The Free and Independent Faction or Free and Independent Fraction (, sometimes Fracțiunea Liberală și Independentă, "Independent Liberal Faction","Condeie", in România Liberă, December 6 (18), 1886, p. 2Academicus, "Fapte și idei. Schopenhauer-iana", in România, August 8, 1938, p. 2Liviu Rotman, "Un proiect de lege din 1871 privind protecția monumentelor", in Revista Muzeelor și Monumentelor, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 61Scurtu, p. 154; Totu, pp. 123–124 commonly Fracționiștii, "The F(r)actionalists") was a nationalist and national liberal party in Romania, regionally centered on Western Moldavia. Originally informal, and defined by its adversaries, the Faction mainly comprised pupils and followers of the philosopher Simion Bărnuțiu. During most of its existence, it had as its recognized leader the academic and polemicist Nicolae Ionescu.
Consolidated during the election of Carol I as Domnitor, the Faction opposed his rule, favoring either an elective monarchy with a native prince or a republican system. Secondary Factionalist leaders included Dimitrie Tacu, Alecu D. Holban and Nicu Ceaur-Aslan, who had varying levels of involvement with Western Moldavian separatism in 1866. The group's nativism bordered on violent xenophobia, endorsing economic antisemitism and anti-Germanism. The party also stood for democratization, including radical land reform and a reshaping of the census suffrage, while its regional ethos resulted in support for federalism, then communalism.
Such stances created tension between the Factionalists and most other groups on the left-liberal fringe, making the Faction an uneasy partner in the "Red" government alliances of the 1860s and '70s. For pragmatic reasons, Ionescu and his followers defended Carol against the conspiratorial movement known as "Republic of Ploiești", but did not entirely 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 (PNL), but then withdrew from it.
Ionescu's career peaked in 1876, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the "Red" cabinet of Ion Brătianu, and began to separate himself from the Factionalists. He was deposed for his opposition to the war of independence, which also brought clashes between the PNL and the Faction over the issue of Jewish emancipation. In 1879, the Faction was narrowly prevented from forming the national government alongside conservative "Whites", after which it steadily declined in importance. In the early 1880s, after a brief alliance with the newly formed Conservative Party, most of the Faction dissolved into the PNL, which had emerged as the dominant "Red" group in the Kingdom of Romania. A Factionalist dissidence survived as part of the Conservative-ran Opposition Committees, but also lost members to the PNL; the last surviving Factionalist cell, formed around Holban, became a Conservative chapter in the 1890s. Some of the party tenets, in particular its antisemitism, were revived in the 1910s by A. C. Cuza and his Democratic Nationalists.
Creation Beginnings The origins of Bărnuțiu's movement can be traced back to "the very last years"Marton, p. 26. See also Hasdeu & Eliade, p. 301 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."Panu, pp. 12–13 Defining itself as "national and liberal",Maiorescu, p. 97 Bărnuțianism was strongly nativist and primordialist, circulating the claim that old Romanian law was purely Roman law (see Origin of the Romanians).Gafița, p. 98; Marton, p. 144; Panu, pp. 13–14; Xenopol, pp. 504–506 On such grounds, it conceived Romania as a modern reconstruction of the Roman Republic, secured by protectionism, anti-German sentiment, and economic antisemitism,Gafița, pp. 97–98; Puiu (2010), pp. 219, 221, 224, 228; Xenopol, pp. 504–506 going as far as to propose the expulsion of all foreigners from Romanian soil.Maiorescu, pp. 77–78, 98; Scurtu, p. 154 Another eccentricity was the Factionalists' project for a complete land reform, redistributing all available land among Romanian nationals.Maiorescu, pp. 78–79, 98; Marton, p. 144; Puiu (2010), p. 221, 228–229; Scurtu, p. 154; Xenopol, p. 505 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 boyar nobility and its large estates.Liviu Chiscop, "Primul periodic băcăuan. Santinela de Bacău", in Ateneu, Vol. 30, Issue 6, June 1993, p. 5
Like most other groups existing before the creation of an independent Kingdom of Romania in the 1880s, the "vaguely liberal"Ornea, p. 253 or "most originally liberal"Puiu (2010), p. 219 Faction was somewhat diffuse, identified by voluntary allegiance rather than formal membership, and was mainly a parliamentary party.Marton, pp. 30–31, 241; Scurtu, p. 154; Știrbăț, "Marea formațiune...", pp. 128–130, 142 Its earliest rally point was the gazette Tribuna Română ("Romanian Tribune"), published in 1866 as the self-styled exponent of "truly liberal and independent convictions".Puiu (2010), p. 220 Despite having a longer history, the party was only formalized around January 1867, following a speech by its recognized leader, who was by then Nicolae Ionescu—his claim to speak for a "free and independent faction" was picked up as a derisive exonym by his adversaries, then accepted by the "Faction" itself; ideally, however, Ionescu favored non-partisan democracy.Puiu (2011), pp. 100, 103–104; Xenopol, pp. 504, 525
A professor of law and brother of the agronomist Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Ionescu had played a marginal role the Moldavian and Wallachian Revolutions of 1848.Gafița, pp. 91–95 In 1856–1858, he had also supported the unionist National Party, putting out the French edition of Stéoa Dunării from Brussels. His effort was partly financed by the Moldavian statesman Mihail Kogălniceanu, with whom Ionescu had an on and off friendship.Gafița, pp. 95–96 Of the other Factionalists, Alecu Holban and Nicolae Voinov had a similar background: both had been arrested for unionist activity during the Moldavian election of 1858.Stoian, p. 102; Xenopol, p. 342 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 Bonapartist methods".Marton, p. 12 Another issue of contention was Cuza's favorable reception of Romanian Jews: in 1864, Holban published an antisemitic article which the Domnitor read with disgust; he and Kogălniceanu issued a warning against Constituționalul newspaper, which had issued it."Nota zilei", in Opinia, March 22, 1913, p. 1
"Red" leaders joined conservatives and centrists in forming a "monstrous coalition" of conspirators, who toppled Cuza in February 1866 and began a search for a foreign Domnitor to inaugurate a hereditary monarchy. Eventually, after Philippe of Belgium withdrew from the race, Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen became a main candidate for the throne. The Faction itself took a distinct position against the Carlist consensus. Bărnuțian postulates allowed Factionalists to argue that a single Romanian vote against a foreign dynasty was the exercise of a natural right, and would invalidate all other opinions.Maiorescu, pp. 76–77, 515; Panu, pp. 13–14; Xenopol, p. 505 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.Xenopol, pp. 503, 506
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.Oprișan, passim Hasdeu also voiced his rejection of the reemerging Moldavian separatism, giving his conditional support to Carol "in the interest of preserving the Union".Oprișan, pp. 152–153, 154, 156–157 Eventually, a plebiscite on the monarchy confirmed Carol as Domnitor, 685,969 votes to 224.Maiorescu, pp. 9–10 Elected to the Constituent Chamber of Bucharest during the parallel race, six Factionalists abstained during the vote to proclaim Carol as the hereditary ruler. Seated among the left and far-left of Chamber, they were: Ionescu, Tacu, Lateș, Nicolae Iamandi, Ianache Lecca, and Ioan Negură.Butnaru, p. 531; Marton, p. 146; Puiu (2011), p. 102; Xenopol, p. 506. See also Stan, pp. 40–41 This group threatened to back another candidate for the throne, namely Nicolae Dabija. Iamandi, who had renounced his own ambitions for the throne to serve under Cuza, reputedly allowed Dabija to hold court in his Iași townhouse.Butnaru, pp. 529–531 Speaking from the Chamber rostrum, Ionescu, who represented six Moldavian counties,Puiu (2011), p. 99 voiced his admiration of Cuza's constitutional law, since "although despotic, it yielded decent fruit, being applied with a sense of liberalism."Xenopol, p. 479
1866 troubles
While their initial opposition to Carol had by then been reduced to abstentionism, the Factionalists' core constituency of Iași experienced a separatist rebellion, instigated by Ceaur-Aslan, Calinic Miclescu, Teodor Boldur-Lățescu, and Constantin Moruzi Pecheanu.Maiorescu, pp. 13–14, 329; Xenopol, pp. 482–500. See also Balan, pp. 70–71; Chelcu, p. 572; Marton, p. 146 The movement was almost immediately quashed, but moderate federalism was preserved by a plan of moving the Court of Cassation to Iași, making that city a judicial capital of Romania. In the city itself, the Faction's "group of electors" held meetings during which some advocated full federalism with a separate civilian government for Moldavia. A motion supporting a preferential treatment for Iași was proposed by the lawyer Gheorghe Cigaras with support from Ceaur-Aslan—and also signed by Gheorghiu, Holban, Alexandru M. Șendrea, Petre Suciu, Tacu, Sandu Dudescu, Grigore Cobălcescu, Anastasie Fătu and Vasile Gheorghian, alongside priests Iosif Bobulescu, Neofit Scriban, and Climent Nicolau.Xenopol, pp. 492, 496–498 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.Xenopol, pp. 489–499