James Garfield's (less alliterative) "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"

Whether or not Samuel D. Burchard's 1884 characterization of the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" cost James Blaine the White House that year, it was not even original. On the day after the 1876 election, when it looked as if Tilden had won, James Garfield, Republican leader in the House of Representatives and eager for the Speakership, wrote bitterly to his close friend C. E. Fuller that "It now appears that we are defeated by the combined power of rebellion, Catholicism, and whiskey, a trinity very hard to conquer." The Presidency, the House, the Speakership had all "gone down in the general wreck." http://books.google.com/books?id=6EAuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423

Now suppose Fuller for some reason later becomes an enemy of Garfield's and is determined to destroy his political career. So near the end of the 1880 campaign, he discloses the contents of the 1876 letter. Is this enough to elect Hancock? In OTL, Garfield won New York (and therefore the electoral vote) by 50.3-48.4 percent. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1880.txt This is a narrow margin, though not nearly as close as the 1884 and 1888 results would be in New York. (One reason Garfield carried the state: Tammany's "Honest John" Kelly insisted on running an Irish Catholic, William Russell Grace, for mayor. Grace narrowly won, but cost the Democrats many Protestant votes, and may have cost Hancock the election. Still, what was important for Kelly was to have a mayor who would let Kelly keep control of city jobs. Having a Democrat in the White House would have been a dubious advantage for Kelly because at best a President Hancock would divide New York's federal patronage between Kelly and Kelly's rival Tilden; and at worst, Hancock might have aligned himself with Tilden or built a rival anti-Kelly power base in New York. It may be that Tammany Hall just didn't want a Democratic president at this time. Ironically, as mayor, Grace turned out to be quite reform-minded and independent of Tammany.)

So would the release of the Fuller letter be sufficient to cause about 11,500 New York voters to shift from Garfield to Hancock? This is very likely more votes than Burchard cost Blaine in 1884, but of course this time it is the candidate himself who said the offensive words, not a supporter. (OTOH, it was after all a private letter written in a "blowing off steam" mood, and some people might resent its release more than its contents. Besides, it is a lot less striking phrase than Burchard's in expression, however similar in substance...)
 
So would the release of the Fuller letter be sufficient to cause about 11,500 New York voters to shift from Garfield to Hancock? This is very likely more votes than Burchard cost Blaine in 1884, but of course this time it is the candidate himself who said the offensive words, not a supporter. (OTOH, it was after all a private letter written in a "blowing off steam" mood, and some people might resent its release more than its contents. Besides, it is a lot less striking phrase than Burchard's in expression, however similar in substance...)

It's four years earlier, in a private letter, not a very striking phrase, and it's not as explicit. I don't think it would have anything like the same effect.
 
Top