It appears that much-maligned GOP president Warren G. Harding may have beaten Barack Obama to the honor of being the first black president by more than 80 years. Historian Beverly Gage makes a strong argument for the historical evidence that Harding was an 'octaroon' passing as white, with one African-American great-grandparent. In the 1920s even a hint of 'colored' blood would have doomed his political career, but the evidence of his mixed ancestry and the efforts to cover it up seems pretty convincing, supported not only by Gage's research, but also by the family histories gathered by Harding descendent Marsha Stewart in her book Warren G. Harding: Death by Blackness.
Even more than other Republicans of the era, Harding certainly embraced policies which were good for the black population. He restored all of the racially progressive policies of the Teddy Roosevelt administration which had been reversed by racist Democrats under Wilson. He was the first president to advocate full legal and social equality for blacks, including voting rights and access to education and public facilities. He also promoted an important anti-lynching bill in Congress. W. E. B. DuBois placed Harding above other Republican racial reformers, saying that he "made a braver, clearer utterance than Theodore Roosevelt ever dared to make or than William Taft or William McKinley ever dreamed of. For this let us give him every ounce of credit he deserves.
Following in Harding's tradition, Republicans would go on to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the objections of southern Democrats, adding to a long history of fighting for racial equality while Democrats worked to divide people by race and social class and set race against race and group against, exploiting constituents instead of advancing their interests.
What may be most significant about Obama's increasingly probable rise to the presidency are that the groundwork for it was laid by successive Republican administrations, and the change in attitudes which it signifies. When Harding ran for office his family had to do everything it could to conceal his African-American ancestry, even if it was only an unfounded rumor as they claimed at the time. Eighty years later, Obama faces criticism for not being 'black enough', even though he's about twice as black as Harding was. If Obama does win the race, let's not forget that his success was largely built on the work of generations of Republicans like Harding who took up the cause of Black Americans when it was controversial and no one else would stand up for them.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
My how things have changed.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Fascinating. One wonders how many other Presidents - especially those with Southern ancestry - had African blood a-coursing ever so surreptitiously through their veins.
3 - Pablo
Since when is it determined that someone is "black" with 1/2 or 1/4 of their lineage of african ancestry?
If Barrack claims as he does, that he is black, and is widely accepted as black because of his proclamation (unless there are racists about), then if Harding called himself white or caucasian as he obviously did, then he was a white dude. Don't ya think Davey boy?
Your argument holds no water.
4 - Dave Nalle
As far as I'm concerned they can both call themselves whatever they want. However, the fact remains that in 1920 if it had been known that Harding was 1/8 black it would have doomed him as any kind of national political figure. That's not 'my argument', Pablo, that's just a fact. You're trying to apply a very liberal, contemporary view of race to a very different situation 80 years ago and that doesn't make any sense.
Dave
5 - Bennett
"..which had been reversed by racist Democrats"
Got names? Or do we accept your statement based on a track record of honesty and integrity?
6 - Clavos
Since when is it determined that someone is "black" with 1/2 or 1/4 of their lineage of african ancestry?
Obviously the wannabe chavo didn't read the link...
7 - Dave Nalle
Bennett, read the first link in the article, good lord. I don't make this stuff up. The reversal of Republican reforms under every Democrat administration from Cleveland to Truman is a matter of historical record.'
My track record for presenting accurate facts is pretty well established, even if you don't like the conclusions drawn from those facts.
I suggest that you read Prof. Eric Foner's short history of race relations in the US and pay particular attention to the section on Woodrow Wilson. And if it makes you more confident, Foner is perhaps best known for his repeated attacks on George W. Bush in the media.
Dave
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
That explains the middle initial "G."
9 - Bennett
Oh, I don't doubt that it happened, Dave. Chancellor was a Democrat and a racist, a quality he shared with many a Republican of the day. It just goes to show that in eighty years some things change beyond recognition.
Do you make stuff up? Well, we know the answer to that, so it's a legitimate hobby to bust your ass now and again.
This statement for instance:
"If Obama does win the race, let's not forget that his success was largely built on the work of generations of Republicans..."
It's quite a reach to claim Senator Obama's success can be directly traced to reforms made long before the civil rights movement. Let alone that his success is "largely built" on the bravery and conscience of men who, were they alive today, would just as likely be Democrats or Independents.
No one political party holds a lock on bravery and conscience.
10 - Lee Richards
This is just too funny!
First McCain and "Bomb, Bomb Iran", then Hillary under imaginary sniper fire, and drinking like a sailor for the evening news, and now Harding as the inspiring bi-racial Godfather of Louis Armstrong, Jackie Robinson, Marian Anderson, MLK, Jr., and Barack Obama.
Please let it stop--my sides ache!
11 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
There's only one sentence in this article I have a problem with in this article and it's really only a question of wording which if Dave will rescind and clarify, I will have no problem with the article.
The key passage is this:
If Obama does win the race, let's not forget that his success was largely built on the work of generations of Republicans like Harding who took up the cause of Black Americans when it was controversial and no one else would stand up for them.
The key phrase is "largely built on the work of generations of Republicans like Harding."
I would have chosen the words "facilitated by" and drop the word "largely." The work of "Republicans like Harding" is only one of the many pieces which made Obama's success possible. Lets not forget the work of Black Americans themselves instead of focusing on the "Republicans like Harding" who granted the freedom. Far more important is the work of black and white activists like MLK and hundreds of others which history has neglected. The work of "Republicans like Harding" is really only a political response to changing social realities. A social reality which was changed by men and women, black and white, who suffered to change this nation and who may have been Republican, Democrat, or in all likelihood just not given a damn about political parties or politicians.
Not only does the sentence neglect the work of others besides "Republicans like Harding" it is phrased in such a way that Obama's personal success is attributable to others. The phrase "Obama's success was largely built on the hard work of Republicans like Harding" suggests that they provided for his success. However, it fails to distinguish between providing for his success and providing for the opportunity for his success.
Of course, these two points probably go against Dave's intended meaning and if so, I'm sure he would be willing to clarify.
12 - Dave Nalle
I think I'm entitled to get in a little dig at the racial exploiters of the Democratic party along the way, PETI.
I agree that African Americans have done a lot for themselves and that some few Democrats have helped them relatively altruistically, but that's all far less interesting than the info about Harding.
Dave
13 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
I think I'm entitled to get in a little dig at the racial exploiters of the Democratic party along the way, PETI.
I agree that African Americans have done a lot for themselves and that some few Democrats have helped them relatively altruistically, but that's all far less interesting than the info about Harding.
Dave
Well absolutely you can take a few digs. And of course lets not forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Or that if we dig deep enough or far enough back both parties have roots in racism (Douglass was a Republican too and even Lincoln's or Harding's purity of conscience on the matter is questionable).
And it is a fascinating history of Harding. But let's not forget that a few old white men probably did not change the social history of America alone or that Obama's success has been entirely personal although many others have provided the opportunity.
And if this is a contest of which party is more racist, which I don't think is what you meant, the nativist/racist sentiment in America now resides in the Republican Party.
14 - Dave Nalle
I'd say the nativist/racists have invaded the Republican Party. I don't think they belong there.
There's a whole political philosophy which I think is incompatible with either the Dems or the Republicans which is coherent enough to merit its own party, and I think they should go off and start one.
BTW, I have no reason to believe Douglass was a racist. He may have opposed Lincoln and tried to make Lincoln out to be a radical abolitionist, but Douglass clearly personally believed in the eventual elmination of slavery. Remember, the reason he ended up losing the debates to Lincoln is that Lincoln forced him to admit that slavery was essentially a dead issue.
Dave
15 - pleasexcusetheinerruption
I'd say the nativist/racists have invaded the Republican Party. I don't think they belong there.
That's true, but the GOP certainly has done nothing to expel them either. Remember this was the brilliant intentional strategy of Karl Rove to begin with. How do you win both the Hispanic vote and the nativist vote in the same election?
I'd say nativists shouldn't belong anywhere, definitely agree with you there. They should go off and form some 3rd party so the two center parties can mock them instead of having to pander for their votes.
And Douglass may have not been a racist for his time, but by today's standards he would be. I don't think arguing that constitutionally territories should decide whether or not to have slavery would pass today's moral standards. It's a rather academic approach to human suffering. Perhaps its unfair to judge him by today's standards.
16 - STM at the arse-hole end of the world
Nice piece Dave, nicely written and interesting to boot to this keen America-watcher.
17 - zingzing
dave, that was just an unsubtle dig at the dem's past, which is not the dem's present. it also makes civil rights out to be white man's achievement. ha! and, as you say, had republicans known harding was even a bit black, they would've laughed him out of washington.
republicans largely passed the civil rights act because it was politically advisable. and the southern dems were racist because they were southern, not dems. did the southern republicans vote in favor of civil rights?
and let's not forget that it's the dems who may nominate a black candidate for president, not the republicans. as usual, they run an old, white man. you know why? because it's politically advisable for them to do so. because republicans will never knowingly elect anything but.
18 - Baritone
Dave,
If only the people you define as "true Republicans" remained in the party, it would be a rather small minority.
It is simply that the Republican party actively lured social conservatives, neo-cons, racists, etc. to get GW in the White House.
The Dems have long been essentially a coalition of a broad spectrum of people having far different agendas, but who were willing to stand as one under the Democrat's banner. Strength in numbers, and all that. Having observed that, Republican high mucky-mucks read the handwriting on the wall and opened the doors wide - "Come one, come all." Now that effort has run its course, and you find that you don't care to share the same pew with the likes of christian fundamentalists and racists. Well, you got em, and you're welcome to them.
Of course you are right about what would have happened to Harding or anyone else in public life pretty much anytime prior to the late 1950s had their racial "impurity" been made known. But I truly doubt that Obama will be making speeches about the great service Harding provided for him and his race.
B-tone
19 - Dave Nalle
Zing, I stayed away from the racial history of the current democratic party because it is in many ways worse than it was back during the days when the party was dominated by the south. At least back then they were honest about having no interestin in civil rights. Today the party just lies and panders to minorities, while pursuing policies which keep them dependent clients of the party/state. Exploiting race is a lot worse than just being racist. The partty is trying to turn the clock back to the days of slavery in all but law.
As for the Republicans nominating an old white guy, the only old black guy we keep getting as a candidate is a certifiable nut, so what do you expect. I'm sure that as a democrat you'd like us to run Alan Keyes, but I prefer to have at least some chance of winning. Thankfully the GOP has a lot of younger black leaders on the way up, so prospects will be better in a few years.
Dave
20 - bliffle
Alan Keyes? Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about J.C. Watts.
21 - Baritone
Dave
Dave
You and others repeatedly make your specious accusations against the Dems in your vain effort to turn the tables and excuse the deeply entrenched racial hatred abundant in the Republican party. Such charges are the "say what?" kind of random blanket accusations having no basis whatsoever, but have the effect of making people wonder, "Hey, did I miss something?"
Many of the Rep racists are likely former Dems who came to realize that the Dems no longer supported their views nor spoke their language. Instead, they found new, comfy digs in the GOP.
B-tone
22 - Dave Nalle
B-tone:
The fact remains that the GOP has never supported, endorsed or condoned racism in any form. It never supported segregation, Jim Crow laws, affirmative action or any other form of policy based on race. The Democratic party has supported all of those and STILL actively promotes policies based on race.
Yes, the GOP has acquired some questionable sorts with the 'big tent' policy - including a lot of ex-democrats like the Neocons. Yet none of them have tried to enshrine racism in any form in the party platform or policies. Affirmative action is enshrined in their platform, so they are still basing policy on race. They also want to give other groups priveleged status, including women and gays, both of which are promised benefits solely because of gender or sexual preference in the Dem platform. Discrimination is the heart of democratic politics today as always.
Dave
23 - The Obnoxious American
Baritone,
Could you perhaps make an even larger and more inaccurate generalization of approximately 50% of this country?
I'm not saying that old Reps like Strom were friendly to African Americans, because they weren't. It's a real shame because when you look at the underlying principles of the GOP, self sufficiency, less government in our lives, strong national defense, it's much more in line with the current African American culture. Before you laugh, ask yourself how many black people have faith in "the man." How many do you think would retreat from a fight? How many favor a socialist versus capitalistic approach. How many favor gay rights? How many are as religious or even more religious than those in the bible belt?
Sure, African Americans cling to some of the democratic ideals, but only because in the past it was harder for them to be part of the free, capitalist based America. And this is the real shame of slavery and segregation. Had they been given the same opportunities as whites in years past, they would fall into the same voting blocks as any other group of Americans.
24 - Dave Nalle
I'd say Strom was MORE than friendly with African Americans.
Dave
25 - zingzing
dave: "The partty is trying to turn the clock back to the days of slavery in all but law."
ok. even you have to admit that's a bit of an overstatement at least. but really, it's just you yammering out of your ass. come on, dave.
"Affirmative action is enshrined in their platform, so they are still basing policy on race."
affirmative action has its problems. probably too many to let it continue in its current fashion. but it certainly in no way enslaves black people.
"They also want to give other groups priveleged status, including women and gays, both of which are promised benefits solely because of gender or sexual preference in the Dem platform."
equality is all i want. but if they are offering women and homosexuals privileged status, i guess they are offering such things privately (in which case how did you hear about it?), as i've heard nothing of the sort. i do know that republicans want to deny equal rights to homosexuals...
let's look at a little history while we're at it... why did strom thurmond switch parties? and why did republican senate majority leader trent lott say he regrets that thurmond didn't win the 1948 election, in which he ran as a third party candidate on a racist platform? the hell is up with that?
and, wow! let's look at this:
Vote totals (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
By party and region
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
looks to me like a north/south divide, rather than a dem/republican thing. although, it ALSO looks like a greater percentage of republicans voted against it, especially the southern ones, who voted 100% against civil rights. even some of the northern ones, a good 15% of them, voted against it. unless i'm reading the numbers wrong.
how you gonna twist that?