At the time when the presidential campaign between Republican candidate Warren G. Harding and Democrat candidate James M. Cox was nearing its end, a professor from little-known College of Wooster in central Ohio was under heavy scrutiny. This man - William Estabrook Chancellor - had been working there since 1914 and was the author of many a book and article largely on politics and the social sciences. One of his areas of interest in 1920 was the fellow Ohioan, Mr. Harding. The conclusions of his supposedly in-depth research into the popular politician were shocking to all; while those who knew Harding could easily disprove them, they still cause some conspiracy-minded folk to question Harding's ancestry to this day. This is because what Professor Chancellor had "revealed" to the nation was Harding's African lineage...
Warren G. Harding was an not a stranger to being called a mixed-race person. The olive-skinned Harding came from a family of abolitionists, and people would often berate families with those opinions during the time period in which Harding grew up (Dean, 19-20). Rumors would be spread about race mixing, which was seen as career-ending and practically criminal in those days. In order to try to discredit his future son-in-law, wealthy Marion resident Amos Kling reportedly tried to spread a rumor that Harding was a "n**ger."
Foul reports such as these were dredged up by William Estabrook Chancellor and repeated across the country; Chancellor published a "Genealogy of Warren G. Harding of Marion, Ohio," in which he claimed that Harding's great-grandparents were of full African descent, and that one of his parents was therefore 'impure' in blood (Dean, 75). For the most part, the Democrats with any power did not take on these crude smear messages, but plenty of regular Democrat voters were caught up in what we would call today the "fake news."
What was the response of Harding and his opponent Cox? Biographer John Dean writes that they appeared to stay above the fray, saying: "Harding's campaign and Cox's campaign both refused to give official comment," (Dean, 76). He notes that there are hard to confirm rumors of Cox "joining the whisper campaign" against Harding's reputation, but it appears that in the spotlight of the campaign there was little mudslinging from the candidates with regard to the issue of race. There were more important economic and geopolitical considerations on the minds of Americans that needed to be addressed by the candidates.
Chancellor was fired from his position at the College of Wooster on October 30, 1920 (just before the election). He would later be harrassed so much that he moved to Canada in 1921. Regardless, there is still some misinformation out there that Harding may have been part black, but multiple biographers have done credible research to show that this was not the case. This is an important bit of context that can remind us as students of history of other situations in which identity politics is used in posturing and tearing down the reputations of political figures.
Prejudicial mudslinging campaigns have happened in many high-profile cases throughout American history; sometimes it involves race; other times class, faith, or gender. Whenever it happens, it draws the attention of democracy away from the policies and the issues affecting everyday people and toward a groupthink of hate fueled by demagoguery. One very early and well-known example is when Thomas Jefferson, who was running against incumbent president John Adams, was smeared as the "son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father," and he was also attacked for supposed atheism and deism - something which is still a hot topic in today's academic circles. Andrew Jackson was attacked for practically all of the identity politics boxes. Opponents said things as outrageous as calling him "the son of a prostitute and a black man… his older brother had been sold as a slave," and, in addition to remarks about his lower-class background, he was haunted by vicious attacks on his wife. People called her an adulterer because of a legal mixup from her previous marriage, and her heart attack and death prior to Jackson's presidency has even been attributed to the stress of being labelled with horrible, repeated insults.
From 1776 to the present day, unsubstantiated character assassinations have held a sizeable place in our political discourse. From anti-Catholic tropes about the loyalties of John F. Kennedy to anti-Muslim tirades aimed at new congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, religious scapegoating has held its own among the other notorious identity smears previously mentioned. Something that seems more unique to modern discourse is the inclusion of children into the political line of fire. I remember clearly the hatred displayed toward 10 year old Barron Trump in 2016 just for who his family happened to be. There was also plenty of unwanted media attention and right-wing scrutiny on the Obama daughters over the years, but, now that the shoe is on the other foot, one side feigns innocence while the other shows a glaring hypocrisy for partaking in actions they long decried. There is also the overlooked class-shaming that seems to occur by the very same people who seek the vote of the "blue-collar" masses every time an election rolls around. This is exemplified to an astonishing agree in the treatment of congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called "AOC" by her affectionate fans - and those unable to pronounce Spanish last names. While her policies fall outside of the traditional post-Reagan political spectrum in America and garner plenty of genuine criticism, there was a firestorm of irrationality based on her working class background that engulfed the news cycle as she was entering her role as a representative. Various things which normal, hard-working and sane Americans can easily relate to were spun into stories of unprofessional behavior and lack of experience. There was her inability to afford rent in Washington, D.C., her former job as a bartender - highlighting the supposed millennial lack of success, and her oh-so-scandalous dancing videos from her time in school. Of course, once she wore a nice outfit of any sort in the high-class world of Washington, she was immediately ripped apart by the same people for being stuck-up and abandoning her constituency's impoverished roots.
I'm sure that this ties into an identity politics critique of gender and the historically marginalized role of women, and there are plenty of examples of this as well. Despite Warren G. Harding's own wife, Florence, being a very active, opinionated, and influential woman a century ago, people still act like it is something new and seize on any chance to tease a woman in power with an opinion. Take Melania Trump or Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Republican end or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez on the Democrat side as we've already discussed. The First Lady has been ridiculed for her accent despite this being a massive sin to those in "woke" America. The most recent addition to the Supreme Court has been given a bizarre treatment in the sense that fear of her future decisions has turned into a criticism of her role as both a mother figure for her family and a simultaneous conservative judicial powerhouse. Normally, women are admired when they step out of traditional "assigned" roles and balance home and work in such a way, but women are apparently fair game for sexism when they disagree with your opinions. Not a good model to set for young men of this nation.
I am glad that a study of what may be Warren Harding's principal campaign controversy overlapped with the history of the plague of identity politic posturing by both sides of American discourse. From the Jacksonian Democrats to today's Justice Democrats, from Antifederalism to "All Lives Matter," there is no group that has been immune to this rhetorical disease. I have tried to portray it that way. I hope that I came across as giving proper attention to the role that both the right and the left have in perpetuating these problems, for there should be no partisan reader here who feels off the hook at this point. Democracy has a tendency to get dirty; we are united in our propensity to partake in a flurry of deep-cutting attacks on the cultural and biological backgrounds of those we disagree with intellectually. I wish I had an easy answer to give you to stop all of this, but I'm sure Warren Harding wanted the very same thing. Little has improved since 1920 in the manner in which we spread malicious rumors. We shroud hate in new terms and slang, but much of the meaning remains. However, I will leave you with something that may be nice to hear in a time when the political left tweets happily about illness of the president - a president who once tweeted happily about the apparent physical ailings of his opponent Hillary Clinton. When approached by campaign planners and party hacks during his race for the presidency, Harding was pressured to make disparaging remarks about President Wilson and his bedridden state due to suffering from a massive stroke. This is what he had to say back to them:
"I guess you have nominated the wrong candidate, if this is the plan, for I will never go to the White House over the broken body of Woodrow Wilson."
(Dean, 74)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Book Source]
Dean, John W. "Warren G. Harding," (New York: Times Books, 2004).