| |
Main
Date: 19 Apr 2008 14:55:16
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
The President's Daughter is the heart warming story of an innocent
young girl who became pregnant and gave birth to a child whose father
happened to be the President of the United States.
No. This is not a tawdry fable. This is fact. The President was Warren
G. Harding who then died suddenly. Some say he was murdered.
Largely on the strength of this and on the so-called �Teapot Dome
Scandal� Harding became known as the worst president the United States
ever had.
Of late, there has been a re-examination of President Harding, who was
president from 1921 to 1923. A recent book by John W Dean , who, as
the cover blurb notes in a massive understatement, is �no stranger to
presidential controversy� makes a strong case that not only was
President Harding not the worst, but he was perhaps the best president
the US ever had.
The Fall Guy in the Teapot Dome Scandal had been Albert Fall. However,
Fall had served as Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court and had
been for many years a United States Senator before joining the Harding
Administration, so it seems difficult to understand why Harding had to
take the fall for Fall.
Harding had many accomplishments as president, far more than most
presidents. For example, President Harding was the first to require
all departments of the government to have a budget. Harding cut
government expenditures by one billion dollars. Harding brought about
the economic reforms that started �The Roaring Twenties�, a period of
unequaled economic prosperity in America.
And, with Nan Britton as our witness, Harding was also the best lay.
Her book is great. In Chapter 18 she describes how on July 30, 1917
she finally lost her virginity to the future president after a long
courtship, in a New York City hotel on 30th Street overlooking
Broadway. Only moments after intercourse had been completed, the New
York City Vice Squad broke down the door. Harding was forced to
identify himself. When the police realized that their target, Warren
G. Harding, was a United States Senator (he was not yet president),
the Vice Squad apologized and beat a hasty retreat, after Harding gave
them a tip of $20. Harding told Britton that he was surprised that he
got away for less than $100.
Harding then explained that under the Constitution of the United
States, a Congressman or Senator is immune from arrest while going to
or from his place of office. Thus, since his stop-over in New York
City to see Nan Britton had been part of his journey from Ohio from
which he was a Senator to Washington DC, he could not be arrested.
Suddenly, this explains a curious recent incident in which Senator
Larry Graig of Idaho was arrested for tapping his toe in a public
restroom in an airport in Minnesota. Toe-tapping is, of course, a
vile, heinous, criminal offense, and when the toe-police arrested the
senator for tapping his toe, he immediately pulled out his
identification card showing that he was a United States Senator going
to or from his place of office and thus was immune from arrest.
Apparently, the police and the press must have thought that Senator
Larry Craig was trying to intimidate them by immediately identifying
himself as a United States Senator, whereas in reality he was merely
asserting his constitutional right to tap his toe as long as he was
traveling to or from his place of office in the United States Senate.
Similarly, in 1917, United States Senator Warren G. Harding knew his
rights and knew that he had every legal right to pop the cherry of Nan
Britton and could not be arrested for this.
This, however, raises another interesting legal question. Nan Britton
claims that she was born in 1896 and thus was 20 years old when the
cherry popping incident took place. However, one wonders, was it ever
illegal for a man to have sex with a 20-year-old woman in New York or
in any other state. Under current law, it is perfectly legal for man
to have sex with a woman in New York as long as she is at least 17
years old. In New Jersey, the legal age is 16. Thus, since time
immemorial, New York men have taken their 16-year-old girlfriends
across the river to New Jersey.
This makes one suspect that Nan Britton was in fact considerably
younger than the 20 years she claimed to have been when the New York
City Vice Squad raided the hotel room just after she had lost her
virginity to the future President Warren G. Harding.
Nan Britton explains that she really did not know how babies were
made. Her mother had never explained this to her. Senator Harding came
to the rescue and told her that he would explain to her how it was
done, and then he proceeded to do so.
It was not before long that Nan Britton discovered that she was
pregnant. Senator Harding set her up in a house in Asbury Park, New
Jersey and sent her money through messengers. Nan Britton created a
fake personality named E. N. Christian, whom, she claimed, was her
husband who had gone off to fight in World War I and had not yet
returned from Europe. This story was used to explain to her landlady
why she was pregnant but living alone in a rooming house. Similarly,
she wrote to her mother and her sister that E. N. Christian was her
employer and that all letters should be written to her c/o E. N.
Christian. Thus, she was able to keep her pregnancy and the subsequent
birth to her of an illegitimate child a secret from everybody, except
for her actual lover who was US Senator and Future President Warren G.
Harding.
Many biographers have mistakenly concluded that E. N. Christian was
her husband, a man whom she had married to legitimize the birth of her
child. However, in her autobiography, Nan Britton makes it clear that
E. N. Christian was entirely a fake personality. No such person ever
existed.
What is more remarkable is that she had only one baby by the future
President Harding. After giving birth, she could hardly wait to get
back into bed with him. Her book recounts the anxious time she spent
waiting to recover from childbirth so she could resume their sexual
activities.
In order to cover up that she had given birth to a child, she claimed
that an unknown friend had abandoned the child to her. She then
arranged for her sister and her sister's husband to adopt the
supposedly abandoned child. Her sister really did not know that the
child, Elizabeth Ann, was actually the child of Nan Britton and of
course the sister had no idea that Warren G. Harding was in any way
involved in this.
An interesting incident occurred when by chance Nan Britton met
Governor James Cox of Ohio while on a train to New York. Governor Cox
then made great efforts to seduce Nan Britton, inviting her to dinner,
riding with her in a taxi and so on. Governor Cox knew that she had
some connection with Senator Harding, although he almost certainly did
not know that she was actually Harding's mistress.
Later, this same James Cox, the man who had tried hard to seduce Nan
Britton, became the opposing candidate for President of the United
States. Warren G. Harding was the Republican Party Candidate. James
Cox was the Democratic Party Candidate. Harding won the election
easily. Nan Britton, who knew little about politics, wondered why they
even bothered to hold an election. It was just obvious to her that
Harding should be president.
Thus, everything was hunky dory. Elizabeth Ann had been legally
adopted by her sister and her brother-in-law, and meanwhile Nan
Britton was living in New York City and was free to visit Washington
DC and to have sex romps in the White House as much as circumstances
would allow.
There came a time when President Harding, at the height of his
popularity, decided to take a trip with his legal wife to Alaska,
which was the first trip ever by a president to the far western part
of the United States. Since the President was going to be away anyway,
Nan Britton took this opportunity to take a trip to France, which was
her first trip abroad.
While in France, the shocking news arrived that President Harding had
died. Nan Britton borrowed money from one Captain Neilson and was able
to board a quick boat back to the United States, hoping to arrive in
time for the funeral.
After her return, Nan Brtton soon discovered that her economic
circumstances worsened considerably. Up until that time, President
Warren G. Harding had been sending her cash money regularly, allowing
her to enjoy a fairly lavish life style. One of the messengers who
often brought her money from Harding was Tim Slade, who later on
became a close friend of Nan Britton. Tim Slade later confided that he
had long suspected that Nan Britton was actually the daughter of
President Harding, from some prior relationship. He had not originally
suspected that she was actually the mistress.
Nan Britton was now working at various secretarial jobs in New York
City. She was having trouble paying rent and making ends meet.
Meanwhile, her sister had adopted her daughter Elizabeth Ann. Soon,
her sister must have realized than Nan was actually the mother of
Elizabeth Ann. Nan Britton visited her daughter as often that she
could. She wanted her daughter to come back permanently to live with
her, but her circumstances would not allow it.
By now, Nan Britton was regularly approaching friends to borrow money.
One person who always seemed willing to loan her money was Captain
Nielson. Finally, Captain Neilson proposed marriage. He told her that
he had a lot of property in Norway and offered to give her $25,000
immediately upon consideration of this marriage.
Finally, Nan Britton confided in him her secret, that she had a
daughter who was living with her sister in Chicago, and the only
reason she would marry Captain Neilson was to get her daughter back
permanently.
Nan Britton feared that upon hearing this news. Captain Nielson would
dump her. However, this did not happen. Instead, Captain Neilson
accepted this condition and the marriage ceremony took place.
However, Captain Neilson did not have the money with him at the
moment. First, he had to return to Norway, to sell the property he
owned, and then he would return and give her the money he had
promised.
Captain Neilson left by ship. When he returned weeks later, he had not
been successful in selling the property in Norway and he did not have
any money to give her. Soon, he left on another ship, and then another
and then another. Eventually, Nan Britton realized that he was working
on these ships. He was not the owner or even the captain. He had no
money and, when in New York, she had to support him, not the other way
around.
After Nan Britton finally realized that Captain Neilson had no money
at all, she was able to find a lawyer who arranged a divorce or an
annulment without charging much. However, for some time, she used the
name �Nan Britton Neilson�.
Now that her plan of having enough money to recover her daughter by
marrying a rich man had fallen through, Nan Britton decided to contact
the family of the Late President Harding to ask them for help. It is
not true that they refused to help. They did offer to help. Daisy, the
sister of the late President Harding, often sent Nan Britton $40.
Other family members gave her small amounts of money as well. Tim
Slade once gave her $100. However, Nan Britton had rent and payments
to make. These small amounts of money plus her salary at various
secretarial jobs were not enough to support both her and her bastard
kid. She needed more.
Nan Britton obviously believed that Warren G. Harding had been a
wealthy man. She estimated his estate as being between $500,000 to
$900,000. She only wanted $50,000 in a trust fund, which she felt was
reasonable. She was interviewed by the late president's brother,
Doctor Harding. The doctor obviously felt that her demands were
unreasonable. By then, the widow of the late president, Florence
Harding, had died too so, if Nan Britton could prove her claim that
Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of the late president, then she would
be entitled to the entire estate, as President Harding had left no
other heirs. His wife, Florence, had been much older and there had
been no children.
However, the truth was probably that President Harding did not have a
lot of money. He was deeply in debt and probably insolvent. Thus, the
small amounts such as the $40 that Daisy Harding often gave Nan
Britton was not the result of miserliness but rather because Daisy did
not have a lot of money herself and gave when she could.
Finally, Nan Britton made a decision which should be obvious to every
modern reader but it took a long time for Nan Britton to think of it
and was a hard decision for Nan Britton to reach, which was TO SELL
HER STORY.
The resulting book, The Presidents Daughter, has a story all its own.
Bills were introduced in the United States Congress to stop the
publication of this book or to make possession of it illegal. The FBI
took an interest. The New York City Vice Squad raided the printing
plant and confiscated all the plates. Nan Britton went to court and
got the plates back.
It is not clear the legal grounds on which the New York City Vice
Squad raided. Was it because the book was porn? Mild by modern
standards, it probably was by the standards of those times.
No major, reputable book publisher would touch this book. All turned
it down. Finally, a charitable foundation was formed just to help
protect the rights of illegitimate children and it was this
foundation, The Elizabeth Ann Guild, that published this book.
Naturally, as the book featured sex romps in the White House, it
became a best seller.
It was obviously an expensively produced book, with hard thick covers
and high quality paper, but without the input of a regular book
publisher, the print quality was poor, the pages often irregular, hard
to read and sometimes off center. When I first saw it, I thought that
this must be a pirate edition. The book is not old, it was published
in 1927, but I had never seen a book in such bad condition.
I need to thank Pam McCallum of Scituate, Massachusetts for helping me
restore this book. Without her help, I could never have done it. She
enhanced the type fonts to make it more readable. Re-centered the
pages where needed. Due to the irregular placement of the page
numbers, too close to the edges in the lower corners, they had to be
cut off, but with 175 chapters, one for every two or three pages, it
is easy to find things.
One charge often made is that this book is a hatchet job by a
political opponent of Harding, who was probably a Democrat or a
Christian Religious Fanatic. There is no doubt some truth to this. It
would have been virtually impossible or at least unlikely for a simple
girl with a high school diploma who worked at various secretarial jobs
to have created this book, which was obviously well written, probably
by a professional writer. However, there is nothing wrong with that.
Almost all modern books nowadays have editors, proof readers and so
on. Also, throughout this book, Nan Britton expresses nothing but
admiration and respect for Warren G. Harding. She has nothing but good
things to say about the president. She simply thinks that there is
nothing wrong with a man sleeping with a woman. Others had done it,
even before President Harding. She probably never imagined that this
book would harm his reputation to the extent that it did. She wanted
only to provide for their daughter.
Nan Britton never remarried. It is said that Nan Britton loved Warren
G. Harding until the day she died on March 21, 1991 at age 94.
Sam Sloan
This book will soon be reprinted and available at the following
address:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
|
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 20:25:45
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
The book just this minute finally came out.
$29.95 plus free shipping from Amazon, available at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
464 pages
Although best known for its accounts of hot sex with the President in
the White House Laundry Room, a large part of this book is concerned
with efforts of the mother to obtain child support for her
illegitimate child, who was left destitute after the untimely death of
her father, who had been President of the United States.
Sam Sloan
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:55:16 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
>
>The President's Daughter is the heart warming story of an innocent
>young girl who became pregnant and gave birth to a child whose father
>happened to be the President of the United States.
>
>No. This is not a tawdry fable. This is fact. The President was Warren
>G. Harding who then died suddenly. Some say he was murdered.
>
>Largely on the strength of this and on the so-called �Teapot Dome
>Scandal� Harding became known as the worst president the United States
>ever had.
>
>Of late, there has been a re-examination of President Harding, who was
>president from 1921 to 1923. A recent book by John W Dean , who, as
>the cover blurb notes in a massive understatement, is �no stranger to
>presidential controversy� makes a strong case that not only was
>President Harding not the worst, but he was perhaps the best president
>the US ever had.
>
>The Fall Guy in the Teapot Dome Scandal had been Albert Fall. However,
>Fall had served as Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court and had
>been for many years a United States Senator before joining the Harding
>Administration, so it seems difficult to understand why Harding had to
>take the fall for Fall.
>
>Harding had many accomplishments as president, far more than most
>presidents. For example, President Harding was the first to require
>all departments of the government to have a budget. Harding cut
>government expenditures by one billion dollars. Harding brought about
>the economic reforms that started �The Roaring Twenties�, a period of
>unequaled economic prosperity in America.
>
>And, with Nan Britton as our witness, Harding was also the best lay.
>
>Her book is great. In Chapter 18 she describes how on July 30, 1917
>she finally lost her virginity to the future president after a long
>courtship, in a New York City hotel on 30th Street overlooking
>Broadway. Only moments after intercourse had been completed, the New
>York City Vice Squad broke down the door. Harding was forced to
>identify himself. When the police realized that their target, Warren
>G. Harding, was a United States Senator (he was not yet president),
>the Vice Squad apologized and beat a hasty retreat, after Harding gave
>them a tip of $20. Harding told Britton that he was surprised that he
>got away for less than $100.
>
>Harding then explained that under the Constitution of the United
>States, a Congressman or Senator is immune from arrest while going to
>or from his place of office. Thus, since his stop-over in New York
>City to see Nan Britton had been part of his journey from Ohio from
>which he was a Senator to Washington DC, he could not be arrested.
>
>Suddenly, this explains a curious recent incident in which Senator
>Larry Graig of Idaho was arrested for tapping his toe in a public
>restroom in an airport in Minnesota. Toe-tapping is, of course, a
>vile, heinous, criminal offense, and when the toe-police arrested the
>senator for tapping his toe, he immediately pulled out his
>identification card showing that he was a United States Senator going
>to or from his place of office and thus was immune from arrest.
>
>Apparently, the police and the press must have thought that Senator
>Larry Craig was trying to intimidate them by immediately identifying
>himself as a United States Senator, whereas in reality he was merely
>asserting his constitutional right to tap his toe as long as he was
>traveling to or from his place of office in the United States Senate.
>
>Similarly, in 1917, United States Senator Warren G. Harding knew his
>rights and knew that he had every legal right to pop the cherry of Nan
>Britton and could not be arrested for this.
>
>This, however, raises another interesting legal question. Nan Britton
>claims that she was born in 1896 and thus was 20 years old when the
>cherry popping incident took place. However, one wonders, was it ever
>illegal for a man to have sex with a 20-year-old woman in New York or
>in any other state. Under current law, it is perfectly legal for man
>to have sex with a woman in New York as long as she is at least 17
>years old. In New Jersey, the legal age is 16. Thus, since time
>immemorial, New York men have taken their 16-year-old girlfriends
>across the river to New Jersey.
>
>This makes one suspect that Nan Britton was in fact considerably
>younger than the 20 years she claimed to have been when the New York
>City Vice Squad raided the hotel room just after she had lost her
>virginity to the future President Warren G. Harding.
>
>Nan Britton explains that she really did not know how babies were
>made. Her mother had never explained this to her. Senator Harding came
>to the rescue and told her that he would explain to her how it was
>done, and then he proceeded to do so.
>
>It was not before long that Nan Britton discovered that she was
>pregnant. Senator Harding set her up in a house in Asbury Park, New
>Jersey and sent her money through messengers. Nan Britton created a
>fake personality named E. N. Christian, whom, she claimed, was her
>husband who had gone off to fight in World War I and had not yet
>returned from Europe. This story was used to explain to her landlady
>why she was pregnant but living alone in a rooming house. Similarly,
>she wrote to her mother and her sister that E. N. Christian was her
>employer and that all letters should be written to her c/o E. N.
>Christian. Thus, she was able to keep her pregnancy and the subsequent
>birth to her of an illegitimate child a secret from everybody, except
>for her actual lover who was US Senator and Future President Warren G.
>Harding.
>
>Many biographers have mistakenly concluded that E. N. Christian was
>her husband, a man whom she had married to legitimize the birth of her
>child. However, in her autobiography, Nan Britton makes it clear that
>E. N. Christian was entirely a fake personality. No such person ever
>existed.
>
>What is more remarkable is that she had only one baby by the future
>President Harding. After giving birth, she could hardly wait to get
>back into bed with him. Her book recounts the anxious time she spent
>waiting to recover from childbirth so she could resume their sexual
>activities.
>
>In order to cover up that she had given birth to a child, she claimed
>that an unknown friend had abandoned the child to her. She then
>arranged for her sister and her sister's husband to adopt the
>supposedly abandoned child. Her sister really did not know that the
>child, Elizabeth Ann, was actually the child of Nan Britton and of
>course the sister had no idea that Warren G. Harding was in any way
>involved in this.
>
>An interesting incident occurred when by chance Nan Britton met
>Governor James Cox of Ohio while on a train to New York. Governor Cox
>then made great efforts to seduce Nan Britton, inviting her to dinner,
>riding with her in a taxi and so on. Governor Cox knew that she had
>some connection with Senator Harding, although he almost certainly did
>not know that she was actually Harding's mistress.
>
>Later, this same James Cox, the man who had tried hard to seduce Nan
>Britton, became the opposing candidate for President of the United
>States. Warren G. Harding was the Republican Party Candidate. James
>Cox was the Democratic Party Candidate. Harding won the election
>easily. Nan Britton, who knew little about politics, wondered why they
>even bothered to hold an election. It was just obvious to her that
>Harding should be president.
>
>Thus, everything was hunky dory. Elizabeth Ann had been legally
>adopted by her sister and her brother-in-law, and meanwhile Nan
>Britton was living in New York City and was free to visit Washington
>DC and to have sex romps in the White House as much as circumstances
>would allow.
>
>There came a time when President Harding, at the height of his
>popularity, decided to take a trip with his legal wife to Alaska,
>which was the first trip ever by a president to the far western part
>of the United States. Since the President was going to be away anyway,
>Nan Britton took this opportunity to take a trip to France, which was
>her first trip abroad.
>
>While in France, the shocking news arrived that President Harding had
>died. Nan Britton borrowed money from one Captain Neilson and was able
>to board a quick boat back to the United States, hoping to arrive in
>time for the funeral.
>
>After her return, Nan Brtton soon discovered that her economic
>circumstances worsened considerably. Up until that time, President
>Warren G. Harding had been sending her cash money regularly, allowing
>her to enjoy a fairly lavish life style. One of the messengers who
>often brought her money from Harding was Tim Slade, who later on
>became a close friend of Nan Britton. Tim Slade later confided that he
>had long suspected that Nan Britton was actually the daughter of
>President Harding, from some prior relationship. He had not originally
>suspected that she was actually the mistress.
>
>Nan Britton was now working at various secretarial jobs in New York
>City. She was having trouble paying rent and making ends meet.
>Meanwhile, her sister had adopted her daughter Elizabeth Ann. Soon,
>her sister must have realized than Nan was actually the mother of
>Elizabeth Ann. Nan Britton visited her daughter as often that she
>could. She wanted her daughter to come back permanently to live with
>her, but her circumstances would not allow it.
>
>By now, Nan Britton was regularly approaching friends to borrow money.
>One person who always seemed willing to loan her money was Captain
>Nielson. Finally, Captain Neilson proposed marriage. He told her that
>he had a lot of property in Norway and offered to give her $25,000
>immediately upon consideration of this marriage.
>
>Finally, Nan Britton confided in him her secret, that she had a
>daughter who was living with her sister in Chicago, and the only
>reason she would marry Captain Neilson was to get her daughter back
>permanently.
>
>Nan Britton feared that upon hearing this news. Captain Nielson would
>dump her. However, this did not happen. Instead, Captain Neilson
>accepted this condition and the marriage ceremony took place.
>
>However, Captain Neilson did not have the money with him at the
>moment. First, he had to return to Norway, to sell the property he
>owned, and then he would return and give her the money he had
>promised.
>
>Captain Neilson left by ship. When he returned weeks later, he had not
>been successful in selling the property in Norway and he did not have
>any money to give her. Soon, he left on another ship, and then another
>and then another. Eventually, Nan Britton realized that he was working
>on these ships. He was not the owner or even the captain. He had no
>money and, when in New York, she had to support him, not the other way
>around.
>
>After Nan Britton finally realized that Captain Neilson had no money
>at all, she was able to find a lawyer who arranged a divorce or an
>annulment without charging much. However, for some time, she used the
>name �Nan Britton Neilson�.
>
>Now that her plan of having enough money to recover her daughter by
>marrying a rich man had fallen through, Nan Britton decided to contact
>the family of the Late President Harding to ask them for help. It is
>not true that they refused to help. They did offer to help. Daisy, the
>sister of the late President Harding, often sent Nan Britton $40.
>Other family members gave her small amounts of money as well. Tim
>Slade once gave her $100. However, Nan Britton had rent and payments
>to make. These small amounts of money plus her salary at various
>secretarial jobs were not enough to support both her and her bastard
>kid. She needed more.
>
>Nan Britton obviously believed that Warren G. Harding had been a
>wealthy man. She estimated his estate as being between $500,000 to
>$900,000. She only wanted $50,000 in a trust fund, which she felt was
>reasonable. She was interviewed by the late president's brother,
>Doctor Harding. The doctor obviously felt that her demands were
>unreasonable. By then, the widow of the late president, Florence
>Harding, had died too so, if Nan Britton could prove her claim that
>Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of the late president, then she would
>be entitled to the entire estate, as President Harding had left no
>other heirs. His wife, Florence, had been much older and there had
>been no children.
>
>However, the truth was probably that President Harding did not have a
>lot of money. He was deeply in debt and probably insolvent. Thus, the
>small amounts such as the $40 that Daisy Harding often gave Nan
>Britton was not the result of miserliness but rather because Daisy did
>not have a lot of money herself and gave when she could.
>
>Finally, Nan Britton made a decision which should be obvious to every
>modern reader but it took a long time for Nan Britton to think of it
>and was a hard decision for Nan Britton to reach, which was TO SELL
>HER STORY.
>
>The resulting book, The Presidents Daughter, has a story all its own.
>Bills were introduced in the United States Congress to stop the
>publication of this book or to make possession of it illegal. The FBI
>took an interest. The New York City Vice Squad raided the printing
>plant and confiscated all the plates. Nan Britton went to court and
>got the plates back.
>
>It is not clear the legal grounds on which the New York City Vice
>Squad raided. Was it because the book was porn? Mild by modern
>standards, it probably was by the standards of those times.
>
>No major, reputable book publisher would touch this book. All turned
>it down. Finally, a charitable foundation was formed just to help
>protect the rights of illegitimate children and it was this
>foundation, The Elizabeth Ann Guild, that published this book.
>Naturally, as the book featured sex romps in the White House, it
>became a best seller.
>
>It was obviously an expensively produced book, with hard thick covers
>and high quality paper, but without the input of a regular book
>publisher, the print quality was poor, the pages often irregular, hard
>to read and sometimes off center. When I first saw it, I thought that
>this must be a pirate edition. The book is not old, it was published
>in 1927, but I had never seen a book in such bad condition.
>
>I need to thank Pam McCallum of Scituate, Massachusetts for helping me
>restore this book. Without her help, I could never have done it. She
>enhanced the type fonts to make it more readable. Re-centered the
>pages where needed. Due to the irregular placement of the page
>numbers, too close to the edges in the lower corners, they had to be
>cut off, but with 175 chapters, one for every two or three pages, it
>is easy to find things.
>
>One charge often made is that this book is a hatchet job by a
>political opponent of Harding, who was probably a Democrat or a
>Christian Religious Fanatic. There is no doubt some truth to this. It
>would have been virtually impossible or at least unlikely for a simple
>girl with a high school diploma who worked at various secretarial jobs
>to have created this book, which was obviously well written, probably
>by a professional writer. However, there is nothing wrong with that.
>Almost all modern books nowadays have editors, proof readers and so
>on. Also, throughout this book, Nan Britton expresses nothing but
>admiration and respect for Warren G. Harding. She has nothing but good
>things to say about the president. She simply thinks that there is
>nothing wrong with a man sleeping with a woman. Others had done it,
>even before President Harding. She probably never imagined that this
>book would harm his reputation to the extent that it did. She wanted
>only to provide for their daughter.
>
>Nan Britton never remarried. It is said that Nan Britton loved Warren
>G. Harding until the day she died on March 21, 1991 at age 94.
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>This book will soon be reprinted and available at the following
>address:
>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
>
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2008 12:46:30
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
The book has been published (finally).
It is available on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
Sam Sloan
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:55:16 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
>
>The President's Daughter is the heart warming story of an innocent
>young girl who became pregnant and gave birth to a child whose father
>happened to be the President of the United States.
>
>No. This is not a tawdry fable. This is fact. The President was Warren
>G. Harding who then died suddenly. Some say he was murdered.
>
>Largely on the strength of this and on the so-called �Teapot Dome
>Scandal� Harding became known as the worst president the United States
>ever had.
>
>Of late, there has been a re-examination of President Harding, who was
>president from 1921 to 1923. A recent book by John W Dean , who, as
>the cover blurb notes in a massive understatement, is �no stranger to
>presidential controversy� makes a strong case that not only was
>President Harding not the worst, but he was perhaps the best president
>the US ever had.
>
>The Fall Guy in the Teapot Dome Scandal had been Albert Fall. However,
>Fall had served as Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court and had
>been for many years a United States Senator before joining the Harding
>Administration, so it seems difficult to understand why Harding had to
>take the fall for Fall.
>
>Harding had many accomplishments as president, far more than most
>presidents. For example, President Harding was the first to require
>all departments of the government to have a budget. Harding cut
>government expenditures by one billion dollars. Harding brought about
>the economic reforms that started �The Roaring Twenties�, a period of
>unequaled economic prosperity in America.
>
>And, with Nan Britton as our witness, Harding was also the best lay.
>
>Her book is great. In Chapter 18 she describes how on July 30, 1917
>she finally lost her virginity to the future president after a long
>courtship, in a New York City hotel on 30th Street overlooking
>Broadway. Only moments after intercourse had been completed, the New
>York City Vice Squad broke down the door. Harding was forced to
>identify himself. When the police realized that their target, Warren
>G. Harding, was a United States Senator (he was not yet president),
>the Vice Squad apologized and beat a hasty retreat, after Harding gave
>them a tip of $20. Harding told Britton that he was surprised that he
>got away for less than $100.
>
>Harding then explained that under the Constitution of the United
>States, a Congressman or Senator is immune from arrest while going to
>or from his place of office. Thus, since his stop-over in New York
>City to see Nan Britton had been part of his journey from Ohio from
>which he was a Senator to Washington DC, he could not be arrested.
>
>Suddenly, this explains a curious recent incident in which Senator
>Larry Graig of Idaho was arrested for tapping his toe in a public
>restroom in an airport in Minnesota. Toe-tapping is, of course, a
>vile, heinous, criminal offense, and when the toe-police arrested the
>senator for tapping his toe, he immediately pulled out his
>identification card showing that he was a United States Senator going
>to or from his place of office and thus was immune from arrest.
>
>Apparently, the police and the press must have thought that Senator
>Larry Craig was trying to intimidate them by immediately identifying
>himself as a United States Senator, whereas in reality he was merely
>asserting his constitutional right to tap his toe as long as he was
>traveling to or from his place of office in the United States Senate.
>
>Similarly, in 1917, United States Senator Warren G. Harding knew his
>rights and knew that he had every legal right to pop the cherry of Nan
>Britton and could not be arrested for this.
>
>This, however, raises another interesting legal question. Nan Britton
>claims that she was born in 1896 and thus was 20 years old when the
>cherry popping incident took place. However, one wonders, was it ever
>illegal for a man to have sex with a 20-year-old woman in New York or
>in any other state. Under current law, it is perfectly legal for man
>to have sex with a woman in New York as long as she is at least 17
>years old. In New Jersey, the legal age is 16. Thus, since time
>immemorial, New York men have taken their 16-year-old girlfriends
>across the river to New Jersey.
>
>This makes one suspect that Nan Britton was in fact considerably
>younger than the 20 years she claimed to have been when the New York
>City Vice Squad raided the hotel room just after she had lost her
>virginity to the future President Warren G. Harding.
>
>Nan Britton explains that she really did not know how babies were
>made. Her mother had never explained this to her. Senator Harding came
>to the rescue and told her that he would explain to her how it was
>done, and then he proceeded to do so.
>
>It was not before long that Nan Britton discovered that she was
>pregnant. Senator Harding set her up in a house in Asbury Park, New
>Jersey and sent her money through messengers. Nan Britton created a
>fake personality named E. N. Christian, whom, she claimed, was her
>husband who had gone off to fight in World War I and had not yet
>returned from Europe. This story was used to explain to her landlady
>why she was pregnant but living alone in a rooming house. Similarly,
>she wrote to her mother and her sister that E. N. Christian was her
>employer and that all letters should be written to her c/o E. N.
>Christian. Thus, she was able to keep her pregnancy and the subsequent
>birth to her of an illegitimate child a secret from everybody, except
>for her actual lover who was US Senator and Future President Warren G.
>Harding.
>
>Many biographers have mistakenly concluded that E. N. Christian was
>her husband, a man whom she had married to legitimize the birth of her
>child. However, in her autobiography, Nan Britton makes it clear that
>E. N. Christian was entirely a fake personality. No such person ever
>existed.
>
>What is more remarkable is that she had only one baby by the future
>President Harding. After giving birth, she could hardly wait to get
>back into bed with him. Her book recounts the anxious time she spent
>waiting to recover from childbirth so she could resume their sexual
>activities.
>
>In order to cover up that she had given birth to a child, she claimed
>that an unknown friend had abandoned the child to her. She then
>arranged for her sister and her sister's husband to adopt the
>supposedly abandoned child. Her sister really did not know that the
>child, Elizabeth Ann, was actually the child of Nan Britton and of
>course the sister had no idea that Warren G. Harding was in any way
>involved in this.
>
>An interesting incident occurred when by chance Nan Britton met
>Governor James Cox of Ohio while on a train to New York. Governor Cox
>then made great efforts to seduce Nan Britton, inviting her to dinner,
>riding with her in a taxi and so on. Governor Cox knew that she had
>some connection with Senator Harding, although he almost certainly did
>not know that she was actually Harding's mistress.
>
>Later, this same James Cox, the man who had tried hard to seduce Nan
>Britton, became the opposing candidate for President of the United
>States. Warren G. Harding was the Republican Party Candidate. James
>Cox was the Democratic Party Candidate. Harding won the election
>easily. Nan Britton, who knew little about politics, wondered why they
>even bothered to hold an election. It was just obvious to her that
>Harding should be president.
>
>Thus, everything was hunky dory. Elizabeth Ann had been legally
>adopted by her sister and her brother-in-law, and meanwhile Nan
>Britton was living in New York City and was free to visit Washington
>DC and to have sex romps in the White House as much as circumstances
>would allow.
>
>There came a time when President Harding, at the height of his
>popularity, decided to take a trip with his legal wife to Alaska,
>which was the first trip ever by a president to the far western part
>of the United States. Since the President was going to be away anyway,
>Nan Britton took this opportunity to take a trip to France, which was
>her first trip abroad.
>
>While in France, the shocking news arrived that President Harding had
>died. Nan Britton borrowed money from one Captain Neilson and was able
>to board a quick boat back to the United States, hoping to arrive in
>time for the funeral.
>
>After her return, Nan Brtton soon discovered that her economic
>circumstances worsened considerably. Up until that time, President
>Warren G. Harding had been sending her cash money regularly, allowing
>her to enjoy a fairly lavish life style. One of the messengers who
>often brought her money from Harding was Tim Slade, who later on
>became a close friend of Nan Britton. Tim Slade later confided that he
>had long suspected that Nan Britton was actually the daughter of
>President Harding, from some prior relationship. He had not originally
>suspected that she was actually the mistress.
>
>Nan Britton was now working at various secretarial jobs in New York
>City. She was having trouble paying rent and making ends meet.
>Meanwhile, her sister had adopted her daughter Elizabeth Ann. Soon,
>her sister must have realized than Nan was actually the mother of
>Elizabeth Ann. Nan Britton visited her daughter as often that she
>could. She wanted her daughter to come back permanently to live with
>her, but her circumstances would not allow it.
>
>By now, Nan Britton was regularly approaching friends to borrow money.
>One person who always seemed willing to loan her money was Captain
>Nielson. Finally, Captain Neilson proposed marriage. He told her that
>he had a lot of property in Norway and offered to give her $25,000
>immediately upon consideration of this marriage.
>
>Finally, Nan Britton confided in him her secret, that she had a
>daughter who was living with her sister in Chicago, and the only
>reason she would marry Captain Neilson was to get her daughter back
>permanently.
>
>Nan Britton feared that upon hearing this news. Captain Nielson would
>dump her. However, this did not happen. Instead, Captain Neilson
>accepted this condition and the marriage ceremony took place.
>
>However, Captain Neilson did not have the money with him at the
>moment. First, he had to return to Norway, to sell the property he
>owned, and then he would return and give her the money he had
>promised.
>
>Captain Neilson left by ship. When he returned weeks later, he had not
>been successful in selling the property in Norway and he did not have
>any money to give her. Soon, he left on another ship, and then another
>and then another. Eventually, Nan Britton realized that he was working
>on these ships. He was not the owner or even the captain. He had no
>money and, when in New York, she had to support him, not the other way
>around.
>
>After Nan Britton finally realized that Captain Neilson had no money
>at all, she was able to find a lawyer who arranged a divorce or an
>annulment without charging much. However, for some time, she used the
>name �Nan Britton Neilson�.
>
>Now that her plan of having enough money to recover her daughter by
>marrying a rich man had fallen through, Nan Britton decided to contact
>the family of the Late President Harding to ask them for help. It is
>not true that they refused to help. They did offer to help. Daisy, the
>sister of the late President Harding, often sent Nan Britton $40.
>Other family members gave her small amounts of money as well. Tim
>Slade once gave her $100. However, Nan Britton had rent and payments
>to make. These small amounts of money plus her salary at various
>secretarial jobs were not enough to support both her and her bastard
>kid. She needed more.
>
>Nan Britton obviously believed that Warren G. Harding had been a
>wealthy man. She estimated his estate as being between $500,000 to
>$900,000. She only wanted $50,000 in a trust fund, which she felt was
>reasonable. She was interviewed by the late president's brother,
>Doctor Harding. The doctor obviously felt that her demands were
>unreasonable. By then, the widow of the late president, Florence
>Harding, had died too so, if Nan Britton could prove her claim that
>Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of the late president, then she would
>be entitled to the entire estate, as President Harding had left no
>other heirs. His wife, Florence, had been much older and there had
>been no children.
>
>However, the truth was probably that President Harding did not have a
>lot of money. He was deeply in debt and probably insolvent. Thus, the
>small amounts such as the $40 that Daisy Harding often gave Nan
>Britton was not the result of miserliness but rather because Daisy did
>not have a lot of money herself and gave when she could.
>
>Finally, Nan Britton made a decision which should be obvious to every
>modern reader but it took a long time for Nan Britton to think of it
>and was a hard decision for Nan Britton to reach, which was TO SELL
>HER STORY.
>
>The resulting book, The Presidents Daughter, has a story all its own.
>Bills were introduced in the United States Congress to stop the
>publication of this book or to make possession of it illegal. The FBI
>took an interest. The New York City Vice Squad raided the printing
>plant and confiscated all the plates. Nan Britton went to court and
>got the plates back.
>
>It is not clear the legal grounds on which the New York City Vice
>Squad raided. Was it because the book was porn? Mild by modern
>standards, it probably was by the standards of those times.
>
>No major, reputable book publisher would touch this book. All turned
>it down. Finally, a charitable foundation was formed just to help
>protect the rights of illegitimate children and it was this
>foundation, The Elizabeth Ann Guild, that published this book.
>Naturally, as the book featured sex romps in the White House, it
>became a best seller.
>
>It was obviously an expensively produced book, with hard thick covers
>and high quality paper, but without the input of a regular book
>publisher, the print quality was poor, the pages often irregular, hard
>to read and sometimes off center. When I first saw it, I thought that
>this must be a pirate edition. The book is not old, it was published
>in 1927, but I had never seen a book in such bad condition.
>
>I need to thank Pam McCallum of Scituate, Massachusetts for helping me
>restore this book. Without her help, I could never have done it. She
>enhanced the type fonts to make it more readable. Re-centered the
>pages where needed. Due to the irregular placement of the page
>numbers, too close to the edges in the lower corners, they had to be
>cut off, but with 175 chapters, one for every two or three pages, it
>is easy to find things.
>
>One charge often made is that this book is a hatchet job by a
>political opponent of Harding, who was probably a Democrat or a
>Christian Religious Fanatic. There is no doubt some truth to this. It
>would have been virtually impossible or at least unlikely for a simple
>girl with a high school diploma who worked at various secretarial jobs
>to have created this book, which was obviously well written, probably
>by a professional writer. However, there is nothing wrong with that.
>Almost all modern books nowadays have editors, proof readers and so
>on. Also, throughout this book, Nan Britton expresses nothing but
>admiration and respect for Warren G. Harding. She has nothing but good
>things to say about the president. She simply thinks that there is
>nothing wrong with a man sleeping with a woman. Others had done it,
>even before President Harding. She probably never imagined that this
>book would harm his reputation to the extent that it did. She wanted
>only to provide for their daughter.
>
>Nan Britton never remarried. It is said that Nan Britton loved Warren
>G. Harding until the day she died on March 21, 1991 at age 94.
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>This book will soon be reprinted and available at the following
>address:
>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 22:43:01
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
The President's Daughter by Nan Britton has finally come out today.
It has taken a bit longer than my books usually take to be printed,
probably because of the poor quality of the original book.
Any way, it is finally out and you should be able to order the book
within two of three days on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 11:16:31
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
I sent the book to the printers last night. It should be out in a week
to ten days.
This book will be available at the following address:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
You cannot imagine how difficult this was. Pages of the original book
were off center. Printing was irregular. Some pages bold. Other pages
light.
I have discovered some interesting new things.
Although Nan Britton mentions numerous relatives, she never gives the
names of her mother and father. I have learned from the book "Florence
Harding" by Carl Sferrazza Anthony that her father was Dr. Sam Britton
and he died in June 1913. This was about the time that Nan Britton
started fooling around with the future president. I believe that Dr.
Sam Britton was probably the same person as Samuel Herbert Britton
(1859-1913) who is buried in nearby Knox County Ohio and was the son
of Mary Critchfield.
Nan's mother was Mary Williams Britton. She was a school teacher but I
have found nothing much on her.
Nan's middle name was Popham, so her full name Nana Popham Britton. My
great-great-grandmother was Jane Popham (1809-1893) so it seems likely
that Nan Britton was my very distant cousin. The grandfather of Jane
Popham was Job Popham (1709-1781). He and his son Humphrey Popham (b.
1763) had many children and were possibly polygamists. This is the
likely source of the Popham name in Nana Popham Britton, but so far I
have not been able to find anything more on this.
The daughter of Nan Britton and President Warren G. Harding was
Elizabeth Ann who died on 17 November 2005 at age 96 in Oregon,
outliving her mother who only lived to age 94.
In her book, Nan Britton says that after the death of President
Harding she married a man named "Captain Neilsen" because she believed
that he had a lot of money and could support her daughter, Elizabeth
Ann. However, when Captain Neilsen turned out not to have any money at
all, she either got a divorce or an annulment.
An Internet website in Oregon gives the name of that man as Magnus
Cricken.
Does this mean that he was a complete fraud, that his name was not
Captain Neilsen at all, or did she just give him a fake name in the
book?
She gives the name of the man who often brought her money from
President Harding as Tim Slade, but says that this is a fake name. I
am trying to find out what his real name was. He must have been a
close associate of Harding.
I have found a newspaper article published in Toledo, Ohio on November
3, 1931 that shows a picture of Elizabeth Ann at age 12. Elizabeth Ann
looks exactly like Warren G. Harding. This picture erases any possible
doubt that Elizabeth Ann really was the daughter of President Harding.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 May 2008 13:13:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On May 2, 8:40 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > SAZOMOV'S MEMOIRS
>
> > > I have just ordered two copies of FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The
> > > Reminiscences of SergeSazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for
> > > Foreign Affairs: 1914)
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> TheSazonovBook Project is moving along. I have already designed the
> cover and assigned an ISBN Number to it. When it is published, it will
> appear at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
>
> That eminent, distinguished and renowned historian Larry Parr will be
> writing the introduction.
>
> Sam Sloan
The book is out !!!!! The Sazonov book with an introduction by Larry
Parr has been reprinted today.
Within about three or four days it will be listed for sale on Amazon
at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
Too bad that Larry Parr does not know about this, as his computer is
still broke.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2008 15:10:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On May 8, 6:02 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 1:25 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have ordered the SergeSazonov book and I will be reprinting it.
> > You can expect it out in a month.
>
> > If you want to write an introduction I will publish it in the book. I
> > always include an introduction in my reprints.
>
> > Forget the New York Public Library. That is a research library. You
> > cannot check books. Also, when I reprint a book I take it apart and
> > dismember it. I cut apart all the pages. It cannot be returned to the
> > library.
>
> > Also, forget the Herbert Yardley books. They have all been reprinted
> > in 2004 and 2005 and are available everywhere cheap.
>
> > I use bookfinder.com all the time. It is my main place to search.
>
> > Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
> > Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
> > find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
> > where I can find it?
>
> > My only working email now is [email protected] Write to me there.
> > Also, you can write to the Amherst County Sheriff and ask him politely
> > to let me have my websites back.
>
> > You write above "SAZAMOV'S MEMOIRS" Is that a spelling mistake, or is
> > SAZAMOV another one of those White Russians?
>
> > Sam
>
> Dear Larry Parr,
>
> I have finished the Sazonov book and I have just emailed it to you.
> Check your email. The book is ready to go to the printers as soon as
> you write the introduction. Try not to take too long and to do a good
> job.
>
> When it is published it will be available at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
>
> The Elo book came out yesterday. It is available at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> The Dolly Gann book came out two days ago. It is available at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891080
>
> And of course the Nan Britton book came out last week at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
>
> and the revised Japanese language book came out three says ago at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891129
>
> Five new books in one week is a good number, even for me!
>
> Sam Sloan
Oh. I forgot. The Alice in Wonderland book I revised with better
drawings of Alice this past week too!
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891919
Sam
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2008 15:02:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 1:25 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have ordered the SergeSazonov book and I will be reprinting it.
> You can expect it out in a month.
>
> If you want to write an introduction I will publish it in the book. I
> always include an introduction in my reprints.
>
> Forget the New York Public Library. That is a research library. You
> cannot check books. Also, when I reprint a book I take it apart and
> dismember it. I cut apart all the pages. It cannot be returned to the
> library.
>
> Also, forget the Herbert Yardley books. They have all been reprinted
> in 2004 and 2005 and are available everywhere cheap.
>
> I use bookfinder.com all the time. It is my main place to search.
>
> Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
> Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
> find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
> where I can find it?
>
> My only working email now is [email protected] Write to me there.
> Also, you can write to the Amherst County Sheriff and ask him politely
> to let me have my websites back.
>
> You write above "SAZAMOV'S MEMOIRS" Is that a spelling mistake, or is
> SAZAMOV another one of those White Russians?
>
> Sam
Dear Larry Parr,
I have finished the Sazonov book and I have just emailed it to you.
Check your email. The book is ready to go to the printers as soon as
you write the introduction. Try not to take too long and to do a good
job.
When it is published it will be available at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
The Elo book came out yesterday. It is available at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
The Dolly Gann book came out two days ago. It is available at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891080
And of course the Nan Britton book came out last week at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
and the revised Japanese language book came out three says ago at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891129
Five new books in one week is a good number, even for me!
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2008 17:57:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On May 2, 9:45 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I long for the good old days, back when LP and
> > > > NB would argue about which interpretation of war
> > > > was more ludicrous. In one of those discussions,
> > > > NB said he had done a comprehensive survey --
> > > > a secret one, I suppose, since nobody but him
> > > > knew about it -- in which all the world's many
> > > > academics agreed with NB (shocking) and LP's
> > > > favorite writer was wrong. But that was the one
> > > > time where I liked Larry Parr's story better... .
> > > I don't recall ever having any such exchange with Mr. Parr, either
> > > publicly or privately. Would you, or Mr. Parr for that matter, care to
> > > repost or provide a link to the exchange in question?
>
> > Neil, the "NB" in this case is Nick Bourbaki.
I would like to take this (rare) opportunity to point
out that TK is absolutely correct; I was indeed
referring to Neil Bourbaki-- the fellow who insisted
that every academic who ever existed has always
agreed with his every whim, on each and every
issue, period.
> OK, thanks for the clarification. Obviously I missed those posts. And
> I probably didn't miss much.
Wrong. Compared to what we are normally
subjected to, I would say that those postings were
far more interesting and much less focused on
ad hominem-- by a country mile. This may in part
be due to the fact that Larry Evans was not
involved (most first-class academics agreed he
neither started the war nor affected its outcome).
Granted, those postings had nothing to do with
chess, but then neither does arrogance nor ad
hominem, which together made up the bulk of
their other writings... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 15:38:12
From:
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On May 2, 9:06=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> TAYLOR KINGSTON'S INTERESTING POINTS
>
> I have not had time to respond yet, but rest assured that I am working
> on it and will post my reply here.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
I look forward to that, Larry, _if_ you can keep it civil. My post
about WW I in 1917 was written strictly out of my interest in history,
and not to score rcgp "gotcha" points or any such nonsense. I have my
opinions about what could and could not have happened in 1917, but I
make no pretense of ominscience. So feel free to advance your
opinions, with whatever support they may have. As long as you keep it
civil, I'll do likewise.
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:45:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On May 2, 8:42 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 2, 9:24 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I long for the good old days, back when LP and
> > > NB would argue about which interpretation of war
> > > was more ludicrous. In one of those discussions,
> > > NB said he had done a comprehensive survey --
> > > a secret one, I suppose, since nobody but him
> > > knew about it -- in which all the world's many
> > > academics agreed with NB (shocking) and LP's
> > > favorite writer was wrong. But that was the one
> > > time where I liked Larry Parr's story better... .
>
> > > -- help bot
>
> > I don't recall ever having any such exchange with Mr. Parr, either
> > publicly or privately. Would you, or Mr. Parr for that matter, care to
> > repost or provide a link to the exchange in question?
>
> Neil, the "NB" in this case is Nick Bourbaki.
OK, thanks for the clarification. Obviously I missed those posts. And
I probably didn't miss much.
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:42:25
From:
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On May 2, 9:24=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 I long for the good old days, back when LP and
> > NB would argue about which interpretation of war
> > was more ludicrous. =A0In one of those discussions,
> > NB said he had done a comprehensive survey --
> > a secret one, I suppose, since nobody but him
> > knew about it -- in which all the world's many
> > academics agreed with NB (shocking) and LP's
> > favorite writer was wrong. =A0But that was the one
> > time where I liked Larry Parr's story better... .
>
> > =A0 -- help bot
>
> I don't recall ever having any such exchange with Mr. Parr, either
> publicly or privately. Would you, or Mr. Parr for that matter, care to
> repost or provide a link to the exchange in question?
Neil, the "NB" in this case is Nick Bourbaki.
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:24:23
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> I long for the good old days, back when LP and
> NB would argue about which interpretation of war
> was more ludicrous. In one of those discussions,
> NB said he had done a comprehensive survey --
> a secret one, I suppose, since nobody but him
> knew about it -- in which all the world's many
> academics agreed with NB (shocking) and LP's
> favorite writer was wrong. But that was the one
> time where I liked Larry Parr's story better... .
>
> -- help bot
I don't recall ever having any such exchange with Mr. Parr, either
publicly or privately. Would you, or Mr. Parr for that matter, care to
repost or provide a link to the exchange in question?
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 06:06:48
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
TAYLOR KINGSTON'S INTERESTING POINTS
I have not had time to respond yet, but rest assured that I am working
on it and will post my reply here.
Yours, Larry Parr
samsloan wrote:
> > SAZOMOV'S MEMOIRS
> >
>
> >
> > > I have just ordered two copies of FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The
> > > Reminiscences of SergeSazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for
> > > Foreign Affairs: 1914)
> >
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> The Sazonov Book Project is moving along. I have already designed the
> cover and assigned an ISBN Number to it. When it is published, it will
> appear at:
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
>
> That eminent, distinguished and renowned historian Larry Parr will be
> writing the introduction.
>
> Meanwhile, The President's Daughter by Nan Britton is out. It is
> listed on Amazon but they have not put up the price or the picture
> yet. They should have completed that within a few hours.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2008 05:40:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
> SAZOMOV'S MEMOIRS
>
>
> > I have just ordered two copies of FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The
> > Reminiscences of SergeSazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for
> > Foreign Affairs: 1914)
>
>
> > Sam Sloan
The Sazonov Book Project is moving along. I have already designed the
cover and assigned an ISBN Number to it. When it is published, it will
appear at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891323
That eminent, distinguished and renowned historian Larry Parr will be
writing the introduction.
Meanwhile, The President's Daughter by Nan Britton is out. It is
listed on Amazon but they have not put up the price or the picture
yet. They should have completed that within a few hours.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 21:26:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 25, 8:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just in passing; as a Netizen I would request that posters use Usenet
> protocols in identifying their own posts [not Google] - or at least not
> complain about innocent mistakes - this would avoid missatribution of their
> own remarks, but as a European there are a few things to say on what follows
> about 'the other war'.
Good job Mr. IMnes. You're always "right there"
when needed, like a good apologist. The transfer-
the-blame ploy may be worn out and tattered, but
it's about the best anyone could do, under the
circumstances.
Too bad Mr. Kingston noticed that the posting by
Sam Sloan had his name right at the bottom! That
sort of lets the air out of the balloon, doesn't it. As
I recall, Mr. Parr went on quite a rant, correcting
"jackanapes" Sloan/Kingston over several pages of
rantificationals, as Mr. Bush might say. The poor
fellow can't seem to keep who's who straight in his
mind-- not even his syntax checker could save him.
It reminds me of an old article by Edward Winter on
on Larry Evans.
But let me just say this: I found the off-topic
rantings of *Nick Bourbaki* to be far more interes-
ting, even though he did have severe issues with
paranoia and delusions of grandeur. The trouble
with Mr. Parr's rants is that he is always -- and I do
mean always -- too busy with his ad hominem ploys
to write truly captivating stories. This stuff about
WWI for instance, is rather boring, except perhaps
when LP pontificates on what the world might be
like if the Great War had ended differently.
I long for the good old days, back when LP and
NB would argue about which interpretation of war
was more ludicrous. In one of those discussions,
NB said he had done a comprehensive survey --
a secret one, I suppose, since nobody but him
knew about it -- in which all the world's many
academics agreed with NB (shocking) and LP's
favorite writer was wrong. But that was the one
time where I liked Larry Parr's story better... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 15:03:30
From:
Subject: Off-topic: Parr's Opinions on WW I (was: The President's Daughter by
|
At various points in this thread, Larry Parr has put forth opinions
about what effect different outcomes in World War I might have had on
later history. Some of these struck me as plausible, others less so.
They at least stirred up my interest enough to check what relevant
sources I had on hand. Based on that research, but with no pretension
of infallibility, I comment below on some of Parr=92s posts. Where I
question or disagree, my intent is to advance the discussion in a
civil manner, not to belittle Parr. One hopes that if Parr responds,
he will do so in that spirit.
PARR: If the Great War had ended in German victory in 1917, there
would never have been the accumulated mass horrors of Stalinism,
Maoism and Hitlerism. Stalin would have ended up as a zookeeper in
the Central Caucasus, Trotsky a radical editor in NYC and Lenin a
fairly well-off, if frustrated, French tutor for advantaged children
in Zurich.
TK: Some of this seems rather implausible. It=92s very difficult to
analyze how a different WWI outcome would have affected far-off China,
so I would not feel confident saying anything about Mao. Clearly a
German victory would have precluded Hitler rising to power, at least
in the way the Nazis did, but it=92s hard to see the same applying to
Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.
Firstly, unless we abandon all practical considerations and invoke
some magical means, it=92s almost impossible to conceive of a way for
Germany to win in 1917 without first knocking Russia out of the war.
To this end, they employed the Bolsheviks, financing their activities
and finally shipping Lenin and other exiled revolutionaries back to
Russia in April 1917. This strategy finally bore fruit with the
October Revolution, after which Russia largely ceased fighting
Germany. Even this was too late to have much effect in 1917; it was
not until spring 1918 that Germany was ready to use the forces freed
from the Eastern Front in a major assault in the west.
Considering how compliant Lenin was with German terms at Brest-
Litovsk, and how Lenin later even agreed to *_aid Germany_* in the war
(per agreements of August 1918), it seems unlikely that a victorious
Germany would be in any hurry to remove him. Germany might even have
aided Lenin in repulsing the various counter-revolutionary expeditions
sent by Western nations after the war, or else the defeated Western
powers might well never have sent them to begin with.
And this not-very-alternate scenario has nothing to make any less
likely Stalin=92s rise after Lenin died. Thus it seems likely that
Bolshevism would have been left to evolve its way toward totalitarian
socialism, and we would have had the mass horrors of Stalinism
anyway.
PARR: The crucial year was 1918 because if the Great War had ended
in victory for either side -- most likely, the German side, if Wilson,
contrary to his campaign pledges in 1916, had not led the United
States into that conflagration -- then the Kasier [sic] would not have
had to abdicate, and in Russia, the Whites would eventually have
triumphed in a civil war against the Reds.
TK: Again, I wonder on what basis you reach that last conclusion.
Having in effect brought the Bolsheviks to power to take Russia out of
the war, why would a victorious Germany sit idly by and let them be
overthrown by the Whites? White ranks included many right-wing
military men who had fought against Germany. Whites who might well
start a revanchist campaign to regain what Lenin had so casually given
Ludendorff at Brest-Litovsk. Why would Germany tolerate a counter-
revolution so contrary to its interests?
PARR: The German army was indeed betrayed. It was no myth. The
other side of the betrayal coin is that it was not Jewish financiers
or a backdoor man such as, say, Walter Rathenau who did the
betraying. The chief betraitor, to employ a neologism, was none other
than Erich von Ludendorff, the de facto leader of the German war
effort by 1917.
TK: Strange, most historians I=92ve read _do_ regard the =93betrayal=94 as=
a myth, and they regard Ludendorff as the main propagator of the myth,
through his post-war memoirs. Can you provide references for your
claim?
PARR: Ludendorff suffered a celebrated nervous breakdown in August-
September 1917, urging the Kaiser to sue for an armistice =85
TK: I can find no record of this =93celebrated nervous breakdown in
1917.=94 What is your source for this claim? All my sources seem to
indicate Ludendorff was on the job steadily though that year. There is
mention of him being in =93a completely inert mood=94 in the diary of
German Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim, but this was on August 7 *_1918_*,
not 1917. By then the loss of morale and nerve that was affecting
Ludendorff and the German High Command was a rather rational reaction,
a recognition of the fact that Germany was busted.
PARR: =85 when the German army was certainly capable of withdrawing to
the German border and erecting defenses with crucially shortened
supply lines at numerous rivers and hills that would have cost the
allies millions of men to breach, given the limited mobility of both
sides during WWI.
TK: It=92s hard to imagine _why_ Germany would do this in September
1917, with its strategy in Russia just about to bear fruit. And it=92s
hard to imagine _how_ they would do this in September 1918, by which
time =93limited mobility=94 was becoming much less limited, and the Allies
were making significant advances.
PARR: There would have been no question in that period of crossing
the Rhine.
TK: On a military question, I am more inclined to heed a
professional military man. In this case, the commander of the American
Expeditionary Force in Europe, General John Pershing, who urged the
Allied leaders to take the war onto German soil in 1918. After the
armistice, Pershing remarked ruefully =93[W]hat an enormous difference a
few more days would have made =85 What I dread is that Germany doesn=92t
know that she was licked. Had they given us another week, we=92d have
taught them.=94 Prescient words =96 had they been heeded, I think Hitler=92s=
rise might have been precluded as effectively as by a German victory.
BTW, Larry, where do you get the idea that a German victory was at
all feasible in 1917? How do you envision it happening? They spent the
early part of 1917 actually withdrawing back to the Hindenburg Line,
not advancing. The abdication of the Tsar did not have the effect the
Germans would have liked, as the provisional Russian government
rejected German armistice offers in mid-1917 and continued their war
effort. About the same time the Russians were rejecting an armistice,
German allies Austria and Bulgaria were talking about asking the
Allies for one. Through most of the latter half of the year, the
Western Front remained in stalemate or saw limited Allied success, and
this without meaningful American involvement yet. And the attitude of
the Western leaders was irrevocably adamant; as Clemenceau said in
November 1917, =93My policy is war, nothing but war.=94 Even had the US
stayed out it was very unlikely Germany could have won in the west
until mid-1918, which you have already described as =93the fatal year.=94
And how can you be so sure that German victory at some point in 1917
would have all the wonderful effects you envision? The war-induced
desensitization and brutalization that later lent itself to
totalitarian movements was already well advanced. Casualties were
already in the millions.
I have an interesting book, =93What If?=94 (Berkeley Books 1999), edited
by Robert Cowley, and featuring essays by such historians as John
Keegan and Stephen Ambrose, discussing alternate scenarios for about
20 major turning points in military history ranging from Salamis in
480 BC to Manchuria in 1946.
World War I gets a lot of attention, but all the German victory
scenarios deal with *_1914_* only, not 1917. Had Germany stuck more
closely to the Schlieffen Plan in 1914, a quick victory was indeed
possible, and in that case Cowley quite agrees with you that World War
II and the horrors of 20th-century totalitarianism would never have
come to pass; as Dennis Showalter puts it, it would have resulted in
=93a Europe safe for men with briefcases and potbellies.=94 Cowley writes:
=93Without the events of 1914, we would have skipped a more sinister
legacy, and one that has permanently scarred our lives: the
brutalization that trench warfare, with its mass killings, visited on
an entire generation. What men like Adolf Hitler learned in that first
Holocaust, they would, as John Keegan has written, =93repeat twenty
years later in every corner of Europe.=94
But, it seems to me, by 1917 things had gone too far for a return to
pot-bellied tranquility. That brutalization wrought by trench warfare
was by then well advanced, and it was not likely to disappear soon, no
matter who won the war.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2008 06:04:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 25, 7:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just in passing; as a Netizen I would request that posters use Usenet
> protocols in identifying their own posts [not Google]
So speaks the most prominent top-poster on the chess groups.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2008 05:34:29
From:
Subject: Perhaps Parr's Worst Excuse Ever (was: The President's Daughter by
|
On Apr 25, 4:03=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Another typical bit of our Kingston's rhetoric is
> the bit about this writer not being able to read
> because we mistakenly attributed to him a comment
> written by Sam Sloan. =A0As noted before, this writer
> does not receive every posting in Malaysia that
> apparently appears on screens Stateside. =A0Sometimes,
> earlier messages arrive after later ones. We must
> occasionally guess the identity of a poster of a given
> paragraph. =A0
Really now, Larry -- you had to *_guess_* who wrote that? I
reproduce below, in its entirety, the post in question, made by Sam
Sloan on April 21:
**************** begin 4/21 post **********************
On Apr 21, 7:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
> Interesting.
Larry Parr has a valid and interesting point. If Germany had won
World
War I, Hitler would never have risen to power and World War II might
not have happened.
If all those Americans had not died fighting in France, Sam Sloan
might never have risen to power.
If Queen Victoria had not carried the gene for hemophilia, which she
spread to all the Royal Families of Europe by marrying all her
children into those families, the Royal Families might still rule
Europe.
Anyway, I have just ordered one copy of FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The
Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for
Foreign Affairs: 1914)
If the book turns out to be in good condition (not fuzzy) I will
reprint it.
Sam Sloan
******************* end 4/21 post ****************************
So, even though it clearly began with a quote from me, and then
argued against that quote, you thought it was me?
And even though it said "Larry Parr has a valid and interesting
point," something I very seldom say, you guessed it was me??
And even though it talked about "Sam Sloan rising to power," you
thought it was someone *_besides_* Sam Sloan???
And even though Sam *_clearly signed his name_*, you had to guess,
and guessed it was me????
C'mon Larry, you can think up a better lie than that.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Apr 2008 01:03:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
TAYLOR KINGSTON"S FABRICATIONS
The level of Taylor Kingston's advocacy, which we
have preserved in what follows, speaks and adjusts for
itself. Our comments in what follows will be placed
in multiple brackets.
Here is the Kingston approach to discussion:
he equates our evidently jocose allusions to the
personal, specific fates of three individuals --
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin -- in the event World War I had
not continued until a totalitarian coup d'etat swept
them to power in Russia, with a broader, inherently
more productive discussion of how WWI was the
fountainhead for the mass annihilation policies of the
20th century.
Another typical bit of our Kingston's rhetoric is
the bit about this writer not being able to read
because we mistakenly attributed to him a comment
written by Sam Sloan. As noted before, this writer
does not receive every posting in Malaysia that
apparently appears on screens Stateside. Sometimes,
earlier messages arrive after later ones. We must
occasionally guess the identity of a poster of a given
paragraph. Our track record is excellent in this
regard, though not perfect. When we stumble, there
is a Kingston to guffaw.
In what follows we examine the analytical, if
that is quite the word, technique of Mr. Kingston and
note either his discouraging lack of background
in the subject under discussion or his rank venality.
This writer has previously explained that World
War I unhinged the Western world, leading directly to
the Bolshevik uprising and to the unsettled society of
Weimar Germany after the abdication of Wilhelm II.
It has been famously said that "war is the
health of the state," and the Great War was viewed by
statists everywhere as a Satansend. In Germany and
England, the respective laborite lefts supported the
war in the spirit of what was then called "field grey
socialism." Namely, rich and poor are on far more
equal terms in military trenches, with walls formed
from human bones and offal, than in civil society with
its ivy-covered walls of educational sanctuaries for
the rich and genial that exclude the poor and dim.
Trench warfare corporate bodies, generally
called armies, are equal opportunity employers.
Executives, the officers and especially leftenants,
are expected to lead by example, which is to say,
first over the top into streams of 50-calibre
machine-gun bullets. Yet private soldiers will also
get their chance soon thereafter. Such is not,
perhaps, perfect equality -- the ultimate stated
goal of all left political movements -- but certainly
imbued with more social justice than peacetime civil
society.
Once again, this writer's comments appear in
multiple brackets in what follows.
[[[[[TAYLOR KINGSTON]]]]]:
As usual, our Larry distorts and misrepresents. Also
demonstrates his inability to read. A few comments below:
[[[[[LARRY PARR: The "proof" of our inability to read
will be this writer misattributing a statement to
Taylor Kingston that was written by Sam Sloan. Please
note our explanation above. We respond by noting
Kingston's claim that this writer lends an
intellectual patina to his argumentation, which
suggests that Kingston judges us as a vast natural
talent, since to lend such a sheen, though no great
shakes for those who can read and who have written, is
quite a coup for those of us whom Taylor Kingston
would have you believe cannot read.]]]]]
[[[[[FROM THIS WRITER'S EARLIER "DEED OF SHAME"
POSTING THAT WAS ATTACKED BY KINGSTON.]]]]]:
A DEED OF SHAME
Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany
won World War I. Interesting. > -- Taylor Kingston
Trust Taylor Kingston to offer the argument of a
jackanapes. I wrote that if Germany had won WW1
in 1917, the world would have been saved many of
the the central horrors of the 20th century.
[[[[[KINGSTON NOW RESPONDS TO THE ABOVE AND DOES NOT
DENY MISCHARACTERIZING OUR VIEWS. INSTEAD, HE CHANGES
THE SUBJECT]]]]]:
Thinking up horrors, and actually creating them, has
long been one of man's great skills. I think a more
plausible guess is that had Germany won WW I in some
alternate universe's 1917, there would still have been
an ample supply of "central horrors" not significantly
different from those our history records.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: Kingston's point is puerile. With
the exception of the relatively brief period of the
Napoleonic wars and the French Revolution, Europe had
been largely at political and social peace since 1648,
when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the 30 Years' War.
There had been no people's wars, only limited wars
with aims that did not deny the right of sister
European nations to exist. In the famous "century of
peace" from 1815-1914, human progress was phenomenal.
Both Russia and Germany were modernizing and
democratizing under royal houses, the Romanoffs and
the Hohenzollerns, that were understood by most men of
thought to be declining forces. NOTHING LIKE
totalitarianism existed in mainstream political
thought until after the Great War dissolved the moral
glue holding together Western Civilization. The
crucial year was 1918 because if the Great War had
ended in victory for either side -- most likely, the
German side, if Wilson, contrary to his campaign
pledges in 1916, had not led the United States into
that conflagration -- then the Kasier would not have
had to abdicate, and in Russia, the Whites would
eventually have triumphed in a civil war against the Reds.]]]]]
[[[[[KINGSTON NOW OFFERS A FORM OF INTELLECTUAL
NIHILISM PRESENTED WEAKMINDEDLY]]]]]:
And I say "guess" quite honestly, because that's all
this "alternate history" fantasizing is. Larry's
vision of a post-WWI world free of totalitarianism
strikes me as naive. I would agee with him that such a
world might not have "Hitlerism, Stalinism, or
Maoism," but it would very likely have had evil
dictators with other names.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: Notice Kingston's use of "guess" and
"fantasizing," especially the latter word to describe
hypothesizing about alternate outcomes. That's his
trick to denigrate the very possibility of serious
intellectual investigation and discussion.
Notice the man's conflation of "evil dictators"
with the "totalitarianism" of "'Hitlerism, Stalinism,
or Maoism.'" There are plenty of "evil dictators" who
are not totalitarians and who did not run totalitarian
states. To understand the distinctions between
totalitarianism and autocracy (a vast majority of evil
and not-quite-so-evil dictators in human history have
run autocratic rather than totalitarian regimes), the
works to consult are, first, Carl Friedrich and
Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Totalitarian Dictatorship and
Autocracy" and only then, Hannah Arendt's seminal and
sensationally demanding "Origins of Totalitarianism."
World War I brought totalitarianism to the fore,
and it came to the fore precisely because social
revolution overtook two European great powers, Germany
and Russia. Kingston's weakminded evocation of "evil
dictators with other names" does not mean that such
men would have been totalitarian dictators. They
would have been what evil dictators of the past had
always been: autocrats abusing power.]]]]]
[[[[[TAYLOR KINGSTON CONTINUES]]]]]:
And in that alternate universe, Larry Parr, or someone
like him, would probably be here arguing that
if only the Allies had shown more determination, and
if only America had entered the war in 1917, the
world would have been spared all those evils, and
would have been made safe for democracy.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: The Kingston ploy here is to
belittle what is a major historical topic of
discussion among all historians in the field -- the
shape of the world influenced by World War I as
that war ACTUALLY DEVELOPED and what would have
occurred had the war come to a decision in 1917 with a
likely German victory in the event that the United
States had stayed out (as Wilson had pledged).
The idea that totalitarianism would have sprung
and become empowered from nowhere is unhistorical. It
sprang first from the visionary minds of some men, and
was empowered by the conduct and outcome of the Great War.]]]]]
[[[[[THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTATION FROM OUR ORIGINAL
POSTING THAT WAS THEN ATTACKED BY TAYLOR KINGSTON]]]]]:
So Kingston then infers that I preferred a German
victory. My preference was for an allied victory in
1915 or 1916 -- and then the victory of either side in
1917. Anything, in short, to avoid the fatal year of 1918.
[[[[[IN THE FOLLOWING KINGSTON DOES NOT DENY
MISCHARACTERIZING THIS WRITER'S POINT. ONCE AGAIN, HE
CHANGES THE SUBJECT BY TELLING US ABOUT HIS OWN (SEE
BELOW) BLOODTHIRSTY PREFERENCE]]]]]:
I would have preferred that, having won on the Western
Front in 1918, the Allies had marched into Germany
itself. By clearly demonstrating to the German people,
on their own soil, that they had in fact been
militarily defeated, there would have been no myth
that "the army had been betrayed" for agitators like
Hitler to use later.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: So, then, this is the level of
Kingston's analysis. The German army was indeed
betrayed. It was no myth. The other side of the
betrayal coin is that it was not Jewish financiers or
a backdoor man such as, say, Walter Rathenau who did
the betraying. The chief betraitor, to employ a
neologism, was none other than Erich von Ludendorff,
the de facto leader of the German war effort by 1917.
Ludendorff suffered a celebrated nervous breakdown in
August-September 1917, urging the Kaiser to sue for an
armistice, when the German army was certainly capable
of withdrawing to the German border and erecting
defenses with crucially shortened supply lines at
numerous rivers and hills that would have cost the
allies millions of men to breach, given the limited
mobility of both sides during WWI. There would have
been no question in that period of crossing the Rhine.
Kingston's "preference" might easily have been a
retrospective realization of non-interventionist
Senator Burton K. Wheeler's charge, some 20 years
later, that Franklin Roosevelt planned "to plow under
every third American boy." Give this guy Kingston
some power and push backwards his birthdate to the
proper period, and he might have fulfilled Wheeler's
prognostication.]]]]]
[[[[[THIS COMMENT OF OURS IS FROM THE ORIGINAL POSTING]]]]]:
If you want to understand Kingston's approach to
historical thought, his response is exemplary.
Perhaps the two of us can agree on that much.
[[[[[TAYLOR KINGSTON]]]]]:
If you want to understand Larry Parr's approach to
argument, keep in mind that he will say pretty much
anything, no matter how absurd, to support Sam Sloan.
He may make it sound all pretty and intellectual, but
the basic aim is to make Sloan look good, or at least
less ridiculous, no matter what the facts may be.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: Taylor Kingston banks on most of you
being unfamiliar with the many past battles that Sam
Sloan and we have had, some of which (for example, a
struggle regarding Carol Jarecki) went on for months.
As the reader will see below, we have no problem
whatsoever in disagreeing with Sam.]]]]]
[[[[[THE COMMENT BELOW BY US COMES FROM OUR ORIGINAL POSTING]]]]]:
Kingston's next attempt at an argument is to reduce
the observation that WWI resulted in the
decivilization of world politics to a silly reference
to Queen Victoria and haemophilia.
[[[[[TAYLOR KINGSTON]]]]]:
Ahem, Larry -- that statement was made by Sam Sloan,
Not by me.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: As noted earlier, we do not receive
every posting over here in Malaysia and apologize to
Kingston for misattributing to him a silly statement
by Sam. We certainly do not always agree with Sam and
say so. We await Kingston to condemn Edward Winter
for evident lies in his screed "Truth about Larry Evans."]]]]]
[[[[[WHAT FOLLOWS IS FROM OUR ORIGINAL POSTING]]]]]:
What our Kingston creature would have the readers of
this forum imagine is that the idea of WWI as a
disaster leading to the horrors of totalitarianism is
a farfetched historical construct.
[[[[[KINGSTON]]]]]:
See, there you go misrepresenting again, Larry. I
never said any such thing. World War I was indeed a
terrible disaster, and yes, it certainly did contribute
heavily to the rise of totalitarianism. My point here
has never been to say otherwise. My point
here is that what you "would have readers of this
forum imagine" that German victory in WW I would have
led somehow to a wonderful alternate world, is just
castles in the air.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: This writer never posited German
victory in 1917 leading "to a wonderful alternate
world." The ploy here by our Kingston is to portray
yours truly as a Utopian. Our tired globe, creaking
about its axis, would have continued to be
problem-plagued, though there is every reason to
imagine that the 20th century would not have been the
bloodiest in human history, given the enormous
peaceful progress of Europe during the preceding three
centuries. Once again, totalitarianism sprang from
the brains of men and was empowered by the
prolongation of World War I. To suggest that
totalitarianism would have become empowered on its own
or under Romanoff and Hohenzollern autocratic rule is
nonsense. Wilson's decision to seek a declaration of
war provided the soil for the evil seed to germinate,
thence to send up sturdy shoots.]]]]]
[[[[[KINGSTON]]]]]:
Speaking of "farfetched historical constructs," I find
especially farfetched your statement that with a
German victory "Stalin would have ended up as a
zookeeper in the Central Caucasus, Trotsky a radical
editor in NYC and Lenin a fairly well-off, if frustrated,
French tutor for advantaged children in Zurich."
[[[[[LARRY PARR: We reckon that most of you will twig
to our Taylor's essential dishonesty in the above
debating point.Of course, our specific posited careers
for the Messrs. Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin are farfetched
in the sense that one is divining a pinpoint specific from
a broad deductive premise. Most of you realize that we
were endeavouring to raise a smile and, yes, stereotyping
Stalinist with the Trotskyist tarbrush of being
intellectually slow, which he was not. Too, we
accepted Trotsky's literary presumptions and fell in
with Solzhenitsyn's portrait of Lenin in Zurich. Our
point was obviously this: the trio would have been
doing something radically other than leading a great nation.]]]]]
[[[[[KINGSTON]]]]]:
Since it was, in large part, the Germans who put the
Bolsheviks in power in 1917, bankrolling their
movement and shipping Lenin back to Russia, and since
Lenin so blithely gave them everything they wanted
at Brest-Litovsk, I tend to think the Germans would
have been quite happy to leave him in power.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: The Germans did not put the
Bolsheviks in power in 1917. The Reds did that,
assisted by Alexander Kerensky's decision to continue
the war. The Germans created necessary but by no
means sufficient conditions for the Bolshies to seize
power. As for Brest-Litovsk, the Russo-German peace
treaty of March 1918, Lenin conceded points to the
Germans precisely because he and his movement never
intended to honor the treaty -- a point understood by
General Hoffman and the other Germans who sealed Lenin
and his human bacillae in the famous train.]]]]]
[[[[[WE WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN OUR ORIGINAL POSTING]]]]]:
And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson
[[[[[KINGSTON]]]]]:
Eh? You're fabricating again, Larry. I have never
referred here to Wilson as any hero of mine.
[[[[[LARRY PARR: Nor did we say that Kingston
"referred" to Wilson as his hero. We obviously
inferred based on his defense of Wilson's indefensible
decision to seek a war against Germany in 1917.]]]]]
[email protected] wrote:
> As usual, our Larry distorts and misrepresents. Also demonstrates
> his inability to read. A few comments below:
>
> On Apr 22, 12:19?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A DEED OF SHAME
> >
> > ? >Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany
> > won World War I. Interesting.> -- Taylor Kingston
> >
> > ? ?Trust Taylor Kingston to offer the argument of a
> > jackanapes. I wrote that if Germany had won WW1
> > in 1917, the world would have been saved many of the
> > the central horrors of the 20th century.
>
> Thinking up horrors, and actually creating them, has long been one
> of man's great skills. I think a more plausible guess is that had
> Germany won WW I in some alternate universe's 1917, there would still
> have been an ample supply of "central horrors" not significantly
> different from those our history records.
> And I say "guess" quite honestly, because that's all this "alternate
> history" fantasizing is. Larry's vision of a post-WWI world free of
> totalitarianism strikes me as naive. I would agee with him that such a
> world might not have "Hitlerism, Stalinism, or Maoism," but it would
> very likely have had evil dictators with other names.
> And in that alternate universe, Larry Parr, or someone like him,
> would probably be here arguing that if only the Allies had shown more
> determination, and if only America had entered the war in 1917, the
> world would have been spared all those evils, and would have been made
> safe for democracy.
>
> > ? ?So ?Kingston then infers that I preferred a German victory.
> > My preference was for an allied victory in 1915 or 1916 -- and
> > then the victory of either side in 1917. ?Anything, in short,
> > to avoid the fatal year of 1918.
>
> I would have preferred that, having won on the Western Front in
> 1918, the Allies had marched into Germany itself. By clearly
> demonstrating to the German people, on their own soil, that they had
> in fact been militarily defeated, there would have been no myth that
> "the army had been betrayed" for agitators like Hitler to use
> later.
>
> > ? ? ?If you want to understand Kingston's approach
> > to historical thought, his response is exemplary.
> > Perhaps the two of us can agree on that much.
>
> If you want to understand Larry Parr's approach to argument, keep in
> mind that he will say pretty much anything, no matter how absurd, to
> support Sam Sloan. He may make it sound all pretty and intellectual,
> but the basic aim is to make Sloan look good, or at least less
> ridiculous, no matter what the facts may be.
>
> > ? ? ?Kingston's next attempt at an argument is to
> > reduce the observation that WWI resulted in
> > the decivilization of world politics to a silly reference
> > to Queen Victoria and haemophilia.
>
> Ahem, Larry -- that statement was made by Sam Sloan, not by me.
>
> > ? ? ? What our Kingston creature would have the
> > readers of this forum imagine is that the idea of WWI
> > as a disaster leading to the horrors of totalitarianism
> > is a farfetched historical construct.
>
> See, there you go misrepresenting again, Larry. I never said any
> such thing. World War I was indeed a terrible disaster, and yes, it
> certainly did contribute heavily to the rise of totalitarianism. My
> point here has never been to say otherwise.
> My point here is that what you "would have readers of this forum
> imagine," that German victory in WW I would have led somehow to a
> wonderful alternate world, is just castles in the air.
>
> > It is not.
>
> Speaking of "farfetched historical constructs," I find especially
> farfetched your statement that with a German victory "Stalin would
> have ended up as a zookeeper in the Central Caucasus, Trotsky a
> radical editor in NYC and Lenin a fairly well-off, if frustrated,
> French tutor for advantaged children in Zurich."
> Since it was, in large part, the Germans who put the Bolsheviks in
> power in 1917, bankrolling their movement and shipping Lenin back to
> Russia, and since Lenin so blithely gave them everything they wanted
> at Brest-Litovsk, I tend to think the Germans would have been quite
> happy to leave him in power.
>
> > ? ? ? And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson
>
> Eh? You're fabricating again, Larry. I have never referred here to
> Wilson as any hero of mine.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2008 08:28:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
Just in passing; as a Netizen I would request that posters use Usenet
protocols in identifying their own posts [not Google] - or at least not
complain about innocent mistakes - this would avoid missatribution of their
own remarks, but as a European there are a few things to say on what follows
about 'the other war'.
> Thinking up horrors, and actually creating them, has
> long been one of man's great skills. I think a more
> plausible guess is that had Germany won WW I in some
> alternate universe's 1917, there would still have been
> an ample supply of "central horrors" not significantly
> different from those our history records.
>
> [[[[[LARRY PARR: Kingston's point is puerile. With
> the exception of the relatively brief period of the
> Napoleonic wars and the French Revolution, Europe had
> been largely at political and social peace since 1648,
> when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the 30 Years' War.
> There had been no people's wars, only limited wars
> with aims that did not deny the right of sister
> European nations to exist. In the famous "century of
> peace" from 1815-1914, human progress was phenomenal.
> Both Russia and Germany were modernizing and
> democratizing under royal houses, the Romanoffs and
> the Hohenzollerns, that were understood by most men of
> thought to be declining forces. NOTHING LIKE
> totalitarianism existed in mainstream political
> thought until after the Great War dissolved the moral
> glue holding together Western Civilization.
Okay, and 'in the smoke' mischievous men roamed the landscape.
> I would have preferred that, having won on the Western
> Front in 1918, the Allies had marched into Germany
> itself. By clearly demonstrating to the German people,
> on their own soil, that they had in fact been
> militarily defeated, there would have been no myth
> that "the army had been betrayed" for agitators like
> Hitler to use later.
Mr. Kingston should understand 2 factors - vast economic hardship was the
'clear demonstration', but the fear in Europe was that there would be
revolutions in England and in Germany. Certainly any continuance of the war
was likely to bring it about. Even those people who agitated for a Socialist
revolution were afraid of a communist one - and after all, Marx was a
Londoner and had had his influnce there before moving to Germany.
From Buchan to Lawrence there was dismay at the destabilization in the
mid-east, largely a British betrayal of ratifying and consolidating the
newly emerged Arabic sense of themselves as nations - but the real fear was
of a British revolution, since no one in Britain can have felt 'victorious'
any more than people in Germany. Economies and polities in both countries
were undermined, indeed, practically exhausted.
To a starving man, bread is reality. And Marxism was about bread, and little
else.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 16:35:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 4:55 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
> >Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
> >find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
> >where I can find it?
>
> It's called "Bobby Fischer's Games of Chess", a small book, 97 pages.
> Fischer's introduction is dated August, 1958. The book, dedicated to
> Carmine Nigro, consists of a biographical intro, Fischer's games,
> lightly annotated, from the U.S. Championship, played 12/17/57 through
> 1/8/58, plus his games, unannotated, from the Portoroz 1958
> Interzonal. Fischer acknowledges help from John W. Collins "in the
> preparation of the manuscript".
That is the right book.
Do you have the book or know anybody who has one?
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 17:16:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:35:53 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
>> >Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
>> >find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
>> >where I can find it?
>> It's called "Bobby Fischer's Games of Chess", a small book, 97 pages.
>> Fischer's introduction is dated August, 1958. The book, dedicated to
>> Carmine Nigro, consists of a biographical intro, Fischer's games,
>> lightly annotated, from the U.S. Championship, played 12/17/57 through
>> 1/8/58, plus his games, unannotated, from the Portoroz 1958
>> Interzonal. Fischer acknowledges help from John W. Collins "in the
>> preparation of the manuscript".
>That is the right book.
>Do you have the book or know anybody who has one?
>Sam Sloan
I bought it about 1959. I've seen it pop up on e-bay occasionally.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 15:00:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES
Just compare that slim volume with the quality of his masterpiece to
see the enormous influence of GM Larry Evans on Bobby's path to the
world championship.
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
> >Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
> >find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
> >where I can find it?
>
> It's called "Bobby Fischer's Games of Chess", a small book, 97 pages.
> Fischer's introduction is dated August, 1958. The book, dedicated to
> Carmine Nigro, consists of a biographical intro, Fischer's games,
> lightly annotated, from the U.S. Championship, played 12/17/57 through
> 1/8/58, plus his games, unannotated, from the Portoroz 1958
> Interzonal. Fischer acknowledges help from John W. Collins "in the
> preparation of the manuscript".
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 15:19:22
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES
>Just compare that slim volume with the quality of his masterpiece to
>see the enormous influence of GM Larry Evans on Bobby's path to the
>world championship.
The fact that Fischer wrote the first book when he was 15 and the
second when he was 26 might also have something to do with it. :-)
What a tragedy that Fischer and Evans never collaborated on subsequent
volumes of Fischer's later memorable games.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 14:57:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
> >Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
> >find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
> >where I can find it?
>
> It's called "Bobby Fischer's Games of Chess", a small book, 97 pages.
> Fischer's introduction is dated August, 1958. The book, dedicated to
> Carmine Nigro, consists of a biographical intro, Fischer's games,
> lightly annotated, from the U.S. Championship, played 12/17/57 through
> 1/8/58, plus his games, unannotated, from the Portoroz 1958
> Interzonal. Fischer acknowledges help from John W. Collins "in the
> preparation of the manuscript".
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 07:19:55
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 8:48 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 8:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > > And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson
>
> > Eh? You're fabricating again, Larry. I have never referred here to
> > Wilson as any hero of mine.
>
> He's as sloppy as Innes. ...
I disagree. Innes is in a class, or a cell, of his own.
Larry is too busy thinking up
> how he can relate some comment to a Greek play or "Animal House" to
> pay attention to the actual content of a discussion. As you noted
> earlier, it's the "I will pretend to be witty and intellectual to
> cover up my deficiencies" approach to discourse.
I found it amusing that a recent reference to Aristophanes' The Frogs
went over his head. Larry must have small Latin and less Greek, even
in translation.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 06:55:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 9:48 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 8:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > > And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson
>
> > Eh? You're fabricating again, Larry. I have never referred here to
> > Wilson as any hero of mine.
>
> He's as sloppy as Innes. Sloan was the one who brought in Wilson as an
> example of "an exemplary president"... Larry is too busy thinking up
> how he can relate some comment to a Greek play or "Animal House" to
> pay attention to the actual content of a discussion. As you noted
> earlier, it's the "I will pretend to be witty and intellectual to
> cover up my deficiencies" approach to discourse.
Wrong. I was the one who brought up Warren G. Harding as "an exemplary
president".
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 06:48:16
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 8:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson
>
> Eh? You're fabricating again, Larry. I have never referred here to
> Wilson as any hero of mine.
He's as sloppy as Innes. Sloan was the one who brought in Wilson as an
example of "an exemplary president"... Larry is too busy thinking up
how he can relate some comment to a Greek play or "Animal House" to
pay attention to the actual content of a discussion. As you noted
earlier, it's the "I will pretend to be witty and intellectual to
cover up my deficiencies" approach to discourse.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 06:15:26
From:
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
As usual, our Larry distorts and misrepresents. Also demonstrates
his inability to read. A few comments below:
On Apr 22, 12:19=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> A DEED OF SHAME
>
> =A0 >Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany
> won World War I. Interesting.> -- Taylor Kingston
>
> =A0 =A0Trust Taylor Kingston to offer the argument of a
> jackanapes. I wrote that if Germany had won WW1
> in 1917, the world would have been saved many of the
> the central horrors of the 20th century.
Thinking up horrors, and actually creating them, has long been one
of man's great skills. I think a more plausible guess is that had
Germany won WW I in some alternate universe's 1917, there would still
have been an ample supply of "central horrors" not significantly
different from those our history records.
And I say "guess" quite honestly, because that's all this "alternate
history" fantasizing is. Larry's vision of a post-WWI world free of
totalitarianism strikes me as naive. I would agee with him that such a
world might not have "Hitlerism, Stalinism, or Maoism," but it would
very likely have had evil dictators with other names.
And in that alternate universe, Larry Parr, or someone like him,
would probably be here arguing that if only the Allies had shown more
determination, and if only America had entered the war in 1917, the
world would have been spared all those evils, and would have been made
safe for democracy.
> =A0 =A0So =A0Kingston then infers that I preferred a German victory.
> My preference was for an allied victory in 1915 or 1916 -- and
> then the victory of either side in 1917. =A0Anything, in short,
> to avoid the fatal year of 1918.
I would have preferred that, having won on the Western Front in
1918, the Allies had marched into Germany itself. By clearly
demonstrating to the German people, on their own soil, that they had
in fact been militarily defeated, there would have been no myth that
"the army had been betrayed" for agitators like Hitler to use
later.
> =A0 =A0 =A0If you want to understand Kingston's approach
> to historical thought, his response is exemplary.
> Perhaps the two of us can agree on that much.
If you want to understand Larry Parr's approach to argument, keep in
mind that he will say pretty much anything, no matter how absurd, to
support Sam Sloan. He may make it sound all pretty and intellectual,
but the basic aim is to make Sloan look good, or at least less
ridiculous, no matter what the facts may be.
> =A0 =A0 =A0Kingston's next attempt at an argument is to
> reduce the observation that WWI resulted in
> the decivilization of world politics to a silly reference
> to Queen Victoria and haemophilia.
Ahem, Larry -- that statement was made by Sam Sloan, not by me.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 What our Kingston creature would have the
> readers of this forum imagine is that the idea of WWI
> as a disaster leading to the horrors of totalitarianism
> is a farfetched historical construct.
See, there you go misrepresenting again, Larry. I never said any
such thing. World War I was indeed a terrible disaster, and yes, it
certainly did contribute heavily to the rise of totalitarianism. My
point here has never been to say otherwise.
My point here is that what you "would have readers of this forum
imagine," that German victory in WW I would have led somehow to a
wonderful alternate world, is just castles in the air.
> It is not.
Speaking of "farfetched historical constructs," I find especially
farfetched your statement that with a German victory "Stalin would
have ended up as a zookeeper in the Central Caucasus, Trotsky a
radical editor in NYC and Lenin a fairly well-off, if frustrated,
French tutor for advantaged children in Zurich."
Since it was, in large part, the Germans who put the Bolsheviks in
power in 1917, bankrolling their movement and shipping Lenin back to
Russia, and since Lenin so blithely gave them everything they wanted
at Brest-Litovsk, I tend to think the Germans would have been quite
happy to leave him in power.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson
Eh? You're fabricating again, Larry. I have never referred here to
Wilson as any hero of mine.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 22:35:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
By the way, I am reprinting Sidney Bernstein's book, "Combat: My 50
Years at the Chessboard"
You probably did not know that Sidney Bernstein had a book.
When it comes out in a few weeks, it will appear here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891307
Sam
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 22:25:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
I have ordered the Serge Sazonov book and I will be reprinting it.
You can expect it out in a month.
If you want to write an introduction I will publish it in the book. I
always include an introduction in my reprints.
Forget the New York Public Library. That is a research library. You
cannot check books. Also, when I reprint a book I take it apart and
dismember it. I cut apart all the pages. It cannot be returned to the
library.
Also, forget the Herbert Yardley books. They have all been reprinted
in 2004 and 2005 and are available everywhere cheap.
I use bookfinder.com all the time. It is my main place to search.
Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
where I can find it?
My only working email now is [email protected] Write to me there.
Also, you can write to the Amherst County Sheriff and ask him politely
to let me have my websites back.
You write above "SAZAMOV'S MEMOIRS" Is that a spelling mistake, or is
SAZAMOV another one of those White Russians?
Sam
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 14:55:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:25:53 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Think about this: Bobby Fischer wrote a book in 1959. Published by
>Simon and Schuster it is completely forgotten today. I cannot even
>find a reference to it anywhere, not even as a used book. Do you know
>where I can find it?
It's called "Bobby Fischer's Games of Chess", a small book, 97 pages.
Fischer's introduction is dated August, 1958. The book, dedicated to
Carmine Nigro, consists of a biographical intro, Fischer's games,
lightly annotated, from the U.S. Championship, played 12/17/57 through
1/8/58, plus his games, unannotated, from the Portoroz 1958
Interzonal. Fischer acknowledges help from John W. Collins "in the
preparation of the manuscript".
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 21:19:41
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
A DEED OF SHAME
>Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany
won World War I. Interesting. > -- Taylor Kingston
Trust Taylor Kingston to offer the argument of a
jackanapes. I wrote that if Germany had won WW1
in 1917, the world would have been saved many of the
the central horrors of the 20th century.
So Kingston then infers that I preferred a German victory.
My preference was for an allied victory in 1915 or 1916 -- and
then the victory of either side in 1917. Anything, in short,
to avoid the fatal year of 1918.
If you want to understand Kingston's approach
to historical thought, his response is exemplary.
Perhaps the two of us can agree on that much.
Kingston's next attempt at an argument is to
reduce the observation that WWI resulted in
the decivilization of world politics to a silly reference
to Queen Victoria and haemophilia.
One figures that Taylor Kingston has never heard
the name of Henry Charles Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th
Marquess of Lansdowne or, simply, Lord Lansdowne. He
is today remembered not for being Viceroy of India,
Minister of War, Minister of Foreign Affairs, or leader
of the House of Lord's resistance to Asquith's
"People's Budget" of 1909, which was the final burial
of laissez faire as a liberal tenet.
Instead, Lansdowne is remembered and, yes, now
honored as the author of a letter to the editor. That's all.
But it was quite a letter, which was rejected by
The London Times, though later published in the Tory
newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, and reprinted in toto
as a major news article in the NY Times.
Lansdowne, you see, was at the very center of
the national establishment and possibly the most
eminent conservative voice in England following Arthur
Balfour's resignation as Tory leader in the House of Commons.
Reaction to the letter -- more anon on what the
letter said -- was outrage, more or less. H. G. Wells
said it was "the letter of a Peer who fears revolution
more than national dishonour," by which he meant, the
dishonour of negotiating a peace with Germany in WW1
Arthur Bonar Law, the chessplaying Tory leader of
Commons, called the letter "a deed of shame."
Lansdowne was shunned at his private clubs and
condemned in public. Today, though, he is viewed as a
seer, who unfortunately foretold what was to come.
Landowne's letter appeared in November 1917 in
the British press, though he had been circulating his
views among those in Cabinet and elsewhere at the top
for about a year. After meeting with rejection, he went
public at a moment when millions of soldiers were
crawling over frozen corpses in the mud of the Western
Front. The Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia; the
prospect of another year of war could mean consolidation
of this evil power to the East and lead to revolutions elswewhere.
Lord Lansdowne argued that the Great War's
"prolongation will spell ruin for the civilised world
and an infinite addition to the load of human
suffering which already weighs upon it."
This pillar of the Tory establishment had broken
with the War, prophesying disaster if it continued and
arguing for the status quo ante bellum.
What our Kingston creature would have the
readers of this forum imagine is that the idea of WWI
as a disaster leading to the horrors of totalitarianism
is a farfetched historical construct. It is not.
It was understood during the Great War that civilization
was becoming unglued. What I wrote here yesterday and
today represents no great revelation. It is an instance in
which the conventional wisdom gets something right.
And what did Kingston's hero Woodrow Wilson think
about the Lansdowne Letter? To his credit, the American
president was impressed by the arguments and regarded
it more highly than did the members of a British political
establishment committed to fighting the Great War to its
sanguinary conclusion.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
> Interesting.
>
> On Apr 21, 12:52?am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > WARREN HARDING
> >
> > ? ? ? ?Arthur Link, an apologist for Woodrow Wilson's
> > decision to enter WWI and the author of the definitive
> > biography of the man, wrote a slender volume about
> > Wilson's foreign policy.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?The legal issue of the British blockade (yes,
> > the Brits would have sank our merchant vessels had we
> > tried to run their blockade) and the German U-boat
> > sinking of our UNARMED merchant vessels concerned
> > whether the blockade was effective. ?Effective
> > blockades were legal, ineffective ones were illegal.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?Wilson militarized our economy (which Harding
> > proceeded very largely to dismantle, much to his
> > enduring credit) and dispatched an expeditionary force
> > based on the idea that the flag followed commerce.
> > There was also the issue of something called "national
> > honor," which no European politician since WWI has
> > dared to invoke as a reason for going to war. ?(Our
> > presidents occasionally talk about "national honor"
> > when we are facing mismatched opponents, but to be
> > sure, keep their oral cavities resolutely zipped, as
> > does even Bush, when an issue of possible force
> > involves Russia or China.)
> >
> > ? ? ?So, then, after the French in the name of honor
> > marched men against German machine-guns at the
> > Battle of the Frontiers during the first days of WWI
> > (possible casualties, still not fully revealed even
> > today, are about 250,000 dead in a single week) the
> > first taste of fighting for "national honor" began to
> > sour. ?In the case of England, the casualties coming
> > back after the first two days of the Somme (60,000
> > dead or wounded on the first day) resulted in ... the
> > first military draft in England's history. ?That was
> > the true moment when WWI lost the support of
> > English society.
> >
> > ? ? ? Harding would never have involved us in WWI. ?My
> > evocation of "millions" of corpses was obviously not
> > exhausted by the American dead of about 120,000.
> > Wilson's policy for two years before our entry in
> > April 1917 had propped up the British and the French.
> > One ought to mention that Wilson's pro-British policy
> > also encouraged support within the royal family for
> > Douglas Haig, the murderous general who could famously
> > "take losses." ?Wilson was complicit to some degree in
> > those losses, when even British PM Lloyd George was
> > trying to keep British tommies out of Haig's hands.
> >
> > ? ? ? If the Great War had ended in German victory in
> > 1917, there would never have been the accumulated mass
> > horrors of Stalinism, Maoism and Hitlerism. ?Stalin
> > would have ended up as a zookeeper in the Central
> > Caucasus, Trotsky a radical editor in NYC and Lenin a
> > fairly well-off, if frustrated, French tutor for advantaged
> > children in Zurich. ?Hitler might have become a decent
> > architect, since his movement would have been unimaginable
> > ?under the Hohenzollerns.
> >
> > Madame Chiang's radiant New Life movement in China
> > would have had a chance to succeed, and China would
> > today be free and considerably wealthier than it isnder
> > a Communist Party that has largely abandoned communism.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?All of the above is separate from the issue of
> > war guilt. ?The Kaiser blundered (his infamous "Blank
> > check" to the Austrians at Potsdam) into a war that no
> > one wanted except for some fanatical Serbs, though the
> > guilt of the sinister Sazonov, the Russian foreign
> > minister, in bullying the Tsar into declaring war
> > mobilization, was the decisive event that led to the
> > German invasion of France and Belgium.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?(Years back I read Sazonov's memoirs, which he
> > wrote during his final years as an exile in France.
> > The man defended virtually every disastrous policy
> > initiative that he undertook. ?Sigh. ?It is a relatively
> > rare volume that Sam Sloan might consider exhuming
> > and publishing, if there is not a new edition out as yet.)
> >
> > ? ? ? ?For those interested in the subject of WWI, the
> > best memoir is probably Robert Graves' "Goodbye to All
> > That" the best history on the origins of the war, a
> > balanced work that rightly criticizes the Kaiser, is
> > undoubtedly Luigi Albertini's three volumes ?"Origins
> > of the War of 1914" (I spent four days reading those
> > books, non-stop, I was transfixed, great history); and
> > the best case to be made by one of Taylor Kingston's
> > court historians would be Barbara Tuchman's very
> > readable, anti-German, "The Guns of August."
> >
> > ? ? ? ? Did readers notice Taylor Kingston's evocation
> > of the German Zimmerman Telegram inciting mighty,
> > ?feudal Mexico to war with the United States?
> >
> > ? ? ? ?You have to decide for yourselves whether a
> > silly attempt by the Germans to stir up hopeless
> > people meets the bar for entering a major, sanguinary,
> > freedom-destroying European war?
> >
> > ? ? ? ?Would any of you favor entering a war in what
> > Halford Mackinder called the Heartland if Russia sent
> > a Zimmerman or Zimmertov Telegram to Mexico? ? (Alas,
> > some dunderheads would -- the ones who still
> > support pouring trillions into Iraq and destroying the
> > U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. ?But I am
> > talking to sane readers here.)
> >
> > ? ? ? ?I figure that few of you would have the stomach
> > for trying to send an American army -- in the name of
> > national honor and a Zimmertov Telegram -- to the
> > Eurasian Heartland, and there to do battle on Russian
> > soil. ?Most of you figure that you would be wearing
> > burlap for shirts and wrapped rags for shoes in a
> > couple of years. ?A lot of you would lose your
> > enthusiasm after losing, say, 15 million dead men
> > between the ages, mainly, of 18 and 29. ?Perhaps
> > some among you, though chances are increasingly dim
> > in aliterate America, will pen the equivalent of Vera
> > Brittain's "Testament of Youth" which if one must sum
> > up its rich contents in a single phrase, was about,
> > "Where have all the young men gone?"
> >
> > ? ? ? ?Harding and his type of men -- the ones who
> > knew a poker deck and believed in America as a
> > commercial republic -- scoffed at the concept of
> > national honor as a reason to fight a war on the
> > mainland of Europe. ?(Even during WWI itself, which
> > was a time of virulent anti-Germanism in the United
> > States and raids on radicals, Harding kept a low
> > profile in support of the War. ?To oppose WWI at the
> > BEGINNING ?of the war, was politically suicidal.)
> >
> > ? ? ? ?One should further mention that after taking
> > office, Harding, though conservative and capitalist to
> > the core, released radicals, amnestied deserters and
> > freed socialist leader Eugene Debs in his General
> > Amnesty on Christmas Day 1921. This amnesty was
> > possibly Harding's finest moment.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?If you oppose the warfare-welfare regime of
> > mass government, seeking to kill people abroad and
> > destroy initiative at home with welfarism, then
> > Harding was one of our better presidents.
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
> >
> >
> >
> > Sam Sloan wrote:
> > > I sent the book to the printers last night. It should be out in a week
> > > to ten days.
> >
> > > This book will be available at the following address:
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
> >
> > > You cannot imagine how difficult this was. Pages of the original book
> > > were off center. Printing was irregular. Some pages bold. Other pages
> > > light.
> >
> > > I have discovered some interesting new things.
> >
> > > Although Nan Britton mentions numerous relatives, she never gives the
> > > names of her mother and father. I have learned from the book "Florence
> > > Harding" by Carl Sferrazza Anthony that her father was Dr. Sam Britton
> > > and he died in June 1913. This was about the time that Nan Britton
> > > started fooling around with the future president. I believe that Dr.
> > > Sam Britton was probably the same person as Samuel Herbert Britton
> > > (1859-1913) who is buried in nearby Knox County Ohio and was the son
> > > of Mary Critchfield.
> >
> > > Nan's mother was Mary Williams Britton. She was a school teacher but I
> > > have found nothing much on her.
> >
> > > Nan's middle name was Popham, so her full name Nana Popham Britton. My
> > > great-great-grandmother was Jane Popham (1809-1893) so it seems likely
> > > that Nan Britton was my very distant cousin. The grandfather of Jane
> > > Popham was Job Popham (1709-1781). He and his son Humphrey Popham (b.
> > > 1763) had many children and were possibly polygamists. This is the
> > > likely source of the Popham name in Nana Popham Britton, but so far I
> > > have not been able to find anything more on this.
> >
> > > The daughter of Nan Britton and President Warren G. Harding was
> > > Elizabeth Ann who died on 17 November 2005 at age 96 in Oregon,
> > > outliving her mother who only lived to age 94.
> >
> > > In her book, Nan Britton says that after the death of President
> > > Harding she married a man named "Captain Neilsen" because she believed
> > > that he had a lot of money and could support her daughter, Elizabeth
> > > Ann. However, when Captain Neilsen turned out not to have any money at
> > > all, she either got a divorce or an annulment.
> >
> > > An Internet website in Oregon gives the name of that man as Magnus
> > > Cricken.
> >
> > > Does this mean that he was a complete fraud, that his name was not
> > > Captain Neilsen at all, or did she just give him a fake name in the
> > > book?
> >
> > > She gives the name of the man who often brought her money from
> > > President Harding as Tim Slade, but says that this is a fake name. I
> > > am trying to find out what his real name was. He must have been a
> > > close associate of Harding.
> >
> > > I have found a newspaper article published in Toledo, Ohio on November
> > > 3, 1931 that shows a picture of Elizabeth Ann at age 12. Elizabeth Ann
> > > looks exactly like Warren G. Harding. This picture erases any possible
> > > doubt that Elizabeth Ann really was the daughter of President Harding.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 19:02:57
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
SAZAMOV'S MEMOIRS
Dear Sam,
First, you're right. Don't use a reprint
edition for your own effort. Find a good FIRST
EDITION, if you can. Now, then, let me recommend
www.mxbf.com, the world's largest used book site bar
about 20 miles (which has first editions on offer for
Sazonov). They have nearly everything. Speaking of
which, I have another reprinting idea for you of books
written by a former Hollywood star that might interest
you. If you manage to reprint Sazonov and the other
idea that I will give you privately, I will buy copies.
What is your preferred private email address,
or is it the same as the one employed here?
Secondly, don't forget, Sam, I live over here in
Malaysia. There is no hope that I could ever track
down a copy of a Russian foreign minister's memoirs
in this country. Such books do not exist here.
But I do have an idea. For how many days do you
need a copy of the book to complete your work? You
might try going to the New York Public Library and
simply checking out a copy.
Sam: Are you aware that the man who was one of
the world's best-selling authors in the area of
non-fiction during the 1920s and 1930s, who wrote
beautifully, is today virtually totally forgotten, in
a certain sense. One of his works went through
hundreds of printings. I will tell you about the
books privately. A reprint edition of these works
would likely HAVE A MARKET. When I think about this
particular writer, who sold so many books about 80
years ago and who wrote such engaging and energetic
prose, I wonder what is required to stay in memory.
I will toss three other titles at you for your
consideration: Herbert Yardley's "The American Black
Chamber " (nickname for U.S. cryptologic section,
published about 1931) "The Chinese Black Chambe" (he
set up Chiang Kai-shek's intelligence section in the
1930s) and "Education of a Poker Player" (about 1958).
Yardley was possibly the greatest natural cryptologist
who ever lived. He broke the Japanese diplomatic
codes which proved decisive at the Washington Naval
Conference of 1921 -- not to mention solving American
codes as a HOBBY during WWI.
The downside to my suggestion may be that there
are quite a few reprints available of Yardley's work,
if I am not mistaken.
Yardley lost his job when the Black Chamber was
dissolved in 1929 (two days after Black Tuesday) after
Hoover's Sec. of State Henry Stimson famously said,
"Gentlemen do not read each other's mail," and then
dissolved our code department.
The American Black Chamber book is famous as
one of the biggest legal releases of classified
information ever. Yardley ended informing at least
17 nations that their codes had been broken!
Yours, Larry Parr
samsloan wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
> > Interesting.
>
> Larry Parr has a valid and interesting point. If Germany had won World
> War I, Hitler would never have risen to power and World War II might
> not have happened.
>
> If all those Americans had not died fighting in France, Sam Sloan
> might never have risen to power.
>
> If Queen Victoria had not carried the gene for hemophilia, which she
> spread to all the Royal Families of Europe by marrying all her
> children into those families, the Royal Families might still rule
> Europe.
>
> Anyway, I have just ordered one copy of FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The
> Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for
> Foreign Affairs: 1914)
>
> If the book turns out to be in good condition (not fuzzy) I will
> reprint it.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:19:08
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 21, 11:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:38=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
> > > Interesting.
>
> > Larry Parr has a valid and interesting point. If Germany had won World
> > War I, Hitler would never have risen to power and World War II might
> > not have happened.
>
> =A0 And if pigs had wings, they'd live in trees, Sam.
>
> =A0 Parr does not have "a valid and interesting point"; he is merely
> engaging in armchair speculation, idly fantasizing about a supposed
> paradise in an imaginary universe.
> =A0 I'd like to see you and Parr present these arguments to, say, the
> French government in 1914, telling them "You must allow the Germans to
> overrun your country, so that they won't bother to try it again in
> 1940, and so that the Bolsheviks won't come to power in Russia." Or
> tell President Wilson "You must support the authoritarian,
> militaristic Germans rather than your more democratic British cousins,
> because otherwise there will be Russian missiles in Cuba in 1962."
>
> =A0 There were plenty of ways to thwart Hitler before 1939 that did not
> involve surrendering to Kaiser Bill in 1914.
> > If all those Americans had not died fighting in France, Sam Sloan
> > might never have risen to power.
>
> =A0 What power would that be, Sam?
LOL
Good one TK!
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 09:10:55
From:
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 21, 11:38=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
> > Interesting.
>
> Larry Parr has a valid and interesting point. If Germany had won World
> War I, Hitler would never have risen to power and World War II might
> not have happened.
And if pigs had wings, they'd live in trees, Sam.
Parr does not have "a valid and interesting point"; he is merely
engaging in armchair speculation, idly fantasizing about a supposed
paradise in an imaginary universe.
I'd like to see you and Parr present these arguments to, say, the
French government in 1914, telling them "You must allow the Germans to
overrun your country, so that they won't bother to try it again in
1940, and so that the Bolsheviks won't come to power in Russia." Or
tell President Wilson "You must support the authoritarian,
militaristic Germans rather than your more democratic British cousins,
because otherwise there will be Russian missiles in Cuba in 1962."
There were plenty of ways to thwart Hitler before 1939 that did not
involve surrendering to Kaiser Bill in 1914.
> If all those Americans had not died fighting in France, Sam Sloan
> might never have risen to power.
What power would that be, Sam?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 08:38:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 21, 7:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
> Interesting.
Larry Parr has a valid and interesting point. If Germany had won World
War I, Hitler would never have risen to power and World War II might
not have happened.
If all those Americans had not died fighting in France, Sam Sloan
might never have risen to power.
If Queen Victoria had not carried the gene for hemophilia, which she
spread to all the Royal Families of Europe by marrying all her
children into those families, the Royal Families might still rule
Europe.
Anyway, I have just ordered one copy of FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The
Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for
Foreign Affairs: 1914)
If the book turns out to be in good condition (not fuzzy) I will
reprint it.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 05:53:43
From:
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
Hmmm, so Larry would have preferred that Germany won World War I.
Interesting.
On Apr 21, 12:52=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> WARREN HARDING
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Arthur Link, an apologist for Woodrow Wilson's
> decision to enter WWI and the author of the definitive
> biography of the man, wrote a slender volume about
> Wilson's foreign policy.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The legal issue of the British blockade (yes,
> the Brits would have sank our merchant vessels had we
> tried to run their blockade) and the German U-boat
> sinking of our UNARMED merchant vessels concerned
> whether the blockade was effective. =A0Effective
> blockades were legal, ineffective ones were illegal.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Wilson militarized our economy (which Harding
> proceeded very largely to dismantle, much to his
> enduring credit) and dispatched an expeditionary force
> based on the idea that the flag followed commerce.
> There was also the issue of something called "national
> honor," which no European politician since WWI has
> dared to invoke as a reason for going to war. =A0(Our
> presidents occasionally talk about "national honor"
> when we are facing mismatched opponents, but to be
> sure, keep their oral cavities resolutely zipped, as
> does even Bush, when an issue of possible force
> involves Russia or China.)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0So, then, after the French in the name of honor
> marched men against German machine-guns at the
> Battle of the Frontiers during the first days of WWI
> (possible casualties, still not fully revealed even
> today, are about 250,000 dead in a single week) the
> first taste of fighting for "national honor" began to
> sour. =A0In the case of England, the casualties coming
> back after the first two days of the Somme (60,000
> dead or wounded on the first day) resulted in ... the
> first military draft in England's history. =A0That was
> the true moment when WWI lost the support of
> English society.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Harding would never have involved us in WWI. =A0My
> evocation of "millions" of corpses was obviously not
> exhausted by the American dead of about 120,000.
> Wilson's policy for two years before our entry in
> April 1917 had propped up the British and the French.
> One ought to mention that Wilson's pro-British policy
> also encouraged support within the royal family for
> Douglas Haig, the murderous general who could famously
> "take losses." =A0Wilson was complicit to some degree in
> those losses, when even British PM Lloyd George was
> trying to keep British tommies out of Haig's hands.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 If the Great War had ended in German victory in
> 1917, there would never have been the accumulated mass
> horrors of Stalinism, Maoism and Hitlerism. =A0Stalin
> would have ended up as a zookeeper in the Central
> Caucasus, Trotsky a radical editor in NYC and Lenin a
> fairly well-off, if frustrated, French tutor for advantaged
> children in Zurich. =A0Hitler might have become a decent
> architect, since his movement would have been unimaginable
> =A0under the Hohenzollerns.
>
> Madame Chiang's radiant New Life movement in China
> would have had a chance to succeed, and China would
> today be free and considerably wealthier than it isnder
> a Communist Party that has largely abandoned communism.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0All of the above is separate from the issue of
> war guilt. =A0The Kaiser blundered (his infamous "Blank
> check" to the Austrians at Potsdam) into a war that no
> one wanted except for some fanatical Serbs, though the
> guilt of the sinister Sazonov, the Russian foreign
> minister, in bullying the Tsar into declaring war
> mobilization, was the decisive event that led to the
> German invasion of France and Belgium.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(Years back I read Sazonov's memoirs, which he
> wrote during his final years as an exile in France.
> The man defended virtually every disastrous policy
> initiative that he undertook. =A0Sigh. =A0It is a relatively
> rare volume that Sam Sloan might consider exhuming
> and publishing, if there is not a new edition out as yet.)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0For those interested in the subject of WWI, the
> best memoir is probably Robert Graves' "Goodbye to All
> That" the best history on the origins of the war, a
> balanced work that rightly criticizes the Kaiser, is
> undoubtedly Luigi Albertini's three volumes =A0"Origins
> of the War of 1914" (I spent four days reading those
> books, non-stop, I was transfixed, great history); and
> the best case to be made by one of Taylor Kingston's
> court historians would be Barbara Tuchman's very
> readable, anti-German, "The Guns of August."
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Did readers notice Taylor Kingston's evocation
> of the German Zimmerman Telegram inciting mighty,
> =A0feudal Mexico to war with the United States?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0You have to decide for yourselves whether a
> silly attempt by the Germans to stir up hopeless
> people meets the bar for entering a major, sanguinary,
> freedom-destroying European war?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Would any of you favor entering a war in what
> Halford Mackinder called the Heartland if Russia sent
> a Zimmerman or Zimmertov Telegram to Mexico? =A0 (Alas,
> some dunderheads would -- the ones who still
> support pouring trillions into Iraq and destroying the
> U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. =A0But I am
> talking to sane readers here.)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I figure that few of you would have the stomach
> for trying to send an American army -- in the name of
> national honor and a Zimmertov Telegram -- to the
> Eurasian Heartland, and there to do battle on Russian
> soil. =A0Most of you figure that you would be wearing
> burlap for shirts and wrapped rags for shoes in a
> couple of years. =A0A lot of you would lose your
> enthusiasm after losing, say, 15 million dead men
> between the ages, mainly, of 18 and 29. =A0Perhaps
> some among you, though chances are increasingly dim
> in aliterate America, will pen the equivalent of Vera
> Brittain's "Testament of Youth" which if one must sum
> up its rich contents in a single phrase, was about,
> "Where have all the young men gone?"
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Harding and his type of men -- the ones who
> knew a poker deck and believed in America as a
> commercial republic -- scoffed at the concept of
> national honor as a reason to fight a war on the
> mainland of Europe. =A0(Even during WWI itself, which
> was a time of virulent anti-Germanism in the United
> States and raids on radicals, Harding kept a low
> profile in support of the War. =A0To oppose WWI at the
> BEGINNING =A0of the war, was politically suicidal.)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0One should further mention that after taking
> office, Harding, though conservative and capitalist to
> the core, released radicals, amnestied deserters and
> freed socialist leader Eugene Debs in his General
> Amnesty on Christmas Day 1921. This amnesty was
> possibly Harding's finest moment.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If you oppose the warfare-welfare regime of
> mass government, seeking to kill people abroad and
> destroy initiative at home with welfarism, then
> Harding was one of our better presidents.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> Sam Sloan wrote:
> > I sent the book to the printers last night. It should be out in a week
> > to ten days.
>
> > This book will be available at the following address:
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
>
> > You cannot imagine how difficult this was. Pages of the original book
> > were off center. Printing was irregular. Some pages bold. Other pages
> > light.
>
> > I have discovered some interesting new things.
>
> > Although Nan Britton mentions numerous relatives, she never gives the
> > names of her mother and father. I have learned from the book "Florence
> > Harding" by Carl Sferrazza Anthony that her father was Dr. Sam Britton
> > and he died in June 1913. This was about the time that Nan Britton
> > started fooling around with the future president. I believe that Dr.
> > Sam Britton was probably the same person as Samuel Herbert Britton
> > (1859-1913) who is buried in nearby Knox County Ohio and was the son
> > of Mary Critchfield.
>
> > Nan's mother was Mary Williams Britton. She was a school teacher but I
> > have found nothing much on her.
>
> > Nan's middle name was Popham, so her full name Nana Popham Britton. My
> > great-great-grandmother was Jane Popham (1809-1893) so it seems likely
> > that Nan Britton was my very distant cousin. The grandfather of Jane
> > Popham was Job Popham (1709-1781). He and his son Humphrey Popham (b.
> > 1763) had many children and were possibly polygamists. This is the
> > likely source of the Popham name in Nana Popham Britton, but so far I
> > have not been able to find anything more on this.
>
> > The daughter of Nan Britton and President Warren G. Harding was
> > Elizabeth Ann who died on 17 November 2005 at age 96 in Oregon,
> > outliving her mother who only lived to age 94.
>
> > In her book, Nan Britton says that after the death of President
> > Harding she married a man named "Captain Neilsen" because she believed
> > that he had a lot of money and could support her daughter, Elizabeth
> > Ann. However, when Captain Neilsen turned out not to have any money at
> > all, she either got a divorce or an annulment.
>
> > An Internet website in Oregon gives the name of that man as Magnus
> > Cricken.
>
> > Does this mean that he was a complete fraud, that his name was not
> > Captain Neilsen at all, or did she just give him a fake name in the
> > book?
>
> > She gives the name of the man who often brought her money from
> > President Harding as Tim Slade, but says that this is a fake name. I
> > am trying to find out what his real name was. He must have been a
> > close associate of Harding.
>
> > I have found a newspaper article published in Toledo, Ohio on November
> > 3, 1931 that shows a picture of Elizabeth Ann at age 12. Elizabeth Ann
> > looks exactly like Warren G. Harding. This picture erases any possible
> > doubt that Elizabeth Ann really was the daughter of President Harding.
>
> > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2008 04:34:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 21, 12:52 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> (Years back I read Sazonov's memoirs, which he
> wrote during his final years as an exile in France.
> The man defended virtually every disastrous policy
> initiative that he undertook. Sigh. It is a relatively
> rare volume that Sam Sloan might consider exhuming
> and publishing, if there is not a new edition out as yet.)
Thank you for this interesting idea.
I believe that the book you mean is
FATEFUL YEARS 1909-1916 (The Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov G.C.B.,
G.C.V.O. Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs: 1914)
Is this correct?
If I can get a good copy of the original book I will reprint it.
However, I need the original book. There is a 1971 reprint out. I do
not need that.
With modern technology my reprinted books are better than the
original.
"The President's Daughter" by Nan Britton is a good example. There are
lots of copies of that book available, cheap, and in near perfect
condition because nobody ever read it.
I find out the reason: The print quality is so poor inside that it is
unpleasant to read.
I had to do a lot of work on this book. Good thing is nobody else has
ever tried to reprint this book, probably for that reason, the
original was so poorly done.
Another example: Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract Bridge.
Originally published in 1934, reprinted and updated by Sam Fry in
1958.
My reprint just came out. My reprint is vastly better, 1000% better
than the Sam Fry book because my fonts are larger and cleaner, his are
small and fuzzy. I just got my first issues of the Watson book on
Friday. Nobody else has seen it yet so nobody else knows how good it
really is.
So, if you can help me find a good copy of the original FATEFUL YEARS
1909-1916 (The Reminiscences of Serge Sazonov G.C.B., G.C.V.O. Russian
Minister for Foreign Affairs: 1914) I will reprint it.
Sam
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 21:52:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
WARREN HARDING
Arthur Link, an apologist for Woodrow Wilson's
decision to enter WWI and the author of the definitive
biography of the man, wrote a slender volume about
Wilson's foreign policy.
The legal issue of the British blockade (yes,
the Brits would have sank our merchant vessels had we
tried to run their blockade) and the German U-boat
sinking of our UNARMED merchant vessels concerned
whether the blockade was effective. Effective
blockades were legal, ineffective ones were illegal.
Wilson militarized our economy (which Harding
proceeded very largely to dismantle, much to his
enduring credit) and dispatched an expeditionary force
based on the idea that the flag followed commerce.
There was also the issue of something called "national
honor," which no European politician since WWI has
dared to invoke as a reason for going to war. (Our
presidents occasionally talk about "national honor"
when we are facing mismatched opponents, but to be
sure, keep their oral cavities resolutely zipped, as
does even Bush, when an issue of possible force
involves Russia or China.)
So, then, after the French in the name of honor
marched men against German machine-guns at the
Battle of the Frontiers during the first days of WWI
(possible casualties, still not fully revealed even
today, are about 250,000 dead in a single week) the
first taste of fighting for "national honor" began to
sour. In the case of England, the casualties coming
back after the first two days of the Somme (60,000
dead or wounded on the first day) resulted in ... the
first military draft in England's history. That was
the true moment when WWI lost the support of
English society.
Harding would never have involved us in WWI. My
evocation of "millions" of corpses was obviously not
exhausted by the American dead of about 120,000.
Wilson's policy for two years before our entry in
April 1917 had propped up the British and the French.
One ought to mention that Wilson's pro-British policy
also encouraged support within the royal family for
Douglas Haig, the murderous general who could famously
"take losses." Wilson was complicit to some degree in
those losses, when even British PM Lloyd George was
trying to keep British tommies out of Haig's hands.
If the Great War had ended in German victory in
1917, there would never have been the accumulated mass
horrors of Stalinism, Maoism and Hitlerism. Stalin
would have ended up as a zookeeper in the Central
Caucasus, Trotsky a radical editor in NYC and Lenin a
fairly well-off, if frustrated, French tutor for advantaged
children in Zurich. Hitler might have become a decent
architect, since his movement would have been unimaginable
under the Hohenzollerns.
Madame Chiang's radiant New Life movement in China
would have had a chance to succeed, and China would
today be free and considerably wealthier than it isnder
a Communist Party that has largely abandoned communism.
All of the above is separate from the issue of
war guilt. The Kaiser blundered (his infamous "Blank
check" to the Austrians at Potsdam) into a war that no
one wanted except for some fanatical Serbs, though the
guilt of the sinister Sazonov, the Russian foreign
minister, in bullying the Tsar into declaring war
mobilization, was the decisive event that led to the
German invasion of France and Belgium.
(Years back I read Sazonov's memoirs, which he
wrote during his final years as an exile in France.
The man defended virtually every disastrous policy
initiative that he undertook. Sigh. It is a relatively
rare volume that Sam Sloan might consider exhuming
and publishing, if there is not a new edition out as yet.)
For those interested in the subject of WWI, the
best memoir is probably Robert Graves' "Goodbye to All
That" the best history on the origins of the war, a
balanced work that rightly criticizes the Kaiser, is
undoubtedly Luigi Albertini's three volumes "Origins
of the War of 1914" (I spent four days reading those
books, non-stop, I was transfixed, great history); and
the best case to be made by one of Taylor Kingston's
court historians would be Barbara Tuchman's very
readable, anti-German, "The Guns of August."
Did readers notice Taylor Kingston's evocation
of the German Zimmerman Telegram inciting mighty,
feudal Mexico to war with the United States?
You have to decide for yourselves whether a
silly attempt by the Germans to stir up hopeless
people meets the bar for entering a major, sanguinary,
freedom-destroying European war?
Would any of you favor entering a war in what
Halford Mackinder called the Heartland if Russia sent
a Zimmerman or Zimmertov Telegram to Mexico? (Alas,
some dunderheads would -- the ones who still
support pouring trillions into Iraq and destroying the
U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. But I am
talking to sane readers here.)
I figure that few of you would have the stomach
for trying to send an American army -- in the name of
national honor and a Zimmertov Telegram -- to the
Eurasian Heartland, and there to do battle on Russian
soil. Most of you figure that you would be wearing
burlap for shirts and wrapped rags for shoes in a
couple of years. A lot of you would lose your
enthusiasm after losing, say, 15 million dead men
between the ages, mainly, of 18 and 29. Perhaps
some among you, though chances are increasingly dim
in aliterate America, will pen the equivalent of Vera
Brittain's "Testament of Youth" which if one must sum
up its rich contents in a single phrase, was about,
"Where have all the young men gone?"
Harding and his type of men -- the ones who
knew a poker deck and believed in America as a
commercial republic -- scoffed at the concept of
national honor as a reason to fight a war on the
mainland of Europe. (Even during WWI itself, which
was a time of virulent anti-Germanism in the United
States and raids on radicals, Harding kept a low
profile in support of the War. To oppose WWI at the
BEGINNING of the war, was politically suicidal.)
One should further mention that after taking
office, Harding, though conservative and capitalist to
the core, released radicals, amnestied deserters and
freed socialist leader Eugene Debs in his General
Amnesty on Christmas Day 1921. This amnesty was
possibly Harding's finest moment.
If you oppose the warfare-welfare regime of
mass government, seeking to kill people abroad and
destroy initiative at home with welfarism, then
Harding was one of our better presidents.
Yours, Larry Parr
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I sent the book to the printers last night. It should be out in a week
> to ten days.
>
> This book will be available at the following address:
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
>
> You cannot imagine how difficult this was. Pages of the original book
> were off center. Printing was irregular. Some pages bold. Other pages
> light.
>
> I have discovered some interesting new things.
>
> Although Nan Britton mentions numerous relatives, she never gives the
> names of her mother and father. I have learned from the book "Florence
> Harding" by Carl Sferrazza Anthony that her father was Dr. Sam Britton
> and he died in June 1913. This was about the time that Nan Britton
> started fooling around with the future president. I believe that Dr.
> Sam Britton was probably the same person as Samuel Herbert Britton
> (1859-1913) who is buried in nearby Knox County Ohio and was the son
> of Mary Critchfield.
>
> Nan's mother was Mary Williams Britton. She was a school teacher but I
> have found nothing much on her.
>
> Nan's middle name was Popham, so her full name Nana Popham Britton. My
> great-great-grandmother was Jane Popham (1809-1893) so it seems likely
> that Nan Britton was my very distant cousin. The grandfather of Jane
> Popham was Job Popham (1709-1781). He and his son Humphrey Popham (b.
> 1763) had many children and were possibly polygamists. This is the
> likely source of the Popham name in Nana Popham Britton, but so far I
> have not been able to find anything more on this.
>
> The daughter of Nan Britton and President Warren G. Harding was
> Elizabeth Ann who died on 17 November 2005 at age 96 in Oregon,
> outliving her mother who only lived to age 94.
>
> In her book, Nan Britton says that after the death of President
> Harding she married a man named "Captain Neilsen" because she believed
> that he had a lot of money and could support her daughter, Elizabeth
> Ann. However, when Captain Neilsen turned out not to have any money at
> all, she either got a divorce or an annulment.
>
> An Internet website in Oregon gives the name of that man as Magnus
> Cricken.
>
> Does this mean that he was a complete fraud, that his name was not
> Captain Neilsen at all, or did she just give him a fake name in the
> book?
>
> She gives the name of the man who often brought her money from
> President Harding as Tim Slade, but says that this is a fake name. I
> am trying to find out what his real name was. He must have been a
> close associate of Harding.
>
> I have found a newspaper article published in Toledo, Ohio on November
> 3, 1931 that shows a picture of Elizabeth Ann at age 12. Elizabeth Ann
> looks exactly like Warren G. Harding. This picture erases any possible
> doubt that Elizabeth Ann really was the daughter of President Harding.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 21:02:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 8:31 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > But, back to the stories about WWI; I was stunned
> > to see that, like me, Larry Parr remembered that in
> > our day, this war was called "The Great War". That
> > is, it was called that until an even better one
> > eventually along... .
> Good joke. I had never heard that one before.
>
> My next book will be about the man who started World War I.
Did you know him well?
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 17:31:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 7:25 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> But, back to the stories about WWI; I was stunned
> to see that, like me, Larry Parr remembered that in
> our day, this war was called "The Great War". That
> is, it was called that until an even better one
> eventually along... .
>
> -- help bot
Good joke. I had never heard that one before.
My next book will be about the man who started World War I.
The President's Daughter is moving along. Figure on it being out in a
week.
Sam
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2008 17:25:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 22, 6:19 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >Just compare that slim volume with the quality of his masterpiece to
> >see the enormous influence of GM Larry Evans on Bobby's path to the
> >world championship.
The hype was that BF did it "all by himself", with
no help from anybody. The real question is, who
helped him more-- Larry Evans, John Collins, Ed
Edmondson, or his mother?
> The fact that Fischer wrote the first book when he was 15 and the
> second when he was 26 might also have something to do with it. :-)
>
> What a tragedy that Fischer and Evans never collaborated on subsequent
> volumes of Fischer's later memorable games.
Bobby Fischer did not peak until the brief period,
say, 1970-1972, so his prior works not only missed
the best part of his career, they also focused on
"the wrong games", so to speak, and all those
annotations were written by a somewhat weaker
BF.
Larry Evans did a great job with MSMG, but BF
himself nixed so many things that could have, and
most likely would have, been even bigger and better.
He was afraid of being caught making an analytical
error; afraid of being human.
But, back to the stories about WWI; I was stunned
to see that, like me, Larry Parr remembered that in
our day, this war was called "The Great War". That
is, it was called that until an even better one
eventually along... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 18:37:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
Although this post is completely off-topic, I have to admit that I
found it interesting.
Jerry Spinrad
On Apr 19, 9:55=A0am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
>
> The President's Daughter is the heart warming story of an innocent
> young girl who became pregnant and gave birth to a child whose father
> happened to be the President of the United States.
>
> No. This is not a tawdry fable. This is fact. The President was Warren
> G. Harding who then died suddenly. Some say he was murdered.
>
> Largely on the strength of this and on the so-called =93Teapot Dome
> Scandal=94 Harding became known as the worst president the United States
> ever had.
>
> Of late, there has been a re-examination of President Harding, who was
> president from 1921 to 1923. A recent book by John W Dean , who, as
> the cover blurb notes in a massive understatement, is =93no stranger to
> presidential controversy=94 makes a strong case that not only was
> President Harding not the worst, but he was perhaps the best president
> the US ever had.
>
> The Fall Guy in the Teapot Dome Scandal had been Albert Fall. However,
> Fall had served as Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court and had
> been for many years a United States Senator before joining the Harding
> Administration, so it seems difficult to understand why Harding had to
> take the fall for Fall.
>
> Harding had many accomplishments as president, far more than most
> presidents. For example, President Harding was the first to require
> all departments of the government to have a budget. Harding cut
> government expenditures by one billion dollars. Harding brought about
> the economic reforms that started =93The Roaring Twenties=94, a period of
> unequaled economic prosperity in America.
>
> And, with Nan Britton as our witness, Harding was also the best lay.
>
> Her book is great. In Chapter 18 she describes how on July 30, 1917
> she finally lost her virginity to the future president after a long
> courtship, in a New York City hotel on 30th Street overlooking
> Broadway. Only moments after intercourse had been completed, the New
> York City Vice Squad broke down the door. Harding was forced to
> identify himself. When the police realized that their target, Warren
> G. Harding, was a United States Senator (he was not yet president),
> the Vice Squad apologized and beat a hasty retreat, after Harding gave
> them a tip of $20. Harding told Britton that he was surprised that he
> got away for less than $100.
>
> Harding then explained that under the Constitution of the United
> States, a Congressman or Senator is immune from arrest while going to
> or from his place of office. Thus, since his stop-over in New York
> City to see Nan Britton had been part of his journey from Ohio from
> which he was a Senator to Washington DC, he could not be arrested.
>
> Suddenly, this explains a curious recent incident in which Senator
> Larry Graig of Idaho was arrested for tapping his toe in a public
> restroom in an airport in Minnesota. Toe-tapping is, of course, a
> vile, heinous, criminal offense, and when the toe-police arrested the
> senator for tapping his toe, he immediately pulled out his
> identification card showing that he was a United States Senator going
> to or from his place of office and thus was immune from arrest.
>
> Apparently, the police and the press must have thought that Senator
> Larry Craig was trying to intimidate them by immediately identifying
> himself as a United States Senator, whereas in reality he was merely
> asserting his constitutional right to tap his toe as long as he was
> traveling to or from his place of office in the United States Senate.
>
> Similarly, in 1917, United States Senator Warren G. Harding knew his
> rights and knew that he had every legal right to pop the cherry of Nan
> Britton and could not be arrested for this.
>
> This, however, raises another interesting legal question. Nan Britton
> claims that she was born in 1896 and thus was 20 years old when the
> cherry popping incident took place. However, one wonders, was it ever
> illegal for a man to have sex with a 20-year-old woman in New York or
> in any other state. Under current law, it is perfectly legal for man
> to have sex with a woman in New York as long as she is at least 17
> years old. In New Jersey, the legal age is 16. Thus, since time
> immemorial, New York men have taken their 16-year-old girlfriends
> across the river to New Jersey.
>
> This makes one suspect that Nan Britton was in fact considerably
> younger than the 20 years she claimed to have been when the New York
> City Vice Squad raided the hotel room just after she had lost her
> virginity to the future President Warren G. Harding.
>
> Nan Britton explains that she really did not know how babies were
> made. Her mother had never explained this to her. Senator Harding came
> to the rescue and told her that he would explain to her how it was
> done, and then he proceeded to do so.
>
> It was not before long that Nan Britton discovered that she was
> pregnant. Senator Harding set her up in a house in Asbury Park, New
> Jersey and sent her money through messengers. Nan Britton created a
> fake personality named E. N. Christian, whom, she claimed, was her
> husband who had gone off to fight in World War I and had not yet
> returned from Europe. This story was used to explain to her landlady
> why she was pregnant but living alone in a rooming house. Similarly,
> she wrote to her mother and her sister that E. N. Christian was her
> employer and that all letters should be written to her c/o E. N.
> Christian. Thus, she was able to keep her pregnancy and the subsequent
> birth to her of an illegitimate child a secret from everybody, except
> for her actual lover who was US Senator and Future President Warren G.
> Harding.
>
> Many biographers have mistakenly concluded that E. N. Christian was
> her husband, a man whom she had married to legitimize the birth of her
> child. However, in her autobiography, Nan Britton makes it clear that
> E. N. Christian was entirely a fake personality. No such person ever
> existed.
>
> What is more remarkable is that she had only one baby by the future
> President Harding. After giving birth, she could hardly wait to get
> back into bed with him. Her book recounts the anxious time she spent
> waiting to recover from childbirth so she could resume their sexual
> activities.
>
> In order to cover up that she had given birth to a child, she claimed
> that an unknown friend had abandoned the child to her. She then
> arranged for her sister and her sister's husband to adopt the
> supposedly abandoned child. Her sister really did not know that the
> child, Elizabeth Ann, was actually the child of Nan Britton and of
> course the sister had no idea that Warren G. Harding was in any way
> involved in this.
>
> An interesting incident occurred when by chance Nan Britton met
> Governor James Cox of Ohio while on a train to New York. Governor Cox
> then made great efforts to seduce Nan Britton, inviting her to dinner,
> riding with her in a taxi and so on. Governor Cox knew that she had
> some connection with Senator Harding, although he almost certainly did
> not know that she was actually Harding's mistress.
>
> Later, this same James Cox, the man who had tried hard to seduce Nan
> Britton, became the opposing candidate for President of the United
> States. Warren G. Harding was the Republican Party Candidate. James
> Cox was the Democratic Party Candidate. Harding won the election
> easily. Nan Britton, who knew little about politics, wondered why they
> even bothered to hold an election. It was just obvious to her that
> Harding should be president.
>
> Thus, everything was hunky dory. Elizabeth Ann had been legally
> adopted by her sister and her brother-in-law, and meanwhile Nan
> Britton was living in New York City and was free to visit Washington
> DC and to have sex romps in the White House as much as circumstances
> would allow.
>
> There came a time when President Harding, at the height of his
> popularity, decided to take a trip with his legal wife to Alaska,
> which was the first trip ever by a president to the far western part
> of the United States. Since the President was going to be away anyway,
> Nan Britton took this opportunity to take a trip to France, which was
> her first trip abroad.
>
> While in France, the shocking news arrived that President Harding had
> died. Nan Britton borrowed money from one Captain Neilson and was able
> to board a quick boat back to the United States, hoping to arrive in
> time for the funeral.
>
> After her return, Nan Brtton soon discovered that her economic
> circumstances worsened considerably. Up until that time, President
> Warren G. Harding had been sending her cash money regularly, allowing
> her to enjoy a fairly lavish life style. One of the messengers who
> often brought her money from Harding was Tim Slade, who later on
> became a close friend of Nan Britton. Tim Slade later confided that he
> had long suspected that Nan Britton was actually the daughter of
> President Harding, from some prior relationship. He had not originally
> suspected that she was actually the mistress.
>
> Nan Britton was now working at various secretarial jobs in New York
> City. She was having trouble paying rent and making ends meet.
> Meanwhile, her sister had adopted her daughter Elizabeth Ann. Soon,
> her sister must have realized than Nan was actually the mother of
> Elizabeth Ann. Nan Britton visited her daughter as often that she
> could. She wanted her daughter to come back permanently to live with
> her, but her circumstances would not allow it.
>
> By now, Nan Britton was regularly approaching friends to borrow money.
> One person who always seemed willing to loan her money was Captain
> Nielson. Finally, Captain Neilson proposed marriage. He told her that
> he had a lot of property in Norway and offered to give her $25,000
> immediately upon consideration of this marriage.
>
> Finally, Nan Britton confided in him her secret, that she had a
> daughter who was living with her sister in Chicago, and the only
> reason she would marry Captain Neilson was to get her daughter back
> permanently.
>
> Nan Britton feared that upon hearing this news. Captain Nielson would
> dump her. However, this did not happen. Instead, Captain Neilson
> accepted this condition and the marriage ceremony took place.
>
> However, Captain Neilson did not have the money with him at the
> moment. First, he had to return to Norway, to sell the property he
> owned, and then he would return and give her the money he had
> promised.
>
> Captain Neilson left by ship. When he returned weeks later, he had not
> been successful in selling the property in Norway and he did not have
> any money to give her. Soon, he left on another ship, and then another
> and then another. Eventually, Nan Britton realized that he was working
> on these ships. He was not the owner or even the captain. He had no
> money and, when in New York, she had to support him, not the other way
> around.
>
> After Nan Britton finally realized that Captain Neilson had no money
> at all, she was able to find a lawyer who arranged a divorce or an
> annulment without charging much. However, for some time, she used the
> name =93Nan Britton Neilson=94.
>
> Now that her plan of having enough money to recover her daughter by
> marrying a rich man had fallen through, Nan Britton decided to contact
> the family of the Late President Harding to ask them for help. It is
> not true that they refused to help. They did offer to help. Daisy, the
> sister of the late President Harding, often sent Nan Britton $40.
> Other family members gave her small amounts of money as well. Tim
> Slade once gave her $100. However, Nan Britton had rent and payments
> to make. These small amounts of money plus her salary at various
> secretarial jobs were not enough to support both her and her bastard
> kid. She needed more.
>
> Nan Britton obviously believed that Warren G. Harding had been a
> wealthy man. She estimated his estate as being between $500,000 to
> $900,000. She only wanted $50,000 in a trust fund, which she felt was
> reasonable. She was interviewed by the late president's brother,
> Doctor Harding. The doctor obviously felt that her demands were
> unreasonable. By then, the widow of the late president, Florence
> Harding, had died too so, if Nan Britton could prove her claim that
> Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of the late president, then she would
> be entitled to the entire estate, as President Harding had left no
> other heirs. His wife, Florence, had been much older and there had
> been no children.
>
> However, the truth was probably that President Harding did not have a
> lot of money. He was deeply in debt and probably insolvent. Thus, the
> small amounts such as the $40 that Daisy Harding often gave Nan
> Britton was not the result of miserliness but rather because Daisy did
> not have a lot of money herself and gave when she could.
>
> Finally, Nan Britton made a decision which should be obvious to every
> modern reader but it took a long time for Nan Britton to think of it
> and was a hard decision for Nan Britton to reach, which was TO SELL
> HER STORY.
>
> The resulting book, The Presidents Daughter, has a story all its own.
> Bills were introduced in the United States Congress to stop the
> publication of this book or to make possession of it illegal. The FBI
> took an interest. The New York City Vice Squad raided the printing
> plant and confiscated all the plates. Nan Britton went to court and
> got the plates back.
>
> It is not clear the legal grounds on which the New York City Vice
> Squad raided. Was it because the book was porn? Mild by modern
> standards, it probably was by the standards of those times.
>
> No major, reputable book publisher would touch this book. All turned
> it down. Finally, a charitable foundation was formed just to help
> protect the rights of illegitimate children and it was this
> foundation, The Elizabeth Ann Guild, that published this book.
> Naturally, as the book featured sex romps in the White House, it
> became a best seller.
>
> It was obviously an expensively produced book, with hard thick covers
> and high quality paper, but without the input of a regular book
> publisher, the print quality was poor, the pages often irregular, hard
> to read and sometimes off center. When I first saw it, I thought that
> this must be a pirate edition. The book is not old, it was published
> in 1927, but I had never seen a book in such bad condition.
>
> I need to thank Pam McCallum of Scituate, Massachusetts for helping me
> restore this book. Without her help, I could never have done it. She
> enhanced the type fonts to make it more readable. Re-centered the
> pages where needed. Due to the irregular placement of the page
> numbers, too close to the edges in the lower corners, they had to be
> cut off, but with 175 chapters, one for every two or three pages, it
> is easy to find things.
>
> One charge often made is that this book is a hatchet job by a
> political opponent of Harding, who was probably a Democrat or a
> Christian Religious Fanatic. There is no doubt some truth to this. It
> would have been virtually impossible or at least unlikely for a simple
> girl with a high school diploma who worked at various secretarial jobs
> to have created this book, which was obviously well written, probably
> by a professional writer. However, there is nothing wrong with that.
> Almost all modern books nowadays have editors, proof readers and so
> on. Also, throughout this book, Nan Britton expresses nothing but
> admiration and respect for Warren G. Harding. She has nothing but good
> things to say about the president. She simply thinks that there is
> nothing wrong with a man sleeping with a woman. Others had done it,
> even before President Harding. She probably never imagined that this
> book would harm his reputation to the extent that it did. She wanted
> only to provide for their daughter.
>
> Nan Britton never remarried. It is said that Nan Britton loved Warren
> G. Harding until the day she died on March 21, 1991 at age 94.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> This book will soon be reprinted and available at the following
> address:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 04:07:32
From:
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
On Apr 20, 2:17=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> NORMALCY
>
> =A0 =A0 Warren Harding's presidency represented a return
> to normalcy from World War I. =A0He did a pretty good
> job of it. =A0Harding believed in a commercial republic
> with limited government and little to do with the rest
> of the world except to make it safe for commerce.
>
> =A0 =A0 Harding's bodies were in the closet or in bed.
> They were not lying by the millions in muddy fields of
> Flanders, face up, rotting in the sun.
A valid point if you're comparing Harding to, say, Kaiser Wilhelm.
If you're comparing him to Woodrow Wilson, talk of "millions" is way
off base. The official total of American military dead in WW I was
116,516 -- a far cry from millions.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 The little that Harding had to do with foreign
> affairs involved disarmament and attempts to outlaw
> war -- the latter being admittedly an impractical, if
> highminded appeal to reason.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Harding offered us no grand visions, no promises
> of sunny upland pastures of egalitarianism, no great
> national missions or wars on drugs, poverty or Islam.
> Instead, he suggested, as did Coolidge, who was
> seconded so warmly by Mencken, that the business of
> America is business.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 The court historians and their acolytes on this
> forum may prefer vast numbers of corpses that died
> violently in some idealistic national project
Well, they may also have preferred that Europe not be subjugated to
German militarism, that civilians in neutral countries such as Belgium
not be subject to atrocities, that American ships not be sunk by
German submarines, and that Mexico not be urged to make war on us.
Little things like that.
> rather
> than the simple, homely virtue of attempting to make
> America ever richer.
Then again, it seems reasonable to prefer that our President know
more than just which end of an ace is up, and that he spend less time
chasing skirts, and more time making sure his subordinates are
actually working to make America ever richer, rather than just
themselves.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 23:17:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
|
NORMALCY
Warren Harding's presidency represented a return
to normalcy from World War I. He did a pretty good
job of it. Harding believed in a commercial republic
with limited government and little to do with the rest
of the world except to make it safe for commerce.
Harding's bodies were in the closet or in bed.
They were not lying by the millions in muddy fields of
Flanders, face up, rotting in the sun.
The little that Harding had to do with foreign
affairs involved disarmament and attempts to outlaw
war -- the latter being admittedly an impractical, if
highminded appeal to reason.
Harding offered us no grand visions, no promises
of sunny upland pastures of egalitarianism, no great
national missions or wars on drugs, poverty or Islam.
Instead, he suggested, as did Coolidge, who was
seconded so warmly by Mencken, that the business of
America is business.
The court historians and their acolytes on this
forum may prefer vast numbers of corpses that died
violently in some idealistic national project rather
than the simple, homely virtue of attempting to make
America ever richer.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> Although this post is completely off-topic, I have to admit that I
> found it interesting.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Apr 19, 9:55?am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> > The President's Daughter by Nan Britton
> >
> > The President's Daughter is the heart warming story of an innocent
> > young girl who became pregnant and gave birth to a child whose father
> > happened to be the President of the United States.
> >
> > No. This is not a tawdry fable. This is fact. The President was Warren
> > G. Harding who then died suddenly. Some say he was murdered.
> >
> > Largely on the strength of this and on the so-called ?Teapot Dome
> > Scandal? Harding became known as the worst president the United States
> > ever had.
> >
> > Of late, there has been a re-examination of President Harding, who was
> > president from 1921 to 1923. A recent book by John W Dean , who, as
> > the cover blurb notes in a massive understatement, is ?no stranger to
> > presidential controversy? makes a strong case that not only was
> > President Harding not the worst, but he was perhaps the best president
> > the US ever had.
> >
> > The Fall Guy in the Teapot Dome Scandal had been Albert Fall. However,
> > Fall had served as Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court and had
> > been for many years a United States Senator before joining the Harding
> > Administration, so it seems difficult to understand why Harding had to
> > take the fall for Fall.
> >
> > Harding had many accomplishments as president, far more than most
> > presidents. For example, President Harding was the first to require
> > all departments of the government to have a budget. Harding cut
> > government expenditures by one billion dollars. Harding brought about
> > the economic reforms that started ?The Roaring Twenties?, a period of
> > unequaled economic prosperity in America.
> >
> > And, with Nan Britton as our witness, Harding was also the best lay.
> >
> > Her book is great. In Chapter 18 she describes how on July 30, 1917
> > she finally lost her virginity to the future president after a long
> > courtship, in a New York City hotel on 30th Street overlooking
> > Broadway. Only moments after intercourse had been completed, the New
> > York City Vice Squad broke down the door. Harding was forced to
> > identify himself. When the police realized that their target, Warren
> > G. Harding, was a United States Senator (he was not yet president),
> > the Vice Squad apologized and beat a hasty retreat, after Harding gave
> > them a tip of $20. Harding told Britton that he was surprised that he
> > got away for less than $100.
> >
> > Harding then explained that under the Constitution of the United
> > States, a Congressman or Senator is immune from arrest while going to
> > or from his place of office. Thus, since his stop-over in New York
> > City to see Nan Britton had been part of his journey from Ohio from
> > which he was a Senator to Washington DC, he could not be arrested.
> >
> > Suddenly, this explains a curious recent incident in which Senator
> > Larry Graig of Idaho was arrested for tapping his toe in a public
> > restroom in an airport in Minnesota. Toe-tapping is, of course, a
> > vile, heinous, criminal offense, and when the toe-police arrested the
> > senator for tapping his toe, he immediately pulled out his
> > identification card showing that he was a United States Senator going
> > to or from his place of office and thus was immune from arrest.
> >
> > Apparently, the police and the press must have thought that Senator
> > Larry Craig was trying to intimidate them by immediately identifying
> > himself as a United States Senator, whereas in reality he was merely
> > asserting his constitutional right to tap his toe as long as he was
> > traveling to or from his place of office in the United States Senate.
> >
> > Similarly, in 1917, United States Senator Warren G. Harding knew his
> > rights and knew that he had every legal right to pop the cherry of Nan
> > Britton and could not be arrested for this.
> >
> > This, however, raises another interesting legal question. Nan Britton
> > claims that she was born in 1896 and thus was 20 years old when the
> > cherry popping incident took place. However, one wonders, was it ever
> > illegal for a man to have sex with a 20-year-old woman in New York or
> > in any other state. Under current law, it is perfectly legal for man
> > to have sex with a woman in New York as long as she is at least 17
> > years old. In New Jersey, the legal age is 16. Thus, since time
> > immemorial, New York men have taken their 16-year-old girlfriends
> > across the river to New Jersey.
> >
> > This makes one suspect that Nan Britton was in fact considerably
> > younger than the 20 years she claimed to have been when the New York
> > City Vice Squad raided the hotel room just after she had lost her
> > virginity to the future President Warren G. Harding.
> >
> > Nan Britton explains that she really did not know how babies were
> > made. Her mother had never explained this to her. Senator Harding came
> > to the rescue and told her that he would explain to her how it was
> > done, and then he proceeded to do so.
> >
> > It was not before long that Nan Britton discovered that she was
> > pregnant. Senator Harding set her up in a house in Asbury Park, New
> > Jersey and sent her money through messengers. Nan Britton created a
> > fake personality named E. N. Christian, whom, she claimed, was her
> > husband who had gone off to fight in World War I and had not yet
> > returned from Europe. This story was used to explain to her landlady
> > why she was pregnant but living alone in a rooming house. Similarly,
> > she wrote to her mother and her sister that E. N. Christian was her
> > employer and that all letters should be written to her c/o E. N.
> > Christian. Thus, she was able to keep her pregnancy and the subsequent
> > birth to her of an illegitimate child a secret from everybody, except
> > for her actual lover who was US Senator and Future President Warren G.
> > Harding.
> >
> > Many biographers have mistakenly concluded that E. N. Christian was
> > her husband, a man whom she had married to legitimize the birth of her
> > child. However, in her autobiography, Nan Britton makes it clear that
> > E. N. Christian was entirely a fake personality. No such person ever
> > existed.
> >
> > What is more remarkable is that she had only one baby by the future
> > President Harding. After giving birth, she could hardly wait to get
> > back into bed with him. Her book recounts the anxious time she spent
> > waiting to recover from childbirth so she could resume their sexual
> > activities.
> >
> > In order to cover up that she had given birth to a child, she claimed
> > that an unknown friend had abandoned the child to her. She then
> > arranged for her sister and her sister's husband to adopt the
> > supposedly abandoned child. Her sister really did not know that the
> > child, Elizabeth Ann, was actually the child of Nan Britton and of
> > course the sister had no idea that Warren G. Harding was in any way
> > involved in this.
> >
> > An interesting incident occurred when by chance Nan Britton met
> > Governor James Cox of Ohio while on a train to New York. Governor Cox
> > then made great efforts to seduce Nan Britton, inviting her to dinner,
> > riding with her in a taxi and so on. Governor Cox knew that she had
> > some connection with Senator Harding, although he almost certainly did
> > not know that she was actually Harding's mistress.
> >
> > Later, this same James Cox, the man who had tried hard to seduce Nan
> > Britton, became the opposing candidate for President of the United
> > States. Warren G. Harding was the Republican Party Candidate. James
> > Cox was the Democratic Party Candidate. Harding won the election
> > easily. Nan Britton, who knew little about politics, wondered why they
> > even bothered to hold an election. It was just obvious to her that
> > Harding should be president.
> >
> > Thus, everything was hunky dory. Elizabeth Ann had been legally
> > adopted by her sister and her brother-in-law, and meanwhile Nan
> > Britton was living in New York City and was free to visit Washington
> > DC and to have sex romps in the White House as much as circumstances
> > would allow.
> >
> > There came a time when President Harding, at the height of his
> > popularity, decided to take a trip with his legal wife to Alaska,
> > which was the first trip ever by a president to the far western part
> > of the United States. Since the President was going to be away anyway,
> > Nan Britton took this opportunity to take a trip to France, which was
> > her first trip abroad.
> >
> > While in France, the shocking news arrived that President Harding had
> > died. Nan Britton borrowed money from one Captain Neilson and was able
> > to board a quick boat back to the United States, hoping to arrive in
> > time for the funeral.
> >
> > After her return, Nan Brtton soon discovered that her economic
> > circumstances worsened considerably. Up until that time, President
> > Warren G. Harding had been sending her cash money regularly, allowing
> > her to enjoy a fairly lavish life style. One of the messengers who
> > often brought her money from Harding was Tim Slade, who later on
> > became a close friend of Nan Britton. Tim Slade later confided that he
> > had long suspected that Nan Britton was actually the daughter of
> > President Harding, from some prior relationship. He had not originally
> > suspected that she was actually the mistress.
> >
> > Nan Britton was now working at various secretarial jobs in New York
> > City. She was having trouble paying rent and making ends meet.
> > Meanwhile, her sister had adopted her daughter Elizabeth Ann. Soon,
> > her sister must have realized than Nan was actually the mother of
> > Elizabeth Ann. Nan Britton visited her daughter as often that she
> > could. She wanted her daughter to come back permanently to live with
> > her, but her circumstances would not allow it.
> >
> > By now, Nan Britton was regularly approaching friends to borrow money.
> > One person who always seemed willing to loan her money was Captain
> > Nielson. Finally, Captain Neilson proposed marriage. He told her that
> > he had a lot of property in Norway and offered to give her $25,000
> > immediately upon consideration of this marriage.
> >
> > Finally, Nan Britton confided in him her secret, that she had a
> > daughter who was living with her sister in Chicago, and the only
> > reason she would marry Captain Neilson was to get her daughter back
> > permanently.
> >
> > Nan Britton feared that upon hearing this news. Captain Nielson would
> > dump her. However, this did not happen. Instead, Captain Neilson
> > accepted this condition and the marriage ceremony took place.
> >
> > However, Captain Neilson did not have the money with him at the
> > moment. First, he had to return to Norway, to sell the property he
> > owned, and then he would return and give her the money he had
> > promised.
> >
> > Captain Neilson left by ship. When he returned weeks later, he had not
> > been successful in selling the property in Norway and he did not have
> > any money to give her. Soon, he left on another ship, and then another
> > and then another. Eventually, Nan Britton realized that he was working
> > on these ships. He was not the owner or even the captain. He had no
> > money and, when in New York, she had to support him, not the other way
> > around.
> >
> > After Nan Britton finally realized that Captain Neilson had no money
> > at all, she was able to find a lawyer who arranged a divorce or an
> > annulment without charging much. However, for some time, she used the
> > name ?Nan Britton Neilson?.
> >
> > Now that her plan of having enough money to recover her daughter by
> > marrying a rich man had fallen through, Nan Britton decided to contact
> > the family of the Late President Harding to ask them for help. It is
> > not true that they refused to help. They did offer to help. Daisy, the
> > sister of the late President Harding, often sent Nan Britton $40.
> > Other family members gave her small amounts of money as well. Tim
> > Slade once gave her $100. However, Nan Britton had rent and payments
> > to make. These small amounts of money plus her salary at various
> > secretarial jobs were not enough to support both her and her bastard
> > kid. She needed more.
> >
> > Nan Britton obviously believed that Warren G. Harding had been a
> > wealthy man. She estimated his estate as being between $500,000 to
> > $900,000. She only wanted $50,000 in a trust fund, which she felt was
> > reasonable. She was interviewed by the late president's brother,
> > Doctor Harding. The doctor obviously felt that her demands were
> > unreasonable. By then, the widow of the late president, Florence
> > Harding, had died too so, if Nan Britton could prove her claim that
> > Elizabeth Ann was the daughter of the late president, then she would
> > be entitled to the entire estate, as President Harding had left no
> > other heirs. His wife, Florence, had been much older and there had
> > been no children.
> >
> > However, the truth was probably that President Harding did not have a
> > lot of money. He was deeply in debt and probably insolvent. Thus, the
> > small amounts such as the $40 that Daisy Harding often gave Nan
> > Britton was not the result of miserliness but rather because Daisy did
> > not have a lot of money herself and gave when she could.
> >
> > Finally, Nan Britton made a decision which should be obvious to every
> > modern reader but it took a long time for Nan Britton to think of it
> > and was a hard decision for Nan Britton to reach, which was TO SELL
> > HER STORY.
> >
> > The resulting book, The Presidents Daughter, has a story all its own.
> > Bills were introduced in the United States Congress to stop the
> > publication of this book or to make possession of it illegal. The FBI
> > took an interest. The New York City Vice Squad raided the printing
> > plant and confiscated all the plates. Nan Britton went to court and
> > got the plates back.
> >
> > It is not clear the legal grounds on which the New York City Vice
> > Squad raided. Was it because the book was porn? Mild by modern
> > standards, it probably was by the standards of those times.
> >
> > No major, reputable book publisher would touch this book. All turned
> > it down. Finally, a charitable foundation was formed just to help
> > protect the rights of illegitimate children and it was this
> > foundation, The Elizabeth Ann Guild, that published this book.
> > Naturally, as the book featured sex romps in the White House, it
> > became a best seller.
> >
> > It was obviously an expensively produced book, with hard thick covers
> > and high quality paper, but without the input of a regular book
> > publisher, the print quality was poor, the pages often irregular, hard
> > to read and sometimes off center. When I first saw it, I thought that
> > this must be a pirate edition. The book is not old, it was published
> > in 1927, but I had never seen a book in such bad condition.
> >
> > I need to thank Pam McCallum of Scituate, Massachusetts for helping me
> > restore this book. Without her help, I could never have done it. She
> > enhanced the type fonts to make it more readable. Re-centered the
> > pages where needed. Due to the irregular placement of the page
> > numbers, too close to the edges in the lower corners, they had to be
> > cut off, but with 175 chapters, one for every two or three pages, it
> > is easy to find things.
> >
> > One charge often made is that this book is a hatchet job by a
> > political opponent of Harding, who was probably a Democrat or a
> > Christian Religious Fanatic. There is no doubt some truth to this. It
> > would have been virtually impossible or at least unlikely for a simple
> > girl with a high school diploma who worked at various secretarial jobs
> > to have created this book, which was obviously well written, probably
> > by a professional writer. However, there is nothing wrong with that.
> > Almost all modern books nowadays have editors, proof readers and so
> > on. Also, throughout this book, Nan Britton expresses nothing but
> > admiration and respect for Warren G. Harding. She has nothing but good
> > things to say about the president. She simply thinks that there is
> > nothing wrong with a man sleeping with a woman. Others had done it,
> > even before President Harding. She probably never imagined that this
> > book would harm his reputation to the extent that it did. She wanted
> > only to provide for their daughter.
> >
> > Nan Britton never remarried. It is said that Nan Britton loved Warren
> > G. Harding until the day she died on March 21, 1991 at age 94.
> >
> > Sam Sloan
> >
> > This book will soon be reprinted and available at the following
> > address:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234
|
|
