Sure He Fathered a Child Out of Wedlock, But Warren G. Harding Deserves Better From History

August 14, 2015 - 1:00pm

Warren G. Harding

This week, news emerged that Warren G. Harding had, in fact, fathered a child with Nan Britton, a far younger woman with whom he had an affair during his rise to power and during his presidency.

DNA tests released this week confirmed that Harding was the father of Britton’s daughter Elizabeth Ann Blaesing. Britton actually published “The President’s Daughter” back in 1928 and the book focused on their affair. Most historians accepted her story, especially as Harding was known to be involved in other affairs. The DNA tests came too late for Britton who died in 1994 and her daughter who died in 2005.

The news won’t help Harding’s reputation but he is already at the bottom of most historians’ presidential rankings. He shouldn’t be.

There were plenty of scandals under Harding’s watch, namely the Teapot Dome. Harding’s presidency actually doesn’t appear as ethically challenged as plenty of other presidencies, including Grant’s, Nixon’s, Clinton’s, Buchanan’s and others.

Harding had a poor command of the English language and, as this week’s news shows, couldn’t keep his pants on. Still, Harding’s extramarital dalliances pale when compared with Bill Clinton’s, Jack Kennedy’s or Alexander Hamilton’s.

But Harding achieved some major triumphs, even if they have mostly been ignored by historians. Harding lowered taxes from the highs of the Progressive Era and World War I which helped launch the Roaring 20s, the greatest economic growth the nation had seen until that point in history. Like so many Republicans, Harding promised to balance the budget. Unlike too many Republicans, Harding actually did it. Under Harding’s watch, unemployment dropped from 12 percent to 3 percent.

While he was not the interventionist that Woodrow Wilson was and was no fan of the League of Nations, Harding tried to work with other nations on international disarmament and pushed for a global court. He was not the isolationist he is often portrayed as.

Harding also had one of the better records on civil rights in the early 20th century and was far better than the progressive Wilson on this front. A vocal opponent of lynching, Harding also rescinded Wilson’s executive order ensuring federal government offices would be segregated. Harding even headed to states like Alabama during his presidency to demand equal rights for all.

To be sure, Harding too often ignored scandals inside his administration and he was, as we were reminded again this week, an unabashed philanderer. But there have been far worse presidents than him and he deserves to get out of the bottom tier of the historical rankings.

Reach Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com or follow him on Twitter: @KevinDerbySSN

Comments

Frank--apologies. I tried to

Permalink Submitted by Kevin Derby on August 15, 2015 - 5:01pm

Frank--apologies. I tried to delete a duplicate response to your earlier post and ended up getting rid of the new thread. Apologies. In response to your deleted post, please note that I said Harding should be out of the lowest tier; that does not mean he should be included in the top half of the presidents. Sincerest apologies for the deletion.

Off the top of my head, I'd

Permalink Submitted by Kevin Derby on August 15, 2015 - 5:20pm

Off the top of my head, I'd put Coolidge above Harding, Hoover, Nixon and Carter (perhaps above Taft and Ford) among the 20th century presidents. I think Hoover's policies were far more detrimental to the economy than Coolidge's, especially Smoot-Hawley. As bad as the Dawes plan was for Germany under Coolidge, the Young plan under Hoover was far worse in undermining Weimar Germany.

I would put Harding above

Permalink Submitted by Kevin Derby on August 16, 2015 - 10:26pm

I would put Harding above Hoover, Carter and Nixon in the 20th century and above Pierce, Buchanan and A. Johnson in the 19th century (and perhaps above Grant; I have lot of admiration for our 18th president as a man, especially for freeing a slave instead of selling him when he desperately needed the money, but not as much for him as a president despite his support of Reconstruction). While it is still early, I suspect I will be placing Harding above George W. Bush if you pick my brains in 2050 (and if you ask my impressions of presidents in 35 years, drinks are on me). As someone who admires George Nash and Richard Norton Smith and their excellent biographies of Hoover, I understand where you are coming from about not solely blaming him for the Depression though I generally think he made things far worse once in office, especially with the tariff he backed in 1930. I'm also not a huge fan of Hoover's foreign policy, especially the Young Plan which really sped Weimar to its grave and helped pave the way for the rise of Nazi Germany. Despite all of that, I have a lot of admiration for Hoover as a man--just not as president (I suspect I would probably say much the same about JQ Adams and Benjamin Harrison). Hoover was the epitome of the American success story and saved countless lives by leading the relief effort for Belgium during WW1. He was a fine Food Administrator for Wilson during the war and, after his years under Harding and Coolidge, did so well at Commerce that the building the department is based in up in DC is rightfully named after him. Truman did well in selecting Hoover to help cut government waste when he was president. The Herbert Hoover Library in West Branch, Iowa is a favorite stop on I-80 and I have enjoyed plenty of his books on everything from Wilson's role in the peace negotiations to fishing. I admire Hoover greatly as a man but his presidency strikes me as far more damaging.

I would put Harding above

Permalink Submitted by Kevin Derby on August 16, 2015 - 10:26pm

Thanks as always for reading,

Permalink Submitted by Kevin Derby on August 14, 2015 - 6:02pm

Thanks as always for reading, Frank. You know I almost never respond to comments but you are calling me out on a personal level here. I did graduate work in history though my MA thesis was on a 19th century figure and not a 20th century one though I have had done more than my share of reading on Harding and his times. It's not exactly the most popular of subjects but there have been some books which made me reconsider Harding's presidency (including Carl S. Anthony's fine biography of Florence Harding). Of course, plenty of our leading historians lack academic credentials including my beau ideal of a historian Barbara Tuchman. I'd add that presidential reputations are often in flux. For example, Andrew Johnson's reputation has (generally rightfully in my view) dropped as historians have reevaluated Reconstruction. Harry Truman's (also rightfully) and to lesser extent Eisenhower's reputations have generally increased as the years have gone by. There's enough room for a case to be made that Harding's presidency should be reevaluated.

Comments are now closed.

columns