Nicolae T. Voinov, also Niculai, Neculai or Nicu Voinov (1834 – 29 May 1899), was a Romanian jurist and politician, whose career was intimately tied to the city of Focșani. He was born there as the son of an Aromanian settler (whose Ottoman citizenship was cited by adversaries as proof that Voinov Jr was not qualified for naturalization). In his twenties, he embraced the tenets of Romanian nationalism, primarily calls for the political unification of Moldavia and Wallachia. He served as a judge and prosecutor in the resulting United Principalities, being also sent to the Assembly of Deputies of Romania, where he represented Putna County. From his debut in political life, Voinov expressed himself as a radical-liberal: his unrestrained opposition to Jewish emancipation dovetailed with his endorsement of democratization, unicameralism, and peasant interests. He joined the Free and Independent Faction, and came into conflict with the conservative caucus that supported Lascăr Catargiu, and at one point engineered Catargiu's prosecution for fraud.
During the late 1870s, Voinov served in the Senate; his first term was blocked by opposition from Mihail Kogălniceanu, but he managed to return just as the Romanian War of Independence was starting. He took a minority position against breaking off ties with the Ottomans, but afterwards supported the military effort. His antisemitism resurfaced after the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, when he successfully blocked efforts to naturalize most of Romania's resident Jews. As the independent Romanian Kingdom was being created, he was welcomed into George D. Vernescu's Sincere Liberal Party—but soon after joined the consolidated National Liberal Party, which was enacting his cherished electoral reform, by expanding suffrage. Voinov was then co-opted as Minister of Justice in the fourth Brătianu cabinet; he only served as such between late 1883 and early 1885, with his mandate entangled in controversies over the selection of judges and prosecutors. Shortly after resignation, he was publicly slapped by one of his former subordinates.
Reappearing as an independent critic of the National Liberals (primarily for what he saw as their indifference to Focșani's well-being), Voinov was pushed into an uneasy alliance with Catargiu's Conservative Party, and in 1889 joined the "United Opposition", which regrouped the more uncompromising antagonists. At that time, he became vocal in his critique of centralizing policies, arguing that Western Moldavia was being discriminated against. Publicly shunned by Conservatives such as Nicolae Blaremberg, he switched his allegiance to the Junimea faction, which he equated with true liberalism. When Junimea became a "Constitutionalist Party" in 1891, Voinov was co-opted as a full member and regional boss; he accepted its alliances with Catargiu, but criticized the latter's policies, and several times stood up to the Junimist leader, Petre P. Carp. Unlike the Constitutionalist core, Voinov opposed any relaxation of the inherited antisemitic policies, while defending Romanian socialists—a group which had come to include his adoptive son, the biologist Dimitrie Voinov. Voinov Sr failed to gain the public trust, and a seat in Parliament, in the mid-to-late 1890s. He died just as his loss in the May 1899 election was being announced.
Early life Voinov was born in Focșani in 1834.Dimitrie Rosetti, Dicționarul Contimporanilor, p. 197. Bucharest: Editura Lito-Tipografiei "Populara", 1897"Cetim în Constituționalul", in Era Nouă, Vol. X, Issue 455, May 1899, p. 2 At that time, Moldavia was a vassal subject of the Ottoman Empire, but governed more directly by the Russian Empire (under the Regulamentul Organic arrangement). Medical historian Radu Iftimovici describes the Voinovs as having Aromanian origins, with their ancestral home located at Veles, in Ottoman Rumelia. Radu Iftimovici, "Românii și mitocondria", in Viața Medicală, March 2017 In a November 1890 speech, Voinov described himself as an ethnic Romanian, while noting that he also had a regional, Moldavian, identity, and that he believed it was "not a crime" to mention the latter."Desbaterile parlamentare. Camera. Ședința de la 28 Noembre 1890", in Adevărul, 30 November 1890, p. 3 As early as 1877, the Allgemeine Zeitung reported that Voinov was an ethnic Bulgarian,"Rumänien. Bukarest, 10 März", in Allgemeine Zeitung, 16 March 1877, p. 1127 and this was also claimed in 1890 by one of his political adversaries, Grigore Tocilescu, who also called him "a stranger to the country and its language.""Corpurile legiuitoare. Camera. Ședința de la 1 Decembrie", in Lupta, 2 December 1890, p. 2 A formal inquest made in 1877 by Nicolae Haralambie concluded that Voinov was only a Romanian (and a Moldavian) through his mother, whereas his father had been born a foreign subject. As Haralambie noted, this did not invalidate Nicolae himself from having full political rights, since his father had also been fully naturalized under the Regulamentul criteria."Senatulŭ. Ședința de Mercurĭ, 23 Februariŭ, 1877", in Romanulu, 25 February 1877, pp. 180–181
Voinov was an adherent of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and publicly stated his faith."Corpurile legiuitoare. Adunarea Deputaților. Ședința de la 13 Ianuarie, 1886", in Voința Națională, 14 January 1886, p. 3 He was educated in Moldavia (according to Haralambie, he had "attended Romanian schools and displayed Romanian feelings"). He entered literary records in 1857, when he published a poem that celebrated the return of southern Bessarabia to Moldavia, upon the end of the Crimean War.Nestor Camariano, "Note", in Revista Fundațiilor Regale, Vol. IX, Issue I, January 1942, pp. 231–232 Young Voinov's political sympathies soon gravitated toward the larger agenda of Romanian nationalism, which looked forward to a political union between Moldavia and Wallachia. As such, he wrote for the unionist newspapers Zimbrul and Stéoa Dunărei. On 7 February 1857, the latter published an open letter of protest by nationalist boyars and commoners, including Voinov. These men warned that the Ottomans were already rigging the legislative elections of July."Resumé des nouvelles du jour", in Mémorial de la Loire et de la Haute-Loire, 12 March 1857, p. 2 During the repeat election of 1858, he and Alecu D. Holban were briefly arrested by the Moldavian government, which still opposed the nationalist project; the two young men had angered the regime by attending a unionist gala, and by dressing up in Romanian folk costume.Stoian, p. 102; Xenopol, p. 342
Voinov's first government job was as a stenographer for the Central Commission in Focșani, which had been set up as a federal body of the United Principalities.Ascanio, "Focșaniĭ", in Literatură și Artă Română, Issue 7/1903, p. 759 In mid-1859, he was also the commission's librarian and archivist, working with lists of books and documents provided to him by the activist and historian Mihail Kogălniceanu.Elena Dima, "Biblioteca documentară a Comisiei centrale de la Focșani", in Revista Arhivelor, Vol. LXVI, Issue 1, 1989, pp. 42–43 He first served as a prosecutor and then, from 1862 to 1864, presided over the Putna County tribunal. His contacts there Vasile Mălinescu, a former deputy in the ad hoc Divan, whom he came to describe as both an icon of the liberal politics and his personal best friend.N. T. Voinov, "Necrologie", in Romanulu, 23 February 1866, p. 35 In October 1864, Voinov was made government attorney of the appellate court of Fălciu County."Acte officialĭ", in Buciumulŭ, 15/27 October 1864, p. 1179 He was eventually attracted by professional politics: after local elections in late 1864, he served on Fălciu's administrative council, alongside Kogălniceanu."Revista interióre", in Buciumulŭ, 24 October 1864, p. 1193
While embarking on this career path, Voinov also married Eliza Corbu,"†D-na Eliza Voinov născută Corbu", in Curierul. Foaea Intereselor Generale, 28 July (9 August) 1889, p. 2 who was a distant relative of Alexandru Averescu, the future Marshal of Romania. In 1867, the couple adopted Eliza's infant nephew, Dimitrie Desilă, whose mother had died of tuberculosis. Following elections in April 1866, Voinov was sent to the Assembly of Deputies, which was also shaping a new constitutional framework under Domnitor Carol I. In that context, Voinov and his colleague Nicolae Ionescu unsuccessfully campaigned for unicameralism; Voinov's claim was that creating a Senate would alienate the masses, and reduce support for the constitution itself.Xenopol, p. 525 Though he himself later accepted a senatorial seat, he was always critical of the census suffrage and the electoral colleges, arguing that the conservative caucus had managed to split Romania along a system of "castes"."Senatulŭ. Ședința de Vinerĭ, 7 Aprile, 1878", in Romanulu, 9 April 1878, p. 346
Antisemitic legislator Voinov also co-sponsored a bill submitted by Theodor Lateș, which aimed to stop all Jewish immigrants at the country's external borders. Their proposal, while backed by Ionescu and Ion Heliade Rădulescu, was also struck down by the voting majority."Adunarea Naționale. Ședința din 22 Iuniŭ 1866. Președinția D-luĭ Manolache Costache", in Romanulu, 25 June 1866, p. 390 He was reelected a deputy for the third college of Putna in November 1866,"Deputații aleșĭ. La Colegiulŭ alŭ III", in Romanulu, 3 November 1866, p. 793 and reelected in December 1867."Tabloulŭ generalŭ alŭ alegerilorŭ pentru Adunarea Deputațilorŭ", in Romanulu, 18 December 1867, p. 1081 The Assembly was investigating the death of deputy Scarlat Vârnav, and the pogrom it had sparked in Bârlad—itself prompted by allegations that the notoriously antisemitic Vârnav had been poisoned by the Jews. Voinov sided with the antisemites: while not endorsing their claims about Vârnav's death, he argued that the violence was in fact stoked by secretive Jews, and then blamed on the Romanians."Zur Entlarvung des walachisch-rumänischen Liberalismus. II", in Die Neuzeit, 20 March 1868, pp. 135–136 In April 1868, he adhered to a bill that proposed denying Jews any civil rights, citing the "imperious necessity to guarantee the Romanians against Jewish exploitation". The text also described Judaism as inherently hostile to "the burdens and duties of modern society", alleging that its religious message "[strove] to preserve [the Jews'] complete individuality as a privileged and separate race"."Zur Entlarvung des walachisch-rumänischen Liberalismus. IV", in Die Neuzeit, 17 April 1868, p. 189