He has been referred to as Father of the Nation due to his campaign for the rights of Croats within Austria-Hungary and his propagation of a Croatian state in a time where many politicians sought unification with other South Slavs.

Starčević was born in the village of Veliki Žitnik [hr] near Gospić, a small town in the Military Frontier within the Austrian Empire, to a Croat Catholic father Jakov and Serb Orthodox mother Milica (née Čorak).

[2] From the age of thirteen to sixteen, his educational foundation was formed by Sime's teachings, including Latin and the Shtokavian Croatian dialect.

Rather than becoming a priest, he decided to engage in secular pursuits and started working at Ladislav Šram's law firm in Zagreb.

[6] He then tried to get an academic post with the University of Zagreb but was unsuccessful, so he remained in Šram's office until 1861 when he was appointed chief notary of Fiume County.

[5] In 1862, when Fiume was implicated in participation in protests against the Austrian Empire, he was suspended and sentenced to one month in prison as an enemy of the regime.

[8] He spent 75 days in prison; after his release he worked as a clerk in the law office of his nephew, David Starčević.

[11] Along with Kvaternik, he viewed Austria as the "sworn historic enemy" of the Croats,[10] and did not accept Hungary's governing authority over Croatia.

[15] With the speech he held in the Parliament on 26 June 1861, Starčević initiated the campaign aimed at rehabilitation of Petar Zrinski and Fran Krsto Frankopan.

[citation needed] Starčević was at first a proponent of the Illyrian movement, later he adopted ideological views from the French period such as Nationalism and Liberalism.

[22] He wrote literary criticisms, short stories, newspaper articles, political satire, philosophical essays and poems.

[5] In 1850, inspired by Ljudevit Gaj, Starčević started working on the manuscript of Istarski razvod, a Croatian document from 1325.

Starčević accepted the etymological orthography and used the Ekavian accent for his entire life, considering it the heir of the old Kajkavian.

[citation needed] His language is a "synthetic" form of Croatian, never used before or after him, most similar to the Ozalj idiom of Petar Zrinski, whom he probably never read.

Starčević subsequently proclaimed he was the author, not Gaj, who cared to maintain good relations with Serbia, distanced himself from his friend.

Starčević advocated Croatia's independence from the Austrian Empire and viewed Austria as a "sworn historical enemy",[31] but did not support the use of force.

[35] He coined the term "Slavoserb", derived from the Latin words "sclavus" and "servus", for those who function as servants to foreign powers and against their own people.

He applied that term to persons such as Ljudevit Gaj, Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer, and Croatian Ban Ivan Mažuranić.

[36] He also pointed out Nikola IV Zrinski and Josip Jelačić as servants to foreigners, and named the participants of the Zrinski-Frankopan Conspiracy as their opposite.

[39] The historian Nevenko Bartulin writes that Starčević's views on race were "confused and contradictory because they were in theoretical opposition to his idea of a civic Croatian state", although his "recourse to racial ideas and language is significant to [the] discussion on the development of racial theory in late nineteenth-century Croatia".

[42] The historian Ivo Goldstein wrote that those who allege Starčević's racism and anti-Serbianism either falsify or distort his ideological positions.

[43] According to the historian Jozo Tomasevich: "Despite his many exaggerations, inconsistencies, and gross mistakes of fact, Starčević was by far the most important political thinker and ideologist in Croatia during the second half of the nineteenth century".

"[31] According to writer and journalist Marcus Tanner, Starčević was "grossly misinterpreted" by those that later claimed to be his followers, and that it is "hard to imagine him bestowing approval on Pavelić’s Nazi puppet state".

[43] Starčević espoused secularist views: he advocated the separation of church and state, and argued that faith should not guide the political life, and that the insistence on religious differences is harmful to the national interests.

Starčević, on the other hand, demanded an independent Croatian state and opposed any solution that would include Croats within some other multi-ethnic country.