The research and work presented by Ms. Stewart is of great quality. The is no clearcut history, there are always variables that vary with time. The physical evidence of comparing a picture(s) of the Harding family and Ms. Stewart are evidence in it self. This is not a new issue on the American landscape, there is book by Ronald Reagan his biography entitled, 'Wheres the Rest of Me". On page 8 of the hard back edition, he quotes his father on the movie "Birth of A Nation" coming to their town. His father, Jack stated "It deals with the Klu Klux Klan against the Colored folks and I will be damned if anyone in this family will see it". On page 7, talks about his fathers cross bred genes of being a first generation Black-Irish. And if you check the history of the city Dublin in Ireland, Dublin or DUB lin was settled by the Moors. Check the history. Ms. Stewart, keep writing.

Peace

Ignorance succumbs well-meaning statements. Koblentz says: "In 1884 he was a teacher at the local "Colored school" in Marion, Ohio". While Warren G. Harding did have his first teaching job, not in Marion (city) Ohio, but in a Marion Township (Marion, County Ohio) one room schoolhouse that once stood at the corner of Marion Williamsport Rd. and State Route 4 (now occupied by WMRN). I find the claim that this schoolhouse was for "colored" students dubious at best - There has never been a segregated school in Marion County. As a native, as a historian and as a published author, I can find neither records nor proof of this claim to validate it.

There were no segregated schools in Ohio in 1884 on the books. It was much like it was today in the urban areas of the country. There were Black neighborhoods that produced schools attended by black children usually with black teachers. Ohio was a place where African Americans had a measure of freedom. Slaves knew the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery, and many of the Michigan Pioneers from which I have descended made their way to Ohio seeking freedom. Although a free state existed, there was still much hatred towards Blacks. In 1804 and 1807, Ohio became the first state north of slavery territory to adopt the notorious "Black Laws" regulating the activities of Black and Mulatto persons. In April 1827, a law passed that required Negro settlers to post a $500 "good behavior" bond to stay in the Ohio Territory; deferred Blacks from serving in the militia, prohibited the erection of schools for Blacks and their children, and prohibited Blacks as witnesses against whites regardless of the circumstances.

S. J. Koblentz is blinded by a one-way programmed avenue. Apparently his writings and publishing’s were mere convergence on helping to cover the so called “Harding documents.” He may be well versed in his own folklore about the 29th president of the US and has gone by the way of the US Government “cover-ups.” The book is accurate about Warren Harding because I am one of those Black cousins. What is not accurate are the many measures the US Government took to cover Warren’s Negro blood.

What he has researched as far as the “Harding Documents” are just more inaccuracies put together to cover the truth. You can be assured the rumors of his race are accurate. Harding’s sister claimed her “Black” blood.

This book is truly an amazing work.

Documented history has proved that during his lifetime, rumors were heard that Warren G. Harding was (partially) black. None of these rumors has ever been verified through the use of primary source documents or DNA, however the writer argument is that based on her family information, Warren G. Harding was black, and that he passed for white during his and died because he was black.

I became familiar with this authors work and theory through her web sites.

Readers who have taken basic philosophy in College will remember that there are certain arguments that are valid (true) and those which are faulty (untrue). The truth or untruth of an argument is based upon the reasoning that brings one to the conclusion.

I bring this up because the author is stellar at using Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc as the gold standard of building the case she that believes is true. The problem with this type of logic is that its conclusions are always false because the argument itself is faulty.

Literally translated, "Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc" translates to "Therefore, because of this" meaning that the point must be true because of the supporting evidence that I show you. The question is in analyzing any argument is: Is the information that you are using to build your case relative and factual to the conclusion drawn.

For example, on pg 171, the author asserts that one piece of key evidence is that the Harding’s owned 400 acres of land in New London Connecticut, and that on the eve of the Revolution (bolded by by the author to highlight the supportive evidence) “Connecticut had the highest number of slaves in New England.” Thoroughly damning if one doesn’t dissect the implied argument, which is: Because they owned land in Connecticut the Harding’s were therefore black, or at least sleeping with the slave women and produced a "colored" heir. But all the statement real proves is that according a family named Harding at one time own land in New London and that Connecticut had a higher number of slaves.

The author then asks the question, if the Harding’s owned so much land, why did they “flee” Connecticut for move to Ohio. In doing so, the author demonstrates her lack knowledge of the relationship between Connecticut and Ohio. Following the Revolutionary War, Connecticut was granted a “Western Reserve of Land” as payment for its role in supporting the fight for independence from Great Britain. Numerous families from Connecticut went west to northern Ohio because good land was in abundance. Some pushed onward beyond the Reserve.

As for the Harding’s, according to the author they fled Connecticut (where the poor farming land had been under the plow for well over 100 years) for Ohio at such a breakneck speed that they had enough time for Harding’s grandfather to be born, married and had several children in Pennsylvania before making it Ohio. Thank God for the speedy ox carts of the age.

Then there is her writing style, and what a style she demonstrates! Chapters shift from fact to pseudo fact to personal musings without warning. In Chapter One, I was introduced to the author's belief that when working with stories attributed to others that proper use of quotations was optional. This is important because the author has a habit of gliding from her own opinion into third person stories without much warning. There are also numerous misspellings, to numerous to mention.

I can not recommend this book because of the lack documentation and because the content is so truly unreadable. I can, however, state that after reading this work, I have never encountered anything like it before and hope that I never do again.