The phrase “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” emerged as a vivid symbol of the bitter cultural and political divisions in the United States during the 1884 presidential election. Its origins lie deep in the complex and often fraught relationship between religion, ethnicity, and political allegiance in post-Civil War America. This phrase was not simply a crude insult thrown casually in the heat of a campaign but rather a carefully loaded epithet that encapsulated a broad set of fears and prejudices held by many Republicans against the Democratic Party’s key constituencies. Understanding the phrase’s historical context reveals how cultural anxieties have long influenced American politics. It also sheds light on how these dynamics find troubling echoes in the modern political landscape, particularly in the Republican Party’s contemporary criticisms of Democrats, which often revolve around morality, cultural values, and patriotism.
In 1884, the United States still wrestled with the aftershocks of the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Republican Party, which had led the Union cause, still maintained much of the loyalty of Northern Protestants and veterans. At the same time, the Democratic Party drew its strength mainly from the South and immigrant populations in northern cities, particularly Irish Catholics in places like New York City. The divisions between these groups were not merely political but deeply cultural and religious. Anti-Catholic sentiment was widespread among many Protestants, especially in the rapidly growing urban centers where immigration from Ireland and Germany had brought a significant Catholic population into American political life. Many Protestants viewed Catholics with suspicion and disdain, seeing their allegiance to the Pope as a threat to American nationalism and democracy.
It was in this atmosphere that a Republican supporter, reportedly at a political meeting in New York, used the phrase “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” to describe the Democratic Party’s base. The phrase was uttered by Reverend Dr. Samuel Burchard, a spokesman for New York preachers in favor of Blaine, at an event attended by Blaine. Due to Blaine's attendence the Democratic supporters where able to spin this into his support for the utterance. The term “Rum” referred to the association of Irish Catholic voters with alcoholism and moral laxity, a stereotype that conflated ethnicity with vice. This played into the temperance movement, gaining momentum in the United States, which was deeply entwined with Protestant moral reform efforts. The temperance movement, which advocated for reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, was a significant force in shaping the cultural and political landscape of the time. “Romanism” was a derogatory term for Roman Catholicism, emphasizing the religious divide and portraying Catholics as foreign, backward, and inherently un-American. The final word, “Rebellion,” invoked the memory of the Civil War, casting Democrats as the heirs of the Confederacy, whose rebellion against the Union was still a fresh wound in the national consciousness. The implication was that Democrats were not only morally suspect but also politically disloyal.
Ironically, James G. Blaine himself embodied a complex religious and ethnic background that undercut the very rhetoric being used against the Democrats. While Blaine was raised Presbyterian, following his father's faith, his mother was of Irish Catholic descent. Blaine had hoped to leverage this connection to attract disaffected Irish Catholic voters who might be persuaded to break from their traditional Democratic loyalties. With that said it is unlikely that Blaine would endorse such a statement himself. However, he was in the room when it was said and that was enough regaradless of the fact that the phrase could be seen as insulting to his mothers family. Blaine's background makes the “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” insult all the more striking, as it not only alienated the voters Blaine was trying to win over but also revealed a glaring contradiction in his campaign strategy, simultaneously appealing to and disparaging the same community.
The impact of this phrase was immediate and profound. Irish Catholic voters, who formed a crucial Democratic bloc in New York City, were outraged. The insult was perceived as an attack on their political preferences, identity, and dignity. Many historians argue that this backlash cost the Republican candidate, James G. Blaine, the vital state of New York and ultimately the presidency, handing victory to Democrat Grover Cleveland. The phrase became a cautionary tale about the dangers of cultural bigotry in politics and how inflammatory rhetoric could backfire. The 1884 election, focusing on cultural and religious divisions, set a precedent for using such tactics in American politics, influencing subsequent campaigns and shaping the political landscape for years to come.
This episode from 1884 provides a powerful window into how American politics has long intertwined questions of morality, religion, and loyalty with partisan conflict. The Republicans’ attack on Democrats by framing them as embodiments of vice, foreignness, and treason echoes throughout American political history. It illustrates how deeply cultural and identity-based fears can be weaponized to mobilize voters and discredit opponents.
When we turn to the modern era, it is striking how these themes persist, albeit in new forms. The Republican Party today frequently levels criticisms against Democrats that revolve around morality, cultural values, and patriotism, much like the “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” slur did in the 19th century. The specific issues have shifted to fit contemporary debates. Instead of anti-Catholicism, the focus has expanded to encompass evangelical Christian concerns about secularism, abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and what is often framed as a broader erosion of traditional values. The language of moral decay, once tied to alcohol consumption, now surfaces in discussions about drug policies, family structures, and cultural permissiveness.
Similarly, accusations of disloyalty or a lack of patriotism remain potent tools in political rhetoric. Modern Republican critiques often paint Democrats as soft on crime, dismissive of national security, or even hostile to American symbols and institutions. These charges serve to cast Democrats as not just wrong in policy but as threats to the nation’s moral and political order. The cultural and religious overtones that defined the 1884 phrase find their echoes in today’s rhetoric about Democrats undermining “family values” or rejecting “American ideals.”
This continuity underscores the enduring nature of cultural conflict in American politics. The Republican Party’s strategy of framing Democrats as the custodians of vice and unpatriotic impulses taps into deep-rooted fears about change, identity, and the future of the nation. In both 1884 and today, these attacks serve a dual purpose. They rally the party’s base by appealing to shared cultural anxieties and delegitimize the opposition by painting them as fundamentally out of step with the nation’s core values.
Yet, these rhetorical tactics also come at a cost. The “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” comment ultimately alienated a crucial voting bloc and helped to hand the election to the Democrats. Similarly, the modern Republican Party’s cultural critiques can deepen polarization and exacerbate divisions, making genuine political dialogue and compromise more difficult. However, there is always the potential for genuine political dialogue and compromise, leading to a more unified and understanding political landscape.
The story of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion” thus is both a historical episode and a cautionary mirror. It reminds us that American politics has long been a battleground of policies, identity, religion, and cultural morality. The phrase’s legacy lies in its demonstration of how political parties can exploit cultural fears to gain power, and how such exploitation can shape the nation’s political landscape for generations. The echoes of this strategy in modern Republican criticisms of Democrats reveal that the struggle over what constitutes American morality and loyalty remains as intense now as it was nearly a century and a half ago. Recognizing this continuity helps us better understand the forces that continue to shape political discourse and division in the United States today.
Add comment
Comments