THE MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF WARREN HARDING
Read the article this discussion is about
- Tina_Coruth
- Mugwump53
- Mugwump53
- FortBrooke1824
- stude62
- stude62
- stude62
- Brandogyrl
- Nelson214
- 41steele
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Tina_Coruth - Hi John,
Hi John,This is a fascinating article. I enjoyed reading it very much. I, too, wonder if Mrs. Harding poisoned him. Very interesting. Thanks!
Tina
-- posted by Tina_Coruth
» Mugwump53 - Did She or Didn't She?
Hello, Jerri and Tina. I glad you both liked the article. We will never know exactly what happened. I read the book by Gaston Means and the more I read about Mrs. Harding, the more I think she was very capable of doing something like that.I once had the great-nephew (or something like that) of Warren Harding in my class. I had to be very careful what I said about Harding.
This has always been to me one of the more intriguing White House stories. Thanks for dropping in, and thanks for letting me know you liked the article.
-- posted by Mugwump53
» FortBrooke1824 - I agree with jerri........
I agree with jerri you should write history books Mug. I have friends that have been published and it is expensive but after the first one, it's down hill from there. I agree we may never know however with things being as they are today we might. LOL DNA and all. I think she had a motive, a means, and a way out. It would not surprise me if OJ Simpson was the real killer. And it would not surprise me if Mrs. Harding did not tell all she knew.-- posted by FortBrooke1824
» stude62 - This simply isn't accurate.
Mr. Cooper-Upon finding your article, and reading it, I find that your emphasis on speculation and reliance on sensationalism robs this article of its reliability as a truely factual document. While I do not see a realtionship to Charles Mee Jr., the Ohio Gang, I do find that you article takes the same tone as that book.
First: In the body of your argument, you claim that had Harding lived, he would have impeached. While Harding did not immediatly report the Forbes affair, he did seek counsel from Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover on the matter and Hoover did inform the President on his legal duty to report and investigate the V.A. scandal. This is speculation, it is not fact as you present it.
Furthermore, there is documented proof (I would refer you Robert Ferrell's outstanding book, The Strange Deaths of President Harding) That Harding not only did NOT condone Forbes behaviors, but unpon finding out those behavior he was enraged that Forbes has committed the crimes, calling him a "yellow-dog" and demanding his resignation.
Secondly: You imply that Harding's Administration was THE most corrupt Presidential administration, ever. This is easily refuted - while three members of Harding's Cabinet (Fall, Daughtery and the Secretary of the Navy) were found to have used their position for self gain, only Albert Fall was convicted for his role in Teapot Dome; the firs cabinet official to ever be sent to prison. Charges against Daugherty were never proved. As for Forbes, he was not a member of the cabinet and he was found guilty of his crimes.
Given that President Richard Nixon knew of and condoned the Watergate break-ins, and that several of Nixon's key advisors were involved with the President in the crime and its cover-ups, I would say that the Nixon Administration has the legal backing of such a claim.
Thirdly, your article, like most, lacks any factual information about the accomplishments of the administration. Harding established the Department of Veterans Affairs, balanced the budget, and called for regulation of the air (FAA) and the air-waves (FCC). Harding also was the firs sitting President to ever give an anti-lynching speech in the deep south as he did in Birmingham Alabama.
Warren G. Harding was never a perfect man, but he was never the type clueless criminal that you paint him to be. Unfortunatly, these types articles do not clairfy history so much as they continue to confuse the American people about their own history.
-- posted by stude62
» stude62 - Re: Did She or Didn't She?
In response to Did She or Didn't She? posted by Mugwump53:There is no primary source documentation to back this claim. Harding was under constant medical supervision in San Francisco - a round a clock nurse was with the President as were the physcians and Mrs. Harding.
While the theory that she in some way had a hand in his death makes for juicy speculation, there simply is no proof to prove it. And as with anything juicy, usually the person eating it ends up with dirty hands and a mess on themselves.
-- posted by stude62
» stude62 - Re: Did She or Didn't She? Balderdash!
In response to Did She or Didn't She? posted by Mugwump53:Allow me to ask this question - do you reply upon the National Enquirer for your news, or the New York Times?
The difference between Gaston Means charecter assissination on Warren G. Harding (the ghost written "The Strange Death of President Harding") and Robert Ferrell's the Strange Deaths of President Harding (note the play on words) is the difference between pouring pure sugar down your gullet or eating what is best for the body. Means simply gave his ghost writer - a former tabloid writer - vague recollections; Ferrell relied upon primary source material which resulted in a well researched, well documented and well written book. I might add that Means was found guilty for grand larceny when he defrauded Evalyn Walsh McLean out of money that Means claimed would pay the ransom on the Linburgh baby - he died in prison.
I have always found that when people know the truth, they do not fear the truth as do those who think they have the facts right. Side-stepping the issue in front of the Harding heir was a very telling action.
SJK
-- posted by stude62
» Brandogyrl - Re: It's a shame...
I continue to hear so much conflicting information regarding not only the death of President Harding, but also his life and presidency. I became interested in President Harding after watching a special on the Presidents of the United States, which I felt was somewhat unfair to Harding. There seems to be a consistent tone of disdain for the man. A man so beloved before and at the time of death, and so reviled after the scandals were brought to the forefront. Harding himself was not involved in the scandals of his administration but because he associated with such unsavory characters people seemingly began to have an unsavory view of him, coupled with stories of his infidelity and alleged fathering of an illegitimate child. He was not a perfect man, he had countless infidelities and quite frankly he wasn't the smartest man (he spoke often of his limitations), and he wasn't the most effective leader--but I don't think he was incompetent. I don't think he was a great, near great, or even good President, which by his own admission, he never intended to be. But he did have some significant achievements during his brief 2 year administration--but unfortunately there was more scandal than achievement. I just saddens me when I read so many vitriolic and unkind statements about a man who was so friendly and kindly (although these same qualities ultimately led to his undoing). It just seems like everyone has a personal agenda. It's almost like it has become sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, "Oh, everyone says he was trash so let me trash him too". The man died without an opportunity to defend himself against attacks. It seems much that was written about him was soon after his death and was based largely on rumor and half truths or not truth at all. And yet many of the subsequent biographies relied heavily on these works. And President Harding's wife, Florence Harding, (a great woman, who adored President Harding--despite his infidelities) has also unfortunately and undeservedly become vilified.The true tragedy is that President Harding died before he could finish his term and defend his honor. Had he lived I believe he would have been able to dissociate himself from the scandal in his administration, been forgiven by the American people and been re-elected. Who knows what kind of President he would have evolved into. But he died and as a result, became defenseless, and unless more is written about him--well let me be more clear--more is written about him that relies on fact and not second hand information and gossip, then I don't believe his reputation will ever be salvaged. Understandably, President Harding is not the most interesting or a very distinguished subject--but the man deserves to have a more extensive, non-partisan, unbiased, middle ground biography. So much remains unexplained and assumed about Harding and it is wholly unfair. So many just dismiss him saying--"oh well he wasn't an important president", "He was a bore", "He was a joke", "He was a boob". Regardless of what he was or was not, he was President of the United States of America and doesn't deserve to be treated so shabbily.
-- posted by Brandogyrl
» Nelson214 - Re: Re: It's a shame...
In response to Re: It's a shame... posted by Brandogyrl:Thank you for the very frank opinion you express questioning the validity President Hardings' historical character slaughter. When I learned as a gradeschooler that I shared last names with a president I was overwhelmed with pride. So of course I liked to brag a bit, wanting to be recognized. Over the years I have suffered embarassment that I might be related (if only in name) to one who (allegedly) was such a poor example of service to the people of this country. But still I like to say to my grandchildren "yes, there was a president named Harding". I have watched with interest many programs highlighting his political career. I have often wondered about the mysterious goings on at the higher levels of government. There are things we will likely never know about the political goings on of his time or any time in our history. We also recogise that anytime things are kept locked up and unavailable to the public at large there is a reason. Why do we always assume the worst? Even though it is possible. I just wonder if the horse President Harding tried to put a bit in and bridle on could not be led about and was a bit wild from the start. I venture to say, since he was in the public media business (newspapers). That he was used to trying to seek public recognition. If you can't handle the negative as well as the positive and you speak of yourself as less than equal in reasoning ability, usually it will be self prophetic, ending in failure. Depression, is a common result and death often follows whether at the hands of someone else or at your own hands. Mental suicide also can become physical through the use of alcohol and or drugs, which also results in physical death. Let the mystery remain. Let it stand as a lesson to those seeking to be recognised. I think I would like to read the article that Mrs. Harding read to him. I'm sure it pleased him to hear something positive for a change.
Thanks again!
Nelson
-- posted by Nelson214
» 41steele - Warren G. Harding
Professor Robert H. Ferrell has clearly shown that President Harding was sick with heart disease during 1923. His death at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco resulted from a heart attack. Speculation that he was poisoned by his adoring wife is without any evidence. It seems that any wild acusation about President Harding is trumpeted by political pornographers who deal harshly with him, but ignore his administration and the policy foundations that he laid for the prosperous 1920's.Instead of focusing on scandals created by cabinet members on their own, serious students should consider the issues of the time (lynching, peace,and prosperity) and compare Harding's approach to them with his presidential contemparies: Presidents T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, and F. Roosevelt.
-- posted by 41steele
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.