|
Post by sagevic on Jul 16, 2011 9:26:50 GMT -5
While the Reds were late in integration, it ctually could have happend for the Reds much earlier.
In the 1930's, Reds GM larry Macphail (who had a stake in the team finnancially as well) wrote then Commisioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis that he was going to integrate the Reds teh following year. Landis responded by forcing Macphail to sell his share of the Reds. This example of the "Gentlman's Agreement" was not uncommon as several other major league owners (as well as rival leagues that were formed in the early 20th Century) all considered integration but had it stopped by one means or another.
Macphail himself entered the Army at the start of WWII, and later boughtshares in teh Dodgers and Yankees. He was with the Yankees when the Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier for the Brooklyn team in 1947.
While I do believe that intgration was inevitable, the forces that existed to forstall it were formidibla, and the road that Robinson had to take was exceptionally hard. He made a sacrifice not only for Black players, but for the country itself that needed to make this move in its national passtime. The stress of this action may have shortened Robinson's life, dying at age 53 of a heart attack.
I understand why a contemporary fan today would not want the number of a player for a rival team honored, but the impact that Jackie robinson had on sports and culture in teh United States is far beyond anything that has been done by an athlete before or since.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jul 16, 2011 12:19:45 GMT -5
Are you sure this was the reason for MacPhail's departure from Cincy? I'm not arguing, just interested in the evidence for this version of events. In any case, MacPhail was pretty unstable and probably not the most reliable ally in a controversy...
|
|
|
Post by sagevic on Jul 16, 2011 14:58:35 GMT -5
Are you sure this was the reason for MacPhail's departure from Cincy? I'm not arguing, just interested in the evidence for this version of events. In any case, MacPhail was pretty unstable and probably not the most reliable ally in a controversy... I re-read my notes from history class, and I did get it slightly wrong. McPhail was the team's general manager in the 30's, and was going to purchase the team in toto. Landis blocked the sale to McPhail (to prevent him from integrating the team) who then left the team to go to Brooklyn where he was a partial owner. He left that when he entered military service during WWII and later became a part owner of the Yankees. The history came from class lectures, although there is a biography about McPhail that also recounts the story of his attemt to integrate the Reds. The bio however is written by teh same professor that taught (and still teaches) the history of baseball at Ohio U, Mathew Gladman. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jul 16, 2011 17:57:57 GMT -5
It's an interesting problem because, since his death in 1944, baseball mythology has identified Landis as the major obstacle to integration, a convenient receptacle of blame for a discredited regime. Suddenly, all god's chillun had wanted integration, only to be foiled by the mad racist in the commissioner's chair: Bill Veeck, Larry MacPhail, these and other heroes laid low by the deceit and machination of one man's bigotry...
As a narrative, it doesn't ring true. Obviously, Landis was a bigot, but he had a lot of company, and Veeck's claims, for example, have now been exposed as inventions. In general, I'm skeptical: the claims proliferated at a time when Landis was not alive to contest them, and when a clear vested interest lay in burying the responsibility for segregation with him...
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jul 16, 2011 18:01:58 GMT -5
I couldn't find this book on MacPhail, it sounds interesting. Could you post the author and title?
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Jul 17, 2011 9:52:09 GMT -5
It's an interesting problem because, since his death in 1944, baseball mythology has identified Landis as the major obstacle to integration, a convenient receptacle of blame for a discredited regime. Suddenly, all god's chillun had wanted integration, only to be foiled by the mad racist in the commissioner's chair: Bill Veeck, Larry MacPhail, these and other heroes laid low by the deceit and machination of one man's bigotry... As a narrative, it doesn't ring true. Obviously, Landis was a bigot, but he had a lot of company, and Veeck's claims, for example, have now been exposed as inventions. In general, I'm skeptical: the claims proliferated at a time when Landis was not alive to contest them, and when a clear vested interest lay in burying the responsibility for segregation with him... Another problem is that the commissioner worked for the owners and if they all were opposed to what he was doing he could have been let go. I think he was wrong in the Black Sox case (just with the lifetime ban 10-15 years would have served similar purpose and the stink from it would likely have kept them out of any position of influence after that) and if he was the driving force behind segregation he was wrong about that as well. I also believe Babe Ruth was far more important then Robinson to baseball. At the time of the Black Sox scandal people were losing interest and the game was in some trouble. Ruth all but put the entire league on his shoulders and took it to new heights. If not for Ruth there might not have been a game for Robinson to Integrate.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jul 17, 2011 12:16:40 GMT -5
Ruth's impact on the field and more generally were important events in baseball's business history, but I don't agree that the business would have died without him. The end of segregation in this country was one of the important events of the twentieth century, and the integration of baseball was one of its early battles. Robinson's actions and impact were more important, but no one was bigger than the Babe...
|
|
|
Post by sagevic on Jul 18, 2011 0:21:57 GMT -5
I couldn't find this book on MacPhail, it sounds interesting. Could you post the author and title? I think the book was Dr. Gladman's Master's thesis and was published by whichever University press he received his post-graduate degree from (maybe Youngstown State?). It's in teh Ohio U library (Alden Library) but I don't know if we still participat in inter-library loan. I think it's a closed system now. Gladmann is a believer in Veeck's stories but my personal reseach has left me skeptical about it enough that i don't usually quote it, without a lot of prefacing first. My admiration for Robinson is such that I would put himsholder to sholder with Ruth in terms of his impact off the ffield.But I always tell people that without Ruth and also Gehrig, there wouldn't be a Jackie robinson. If the two Yankee legendshadn't been such transcendent figures themselves, and created the hysteria for baseball in our national psyche then Robinson's situation would have been different. It's all connected, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by sagevic on Jul 18, 2011 0:28:01 GMT -5
It's an interesting problem because, since his death in 1944, baseball mythology has identified Landis as the major obstacle to integration, a convenient receptacle of blame for a discredited regime. Suddenly, all god's chillun had wanted integration, only to be foiled by the mad racist in the commissioner's chair: Bill Veeck, Larry MacPhail, these and other heroes laid low by the deceit and machination of one man's bigotry... As a narrative, it doesn't ring true. Obviously, Landis was a bigot, but he had a lot of company, and Veeck's claims, for example, have now been exposed as inventions. In general, I'm skeptical: the claims proliferated at a time when Landis was not alive to contest them, and when a clear vested interest lay in burying the responsibility for segregation with him... I do believe that Landis wanted to keep baseball segregated, and that is by definition racist. But I don't think he wanted to do so for reasons of persoal intolerance as much as for keeping the game "pure" and therefore more saleable to teh average American. I don't think that excuses his actions, but I believe he's wrongly painted as a wild-eyed Klansman to often.I think he believed himself to a pragmatist, but was unfotunately blind to his own bigotry. he should have done the right thing if only that meant letting progressives buy teams if they had teh money to do so. But he was far and away not the only voice opposed to intergration, and many were far more virulent in their prejudice. Some of them are sadly in the hall of fame, and this aspect of their careers has been badly under-reported in the Hall.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jul 18, 2011 5:31:59 GMT -5
Landis exercised quite a reach in his efforts to prevent blacks and whites from playing on the same field, including his campaign to stop MLB players from barnstorming or competing against blacks in the Caribbean leagues during the offseason. These policies in no way contradicted his personal beliefs. On the contrary, they reflected them...
There's no listing for the MA thesis in the ILL catalogue, though I did locate Gladman's recent doctoral thesis on movies and the Cold War, which looks interesting. Obviously, some congratulations are in order there. If you post the full title of the MA thesis, I can probably track it down; most libraries will loan these texts unless the authors restrict their use...
|
|