Talk:John Nance Garner

Untitled
This seems like strange wording: Garner was born near Detroit, Red River County, Texas, and was a Cherokee Indian on his father's side. He studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1890, and ''began practice in Uvalde, Uvalde County, Texas. He was a judge of Uvalde County'' from 1893 to 1896 and a member of the state House of Representatives from 1898 to 1902. I can't think of an appropriate revision, though —Preceding unsigned comment added by EunuchOmerta (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about?
 * "Garner, a Cherokee Indian on his father's side, was born near Detroit, Red River County, Texas. He studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1890, and began pratice in Uvalde, Uvalde County, Texas. He served as judge of Uvalde County from 1893 to 1896 and as a member of the state House of Representatives from 1898 to 1902.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.157.202 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

About a fourth of the way down the article it reads 'Garner supported federal intervention to break up the first sit-down strike'. The title of the link that it goes to is flint not first. I don't know enough history to know what is right. AusME 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Flint Sit-Down Strike" is correct. It is a famous event in labor history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.165.46 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Should we add, that Garner's first term as VP was shortend by the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution? GoodDay 21:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I couldn't get this fact to flow in the mainstream of the article so I added it to Trivia. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

he and Colfax the only ones to preside over both houses?
We currently state:
 * As the Vice President is also the President of the Senate, this means that Garner and Colfax are the only people in history to have served as the presiding officer of both houses of Congress.

But is this really true? Theodore Sedgwick, Joseph B. Varnum, and Nathaniel Macon all served as both President pro tempore and as Speaker. It seems arguable, at least, that they also served as presiding officer of both houses of Congress. john k 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer is yes because the Vice President is officially the President of the Senate. The President pro tempore is basically the Acting President of the Senate as the Vice President isn't there 100% of the time. We should not account for every acting presiding officer of a chamber. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative History Fiction Contaminating This Article
I have removed some bullet points from the trivia section of this article that imply that the 1933 attempt on FDR's life in Miami, Florida did not fail and Garner became President. While a popular branching event for alternative history buffs, it simply is not true. Roosevelt died in 1945 while in office. Garner was never President. I was present at his 98th birthday party, and they would have mentioned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.165.46 (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious assertion
"When it became evident that Roosevelt would win the nomination, Garner cut a deal with the front-runner, becoming Roosevelt's Vice Presidential candidate." I added to this. Compare what e.g. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Garner.htm says:

"After three ballots, during which Garner's numbers increased marginally, Roosevelt's strategists realized that without Garner's support they would never achieve the necessary two-thirds vote that the party's century-old rule mandated for nomination. They feared they were about to lose the Mississippi delegation, which operated under a rule that gave all twenty of its votes to the candidate favored by a simple majority of its members. To break the impasse, Roosevelt campaign manager James Farley called Garner's campaign manager, Representative Sam Rayburn, to a meeting in Mississippi Senator Pat Harrison's hotel room. They agreed to ask Garner to transfer his delegates to Roosevelt in return for the vice-presidential nomination. Garner reluctantly agreed in order to avoid the type of deadlocked convention that in 1924 had produced the unsatisfying compromise candidacy of John W. Davis and his losing campaign." Vints (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The obvious revisions would be either (a) "When it became evident that Roosevelt should win the nomination based on party support..."; or (b) "When it became evident that he would not win the nomination..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.93.206 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"bucket of warm spit" controversy
The "bucket of warm spit" quote is slightly doubtful- see this article http://hnn.us/articles/53402.html Note that there is nothing at all that verifies that the actual quote used the word "piss". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.31.32 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Salon reference cited in footnote 2 doesn't contain relevant content (retrieved 1/20/2013). The placement of footnote 2 suggests it refers to VP Garner or to the warm spit quote. Neither is mentioned in the Salon article. 68.196.138.54 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)68.196.138.54 (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the quote referred to on Jeopardy! a few nights ago, and I agree, the Salon article doesn't mention either the man or the quote. But I did find |this article from the New Yorker -- it's a little oddly-worded, but it seems to assert the comment was "warm piss", but that "warm spit" was often quoted due to the media practices of the era. I didn't add that page as a source to the article yet, in part because I'm not certain it means what I think it means. I'll try to read it again later. Oh, and I split this discussion to its own section on the Talk page because it didn't really seem relevant to the section above. --PCjabber (T &#124; C) 20:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * forget about "piss" vs "spit", what about "bucket" vs "pitcher"?! most sources insist it's the latter, but somehow it's gotten mangled to the former over the years.  what's up with that?  (or with article not even MENTIONING it?!) 66.30.47.138 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Where did he get his name Nance from?
Some how I am kin, and trying to put it together... If there is any additional information would you please send it to Jnance76@aol.com Thanks, J Nance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.129.200 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Colfax too
Garner wasn't the only person to have served as Speaker of the House & President of the Senate on the same day. Colfax was House Speaker then President of the Senate on March 4, 1869. PS- Someday, those March 3 dates will be corrected to March 4. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

conflict within this article
The Dates of Garner's life shows November 22, 1868 to November 7, 1967. Then in the article it says he lived to 99 years and 5 days, which would indicate November 27. I believe there is an error in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.135 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Descendants
There seems to be a discrepancy in the list of the former Vice President's descendants. The article indicates that he had two grandsons, presumably the children of Tully Charles Garner, the V.P.'s only child, but Find-a-Grave and other sources make it clear that Tully Charles Garner had one child, a daughter, Genevieve, who married John James Currie, Jr. (I found Mr. Currie's obituary from 1998 -- http://amarillo.com/stories/121698/new_his.shtml)

There is a Tully Currie in Fredericksburg, Texas, who is a land developer, and he has a brother, John G. Currie, of Blanco, Texas; if they are the Tully Currie and "John" mentioned in that list of descendants, then they're great-grandsons, not grandsons, of John Nance Garner.

Proceeding from there, I'm unclear as to the propriety of naming all of the Vice President's descendants in the article--I'm not sure I've seen this before. Even if there's no violation of guidelines in including such a list in the article, this list seems to be hopelessly muddled. Rontrigger (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no need to list descendants, and dropped them all. None appear to be notable. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservative?
According to a NYT article from today, Garner was the most liberal Vice Presidential candidate since 1900 (not counting those who never served in Congress). Yet this article calls him a conservative. What gives? -- 92.226.1.148 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was quite liberal as a Congressman, but became much more conservative as Vice President. JTRH (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume what gives is that DW-NOMINATE scores are highly, highly dubious. Garner may have been more liberal as a congressman, but the idea that he was more liberal than Humphrey or Mondale seems pretty close to ridiculous. He opposed the New Deal.  He was not a liberal either in contemporary terms or modern terms. john k (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A good blog post on the subject, by a Berkeley political scientist. Short answer: John Nance Garner was not liberal. john k (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

law allowing run for US House AND V.P. in 1932
Please be advised that there is a section "Running for V.P. AND then-current seat in Congress -- look up John Nance Garner in 1932" in President Lyndon Johnson talk page here on Wikipedia. It includes this remark:

>I find "he had Texas law changed to allow him [Lyndon Johnson] to run for both offices {US Senate and V.P., in 1960]".

How does this fit in with whatever law which allowed John Nance Garner to run for re-election to US House and also to run for V.P., in 1932? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of political cartoons?
I was viewing the revision history for the article and I noticed that a user had added external links to two relevant political cartoons, but those links were subsequently removed and tagged as link spam... Is there a specific reason the links were removed? They certainly weren't spam, merely additional information on the topic at hand. Just curious, as they're quite good and I'm sad to see that they are not available on the page anymore. El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Treatment
In the alternative history dystopian science-fiction novel, The Man in the High Castle by Phillip K. Dick, John Nance Garner becomes President after the assassination of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, proves a poor President, and allows a really weak President to be in charge during the Axis menace and allow an Axis victory.Pbrower2a (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Speedy close. A full RM is not required to revert a recent undiscussed moved. The page will be restored to the longstanding title. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

John N. Garner → John Nance Garner – The page was moved without consensus. Both the U.S. Senate website and Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as other sources, refer to him by his full name, indicating that it is his Wikipedia:CommonName. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nomination. The move, made 11 days ago, on March 3, should be reverted. Garner was indeed referenced by his full middle name, rather by the middle initial "N." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Garner billboard, Uvalde, TX IMG 1310.JPG