Epureanu's followers.<ref>Știrbăț (2013), p. 202</ref> Following a government reshuffle, during which the moderates again withdrew and the Faction became an important partner in government,<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 135–136; Știrbăț (2013), p. 205</ref> Ionescu was appointed Foreign Minister. The younger Factionalist, [[Ștefan C. Șendrea]], was one of his trusted secretaries.<ref name="cndrol"/> 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 a [[neutral country]].<ref>Gafița, pp. 91, 102; Puiu (2010), pp. 225, 227, 229 and (2011), pp. 109–110; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 135–137; Știrbăț (2013), p. 205</ref> Since the guarantees of the [[Treaty of Paris (1856)|Treaty of Paris]] would have been voided by independence, he feared that the country would end up under a foreign occupation,<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 225 and (2011), p. 109</ref> and was especially troubled by any empowerment of the [[Russian Empire]].<ref>Gafița, p. 103</ref> During his time in office, Ionescu also toned down his own protectionism. He supported fixed [[tariff]]s against Kogălniceanu's free-trade agenda, but argued that [[import substitution industrialization]] generated "bad, overpriced merchandise"; by 1877, he endorsed reciprocal free-trade agreements with the major exporters of Western Europe.<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 106–107</ref> In other areas, the Faction took the initiative for asserting Romanian autonomy. By December 1876, Factionalist deputies, led by [[Andrei Vizanti]], submitted a project to set up the [[National Bank of Romania]]. The motion, criticized in the press as amateurish, was eventually defeated in that form.<ref>Puiu (2011), p. 106</ref>
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.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 129</ref> As early as 1875, Ceaur-Aslan had joined G. Sturdza's branch of the "White" caucus in Iași, though opposing from within the ascendancy of ''Junimist'' cadres.<ref>"Bucurescĭ, 8 Februariŭ, 1876", in ''Alegĕtorul Liber'', February 9, 1876, p. 1</ref> 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.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 128–129, 135</ref> Its list of adversaries included, from April, a Moderate Liberal Party—formed in Moldavia by Kogălniceanu and Mârzescu, alongside Ciupercescu, [[Eugeniu Alcaz]], and [[Vasile Conta]]. Also antisemitic, this new group saw itself as a morally superior alternative on the left, specifically designed to replace the Faction.<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 114–117, 127</ref>
Kogălniceanu in particular criticized Ionescu's performance at Foreign Affairs, accusing him of incompetence and of wasting government resources on the Factionalist [[political machine]]; he called on Brătianu to renounce his alliance with Ionescu's "insignificant liberal group".<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 108–111, 114–115</ref> He achieved this goal the same month, when he himself took up the position of Foreign Minister.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 137–138 and "Partidul...", pp. 110–111, 114–115</ref> 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.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 141 and "Partidul...", pp. 117, 126</ref> Holding a similar position in [[Covurlui County]], Vasile Holban was denounced by prosecutor N. Moscachi of running a dictatorial administration to "satisfy the interests" of his more famous relative, Alecu.<ref>N. Moscachi, "Scrisoare adresată ''Timpului''", in ''[[Timpul]]'', April 8, 1878, p. 3</ref> 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 him [[Protection racket|protection fees]].<ref>Alcibiade, "Epizoduri din domnia fracțiunei", in ''Steaua României'', October 26, 1878, pp. 1–2</ref> 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".<ref name="11nov">"Iași, 11 Noemvre 1878", in ''Steaua României'', November 12, 1878, p. 1</ref>
==1878–1879 crisis==
[[File:M. B. Baer- Intimpinarea dlui C. A. Roseti la întoarcerea'i în patrie, Bobârnacul, 4 mar 1879.png|thumb|370px|Antisemitic cartoon published in ''Bobârnacul'' after the [[Congress of Berlin]]. It shows [[C. A. Rosetti]], in ''[[shtreimel]]'', ''[[kaftan]]'' and ''[[payot]]'', as a patron of the Jews]]
Managed by Brătianu and Kogălniceanu, and under a temporary truce between the PNL and the "Whites",<ref>Ornea, pp. 270–271</ref> the country [[Romanian War of Independence|pursued her independence]], entering the [[Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)|Russo–Turkish War]]. On May 9, 1877, as Kogălniceanu proclaimed national sovereignty, Ionescu was one of two deputies to abstain.<ref>Puiu (2010), p. 225 and (2011), p. 109; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 140</ref> As a Factionalist senator, Voinov voted against independence.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 140</ref> 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.<ref>Totu, p. 251</ref> 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.<ref name="Puiu 2010 p. 222"/>
By February 1878, various Factionalists were questioning Ionescu's authority, and considering a merger with either the PNL or the Moderate Liberals.<ref>Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 141</ref> 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.<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 123–125</ref> It also took up the cause of decentralization, while proposing generic protectionism.<ref name="Stan, p. 146">Stan, p. 146</ref> During the [[1878 Romanian general election|election of April]], the PNL list in Iași was headlined by the former ''Junimist'' [[Vasile 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.<ref>Săteanu, pp. 38–39. See also Stan, p. 146</ref>
The resulting Chamber only had four or five members not affiliated or allied with the PNL.<ref name="cestiunea">"Cestiunea Evreiloru in Camer'a romana", in ''[[Gazeta Transilvaniei|Gazet'a Transilvaniei]]'', Issue 76/1879, p. 3</ref> 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.<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", p. 123</ref> The group restated its belief in regional autonomy, while returning to strongly anti-German and antisemitic language.<ref name="Stan, p. 146"/> Ionescu and Alecu Holban staged a renewed effort to have Maiorescu removed from Parliament, this time by citing his appreciation for the philosophical works of [[Arthur 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."<ref name="academicus"/>
The debates over antisemitism were soon rekindled by the [[Congress 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 "[[Zionism|new Palestine]]" in Moldavia.<ref>Ancel, pp. 428–429</ref> 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.<ref>Ana Conta Kernbach, "Biografia lui B. Conta (Adăugiri și îndreptări)", in ''[[Viața Romînească]]'', Issues 10–11–12/1915, pp. 56–62</ref> 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."<ref>"Adunarea Deputaților. Sesiunea estraordinară. Ședința din 30 Septembre 1878", in ''[[Monitorul Oficial]]'', Issue 220/1878, p. 5624</ref> Tzony took a moderate position, advocating citizenship rights for Jewish war veterans and, "in due time", emancipation for the community as a whole.<ref>"Bucuresci, 27 Iuniu", in ''Telegraphul'', June 28, 1879, p. 1</ref> Ionescu meanwhile objected to the liberalization of citizenship laws, describing the process as a "stain on modern Romanian society",<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 224"/> and calling Prime Minister Brătianu a "sold-over to the Israelites".<ref name="cestiunea"/> While Rosetti and his ''[[Românul]]'' 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".<ref name="gtr9979">"Revista diuaristica", in ''[[Gazeta de Transilvania|Gazet'a Transilvaniei]]'', Issue 72/1879, p. 3</ref>
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.<ref name="11nov"/> 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 for [[1879 Romanian general election|new elections in 1879]].<ref name="cestiunea"/> The Factionalists then endorsed Catargiu's catch-all [[Conservative Party (Romania, 1880–1918)|Conservative 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.<ref>Gorgos, p. 1</ref> 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."<ref>"Arena ziarelor", in ''[[România Liberă]]'', June 18, 1880, p. 3</ref> 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.<ref>Gorgos, p. 2</ref>
==Final splits==
[[File:8 august 1884, Ciulinul, 19 aug 1884.png|thumb|350px|Critique of the monarchy from the conservative right, in an 1885 issue of ''Ciulinul'': former "[[Republic of Ploiești]]" conspirators groveling before Carol]]
By January 1880, with most of the Moderate Liberals absorbed into the PNL,<ref>Știrbăț, "Partidul...", pp. 126–127</ref> 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.<ref name="cndrol"/><ref>Puiu (2011), p. 110; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", p. 129. See also Gorgos, p. 2; Stan, pp. 146, 151</ref> Ionescu was for a while a member of the Central Committee of that party,<ref name="Puiu 2011, p. 110">Puiu (2011), p. 110</ref> which was sometimes referred to as the "Vernescu–Ionescu liberal faction".<ref name="gtr9979"/> According to seething diary entries by ''Domnitor'' Carol, in 1881 Catargiu, Vernescu and Ionescu had formed "something like a party", and were [[filibuster]]ing in Chamber against PNL laws.<ref name="Puiu 2011, p. 110"/> From March 1880, the surviving Factionalists, or "independent liberals", rallied around a new daily newspaper called ''Mișcarea Națională'' ("National Movement").<ref>"Cronica locală", in ''Curierul. Foaea Intereselor Generale'', Vol. VIII, Issue 26, March 1880, p. 3</ref> It was managed by Tacu and his younger disciple, [[Constantin Dimitrescu-Iași|Constantin "Coco" Dimitrescu-Iași]], and espoused strongly anti-government sentiments, being critical of Brătianu's "[[Byzantinism]]".<ref name="masca"/>
Although allied with Vernescu against the PNL, the Faction remained an independent group in the 1880 legislature, with Alecu Holban serving as deputy for [[Vaslui County]].<ref>"Cronica zilei"; "Arena ziarelor", in ''[[România Liberă]]'', February 17, 1880, pp. 1, 3; Gorgos, p. 2</ref> Still a prominent antisemite, Ceaur-Aslan was returned to Chamber in the Iași by-elections of 1881.<ref>Ancel, p. 428</ref> Allied with Rosetti, Ionescu was unable to make the constitution itself more liberal, but, in 1882, managed to reform the labor contracts.<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 105, 110–111</ref> By then, he had renounced the cause of republicanism, backing the [[Kingdom of Romania]] upon its proclamation in March 1881. He was also warning against anti-state agitation by the socialists and foreign "[[Nihilist movement|Nihilists]]", while rejecting a PNL project to place all radicals under police supervision.<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 102, 108. See also Stan, pp. 131–133</ref> Ionescu also distinguished between liberal and extreme socialists, arguing that the former should be granted full liberty to organize.<ref>Stan, pp. 132–133</ref> 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 of [[Nikolai Sudzilovsky]], [[Theodor Speranția]], and [[Ioan Nădejde]].<ref>L. Gîrbea, "Asupra învățămîntuluĭ la noĭ", in ''[[Contemporanul]]'', Issue 10/1888, pp. 307–311</ref>
From 1880, the PNL chapters in Moldavia had begun a focused campaign to "coerce [the Faction] into merging with the National Liberal party."<ref>Antonovici, p. XV</ref> 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.<ref>Totu, pp. 280–288</ref> The group survived at Iași, and, during [[1883 Romanian local elections|local elections in January 1883]], proposed a list that included (in descending order) Pastia, Teodor Tăutu, A. Șendrea, Tacu, Anghel, and Ștefan Emilian.<ref>"Pentru Consiliul Comunal", in ''Curierul. Foaea Intereselor Generale'', Vol. XI, Issue 6, January 1883, p. 1</ref> In June of that year, Carol, now [[King of Romania]], visited Iași, with the old Factionalist allies Cernat, Chițu and Hasdeu at his side; the banquet was attended by Voinov.<ref>"Serbarea dela Iași", in ''[[Telegraful Român]]'', Issue 68/1883, pp. 272–273</ref> PNL recruitment was resisted by more conservative Factionalists ahead of the [[1883 Romanian general election|1883 national campaign]]; they supported Kogălniceanu's effort to establish another national third party, called Unified Opposition Committees.<ref>[[Dan Simonescu]], "Opere ale lui M. Kogălniceanu necunoscute", in ''Studii. Revistă de Istorie'', Vol. 19, Issue 5, 1966, p. 868. See also Stan, pp. 151–152</ref> Ionescu was also drawn into this alliance: during the January 1886 by-elections of [[Putna County]], he joined Kogălniceanu in canvassing votes for the opposition candidates.<ref>"Alegerile sub d. I. Brătianu. La Focșanĭ", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', January 21, 1886, p. 1</ref> 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 as [[Alexandru Bădărău]] and [[George Panu]].<ref>"Ultime informații", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', December 21, 1886 (January 12, 1887), p. 3; Alecu C. Mavrocordat ''et al.'', "Manifest", in ''[[Lupta]]'', April 22, 1887, p. 1</ref>
Before the [[1884 Romanian general election|election 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.<ref name="masca"/><ref>"Noua Constituție", in ''[[Lupta]]'', July 26, 1884, pp. 1–2</ref> According to Conservative reports, in 1887 the Faction still existed as a distinct chapter within the PNL "collective", kept alive by the [[spoils system]] and working to "falsify public opinion" on the side of the PNL.<ref>Tutoveanu, "Din districte. Alegerile de la Bêrlad, IV", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', June 2 (14), 1887, pp. 2–3</ref> The Opposition Committees mounted the anti-PNL campaign in preparation for the [[January 1888 Romanian general election|January 1888 election]], forming the Iași League of Resistance. In addition to the older affiliates of the Committees, League members included Alecu Holban and Pogor.<ref>"Comitetul central al opozițiuneĭ din Iașĭ", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', December 9 (21), 1881, p. 1</ref> Mârzescu voiced the group's criticism of Carol whom he accused of validating PNL-ist corruption.<ref>"Alegerile județene. Atitudinea opozițiunei", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', May 3 (15), 1887, pp. 1–2</ref> Also in 1887, remnants of the Faction heckled Carol as he returned for a visit to Iași.<ref>Cuza, p. 44</ref>
Ionescu still held a deputy's seat at Roman in 1884, returning to Chamber for a final term in the [[October 1888 Romanian general election|October 1888 election]], but at Iași.<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 99–100, 102</ref> His Sincere Liberals continued to exist, absorbing remnants of the Moderate Liberal Party.<ref>Scurtu, p. 158</ref> Ionescu was also returning to his anti-Carol stance, objecting to the creation of [[Romanian Crown Estate|Crown Estates]] under [[Ioan Kalinderu]], and defending Tzony when the latter was indicted for ''[[lèse-majesté]]''.<ref name="Puiu 2011, p. 102"/> He also proposed limited electoral reform by inducting more peasant voters.<ref>Stan, pp. 163, 171, 188</ref> In early 1889, Ionescu became an unaffiliated deputy, though loosely associated with Panu and Bădărău's [[Radical Party (Romania)|Radical Party]].<ref name="fortif">"Votul fortificațiunilor", in ''[[România Liberă]]'', April 6 (18), 1889, p. 1</ref> Ceaur-Aslan, also returned as Iași deputy. Having campaigned on a left-wing platform that drew votes from the socialists,<ref name="fox1893">Fox, "Instantanee. Nicu Ceaur-Aslan", in ''[[Adevărul|Adevĕrul]]'', March 5, 1893, p. 1</ref> he turned again to antisemitism by asking for a parliamentary committee to report on the "[[Jewish Question]]".<ref name="răposați">"Cronica zilei. Răposați", in ''[[Tribuna (Romania)|Tribuna]]'', Issue 229/1902, p. 915</ref>
Ceaur-Aslan and Ionescu mounted the opposition against a ''Junimist'' cabinet under [[Theodor Rosetti]], who proposed a limited land reform to calm peasant uprisings in [[Ilfov 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.<ref>"Corpurile legiuitoare"; "Ultime informațiuni", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', March 5 (17), 1889, p. 3</ref> Ionescu asked for a formal inquiry into the revolt—although he also supported the cabinet's focus on a [[balanced budget]].<ref>Puiu (2011), pp. 107, 110–111</ref> By then, Ionescu's own son Eugen had joined ''Junimea''{{'}}s parliamentary group.<ref name="fortif"/> Alecu Holban also took that road, reemerging as one of Carp's foremost "devotees" in Iași.<ref name="academicus"/> 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.<ref>"Mișcarea electorală. Iașĭ. Intrunirea liberal-conservatoare", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', October 6 (18), 1888, p. 3</ref> He also backed the ''Junimist'' 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 socialist [[Vasile Morțun]].<ref>"Informațiuni" and "Ultime informațiuni", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', April 2 (14), 1889, p. 3</ref>
==Posterity==
[[File:Apelul și Statutele Asociației Frăția Moldovei Unite și Memoriul ieșenilor privitor la revendicările orașului Iași, 1919.png|thumb|220px|Founding charter of the Brotherhood of Unified Moldavia, published at Iași in 1919. Featuring a [[Coat of arms of Moldavia|Moldavian coat of arms]] taken from the 1680 Psalter]]
During early 1889, Catargiu formed a new Conservative cabinet that excluded the ''Junimists''. Holban was offered the [[Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (Romania)|Ministry of Public Works]], but refused to accept it, specifically because he had remained loyal to Theodor Rosetti.<ref>"Ministerul", in ''[[România Liberă]]'', March 31 (April 12), 1889, p. 1</ref> In October 1889, Carol made another visit to Iași, finding himself reluctantly greeted by the same Holban—who was secretly still his "irreconcilable enemy".<ref>Cuza, pp. 44–45, 46</ref> 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.<ref>"Hora Unirei", in ''[[Epoca (Romania)|Epoca]]'', September 30 (October 12), 1888, p. 3</ref> Ionescu Sr was inducted by the PNL in 1890. Although he was awarded a seat on the PNL Central Committee,<ref>Stan, p. 218</ref> his political involvement was reduced to occasional speeches.<ref>Gafița, pp. 103–107</ref> Like Eugen, who also crossed the floor and joined the PNL, Ionescu remained essentially an outsider, "free and independent" within that party.<ref name="Puiu 2010, p. 227"/>
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.<ref>"Din Iașĭ", in ''[[Adevărul|Adevĕrul]]'', August 26, 1890, p. 3</ref> Ceaur-Aslan, Corjescu and Tzony joined Mârzescu and Constantin Langa in taking seats as Conservative allies during the [[1891 Romanian general election|May 1891 election]], which also marked a temporary split between the Conservatives and ''Junimea''.<ref name="eralanga">"Liga-Langa", in ''Era Nouă'', Vol. II, Issue 85, May 1891, pp. 1–2</ref> Their association, consolidated around 1889 as "a softened expression of the old separatist movements",<ref>Rodion, p. 1</ref> was officially introduced as a "League for the Defense of Moldavia's Interests".<ref name="langafulg">"Lt. Colonel C. Langa", in ''Fulgerul'', December 22, 1914, pp. 1–2</ref> The ''Junimist'' paper ''Era Nouă'' argued that this group, derisively designated as ''Liga-Langa'' (the "Langa League"), was a front for Mârzescu's political machine, disguised as serving regionalism and the "Moldavian interests".<ref name="eralanga"/> It participated in the subsequent [[1891 Romanian local elections|county and communal elections]], but was voluntarily dissolved (despite Corjescu's attempts to revive it) around October 1891.<ref>Iassiensis, "Liga-Langa rediviva!? (Coresp. specială)", in ''[[Adevărul|Adevĕrul]]'', October 19, 1891, p. 1</ref> 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.<ref>"Informațiuni", in ''[[Timpul]]'', October 21–22, 1891, p. 3</ref> Langa's partisans maintained that the League had been brought down by "secretive intrigues" (''uneltiri ascunse'').<ref name="langafulg"/>
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-sponsored [[Agricultural show|county fairs]].<ref>"Cronica politică. 18 (30) Iunie", in ''[[Gazeta Transilvaniei]]'', Issue 136/1891, pp. 1–2</ref> He was reelected as a Conservative ally in the [[1892 Romanian general election|race of February 1892]], but "unable to find a place in any of today's parties", stood as an independent antisemite.<ref name="fox1893"/> In that context, Ceaur-Aslan began circulating claims that Romanian Jews were a "political, economic, and commercial association"—and, according to the Jewish community weekly ''Egalitatea'', never provided verifiable evidence to support these.<ref>Ploeșteanu, "A vorbit...", in ''Egalitatea'', Issue 24/1891, p. 189</ref> During 1896, he proposed legislation that would have made one's house an [[Alienation (property law)|inalienable]] piece of property. As argued at the time by ''Era 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.<ref>"Legea căminului", in ''Era Nouă'', Vol. VII, Issue 330, January 1896, p. 2</ref> That year, Ceaur-Aslan joined [[Nicolae Fleva]]'s parliamentary faction, which called for the enactment of "liberal reforms";<ref>"Din carnetul săptămănei {{sic}}", in ''Era Nouă'', Vol. VII, Issue 332, February 1896, p. 2</ref> by 1897, he was a noted proponent of universal suffrage.<ref>Stan, p. 229</ref>
In contrast, Alecu Holban, who still regarded himself as the Factionalist leader,<ref>Scurtu, p. 154</ref> moved farther to the right and, by 1894, was one of the Conservative bosses in Iași—alongside ''Junimists'' such as Pogor and the Negruzzis.<ref>Șuțu, pp. 1–4, 8, 14, 120–121</ref> In the late 1890s, old Factionalists Mârzescu and Ștefan Șendrea also embraced a conservative and monarchist platform, joining [[Petre S. Aurelian]]'s ''Drapelul'' group of PNL dissidents.<ref>Stan, pp. 224–225</ref> Withdrawn from active politics to serve as a functionary for the Court of Cassation, Tacu died in October 1895.<ref>"Din localitate", in ''Ecoul Moldovei'', October 5, 1895, p. 3</ref> Tzony also died, vacating his senatorial seat, in March 1898.<ref>"Ultime informații", in ''Opinia'', March 24, 1898, p. 3</ref> 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.<ref>Liviu Papuc, "Oamenii din spatele testamentelor. Locot.-colonel Constantin Langa", in ''Expres Cultural'', Vol. I, Issue 2, February 2017, p. 16. See also Șuțu, p. 96</ref> Reports from July 1899 suggest that he had eloped with a young woman from [[Reading, Pennsylvania]], and had joined in the [[Klondike Gold Rush]].<ref>"Ce a devenit Vizanti", in ''Opinia'', July 9, 1899, p. 1</ref>
Putting out the weekly ''Prietenul Poporuluĭ'' in 1900, the aging Mârzescu returned to "almost anti-dynastic" feelings and "agitatorial, activist spirit of 1866".<ref>Rodion, p. 2</ref> In 1902 (the year of Ceaur-Aslan's retirement and death),<ref name="răposați"/> Hasdeu wrote the Faction's epitaph, noting that it had burned its "rather short fuse", whereas ''Junimea'', being able to canvass outside Moldavia, "lasted longer."<ref>Hasdeu & Eliade, pp. 301–302</ref> Ionescu Sr died in [[Grințieș|Bradu]] in January 1905, being commemorated as the "soul of the 'free and independent faction' group, and thereafter a steadfast national liberal".<ref>"†Neculai Ionescu", in ''Ecoul Moldovei'', January 27, 1905, p. 2</ref> 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".<ref name="acc46"/> In 1912, having established his own [[Democratic Nationalist Party (Romania)|Democratic 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".<ref>Șt. P. Moldovanu, "Scrisoare din Iași. Aniversarea 'luptei pentru limba românească'", in ''Românul (Arad)'', Issue 63/1912, p. 6</ref> 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.<ref>"Greceniștii și Coroana", in ''[[Mișcarea]]'', May 4, 1911, p. 1</ref> In 1913, he issued his old press contributions, including his 1864 antisemitic piece, as a brochure—seen by ''Opinia'' newspaper as an attempt to "reconnect with current affairs."<ref name="notaholban"/>
Holban survived the early stages of World War I and [[Romania in World War I|Romanian participation in it]]. He died in May 1917 at Iași,<ref>"Informații. A. D. Holban", in ''Opinia'', May 5, 1917, p. 1</ref> which was at the time the provisional capital—with all of southern Romania having been occupied by the [[Central Powers]]. From late 1918, a series of events which reversed the situation also led to the establishment of a [[Greater Romania]]. Some tenets of Factionalist politics were still being upheld by Cuza and the PND. During the [[1919 Romanian general election|1919 elections]], Cuza formed an alliance with the Brotherhood of Unified Moldavia (FMU), which raised awareness about the region's decline in the centralized state.<ref>Ovidiu Buruiană, "Iași", in [[Bogdan Murgescu]], Andrei Florin Sora (eds.), ''România Mare votează. Alegerile parlamentare din 1919 "la firul ierbii"'', pp. 298, 302. Iași: [[Polirom]], 2019.  {{ISBN|978-973-46-7993-5}}; Chelcu, ''passim''</ref> The FMU, seen by the National Liberals as a "political platform" for the PND,<ref>"Acțiunea Societăței 'Frăția Moldovei Unite' din Iași", in ''[[Viitorul]]'', May 19, 1919, p. 1</ref> included the old Factionalist Poni, who now called for a "moral decentralization" of Romania and a curb on French cultural imports.<ref>Chelcu, pp. 575–577</ref> 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.<ref>Stan, p. 330</ref> Its activity helped rekindle antisemitism, leading up to the [[Iași pogrom]] of 1941. As argued in 1948 by Jewish researcher [[Matatias 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.<ref>Ancel, pp. 427–428</ref>
==Notes==
{{reflist|30em}}
==References==
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|
*[[Jean Ancel]], ''Preludiu la asasinat. Pogromul de la Iași, 29 iunie 1941''. Iași: [[Polirom]], 2005. {{ISBN|973-681-799-7}}
*[[Iacov Antonovici]], ''Un dascăl ardelean la Bârlad: Ioan Popescu''. Huși: Atelierele Zanet Corlățeanu, 1928.  {{OCLC|895494408}}
*Dinu Balan, "«La question juive» dans la premiere partie de l'anée 1868. Une perspective conservatrice: la gazette ''Terra''", in ''Codrul Cosminului'', Issue 14, 2008, pp. 63–76.
*Liviu Brătescu, "Căderea guvernului liberal-radical (1867–1868). Un episod al problemei evreiești din România", in Vasile Ciobanu, Sorin Radu (eds.), ''Partide politice și minorități naționale din România în secolul XX'', Vol. III, pp. 12–28. Sibiu: TechnoMedia, 2008.  {{ISBN|978-973-739-261-9}}
*Adrian Butnaru, "Reprezentanți de seamă ai familiei Iamandi în preajma și după Unirea Principatelor Române", in ''Revista Istorică'', Vol. XXII, Issues 5–6, September–December 2011, pp. 525–536.
*Marius Chelcu, "Un memoriu al ieșenilor la sfârșitul Marelui Război. Îngrijorările și speranțele unui nou început", in ''Analele Științifice ale Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iași. Istorie'', Vol. LXIV, Special Issue: "Marea Unire a românilor (1918)—Istorie și actualitate", 2018, pp. 571–589.
*[[A. C. Cuza]], "Întâmplări din viață... Povești cu și despre rege", in ''[[Magazin Istoric]]'', July 1995, pp. 43–46.
*Irina Gafița, "Nicolae Ionescu și contemporanii săi", in ''Buletinul Cercurilor Științifice Studențești, Arheologie–Istorie–Muzeologie'', Issues 17–18, 2011–2012, pp. 91–108.
*Mircea-Cristian Ghenghea, "'Nicu Gane asfalta' — începuturile lucrărilor edilitare din Iași (1872–1873) reflectate în paginile ''Curierului de Iași''", in ''Anuarul Muzeului Literaturii Române Iași'', Vol. V, 2012, pp. 115–119.
*Pavel Gorgos, "Amintiri politico-electorale. Alegerile de altă-dată față de cele de azi", in ''[[Lupta]]'', August 13, 1927, pp. 1–2.
*[[Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu]] (ed. [[Mircea Eliade]]), ''Scrieri literare, morale și politice. Tomul 2''. Bucharest: [[Editura Fundațiilor Regale|Fundația pentru Literatură și Artă Regele Carol II]], 1938.  {{OCLC|45702309}}
*[[Titu Maiorescu]], ''Discursuri parlamentare cu priviri asupra desvoltării politice a Romaniei sub domnia lui Carol I. Volumul I: 1866–1876''. Bucharest: [[Editura Socec|Editura Librăriei Socecŭ & Comp.]], 1897.
*Silvia Marton, ''"Republica de la Ploiești" și începuturile parlamentarismului în România''. Bucharest: [[Humanitas publishing house|Humanitas]], 2016.  {{ISBN|978-973-50-5160-0}}
*Andi Mihalache, "Rituri funerare și retorici patrimoniale: înmormântarea lui Al. I. Cuza", in ''Xenopoliana'', Vol. XIV, Issues 1–4, 2006, pp. 76–108.
*Sorin Mocanu, "Elemente ale civilizației occidentale: căile ferate", in Viorica S. Constantinescu, Cornelia Viziteu (eds.), ''Studii eminescologice'', Vol. 6, pp. 171–186. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium, 2004.  {{ISBN|973-555-413-5}}
*I. Oprișan, "Addenda 1. Receptarea critică a revistei în timp", in Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu (editor: I. Oprișan), ''Satyrul 1866'', pp. 141–157. Bucharest: Editura Saeculum I. O., 2011.  {{ISBN|978-973-642-280-5}}
*[[Z. Ornea]], ''Junimea și junimismul'', Vol. I. Bucharest: [[Editura Minerva]], 1998.  {{ISBN|973-21-0562-3}}
*[[George Panu]], ''Amintiri de la 'Junimea' din Iași. Volumul I''. Bucharest: Editura Remus Cioflec, 1942.
*Adrian-Nicolae Puiu,
**"O dizidență liberală: fracțiunea liberă și independentă de la Iași", in ''Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului Bucovinei'', Vol. XXXVII, 2010, pp. 209–230.
**"Nicolae Ionescu – Activitatea parlamentară", in ''Suceava. Anuarul Muzeului Bucovinei'', Vol. XXXVIII, 2011, pp. 97–114.
*[[Avram Steuerman-Rodion|Rodion]], "Scrisorĭ din Iașĭ", in ''[[Adevărul|Adevĕrul]]'', April 9, 1909, pp. 1–2.
*Cornel Săteanu, ''Figuri din "Junimea"''. Bucharest: Editura Bucovina, {{circa|1932}}.  {{OCLC|889568088}}
*Ioan Scurtu (ed.), ''Enciclopedia partidelor politice din România, 1859–2003''. Bucharest: Editura Meronia, 2003.  {{ISBN|973-8200-54-7}}
*Apostol Stan, ''Putere politică și democrație în România, 1859–1918''. Bucharest: [[Editura Albatros]], 1995. {{ISBN|973-24-0357-8}}
*Gheorghe-Florin Știrbăț,
**"Marea formațiune liberală în anii 1876–1878", in ''Acta Moldaviae Septentrionalis'', Vol. XI, 2012, pp. 121–143.
**"'Partidul Liberalilor Moderați' din Iași la 1878. Unele considerații", in ''Carpica'', Vol. XLI, 2012, pp. 101–128.
**"Aspecte ale vieții politice în primii ani ai guvernării liberale (1876–1878)", in ''Acta Moldaviae Septentrionalis'', Vol. XII, 2013, pp. 190–206.
*Ion-Ciprian Stoian, "Câteva considerații referitoare la tabloul ordinului avocaților districtului Ismail–Bolgrad, 1878–1879", in ''Analele Științifice ale Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iași. Istorie'', Vols. LIV–LV, 2008–2009, pp. 97–114.
*Rudolf Șuțu, ''Iașii de odinioară, I''. Iași: Tipografia Lumina Moldovei, 1923.
*Maria Totu, ''Garda civică din România 1848—1884''. Bucharest: [[Editura Militară]], 1976.  {{OCLC|3016368}}
*[[A. D. Xenopol]], ''Istoria partidelor politice în România''. Bucharest: Albert Baer, 1910.}}
{{Historical Romanian political parties}}
[[Category:Political parties established in the 1860s]]
[[Category:Political parties disestablished in the 1880s]]
[[Category:1880s disestablishments in Romania]]
[[Category:1860s establishments in Romania]]
[[Category:Liberal parties in Romania]]
[[Category:Nationalist parties in Romania]]
[[Category:National liberal parties]]
[[Category:Left-wing nationalist parties]]
[[Category:Romanian nationalist parties]]
[[Category:Antisemitism in Romania]]
[[Category:Anti-German sentiment in Europe]]
[[Category:Anti-immigration politics in Europe]]
[[Category:Natalism]]
[[Category:Protectionism]]
[[Category:Republican parties]]
[[Category:Republicanism in Romania]]
[[Category:Regionalist parties in Romania]]
[[Category:Communalism]]
[[Category:Federalist parties]]
[[Category:History of Iași]]
[[Category:Defunct political parties in Romania]]
[[Category:Political parties in the Kingdom of Romania]]