Elections for the princely throne of Wallachia were held on December 20–21, 1842 (New Style: January 1–2, 1843), marking the start of Gheorghe Bibescu's rule. They were the first of two such elections ever held in Wallachia, and historic in that they restored and modernized the elective monarchy, after a 112-year hiatus. While earlier elections took place under the Vlach law, the 1842–43 race was held under a modernized suffrage: there were multiple candidates, an electoral college, approval voting, and exhaustive ballot. The selection of voters extended beyond the inner circle of the Wallachian boyars, with consultation of the provincial landowners and the guilds. Such practices reflected the modernizing trend instituted by the Regulamentul Organic regime in both Danubian Principalities, under the shared custody of the Russian and Ottoman empires. In Moldavia, however, the regime did not permit princely elections, making Bibescu's the only Regulamentul reign to have been consecrated by a vote.
The 1842 election also aired disputes between various camps: the National Party versus the Russophiles, and conservatives versus liberals. These protracted battles had marked the rule of Alexandru II Ghica, deposed by collusion between Bibescu and his aging conservative rival, Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea. The electoral campaign, touched by corruption and slander, also opposed Bibescu to his brother Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei, who became a leading contender. Bibescu won when Știrbei effectively transferred him his electoral votes, leaving the senior boyar Iordache Filipescu in third-place.
Bibescu's reign was marked by concessions to the National Party, but later the prince asserted his independence, and, like Ghica before him, governed with a hostile Ordinary Assembly. He also broke with precedent by ruling without consultation and tampering with the legislative elections of 1846, but maintained a friendly rapport with the liberal camp. Eventually abdicating and leaving the country during the Wallachian Revolution of 1848, his brother Știrbei replaced him on the throne following the resumption of Ottoman control. Both brothers remained active in political life after the Crimean War, when, by renouncing their ambitions, they contributed to the union of the Principalities. This was achieved by the princely election of January 1859, when Moldavian Alexandru Ioan Cuza was granted the Wallachian throne.
Context Ghica's ascendancy
During the early 19th century, both Moldavia and Wallachia were Ottoman vassals ruled upon by Phanariote princes (or hospodars). This era, inaugurated in 1714 by the ouster of Constantin Brâncoveanu, signified "150 years of Greek cultural predominance".Xenopol, p. 28 This also led to the erosion of the elective monarchy—under the adapted Vlach law of the Middle Ages, electors included the boyardom and all bishops of the Wallachian Orthodox Church, thus opening the way for the erosion of princely powers.Eliade, pp. 68–69 The Phanariote regime did away with elections from 1730, when Constantine Mavrocordatos was the last elected prince of Wallachia. Reigning for just one month, he was later restored without elections by Sultan Mahmud I.Eva Mârza, Florin Bogdan (eds.), Repertoriul tipografilor, gravorilor, patronilor, editorilor cărților românești (1508–1830), p. 191. Sibiu: ASTRA Museum & TechnoMedia, 2013. Although such appointments became the standard, the Phanariote regime developed into a boyar oligarchy, which was largely dominated by the local families—up to 80% of the Boyar Assembly were of indigenous descent.Preda, pp. 23–24 Their opposition to the immigrant Greeks produced the early forms of Romanian nationalism, which seeped into a liberal movement, feeding the Wallachian uprising of 1821 and the social philosophy of Dinicu Golescu.Ghica & Roman, pp. 414–418; Hêrjeu, pp. 61–70; Xenopol, pp. 27–75, 117–139, 168–177
The Phanariote era came to an abrupt end in 1829, when the Russian Empire occupied both principalities during a war with the Ottomans. The subsequent Treaty of Adrianople called for a new constitutional regime, under shared Ottoman–Russian custody: Regulamentul Organic was drafted by a special Commission of boyars, overseen by the Russian envoys Peter Zheltukhin and Pavel Kiselyov. In obtaining their mix of liberalizing and conservative articles, they repressed both the liberal current and the traditionalist boyars, leading them to compromise on the core issues.Hêrjeu, pp. 78–88; Xenopol, pp. 147–149 Regulamentul was adopted in Wallachia by May 1831, after two years of deliberations.Preda, p. 35 With this, the old Boyar Assembly was refashioned into a 42-member "Ordinary National Assembly", based on the estates of the realm: 20 members were elected by plurality from among the 56 boyars; 18 more, similarly elected, were representatives of the counties, with one additional deputy for Craiova; the other seats were held by the Orthodox bishops.Preda, pp. 39–46 All eligible seats were contested in 1831—"the first time [in Romanian history] when elections were used for producing a deliberative assembly".Preda, p. 32
Regulamentul and the preceding Akkerman Convention also specified the reintroduction of an elective monarchy to both principalities, but an exception was immediately made under a special protocol between Russia and the Ottomans.Hêrjeu, p. 87 In Wallachia, Alexandru II Ghica was appointed prince in March 1834 and anointed in October, his rise curbing that of another favorite, Ban Iordache Filipescu.Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 136, 235, 257, 258 From its beginnings, the reign was controlled by the Russian Consul, Baron Peter I. Rikman, who imposed his favorites, Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei and Constantin Suțu, as ministers.Hêrjeu, pp. 87–88; Xenopol, pp. 161–163 This episode produced frictions among the boyars and the Russians, exacerbated over the following years. During the legislature of 1836, boyar envoys discovered that sections of Regulamentul had been forged or purposefully left unclear, giving legislative oversight to the Russian envoys. Prince Ghica was mandated by Karl Nesselrode to impose the controversial fragments on the Assembly, but his motion failed to pass, and so he dissolved the Assembly; the new Assembly also refused to accept his version of Regulamentul.Ghica & Roman, pp. 210, 345, 422–427, 501–502; Hêrjeu, pp. 88–91; Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 121–123, 252, 274; Preda, pp. 57–59; Xenopol, pp. 165–169
Ghica, in turn, refused to dissolve the Assembly a second time, and Rikman was ordered by his government to seek resolution with the Ottoman partners. As a result of this intercession, Sultan Abdulmejid I issued a firman dissolving the Assembly altogether, and replacing it with a non-elective "ad hoc Divan", comprising only the top 27 boyars of Wallachia.Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 122–123 The project never took off because of Rikman's personal failings. His passionate love affair with boyaress Mimica Glagoveanca resulted in her divorce and marriage to Rikman, both of which were facilitated by Prince Ghica, who expected leniency in return. Nesselrode was informed of this and recalled Rikman.Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 123, 252–254. See also Ghica & Roman, pp. 501–502 Memoirist Grigore Lăcusteanu notes that Ghica's "naive" sexual diplomacy was also attempted, with less success, on Rikman's replacement Vladimir P. Titoff, before the later was replaced by Karl Evstafevich Kotzebue.Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, p. 123
National Party emergence
These incidents rekindled nationalism in Wallachia, albeit confined to a relatively small portion of the elite, the "National Party".Demetriescu, p. 19; Ghica & Roman, pp. 212–216, 292, 420–439, 534–535; Hêrjeu, pp. 88–98; Preda, p. 58; Xenopol, pp. 160–169 Its roots reached back to 1798, when Scarlat Câmpineanu and other boyars founded a group of that name, inspired by the French First Republic.Eliade, pp. 229, 231–236; Ghica & Roman, pp. 414–418; Hêrjeu, pp. 34–38; Xenopol, pp. 42–43, 49 Reconstructing the party, Ioan Câmpineanu circulated a constitutional project that would have established a crowned republic,Ghica & Roman, pp. 534–535; Preda, p. 58 before being publicly shunned and forced into exile.Ghica & Roman, pp. 293, 425–427, 438, 534–535; Hêrjeu, pp. 88–91; Xenopol, p. 167 Lăcusteanu, at the time an officer in the Wallachian Militia, claims that: "The aristocracy and the people were Russophiles, words such as 'patriotism' and 'public opinion' were only used by the prince and a couple of boyars."Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, p. 121 Nevertheless, as noted by scholar N. N. Hêrjeu: "With all their submission to the Muscovites, the boyars quickly understood that Russia only offered them apparent protection, in order to slowly strip them of their privileges. In fact, they hated both the Russians and the Turks."Hêrjeu, p. 80 The chronicler Zilot Românul recorded that the boyars were particularly worried by Russian tax farming, which they considered predatory.Xenopol, pp. 21–23 Among the more powerful boyars, some also opposed the prince, but for purely personal reasons—they included Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea, who had seduced Ghica's divorcee mother, and was therefore detested by the monarch.Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 137–138, 229, 231
Nationalist opposition was also concentrated into cultural projects for the "national awakening", which, as historian A. D. Xenopol writes, were particularly resented by the Russian envoys. In repressing them, Rikman and Kotzebue "did not realize that these were ultimately but mere products, effects, and [they could not hope to] destroy their cause".Xenopol, pp. 168–169 This period also witnessed the alleged conspiracy headed by the low-ranking boyar Mitică Filipescu in Bucharest. Some months later, a revolt was also raging in Brăila County, where treasurer Andrey Deshov, who reportedly wanted to crown himself or Constantin Suțu as Tsar of Bulgaria,Ghica & Roman, pp. 452, 542; Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 123–124 rallied troops to fight against the pro-Ottoman Ghica. The capital was pacified quickly, but the military expedition against Deshov required assistance from Hüseyin Avni Pasha and the Ottoman Army.Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 123–133, 254–255, 277–278 Both Filipescu and Deshov were sentenced to prison,Ghica & Roman, pp. 19, 155, 189, 215, 452, 503, 509, 542–543; Lăcusteanu & Crutzescu, pp. 130, 131, 254–255 but the details of their conspiracies remain sketchy. Lăcusteanu, for instance, sees Filipescu as an agent of Russian intrigues, "more Russian than Muscovite Russians", whereas the liberal Ion Ghica insists that he was a patriot and a believer in individual rights.Ghica & Roman, pp. 155, 189