You might know him as one of America's, well,
let's say worst presidents. That name, Warren
G. Harding, often pops up alongside words like
scandal and failure. Right. But here's the twist.
What if we told you that during his time in office,
he was actually one of the most popular presidents
in U .S. history? Exactly. It's a real contradiction.
So today we're taking a deep dive into the fascinating
and often contradictory life of Warren G. Harding,
the 29th president of the United States. Quite
a story. You've got this layer cake of initial
public adoration, then this incredibly swift,
dramatic historical decline. And now even some
serious reassessments by historians. Our mission
with this deep dive is really to sift through
all those complex layers. From Harding's pre
-humble Ohio beginnings, his surprising rise
to power right up to the sudden kind of tragic
end of his presidency. And everything they came
out after. And everything that came out after,
the posthumous revelations that just irrevocably
shaped his legacy. We're here to extract the
most important nuggets, uncover some maybe surprising
facts, and help you understand how one person's
reputation can be so dramatically rewritten by
history. Absolutely. We've gathered quite a bit
of material on Harding, his personal life, which
is eventful. To say the least. His journey from
being a small town newspaper editor, all the
way to the White House. We'll look at his policy
achievements, and yes, let's be honest, his significance
stumbles too. And the infamous scandals, of course,
the ones that really only blew up after he died.
Right. So we'll explore that initial public love
he had, then the steep decline in how history
viewed him and these more recent efforts by historians
to maybe see his complex record in a new light.
And this isn't just, you know, a dry historical
biography. It's really a look at how leadership,
public perception, political maneuvering, even,
well, personal flaws, foibles. Exactly. How all
that can truly define a presidency. It's a powerful
illustration of how time and new information
coming to light can completely change how we
understand someone from the past. So get ready
to maybe challenge some assumptions and discover
the man behind the myths that have stuck to him
for, well, for decades now. Let's start at the
beginning. Not just a birthplace, but maybe the
crucible that forged the man who would become
president. Warne G. Harding's early life in Ohio.
It feels like a rich tapestry of experiences
that, looking back, clearly shaped his unique
path. Definitely. Born Warren Gamaliel Harding,
November 2, 1865, in rural Blooming Grove, Ohio,
eldest of eight kids, apparently his family called
him Winnie. Winnie, okay. So what was it about
those roots that, you know, set him apart or
pointed him towards this future? Well, his family
background was pretty diverse. His father, George
Tryon Harding, they called him Tryon. He was
a farmer, a school teacher, later even a doctor.
Wow, busy guy. Right. And his mother, Phoebe
Elizabeth, was a state -licensed midwife. So
you have this grounding in rural practicality,
but also a broader social awareness. They were
also abolitionists, which is significant for
the time. And their ancestry. also quite diverse,
traced back to England, but also Welsh, Scottish,
and even some Dutch roots from a wealthy family
called Van Kirk. So this environment probably
gave him an understanding of different kinds
of people, different social strata, and definitely
a sense of community. So a foundation of maybe
practical skills and a relatively progressive
outlook for the era. And from these humble beginnings,
he pretty quickly developed a nose for news,
literally. Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
By age 11, he's already learning the ropes of
the newspaper business. He worked for his father's
weekly paper, The Argus, in Caledonia. That's
where the family moved in 1870. And he was a
good student, too. Seems so, yeah. A depth student
at Ohio Central College, enrolled when he was
just 14. And during his final year there, he
even co -published a small local paper, The Iberia
Spectator. Graduated in 1882, moved to Marion,
Ohio. This early deep dive into journalism, that
feels really significant, doesn't it? It's profoundly
significant. I mean, think about it. To this
day, Harding is the only U .S. president with
full -time journalism experience. Wow. I didn't
realize that. Only one. Only one. And it's not
just a trivia point. It fundamentally shaped
how he communicated, how he understood public
opinion, his whole approach to politics. He learned
how to, you know, read the pulse of a community,
how to craft messages that landed. He was involved
in the community beyond the paper, too. Oh, yeah.
Join the Free Baptist Church in Marion. in 1883,
served as a trustee for 25 years, stayed a member
his whole life. Seems like that community connection
was always important to him. Okay, so here's
where we see that maybe audacious ambition really
start to show. After college, he tries a few
things teaching, insurance, law, nothing really
sticks. Then at just 18 years old, he makes this
huge gamble. He raises $300, which back then
was a lot of money, like over $10 ,000 today.
A substantial sum, yeah. to purchase The Marion
Star, this struggling daily newspaper. It was
the weakest of the three papers in Marion at
the time. A real underdog paper. Definitely.
And he even used a perk of being a newspaper
owner, a railroad pass, to go to the 1884 Republican
National Convention, supported James G. Blaine.
So this wasn't just a business venture, was it?
It feels like his first step into that bigger
political world. Absolutely. But it wasn't an
easy start by any means. He gets back from Chicago,
finds out the sheriff had reclaimed the paper
because he couldn't make the payments. Ouch.
Yeah. He even had to briefly work for a Democratic
paper, which apparently he hated before he managed
to get full ownership back with some financial
help from his father. That early tenacity, though.
It's striking. Sticking with it despite those
setbacks shows a kind of stubborn resolve. It
really does. And it paid off as Marion started
booming. The population jumped from about 4 ,000
in 1880 to 12 ,000 by 1900. And as Marion grew,
the star's success grew right alongside it. And
he was smart about how he grew it. His editorial
strategy was, well... Pretty clever. He kept
the Daily Star kind of tempered, non -partisan,
but then circulated a separate weekly edition
that was moderately Republican. Ah, best of both
worlds. Exactly. It attracted advertisers from
all sides and eventually eliminated the local
competition. He basically turned it into a local
powerhouse. One biographer, Andrew Sinclair,
called it a real Horatio Alger story. Started
with nothing. Right. through, as Sinclair put
it, working, stalling, bluffing, withholding
payments, borrowing back wages, boasting and
manipulating. He turned this dying rag into a
powerful small town newspaper. Sounds like a
mix of hard work and maybe some sharp elbows.
Definitely. Sinclair credits his good looks,
affability, enthusiasm and persistence, plus
a bit of good fortune. But he wasn't just the
owner. He was an activist in the community. invested
in local businesses, and used his editorial page,
as John Dean noted, to keep his nose and a prodding
voice in all the town's public business. And
that deep understanding of public sentiment honed
right there at the star, you can see how that
would be a huge asset later in politics. He knew
how to talk to people, gauge their interests,
present ideas in a way they'd respond to, even
if critics later found his speeches a bit vague.
Right, the bloviating will get to that. And he
was successful financially, too. Oh, yeah. By
1923, when he died, his estate was worth about
$850 ,000. That's nearly $15 .7 million in today's
money. So the business side definitely worked
out. OK. You really can't talk about Warren Harding
without talking about Florence Kling -Harding,
often called the Duchess. The Duchess? She was
five years older than him, daughter of this local
banker, Emmis Kling. who Harding apparently attacked
frequently in his newspaper. Awkward. Very. And
Florence, she had a bit of a past herself. She'd
eloped, came back to Marion with an infant son,
Marshall, who her father ended up raising. And
she was making a living as a piano teacher. So
their match was definitely unlikely. And her
father, Amos Kling, was fiercely against it.
spread rumors that the Hardings had African -American
ancestry, a really toxic thing to do back then,
and even encouraged boycotts of Harding's businesses.
Wow. How did Harding react to that? Well, reportedly,
Harding warned Kling he would, quote, beat the
tar out of the little man if he didn't cease.
Strong words. Yikes. Quite the family drama.
It's an incredibly dramatic backdrop for a future
president and first lady, isn't it? And it's
worth noting just on those ancestry rumors, genetic
testing much later in 2015, determined with about
95 percent accuracy that Harding didn't have
Sub -Saharan African ancestors within four generations.
So those rumors were effectively debunked, but
they show the kind of racial animosity that was
just, well, present. So despite all that opposition,
they got married. They did. July 8th, 1891, they
had no children together. Harding affectionately
called her Duchess, apparently after a character
in a newspaper serial who kept a close watch
on the Duke and their money. And she lived up
to the name. Oh, absolutely. Florence became
deeply involved in his career, both at the Star
and later in politics. She's widely credited
with really turning the Star into a profitable
business through her super strict management
of the circulation department. So she had a real
head for business. Absolutely. Some people even
suggest she basically pushed him all the way
to the White House. Florence herself apparently
said, he does well when he listens to me and
poorly when he does not. Huh. Sounds like she
knew her mind. She certainly did. And her influence
was critical, especially when Harding had health
issues. He had these periods described as fatigue,
overstrain, nervous illnesses, even an early
heart ailment. This was early on. Yeah. Between
1889 and 1901, he had repeated stays at the Battle
Creek Thanatorium for these issues. And while
he was away, Florence stepped right in. She took
over the business management of the Star. Wow.
She held that role until 1915, which was absolutely
crucial because it freed him up for his growing
political travel and activities. She wasn't just
a supportive spouse. She was a genuine business
partner, a political partner, a real force. It
really makes you wonder, doesn't it? How many
politicians, especially back then, had such an
active hands on partner who was that instrumental
in their rise? Her strategic mind, her resolve
seems foundational. So with Florence really managing
things back home and at the paper, Harding turned
his ambition more seriously towards politics.
Right. After buying the star, he didn't waste
much time, quickly aligned himself with the Republican
Party, supported Governor Joseph B. Foraker's
successful run in 1885. He was a real party loyalist,
it seems. Definitely. That loyalty would define
a lot of his early career. By 1888, he's just
22, and he's already a delegate to the Republican
state convention, a role he held pretty often
until he became president. His first actual election
attempt didn't go so well, though. No, he lost
a bid for Marion County auditor in 1895, but
apparently he did better than expected, which
maybe gave him some encouragement. Then in 1896,
he campaigned hard across Ohio for William McKinley,
the Republican presidential candidate. That's
when he really started making a name for himself
within those Ohio party circles. And what stands
out is how consistently he kept pursuing that
political path, even with those early bumps.
Yeah. And his ability to, you know, maintain
good relationships across different party factions
was a huge asset. He managed to stay on good
terms with both the dominant Republican factions
in Ohio, the ones led by Sen. Senator Fouracre
and Senator Mark Hannah. That takes skill. It
really does. Speaks to his, well, his affable
nature, his pragmatic approach. It served him
very well. And that affability definitely helped
him get elected to the Ohio State Senate in 1899.
Started out as a relative unknown, but after
four years. He ended up as one of the most popular
figures in the Ohio Republican Party. Known for
being calm, humble, the guy you could consult
on tricky problems. He was so well -liked, he
got re -nominated in 1901 and more than doubled
his victory margin. This was also when he became
a Freemason. Yes. Initiated into Marion Lodge
No. 7 in 1901, just another way he deepened those
community and network ties. Now his rise in Ohio
politics, it all shows something about the era,
right? Patronage and favors. Oh, absolutely.
You have to see it in context. Like many politicians
back then, Harding accepted these things as just
part of the political landscape. It wasn't necessarily
seen as overtly corrupt in the way we might view
it today. Like the example of his sister. Right.
He arranged for his legally blind sister, Mary,
to be appointed as a teacher at the Ohio School
for the Blind, even though there were apparently
better qualified candidates. His biographer,
Sinclair, suggested Harding probably never thought
there was anything really dishonest about that.
It was just seen as a normal reward for party
service. Important context to keep in mind. And
speaking of connections, a really crucial meeting
happened around this time, early 1903. Yes. He
meets Harry M. Daugherty, the man who would become
his attorney general. key political fixer, his
campaign manager. And Daugherty had that famous
quote after meeting him. He did. Gee, what a
great -looking president he'd make. Pretty amazing,
looking back. Whether it was genuine foresight
or just sizing up Harding's, you know, appearance
and manner, it certainly proved prescient. The
pivotal connection, for sure. So Harding's next
step was lieutenant governor. That's right, from
1904 to 1906. He'd initially planned to run for
governor in 03, but got persuaded to go for lieutenant
governor instead. Running on this 4 -H ticket
with Governor Myron T. Herrick, they won easily.
And it was a good spot for him. Seems like it.
While Governor Herrick made some unpopular decisions,
Harding, as lieutenant governor, had little to
do and he did it very well. He used his role
presiding over the state Senate to just keep
expanding his political network quietly without
attracting negative attention. Smart. Just building
those connections. Did he try for governor again?
He wanted to in 1905, but the party leaders blocked
him, so maybe a missed opportunity there. But
he kept navigating these tricky Republican factions.
In 1908, for the presidential primary, he initially
backed his old patron, Fouracre, against Teddy
Roosevelt's chosen successor, William Howard
Taft. But he quickly felt the heat, as the sources
say, the political pressure. And he reversed
course in the star. endorsing Taft instead. A
pragmatic move that probably saved his political
career because Foraker ended up losing badly.
Shows those political survival instincts again.
Loyalty is important, but knowing when to shift...
is key for advancement. Exactly. But even with
his popularity, he still faced defeat. He won
the Republican nomination for governor in 1910
with Dardee managing the campaign. But the party
was split. Badly split between the progressive
wing and the conservative wing. Even though both
President Taft and former President Roosevelt
campaigned for him, their own feud was tearing
the party apart. So Harding lost to the incumbent
Democrat Judson Harmon. Man, those party splits
were brutal. So what happened in 1912 when Taft
and Roosevelt went head to head? Carding stayed
loyal to the party, the regular Republican ticket.
Taft asked him to give the speech nominating
him at the convention, which was incredibly divided
and bitter. He actually did it. Nominated Taft
against Roosevelt. He did. Even as Roosevelt
supporters were bolting to form the Progressive
Party, the Bull Moose Party, which guaranteed
Woodrow Wilson's victory. Harding stuck with
the Republican ticket. He was a party man through
and through, even when it meant going down with
the ship, prioritizing that party unity, which,
you know, would make him look good later as a
potential unifier. OK, let's jump ahead to 1914.
The whole game has changed in Ohio politics by
then. Right. We've got the 17th Amendment ratified.
So senators are now directly elected. by the
people, not chosen by the legislature. And Ohio
had also started using primary elections. So
Harding decides to run for the U .S. Senate.
Well, he was urged to run after the sitting congressman
Theodore Burton dropped out. And Harry Daugherty
naturally claimed he was the one who pushed Harding
into the race. Of course he did. And Harding's
campaign strategy. It was described as sweetness
and light. The idea was to offend nobody except
Democrats. Play to his strengths at affable,
agreeable personality. And it worked in the primary.
He beat his old patron, Fouracre, by a pretty
comfortable margin. Now, the general election,
that had a bit of an unpleasant side to it. It
did. And it's revealing about the times. His
opponent was the Ohio attorney general, Timothy
Hogan, who was Roman Catholic. And he faced just
widespread nativist prejudice, especially in
rural parts of the state. Propaganda linking
him to the pope and stuff. Exactly. These propaganda
sheets were claiming Hogan was part of some plot
by Pope Benedict X and fifth to control Ohio.
Just ugly stuff. Now, Harding himself didn't
personally attack Hogan. They were actually old
friends. But he didn't condemn the prejudice
either. No. He did not denounce the nativist
hatred for his opponent. He stayed silent on
it. Politically smart, maybe, in that climate,
but it's an interesting reflection on his character
and how deeply ingrained those prejudices were.
Yeah, that's uncomfortable to look back on. But
his overall style worked. It seemed to. His conciliatory
approach, combined with what sources describe
as his rambling, high -sounding mixture of platitudes,
patriotism, and pure nonsense stump speeches.
Pure nonsense. Well, that's one description,
but whatever it was, it resonated. He won by
over 100 ,000 votes. It was part of a big Republican
sweep in Ohio that year. So off to Washington
he went. And in the Senate. He wasn't exactly
a firebrand, was he? No, not at all. He was a
junior senator. Republicans were in the minority.
Congress was controlled by the Democrats under
President Wilson. So Harding got relatively unimportant
committee assignments, but apparently he did
his duties assiduously. diligently. Just kept
his head down and did the work. Oh, pretty much.
He was known as a safe, conservative, Republican
vote. Yeah. And just like in the Ohio Senate,
he quickly became really well -liked by his colleagues
on both sides of the aisle. That congenial nature
was a real asset in the Senate. And he started
taking positions on some big national issues,
like women's suffrage and prohibition. Yeah,
and his positions were often quite nuanced, pragmatic
maybe. On women's suffrage, initially he said
he couldn't support it until Ohio did. Standard
political hedging. But he came around. He did.
As support grew nationally and in Ohio, he became
a firm supporter by the time Congress actually
voted on the amendment. Shows he was responsive
to public opinion shifts. And prohibition. That
must have been tricky for someone who apparently
enjoyed a drink. Very tricky. He personally drank,
yes, initially voted against banning alcohol,
but then when the 18th Amendment came up, he
voted for it, but only after getting a time limit
added for ratification, hoping that would kill
it. Clever. Maybe too clever. Well, it didn't
work. The amendment got ratified anyway. So then
he voted to override President Wilson's veto
of the Volstead Act, the law that actually implemented
prohibition. Why? Probably to secure the support
of the very powerful anti -saloon league. Wow.
That's some serious political maneuvering. Keep
everyone happy, or at least not too angry. Exactly.
It really shows his political pragmatism. Adapt
your stance, read the room, don't alienate key
groups. Crucial skills if you're thinking about
higher office. And his profile kept rising within
the party. He got a prime spot at the 1916 Republican
National Convention. He did. Asked to be temporary
chairman and deliver the keynote address, he
used it to preach party unity, urging delegates
to stand together. That would become his big
theme later. The convention ended up nominating
Charles Evans Hughes. Then came World War I.
Where did Harding stand? He spoke and voted for
Wilson's resolution declaring war in April 1917.
Initially, he was pretty gung -ho about supporting
the president in wartime, even argued for giving
Wilson almost dictatorial powers, saying democracy
had little place in time of war. Strong words.
Did he support all the war measures? Mostly.
He voted for things like the Espionage Act, which
really restricted civil liberties, but he did
oppose the excess profits tax on businesses,
seeing it as anti -business. By May 1918, though,
his enthusiasm for Wilson had cooled and he started
opposing further expansion of presidential powers.
OK, so his views evolved. Now, the League of
Nations debate after the war. This feels like
a really defining moment for him. Absolutely
pivotal. Republicans narrowly won back control
of the Senate in the 1918 midterms and Harding
landed a spot on the really important Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Just as Wilson was
coming back from Paris with the Treaty of Versailles.
Exactly. And Wilson made this huge political
blunder. He didn't take any senators, Republican
or Democrat, with him to the Paris Peace Conference.
He was supremely confident he could just force
the treaty and the League of Nations through
the Senate. Huge. Many senators, including Harding,
intensely disliked Article X of the League Covenant.
That was the part committing members to defend
any other member nation if attacked. They saw
it as dragging the US into future wars without
Congress having a say. The sovereignty issue.
Precisely. Harding was one of 39 senators who
signed this round robin letter basically saying
they opposed the League as Wilson presented it.
Did he confront Wilson directly? He did. There
was a White House meeting with the Foreign Relations
Committee and sources say Harding ably questioned
Wilson about Article X, but Wilson apparently
just evaded his inquiries. This really highlights
Harding's ability to articulate those concerns
about congressional power and national sovereignty.
So Harding became a leading voice against the
League. He made a major speech against the treaty
in September 1919, and with Wilson then suffering
a debilitating stroke and public support for
the league starting to fade, the treaty was ultimately
defeated in the Senate twice. This whole fight
firmly cemented Harding's position against Wilsonian
internationalism, making him a very appealing
alternative for a country tired of war and foreign
entanglements. Hashtag tag tag horde for the
normalcy election of 1920. OK, 1920. The Republican
nomination is suddenly wide open. Yeah, Theodore
Roosevelt was the expected front runner, but
he died suddenly in January 1919. That just blew
the field wide open. You had several big names
jump in, General Leonard Wood, Illinois Governor
Frank Loudon, California Senator Hiram Johnson.
All pretty prominent figures. Definitely. And
then some lesser known ones testing the waters
too, like Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, and
of course, Warren G. Harding. Now, Harding wanted
the presidency, but he also had other motivations.
Right. He was apparently just as motivated by
wanting to control of Republican politics back
in Ohio, making sure he could get re -elected
to the Senate. He made a pretty low -key announcement
of his presidential candidacy in December 1919.
Sources suggest he didn't actually think he had
much of a shot. But the party establishment liked
him more than the frontrunners. That seems to
be the case. The party's old guard leaders, the
more conservative wing, they weren't thrilled
with the progressive leanings of Wooden Johnson
or Loudon's independence streak. Harding was
seen as more, well, manageable, more reliable.
Enter Harry Daugherty again. Enter Harry Daugherty,
the master strategist, or at least that's how
he presented himself. Daugherty predicted the
front -winners would deadlock at the convention.
His strategy was to position Harding as the perfect
long shot, the compromise candidate everyone
could eventually agree on when the favorites
flamed out. So Daugherty set up shop in Washington.
Yep. set up a campaign office, managed this network
of supporters, all geared towards a brokered
convention scenario where Harding could emerge.
But Harding's actual performance in the primaries
wasn't great. No, it was pretty weak, honestly.
He barely won his home state, Ohio, beating Wood
by only about 15 ,000 votes, getting less than
half the total vote there. And in Indiana, he
finished fourth, won zero delegates. That must
have been discouraging. Deeply discouraging.
Sources say Harding was ready to throw in the
towel, quit the race, and just refile to run
for his Senate seat again. But then Florence
stepped in. The Duchess. The Duchess to the rescue.
The story goes, she literally grabbed the phone
out of his hand while he was trying to quit,
declared, Warren Harding, what are you doing?
Give up. Not until the convention is over. Think
of your friends in Ohio. Wow. And later, she
apparently told someone, will you tell Harry
Daugherty for me that we're in this fight until
hell freezes over? Uh -huh. You do not mess with
the Duchess. Absolutely not. Her fierce determination,
her belief in him, it was critical in keeping
him in the race at that low point. So after that
reality check, and maybe Florence's pep talk.
Harding gives this really important speech. Yes,
in Boston. And this is where he introduces the
word that becomes his trademark, normalcy. What
was the lion exactly? It's pretty famous. It
is. He said America's present need is not heroics,
but healing, not nostrums, but normalcy, not
revolution, but restoration, not agitation, but
adjustment, not surgery, but serenity, not the
dramatic, but the dispassionate, not experiment,
but equipoise. not submergence in internationality,
but sustainment in triumphant nationality. Wow,
that's quite a list. And normalcy, he didn't
invent the word, right? But he made it famous.
Exactly. He popularized it. And it just resonated
so deeply with the country. People were exhausted
after World War One, the Spanish flee pandemic,
the post -war recession, the political turmoil.
They were tired of Wilson's lofty idealism and
global crusades. They just wanted things to get
back to normal. Precisely. As biographer Dean
put it, Harding was reading the nation's pulse
correctly. That call for a return to a simpler
pre -war way of life, less government intervention,
less foreign entanglement, it struck a powerful
chord. OK. So on to the convention in Chicago,
June 1920. It's deeply divided, intensely divided.
And adding fuel to the fire was a recent Senate
investigation into campaign spending. It found
the frontrunners had spent huge sums, Wood nearly
$1 .8 million, Loudon $600 ,000. And Harding.
Harding only about $113 ,000. So he looked clean
by comparison. And the convention itself was
chaotic. No single boss in charge. Right. Nearly
a thousand delegates, including 27 women, which
was new since the 19th Amendment was about to
be ratified. No Republican in the White House
meant no patronage power to control delegates.
No single party boss could dictate the outcome.
It was wide open. Parting was still seen as a
long shot, a dark horse. Initially, yeah. Reporters
weren't giving him much chance. But then... The
former Ohio governor, Willis, gave this very
folksy, brief nominating speech for Harding,
and it apparently created a real warm feeling
for him among the delegates. The deadlock happens.
Four ballots, nobody can win. Wooden and Loudon
are stuck. Exactly. And that leads to the night
of June 11th into the 12th, the night that becomes
legendary as the night of the smoke -filled room
at the Blackstone Hotel. The famous smoke -filled
room. So the legend is that party bosses met
secretly and basically forced Harding's nomination.
That's the legend, yes. A cabal of senators and
party elders deciding the nominee in secret.
But historians who've looked closely say there
wasn't really a formal pact to nominate Harding
that night. So what did happen in the room? Well,
key figures were definitely talking. Influential
senators like Reed Smoot were arguing that Harding
was the best bet to win Ohio in the general election
against the likely Democratic nominee James Cox,
who was also from Ohio. Others just looked at
the mess, the deadlock, the liabilities of the
frontrunners and concluded Harding was the logical
compromise, the path of least resistance. So
less of a conspiracy, more of a consensus emerging
out of exhaustion and pragmatism. Probably closer
to that. But the rumors of a cabal of senators
making a deal spread among the delegates, and
that perception actually helped Harding because
delegates started seeing him as the inevitable
way out of the good luck. The backroom maneuvering,
even if not a single deal, certainly played a
role. So the next day, balloting resumes. And
Harding starts steadily gaining votes. Ballot
after ballot. Eventually, the convention chairman,
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, calls for a recess,
which makes Doherty furious he thinks they're
trying to stop Harding's momentum. Which doesn't
work. Nope. On the ninth ballot, Harding takes
the lead. Governor Loudon then releases his delegates.
And on the tenth ballot, it's over. Harding's
nomination becomes unanimous. Wow. From Dark
Horse to nominee in ten ballots, and then the
vice president. That was almost an afterthought.
Delegates were exhausted, wanted to get out of
Chicago. They quickly nominated Massachusetts
Governor Calvin Coolidge. He was popular for
breaking the Boston police strike the year before.
He actually got even more votes than Harding
did on his first ballot. So the ticket is Harding
and Coolidge. How did the press react? Mixed,
you said? Very mixed. Republican papers fell
in line, naturally, but others were just scathing.
The New York world called Harding the least qualified
candidate since James Buchanan a weak and mediocre
man with no original idea. Ouch Buchanan. That's
harsh. It is. The Hearst papers called him the
flag bearer of a new senatorial autocracy. The
New York Times was a bit milder just calling
him a very respectable Ohio politician of the
second class. Not exactly a ringing endorsement
for the man who just won the nomination. Quite
the welcome. So the general election campaign.
The Democrats nominate James Cox, governor of
Ohio. Right. And for VP, a young assistant secretary
of the Navy named Franklin D. Roosevelt. Interesting
matchup. Two Ohio newspaper editors running against
each other. Cox the liberal. Harding, the conservative,
provides a very clear choice for the voters.
And Harding runs what kind of campaign? He decides
on a traditional front porch campaign, stays
home in Marion, Ohio, delivers speeches to delegations
that come visit him, very much like McKinley
did in 1896. Harding even had his porch remodeled
to look like McKinley's. While Cox and FDR are
out barnstorming the country. Exactly. They're
crisscrossing the nation, making hundreds of
speeches. Harding, meanwhile, is at home and
being a newspaper man himself. if he had this
easy relationship with the press covering him.
They liked him. That camaraderie was a real asset.
And the return to normalcy theme combined with
the image of quiet Marion, Ohio, that resonated
deeply. Voters were looking for stability order
after the chaos of the war years. Marion seemed
to represent that. But his speeches themselves,
they weren't exactly thrilling. No. Critics found
his oratory really vague, full of platitudes.
William G. McAdoo famously described a harding
speech as an army of pompous phrases moving over
the landscape in search of an idea. Uh -huh.
That's quite an image. And H. L. Mencken, the
sharp -tongued journalist, just called it rumble
and bumble. It is balder and dash. Balder, dash.
Love it. But interestingly, The New York Times
had a different take. They thought his speeches
actually reflected the indeterminate thoughts
of the average voter. that maybe his very vagueness
was part of his appeal. People were tired of
grand visions. What about the League of Nations?
Wilson called the election a great and solemn
referendum on it. Right. Harding had to walk
a fine line. He stuck to his opposition to Wilson's
League, but he talked about favoring some kind
of association of nations, maybe based on the
World Court at The Hague. It was vague enough
to keep most Republicans happy, both the isolationists
and the mild internationalists. And Cox eventually
shifted his position, too. Yeah. By October,
even Cox admitted that reservations to the League
Treaty might be necessary. That basically took
the issue off the table, allowed Harding to just
stop talking about it. It neutralized Wilson's
big referendum and the Republicans ran a modern
campaign. Advertising and all that. Very modern
for the time. The RNC hired this top advertising
executive, Albert Lasker. He launched this huge
campaign using all the new media, newsreels,
sound recordings, billboards, magazines. They
even used telemarketers reading scripted dialogue.
Telemarketers in 1920. Wow. Yeah. And when delegations
visited Marion, they'd get their photos taken
with Warren and Florence, and the campaign would
send those photos to their hometown newspapers.
Really sophisticated, personalized marketing
for the era. Meanwhile, The old, ugly rumors
about his ancestry resurfaced. They did. Opponents
brought up the old claims about him having black
ancestry. His campaign manager just denied them,
rejected them. So election day, November 2, 1920.
His birthday, actually. Right. And it was a landslide.
A massive victory for Harding. He got 60 .2 %
of the popular vote. That's still the highest
percentage for a Republican presidential candidate
since the modern two -party system really emerged.
404 electoral votes. And Cox? Cox got just 34
% of the vote, 127 electoral votes. Even Eugene
V. Debs, the socialist leader running from a
federal prison cell. Right, he was jailed for
opposing the war. He still got 3 % of the vote,
nearly a million votes. But the big story was
the Republican sweep. They massively increased
their majorities in both the House and Senate.
It was a clear, undeniable mandate for Harding
and his promise of normalcy. That huge victory
gave Harding a really strong mandate coming into
to office. He was inaugurated March 4th, 1921,
and he chose a pretty subdued ceremony, skipped
the usual big parade. Setting a different tone
right away. What about his inaugural address?
He laid out his philosophy pretty clearly, declared,
our most dangerous tendency is to expect too
much from the government and at the same time
do too little for it. A real call for limited
government, individual responsibility, a definite
shift from the progressive era under Wilson and
Roosevelt. And his cabinet. He famously said
he wanted the best minds in the country. Did
he get them? Well, he certainly got some truly
outstanding people. Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary
of State Harding, gave him a lot of leeway on
foreign policy. Andrew W. Mellon, one of the
richest men in America as Treasury Secretary,
and Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce.
These were top tier, highly respected figures.
Definitely best minds material. But it wasn't
all A -listers, was it? No, it was a real mix.
And that mix, that blend of brilliance and, well,
questionable loyalty would really define his
presidency, for better and for worse. You had
political loyalists like Will Hayes, the RNC
chairman, becoming postmaster general. He later
left to become Hollywood's first censor, interestingly.
He's Code Guy. The very same. But then you had
the really controversial problematic appointments.
Albert B. Fall is Interior Secretary. He was
a Western rancher, former miner, big proponent
of developing natural resources. Conservationists
like Gifford Pinchot were immediately alarmed.
And the big one. Harry Doherty is attorney general.
Right. His longtime friend, political fixer from
Ohio. The New York Times just mocked that appointment,
saying Harding chose merely a best friend over
the best minds. But Harding trusted him. Completely.
Saw him as, according to historians Troney and
Wilson, a competent lawyer well acquainted with
the seamy side of politics, a first -class political
troubleshooter, someone he could rely on implicitly.
This tension, though, between the high -minded
idealists like Hughes and Hoover and the cronies
like Doherty and Fall, it laid the groundwork
for both success and disaster. A fascinating,
almost dangerous dynamic. So, Harding takes office,
and the economy is not in great shape. Post -war
recession, high unemployment. Yeah, unemployment
hit 12 % in 1921. The country was in a slump
after the war boom ended. But here's something
often overlooked. The economic policies under
Harding... really seemed to set the stage for
the roaring 20s boom that followed. How did that
happen? How did they turn things around so dramatically?
It was a major shift, largely driven by Treasury
Secretary Mellon's ideas about taxes and a big
push for deregulation. In his first big speech
to Congress in April 1921, Harding called for
cutting wartime income taxes, raising tariffs
to protect farm goods, and supporting new industries
like highways, aviation, radio. Getting government
spending under control was also key. Absolutely.
He signed the Budget and Accounting Act in June
1921, creating the Bureau of the Budget, the
first federal budget process. And he appointed
Charles Dawes, a tough Chicago banker, as its
first director with a clear order, cut spending.
And Mellon's tax plan, that was the big one.
That was the centerpiece. Mellon was a firm believer
in what we'd now call a supply -side economics.
He argued that the high wartime tax rates, the
top rate was 73%, were actually counterproductive,
driving money underground or into tax shelters
instead of productive investment. So, cut the
rates to stimulate the economy. Exactly. Mellon
proposed slashing income tax rates across the
board and getting rid of the corporate excess
profits tax. Harding's big revenue bill, based
on Mellon's plan, cut that top marginal rate
dramatically from 73 % in 1921 down to 25 % by
1925. And they cut taxes for lower incomes, too.
Did it face resistance? Tax cuts usually do.
Oh, yeah. Big fights in Congress, especially
in the Senate. It got tangled up with efforts
to give World War I veterans a cash bonus. Harding
actively fought against the bonus, argument would
break down our treasury. He even vetoed a bonus
bill in 1922 and his veto was barely sustained.
So the tax cuts passed, what was the impact?
Pretty dramatic, actually. Combined with the
deregulation push, federal spending as a share
of the economy fell significantly. And by late
1922, the economy really started to roar back.
Unemployment plummeted from that 12 % in 1921
to an average of just 3 .3 % for the rest of
the decade. Wow, 3 .3 % average. That's incredible.
It really is. The misery index, which combines
unemployment and inflation, saw its sharpest
drop in American history under Harding. Wages
went up, profits went up, productivity soared.
GDP grew by an average of over 5 % a year through
the 1920s. So some historians argue Mellon's
policies really fueled the boom. Yes, particularly
more libertarian leaning historians like Schweickart
and Allen. They contend that Mellon's tax policies
set the stage for the most amazing growth yet
seen in America's already impressive economy.
It's a significant economic legacy, often completely
overshadowed by the scandals that came later.
It really is a different picture than the usual
narrative. And Harding wasn't just focused on
taxes. He embraced new technologies, too. He
absolutely did. He saw the future. The 1920s,
that was the dawn of the motor car age. Mass
production of cars was transforming everything,
stimulating highway construction, rubber, steel,
even hotels for tourists. And he supported federal
investment in roads. Big time. He signed the
Federal Highway Act of 1921. It invested a significant
amount, $162 million back then, about $3 billion
today, into building up America's highway system
between 21 and 23. He said in 1922 that the motor
car reflects our standard of living, engages
the speed of our present day life. He got it.
What about radio and aviation? Still very new
then. He urged regulation for radio broadcasting
as early as April 1921. His Commerce Secretary
Hoover really took the lead there, convening
conferences that led to voluntary agreements
on assigning radio frequencies the beginnings
of order in the airwaves. Hoover also pushed
for developing commercial aviation, focusing
on safety rules and pilot licensing. Full regulation
came later, but they laid the groundwork. So
a very pro -business administration overall.
Definitely. Harding believed government's role
was to help business thrive. He viewed organized
labor with, well, suspicion. How did he handle
labor issues? There were major strikes in 1922.
Yeah, 1922 was a tough year for labor relations.
Falling wages, high unemployment led to widespread
unrest. You had a huge coal miner strike. Half
a million miners led by John L. Lewis walked
out over wage cuts. How did Harding respond?
He offered a compromise, got the miners to go
back to work while a commission investigated
their grievances. Then 400 ,000 railroad workers
went on strike. Harding proposed a settlement,
but the railroad managers rejected it. So then
what? Attorney General Doherty stepped in and
got a really sweeping federal court injunction
to break the strike. Harding actually thought
the injunction went too far and had it amended
slightly. But it worked. The injunction ended
the strike, though it left a lot of bad blood.
shows the administration wasn't afraid to use
federal power against labor. But there was one
significant win for labor, the steel industry.
Yes, that's a really notable achievement, often
overlooked. While the eight -hour workday was
becoming more common, the steel mills still had
these brutal 12 -hour shifts seven days a week.
Hoover and Harding thought this was just barbaric
and put pressure on the steel manufacturers to
change. Did they listen? Not at first. The head
of U .S. Steel, Albert Gehry, led a committee
that resisted. But then Harding wrote a letter
to Gary urging the change and it got leaked to
the press. The public outcry was huge. That pressure
finally forced the manufacturers to give in and
standardize the eight -hour day in the steel
industry. a major victory. OK, let's shift to
civil rights and immigration. Always complex
areas. Harding seemed to make some positive signals
on civil rights early on. He did. His very first
address to Congress called for federal anti -lynching
legislation. That was a significant statement.
And then in October 1921, he gave this remarkable
speech in Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham in
the deep south. Yes. to a segregated audience
20 ,000 whites, 10 ,000 blacks. And while he
said social and racial differences probably couldn't
be bridged reflecting the common view, then he
boldly called for equal political rights for
African Americans. What did he say exactly? He
said, whether you like it or not, unless our
democracy is a lie, you must stand for that equality.
The black section of the audience reportedly
cheered wildly. the white section listened in
silence. That took real courage in that place
at that time. Absolutely. And he spoke out after
the Tulsa massacre. He did. Just three days after
that horrific event in 1921, Harding spoke at
Lincoln University, an all -black college in
Pennsylvania, and condemned it. God grant that.
We never see another spectacle like it. So he
used the bully pulpit on race sometimes. He supported
the Dyer anti -lynching bill too. Yes. He supported
Congressman Leonidas Dyer's bill, which would
have made lynching a federal crime. It actually
passed the House in January 1922. But it failed
in the Senate. It did. Southern Democrats filibustered
it. And the Republican leader, Senator Lodge,
eventually withdrew the bill so they could debate
Harding's favored ship subsidy bill instead,
which also failed, ironically. So black leaders
blamed Harding. Many did. They felt he prioritized
the subsidy bill over fighting for the anti -lynching
law, that his desire for the subsidy hastened
the dire bill's demise, shows the limits of presidential
power against entrenched opposition, and how
political priorities can have unintended consequences.
A complex picture. What about immigration? This
is the era of the Red Scare. Lots of anti -immigrant
feeling. Very much so. Public suspicion, especially
towards socialists, communists, Eastern and Southern
Europeans, was high. Harding signed the Percentum
Act of 1921. The first big quota act. Right.
It drastically restricted immigration, limiting
it to 3 % of the number of people from a given
country who were already living in the U .S.
based on the 1910 census. This hit Italians and
Eastern European Jews much harder than, say,
Irish or Germans who had larger populations here
in 1910. But there was some leniency in how it
was applied. Apparently so. Sources say Harding
and his labor secretary, James Davis, tried to
ensure it was enforced humanely. They allowed
nearly a thousand immigrants who were technically
deportable under the new law to remain. So, again,
you see this tension between bowing to public
pressure for restriction and a desire for maybe
some compassion in individual cases. Another
act of normalcy people point to is his release
of Political prisoners. Yes, that was significant.
Eugene Debs, his socialist opponent in 1920,
was still in prison for opposing World War I.
Wilson had refused to pardon him. Doherty, Harding's
attorney general, actually met Debs and was apparently
impressed by him. But there was opposition to
releasing him. Oh, yeah, from veterans groups,
even from Florence Harding. But Harding went
ahead. He commuted Debs's sentence on December
23, 1921. Debs even came to the White House to
thank Harding before going home. That must have
been quite a scene. Imagine, Harding released
23 other war opponents at the same time and kept
reviewing cases. He defended it as necessary
to get the nation back to normalcy, to heal the
divisions from the war. A pretty bold move, politically.
And finally, his judicial appointments. He got
to shape the Supreme Court. He did. Made four
appointments in just over two years. Most famously,
he fulfilled a promise to appoint former President
William Howard Taft as Chief Justice. Taft finally
got his dream job. He did. The other three were
solid economic conservatives, George Sutherland,
Pierce Butler, Edward Terry Sanford. These appointments
definitely shifted the court in a more conservative
direction for years to come. Plus, he appointed
dozens of judges to lower federal courts. So
his impact on the judiciary was quite significant.
OK. Let's turn to foreign policy. Harding made
it clear from the start that his Secretary of
State, Charles Evans Hughes, would be largely
in charge. Yes, a big departure from Wilson,
who really ran his own foreign policy. Harding
trusted Hughes and gave him significant autonomy.
And Harding's main stance was clear. No League
of Nations. He hardened his position after the
election, deciding the U .S. wouldn't join even
a modified version. So first step was officially
ending the war. The U .S. was technically still
at war since the Versailles Treaty wasn't ratified?
Exactly. They passed the Knox Porter Resolution
in July 1921. It formally declared peace and
reserved any rights the U .S. might have had
under the Versailles Treaty. Then they negotiated
separate peace treaties with Germany, Austria,
and Hungary, which were ratified later that year.
Finally, the war was officially over for America.
Did the U .S. completely ignore the League after
that? Not entirely. At first, the State Department
kind of ignored League communications or bypassed
them. But by 1922, they started engaging cautiously.
The U .S. consul in Geneva began attending league
meetings as an observer, but only for technical
and humanitarian matters, not political ones.
So limited engagement, not full isolation. What
about the huge war debts owed to the U .S. and
German reparations? That was a massive issue.
European governments wanted the U .S. to reduce
the debts they owed from the war. Germany wanted
its reparation payments reduced, but the U .S.
refused to deal with it multilaterally. They
insisted on negotiating with each country separately.
Mellon handled the debts. Harding wanted to give
Mellon broad authority to negotiate debt reductions,
but Congress passed a more restrictive bill in
1922. Still, Hughes managed to negotiate a key
agreement with Britain. They agreed to pay off
their war debt over 62 years at a low interest
rate. That became the model for deals with other
countries. And the German reparations issue eventually
led to the Dawes Plan in 1924 after Harding's
death. What about relations with the new Bolshevik
government in Russia? Wilson had refused to recognize
them. Right. And the U .S. had even sent troops
to Russia during their civil war. Under Harding,
policy was largely driven by Commerce Secretary
Herbert Hoover, who actually had a lot of experience
dealing with Russia. Who were advocated engagement.
He did, especially on the humanitarian front.
When a terrible famine hit Russia in 1921, Hoover's
American Relief Administration provided massive
amounts of food aid. The Soviets hoped this might
lead to U .S. recognition, but it didn't. So
no recognition, but maybe trade. Hoover supported
allowing trade with the Soviets, arguing U .S.
companies would lose out if they didn't engage.
But Secretary Hughes was opposed to recognition
and wary of trade. So the issue remained unresolved
during Harding's presidency, a clear division
within the cabinet. OK, one of Harding's biggest
foreign policy successes, maybe the biggest,
was the Washington Naval Conference. Absolutely.
A major achievement. Disarmament and cutting
defense spending was a campaign promise. An influential
senator, William Bora of Idaho, proposed a conference
of the major naval powers, the US, Britain, Japan,
to agree on cuts to their fleets. Harding jumped
on the idea. So they invited other nations, too.
Yes. Representatives from nine nations eventually
gathered in Washington in November. The timing
was significant. Too many delegates attended
the Armistice Day ceremonies at Arlington National
Cemetery, where Harding gave this very moving
speech at the entombment of the unknown soldier.
It set a solemn, hopeful tone for the talks.
And Secretary Hughes made a dramatic opening
move. Incredibly dramatic. At the very first
session, Hughes stunned the delegates by proposing
specific deep cuts. He said the U .S. would scrap
30 warships, battleships, and cruisers if Great
Britain scrapped 19 and Japan scrapped 17, basically
putting America's own fleet on the chopping block
first to show they were serious. Bold move. Did
it work? Largely, yes. The conference was a big
success. They reached agreements setting limits
on the tonnage of capital ships, battleships,
and aircraft carriers for the major powers. Though,
importantly, it didn't limit smaller ships like
cruisers and submarines, which allowed for naval
buildups later. What else did they agree on?
They settled some disputes over islands in the
Pacific and agreed to limits on using poison
gas and warfare. Overall, Harding and Hughes
got widespread praise both at home and abroad
for this diplomatic achievement. And key senators
like Lodge and Oscar Underwood helped ensure
the treaties were ratified by the Senate. A real
win for arms control. Should you could achieve
things outside the League framework. But not
everything went smoothly. The shipping board
had issues. Yeah, that was less successful. The
U .S. had built over a thousand ships during
WWI and now didn't know what to do with them.
Harding appointed Albert Lasker the ad man from
his campaign as chairman of the shipping board.
Lasker actually ran the fleet profitably for
a while, hoping to sell the ships off. But they
couldn't sell them? Not easily. Lasker recommended
a big government subsidy for the American Merchant
Marine to make buying and operating the ships
more attractive. Harding pushed hard for the
subsidy bill in Congress, but it was deeply unpopular
and got filibustered to death in the Senate,
so most of those government ships eventually
just got scrapped. A big waste, really. What
about Latin America? Harding had criticized Wilson's
interventions there during the campaign. He had.
He'd attacked Wilson's policies in the Dominican
Republic and Haiti, and even went after Franklin
Roosevelt for his role in Haiti. Secretary Hughes
worked to improve relations with Latin American
countries who were very wary of how the U .S.
used the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervention.
Did U .S. troops actually leave? They were withdrawn
from Cuba in 1921, but U .S. forces remained
in Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic
throughout Harding's presidency. So the rhetoric
changed more than the reality on the ground in
some places. But he did try to mend fences with
Colombia over Panama. Yes, that was significant.
He secured Senate ratification of the Thompson
-Arrusha Treaty in April 1921. It granted Colombia
$25 million, a huge sum then, over $440 million
today as compensation for the U .S.-backed Panamanian
Revolution back in 1903 that stripped Panama
from Colombia. A major gesture to repair past
damage. Did that satisfy Latin American concerns
about interventionism? Not entirely. The U .S.
still refused to formally renounce interventionism,
though Hughes did pledge to limit it to countries
near the Panama Canal and be clearer about U
.S. aims. But the underlying policy remained,
which left lingering mistrust. And relations
with Mexico were also tricky. Wilson hadn't recognized
the revolutionary government there. Right. The
Mexican president, Alvaro Obregón, wanted U .S.
recognition before negotiating issues like compensation
for American losses during the revolution. But
Hughes and Interior Secretary Fall initially
opposed recognition first. They sent Mexico a
draft treaty demanding pledges to protect American
property and settle claims. Obregón refused.
He refused to sign anything before getting recognition.
Instead, he cleverly worked behind the scenes,
building ties with American businesses operating
in Mexico, launching a PR campaign. in the U
.S. These efforts gradually soften the resistance
in Washington. So recognition didn't happen under
Harding? No, it remained unresolved when he died,
but the groundwork was laid. The U .S. finally
recognized the Obergone government on August
31st, 1923, just under a month after Harding's
death, and largely on Mexico's terms. Hashtag,
hashtag, seven. The voyage of understanding and
sudden death. OK, so by 1922, Harding's presidency
hit some turbulence. The midterm elections didn't
go well for the Republicans. No, they were a
real setback. Even though Harding had delivered
on things like tax cuts, a lot of his policies
hadn't really resonated with voters yet. Unemployment
was still pretty high at 11 percent that year.
Organized labor was angry about the strike breaking.
Republicans lost a lot of seats in both the House
and Senate. Did that change Harding's approach?
It seems to have. He realized his initial hands
-off view of the presidency, proposed policies,
let Congress figure it out wasn't working. He
started getting more personally involved, actively
lobbying for legislation, like that failed ship
subsidy bill. Showed he was adapting, learning
on the job, maybe? And things started looking
up in 1923. His popularity recovered. It did.
Yeah. After Congress adjourned in March 23, the
economy was clearly improving. The programs run
by his star cabinet members, Hughes, Mellon,
Hoover, were starting to show positive results.
His popularity began to rebound. Most Republicans
fully expected him to run for reelection in 1924
and were ready to support him. It looked like
he was weathering the storm. But behind the scenes,
his health was failing, even if he didn't always
show it. Yes, definitely declining. And there
are these little hints looking back. In the first
half of 1923, he sold the Marion Star, the newspaper
that made him. Said he'd stay on as a contributing
editor, but still, selling it was significant.
He also made a new will. Actions that some later
saw as maybe a subconscious sense that time was
short. He had known heart issues. Yes, he'd had
health problems off and on for years. And when
he wasn't having symptoms, he apparently tended
to overeat, drink, smoke too much. Classic unhealthy
lifestyle. He'd known about a heart condition
since at least 1919. Add the immense stress of
the presidency, plus his wife Florence was suffering
from a chronic kidney condition which worried
him. It all took a toll. He had the flu earlier
in 1923, too. Yeah, a bad bout of influenza in
January 23. And sources say he never fully bounced
back. Started struggling to even finish a round
of golf. Another senator, Willis, saw him in
June 23 and remarked that Harding just seems
so tired. Which makes his next decision seem
almost reckless. This huge trip he planned for
the summer of 23. The Voyage of Understanding,
he called it. Incredibly ambitious. Plan to travel
all across the country by train. go north up
to the Alaska Territory, then south along the
west coast, then take a Navy ship through the
Panama Canal, and finally back to Washington
by late August. What was the purpose? A pre -campaign
swing for 1924. Partly that, yeah. A chance to
get out, meet people, give speeches, or bloviate,
as he himself apparently called his own oratory
sometimes. Also, frankly, just to escape the
brutal Washington, D .C. summer heat. But the
schedule was incredibly demanding, especially
for someone in his condition. Where did he go
on the first leg? Spoke about transportation
in Kansas City, farming in Hutchinson, Kansas,
tackled prohibition in Denver, visited Yellowstone
and Zion National Parks, dedicated a monument
on the old Oregon Trail. He also, interestingly,
started speaking out more strongly in favor of
the U .S. joining the World Court during this
trip. Then up to Alaska. It was groundbreaking.
First sitting president ever to visit Alaska
embarked on the USS Henderson from Washington
State on July 5th. Sources say he spent hours
just watching the amazing Alaskan scenery go
by. He gave a speech to about 1 ,500 people in
Fairbanks in 94 degree heat. Wow, then Canada.
Also at first. First sitting U .S. president
to visit Canada, toured Vancouver on July 26th,
spoke to a huge crowd, over 50 ,000 people. They
actually unveiled a memorial to him in Vancouver's
Stanley Park a couple of years later, shows the
goodwill he generated there. But the trip was
clearly taking a visible toll. Oh, absolutely.
In Vancouver, he tried to play golf, but only
managed six holes before he was exhausted, had
to rest for an hour. Then he played the last
two holes just so it looked like he finished
the round. A reporter who saw him there wrote
that he looks so tired that a rest of mere days
would be insufficient to refresh him. His last
speech was in Seattle. Yes, July 27th at the
University of Washington. Spoke to 25 ,000 people,
predicted statehood for Alaska, but accounts
say he rushed through the speech, didn't wait
for applause, just seemed drained. And that same
night, things took a bad turn. They did. He went
to bed early. Later that night, he called for
his personal physician, Dr. Charles Sawyer. complaining
of bad pain in his upper abdomen. Sawyer thought
it was just his recurring stomach problems, but
another doctor on the trip, Joel Boone, suspected
a heart issue. What did they tell the press?
They downplayed it. Said it was an acute gastrointestinal
attack. Canceled his planned weekend stop in
Portland. Did he seem to rally? A bit. He felt
better the next day on the train heading down
to San Francisco. Arrived there July 29th. He
even insisted on walking from the train to his
car trying to show he was okay before they rushed
him to the Palace Hotel. But he relapsed at the
hotel. Yes, suffered a relapse. The doctors now
confirmed heart problems and also diagnosed pneumonia.
They confined him strictly to bed, treated him
with liquid caffeine and digitalis, and for a
few days he seemed to be improving again. The
nation breathed a sigh of relief. But it was
temporary. Tragically, yes. On the afternoon
of August 2nd, he still seemed to be getting
better. Doctors even allowed him to sit up in
bed. Around 730 that evening, Florence was reading
to him an article from the Saturday Evening Post,
a flattering piece called, A Calm Review of a
Calm Man. And his last words. He apparently told
Florence, that's good, go on, read some more.
And just seconds later, he suddenly... twisted
convulsively and collapsed back in the bed, gasping.
Oh my gosh. Doctors rushed in, tried to revive
him, but it was too late. Warren G. Harding was
pronounced dead. He was only 57. What was the
official cause of death given? Initially, they
attributed it to a cerebral hemorrhage, basically
a stroke. Cardiac arrest symptoms weren't as
well understood back then. And significantly,
Florence Harding refused to allow an autopsy.
A decision that fueled speculation for years.
His death must have shocked the country. A huge
shock. He was genuinely liked and admired, as
the sources say. The public had been following
his illness closely. They'd been reassured by
the reports he was recovering. His sudden death
hit the nation hard. And the funeral journey
was a major national event. Immense. His body
was placed in a casket put on a train for this
mournful journey back across the country to Washington
D .C. Newspapers followed every step. An estimated
nine million people lined the railroad tracks
along the road just to pay their respects as
the train passed. Nine million. Incredible. Gives
you a sense of his popularity at that moment.
He lay in state in the U .S. Capitol rotunda.
Then after services in D .C., his body was taken
back home to Marion, Ohio for burial. Who attended
the burial? President Coolidge, of course, Chief
Justice Taft, Florence, Harding's elderly father,
and notably giants of American industry were
there. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone,
a real testament to the respect he commanded,
at least at the time of his death. He and Florence
are buried together in Marion now. Yes, in the
Harding tomb. It wasn't dedicated until 1931.
President Herbert Hoover presided and Calvin
Coolidge attended, a final resting place for
a president whose reputation was about to undergo
a seismic shift. All right. This is where the
story of Warren G. Harding takes that sharp,
devastating turn, almost entirely after his death.
We mentioned his cabinet was a mix. Right. He
appointed lots of friends and acquaintances from
Ohio to federal jobs. Some were perfectly competent,
like his doctor, Charles Sawyer, who actually
tried to warn him about corruption. Others were
just kind of ineffective political appointments.
But then there was the Ohio Gang. Yes, the Ohio
Gang. a group of his appointees who proved to
be outright corrupt. And the crucial point here
is that most of the scandals that completely
destroyed Harding's reputation emerged after
he died. Sources suggest he was often unaware
of the illegal stuff going on, at least initially.
This posthumous flood of revelations is key to
understanding his legacy. He did become aware
of some corruption before he died, like in the
Veterans Bureau. Yes, he learned about major
corruption in the Veterans Bureau in January
1923. But his handling of it, as one source puts
it, did him little credit. He basically allowed
the corrupt director Charles R. Forbes to resign
and flee to Europe to avoid immediate scandal.
Forbes did eventually come back and serve prison
time, but Harding's instinct was to hush it up
initially. What about Jess Smith, Doherty's aide?
Harding also learned that Smith was deeply involved
in corruption at the Justice Department. Just
before leaving on that final Western trip, Harding
ordered Attorney General Doherty to get Smith
out of Washington and keep him off the trip.
Shortly after, on May 30, 1923, Jess Smith committed
suicide. Did Harding know the full extent of
Smith's crimes? or Gardy's potential involvement.
It's uncertain, according to historian Robert
Murray. Murray argues Harding wasn't personally
involved in the corruption and didn't approve
of it, but his failure to act decisively against
these figures earlier proved catastrophic for
his reputation later. And there was that conversation
he had with Hoover on the Western tour, asking
about what to do if you knew about a big scandal.
Right. Reportedly asked Hoover, if you knew of
a great scandal in our administration, would
you, for the good of the country and the party,
expose it publicly, or would you bury it? Hoover
strongly advised publishing it, taking the hit,
but getting credit for integrity. Harding hinted
the scandal involved Jess Smith, but clammed
up when Hoover pressed him about Doherty's possible
role. You can feel the weight of this knowledge
crushing him in those final weeks Okay, let's
talk about the big one the scandal that really
became synonymous with Harding's administration
teapot dome Teapot Dome. It sounds almost quaint,
but it was huge. It involved a government oil
reserve in Wyoming called Teapot Dome, one of
three set aside specifically for the Navy's future
fuel needs. There had been debate for years about
whether these reserves should be developed or
kept pristine. And Harding changed who controlled
them. Yes. In May 1921, Harding signed an executive
order transferring control of the Teapot Dome
Reserve and two others in California. Elkills
and Buena Vista, from the Navy Department to
the Department of the Interior, run by Albert
B. Fall, then Navy Secretary Edwin Denby consented
to the transfer. On the surface, maybe just seemed
like bureaucratic shuffling. But Fall had plans
for those reserves. Big plans. And secret plans.
In July 1921, Fall secretly leased the drilling
rights at the Elk Hills Reserve in California
to an oil tycoon named Edward Doheny. No competitive
bidding. Then later, a Wyoming senator, John
Kendrick, found out the teapot dome itself had
also been secretly leased. Also without bidding.
Yes, to another oil magnate, Harry Sinclair and
his mammoth oil company. Again, no... announcement,
no competitive bids. When Senator Kendrick asked
the Interior Department for the documents, they
refused. That immediately raised red flags. So
the Senate got involved. Yes. A Senate resolution
forced Interior to disclose the leases. The justification
given was military preparedness. Sinclair's company
was supposed to build some oil storage tanks
for the Navy in exchange for the drilling rights.
But the secrecy and lack of bidding smelled fishy.
Conservationists were outraged. Furious. People
like Difford Pinchot demanded an investigation.
Senator Robert La Follette, a progressive Republican,
initiated a Senate investigation, which was eventually
led by a tenacious Democratic senator from Montana,
Thomas J. Walsh. And Walsh started digging. He
did, painstakingly. He uncovered a letter from
Harding himself confirming his knowledge and
approval of the transfer of the reserves to Fall
and the subsequent leases. The public hearings
began in October 1923, a couple of months after
Harding's death. What happened at the hearings?
Fall, who had conveniently resigned from Interior
earlier that year, denied taking any money. So
did Sinclair and Doheny. But Senator Walsh kept
digging, found evidence that Fall had suddenly
started spending lavishly on his ranch back in
New Mexico. Where did Fall say the money came
from? He claimed it was a loan from Edward B.
McLean, the publisher of the Washington Post
and a friend of Harding's. But McLean denied
giving him such a loan. Then Doheny admitted
she'd give him Fall $100 ,000 in cash, but claimed
it was just a personal loan between friends.
Fall eventually took the fifth when called to
testify again. Very damaging. So what did the
investigation ultimately find? bribes. Yes. Investigators
concluded that Fall and a relative had received
about $400 ,000 in cash and bonds from Doheny
and Sinclair around the same time he granted
them the leases. The connection was undeniable.
And Fall was convicted. He was. Convicted of
accepting bribes in 1929. And in 1931, Albert
Fall became the first U .S. cabinet member ever
to go to prison for crimes committed while in
office. A landmark moment in government corruption.
What about Sinclair and Doheny, the ones who
paid the bribes? Sinclair was eventually convicted,
but only of jury tampering and contempt of Congress
served a short sentence. Doheny, incredibly,
despite admitting giving Fall the $100 ,000,
was acquitted by a jury in 1930. Wow. Justice
wasn't exactly even handed there. Not at all.
But the damage was done. Teapot Dome became the
ultimate symbol of the Harding administration's
corruption, forever staining his name, even though
the worst details emerged after his death. And
the Justice Department under Dardee wasn't immune
either. Far from it. Dardee's appointment itself
was controversial, given his background as an
Ohio lobbyist and political fixer. People immediately
suspected he must have been involved in Teapot
Dome, although he and Fall weren't actually close.
In February 1924, the Senate voted to investigate
the Justice Department itself, while Dougherty
was still the attorney general. Who led that
investigation? Another tough Montana senator,
Burton K. Wheeler. And he uncovered the dealings
of Jess Smith, Dougherty's aide who had committed
suicide. Smith had been running extensive influence
peddling schemes out of the infamous Little Greenhouse
on K Street. Little Greenhouse, what was that?
It was literally a little greenhouse on K Street
in DC where Smith and some associates met with
people, allegedly taking payoffs from bootleggers
and others seeking favors from the Justice Department.
Witnesses, including Smith's ex -wife, Roxy Stinson,
testified and alleged that Daugherty himself
was personally involved, that he knew what Smith
was doing. What happened to Daugherty? Coolidge
was president by then. Coolidge demanded Doherty's
resignation in March 1924, when Doherty refused
to give Senate investigators access to Justice
Department files. Doherty was later indicted,
along with Colonel Thomas W. Miller, who ran
the Office of Alien Property Custodian. What
was the charge? defrauding the government in
a deal involving releasing assets of a German
-owned company seized during the war. Jess Smith
had deposited $50 ,000 likely bribe money from
the deal into a joint bank account he shared
with Daugherty. Conveniently, Daugherty's records
for that account were destroyed. So did Daugherty
get convicted? No. Miller, the alien property
custodian, was convicted and served prison time.
But Daugherty went through two trials, and both
ended in hung juries. The charges were eventually
dropped. He was never convicted of anything.
But his reputation was ruined. Absolutely devastated.
His refusal to testify in his own defense, claiming
he needed to protect confidential communications
related to Harding looked terrible. He spent
the rest of his life blaming his troubles on
his political enemies and communists. But the
damage was permanent. And then there was the
Veterans Bureau scandal. You mentioned Harding
knew about that one before he died. Yes, a particularly
ugly one, betraying the very soldiers Harding
claimed to champion. Charles R. Forbes, the director
of the Veterans Bureau, was this energetic guy
who consolidated power over veterans hospitals
and their construction, getting control transferred
from the Treasury Department in April 1922 with
Harding's support and backing from the American
Legion. His job was to build hospitals for wounded
WWI vets. Right. Hundreds of thousands needed
care. But Forbes immediately started running
scams. He conspired with construction companies
run by Elias Mortimer and Charles Hurley to give
them contracts, inflating the costs massively
from maybe $3 ,000 per hospital bed to $4 ,000
and then splitting the profits three ways. Some
money also went to the Bureau's chief counsel,
Charles Kramer. Just skimming off the top of
contracts meant for veterans. Exactly. Graft
was everywhere, even land acquisition. They bought
a site near San Francisco worth less than $20
,000 for $105 ,000, and Forbes and Kramer split
$25 ,000 at the difference. Unbelievable. What
else? In November 1922, Forbes started selling
off vast stockpiles of valuable hospital supplies,
sheets, medicines, equipment from a depot in
Perryville, Maryland, for pennies on the dollar,
to an insider firm connected to Mortimer. Meanwhile,
the Veterans Bureau was buying new supplies at
inflated prices. Just pure fraud. How did it
get exposed? Dr. Sawyer, Harding's personal physician,
who also chaired a federal hospital board, got
wind of it. He investigated, found proof of Forbes'
schemes, and presented it to Harding in January
1923. How did Harding react? Sources say he was
shocked, alternated between rage and despondency.
But his first instinct was damage control. He
demanded Forbes resign immediately, but allowed
him to flee to Europe first, hoping to avoid
a public scandal. Forbes officially resigned
February 15, 1923. But the story got out anyway.
Gossip travels fast in Washington. The Senate
launched an investigation. Kramer, the chief
counsel, committed suicide in March. Mortimer,
whose wife had apparently been having an affair
with Forbes, turned state's evidence and became
a key witness against him. Forbes eventually
returned, was convicted in 1924, and served two
years in federal prison. And Harding's handling
of it just looked bad. Really bad. As historians
Tranana and Wilson put it, one of the most troublesome
aspects of the Harding presidency was that he
appeared to be far more concerned with political
liabilities of a scandal than in securing justice.
That perception stuck. Okay, beyond the political
corruption, Harding's personal life also became
fodder for scandal after his death. The extramarital
affairs. Yes. It emerged he'd had a long 15 -year
affair with a woman from Marion named Carrie
Fulton Phillips. It ended around 1920 when he
was running for president. Love letters between
them were discovered decades later in 1963, kept
sealed for years, finally unsealed in 2014. And
the letters were passionate. Apparently very
much so. Biographer Francis Russell, who saw
them earlier, concluded Phillips was the love
of Harding's life. This revelation of a serious
long -term affair added another layer to the
negative image. And then there was Nan Britton.
Nan Britton, another mistress, also from Marion,
she claimed Harding fathered her daughter, Elizabeth
Ann Blazing. Harding always denied it, and his
family long maintained he was infertile due to
childhood mumps. But DNA testing proved Britton
right. Yes. In 2015, DNA tests comparing descendants
confirmed Harding was indeed Elizabeth Ann's
father. And Britton wrote a book about it. She
did. In 1927, she published The President's Daughter.
It was dedicated to all unwedded mothers and
became a huge bestseller, though it was considered
scandalous and sold door to door by Britton herself
initially. What did the book allege? Besides
claiming Harding was the father, it included
salacious details like alleging they had sex
in a coat closet right near the Oval Office.
Britten actually lost a libel suit against someone
who wrote a rebuttal book calling her claims
lies. But many people believed her story. And
it just further dragged Harding's reputation
through the mud. Absolutely. It painted him as
morally bankrupt on top of being politically
incompetent or tolerant of corruption. Britten
claimed Harding had secretly paid her child support
about $500 a month, but said she destroyed his
romantic letters to her. It's interesting, as
Sinclair noted. Grover Cleveland got elected
president in 1884, even though it was known he'd
fathered a child out of wedlock. Harding seemed
to face a harsher judgment. It does seem that
way. Maybe the times had changed. Maybe the combination
of political and personal scandals was just too
much. Or maybe, for whatever reason, Harding
just wasn't afforded the same leeway. It raises
questions about how we judge historical figures
and whether those standards are applied consistently.
So let's recap the trajectory of Harding's reputation.
immediately after he died. Huge outpouring of
grief, widespread admiration. Absolutely. Deeply
mourned, not just in the US, but internationally
too. European papers called him a man of peace.
American journalists wrote glowing tributes,
some saying he literally gave his life for his
country. The first biographies were pure hagiography,
like Joe Mitchell Chapel's Life and Times of
Warren G. Harding, our after -war president in
1924. Just pure praise. But that admiration evaporated
incredibly quickly. Almost overnight. As the
scandal started breaking Teapot Dome, the Veterans
Bureau just missed suicide. The narrative flipped
completely. Harding administration rapidly became
shorthand for corruption and incompetence. And
books published in the late 20s really cemented
that negative view. They did. William Allen White's
masks in a pageant just skewered him. Samuel
Hopkins Adams wrote a fictionalized, but clearly
based on Harding, novel called Revelry that depicted
his time as one of utter presidential weakness.
It was a sensation. And Nan Britton's book added
the personal sleaze factor. Right. The president's
daughter came out in 1927, further damaging his
public image. Even his successor, Calvin Coolidge,
wanted nothing to do with him publicly. Coolidge
refused to dedicate the Harding tomb in Marion.
Hoover eventually did it. Hoover did in 1931.
But by then, Hoover himself was deeply unpopular
because of the Great Depression, so it didn't
exactly rehabilitate Harding's image. And Samuel
Hopkins Adams wasn't done of him. He kept writing
about Harding. Culminating in his 1939 biography,
era, the life and times of Warren G. Harding,
where he famously called Harding an amiable,
well -meaning, third -rate Mr. Babbit. A babbit,
like the Sinclair Lewis character. Exactly, just
sort of a mediocre, conformist, boosterish, small
-town businessman completely out of his depth.
That image really stuck, became the dominant
historical verdict for decades. But some later
historians felt this was unfair, too unbalanced.
Yes. John Dean, who wrote a biography of Harding
much later, argued that those early accounts
by White and Adams were remarkably unbalanced
and unfair, just exaggerating all the negatives,
blaming Harding for everything, giving him zero
credit for any successes. But Dean admits, yet
the myth has persisted. When did historians start
taking a fresh look? Was it when his papers were
opened? That was a turning point, yes. Harding's
personal papers were finally open to researchers
in 1964. That sparked a new wave of biographies.
Francis Russell's The Shadow of Blooming Grove
came out in 1968. It was controversial, arguing
those old rumors about Black ancestry deeply
affected Harding psychologically. Were there
more positive interpretations too. Robert K.
Murray's The Harding Era in 1969 took a much
more positive view. Murray tried to place Harding
in the context of his times, highlighting the
policy achievements. Though some critics, like
Traney and Wilson, felt Murray maybe gave Harding
too much credit for the successes of his talented
cabinet members. And then even more revisionist
takes later on. Yeah, in the 90s and 2000s, Robert
Farrell's The Strange Deaths of President Harding,
1996, explicitly challenged almost everything
that had become accepted wisdom about Arding.
John Dean's 2004 biography was also seen as highly
revisionist, maybe sometimes downplaying the
negative bits, but trying to offer a strong counter
-narrative. Others still focused on his perceived
weaknesses. Right. Historian Eugene Trani, for
instance, attributed Harding's failures primarily
to his own lack of depth and decisiveness, suggesting
it was more about character flaws than just bad
luck or bad friends. So the debate continues.
And Harding consistently ranks near the bottom
in those presidential ranking polls, historians
do. consistently, often dead last or very close
to it. He was ranked last out of 29 presidents
in a famous Harvard poll back in 1948. Why do
some historians think he ranks so poorly? Is
it just the scandals? Well, Farrell argued it's
because too many scholars rely on those early
sensational accounts instead of digging into
the primary sources. Another historian, Coffee,
argued that a general academic lack of interest
in Harding has cost him his reputation. For a
long time, maybe it was just easier for historians
to accept the worst president ever narrative
than to grapple with the complexities. But that's
changing. There's a really reassessment underway.
There definitely is in recent decades. Some scholars
are looking beyond the scandals at the actual
policies and outcomes. That book, The Spoils
of War, 2016, used quantitative measures and
ranked Harding first among presidents for having
the fewest wartime deaths combined with the highest
per capita income growth during his term, a really
provocative finding based on his economic record
and keeping the U .S. out of conflict. Highlighting
the economic boon and the period of peace. Exactly.
Robert Murray argued Harding deserves more credit
than historians have given, putting him on par
with presidents like Franklin Pierce, Andrew
Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, maybe even Calvin
Coolidge. Murray stated Harding's administration
had concrete accomplishments that were superior
to a sizable portion of those in the nation's
history. But Murray also acknowledged the flip
side, the responsibility. Crucially, yes. Murray
pointed out that in our system, the president
isn't just an innocent bystander. Harding gets
to claim credit for the successes of Hughes and
Hoover, but he also must shoulder responsibility
for a darty injustice and a fall in Interior.
And he has to bear the blame for his lack of
punitive action against corrupt officials like
Forbes and Smith. So his inaction sealed his
fate, reputation -wise. Murray argues that Harding's
inaction forfeited his chance for a positive
historical image. It made the negative verdict
inevitable, if not wholly deserved. It's a really
nuanced take acknowledging the achievements,
but also the profound failures of leadership,
especially in holding his own administration
accountable. It leaves us with a much more complex
and still debated legacy. Hashtag tag tag outro.
So we've journeyed through this truly remarkable
and ultimately quite tragic story of Warren G.
Harding. A man who climbed from being a small
-town Ohio newspaperman right to the very highest
office in the land. Ushered in that era of normalcy,
presided over significant economic recovery and
growth. Only to have his legacy completely consumed,
really, by personal scandals and the shocking
corruption of people he put into power, people
he trusted, almost all of it exploding after
his sudden death. And what really stands out
is that dramatic swing in how history has viewed
him. From being arguably one of the most beloved
presidents at the moment he died. Right. Those
nine million people lining the tracks. Exactly.
To be coming, for decades, almost a caricature
of presidential failure and scandal. But now,
as new information comes out, like his paper
is finally being opened, and as historians take
a fresh look, a more nuanced picture is starting
to emerge. Still deeply flawed, absolutely, but
more complex. And a powerful lesson, isn't it?
About how historical judgments aren't always
permanent. Definitely. And why does this matter
to you, listening? Well, Harding's story is just
such a potent reminder of how complicated leadership
is, how much personal choices can impact public
office, and how our collective memory of history
isn't fixed. It's constantly evolving as we learn
more. It really challenges us to look beyond
the easy headlines, the conventional wisdom,
right? To actually engage with all the facts,
not just the simple, sensational narratives.
Absolutely. So here's a final provocative thought
to leave you with. Consider this if the full
details, the sheer scale of Key Pot Dome, the
Veterans Bureau fraud, if Harding's affairs,
if all that had become public knowledge during
his lifetime, or maybe what if he had lived longer,
lived to confront those scandals directly, maybe
take decisive action, fire people, prosecute
them. How different would things have been? Exactly.
How might the path of his presidency, maybe even
American history, have been different? What does
that tell us about that fine line between what's
known publicly and what stays hidden and the
enduring power of secrets? and their eventual
revelation to shape a leader's ultimate place
in history. Something to think about.