Crooked Warren or Harding Lives On

[Yokai Man]

What it says on the tin-what happens if Harding doesn’t die of a heart attack and is still President when the Teapot Dome Scandal (among others) is revealed?

I imagine that Harding would most likely give himself (and probably some of his mates if he has time) a pardon before resigning in early 1924 as to avoid being impeached,but does that mean he escapes a Congressional Investigation? Most likely not but I’m not quite sure.

Incidentally,would a Congressional Investigation uncover his many affairs (one of which happened in a closet inside the White House) and him accidentally murdering a prostitute while having a party in the White House?

Finally,how big does Silent Cal loses the election? (I could however see him,however unlikely,pulling a hung college if Edward Bernays tries hard enough to make look like a new beginning)

 

[Time Enough]

Finally,how big does Silent Cal loses the election? (I could however see him,however unlikely,pulling a hung college if Edward Bernays tries hard enough to make look like a new beginning)

I could see a slim Democratic victory or a hung parliament in which the Democrats broke a deal with the Progressive’s because I doubt the Republicans will be able to get rid of the smell of corruption (though Bernays would definitely be able to stop it being a Goldwater type rout in my opinions).

Incidentally,would a Congressional Investigation uncover his many affairs (one of which happened in a closet inside the White House) and him accidentally murdering a prostitute while having a party in the White House?

I get the sense they would uncover some of them, but the bigger question is if they actually do anything about them. I could see Warren exiled from politics to parts unknown and a number of lackeys taking the fall.

I will call @Oppo because he’s pondered this scenario a couple of times as an idea.

 

[Yokai Man]

I could see a slim Democratic victory or a hung parliament in which the Democrats broke a deal with the Progressive’s because I doubt the Republicans will be able to get rid of the smell of corruption (though Bernays would definitely be able to stop it being a Goldwater type rout in my opinions).

I get the sense they would uncover some of them, but the bigger question is if they actually do anything about them. I could see Warren exiled from politics to parts unknown and a number of lackeys taking the fall.

I will call @Oppo because he’s pondered this scenario a couple of times as an idea.

I wonder if this taints the image of the Presidency earlier,along with Prohibition being slightly more powerful due to revelations that the President himself doesn’t give a shit about it and has booze parties with his crooked mates while publicly claiming that he‘s for Prohibition.

I also image that Warren,if he isn’t indited by Congress despite giving himself a pardon,will have to deal with various paternity lawsuits and maybe even deal with a divorce from his wife,destroying his image even more.

 

[Geordie]

I wonder if this taints the image of the Presidency earlier,along with Prohibition being slightly more powerful due to revelations that the President himself doesn’t give a shit about it and has booze parties with his crooked mates while publicly claiming that he‘s for Prohibition.

I also image that Warren,if he isn’t indited by Congress despite giving himself a pardon,will have to deal with various paternity lawsuits and maybe even deal with a divorce from his wife,destroying his image even more.

The link to prohibition made me think that booze was being hidden in the lids of teapots or some similar shenanigans in hedonistic parties.

A brief read of the Wikipedia article had left me gravely disappointed.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Harding would be reelected. There was no evidence that he knew of Teapot Dome.

 

[Yokai Man]

Harding would be reelected. There was no evidence that he knew of Teapot Dome.

The downside of that is that it makes him look like an idiot who doesn’t know what the members of his cabinet are doing and just blindly trusting them which isn’t good for him electorally either.

 

[Beata Beatrix]

snip

So the 'murdering a prostitute' thing seems like scandal and scuttlebutt (a young woman did die but I can't find any sources saying Harding had anything to do with it, really, and it was an accidental death, as horrible as that still is) but it seems to me that the American press corps was (and is) extremely consensual about power and I doubt they would do a Watergate to President Harding, who was not only one of them but best friends with Ned McLean, the owner of the Washington Post. They might criticize and concern-troll and Congress would investigate Teapot Dome but Harding would hardly be an ur-Nixon.

 

[Yokai Man]

So the 'murdering a prostitute' thing seems like scandal and scuttlebutt (a young woman did die but I can't find any sources saying Harding had nothing to do with it, really, and it was an accidental death, as horrible as that still is) but it seems to me that the American press corps was (and is) extremely consensual about power and I doubt they would do a Watergate to President Harding, who was not only one of them but best friends with Ned McLean, the owner of the Washington Post. They might criticize and concern-troll and Congress would investigate Teapot Dome but Harding would hardly be an ur-Nixon.

Ah,I see.

Thank you,that’s a very good point.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Harding would be reelected. There was no evidence that he knew of Teapot Dome.

I should add that he is unlikely to live for long, anyways, considering he had cardiovascular problems as early as 1916, read https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...been-re-elected-in-1924.466488/#post-18826999.

 

[Japhy]

Harding probably doesn't get nominated, which wouldn't have been seen as that unusual. When he died he was turning against the most corrupt figures in his cabinet and may secure his legacy thanks to that. Coolidge will probably make a play for the nomination but in such circumstances he doesn't have high odds. Hughes or Johnson of Borah or any given black horse have just as decent a chance of pulling it off, which makes things potentially very interesting down the road. Harding probably goes down as a slightly tarnished but not Hoover tier failure.

 

[Japhy]

I should add that he is unlikely to live for long, anyways, considering he had cardiovascular problems as early as 1916, read https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...been-re-elected-in-1924.466488/#post-18826999.

David T is not a source.

 

[Ricardolindo]

David T is not a source.

I don't want to go over this again but his post was sourced. I should note I linked to the wrong post, it was actually the one below. Honestly, I was reluctant to link precisely because of fear of your reaction.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Have you read those sources? If you have, cite them directly.

If not, cite an academic source, or a journalist, or your own reading, not David T.

Japhy's not having a go at you. It's just that, and there's no nice way to put this, those posts don't add anything to the conversation. In fact, they get in the way of good discussion.

Instead of saying 'here's my opinion and here's what it's based on,' you're saying 'my opinion on this forum is determined by the opinion of someone else on a different forum, if you have any questions ask them.'

Can you see how there's no way to constructively engage with that?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Have you read those sources? If you have, cite them directly.

If not, cite an academic source, or a journalist, or your own reading, not David T.

Japhy's not having a go at you. It's just that, and there's no nice way to put this, those posts don't add anything to the conversation. In fact, they get in the way of good discussion.

Instead of saying 'here's my opinion and here's what it's based on,' you're saying 'my opinion on this forum is determined by the opinion of someone else on a different forum, if you have any questions ask them.'

Can you see how there's no way to constructively engage with that?

You had said at https://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/in...st-failure-in-czechoslovakia.3445/post-725367 that it would be fine if I summarized the posts I linked to. Also, I have long been unsure as to what source I should cite if I read a source citing another source.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

You had said at https://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/in...st-failure-in-czechoslovakia.3445/post-725367 that it would be fine if I summarized the posts I linked to. Also, I have long been unsure as to what source I should cite if I read a source citing another source.

Whereas if you'd said: 'On the other site, David T argues A, which I will link to but also paraphrase here. Now, I find that of his argument A, points B, D, and E are well argued, but I'm not sure that C holds up because of my argument here.

But if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that his analysis is correct, then this leads to conclusion F which is interesting and relevant to this discussion because...'

This is what I suggested you do, and respectfully, it is not what you are doing. You're still just linking to the post and saying 'DavidT says so.'

And as to your other question- always a difficult one! It can be confusing to work out what a good source is and what isn't.

But while no one marks our posts like they're undergraduate essays- thank god!- if you want them to have some content,* it's good for them to be based on something concrete.

That doesn't mean including a bibliography in every post! Plenty of us make random assertions. Sometimes they're asked to expand or justify- and then they provide a few key sources.

Look- for you personally, I would avoid citing DavidT for a while. It's making people switch off. I'm not saying don't read his posts if you find them interesting, but don't use them as the basis for your argument.

And you don't need academic sources! Honestly- Wikipedia is a decent enough place to start. If it's a field you know well, you probably have read the odd book or article. Askhistorians is another option. Good long form journalism can be useful and reasonably accurate- four hundred words in the Daily Heil won't convince anyone you know what you're talking about, but something from the New York Times, Haaretz, The Economist, The New Statesman, all of which run long form articles (particularly at weekends or in holiday issues) that can cover history in detail. Maybe it's a good article. maybe it's bad. It's still a reasonable place to base your ideas on.

But, and I can't stress this enough, you need your own ideas.

That's the fundamental problem we're talking about here. You're quoting another poster, on another site, using sources you haven't read, and you're not actually adding anything. You said I told you to summarise- no. I said you should summarise and expand.

I can go to the other place to message DavidT! You're Ricardolindo. Tell me what you think.





*As opposed to the random snark, 90s movie references and British political gossip that makes up most of the forum, and happily so.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

You seem like a nice enough fellow, Ricardo, and I gather you're not posting in your first language which makes this even trickier.

But you need to have some confidence in your ability to make your own argument.

 

[Ricardolindo]

This is what I suggested you do, and respectfully, it is not what you are doing. You're still just linking to the post and saying 'DavidT says so.'

And as to your other question- always a difficult one! It can be confusing to work out what a good source is and what isn't.

But while no one marks our posts like they're undergraduate essays- thank god!- if you want them to have some content,* it's good for them to be based on something concrete.

That doesn't mean including a bibliography in every post! Plenty of us make random assertions. Sometimes they're asked to expand or justify- and then they provide a few key sources.

Look- for you personally, I would avoid citing DavidT for a while. It's making people switch off. I'm not saying don't read his posts if you find them interesting, but don't use them as the basis for your argument.

And you don't need academic sources! Honestly- Wikipedia is a decent enough place to start. If it's a field you know well, you probably have read the odd book or article. Askhistorians is another option. Good long form journalism can be useful and reasonably accurate- four hundred words in the Daily Heil won't convince anyone you know what you're talking about, but something from the New York Times, Haaretz, The Economist, The New Statesman, all of which run long form articles (particularly at weekends or in holiday issues) that can cover history in detail. Maybe it's a good article. maybe it's bad. It's still a reasonable place to base your ideas on.

But, and I can't stress this enough, you need your own ideas.

That's the fundamental problem we're talking about here. You're quoting another poster, on another site, using sources you haven't read, and you're not actually adding anything. You said I told you to summarise- no. I said you should summarise and expand.

I can go to the other place to message DavidT! You're Ricardolindo. Tell me what you think.





*As opposed to the random snark, 90s movie references and British political gossip that makes up most of the forum, and happily so.

You seem like a nice enough fellow, Ricardo, and I gather you're not posting in your first language which makes this even trickier.

But you need to have some confidence in your ability to make your own argument.

Thanks for this. I hadn't linked to his posts since almost a year (the same thread I linked to) though I still read them and used them as basis and, as I said, was reluctant to link yesterday.
I should note I am Asperger's.

 

[Mumby]

1924 was going to be a bad year for Democrats no matter how bad Teapot Dome turned out, because of how bad their Convention was. I don't see that changing and they'll still end up nominating either a bland conservative like Davis or splitting the party tbh

It could be a situation in which La Follettes Progressives do surprisingly well

 

[Japhy]

I don't want to go over this again but his post was sourced. I should note I linked to the wrong post, it was actually the one below. Honestly, I was reluctant to link precisely because of fear of your reaction.

I'm sorry if you're fearful of my reactions, thats not my intention. But my issue here was much more coherently explained by @SenatorChickpea then anything I can add now.

So again, my apologies.

 

[Japhy]

1924 was going to be a bad year for Democrats no matter how bad Teapot Dome turned out, because of how bad their Convention was. I don't see that changing and they'll still end up nominating either a bland conservative like Davis or splitting the party tbh

It could be a situation in which La Follettes Progressives do surprisingly well

If Johnson or Borah gets the nomination in 1924 La Follette won't have a platform to even compete with. Hughes or Coolidge though, yeah I'd expect him to do a lot better.