Talk:Warren G. Harding/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ancestry

I am simply amazed at the amount of incorrect information that a number of Wiki-Pseudo "authorities" have plastered on this page. For those of us who are Harding Scholar, its simply offensive to see "rumour" reported as fact. Claims that Harding was of African American blood have never been proven because the proof doesn't exist. Birth records in Ohio do not exist prior to 1867, and did not become a government mandate health record until that time.

While many of the "vandals" that I have seen attack this page "think" that they are right, They are not. I am also very convinced that NONE OF THEM have ever been to Marion Ohio, nor have have they been to the Ohio Historical Center which acts as the repsoitory for the Harding Papers.

[[User:Stude62|"[[user:<stude62>|" and "]]".]] 03:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may be added that the story of the ancestry is told like this in "The Shadow of Blooming Grove" by Amos Harding the Grandfather. Upon arriving in Ohio Amos came unexpectantly upon a previously unknown cabin. It was occupied by a fellow Pennsylvanian (name withheld) that had quarrelled with a Harding neighbor back in Pennsylvania. The man had girtled the apple trees of the advasary and when discovered, fled the area. He told Amos that if he made a sound about the situation in Pennsylvania he would kill him. Amos, wanting no trouble left the man alone. After the first corn harvest the Hardings suspected someone was stealing corn from the crib. Amos and his 2 oldest sons staked out the corn crib one night and sure enough someone came and started to load their sack with corn. It was the man from PA. When the Hardings exposed this man as a thief he started the rumor of the Negro West Indian background and fled farther west from Ohio.

== The article could be improved by including the stands Harding took (if any) on the great issues of the day. Golf and poker are probably not the most important ideas he had! -- Anon

Somehow I get the feeling that they were ... Derek Ross

I do wonder, as historians characterize Harding as the worst president in US history due to the corrupt nature of his administration, what will future historians make of George W. Bush? Will the title shift? Not trying to get people up in a tizzy, but if that's the sole reason for considering a person a bad president, modern presidents have some things to worry about.

Warren Harding the Climber

I was curious about adding Warren Harding, the first man to climb the Nose of El Capitan in Yosemite. Right now their is a redirect for that name to Warren G. Harding.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miker (talk • contribs) 17:14, 17 September 2004

Make a page for him at Warren Harding (climber), and put a disambig message at the top of Warren G. Harding along the lines of For the first man to climb the Nose of El Capitan, see Warren Harding (climber). Is there an article for that mountain/cliff/whatever it is?
--Golbez 18:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the page for Warren J Harding the climber.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.68.115.166 (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2005

_ _ I've added the needed ToP Dab in the style consistent with WP:MOSDAB, i.e., limiting the detail to what is helpful to dab'ate: more is clutter, and may even make users assume the Senator (WGH) or author (WJH) they are looking for is non-notable.

_ _ It can be argued that since the initial is seldom omitted from the (hi-profile) politician, and seldom used with the (relatively lo-profile) climber, Warren Harding should be a Dab rather than a Rdr. I lean slightly toward the Rdr (now that the ToP Dab is in place!), but clearly (in light of the 3-year neglect of the ToP Dab) the question has not be adequately considered. Your opinion?
--Jerzy•t 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

For the record, El Capitan has a feature (a crag?) called The Nose. It has its own section, but seems unlikely to ever deserve an article.
--Jerzy•t 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs sourcing and NPOVing

The following needs some work to be included in the article: The unflattering biographies of President Harding have been bellwethers for discovering historians who plagiarize rather than do their own research. The erroneous conclusion that Warren G. Harding is one of the worst presidents endures because the actual record of his presidency has been largely overlooked. It was long believed, incorrectly, that Mrs. Harding had destroyed all of her husband’s presidential papers. So the Harding history was largely written before it was learned that his papers were intact. He became a defenseless target of decades of false accusations and distortions. Those presidential papers have now been available for almost as long as they were not. Yet in the thirty-eight years that this information has been accessible, only a few published works have relied on Harding’s senatorial and presidential papers. Even then, many who have written about Harding have uncritically perpetuated specious and baseless stories. There are several books out now written by historians who have done their proper research and put this extremely popular and not below average President in his proper place in history. The newest to come out is "Warren G. Harding" by John W. Dean. Markalexander100 03:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If in fact there is a lot of misinformation about Warren Harding, as some of the discussion says, it should be clearly written in the article that this is the case. Perhaps before the note in the introduction about his ranking as "one of the least successful U.S. Presidents"--209.147.120.154 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harding Facts vs. Inuendo

There needs to be some clarification regarding Warren G. Harding's life and what people seem to THINK is fact.

1) Harding never had a Nervous breakdown requiring years of treatment in a pysciatric aslylum. Harding DID have physica and emotional exhaustion that was treated for several months at Kellogg's sanitarium in Battle Creek Michigan.

2) The claim that Harding was a of African American descent has never factually been proven, either by primary source documents, nor in court of law, nor by medical study. Seventy years of historical study by reputable sources has never for an ounce of truth in the claims made by Gaston Means, Francis Russell of William Estabrook Chancellor.

3) Harding could not have had knowledge of the Teapot Dome scandal that broke six months AFTER his death.

4) Mrs. Harding did not kill her husband as he lay dying in a San Francisco hotel. Harding died from a heart attack, and his heart disease was a concern for Naal Medical doctors for sometime.

If anyone would like to discuss these points in an adult manner, I would welcome the opportunity.

-- stude62 11:50, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned up the article. The only additions of any substance were:

• Harding's talent for public speaking
• Trend to isolationism was a public reaction to WWI
• Debs was a socialist
• Harding nominated following deadlock at convention
• 1920 was the first time women voted nationally. [They did have votes in at least eight states by then.]
• Clarify Albert B Fall was the first member of any Cabinet to be imprisoned. [Check me]
• Clarify the Marion Daily Star's original "weakness" was financial in nature.
• The newly revived KKK was specifically anti-Catholic
• Harding received important confidential news about corruption while in Alaska
• Explain significance of Norman Thomas. [And he wasn't, as the article originally said, "the son of the city's Presbyterian Church"! I always understood the Church to be a "bride," not a "father"!]

I've got to agree the article is heavy on tabloid gossip compared with the political meat. But I can't claim to be a Harding scholar, so there's not much I can add at this time to balance that out.

Gordon L 00:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why can brides not also have sons? Drop the sexism for crying out loud, and stop referring to children in regard to their ownership by "male" entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.130.80 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That comment was made about three and a half years ago, and anyway, Norman Thomas doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article anymore. Nufy8 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Harding & Masonic Community

I have reintroduced Harding's membership in the Masonic organization "Harding was also a member of the Freemasons. He was raised to the Sublime Degree of a Master Mason on August 27, 1920, in Marion Lodge No. 70, F. & A.M., Marion, Ohio." Harding's entry into Lodge. 70 was an important step in his acceptence into Marion's social circles. Harding's involvement in the lodge is heavily documented in primary materials from private collections to the archives at the Marion County Historical Society in Marion, Ohio. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At least a quarter of a century ago I read, in a book on Freemasonry and in a section on U.S. Presidents, that Warren G. Harding was entered (as an Apprentice) into a Masonic lodge as a young man, but that personal opposition then prevented his advancement until it appeared that he would be elected president of the republic, when the opposition was withdrawn and he was given the second through thirty-second degrees all in a rush. J S Ayer (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last president to die in office?

The part in the first paragraph about him being the last president to die in office of natural causes bugs me. Was that supposed to mean he died while in the actual oval office or while he was still president? --Kross 05:11, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bugs me too - It would imply that Franklin Roosevelt was murdered. Skoblentz 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Jumping the Fence"

I note in the second-to-last paragraph of the "Election of 1920" paragraph, the article uses the phrase "jumping the fence" I considered inserting a link from "jumping the fence" to the "illegal immigration" entry, in order to clarify the idiom for non-natives or less-than-advanced speakers. Would this be appropriate? -- RunnerupNJ

No, it appears to refer to the barrier to miscegenation. J S Ayer (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Klan Membership

I removed the sentence about Harding suppossedly being a member of the Klan. Not only is it utter hogwash, but its really nothing more than inuendo. When someone shows me a picture of Harding in a sheet, I'll believe it. Skoblentz 22:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reinserted it, with a wikilink to the relevant article. Skoblentz has inserted a subsection in that article making the case against Harding's membership in the Klan, which is fine. Readers can decide for themselves which evidence they find more plausible.--Bcrowell 17:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Bcrowell has reintroduced the Klan, although he has toned down his allegations. I agree that what he has posted is fairer to Harding than the previous statement removed. Skoblentz 19:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Woah! Woah! What?

He looks exactly like Robert Novak! What's that all about??

I can assure you that there is no relationship between Harding and the prince of darkness himself.

How can you be sure? No one would have suspected that Darth Vader and Barack Obama are related, yet they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.79.68 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some evidence, post it here. Novak often defended Harding's successor, Calvin "Mr. Excitement" Coolidge, but he never touted Harding. So if he was a relative, they apparently didn't get along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and wheres the proof that the Dick and Obama are related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

70.60.36.62 Your deletions with regard to Harding

70.60.36.62 - being that you do not sign into Wikipedia with a name (which would allow me to post these comments on your talk page), but intsead simply use your IP address, I'm hoping that you find these comments. Harding was for many years considered the bottom of the heap when it came to Presidents - this is a fact. It is also a fact that both Ferrall and John Dean have reopened Harding's presidency for discussions and that they have both concluded that Harding did far more in the 27 months that he was in office than his critics ever gave him credit for. But you simply can not wipe away the historical fact of the previous opions of Harding because you prefer the current view (which I agree on). The article must be accurate and verifiable, and that includes honestly portraying the facts as they are and as they were. Sweeping previous critisms under the rug doesn't save Harding the humilation that his critic served, but it does cheat people out of factual information. Stu 22:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Harding and the Klan

I've restored the following passage:

Historian Wyn Craig Wade asserts that Harding joined the Ku Klux Klan following his election taking his Klan oath in the Oval Office and uses as evidence letters written by members of the Coolidge Administration. Several Harding biographers dispute this claim, however, arguing there is no primary evidence of Harding's Klan membership and pointing out that Harding was the first US President to speak out agaisnt lynchings. See Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics (Warren Harding) for a more thorough examination of this question.

While I agree that we should not state the Harding was a Klan member as a fact we should make mention to the debate on whether or not he was a member since it is a debate in academia and, as far as I know, Wade is not regarded as a crank or conspiracy theorist and his assertion has been repeated by other academics. I believe the assertion was first made by Wade in The Fiery Cross The Ku Klux Klan in America published by Oxford University Press. That makes it weighty enough to merit mention in wikipedia. NPOV requires that we cover the issue objectively but it is not NPOV for us to omit all mention of this issue and pretend it doesn't exist, particularly since we mention the debate in the articleNotable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics. Homey 01:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Craig's claims have already been covered in Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics and his claims are based on hearsay - third party information that he got from a reporter who claimed to have heard a deathbed confession many years before. IMHO thats about reliable as a game of "telephone". If you insist on mentioning Craig, then I insist that it be stated that he based his claims on information that he didn't get from the original source - that seems fair. In the meantime, if you ever decide to come to Ohio and research this for yourself, let me know in advance and I'll give you unfettered access to the Harding Collection at the Marion County Historical Society. If you hurry, I'll even introduce you to people who met Harding (better hurry, they're in their late 80s and 90s). I can also arrange for you to meet Melinda Gilpin the site administrator for the Harding home. I'll also introduce you the research and archives staff at the Ohio Historical Society. Better to know for yourself first hand I always say. If you find anything, I'll admit that I'm wrong. My offer is sincere - I have the access and currently working with the Marion Collection. Stu 03:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I generally feel that if the statement is sourced from a reputable expert or publication, then it should be included along with any dissension from other reputable experts or publications. I say keep it but source the disputed opinion. Grika Ⓣ 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Stu's Talk page)

I'm confused - if the idea of Harding being in the Klan is still a question, and two highly respect authors such as Ferrell and Dean have not only refuted the claims, but have had their finding heralded by historians and press alike, why didn't they support further investigation of the matter? Have you studied any of the Harding documents in Columbus (his personal papers are at Ohio Historical Society) or in Marion? Stu 02:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that if a number of "respectable" books now mention Harding's alleged Klan membership as a fact we would be remiss to pretend that no issue or question has ever existed. I read about it in Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's "Freakonomics" (NY Times Bestseller 2005) and so looked up the Harding article to see if I can find out more. The claim has currency so there's no point in putting our heads in the sand and pretending it's not out there. People are going to be looking up our Harding article to learn more about the Harding allegation. What is our responsiblity as an encyclopedia? To lay out the issue, the claims made and the responses? Or to pretend no respectable writers have ever made such a claim and simply delete any reference to it from Wikipedia? I think our NPOV policy is quite clear. (I'm going to copy and past this on Talk:Warren Harding)Homey 03:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Craig's claims have already been covered in Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics and his claims are based on hearsay - third party information that he got from a reporter who claimed to have heard a deathbed confession many years before. IMHO thats about reliable as a game of "telephone"."

That may be so, but whether credible or not the claims have been widely disseminated and published in reputable books, including a book that's on the current NY Times Bestseller's List so it merits inclusion as long as its balanced with counterclaims. Homey

I see where the authors of Freakanomics seem to have back peddled somewhat from their certainty of the claims made by Stetson Kennedy [1] Just goes to show that being a number one bets seller on the NYT list doesn't always validate all of the claims of each source. Stude62 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask have you done any prmary source research on this topic, or are you basing your belief in this rumor on Freaknomics? Since I am unfamiliar with this book (and will have to familiarize myself with it) I can't speak to its validity. However we know that popularity and hard cold facts are more often than not strangers - people want to be titilated, not bored by fact.

However, if you take away the three sources that build this argument upon, what additional primary source material exists to prove the point? For example, where are the speeches by Harding affirming the Klan or white supremacy? Photographs of Harding posing with known Klan members? Speeches by Harding affirming the threat to American society of the Catholic Church? Its impossible to do so because they simply do not exist. And if Harding were really a member of the Klan, wouldn't logic dictate that given the public penchant for beating his reputation down that this would have become a much more prominent part of his persona? Stu 15:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Again, I have to ask have you done any prmary source research on this topic, or are you basing your belief in this rumor on Freaknomics?"

You're missing my point which is not whether or not the Harding as Klan member story is true but whether it has been widely circulated, particularly in widely read and/or academically credible works (perhaps by choice of the phrase "has currency" was poor). I have no belief that Harding was a KKK member. I simply recognize that this assertion has been published and repeated numerous times in several credible books and therefore merits a mention. If you can disprove the rumor that does not mean we can pretend it doesn't exist and excise it from the article, it just means we need to include the evidence against it (which you have done). NPOV means our purpose is neither to attack Harding nor to protect his reputation but to make sure the article is objective and covers all sides of various arguments. See Wikipedia:NPOV. Homey 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Now you've lost me. If Wikipedia isn't about presenting facts that can be verified, what value does it have? BTW, No mention of the Klan in any other Encyclopedia that I could found this afternoon at the Columbus Public Library mentions the Klan and Harding as having a relationship. So if this is true, and they takethe time to examine other scandals in his administration, does this mean that they too are keeping something from the public? And you keep going back to credible books - so far you've mentioned only three books by name, one a bestseller, one (Wyn Craig Reeds) that has received mixed reviews and what other books? The three that I have mentioned (Florence Harding, The Strange Deaths of President Harding and Warren Harding - The American Presidents Series) have all received a through and scholarly review process, are footnoted extensivly and have been written by experts in their fields. I have found dozens of web sites that have taken text from Wikipedia that state that Harding was a member of the Klan (these are sites that take Wikipedia entries and reprint them under their own web page banners.) So if you could, please tell what the name and authors are these sources that you claim back your argument and I'll be more than happy to read them. Stu 19:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, as a defender of Harding it's in your interest to have the issue addressed in the article. Say somone goes to the Court TV website and reads: "the KKK had seduced many innocent people into its ranks. Even President Harry S. Truman was once a member (he resigned after attending one meeting). So was Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and President Warren Harding who once issued free passes to Klan friends that allowed them to drive through red lights anywhere in America." [2] or to the History News Network site where they read a newspaper article that states: "It is said that President Warren G. Harding took his membership oath inside the White House."[3]

(There are numerous websites where this claim is made, unchallenged)

As a defender of Harding, would you prefer that someone who has read this and then decides sees the Wikipedia article on Harding find nothing whatsoever on the KKK claim or finds a passage that mentions both the claim and arguments about it? Homey 15:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a defender of Harding as much as I am for being clear and factual. The problem that I have with Harding is that so much innaccurate information has been published on him that the facts about him and his become secondary to who people like to think that he was. People are less inclined to search out the primary source material than they willing to accept something that is fed to them.

As for you're arguments invoking Court TV, the claims that you insist on defending about Harding being in the Klan are nothing more than hearsay, and would never be allowed in a court of law in the United States.

Lets do this - lets keep the mention of the controversy, lets keep the mention that no primary evidence exists to back those claims (both statements are true) and lets let people read the the secondary article on elected officials who are said to have Klan ties and let them make up their own minds. Stu 19:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The klan paragraph sums up both sides of the arguments so it seems to look alright Astrokey44 00:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Request for Comment

What of the "Green Room" at the White House photos of Harding being inducted into the KKK? Are you claiming that these photos are fakes, or do you just choose not to consider them? Your little edits making it all sound like unproven accusations, but the majority of evidence supports his connection with the Klan. The facts are in our history the Klan wasn't always considered "EVIL",be honest enough to except this. You nor I have to like this fact, but it is a fact. Times change.

If President Harding's possible KKK membership has been a subject of debate among legitimate academic historians then I lean toward discussing it. Apparently this article also deserves a section about the quality of scholarly research regarding this president.

I'd estimate the average reader comes to this article knowing that Warren Harding was an American president from the early twentieth century. They may have heard him characterized as a weak president. Suppose this reader's next step will be to pick up three random books about Harding from a public library. The reader can tell the difference between crackpot theories and mainstream scholarship but lacks the background to discern further. What would you want this reader to understand before they head to the bookshelves? Durova 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason why Harding is such a powerful topic for me is that the wealth of misinformation about him is so great. This was a man who, by his own admission, was in way over his head, and he was not a faithful husband. But this was also an affiable man who was the target of charecter assissination by William Estebrook Chancellor who made up facts about Harding's lineage as a means of grinding a personal axe. Harding spent 27 months in office - not long enough to enjoy the benefits of his political wins and unaware of the depts of betrayal by his closet political advisor (sound familiar).

Following his death, the three bestselling books on him were written by 1) Nan Britton who alleged that he had fathered her daughter (the claims for which have never been proven in court, nor with DNA) and Gaston Means, a grifter and imprisoned felon. The third book, the Shadow of Blooming Grove was based upon Harding's suppossed black heritage. It wasn't until Robert Ferrell's book (The Strange Deaths of President Harding) written almost 70 years after his death that we get a book that is lauded for its scholastic approach to and documentation about Harding. Ferrell's book was followed by Carl Anthony's work Florence Harding, and then John Dean's book on Harding for the American President Series. 70 years is a lot of time to have half truths and lies bandied about, and between 1924 and 1995 American school children were taught that Warren G. Harding was the worst President in American history not because of fact, but because of inuendo.

So if I defend Harding, I do so because there is a clear difference between what people claim to know about him and who he was.Stu 02:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Accusations made third person with no credible supporting evidence are rumours. Probably not what we want in Wikipedia articles. Arker 04:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Stu 15:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reworking the Harding controversy section

I have made an NPOV edit in the section on Harding's affair(s) that removes what I took to be either overtly pro-Harding sentiment, or insinuations regarding Harding's detractors/accusers. I do not believe I have altered anything of a factual nature in the article (please weigh in if you believe I am in error on this). One other point: the sentence that begins "Kling got his comeuppance" needs to be rewritten. Something more specific regarding Kling's actual reaction, for example, would make the article stronger. As I am not in any way a Harding expert, I leave it to those who are to edit this. My thought on the KKK question is to leave in both sides of the debate. IronDuke 00:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If prominent biographies and histories of Harding's presidency were produced by people who lacked access to his presidential papers then that merits a note in the article. Relevant points addressed by those papers deserve attention. So does a discussion of source material for controversial accusations such as KKK membership. The relevant question is whether Harding was a competent president. I certainly can't settle that and I doubt the editors here should try to. What they can do is equip the reader to understand the debate. Durova 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Racial scandal far from NPOV

"Those who hold to the theory of mixed race do so without proof, often relying on the research of William Estabrook Chancellor for details of Harding's supposed African-American lineage. There is no scientific or legal basis for these arguments. Chancellor's work never provided clear indications of his sources, or his proof. In fact, so few copies of his book exist—one of five known copies is owned by a private book collector in Marion, Ohio—that its availability to modern scholars is limited at best. Furthermore, there has never been a test of Harding's DNA. The claim is also impossible to verify through public records in Ohio; Harding was born in 1865, and the state of Ohio did not require registration or recording of births until 1867. Furthermore, Chancellor's theories find no basis in Federal census records, nor in probate court records. Harding's 1923 California-issued death certificate also indicates nothing to suggest Chancellor's theories were accepted as fact. With the release in the 1960s of Francis Russell's The Shadow of Blooming Grove, the specter of Harding's mixed blood was again raised and, lacking factual sources, quickly put down as innuendo."

WOOW! Look at all those weasle words! (Comment made by 03:02, 1 March 2006 User:AThing and left unsigned)

But its true. The claims made against Harding have never been proven as fact, mearly under circumstantial evidence. I've had a chance to read the Chancellor book - our historical society owns one of four or so that exist, and its garbage. There never has been a test of Harding's DNA. Birth records in Ohio didn't exist when Harding was born and were not mandated by the state until two yesrs following his birth. Chancellor's methodology (if you can call it that) was simply to rove the country side asking people if they thought Harding came from a colored background. And the simple fact is all of the claims made aganist Harding are either based on Chancellor, or go back to a supposed death bed confession made by a Dragon in the KKK. So the above passage is no more weasle speak then the claims against Harding.

The point if people are going to link Harding to the mix race card using inuendo, then Harding should be afforded a defense. And in the future, if you're going to make a charge of Weasle words, please sign and date your post. Stude62 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this section is presented badly, though it has decent information. When I get the time, I'll analyze it more closely and think of possibly alternatives to some of the passages. It certainly could be more encyclopedic and NPOV. --Berserk798 02:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts all professor's claims as facts so it belongs in this article. This has already been accepted as a wikipedia policy. See Richard Jensen. 75.3.4.54 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please state that policy and provide a link to it? Not that I doubt you, but I would like see if what you claim really is in policy. 70.105.65.99 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted resectioning of Scandals page

I just wanted to give an explaination why I reverted the February edit by User:Hmains that resectioned the scandal section in the Harding article to the second section in the discussion of his Presidency. First, it makes no logical sense to present scandals involving cabinet officiers and agency heads prior to the section that names them. Secondly, unlike other Presidential biographies that list these matters towards the end of the articles, reverting the edit brings this Harding's article into line with other Presidential articles. Thirdly, there is no formal discussion on Harding's policies and focus as is done in other biographies - by moving the scandal section up in the article without a discussion of these policiy issues, it gives the appearance that administration accomplished nothing but the scandals, and implies POV. I'm not seeking to deminish the scandals which effected administration, but I also feel that the Presidential articles should be consistent in discussing the administration, its policies, its Cabinent and then present the other factors which effected it and effected its legacy. Stude62 14:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

a check of the other Presidents finds that all events occurring during their administrations (except deaths) are ahead of the appointments. What is missing from Harding's is any narrative about he actually did during his presidency. That put the scandels subsection as the first under the Administration section. The first should be an unwritten (so far) Events subsection. Any writers? Hmains 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I say, lets split the difference. Lets leave the administration scandal where you feel it should be and then peal off the personal scandal and place it in a different section headed as thus. Stude62 03:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Rampant" from scandals

I have removed the statement fom the scandal section that claimed scandals were rampant throughout the Harding administration, because it is an untrue, broad statement. Hoover, Mellon, Davis, Wallace all served on the cabinent, none were involved by scandal. While scandals did involve Forbes, Daugherty, Fall and Weeks, this doesn't denote "rampant". Furthermore, with the exception of those mentioned, and those reports who were also implicated in the bosses dealings, it has yet to be proven with verifiable information that Harding's administration was anymore scandalous than any other administration. I have no problem with the term "rampant" being used so long as it is qualified and applied to every other Presidential Administration. Stude62 19:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "President"

When is it correct to write President with a capital P, and when with a lower case p? I was about to make an edit changing "sixth president to die in office" to "sixth President to die in office", but then realised I don't know which is correct. Is there consensus? ConDem^Talk 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt the the follow was poorly worded; "claiming that Harding was "tainted by colored blood." Although this would not be considered a "scandal" in current times, it was so in the racist era of the time.", and changed it to say simply, "at the time"

The 1920 presidential election was the only presidential election in which the two major party nominees were office holders from the same state and had the same profession. Both men were from Ohio and were newspaper publishers.--I am not positive, but can someone check into the 1864 election of Jefferson and Lincoln, both from Kansas [objection: Lincoln was not from Kansas, which was not even settled when he was born], and both were senators! This may not count depending if you count DAvis's nomination to President of the Confederacy as the same as Lincolns, beacuse they were just rebels (also dpeneds if oyu consider them a seperate country.) Anyway just a thought.

Removal of web sites, re: African American rumors

I have removed the following paragraph from the biography because the claims made are false upon verification:

Although, in recent years very plausible information can be found on some websites. The Stewart Synopsis web site (http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/warren_gamaliel_harding.htm) gives some interesting details (although muddled at times) and family photos of the Harding family, many of whom are obviously of African heritage. Another interesting site is Warren G. G. Harding website (http://warrengharding.net) which also shows family photos and offers a few bits of information.

This was removed for a variety of reasons, the foremost of which is that it is unverifiable in public records or primary documents.

First, one web site takes it information from the other, and both have been on the web for sometime - so the claim that this is "new" demonstrates that it may be new for the person who included it, but it not newly discovered information. Simply because "information" appears on the web doesn't make it factual, it simply states what the web site author wants on the web.

Secondly, an example of the type of fantasy that "stewartsynopsis.com" promotes as true is that Harding could not find work in a "white" school. The source of this claim on the web site is the site manager's niece who made the claim in a high school essay - where is the proof in that? What are the sources? If there are any, I would love to see them. In fact, Harding's first job after graduating from Ohio Central College (Iberia, Ohio, archives of which are held at Muskingum College, New Concord, Ohio) was in the Marion Township public school system, Marion County Ohio - a system which was NEVER was segregated.

Thirdly, the web site also makes the claim that "Mary Harding-Norman & Warren Harding's father and brother (John & Charles) were brothers. As you can see, President Harding's first cousin is definitely not WHITE." This statement is not supported by verifiable information.

• • There are 850 Harding families enumerated in the United States Census in Ohio 1850.
  • There are 13 families enumerated in Ohio in 1850 who have George Harding, Warren G. Harding's fathers name, listed.
  • Warren G. Harding's father was George T. Harding, which is listed on his California death certificate, as well as many cited in numerous books, encyclopedias, and Presidential authorities.
  • George T. Harding (who was 6 in 1850 and born in Ohio) did have a brother Charles, who was born in Pennsylvania; there is no brother John Harding. The "color" of the members of the Harding family was not recorded as white, black or other on the census because the enumerator didn't denote such for the entire township.
  • In 1850, there are 5 (five) men with the name of Charles Harding listed in Ohio and 24 (twenty-four) with name of John Harding. There were also 26 women with the name Mary Harding.
  • Through 1840, the United States census only listed the head of house, others in the household were not named, but simply counted.
  • Births in Ohio were not required to recorded until 1867-69, and state issued birth certificates didn't exist until 1908-09. So it is impossible to draw a conclusive
  • How do we know that the "Mary Harding" in the picture is really named Mary Harding, let alone the sister of George T. Harding (Warren G. Harding's father) as either web site claims?

The web sites also state that in the "1850 Census - Hocking County, Ohio, Schedule I - Free Inhabitants in District 195, Number 195 In the County of Hocking 889 - Ass't Marshal #445, John, Mahala, Charles, Hester, Lucinda, Solomon, Ana, Harrison, and Mary Harding are listed as free inhabitants."

• • The 1850 Federal Census enumeration of Hocking County Ohio doesnot list any residents with the surname of "Harding", proving the above mentioned statement as being false.
  • A search of all of Ohio does NOT show were anyone named "Mary Harding" residing in/or near Hocking County Ohio.

But:

• • The 1850 Federal Census for Hocking County DOES list a "Charles HARDIN" and his family, the names of which do match the claim, However Hardin and Harding are not the same family surname.
  • Stewartsynopsis claims that this "Harding" family (the surname of which is HARDIN) were "Free-Inhabitants" implying that the term "Free Inhabitants" in some form or fashion indicates that they are people of color who are living freely. In fact all citizens living non-slave holding states, regardless of color, are enumerated as "Free Inhabitants".
  • Marshals and Assistent Marshals are named on each page of the census record, they are not identified simply by number. The "445" refers to a page number, not a person.

One other thing that disturbs me (aside from misinformation and the claims of conspiracy) on these web pages is that the relationships noted (cousins) seems to shift willy-nilly from first cousin, to third cousins, etc., from paragraph to paragraph with each "claim" of a relationship. For the record (and as a genealogist) the cousin relationships are established by Canon Law: Children sharing the same grandparents, are cousins, their children (who share the same Great Grandparents) are second cousins, their children (who share the Great Great Grandparents) are third cousins. One doesn't jump from First to Third cousins as the web site's "family tree" without there being a generation in between. When you add in that generation, the claimed dates don't add up correctly.

The bottom line is that both of these web sites are based on a desire to make a connection where none exists. Their own operators evidently feel the need to have a person of Black descent in the White House so badly that they make all sorts of claims; they can't get the facts for their logical argument straight. Their theories are faulty. Their claims, unverifiable. Their facts don't exist. That isn't good enough for Wikipedia or another source that claims to be truthful and factual. Stude62 15:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

senators becoming presidents

The article says that Harding was the second sitting Senator to be elected President. Then who was the first? I think Harding may in fact be the first.

---

Maybe Van Buren? He was sitting vice-president, which in a sense is a member of the Senate. If not, then I don't know who else it could be. Iglew (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Harding was the first. Benjamin Harrison had been a Senator, but his term was up the year before he was nominated for President. Time for a "fact" tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

An old book called Facts About the Presidents, by Joseph Nathan Kane, says on p.315 that Harding "was the second President elected while a Senator". Now to see who he thinks the first one was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He says that Monroe was the first Senator elected President, but that was some years after he was Senator. I'm not finding anyone who was "first President elected while a Senator". Old Joe might have messed this one up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's James A. Garfield. He was technically both a sitting Congressman and a sitting Senator or Senator-elect the same day he was elected President. Legally he couldn't serve more than one federal office, so he resigned his Senate seat as well as his House seat. The way things turned out, he'd have been better off taking the Senate seat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed both those guys articles to try to clear up this technicality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

---

This will only be the case until November when another senator will become President-Elect (either McCain or Obama). --Nixquick (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so making such a claim in the article is against the rules. Once the election happens, if one of these two men is elected, that will be a different story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GA failed

Mostly for a need of references altough these need to be assessed :

• At the conclusion of his term, Harding returned to private life should be clarified because everybody has a private life unless they are on camera 24/7.
• This text Harding was born on November 2, 1865, near Corsica, Ohio (now Blooming Grove, Ohio). Harding was the eldest of the eight children of Dr. George Harding and Phoebe Dickerson Harding. His heroes were Alexander Hamilton and Napoleon. needs to be re-worked.
• Harding converted the paper's editorial platform to support the Republicans and enjoyed a moderate degree of success. Who enjoyed the success?
• The couple complemented one another with Harding's affable personality balanced his wife's no-nonsense approach to life. This line needs some explanation.
• NOT FOR GA Events during Presidency, Supreme Court appointments and Trivia sections should be turned into prose. Lincher 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

From Rosenzweig's article:"We learn from the Harding biography that the socialist Norman Thomas was a paper boy for the Marion Daily Star (which Harding owned), that Harding reached the sublime degree as a Master Mason, and that Al Jolson and Mary Pickford came to Marion, Ohio, during the 1920 campaign for photo ops. It devotes two paragraphs to speculation about whether Harding had “Negro blood” and five paragraphs to his extramarital affairs. Meanwhile, key topics—domestic and foreign policies, the Sheppard-Towner Maternity and Infancy Act of 1921, immigration restriction, and naval treaties—are ignored or hurried over. ".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Claim Removed

A “{{fact}}” has been sitting, ignored, in this claim

To a friend, however, Harding confided that one of his ancestors may have “jumped the fence”, although Harding himself was never certain whether or not this was true.

after the “jumped the fence” clause, for over a week. —12.72.69.24 08:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

President Warren Harding

I thought Harding was the first sitting senator to be elected President and Kennedy was the second.63.65.68.246 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the beginning synopsis of the article does not include that Warren Harding is often ranked poorly by historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.167.67 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking style

I laughed until I nearly cried when I read Mencken's critque of Harding's use of English. I was not previously aware that George W. Bush had such an illustrious presidential predecessor in the fractured syntax department. Edeans 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mencken's poem is quite wonderful, but it's a poem. I'm not a native English speaker, but have I misunderstood something, because the sentence

"I would like the government to do all it can to mitigate, then, in understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common good, our tasks will be solved."

is quite intelligible to me? It's a straight implication sentence, that "if the government mitigates (3 secondary effects) then our tasks will be solved". That isn't a gaffe nor a garble by my mind. Better example of gaffe needed! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rursus... Actually, virtually every part of the speech is phrased awkwardly (or incomprehensibly) to a native English speaker. Yes, we know what he's trying to say: that if the government mitigates, then the problem will be solved. However, his point is couched in such ungrammatical and nonsensical phrasing as to be laughable. As an example, in English, a "task" is not something to be "solved". You could say a problem is to be solved, or that a task is to be accomplished, but "task" and "solve" simply don't fit together well (at least not to a native speaker of the language). So in this speech, Harding tried to pass himself off as literate and educated --- and failed miserably. 172.164.253.40 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This section needs to keep focused. This is an article on Warren G. Harding, not necessarily a course on proper English grammar. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)}

If language had pedigree, then English would be a mutt. It is a mixture of British, German, and French, a hodge-podge of dialects and languages. The English language is constantly changing; Shakespeare is no longer understandable to the modern English reader. We cannot fault Harding for his language blunders, but rather fault the English language itself as unable, at times, to adequately express human emotions and thoughts. Only a few persons such as Shakespeare have been able to master its intricacies and complications. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)}

Moved from article: the segment had many personal attacks against Harding: historical signifigance is debatable. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Although a commanding and powerful speaker, Harding was notorious for his verbal gaffes, such as his comment "I would like the government to do all it can to mitigate, then, in understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common good, our tasks will be solved." His errors were compounded by his insistence on writing his own speeches. Harding's most famous "mistake" was his use of the word "normalcy" when the more common word at the time was "normality." Harding decided he liked the sound of the word and made "Return to Normalcy" a recurring theme.

Harding's critic, H. L. Mencken, disagreed. He commented on Harding's inaugural address, "[Harding] writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash."

Mencken also coined the term "Gamalielese" to refer to Harding's distinctive style of speech, a mocking reference to Harding's middle name rather than a reference to any of the Biblical characters named Gamaliel. Upon Harding's death, poet E. E. Cummings said "The only man, woman or child who wrote a simple declarative sentence with seven grammatical errors is dead."

Vandalism

Harding was an influential newspaper publisher with a flair for public speaking before entering politics, first in the Ohio Senate (6969–6969) and later as lieutenant governor of Ohio (1903–1905).

1. 17:00, 4 November 2006 Toytoy
2. 13:51, 2 November 2006 216.138.170.250

It takes over 51 hours to correct this opening paragraph vandalism. -- Toytoy 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Harding Memorial/Monument in Stanley Park, Vancouver

I'm not sure that most Americans are even aware of this monument, or memorial or whatever it official is; it's in Stanley Park, Vancouver BC, where Harding died, in the area of the Rose Garden and the Vancouver Rowing Club. I'll try and get a picture of it to add to this page, if that's a propos, or maybe on a Stanley Park-related page, and put a link into this article. The monument is a semicircular terrace with a low wall on one side bearing a bas-relief or intaglio or engraving of Harding's profile, I'm not sure which, plus an engraved quotation of some kind. Given the American fascination with your Presidents, I'd think that if more American tourists knew about this monument it would probably have a lot more visitors.Skookum1 07:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not you can kinda sorta slightly see the memorial in Stanley Park on Google Earth. I am currently doing a University paper on the memorial, have visited it, photographed it, and am in possession of microfilmed-copied articles about its dedication. It’s not surprising most people do not know how to find the eighty-two year old memorial. It does not appear on any park signs (nor do other monuments, for that matter) and if one does not know where it is they will have a hard time finding it. Even if so, approaching this monument from the east or north you cannot see it almost until you are upon it thanks to the great foliage. Here’s how you find it: From the bus loop walk south past the Dining Pavilion until you come to the Malkin Bowl. The memorial overlooks the bowl from the eastern side. It is roughly eighteen meters long and therefore visible if one knows were to look. (Mchelada 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Unclear Wording

I'm not clear what is meant by saying, "In foreign affairs Harding liquidated World War I..." What does it mean to "liquidate" a war? The armistice was in 1918, with the Treaty of Versailles the following year. The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 is the only WWI-related item that fell within Harding's Presidency, so far as I can tell. If the last item is the referent, perhaps it would be better to say something like "Harding concluded the formalities of ending World War I." Lincmad 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Liquidate a war means signing peace treaties with Germany etc (which Harding did with The Treaty of Berlin between the United.States and Germany, August 25, 1921) and July 1921 US-Austria Peace Treaty. (The US Senate had rejected Versailles and US was still at war w Germany in 1921) It also means handling debt issue (1922). postwar naval treaties (1921) ending war agencies and war issues (eg pardoning Debs and others). Rjensen 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Liquidate is a silly word to use in the context. I've changed it. FiggyBee 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit

I took out "August 2, 1923) was an American politician and the 29th President of the United States, from 1921 to 1923. A Republican from the U.S. state of Ohio, Harding was an influential dicksucker with a huge wang and a nice ass for spanking. He served as a sex slave in the Ohio Senate (1899-1903) and later as lieutenant governor of Ohio (1903-1905). His political sexperiences were conservative.

At the conclusion of his term, Harding returned to private life, only to suck ten more trannys as a United States Senator (1915-1921), where he again had a relatively homosexual record, sucking off over two-thirds of Congress. A little known amatuer at the time of the 1920 Republican National Convention, Harding emerged as an influential lolita porn maker to become the presidential nominee for the porn industry. In the 1920 election, he defeated his Democratic opponent James M. Cox in a naked pillow fight in the oval office, 69 % to 31 % (404 to 127 in the electoral college), becoming the first gay president to win office after a naked pillow fight." I am not sure what the article looked like before that, so if anyone wants to go back and check to see if any information is now missing, that would be nice. --Selective.yellow 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First president to visit Alaska

there is a citation needed tag... is this good enough?

from: university of Alaska: http://www.alaska.edu/creatingalaska/calendar/calendar.xml also this NY times article refers to Alaska visit: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/elections/1920/harding.html -Obrez 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate child(ren)?

A couple of days ago I read an interview with jazz musician Joe Rigby in Cadence Magazine. He claims his maternal great-grandfather is President Harding. I'll present a quotation here for fellow editors to use, debunk or ignore:

“

My mom's name is Catherine Fedder Harding. Her father, my grandfather, was the illegitimate son of President Warren Harding.

”

(Source info: Morris, Roy (2007), "Joe Rigby Interview", Cadence Magazine, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 5–12, ISSN 01626973) Rigby is an African-American, so assuming his allegation is true it casts Harding's alleged Klan membership in a curious light (to say the least). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the same article, but I found a copy of the quote here (scroll down to Joe Rigby section). Interesting, if true, but one big question is how Harding (who does not appear to have left Ohio much) could father a child who appears to have moved to North Carolina at some point. That move is possible, of course, but without further evidence, I'm skeptical.--Idols of Mud 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the author and the Cadence interviewer are the same person: "Roy Morris" is credited at the top of that webpage and the text is followed by the initials "RM". Always nice and confusing when a writer uses the same source material to write an article in one publication and an interview in another. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did President Harding have any children with his wife?

Section missing

What happened to that bit about Harding's effectiveness as President, I thought it was a rather good critique so why was it removed?--Edchilvers 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

question

I take history in high school as i was preparing for my ap hsitory exam coming up i was reading this chapter about Mr. Harding is it true that whenever the K street Ohio gang asked him anything he could never refuse them?--Missionimpossible 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Extramarital affairs

Mrs. Phillips threatened to go public with their affair if the Senator supported the war, but Harding defied her and voted for war, and Carrie did not reveal the scandal to the world. When Harding won the Republican presidential nomination in 1920, he did not disclose the relationship to party officials. Once they learned of the affair, it was too late to find another nominee. To reduce the likelihood of a scandal breaking, the Republican National Committee sent Phillips and her family on a trip to Japan and paid them over $50,000. She also received monthly payments thereafter, becoming the first and only person known to have successfully extorted money from a major political party.

The overseas trip and "gifts" from the RNC surely were intended to assure her silence and to prevent any renewed threat of revealing the affair. However, no evidence is offered to support the statement that Phillips renewed such threats or that she initiated the payments through blackmail or extortion. Absent any evidence to support this, the claim that she committed extortion strikes one as unfounded speculation and should be removed.

The letters Harding wrote to Mrs. Phillips were confiscated at the request of the Harding heirs, who requested and received a court injunction prohibiting their inclusion in Russell's book. Russell in turn left quoted passages from the letters as blank passages in protest against the Harding heirs' actions. The Harding-Phillips love letters remain under an Ohio court protective order that expires in 2023, 100 years after Harding's death, after which the content of the letters may be published or reviewed.

This may or may not be relevant to the article, but my own curiosity begs the question as to the legal basis under which the Ohio court permitted Mrs. Phillips property — to wit, letters written to her by Harding — to be confiscated and concealed from public view. Furthermore, what legal basis exists for these letters to remain sealed for another 16 years. Has this ever been challenged? JonRoma 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The letters have been deemed to be outside of US Copyright protection and form the basis for the book The Harding Affair (Palgrave-Macmillian) by James Robenalt, due in bookstores after 9/1/2009. 68.252.62.180 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am moving part of this section to talk page due to inadequate sourcing and in an effort to summarize the segment:

Rumors of the Harding love letters circulated through Marion, Ohio, for many years. However, their existence was not confirmed until 1968, when author Francis Russell gained access to them during his research for his book, The Shadow of Blooming Grove. The letters were in the possession of Phillips. Phillips kept the letters in a box in a closet and was reluctant to share them. Russell persuaded her to relent, and the letters showed conclusively to Russell that Harding had a 15-year relationship with Phillips, who was then the wife of his friend James Phillips, owner of the local department store, the Uhler-Phillips Company. Mrs. Phillips was almost eight years younger than Harding. By 1915, she began pressing Harding to leave his wife. When he refused, she left her husband and moved to Berlin with her daughter Isabel. However, as the United States became increasingly likely to be drawn into World War I, Mrs. Phillips moved back to the U.S. and the affair reignited. Harding was now a U.S. Senator, and a vote was coming up on a declaration of war against Germany.

Phillips threatened to go public with their affair if the Senator supported the war, but Harding defied her and voted for war, and Phillips did not reveal the scandal to the world. When Harding won the Republican presidential nomination in 1920, he did not disclose the relationship to party officials. Once they learned of the affair, it was too late to find another nominee. To reduce the likelihood of a scandal breaking, the Republican National Committee sent Phillips and her family on a trip to Japan and paid them over $50,000. She also received monthly payments thereafter, becoming the first and only person known to have successfully extorted money from a major political party in the United States.

The letters Harding wrote to Phillips were confiscated at the request of the Harding heirs, who requested and received a court injunction prohibiting their inclusion in Russell's book. Russell in turn left quoted passages from the letters as blank passages in protest against the Harding heirs' actions. The Harding-Phillips love letters remain under an Ohio court protective order that expires in 2023, 100 years after Harding's death, after which the content of the letters may be published or reviewed.

Besides Phillips, Harding also allegedly had an affair with Nan Britton, the daughter of Harding's friend Dr. Britton of Marion. Britton's claim that he had fathered her child was widely circulated in the years just after Harding's death. This is often repeated as a "fact" about Harding, but it has not been proven to the satisfaction of most historians. Robert H. Ferrell's 1998 reappraisal of Harding, The Strange Deaths of Warren G. Harding, found no evidence of an illegitimate child.

Nan Britton's obsession with Harding started at an early age when she began pasting pictures of Senator Harding on her bedroom walls. According to Britton's book The President's Daughter, she and Senator Harding conceived a daughter, Elizabeth Ann, in January 1919, in his Senate office. Elizabeth Ann was born on October 22, 1919. Harding never met Elizabeth Ann but paid large amounts of child support. Harding and Britton, according to unsubstantiated reports, continued their affair while he was President, using a closet next to the Oval Office for privacy. Following Harding's death, Britton unsuccessfully sued the estate of Warren G. Harding on behalf of Elizabeth Ann. Under cross-examination by Harding heirs' attorney, Grant Mouser (a former member of Congress himself), Britton's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, and she lost her case. Britton married a Mr. Christian, who adopted Elizabeth Ann. In adulthood, Elizabeth Ann married Henry Blaesing and raised a family. During most of her life she shied from press coverage about her alleged birthright, and refused requests for interviews in her later years. She died on November 17, 2005, in Oregon.

Served alcohol?

If I recall correctly, Prohibition didn't actually make it illegal to drink alcohol. It just made the sale, distribution, and manufacture illegal. If you had, for example, a bottle of whiskey from before Prohibition, you could still drink it. Under this (albeit sketchy) recollection of mine, wouldn't Harding's actions be legal? Bite the Wax Tadpole 02:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Gross POV

From what I understand, most of the rumors regarding Harding, some of which are stated here almost as fact, have been dispelled by the release of his presidential papers to the public. Additionally, Harding's administration is probably the most frugal in American history. These accomplishments should at least be given mention. At best, a POV tag needs to be added. I have no idea how to do this, and I'm not concerned enough to find out, but if someone has the time and know-how, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.139.141 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Better than a generic POV tag would be some specific references to reliable sources that dispel the "rumors regarding Harding" and document his administration's frugality. —Adavidb 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully Representative Elections

AlanEisen (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Should this article include a statement similar to "the first to be elected in fully representative democratic elections"? Harding was the first President elected after voting rights for African Americans and women.