Commissioner: Judge Landis

[eastchicagosoxfan]

I've been debating the effectiveness of Landis as Commissioner. What are some opinions out there? I think people often assign 2005 values and cultural standards to a figure who lived 70 years ago. He was racist, and ruled with an iron hand, but was he as good a Commissioner as MLB could have expected at the time?

Source: Right: Baseball: 100 ears of The Modern Era: 1901-2000: From The Archives Of The Sporting News, edited by Joe Hoppel, 2001, pp. 46.
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Player%20Tributes/Image22-5.jpg
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Meet%20The%20Sports%20Writers/117634-004-A822B9B7.jpg

[bluezebra]

I've been debating the effectiveness of Landis as Commissioner. What are some opinions out there? I think people often assign 2005 values and cultural standards to a figure who lived 70 years ago. He was racist, and ruled with an iron hand, but was he as good a Commissioner as MLB could have expected at the time?

Landis was brought aboard because of the Black Sox scandal, to restore the fans' confidence in the game. He was given ABSOLUTE powers, and no commissioner has ever approached that. Landis, and the emergence of Babe Ruth as a home run hitter, are credited with being the main factors in keeping interest in baseball alive.

Bob

[leecemark]

--To answer the question: Yes, I think he was as good a Commissioner as baseball could have expected at the time. I think he was a better Commisoner than the owners really wanted.
--He was brought in to deal witht the gambling problem that infested base, of which the Black Sox scandal was the worst and best known but not only. Some argue he was excessively harsh in sloving that problem, but no one can reasonably argue that wasn't extremely successfull in carrying out that charge.
--Landis was surprisingly fair to the players side on many issues. IMO moreso than most subsequent Commissioners. He tried, but was defeated by the owners, to defend the rights of the minor league teams.
--Had Landis acted to end segregation he would be not just the best Commsioner of all time, but the greatest non-playing contributor of all time. It is unfortunate that he did not, but it would have been quite a leap for an old man raised in an era of segregation to have taken on the owners (who seem to have been almost unamimous in opposing integration) on this issue.

[leecemark]

--"the owners overreacted to the Black Sox scandal". Sorry, but I don't see a team throwing a World Series as a minor issue to be brushed aside.
--Regarding the Landis-Nazi comparison - if you have to apologise for writing something even as you post it then you should probably leave it out. That kind of outrageous slander has no place here.

[west coast orange and black]

landis allowed for the continued practice of blacks being barring from the game. by doing so, he encouraged systemic racism. as did the nazis.

did he do all what could be expected of him at the time? for the times? i dunno. but no apolgies coming from me, because i believe that none are deserved.

[DoubleX]

"Segregation is the greatest stain on baseball's dirty history."

Baseball? The entire nation is culpable, not only sports. Baseball broke the barrier before the military.

Bob

So do you suggest we congratulate baseball for abandoning its segregated ways before the military, is that the standard of commendation? (Though if you want to get technical about this, while individual military units may not have been universally segregated, the government did employ African-American soldiers and units for almost a century before baseball was segregated. So I suppose the comparison would be apt if Major League Baseball, like the US Military, actually ran the Negro Leagues and employed the black players in a separate but equal, Plessy v. Ferguson sense, but baseball didn't. Major League Baseball, unlike the military, was totally exclusionary of people of color).

Anyway, the fact is that we're only talking about baseball here, not society in general, and among the many things baseball has done and has stood for, segregation is the most repugnant, IMO. Yes, segregation was a part of society, and that was extremely irreprehensible, but this isn't a society forum, it's a baseball forum, and my post was only about segregation in its relation to baseball.

[Iron Jaw]

Baseball broke the barrier before the military.

Bob

Your statement is totally incorrect. Black people have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Military, in one capacity or another, since the American Revolution. The Army did have segregated units until the end of World War II, but other branches, such as the Marine Corps, did not. The Corps did segregate their bootcamp during WWII (Black recruits went through basic at Montford Point, N.C.), but they did not segregate their regular units. Likewise, the Navy and Coast Guard integrated their regular units.

While the Army segregated their WWII and WWI units, at different points of history, they did not because the logistics simply didn't allow for it.

No, the military beat baseball in that regard.

[west coast orange and black]

Your statement is totally incorrect...
zebra wrote about segregation.
so i read zebra's post as referring to homosexuals, not blacks, in the military.

[Iron Jaw]

Well, baseball, as far as I know, never had an official ban on homosexuals, although I certainly don't recall any "open" players over the course of history.
The military had a ban, and still does only a bit more indirect with the
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. Essentially, isn't that what baseball has always had too - without an official written policy. However, homosexual people did serve in the military despite the bans - they had and have to serve in silence. Likewise, as I said, I can't recall an open baseball player, but I'm sure a few played the game - and just like those who served in the military, very silently.

The primary topic was about Commissioner Landis, and as a side, someone posted that Landis was one of many commissioners that did not have any use for the breaking of the color barrier in baseball. I don't know if Landis was prejudice against homosexuals or not - he quite likely was, as a large majority of America (and the world) was during Landis' time. And to be quite frank, that prejudice is still out there only not quite as direct as it once was. The point is, I'm sure baseball was no Angel in that area.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Your statement is totally incorrect. Black people have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Military, in one capacity or another, since the American Revolution. The Army did have segregated units until the end of World War II, but other branches, such as the Marine Corps, did not. The Corps did segregate their bootcamp during WWII (Black recruits went through basic at Montford Point, N.C.), but they did not segregate their regular units. Likewise, the Navy and Coast Guard integrated their regular units.

While the Army segregated their WWII and WWI units, at different points of history, they did not because the logistics simply didn't allow for it.

No, the military beat baseball in that regard.
The word "segregated" has different meanings in this case. In terms of baseball, "segregation" referred to the ban on blacks from MLB. In terms of the military the term "segregation" referred to ban of blacks and whites serving together in the same units. Truman de-segregated the military after WW II. Blacks and whites did not serve in the same units during WW II.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well, baseball, as far as I know, never had an official ban on homosexuals, although I certainly don't recall any "open" players over the course of history.
The military had a ban, and still does only a bit more indirect with the
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. Essentially, isn't that what baseball has always had too - without an official written policy. However, homosexual people did serve in the military despite the bans - they had and have to serve in silence. Likewise, as I said, I can't recall an open baseball player, but I'm sure a few played the game - and just like those who served in the military, very silently.

The primary topic was about Commissioner Landis, and as a side, someone posted that Landis was one of many commissioners that did not have any use for the breaking of the color barrier in baseball. I don't know if Landis was prejudice against homosexuals or not - he quite likely was, as a large majority of America (and the world) was during Landis' time. And to be quite frank, that prejudice is still out there only not quite as direct as it once was. The point is, I'm sure baseball was no Angel in that area.

As far as I know only Billy Bean (not Billy Beane, the A's GM) has admitted he is gay but he admitted it after he retired. Over 13,000 men have played MLB. If you assume 1% of them were gay, that over 130 gay major leaguers in baseball history.

[leecemark]

--There seems to be some sort of assumption here that America was largely integrated before 1947 and MLB was some sort of torch bearer for racism. Nothing could be further from the truth. MOST institutions in thsi country were still segregated and policies of discrimination were common and accepted for 10-15 after baseball integrated.
--Was it wrong? Of course. Should Landis or anyone else be branded as a monster because they did not make correcting that wrong a priority? I think that is greatly overstating the case. Judging historical figures by contemporary moral standards will lead to many excessivley harsh judgments.

[DoubleX]

--There seems to be some sort of assumption here that America was largely integrated before 1947 and MLB was some sort of torch bearer for racism. Nothing could be further from the truth. MOST institutions in thsi country were still segregated and policies of discrimination were common and accepted for 10-15 after baseball integrated.

I don't quite see where you got that assumption from. My opinions on Judge Landis have come from a good amount of research. I would never assign moral or character judgments to a person if I didn't feel confident in my knowledge of that person (and even then I'm very reluctant). From everything I've learned about Landis, I'm sure of two things:

1) He was extremely instrumental in restoring legitimacy and integrity to the game after the Black Sox mess.

2) His presence as commissioner was instrumental in prolonging segregation. Had he stepped down or passed away earlier, segregation would likely have come about earlier. Likewise, had he lived or served as commisioner longer, integration would have been delayed for longer. Thus, IMO, baseball's prolonged integration = Landis (how prolonged, I do not know, but I wouldn't suggest more than a decade). There were elements in society (and in baseball, some of which Leecemark mentioned back in june in this thread http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=17898) trying to bring about integration in baseball, Landis did we he could to halt these attempts and any inquisitions regarding integration in their tracks. Moreover, if the 1934 Olympics (18 African-American athletes) and Joe Louis are any indication, America was beginning to embrace African-American Athletes in the 1930's. With the emergence of black athletes in other sports, one can only assume that many Americans must have wondered about the Majors integrating given that it really was the National Pasttime during that period.

[Iron Jaw]

The NFL, an organization that signed and played black players in the early years, including a black coach in 1921, suddenly banned black players in 1934, a ban that lasted through the 1945 season. This was inspired by owners such as Redskin owner George Preston Marshall. In 1946, one year before Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers, the NFL signed two black players - one of the two was Woody Strode, who became a pretty decent movie actor.

One NFL team, the Redskins, would not feature a black player until 1963 (of course, Marshall owned the team). The Skins were actually forced to draft a black player in 1962 (Ernie Davis of Syracuse), but he said he would never sign a contract with Marshall's team and was traded to Cleveland for Bobby Mitchell.

Racial predudice was everywhere - not just in baseball. Judge Landis was the standard for the time he was commissioner in that area.

[DoubleX]

One thing to remember, if being a racist is the only criteria to keep Landis out of the discussion of being great, than a majority of players and owners from theat era and previous eras have to as well. It is not like most players and owners were rolling out the welcome wagon to accept black players. Many of them were racists. I am not condoning what they did, but this is the truth. We have to look at Landis' body of work, instead of just the segregation thing. I am not saying it should be overlooked, however, it can't be the only factor. Overall, Landis did some very good things.

Of course though, no players (with perhaps the exception of Cap Anson early on and Babe Ruth because of his stature in the sport), were in a position to make decisions on who can and can't play the game. Tons of players might have been racist, but they weren't in a position of power, as Landis was, to transcend that personal prerogative into upholding a policy of segregation and institutional predjudice. Players speak for themselves, Landis and the owners spoke for the game, and that's what makes it so heinous to me; they let their personal feelings make the game racist and that is why the game from that period is stained in my mind.

[Paulmcall]

The owners were desperate for a czar to rule baseball with an iron hand after the Black Sox scandal. They didn't realize until it was too late what they had gotten into.
Landis did rule with a iron fist much to their chagrin. He got away with stuff Bud Selig would never dream of. There wouldn't be a steroid problem now with Landis in charge.
Once he saw guys with arms like Popeye overnight, he'd have them in for a discussion and that would be the end of that. The phrase of doing "whatever is in the best interests of baseball" came with his rule.
After he passed on, the owners decided they would never give that power to anyone again. That's one reason Happy Chandler got canned. He tried to act as an independant czar and rubbed too many owners the wrong way and he got fired.
Landis was just right for his time.

[Jennifer]

One thing to remember, if being a racist is the only criteria to keep Landis out of the discussion of being great, than a majority of players and owners from theat era and previous eras have to as well. It is not like most players and owners were rolling out the welcome wagon to accept black players. Many of them were racists. I am not condoning what they did, but this is the truth. We have to look at Landis' body of work, instead of just the segregation thing. I am not saying it should be overlooked, however, it can't be the only factor. Overall, Landis did some very good things.
While what you say about the majority is true the Squire was not just one of the boys. He was the Commissioner and had more power to do something about segregation than anyone else. Instead he was an active foe of integration.

A great book about his entire life is David Pietrusza's Judge and Jury: The Life and Times of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

[wamby]

Landis always claimed he would not oppose integration. I don't think that was the case, but why didn't an owner, or some players, make him put up or shut up? Not one team could use Josh Gibson behind the plate? That doesn't make sense. That not one teams' ownership wanted a black player on the team is the only answer. Had Connie Mack wanted to bring in Paige, would Landis have oppossed him? Landis represented the owners. Had he passed in 1934, would integration have happened earlier? Mack and Griffith both oppossed integration, and both were still successful, powerful owners at the time. They wielded tremendous influence. In 1947, they were both well respected, but not the men they were 10 years ago. Nor were their organizations. It was a changing of the guard that helped integration along. Or to use another quip, " there's nothing like an idea whose time has come ".

I think that had Landis survived until say 1951, that some owners would have ignored him and signed black plyers. I think it would have possibly happened in 1949 instead of 1947 (or maybe 1948). I think two management would have had the balls to do it: Branch Rickey and Bill Veeck. I think Rickey would have loved to stick it to Landis in retaliation for Landis's oppostuion to the Cardinal farm system. Bill Veeck was a maverick and I don't think he would have cared about what Landis thought.

I see two scenarios:

1948-the Indians are in the pennant race and Veeck signs Satchell Paige. Paige would be the first modern black athlete, even though I think he would be a less then ideal choice.

The more likely scenario would take place in off season of 1948. Certain writers are putting out a lot of publicity about this issue. The black man served his country well and we don't want it to be like after World War I when the black man got pushed right back to the margins of society. Pro football is integrated and so is the army.

While this is going on, Landis is using his same speech that there is no rule barring black men from playing.

In Brooklyn, Rickey is looking through the rosters to find a black player to bring to the bigs. Since Jackie Robinson is nearly 30, it probably won't be him. especially if he made good on his promise to quit the Negro Leagues after the 1945 season. The first black player will be either Larry Doby or Roy Campanella. Landis calls Rickey on the carpet, Rickey pplans to do it anyway, maybe as early as 1950.

November, 1948. With his election secured Harry Truman steps in. He has intedrated the army and believes in basic civil rights for blacks. He is also still mad that fellow Democrat (and segregationist) Stom Thurmond has run against him.

Harry Truman calls Landis and tells him that if baseball doesn't integrate in one year, baseballs anti-trust exemption will be very closely looked at by an early version of the Celler Commitie. Or he may threaten them with something like higher rates for rail travel. Since Truman threatened to nationalise train service during a '46 strike, this threat will be taken very seriously by the owners.

Mid season 1949 or opening day 1950-Roy Campanella debuts for the Dodgers and Larry Doby debuts for the Indians. Landis is there and has to smile for the cameras, much like Ben Chapman had to.

[wamby]

While what you say about the majority is true the Squire was not just one of the boys. He was the Commissioner and had more power to do something about segregation than anyone else. Instead he was an active foe of integration.

A great book about his entire life is David Pietrusza's Judge and Jury: The Life and Times of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

I thought this was a very interesting book. I thought Pietrusza's analysis of the banning of Buck Weaver was very interesting and it was something that I had never considered.

I don't have the book here with me, but I recall thinking that I thought that Pietrusza was overly charitable to Landis when he discussed segregation in baseball.

[Imapotato]

Yes Cubbie he did...but from a LEGAL standpoint

If he KNEW he could beat them in court if they opposed he put down the hammer...integration was no such luxury.

I think many people unfairly put Landis on great intellectual level...and the man was smart, but not a social genius. He knew the law, and everyone of his acts upon baseball had LAW written all over it. Suspending Ruth (knew he would win due to the legal contract Ruth had with the Yankees) Branch Rickey (monopoly trust on Minor League Baseball)

Like any other person, Landis fought what he could win...not what others would say 100 years from his time.

[cubbieinexile]

I don't buy the legal side. Landis banned players for life even though the law was not on his side. In fact banning players for life is probably so legally wrong that nowadays they have to get players and owners to agree to it. See Pete Rose and George Steinbrenner.

Judge Landis crushed the Federal League and save the enslavement of players by ignoring the law and pretty much showing the FL that he wasn't going to make a ruling therefore you better settle.

Landis was able to mash Rickey not because it was legally allowable but because he made the rules. He made the rules that made it legal for him to do what he did to Detroit and St. Louis and other clubs.

How is saying that Blacks can play not a legally backable idea anyway? How exactly would this go to court anyway? And if it wasn't legally backable then how in the world were they able to do it in 1947? Some owners and players did not want segregation, the Commissioner squashed their protest. It never went to court. So saying Landis couldn't do it because he didn't have the legal right to do it is moot.

[leecemark]

--Actually, baseball was exempt from anti-trust law and an anti monoply case against the owners for taking over the minors would have been doomed to failure. For that matter, the owners won over Landis on the minor league issue. For all practical purposes the conversion of the minor leagues to an MLB farm system was complete while Landis was still Commissioner.
-- Whether he could have won on integration is open to question. That he didn't try is not. There is more evidence he was actively supporting and defending the policy of integration than there is he would have changed it if only the evil owners hadn't opposed him. Not that they don't deserve just as much condemnation. Had an owner signed a Negro Leaguer and been willing to defend it in court, they would have almost certianly prevailed.
--That said, I still endorse Landis for the BBF HoF. His accomplishments were great enough that I won't boycott him for his failure to address an issue that he inherited and which plauged every aspect of American society at the time. Had he put the policy in place, then I'd say no. Had he been the one to oveturn it, along with his other acheivements, he would easily be the greatest non-playing figure in baseball history. He is still one of the greatest.

[Jennifer]

I don't buy the legal side. Landis banned players for life even though the law was not on his side. In fact banning players for life is probably so legally wrong that nowadays they have to get players and owners to agree to it. See Pete Rose and George Steinbrenner.

Judge Landis crushed the Federal League and save the enslavement of players by ignoring the law and pretty much showing the FL that he wasn't going to make a ruling therefore you better settle.

Landis was able to mash Rickey not because it was legally allowable but because he made the rules. He made the rules that made it legal for him to do what he did to Detroit and St. Louis and other clubs.

How is saying that Blacks can play not a legally backable idea anyway? How exactly would this go to court anyway? And if it wasn't legally backable then how in the world were they able to do it in 1947? Some owners and players did not want segregation, the Commissioner squashed their protest. It never went to court. So saying Landis couldn't do it because he didn't have the legal right to do it is moot.
Landis strictly speaking did not ignore the law in crushing the Federal League. Baseball was sued and in the United States Supreme Court case of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc v National Baseball Club (1922) the Court determined that baseball games were intrastate events thus giving rise to Baseball's antitrust exemption.

Would a lawsuit have succeeded in 1946 or 1947 under an Interstate Commerce Clause or antitrust theory? Hard to say. Because of radio baseball games arguably became interstate events, particularly the World Series and the Court in 1946 in Morgan v Virginia determined that segregated trains violated the Interstate Commerce Clause.

[wamby]

Bill Veeck would probably not have been the first to integrate the majors if Landis was still around. Veeck listened to Landis and if Landis had said no then Veeck would not have done it.

That being said after WWII baseball would find it very hard to continue segregation. Baseball at this time is a northern game so the opposition to integration while still present would not be as strong as say someone trying to integrate the Alabama football team.

As for Landis and integration his record is not good. No matter how you slice it. Landis was the one man who did have enough power to do what he wanted. Landis had so much power and designed his contract in such a way that it took baseball owners until 1992 to work up enough muscle to convince a Commissioner to resign. Even then they didn't really know if they were going to win that if Vincent had decided to fight it.

Landis took on great players, he took on great owners, and he took on great league presidents. He crushed them all, he was absolute power in baseball. He destroyed Ban Johnson, kicked an owner out of baseball, and severely curtailed Branch Rickey's activities.



Landis in other events said to hell with the owners, and in other events he also said the hell with fans. He was quite capable doing something that wasn't popular.

Veeck never owned a major league team while Landis was alive so it is impssible to definitively say what he would or would not have done. I believe, however, that he was enough of a maverick to have opposed Landis on an issue like this. Especially if he saw the chance for some publicity and some extra money at the box office.

[trosmok]

Landis began his tenure as Commissioner as just what the doctor ordered, but both the players and the owners soon realized they gave him too much real power over their baseball lives. Most disputes prior to the Black Sox scandal were between owners, and the three man commission was having an increasingly difficult time resolving problems and not the least of which was upstart leagues and curtailing gambling. They had to turn to the courts, and thus Judge landis became the Czar of MLB. He is still called "The only successful dictator in U.S. history", and for good reason. Even before his too long lasting tenure, Judge Landis had a well deserved reputation for being harsh, narrow minded, arbritrary and inconsistent. He fined Standard Oil some $29million to pretend to side with the little guys against big business, but he also imprisoned nearly 100 members of the IWW on flimsy charges of sedition, angering laborers across the nation. His worst legacy, his duplicity in claiming no personal bigotry while tacitly approving the racial barriers in baseball, could only have been remedied sooner by his earlier demise. Like most so-called "Progressives" of his day, he was a bigot to his grave. He was 100% in favor of the average working man, but only if he was white. This alone causes me to despise his two-faced hypocrisy, and wish he had never left his little hometown of Logansport. :grouchy

[cubbieinexile]

Landis strictly speaking did not ignore the law in crushing the Federal League. Baseball was sued and in the United States Supreme Court case of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc v National Baseball Club (1922) the Court determined that baseball games were intrastate events thus giving rise to Baseball's antitrust exemption.

Would a lawsuit have succeeded in 1946 or 1947 under an Interstate Commerce Clause or antitrust theory? Hard to say. Because of radio baseball games arguably became interstate events, particularly the World Series and the Court in 1946 in Morgan v Virginia determined that segregated trains violated the Interstate Commerce Clause.


Yes but Landis was not hearing the case in 1922 or after 1922. He was hearing it in the teens, somewhere around 1916 or so. I'm at work so I can't give you the exact date. Landis felt that if he delivered his ruling based on the laws of the land he would destroy baseball. Thus he did not make a ruling. The supreme courts ruling was based on much the same feelings. The supreme court ruled that baseball was not a business because they felt that to do otherwise would destroy baseball as they knew it. Even in the seventies with Seitz he did not want to make a ruling because again he felt it would destroy baseballl. But this time the decision maker had the stomach to do what was right.

Even in the 1910's and so forth baseball was interstate. It was a unique ruling that pretty much everybody knew was wrong. In terms of legal rulings it was one of the supreme courts worst decisions ever. Unlike other "evil" or bad rulings by the court which had some basis in the law this one had none.

[cubbieinexile]

Veeck never owned a major league team while Landis was alive so it is impssible to definitively say what he would or would not have done. I believe, however, that he was enough of a maverick to have opposed Landis on an issue like this. Especially if he saw the chance for some publicity and some extra money at the box office.

Veeck owned a minor league team in Milwaukee during Landis' tenure and was called to the carpet several times by Landis. It is in Veeck's own book. Veeck like most of the baseball men at the time was fearful of Landis' absolute power.

As for Veeck's own PR on his claims of integration to me they have always been dubious. Not saying he didn't make strides, but I think his mouth did more for his legacy on integration then his own actions.

[wamby]

Veeck owned a minor league team in Milwaukee during Landis' tenure and was called to the carpet several times by Landis. It is in Veeck's own book. Veeck like most of the baseball men at the time was fearful of Landis' absolute power.

As for Veeck's own PR on his claims of integration to me they have always been dubious. Not saying he didn't make strides, but I think his mouth did more for his legacy on integration then his own actions.

I think his actions were pretty strong. He integrated very quickly after Brooklyn did.

Even if Veeck was terrified of Landis, I think he would stood up to Landis on this issue. There was too much publicity and gate money at stake.

[Imapotato]

I don't buy the legal side. Landis banned players for life even though the law was not on his side. In fact banning players for life is probably so legally wrong that nowadays they have to get players and owners to agree to it. See Pete Rose and George Steinbrenner.

Judge Landis crushed the Federal League and save the enslavement of players by ignoring the law and pretty much showing the FL that he wasn't going to make a ruling therefore you better settle.

Landis was able to mash Rickey not because it was legally allowable but because he made the rules. He made the rules that made it legal for him to do what he did to Detroit and St. Louis and other clubs.

How is saying that Blacks can play not a legally backable idea anyway? How exactly would this go to court anyway? And if it wasn't legally backable then how in the world were they able to do it in 1947? Some owners and players did not want segregation, the Commissioner squashed their protest. It never went to court. So saying Landis couldn't do it because he didn't have the legal right to do it is moot.


1) Banning players for gambling or high infractions of the law (Benny Kauf and his car jacking ring) is in the MLB handbook, which is a legally binding contract for every player as soon as they sign with a team in MLB

2) He crushed the Federal League by doing what judges do...creating a law if one is not in place. If he did not, baseball which was in a tenous state, being the MAIN sport and the National Pasttime by then...and the fact we might get involved in WWI. If he did not create the Anti Trust law, we might have the American Association, Players League and NL situation of the mid 1880's...and after the war the results might have scattered baseball into an unknown commodity

3) Minor League Baseball was not under the guidlines of MLB IIRC, thus it created an unfair advanatage and a loss of livelihood for players involved. I know alot of baseball fans hold Branch Rickey in some sort of sainthood, but the man was a greedy evil little rat. Rickey was what was wrong with Baseball...he didn't integrate for social reasons...he did it for cheap talent...he used the black man....Branch Rickey BTW almost killed the career of Chick Hafey, and when Austin McHenry died and the players wanted the club to donate flowers Rickey stated "Flowers won't bring him back" How uncaring is that? Maybe we should discuss how evil Rickey truly was, instead of this sainthood tag we put on him.


4) War brings about ALOT of bad, but for every dark cloud there is the silver lining. WWII brought about integration more than anything else, much like Sept 11th brought about an insecure hate towards Arabs but a stronger bond between blacks, whites, hispanics and Asians. If you fight next to man, despite his color, you will start to fight ignorance and see them in a different light. I truly believe the American Public would have fought integration before WWII

[Imapotato]

-- Whether he could have won on integration is open to question. That he didn't try is not. There is more evidence he was actively supporting and defending the policy of integration than there is he would have changed it if only the evil owners hadn't opposed him. Not that they don't deserve just as much condemnation. Had an owner signed a Negro Leaguer and been willing to defend it in court, they would have almost certianly prevailed.



I don't agree, again you may be using modern social standards...but be honest what would your great, great grandfather say? "Yes, racism is wrong, we should change" OR more likely "Hell, no let that Negro play with his own kind"

More the latter for ANY of our ancestors and people in the 20's-30's including the law...I mean the Jim Crow law was just a generation away

I think many of you give old time citizens of the US way too much credit in regards to equality

[Jennifer]

I don't agree, again you may be using modern social standards...but be honest what would your great, great grandfather say? "Yes, racism is wrong, we should change" OR more likely "Hell, no let that Negro play with his own kind"

More the latter for ANY of our ancestors and people in the 20's-30's including the law...I mean the Jim Crow law was just a generation away

I think many of you give old time citizens of the US way too much credit in regards to equality
There is a lot of truth in what you say. My Uncle told me the story about when he was around 10 or 11 and it was 1959 or 1960 and how vigorously Pumpsie Green was booed by the Red Sox fans to the extent that even the radio broadcasters commented. He knew Green was not very good but it still always stuck out in his mind how disproportionate it was until years later he realized that Green was the Red Sox first black player and he was being booed for his color.

[cubbieinexile]

I think his actions were pretty strong. He integrated very quickly after Brooklyn did.

Even if Veeck was terrified of Landis, I think he would stood up to Landis on this issue. There was too much publicity and gate money at stake.


Integrated very guickly? And after? Why though?

Here is a guy who claims that in the early 40's he was going to buy the Phillies and stock them with an all black team. He then claimed that Landis stopped him. Though that later was debunked. He then purchases the Indians half waw through the 1946 season. Yet waits a full year to bring anyone up, and then plays Doby sparingly that first full season. Now then supposedly Veeck was a maverick and a progressive thinker, and already willing to play blacks and who is the second black player to play for his team? Why Satchel Paige at age, well we really don't know but it was old, who he brings up half way into the 1948 season a full year after Doby. So with the entire AL against integration and a good chunk of the NL all Veeck manages to do is get Doby and an old Paige. Again he should be applauded for integrating but Veeck was walking down a path somebody else already created.

[cubbieinexile]

I don't agree, again you may be using modern social standards...but be honest what would your great, great grandfather say? "Yes, racism is wrong, we should change" OR more likely "Hell, no let that Negro play with his own kind"

More the latter for ANY of our ancestors and people in the 20's-30's including the law...I mean the Jim Crow law was just a generation away

I think many of you give old time citizens of the US way too much credit in regards to equality


If everybody followed that view and if everybody was not willing to stand against the tide then there would be no progress in this country and world. That there is progress and there are people willing to stand up is proof that it can and is being done all the time. It is not like every single human being in America in the 20's and 30's hated blacks nor was it universally acceptable in societies to denigrate blacks and their culture. Yes people did it but that doesn't mean it is ok, just because the guy next to you does something wrong doesn't mean it is ok for you to do something wrong. That is not a modern interpretation of morals.

[wamby]

Integrated very guickly? And after? Why though?

Here is a guy who claims that in the early 40's he was going to buy the Phillies and stock them with an all black team. He then claimed that Landis stopped him. Though that later was debunked. He then purchases the Indians half waw through the 1946 season. Yet waits a full year to bring anyone up, and then plays Doby sparingly that first full season. Now then supposedly Veeck was a maverick and a progressive thinker, and already willing to play blacks and who is the second black player to play for his team? Why Satchel Paige at age, well we really don't know but it was old, who he brings up half way into the 1948 season a full year after Doby. So with the entire AL against integration and a good chunk of the NL all Veeck manages to do is get Doby and an old Paige. Again he should be applauded for integrating but Veeck was walking down a path somebody else already created.

Doby debuted with the Indians 2 1/2 months after Robinson debuted with the Dodgers. His lack of playing time had more to do with Lou Boudreau than with Veeck. I personally believe the Doby situation could have been handled better.
Despite his age, Paige was a good pick-up. He won 6 games in a season when the Indians needed every one they could get. He was also one of the biggest box office draws that season. Veeck may not have the first but at least he did something.

[wamby]

I don't agree, again you may be using modern social standards...but be honest what would your great, great grandfather say? "Yes, racism is wrong, we should change" OR more likely "Hell, no let that Negro play with his own kind"

More the latter for ANY of our ancestors and people in the 20's-30's including the law...I mean the Jim Crow law was just a generation away

I think many of you give old time citizens of the US way too much credit in regards to equality

I think segregation was one of the worst things America had to offer. Iwas born in the 60s.

Both of my grandfathers were born in the teens. I never asked them what they thought of Jackie Robinson, but I would bet the house that they each thought bringing him into the majors was a mistake.Neither one of them had much use for blacks even during my lifetime.

That said, racism has always been an ugly thing, but it was socially acceptable. With some people, it still is.

[rugbyfreak]

Just want to see if anyone's with me on this one:

We all know the HOF has its share of seemingly unworthy players, for various reasons, but those things usually happened for a reason, they're over and done, and no one is really at fault.

But how about the HOF honoring a man who is the biggest disgrace to the game perhaps ever, yet who continues to get props for "cleaning up the game" and "giving it integrity?"

I'm talking about Judge Landis. Go ahead and look anywhere you like. The man was a runaway cowboy, an egomaniac, and worst, a racist of the first order. And yet, he continues to be one of the most revered figures in the history of the game.

Let's examine this crackerhead's origins with the game. He was, during the 19-teens, an Illinois State Supreme Court Justice well known for being the court's biggest waste of time and money in the state, because he would knowingly hand down impossibly absurd, bombastic rulings that demanded an appeal, which, most of the time, were overturned, all of which could have been avoided if he had handed down responsible rulings, rather than serve his own need for publicity.

He was placed on the bench during the Federal League hearings. He squashed the new league, offering the new owners only the opportunity to invest in the existing ML. For this, he became the darlings of the owners, who asked him to be commish in 1920 to clean up the mess from the Black Sox scandals. He said, fine, but it must be a lifetime appointment, so he could be free from political conflicts of interest. What baseball didn't know was it was so he could be free from removal when he later abused his office, again and again, with his arbitrary, dictatorial rulings, which had no recourse for appeal.

We all know he overturned the not guilty findings of the Illinois court regarding the White Sox players' fate, because he himself knew better. But I'm not here to argue the Black Sox ruling. Landis then spent the next 25 years, but especially the '20s, banning player after player from the game on kangaroo-like procedures. Then, when it suited him, he would exonerate players such as Cobb and Speaker because it "interested" baseball to keep them around.

Time and again, he squashed things that were in baseball's interest, like allowing Ruth and Muesel to barnstorm in the off-season and bring star-quality baseball to the nether regions of the country. Why? Because he was in bed with the owners, who told him that allowing players that kind of financial independence threatened their power.

Other times, he would simply refuse to allow hearings that threatened the status quo, such as when players dared to challenge the reserve clause. Finally, his worst legacy (and this alone is enough to remove him from the HOF), he refused, again and again, to entertain any notions of integration in the '40s. It was only upon his death that the movement finally was allowed to proceed.

I swear, every time I see his white head and red neck in a picture. I want to puke. The man SINGLEHANDEDLY stalled the progress of baseball in a way that no man ever should have been allowed to.

Anybody with me on finally telling the truth about this despicable despot?

[baseballPAP]

I haven't got any objection at all.....

[Eastvanmungo]

I agree... he's one of the most despicable people ever to be associated with MLB. He did far more damage to baseball than good.

[KCGHOST]

I guess I'll argue in his behavior mainly because you are judging him out of context. There is nothing in his racial attitudes that wasn't shared by the great majority of white players and owners. He didn't hold up a thing there. You needed the war to get more people to recognize the great injustice that was being done to Black Americans. As you may recall it was a near run thing as was with a Commissioner (Happy Chandler) firmly in Rickey's corner.

He may have been a hack judge, but that is not germane to baseball other than the baseball decision he rendered that made the owners think of him when they wanted a commissioner.

But, the heart of his commissionership is not his "vision" or liberalness on social issues. It was to restore the people's confidence in the game. His very harsh banishments of the Chicago 8 and others was greeted with extreme popular approval and respect. His iron fisted rule may have been autocratic and erratic (see Cobb and Speaker) but the baseball public saw it as a cleansing force for the game.

I would say you are guilty of trying to judge a man from an era 70-80 years ago by the standards of today. I would expect that 70-80 years from people will look back on the common attitudes of this era and think what a bunch of dumb asses we were.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree... he's one of the most despicable people ever to be associated with MLB. He did far more damage to baseball than good.

I'm with KCGHOST on this for the most part. Landis did what was necessary to save baseball from degenerating into a sport like harnass racing, where there is always skepticism about the outcome of the game. Landis was unpopular with players and owners both, and he was despotic, but before the strong Napoleonic Landis, there was the rule of baseball's nobles (the owners) prior to 1920. The lack of strong leadership lead to the infestation of the sport with gamblers to the point where only a strong Commissioner could clean up the mess.

But while I'm not willing to say that Landis was despicable, or harmful to baseball, I cannot endorse his selection to the HOF on the integration issue alone. Had Landis integrated baseball, he would have been a truly great commissioner and a genuine American hero. Instead, he allowed his own prejudices, fears, or whatever to continue the oppression of black baseball players.

In that regard, Landis was ordinary, even less than ordinary. Ordinary means you get to keep your job. The .270 hitting corner OF with 20 HRs and 80 RBIs will probably keep his job, but he won't see a plaque in Cooperstown with his name on it. That's Landis; a .270 hitting corner OF who had his moments, but who had an opportunity to be a giant of human rights and, instead, became just another oppressor. That doesn't sound like a HOFer to me.

[Imapotato]

Nice to look through your rose colored glasses

Ourt founding fathers could and Jefferson WANTED to abolish slavery....but our Independence would have most likely failed if they were adamant about it

So Landis could have said we will integrate, alienated society, the owners and players and been out of the game in 5 years, and all the good he DID accomplish like keeping a creep like Branch Rickey in check in regards to keeping players down in the minors without any rights AT ALL (Rickey was a HORRIBLE person, yet is lionized because he signed Robinson, but in reality he wanted blacks because they were CHEAP)

[rugbyfreak]

Nice to look through your rose colored glasses

Ourt founding fathers could and Jefferson WANTED to abolish slavery....but our Independence would have most likely failed if they were adamant about it

So Landis could have said we will integrate, alienated society, the owners and players and been out of the game in 5 years, and all the good he DID accomplish like keeping a creep like Branch Rickey in check in regards to keeping players down in the minors without any rights AT ALL (Rickey was a HORRIBLE person, yet is lionized because he signed Robinson, but in reality he wanted blacks because they were CHEAP)

I appreciate you posters for reeling me in a bit: I will not deny that my take on Landis contains some venom, and if you search through his regime (or rather, reign) I'm sure you will find positive stuff.

But I'm quite sure that public confidence in the game could have been restored with a more responsible, less self-interested man at the helm.

Don't really want to talk about rickey here. I'm under no illusions that he's some sort of Abraham Lincoln/Harriet Tubman rolled up in one. But you know what? I'm not all that concerned about WHY he was integration's point person, any more than I am about those of the guy who gives millions to some great cause. I'm sure he's taking his tax deduction and I'm sure he'll play up the publicity angle. Great. He did it, God bless him, and I don't care why.

Same for rickey. Sure, black players would be cheap (at least at first). I'll give you another practical consideration: They would be an awesome talent pool, which is another ownership factor that has little to do with "freeing" anybody, or being some humanitarian.

So what? The only point that matters is that rickey was willing to put his fanny on the line and go for it, in the face of probably bitter opposition, at least from some owners (there were others who wanted to do it for years, but did not have the balls). History will forever credit him for it, with his various competing motivations largely unimportant.

Which brings me back to Landis. Here was a guy who had the chance to make the most important move in the game's history--with a mere flip of his hand, no less, such was his absolute power.

But he chose not to, and he had nothing to fear from doing so (he had long since alienated the owners as well), except what his drinkin' buddies back in Georgia were going to say, and of course, what he would start to think of himself.

And please, don't give me rose-colored glasses. Yes, I do expect people purported to be "heroes" to transcend the times a bit. That's what being a visionary is about, or, as fuzzybear said, you are only ordinary (or worse, in Landis' case). But don't tell me that integration was some radical concept in the '40s that we understand only now. It was bandied about a lot back then, albeit quietly, requiring someone with some courage to step up and do it.

Landis should have been that person. Tell me what he had to fear? His job? No. The owners? No. Public condemnation? Doubt it. He had to be smart enough to realize that, on a national level, his own crackerhead sentiments were not the nation's. Polls taken at the time showed the country favored baseball integration.

So, to tell you the truth, kg, I do give leeway to people who, in their time, had much to fear, and thus did what we judge, years later, to be wrong. (Well-meaning German citizens who joined the Nazi party is one of the best examples of this.)

But give leeway to someone like Landis, who had nothing to fear? Never.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Nice to look through your rose colored glasses

Ourt founding fathers could and Jefferson WANTED to abolish slavery....but our Independence would have most likely failed if they were adamant about it
That's interesting since Jefferson and Washington, among others, were slave owners.


So Landis could have said we will integrate, alienated society, the owners and players and been out of the game in 5 years, and all the good he DID accomplish like keeping a creep like Branch Rickey in check in regards to keeping players down in the minors without any rights AT ALL (Rickey was a HORRIBLE person, yet is lionized because he signed Robinson, but in reality he wanted blacks because they were CHEAP)
Landis tried to stop Rickey from setting up the modern minor league system that basically made minor league teams vassals to the major league teams.

[wamby]

Integration in the 1920s and 1930s? No way.

Do you you know who was pushing for integration in that era? The American Communist Party. Do you really think that baseball would have involved itself in sopmething that would have been seen as a big red conspiracy? Some players were recorded as being in favor of it, but to that I say: so what? What power did they have? Even if any owner were for it,I don't that any of them would have gone for it because they would have jeapordized both the their fan-bases and their scouting.

Face the facts, segregation was the way of America in that era and nothing is going to change the fact. People saw nothing wrong with it and didn't feel that it eeded to be addressed. People need to stop looking at that era with a 21st century perspective. If this board existed 70 years ago, how many members do you think would have cared about black ballplayers, or blacks in general? I would guess that it would be very few.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Integration in the 1920s and 1930s? No way.

Do you you know who was pushing for integration in that era? The American Communist Party. Do you really think that baseball would have involved itself in sopmething that would have been seen as a big red conspiracy? Some players were recorded as being in favor of it, but to that I say: so what? What power did they have? Even if any owner were for it,I don't that any of them would have gone for it because they would have jeapordized both the their fan-bases and their scouting.

Face the facts, segregation was the way of America in that era and nothing is going to change the fact. People saw nothing wrong with it and didn't feel that it eeded to be addressed. People need to stop looking at that era with a 21st century perspective. If this board existed 70 years ago, how many members do you think would have cared about black ballplayers, or blacks in general? I would guess that it would be very few.

All this may be true, but I'm not willing to cut Landis any slack just because he would not push the envelope beyond the mores of the time.

Branch Rickey, by the way, was not the only owner who desired to sign black players. Clark Griffith would have signed Josh Gibson long before 1947. Landis was the roadblock.

Landis could have integrated baseball slowly in the 1930s. What was magic about 1947? What happened between 1937 and 1947 that made the groundswell for integration irresistable? Maybe the war, but WWII was a segregated affair on the battlefield; the Armed Services were not integrated until the Truman Administration.

Landis didn't want to integrate baseball. The reason he felt it "couldn't" be done was the crowd he hung around. Integrating baseball took a broad and open mind, and that was certainly not Landis's strong suit.

Methuselah is the longest living Biblical figure. He lived for 969 years. He ate more food, drank more water, breathed more are, and went to the bathroom more often than anyone else in history. That's it. He wasn't notable for anything else. He wasn't even a Godly man; he was as sinful as anyone else at the time Noah was building the Ark, so it's likely he died in the Great Flood.

That's kind of how I view Landis; baseball's Methuselah. He lasted longer than any commissioner, and he may have had more high points than some other Commissioners, but the unique feature of his reign over baseball is not his accomplishments (after the early years, Landis was pretty much mailing it in, except when it came to being authoritarian) but his length of tenure. He stayed a long time, he wasn't a disgrace, but he wasn't great, and he shouldn't be in the HOF.

[Brian McKenna]

i give props to landis for his initial bannings but it ends there

landis never created one thing, he was never constructive nor progressive, any advancements that came about during his reign were in spite of him - the strength and popularity of the game forced any growth that happened - landis did nothing but sit in judgment of others

to me he contributed so little to the growth of the game that he is the biggest running joke in the sport's history - every other contemporary baseball executive (name any) brought something to the table or otherwise worked for the financial growth of the game or contributed something - landis contributed nothing other than his forceful personality in weilding the powers that were given to him (again, it was given to him - he never worked for anything nor did he bring anything to the table) - it is a testament to the strength of the game that it survived his 2-decade reign of pompous mediocrity

if he is revered today by casual fans it is because of the mythology that continues to surround the 1919 world series

[wamby]

Toward the end of his life, Landis was accused by at least owner, Larry MacPhail, of becoming soft on segregation. To think that it was the will of Landis alone that kept baseball segregated is laughable. For those who don't know. Larry MacPhail was one of the most influential owenrs of the era.

From 1942 until 1945, the US had the greatest manpower mobilization in its history. In 1944 and 1945, the manpower shortages were becoming critical, especially after the Germans' Ardennes offensive. Throughout this time the US armed forces were officially segregated.

If the US did not desegregate its armed forced forces during the biggest war in the history of the world, why would people accept desgregation in something like professional sports?

It is true that Pittsburgh thought about intregrating during the war, but two owners don't exactly make up a groundswell. Doing it during the war would have likely been looked at as a bad publicity stunt, which is why Rickey waited until late 1945 to sign Robinson.

The thought of integration in the 1930s is laughable. baseball would have been accused of entering a Communist conspiracy. Any owner who even tried in that era would have been run out of the game in the McCarthy era. If you look at Landis's life, you would see that he would not have the type to be associated with anything that even had a whiff of red.

This hindsight history makes little sense to me. It's like saying that in 1861, Abraham Lincoln should have known that US Grant would be the general that would lead the Union Army to victory. Or that in the 1930s, the America Firsters should have known that US involvement was inevitable or that everyone should have seen the Nazi-Soviet Pacy was coming, or thet FDR would abviously be elected to a third term, or the US shouldn't have bothered fighting in the Pacific because there be an atomic bomb.....

[Eastvanmungo]

Hey, the guy had absolute power... he could have pushed integration if he so chose. As for bucking "the powers that be", where do you think this "power" comes from? It comes from judges and high profile, important members of the establishment. People just like Landis. He was in a position to lead rather than follow, and he chose not to.

The argument that you can't judge the past by the standards of the present is 99% bull-ony. Bad ideas are bad ideas, no matter what. The fact that some people recognized that segregation was wrong means that anyone could have recognized such a thing. I'll go right to the most extreme example... are we not able to judge Nazi Germany because we were not there?

All these arguments about him not being able to change things just make him come off like a coward as well as a racist.

[wamby]

Hey, the guy had absolute power... he could have pushed integration if he so chose.

Why would he have? What possible reason could he have had for even wanting to do it? What could he have gained by it?

[wamby]

The argument that you can't judge the past by the standards of the present is 99% bull-ony. Bad ideas are bad ideas, no matter what. The fact that some people recognized that segregation was wrong means that anyone could have recognized such a thing. I'll go right to the most extreme example... are we not able to judge Nazi Germany because we were not there?

All these arguments about him not being able to change things just make him come off like a coward as well as a racist.

How many people in Landis's time do you think that segregation was a bad idea? I think the number would have been pretty small. These arguements make him sound pragmatic to me.

How bad do you think Nazi Germany was perceived world wide in 1933? 1935? 1938? 1941? 1945? How do you think Nazi Germany was percived in the US in those years? Nazi Germany had some support in the US befoore the war. It may shock you, but some people in the US even agreed with their Jewish policies. It may alos shock you that people in American supported Nazi Germany because of its anti SOviet Union position. If the US was able to percieve what Nazi Germany was really all about, do you think they would have joined the League of Nations? Maybe FDR would have talked Great Britain and France into a pre-emptive strike after the Anschluss?

We can jusge Nazi Germany like you suggest now, only because we have all the facts. People didn't have the luxury of looking into the future and seeing Auschwicz in 1938.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Why would he have? What possible reason could he have had for even wanting to do it?
Oh, let me see,...maybe because it was the moral and right thing to do? :o

[Honus Wagner Rules]

All this may be true, but I'm not willing to cut Landis any slack just because he would not push the envelope beyond the mores of the time.

Branch Rickey, by the way, was not the only owner who desired to sign black players. Clark Griffith would have signed Josh Gibson long before 1947. Landis was the roadblock.

Landis could have integrated baseball slowly in the 1930s. What was magic about 1947? What happened between 1937 and 1947 that made the groundswell for integration irresistable? Maybe the war, but WWII was a segregated affair on the battlefield; the Armed Services were not integrated until the Truman Administration.

Landis didn't want to integrate baseball. The reason he felt it "couldn't" be done was the crowd he hung around. Integrating baseball took a broad and open mind, and that was certainly not Landis's strong suit.

Methuselah is the longest living Biblical figure. He lived for 969 years. He ate more food, drank more water, breathed more are, and went to the bathroom more often than anyone else in history. That's it. He wasn't notable for anything else. He wasn't even a Godly man; he was as sinful as anyone else at the time Noah was building the Ark, so it's likely he died in the Great Flood.

That's kind of how I view Landis; baseball's Methuselah. He lasted longer than any commissioner, and he may have had more high points than some other Commissioners, but the unique feature of his reign over baseball is not his accomplishments (after the early years, Landis was pretty much mailing it in, except when it came to being authoritarian) but his length of tenure. He stayed a long time, he wasn't a disgrace, but he wasn't great, and he shouldn't be in the HOF.
Props for a Biblical analogy. :clapping

[wamby]

Oh, let me see,...maybe because it was the moral and right thing to do? :o

Oh right. I forgot that people in power are so often motivated to do something because it was moral and the right thing to do?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Oh right. I forgot that people in power are so often motivated to do something because it was moral and the right thing to do?
Some are, some aren't. You're point is?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Oh right. I forgot that people in power are so often motivated to do something because it was moral and the right thing to do?

The ones that are so motivated deserve to be honored.

The ones that aren't deserve only to be noted. At best.

[rockin500]

let me see,...maybe because it was the moral and right thing to do??
maybe it would have been the correct thing to do, but you're expecting someone to try to change society himself when it was commonplace?

get real.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

maybe it would have been the correct thing to do, but you're expecting someone to try to change society himself when it was commonplace?

get real.
Whatever. Read some history...

Jesus Christ
Martin Luther
Spartacus
Constantine
Frederick Douglas
Harriet Tubman
Branch Rickey


Do these names sound familiar...

[Fuzzy Bear]

maybe it would have been the correct thing to do, but you're expecting someone to try to change society himself when it was commonplace?

get real.

But people HAVE changed society by their actions. At great cost to themselves quite often, and with the scorn of millions as a reward, but individuals, including political leaders, HAVE changed society.

I do expect leaders to lead. I expect part of that leadership to be moral leadership; the leadership of doing the right thing for its own sake. I am often disappointed, but my expectations of leaders in high positions don't decrease because past leaders have disappointed.

Landis disappointed in the area of integrating baseball. That doesn't mean that people should have chalked that up as being OK. If it was OK for Landis to maintain a segregated MLB, why wouln't it have been OK for Happy Chandler and Ford Frick to do the same?

[rockin500]

But people HAVE changed society by their actions. At great cost to themselves quite often, and with the scorn of millions as a reward, but individuals, including political leaders, HAVE changed society.

I do expect leaders to lead. I expect part of that leadership to be moral leadership; the leadership of doing the right thing for its own sake. I am often disappointed, but my expectations of leaders in high positions don't decrease because past leaders have disappointed.

Landis disappointed in the area of integrating baseball. That doesn't mean that people should have chalked that up as being OK. If it was OK for Landis to maintain a segregated MLB, why wouln't it have been OK for Happy Chandler and Ford Frick to do the same?
even if he had said "hey let blacks in" would it have happened considering many of the owners of that time? even after integration, it still took what, 11 years for all teams to become integrated?

as it happens, I DONT believe he belongs in for multitudes of reasons.

[Fuzzy Bear]

even if he had said "hey let blacks in" would it have happened considering many of the owners of that time? even after integration, it still took what, 11 years for all teams to become integrated?

as it happens, I DONT believe he belongs in for multitudes of reasons.

The Senators would have signed Josh Gibson in the 1930s.

A number of other teams would have signed black players. The Dodgers and Giants may have each taken in a black player at the same time.

That would have been better than waiting until 1947.

[Eastvanmungo]

How many people in Landis's time do you think that segregation was a bad idea? I think the number would have been pretty small. These arguements make him sound pragmatic to me.

How bad do you think Nazi Germany was perceived world wide in 1933? 1935? 1938? 1941? 1945? How do you think Nazi Germany was percived in the US in those years? Nazi Germany had some support in the US befoore the war. It may shock you, but some people in the US even agreed with their Jewish policies. It may alos shock you that people in American supported Nazi Germany because of its anti SOviet Union position. If the US was able to percieve what Nazi Germany was really all about, do you think they would have joined the League of Nations? Maybe FDR would have talked Great Britain and France into a pre-emptive strike after the Anschluss?

We can jusge Nazi Germany like you suggest now, only because we have all the facts. People didn't have the luxury of looking into the future and seeing Auschwicz in 1938.

I'm well aware that, at the time, Hilter's policies had a lot of support elsewhere in the world (and still do, for that matter). Call me foolish, but I expect great things of great men (and women). Especially those that are honoured as such.
Landis would not be welcome at my dinner table, let alone in my Hall of Fame.

[wamby]

Some are, some aren't. You're point is?

That most are not. I don't see any moral imperitive that Landis had. I would bet that a lot of people of that era felt that race mixing would be morally repugnant. Landis may have been one of those people.

[wamby]

Whatever. Read some history...

Jesus Christ
Martin Luther
Spartacus
Constantine
Frederick Douglas
Harriet Tubman
Branch Rickey


Do these names sound familiar...

How many of those people were people who held actual power? It could also be argued that each was in the right time and place to bring about change. Landis's biggest opportunity to bring change to the game was when he banned the Black Sox. Saying that he dropped the ball because he let the Black Sox slide would be a legitmite criticism of him. There was outside pressure to do something about the weakening of the national Commission. I don't believe there was any real outside pressure to integrate baseball during his tenure. This was an era when an anti-lynching law couldn't be passed by Congress. There was virtually no Civil Rights movement during Landis's lifetime.

I also believe that if Landis survived into 1946, the game would have integrated, with or without his support. I think that Rickey would have relished a fight with Landis as payback for fighting Rickey on the farm system issue. Landis may have been pragmatic enough to see the writing on the wall, and not even tried to stop Rickey.

[wamby]

If it was OK for Landis to maintain a segregated MLB, why wouln't it have been OK for Happy Chandler and Ford Frick to do the same?

Because of an event that happened btween 1939 and 1945.

[Bill Burgess]

I am not a Judge Landis fan, by any stretch, and it amuses me that baseball's executives, soon after the founding of the Hall of Fame in 1936, were allowed to enshrine many of their own members. And this happened in the full light of day, without a howl of protest.

If the players said anything derogatory against that outrage, they would have feared not getting in themselves. If the sports writers wrote against it, they would have been denied inside stories afterwards. So Ban Johnson, Comiskey, and Landis got in the shaded back door.

Anyway, here is my standard Landis writeup. Some of you might have seen it before.
----------------------------------
Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis:

Cobb, while a garden-variety-racist from the deep south, Atlanta, came up surrounded by die-hard racists. But he, to his discredit, trusted those folks, and didn't want to get too far ahead or behind the curve of the Georgian progressive social conservatives. As they grew, so did he. No more, no less. Why he trusted them has always been a mystery to me. He had seen the world, and been exposed to much more cosmopolitan types, such as the Detroit industrialists, who had always seen to it that he got the good business tips, and market advice.

But Cobb and Landis were not in the same positions. Cobb couldn't impose his attitudes on anyone, Landis could. So Cobb couldn't hurt or help any great numbers.

Landis was born Nov. 20, 1886, in Millville, Ohio of Swiss ancestry. He received his name from Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia, the scene of a great, but bloody Confederate victory in the Civil War, where the Rebs mowed down wave after wave of brave Yankees, trying to assault their position, going uphill in the heat. Crazy Union tactics, just like at Fredericksburg, sent many brave Yankee kids to Boot Hill. Stupid, inept, incompetent leadership killed almost as many brave Yankee kids as southern bullets ever did. (Fredericksburg, Kennesaw Mountain, Cold Harbor, Grant's "Wilderness Campaign".)

Anyhow, Landis' father, Dr. Abraham Landis had been seriously wounded there. Why they dropped a N from the name is unclear. Landis particularly liked Three-Fingered Brown and had played and managed a local team when 17. He became a champion bicycle rider.

Judge Landis was always a brave man. He went his own way, and danced to a different drummer. His own internal drummer. Once, during WWI, he sentenced 94 members of the International Workers of the World to prison. This resulted in the bombing of his office a few weeks later, but he wasn't there at the time. So the man had guts. He wasn't a racist, and he wasn't even a Southerner, despite his name.

So while Landis was courageous, he was also stubborn. Many, many of his opinions were overturned while he sat on the bench.

Judge Landis took authority as baseball's 1st Commissioner Nov. 12, 1920, I believe it was, and died Nov. 17, 1944. Let's review some dates.

1945 - Jackie Robinson plays his only Negro L. season, Kansas City Monarchs SS.

August 28, 1945 - 11 months after Landis died, Branch Rickey meets with Robinson for the 1st time, outlining his master plan.

October 23, 1945 - Rickey signs Robinson to a Dodger contract. The plan is to integrate the white minor leagues first, in 1946, and then the MLs in 1947.

1946 - Robinson leads the International L. with .349, at Montreal.

1947 - Rickey brings Jackie up to the Dodgers during spring training. Jackie hits .297, leads league in SB with 29. Voted Rookie-of-the-Year.

1949 - Jackie leads league in several major categories, best player in league. Voted MVP.

Now. The important link here, for our purposes, in the slight 11 month interval between Landis dying and Rickey approaching Robinson. Rickey knew that Landis didn't like his farm team system. Fought him all the way on it. Also there had been a covert meeting among the owners about Rickey bringing in Robinson. All opposed him. But the difference was that now that Landis was dead, Rickey felt he could at last do it and not be over-ruled.

Rickey might not have been doing it to advance social progress. Perhaps he only was doing it to bring pennants to Brooklyn. But still, he felt he had to wait until Landis died to attempt his bold move.

Why do I hold Landis to such a seemingly high standard? Because I believe he was smart and principled. To whom much is given, much is required. To whom much authority is given, much is expected.

I feel very deeply, that since he fought so hard against the owners, particularly Rickey on the farm system issue, that he also had it in him to fight for the Negro. And I can not, for the life of me, see why he held back and hesitated. He was asked on a very regular basis, by such stellar sports writers as Wendell Smith, of the black Pittsburgh Courier, 1937-47, and Sam Lacy, of several black newspapers, when baseball would integrate.

And Landis would always state diplomatically, that there was no written or unwritten law, regulation, rule, tenet, or anything else, which prohibited any owner from hiring blacks. So, Landis was pressed, hard and regularly, for many, many years. And those two were not the only ones. Many blacks went to his office over the years, with appointments, to lobby him to help them open up the MLs to blacks. Sometimes Landis side-stepped them, most often he received them graciously, and diplomatically. Just as he ALWAYS graciously assured Buck Weaver he would consider his application for reinstatement. Never did.

Did that excuse his moral responsibility? Why should it? Landis was most intelligent and knew that a huge number of black people were looking towards him for help. He was the only one with leverage on the owners. He could have used it and been successful.

Many assume that Landis was seldom asked, and that the moral question was seldom posed for him to deal with. Nothing could have been further from the truth. When one reads the writings of Lacy and Smith, you get the real picture. The feel for the scope of the problem.

Cobb was a born racist and Landis never was one. Just a passive, pass-the-buck obstacle on this one issue. If Cobb had been in that position, and acted as Landis did, or worse, I'd be a lot heavier on Cobb also.

This issue transcends Cobb, Landis, etc. It involves a lot of people, over a lot of years. The good guys tried VERY hard for a long time, to get their case heard, and move the flag downfield. And no one was better positioned than Judge Landis to move the ball downfield.

I do hold the owners responsible for not hiring blacks, but none of them had the moral responsibility to see to it, that the sport, as a whole, stopped the hate-filled ban. The so-called "ban" was a unwritten "Gentleman's Agreement", among the team owners, to agree to collude to not hire black players in any of organized baseball's leagues. No owner had the leverage to force open the gates. Or so they believed. When Rickey did just that, he proved them all wrong.

I hope this gives a few crumbs of why I hold Ken Landis so responsible for his lack of action, when pressed SO hard for SO long, by both groups and individuals.

So, for me, his failure to act was more than a cardinal sin. His non-action was criminal. And rendered his judgment to not reinstate Jackson and Weaver a monument to hypocrisy of the most extreme order. By one who should have known better. But never did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sporting News, February 25, 1978, pp. 43

This report, on race relations, submitted August 28, 1946, to ML BB. This is an excerpt from a 25 page report, prepared by a special committee composed of Ford Frick, Will Harridge, Sam Breadon, Tom Yawkey, Phil Wrigley and Larry MacPhail.

Thank you so very much, Ubiquitous!!!

This sickening attempt to make themselves appear concerned about the welfare of the Negro players. Such feigned innocence can only be the product of wealth hiring the most high-powered advertising/marketing whores to make bald-faced hypocrisy/cynicism sound reasonable, as business as usual.
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Miscellaneous/Image10-5.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A question was asked, if Not Judge Landis, who else would have been qualified to become Commissioner? Here was my response.
Who indeed? Most morally qualified candidates were occupied helping life in a larger context, and barely knew baseball. Some names come to mind, if we could have gotten them.

Mahatma Gandhi, 1869-1948, led India to independence from Great Britain via non-violence demonstrations.

Albert Einstein, 1879-1955, German Jew, theories on physics changed his field.

Albert Schweitzer, 1875-65, German Christian philosopher, physician, humanitarian, missionary, musician.

Nikolai Tesla, 1856-1943, Yugoslavian inventor whose ideas underlaid all modern machines.

Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, The most prominent newspaperman, book reviewer, and political commentator of his day, Henry Louis Mencken was a libertarian before the word came into usage.

Lots of luck in securing any of their services. Although race is, of course, an imperative issue, there are more issues than that, and a candidate must be grounded in principles in general.


Still another issue would have been instituting an early pension system, all star games, dealing with Mexican L. raids, night ball, establishing a formula, whereby a player receives 1/3 of a sale price. Another innovation would have been to supervise a player's association, to serve as counter-balance to owner's rights.

If we want to go further back in this nice little exercise, a commissioner could have tackled abolishing the pitching cheating that was allowed to go on pre-1920. That was ridiculous. He could have also been helpful in seeing to it that the military draft exempted ballplayers. Men in uniform like to read about their heroes, while their off in foreign lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still others who were qualified to become Commissioner, instead of Judge Landis were Francis Richter, John B. Foster, Sam Crane, Ferdinand C. Lane, Taylor Spink, as well as Connie Mack or Branch Rickey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Candidates for Commissioner:

1. Branch Rickey, 1881-1965
2. Connie Mack, 1862-1956
3. Taylor Spink, 1888-1962
4. Grantland Rice, 1880-1954
5. Francis Richter, 1854-1926
6. John B. Foster, 1863-1941
7. Sam Crane, 1854-1925
8. Louis Mencken, 1880-1956
9. Monte Ward, 1860-1925
10. Ferdinand C. Lane, 1885-1984

Bill Burgess

[Imapotato]

That's interesting since Jefferson and Washington, among others, were slave owners.

Jefferson was born INTO Southern arisotracy

Just because you are born into the ghetto doesn't mean you sell crack and are a pimp who likes to record rap

Jefferson believed very much that slavery was wrong and his 1st draft of the Declaration abolished it....based on ALL men (men meaning human) have to right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Also the Decalaration also says we can overthrow a government if it is no longer for the peoples values...that might be a scenerio played out over the next generation as well

But thanks for patronizing me with a statement that says I don't know histroy when I did a thesis on the Revolution and its leaders

But I digress

Jefferson and Landis are very similiar in that respect...they had scenerios that would have best for the country and baseball respectively....but no way could they accomplish that without ruining credibility for themselves, unless backed by others

No one would back Jefferson, and NO ONE would back segregation in the 20's, despite rugby throwing out there were 'polls'. That is just not true. No one polled that, and it wouldn't have passed.

It took Joe Louis in boxing, Hitler and his white supremcy 'Aryan Rave": theory and a black American shoving it back in his face, and the sacrifices of WWII Black Vets that changed the way society looked at segregation

You guys are IGNORANT on Landis' power, position, responsibilities.

Much like most say they "Hate Bush" when in fact, CONGRESS holds more power then he does....and CONGRESS Is responsible for alot of mess that happens in this country. Yet they are the 'figurehead'. Or using an example from Landis' time..Hoover and the great depression

Simply put, if Landis said we will desegregate baseball, society would have most likely turned on him...the owners WOULD have turned on him and his tenure would have been in and out of courts...whatever he said would have been mutually ignored, he would have been a lame duck and would not have strenghtened the game in many of his good ways, like hold the owners at bay against one another, forced many of the old bad guard out...kept Branch Rickey from killing careers of thousands of young ballplayers by keeping them locked in the minors.

[Bill Burgess]

JT,

I liked what you wrote. And I can see your well-articulated points. And I can agree with you up to a good point.

When Rickey and Robinson finally did launch their beach head, there was no guarantee that they would be successful. They did meet resistance.

And after blacks started to begin their long, slow inroad, it was a trickle at first. There was a huge surge in attendance after WWII, but around 1950, the attendance started to go into the toilet.

It has been a tough call whether or not it was caused by the emergence of TV in 1950, or whites staying away due to blacks in the game. We all want to believe it was TV, but how will we ever know?

And if there was that much resistance post 1947, it would have been 3 to 4 times worse in the 20's. I'll give you that. It would have been a titantic struggle for the soul of society. When people haven't been properly conditioned to accept progress, they very often reject it.

But it might have been possible to forge alliances between progressive sports writers, black newspapers, and where ever allies might be positioned.

Lincoln might have found resistance to freeing the slaves. Women's voting rights encountered great resistance. So did abortion rights, gay rights, and now gay marriage. All great freedom crusades ARE tough work.

But I'd find myself a lot less indifferent to Judge Landis if I had read that he was a big sympathizer, tried to find other white sympathizers, and tried to ally with black sports writers, social activists, etc. In other words, even if the time was pre-mature, to do what he could to start the ball rolling.

As far as I can tell from my readings, he did so absolutely nothing. If someone like Cobb could evolve, why couldn't Landis, who didn't have an original prejudice to overcome.

Bill

[Imapotato]

I rellu think Hitler/ Jesse Owens had more impact then anyone gives credit for, in changing America's viewpoint somewhat

It showed the extreme of prejudice and racism...and Jesse Owens was a Black American who was a hero for America

That was the straw that stirred the drink....because when one sees the extreme case....then they have to look within themselves at what they do

So even Hitler had some good impact....in doing away with racism in this country

As for Licoln and women's rights...they did not have over abundance of negativity...that is false. Lincoln had half of Congress on his side. Women's Rights had most of the NorthEast, the most heavily populated part of the country on their side. You can't win controversial topics if you are in a vast minority...that DOESN'T happen in Americna society

Look at how many times I stand up for Ray Schalk and 90% here still think I know nothing about baseball and that is their basis.

but again I am getting off topic


It's just Landis did alot more good then bad...that is easily seen, the arguement that he could have done away with segregation is a stretch

[Bill Burgess]

Here is an email I received a little while back. Thought it might be interesting.
----------------------------- Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 01 May 2006 10:34:44 AM PDT
From: "LAURA AMWAKE" <llamwake@hotmail.com>
To: bburgess@baseballguru.com
Subject: kennesaw mt landis

Hello~
My name is Laura Landis - Amwake. My great great grandfather is or was Kenesaw Mt Landis. I was wondering do you have any pictures or articles you can said me on him. Would love to see them.
Thank you~
Laura L. Landis - Amwake

[ElHalo]

Whatever. Read some history...

Jesus Christ
Martin Luther
Spartacus
Constantine
Frederick Douglas
Harriet Tubman
Branch Rickey


Do these names sound familiar...

A couple of people who did some good things for society, and some, not so much. What do they have to do with Landis?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Here is an email I received a little while back. Thought it might be interesting.
----------------------------- Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 01 May 2006 10:34:44 AM PDT
From: "LAURA AMWAKE" <llamwake@hotmail.com>
To: bburgess@baseballguru.com
Subject: kennesaw mt landis

Hello~
My name is Laura Landis - Amwake. My great great grandfather is or was Kenesaw Mt Landis. I was wondering do you have any pictures or articles you can said me on him. Would love to see them.
Thank you~
Laura L. Landis - AmwakeThat's pretty interesting Bill. I believe I've told you before that my downstairs neighbor is Lindsay Landis, great great niece of Kenesaw. Even offered to buy a Ruth autographed ball they have in their family :D Small world though, huh.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with Potato, Wamby, and Rockin' on this one. It would have been nice had he been that kind of trailblazin' dude, but he wasn't and they just weren't ready for it back then. There was no pressure. The accepted ignorance of the times is sickening when we judge by our standards, but to come down on him for not rowing up a waterfall in a canoe is wrong imo. He was a prick by all accounts (Lindsay says all the Landis men are pricks, I chuckled), and he did abuse his power. I partly blame the owners for agreeing to his demands when he was appointed.

[wamby]

I rellu think Hitler/ Jesse Owens had more impact then anyone gives credit for, in changing America's viewpoint somewhat

It showed the extreme of prejudice and racism...and Jesse Owens was a Black American who was a hero for America
I don't know how much of an impact Jesse Owens had. I think his influence may have petered out quickly after 1936. I think the black athlete who really started making the sports world begin reevaluating ideas of race was Joe Louis, especially at the time of the second Schmeling fight in 1938.

I think if you want to look at baseball's eternal shame with regards to this topic, you need to look at the owners who refused to integrate their teams, teams like the Phillies and Red Sox.

[wamby]

JT,

I liked what you wrote. And I can see your well-articulated points. And I can agree with you up to a good point.
A couple of things about the 1950 era. If you look at the contemporary literature, TV was seen as a big attendance killer, especially in the Minor Leagues. It was especially devestating to Minor League teams that were in Major League markets, like the Newark Bears and Jersey City Giants. I think there are two other factors that should be consdered: there were more night games, which should have brought more people out, but I think some ballparks were in decaying neighborhoods and people didn't want to go to them at night. There was also a recession during this period.

I think it's hard to say whether Landis had any prejudice to overcome. He came from a part of the country (southern Ohio) which isn't a stranger to prejudice. Check out Klan involvement in Indiana in the 1920s. Landis was also a Progressive, and the Progressive's were not known for being enlitened about integration.

I think two important things about social movements are timing and support. Lincoln's timing was right because his election helped bring about the Civil War. There had also been a minority aboltionist movement going back to the 1830s. I think freedom crusdaes are hard and they need timing and support.

I don't believe the timing was right for baseball in the 1930s. i also don't think there was any real support for it either. It would have been a completely different situation if Landis had survived into the 1950s and was trying to prevent when the Civil Rights movement was happening.

But I believe that baseball would have been integrated around 1946 whether Landis was there or not. Maybe it would have been Rickey, maybe Veeck or maybe the guys in Pittsburgh. If Landis had even tried to stop them, I think the owners would have threatened to take baseball to court. Landis's number one job was to keep baseball out of the courts, so I think he would have folded. David Pietrusza wrote in Judge and Jury that towards the end of his tenure, Landis was accused by Larry MacPhail of softening on his stand of segregation. Landis may have been mellowing, or maybe he saw the writing on the wall that integration was coming, and no one would be able to stop it.

[Bill Burgess]

JT/Jim,

You both write well, and I do see your case. Yes, America was very racist in the 20's. Integrating baseball might not have been possible at that time.

Perhaps you are quite sound in believing all you say. But, . . . I am haunted. As I'm sure you and all of us must be. Today, it is impossible to know for sure, if the case for integrating baseball had been pushed by Judge Landis, would the owners have quickly found their alibi to hand him his hat and show him The Door?

Randy, you are not 100% correct when you say there was no pressure. All great issues have their pressures, and there was great pressure in the black community to integrate baseball. They knew all too well how much fame, prestige, social progress, deeper integration into the hotel/restaurant businesses were not been made.

But the great Black Freedom Movement did have it's small victories. If America was so racist, how did that black boxer, Jack Johnson?, get the right to fight whites? How did blacks get on our Olympic teams? Was Owens the first one? In fact, didn't another black sprinter take 2nd place behind Jesse?

OK. You guys have made an eloquent case that Judge Landis might not, all by himself, have been able to override 16 owners, dead set against it.

But, do you really believe that the owners were acting out of pure racism, or maybe partly, as businessmen, they feared alienating their white fans? And thereby losing money?

I can't believe that Ebbets, Griffith, Navin, Ruppert, Huston, Stoneham, Shibe, Ball, Dreyfuss, Breadon, Hermann, Frazee, Veeck, and Quinn were all raging closet racists. These were more conservative business types, not really the sheet-wearing kind.

And I'm not really accusing Judge Landis of personally obstructing progress. I am accusing him of unnecessary, unseemly, and counter-productive passivity.

This was a classic case of you are either for a cause, or against it. To not be for it, you became part of the problem. Freedom movements cannot survive indifference. It was the indifference of white America that allowed racists to lock blacks out of the American Dream for so long.

It was only after White America, mostly in the form of aggressive NYC Jewish lawyers, roused itself out of its sluggish, torpid stupor and got involved, that the Civil Rights Movement finally gained traction, and moved through the courts.

Who is to say that if a strong leader had emerged in the 20's, that hidden allies wouldn't have been found lurking in the shadowy wings, awaiting the moment to fight the fight?

It was the 16 conservative owners, fearful of rocking the boat of huge numbers of new fans coming into baseball, on the wings of Babe Ruth's bat/charisma, that we'll never know if the fight could at least have commenced in the 20's, and picked up a little steam along the way.

I do agree with Jim that WWII did have a huge impact on America seeing its black citizens as more than 2nd class citizens. That event had a huge impact.

And for MacPhail to accuse Landis of softening, now that is a telling sign.

"not rowing up a waterfall in a canoe"? Now that's a nice turn of phrase, Randy!

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Randy, you are not 100% correct when you say there was no pressure. All great issues have their pressures, and there was great pressure in the black community to integrate baseball. They knew all too well how much fame, prestige, social progress, deeper integration into the hotel/restaurant businesses were not been made.


You're right. "No" pressure isn't right. There was "not enough" pressure.


But, do you really believe that the owners were acting out of pure racism, or maybe partly, as businessmen, they feared alienating their white fans? And thereby losing money?


More the latter imo.

We shouldn't under-estimate the impact that barnstorming games had in convincing everyone who believed it, that black players were in fact not inferior to whites on the field. They could say blacks had more to play for and they were probably right but I think it opened a lot of eyes that were otherwise content being shut.

[Baseball Fanatic]

The Sporting News, in the early 1940s wrote an editorial saying baseball should remain segregated,and actually gave several very good reasons for the times we were living in then. Wish I could find it. It wasn't a controversial article at the time as 99.9% agreed with it.

I didn’t agree with everything Landis did, but he, along with Babe Ruth, saved baseball in the early 1920s. I just wish he hadn’t banned Buck Weaver, but that’s another topic for another day.;)

[rugbyfreak]

Oh, let me see,...maybe because it was the moral and right thing to do? :o

Good opener, honus. How about this one? To significantly improve the quality of ML baseball. Was there any owner in the whole bunch who would deny the quality of this talent pool, even the crackerheads? Don't think so. So, in my little mind, a commish who takes seriously his custodianship of the game, and who also sees this golden opportunity to make his mark upon history, MUST put aside personal prejudices, reservations, etc. to make that move.

[rugbyfreak]

even if he had said "hey let blacks in" would it have happened considering many of the owners of that time? even after integration, it still took what, 11 years for all teams to become integrated?

as it happens, I DONT believe he belongs in for multitudes of reasons.

Yes, that's exactly what needed to happen: for the commish to declare that there should be no ban on blacks, if, in fact, one had ever existed. All it took was for Chandler to do it, any commish would do. The pro-integration, but meek, owners were only waiting for an affirmation that it was OK, and one or two other owners to go first. It's always been my theory that many--not all--owners simply did not want to go first. (Like being the first to drop your drawers in post office: remember how easy it was once someone else did?)

Those owners would follow suit, and those who didn't, Chandler and baseball had no interest in forcing. He knew that the simple laws of a competitive market would take hold--all centered around, "adapt and grow, or die"--and eventually force the racist holdouts to come around, or face the wrath of their fan base. The two examples that come to mind are the Phillies and Bosox, the two final holdouts in their leagues: Look how miserable they were in the '50s, and how long it took them to rebound. Years!!!

Is anybody here going to tell me that ANY of these owners thought so little of their fans, that they would say, yes, I cannot integrate because our fans would never have it. They would rather languish in last place for perhaps decades rather than let any of those Negroes onto our team.

Would even the biggest racist fan in any city admit that he would make that trade? I simply cannot imagine it, and that is not applying any post-war outlooks onto the situation, it's simply a practical baseball question.

freak

[wamby]

Good opener, honus. How about this one? To significantly improve the quality of ML baseball. Was there any owner in the whole bunch who would deny the quality of this talent pool, even the crackerheads? Don't think so. So, in my little mind, a commish who takes seriously his custodianship of the game, and who also sees this golden opportunity to make his mark upon history, MUST put aside personal prejudices, reservations, etc. to make that move.

I have to disagree here. I think in the time period that we are discussing here, the late 30s, that very few people in the baseball establishment thought the talent pool of the Negro Leauges was anything to be excited over. This was an era when the Negro Leagues were looked at as loose, fly by night enterprises, and balcks were generally looked at as people who could not perform under pressure. I think people like Landis thought that if blacks were allowed to enter the Major Leagues, than the Major Leagues would be weakened.

[Bill Burgess]

I have to disagree here. I think in the time period that we are discussing here, the late 30s, that very few people in the baseball establishment thought the talent pool of the Negro Leagues was anything to be excited over. This was an era when the Negro Leagues were looked at as loose, fly by night enterprises, and blacks were generally looked at as people who could not perform under pressure. I think people like Landis thought that if blacks were allowed to enter the Major Leagues, than the Major Leagues would be weakened.
If that were true, it was only true in a collective sense. Their leagues might have well been perceived as weak, but they were also perceived as having individuals who could have helped teams.

If McGraw, Cobb, Ruth, Feller, Williams, Dean were impressed with Lloyd, J. Williams, Paige, then I can't see how owners felt they could blow off great talent.

I think those owners would have liked to hire blacks but were constrained by the fear of fan reaction, fellow owner ire, and fear that if they were proven wrong, and the blacks flopped, they would have been perceived as foolish.
I really don't think the owners/Landis were racist in their hearts.

Which to me is even worse. At least if they were racists, that would have been a flawed principle. I think they were simply ignorant. And I hold that against them even more. They really didn't have an acceptable excuse.

Did anyone read the linked article I posted in my article on Judge Landis (Post 30)? It was such excrement on paper.

Bill

[wamby]

If that were true, it was only true in a collective sense. Their leagues might have well been perceived as weak, but they were also perceived as having individuals who could have helped teams.

If McGraw, Cobb, Ruth, Feller, Williams, Dean were impressed with Lloyd, J. Williams, Paige, then I can't see how owners felt they could blow off great talent.

I think those owners would have liked to hire blacks but were constrained by the fear of fan reaction, fellow owner ire, and fear that if they were proven wrong, and the blacks flopped, they would have been perceived as foolish.
I really don't think the owners/Landis were racist in their hearts.

Which to me is even worse. At least if they were racists, that would have been a flawed principle. I think they were simply ignorant. And I hold that against them even more. They really didn't have an acceptable excuse.

Did anyone read the linked article I posted in my article on Judge Landis (Post 30)? It was such excrement on paper.

Bill

The fact that few players ever called for integration before WWII, leads me to three conclusions:

They may have been afraid of the public perception of being supprotive of integration, especially when you consider who was for integration during that period..

They may thought the Negro Leaguers were good players, but the Major Leaguers were satisfied with the status quo.

They may have been playing up Negro league talent to ensure interest in their barnstorming activies.

Persoanlly, I doubt if any owner had any interest in signing black players in that era. I think that they beleived it would be best to let the white players have their own leagues, and the black players have their own leagues. It had been that way for about 50 years and I think the Majors were satisfied with the status quo.

[baseball junkie]

Landis was a man of his time. That does not excuse his racism. He was, however, not the only powerful man of the period to be a complete racist. For instance at about the same time as Landis' appointment, President Woodrow Wilson screened the horribly racist movie 'The Birth of a Nation' in the WhiteHouse! Wilson then said something to the effect that the only thing unfortunate about the movie is that it was all true. At the time, Wilson was considered a liberal, intellectual progressive.

It is hard to separate these people from the context of their history.

[rugbyfreak]

As the originator of this thread, let me clarify a couple things, which, through my own fault in my original aritculation, has gone somewhat misunderstood:

1.) It was my intent to set up a body of knowledge in which as much as possible about the Landis legacy--good AND bad--could come to light, so we could all, in the end, have as much material as possible with which to make our final judgement about the man. I certainly did not want it to be a tribunal about Landis the man--who among us is qualified to judge another's moral character? It was mainly intended to judge whether someone with this many debits weighing down the positives, should be lionized as he has been in the HOF.

So, please, all of you who claim, and rightly so, that there is much to praise about his term, step up and name them. And we already know about the Black Sox ruling.

Since it is strictly my fault for phrasing my original pitch in so heinous a fashion, let me temper that right now and invite both sides of the coin.

2.) It was NOT my intent to steer this thread to a discussion solely of his alleged racism, although I did name his opposition to integration as his last, and certainly, most notorious, act against baseball. I should have known how right-thinking people such as you all are, and how incendiary a topic this was, is, and will be, in spots and society, and how therefore this group would naturally home in on it. I thought I had made it clear that this was NOT my only objection to his legacy.

My primay objection to Landis remains that, for a man in such a position of responsibility, he time and time again forgot his highest obligation to protect and improve the game to the best of his abilities and powers, and instead indulged his own ego and prejudices. Integration was one such example of this failure to execute his office.

So, folks, for all you Landis suppoters out there: Bring out the good stuff!

freak

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Good opener, honus. How about this one? To significantly improve the quality of ML baseball. Was there any owner in the whole bunch who would deny the quality of this talent pool, even the crackerheads? Don't think so. So, in my little mind, a commish who takes seriously his custodianship of the game, and who also sees this golden opportunity to make his mark upon history, MUST put aside personal prejudices, reservations, etc. to make that move.

Everything I've read points the overall feeling that blacks were simply inferior to whites on the field of play, mostly on the mental side. Whether they actually believed it or not isn't the question. The point is that they were able to hide behind that belief for a long time, and the barnstorming games slowly chipped away the barrier, or at least opened up a peep hole so they could all see what was on the other side.

I don't care that blacks had a ton more to play for, and they "circled those games on their schedule". It doesn't matter that the few major leaguers per roster that they played against, weren't an assembled regular team who was used to playing with eachother. Or that to them it was all about entertaining the fans. I don't care that they were still facing some amateur pitchers. I say, any time you can step on the same field where Ruth (and other big leaguers) is in the other dugout, and you can come away with a victory, which they did quite a bit...that has to open eyes.

In the end, I think Bill hit it right on the head, in saying that the attitude from the owners had a lot to do with how they felt the fans would react. Of course if certain blacks had a chance, they would no doubt have succeeded and helped their team win but what owner wanted to step up and take that chance. They seemed to be far too cozy; wrapped in their comforter of ignorance, and there wasn't enough pressure to pull it off of them.

[wamby]

Landis was a man of his time. That does not excuse his racism. He was, however, not the only powerful man of the period to be a complete racist. For instance at about the same time as Landis' appointment, President Woodrow Wilson screened the horribly racist movie 'The Birth of a Nation' in the WhiteHouse! Wilson then said something to the effect that the only thing unfortunate about the movie is that it was all true. At the time, Wilson was considered a liberal, intellectual progressive.

It is hard to separate these people from the context of their history.

Wilson was all the things that you mentioned. He was also born in Virginia just before the Civil War and he also grew up in South Carolina. Wilson was a dyed in the wool racist.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Sporting News is famous for being pro-segregation. The Sporting News was also pretty single-minded in pushing what it thought was good for baseball. It was baseball's paper of record, but it would take potshots at the game from time to time. It was generally a conseravtive publication.

I don't know if the fact the Sporting News being based in St. Louis had anything to do with the segregation issue. In St. Louis they got to see ballpark segregation forst hand.

It was the St. Louis Cardinals that led the anti-Robinson movement in 1947. The movement, a threatened player's strike, was led by the Southern cabal on that team, led by Terry Moore, Enos Slaughter, and Marty Marion. Consider Landis's posture for years, and contrast it with Ford Frick's posture to the Cardinal Southern Cabal:


Frick survived his most burdensome task in 1947 when Jackie Robinson broke the color line barrier in baseball. He stood behind the president/general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Branch Rickey, who signed Robinson. ''The National League will go down the line with Robinson and I don't care if it wrecks the league for five years,'' said Frick. He vowed to ban forever anyone who tried to halt the integration process.

A little force, and the racists folded.

That's all it would have taken for Landis to integrate baseball later in his term, if the truth be known. The racists hated blacks, but they weren't willing to give up their cushy jobs playing ball to walk their talk.

[Imapotato]

Bill et al

I think one good example to look at is Ralph Nader in regards to Landis

50 years from now, our children and childrens' children will wonder why we never elected him....

But now he is considered a radical, and sort of a joke...yet all his stances are pretty much what we NEED to do....yet are not ready.

The biggest obstacle for him? A Corporate America

So imagine Landis going against the grain of American Society at the time...it would have been a disaster

I also agree with the poster that said Landis BIGGEST error was banning Buck Weaver

But even then, I can see Landis point in doing so

[Bill Burgess]

The fact that few players ever called for integration before WWII, leads me to three conclusions:
Why wouldn't one of those reasons be simple, old-fashioned fear of unemployment. Job protection.

If BB was integrated, don't you think many ballplayers were intelligent enough to realize, that they themselves might be on the bubble, and lose their cushy jobs to a black peer?

I think that perception must have occurred to a lot of the marginal players. They weren't stupid, after all.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

I just went through some of the recent posts, and have quite a lot to comment on.

1. When Judge Landis was appointed Commissioner for life, in November 12, 1920, for BB, business was booming. Owners are reluctant to rock the boat, when attendance records are exploding all around them, their personal worths are doubling, tripling. Makes one quite conservative in their approach.

2. Sporting News WAS JG Taylor Spink. Was raised in St. Louis, MO, from 1884 on. Not quite north enough to be that progressive. When we speak of the Bible of the Sport, we speak on nothing more than Spink.

3. Judge Landis was born November 20, 1866, in Millville, OH. Again not quite north enough to draw on the real Progressive Movement.

4. Blacks were in a quite impossible position. How to please whites, without threatening them, but still trying to maintain some semblance of their dignity. Quite impossible. So, they split the difference. When playing against white teams, they went all out, and assembled the best black team to be fielded in 25 miles, and played all out. Won about 70% of their games.

But, playing against themselves, their pitching was chronically weak, despite the presence of rare greats, like Paige, Joe Williams, Joe Rogan. And they also gave in to their instincts to try to amuse their fans. Often joked around and gave Harlem Globetrotteresque-like antics. Which, to ML fans in the stands, could only serve to undermine their seriousness as players. Like I said, impossible position.

Some cursory background on the good judge. His family moved to Delphi, IN in 1874 (age 8), and then Logansport, IN, shortly after.

Judge Landis moved to Cincinnati, OH to where he took pre-law courses at the U. of Cinc. Got his law degree from Union Law School (now part of Northwestern U.). He graduated in 1891 & opened his law practice in Chicago.

In March, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed him to US District Judge for the northern district of Illinois.

It appears that Judge Landis spent his entire formative phases in Ohio / Indiana. It is unclear to what degree, if any, he was exposed to any form of the black freedom movement.

Back to basics. It would have been highly surprising if he or the 16 owners would have been even contemplating assisting the integration movement.

With business booming, and his own plate burgeoning with white only problems, such as the occasional leaked information, that white teams bribed each other to bear down on their rivals, it was all the judge could do to keep the lid on white corruption. And then there was his rival in BB power, Ban Johnson, who seldom missed a chance to take a good swipe at him.

So, the gambling scenario was his primary focus of attention.

You ask for his accomplishments. He did scare the gamblers away, for the most part. I doubt is Arnie Rothstein ever considered messing in baseball again after he came aboard. And he did assist the minor leagues in not becoming farm teams while he was around.

But he also acted too high-handed in expelling players without a due process. Every expulsion should have had its legal appeal. I don't know why players didn't hire lawyers and sue baseball. But as long as BB had its exemption from the national anti-trust law, it would have been an uphill legal fight.

[wamby]

It was the St. Louis Cardinals that led the anti-Robinson movement in 1947. The movement, a threatened player's strike, was led by the Southern cabal on that team, led by Terry Moore, Enos Slaughter, and Marty Marion. Consider Landis's posture for years, and contrast it with Ford Frick's posture to the Cardinal Southern Cabal:



A little force, and the racists folded.

That's all it would have taken for Landis to integrate baseball later in his term, if the truth be known. The racists hated blacks, but they weren't willing to give up their cushy jobs playing ball to walk their talk.

The supposed strike is pretty controversial and many people believe that it is just a myth. Frick's reaction is on the record, but there is no proof that the Cardinals planned a strike.

[wamby]

Why wouldn't one of those reasons be simple, old-fashioned fear of unemployment. Job protection.

If BB was integrated, don't you think many ballplayers were intelligent enough to realize, that they themselves might be on the bubble, and lose their cushy jobs to a black peer?

I think that perception must have occurred to a lot of the marginal players. They weren't stupid, after all.

Bill

In an industry like baseball, I don't if any player, no matter how marginal, would have worried about this in the 30s. In the 40s and 50s, I think they would have.

[Bill Burgess]

In an industry like baseball, I don't if any player, no matter how marginal, would have worried about this in the 30s. In the 40s and 50s, I think they would have.
I must surmise that your reason for saying this is the unlikelihood for BB integration in the 30's, but the improved chances in the 40's, especially after Judge Landis' demise. Would I be in the ballpark on this one, Jim?

Bill

[wamby]

I must surmise that your reason for saying this is the unlikelihood for BB integration in the 30's, but the improved chances in the 40's, especially after Judge Landis' demise. Would I be in the ballpark on this one, Jim?

Bill

I don't think it was Landis's demise, so much as Jackie Robinson's ascendency.

[rugbyfreak]

I just went through some of the recent posts, and have quite a lot to comment on.

1. When Judge Landis was appointed Commissioner for life, in November 12, 1920, for BB, business was booming. Owners are reluctant to rock the boat, when attendance records are exploding all around them, their personal worths are doubling, tripling. Makes one quite conservative in their approach.

2. Sporting News WAS JG Taylor Spink. Was raised in St. Louis, MO, from 1884 on. Not quite north enough to be that progressive. When we speak of the Bible of the Sport, we speak on nothing more than Spink.

3. Judge Landis was born November 20, 1866, in Millville, OH. Again not quite north enough to draw on the real Progressive Movement.

4. Blacks were in a quite impossible position. How to please whites, without threatening them, but still trying to maintain some semblance of their dignity. Quite impossible. So, they split the difference. When playing against white teams, they went all out, and assembled the best black team to be fielded in 25 miles, and played all out. Won about 70% of their games.

But, playing against themselves, their pitching was chronically weak, despite the presence of rare greats, like Paige, Joe Williams, Joe Rogan. And they also gave in to their instincts to try to amuse their fans. Often joked around and gave Harlem Globetrotteresque-like antics. Which, to ML fans in the stands, could only serve to undermine their seriousness as players. Like I said, impossible position.

Some cursory background on the good judge. His family moved to Delphi, IN in 1874 (age 8), and then Logansport, IN, shortly after.

Judge Landis moved to Cincinnati, OH to where he took pre-law courses at the U. of Cinc. Got his law degree from Union Law School (now part of Northwestern U.). He graduated in 1891 & opened his law practice in Chicago.

In March, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed him to US District Judge for the northern district of Illinois.

It appears that Judge Landis spent his entire formative phases in Ohio / Indiana. It is unclear to what degree, if any, he was exposed to any form of the black freedom movement.

Back to basics. It would have been highly surprising if he or the 16 owners would have been even contemplating assisting the integration movement.

With business booming, and his own plate burgeoning with white only problems, such as the occasional leaked information, that white teams bribed each other to bear down on their rivals, it was all the judge could do to keep the lid on white corruption. And then there was his rival in BB power, Ban Johnson, who seldom missed a chance to take a good swipe at him.

So, the gambling scenario was his primary focus of attention.

You ask for his accomplishments. He did scare the gamblers away, for the most part. I doubt is Arnie Rothstein ever considered messing in baseball again after he came aboard. And he did assist the minor leagues in not becoming farm teams while he was around.

But he also acted too high-handed in expelling players without a due process. Every expulsion should have had its legal appeal. I don't know why players didn't hire lawyers and sue baseball. But as long as BB had its exemption from the national anti-trust law, it would have been an uphill legal fight.

Bill, having tracked your comments and judicious arbitrations and interventions continuously thoughout my still-short time at BBF, I have gained an enormous respect for your command of the game and its history, even as I occasionally may have a different take on this matter or that. Furthermore, I am honored that you have seen fit to take an interest in this, my first BBF thread. I hope you will continue to jump in and help me guide this thread for as long as it lasts.

Some comments on your comments:

1.) I'm a little confused when you say "business was booming" in Nov. '20. Inasmuch as the scandal broke little by little throughout the season, and indictments were handed down in late Oct., I have always been under the impression that, come Landis' ascension in Nov., public perception was at an all-time low, and the Judge was asked to rescue a foundering ship. Not that this discrepancy changes what I have said about JKML one bit, isn't it fair to say that, even if business had been booming during the '20 season (when all the facts were not yet out, and many fans chose to live in denial), with all that was going on that fall, baseball's prospects for the '21 season were dim indeed, unless swift action was taken?

2.) Fair enough. Depending on whom you ask, TSN could always be regarded as either the "Bible" of baseball, or merely a house organ for Spink to get ink for his drinking-buddy owners. I grew up regarding it as the former, since I took no notice of its politics and back then, it was the first and last resource for baseball info (no more).

3.) I'm not all that concerned about where Landis was from, or lived (although I stand corrected on believing he was a southern boy). I've been around long enough not to judge a man by where he comes from. There are plenty of racists in the north, and plenty of "colorblind" folks in the south. Besides, as I've already tried to say, I'm not interested here in deciding whether or not JKML was a racist. I'm here to say that he was a coward who shied away from doing the right thing, even while he had less to fear from doing so than anyone in the country, and therefor had no excuse not to. I'm also here to say that anyone who countless times miscarried his use of justice and power is not HOF worthy.

4.) I give JKML full credit for the initial years of his term, in re-stabilizing the game in its first real hour of crisis. So I agree with you 100% that, with all of baseball's problems stemming from, related to, or ancillary to, the 1919 scandal, JKML's plate was overfull, and integration was not even an item on his to-do list. But you, like many here, seem to have missed my point (my fault in articulating it) that I am not holding him to integration until the '40s, the end of his regime, when attitudes had changed among some (not all) owners, and, I don't care what anyone says, JKML was flooded with requests to visit the issue of integration and give it the attention it deserved.

As an historian yourself, Bill, you probably agree that most reasonable scholars tend not to judge figures harshly who fail to take that revolutionary step, for whatever reasons (fear of ostracization/condemnation usually at the center of it, or worse, fear of death, as anti-Nazis felt in 1930s Germany). Conversely, those figures who choose to put themselves on the line and take the unpopular step (Lincoln, Gandhi, etc.) are given "extra credit" by history.

By the 1940s, we could no longer give JKML that pass for passivity. Many posters here are claiming that he was subject to those fears and thus simply "did nothing" about integration. rubbish!! He PrOACTIVELY opposed integration by blocking its progress at every turn. In my mind, he is not just an abstainer of integration. He was its mortal enemy who worked overtime to make sure it did not happen on his watch.

Farm systems: I concede the argument that Rickey's version of the farm system was tantamount to serfdom (as if baseball owners had any room to talk on that score!). JKML was correct to be alarmed by it and demand its re-examination. But not to stamp it out. Rickey was ahead of his time and fellow owners were probably miffed they hadn't thought of it. It needed to be curbed, because, as history proved, it was an idea with great merit and would become the norm in baseball, Landis or no Landis. The Judge hated Rickey and it pleased him to oppose Branch, rather than admit that the Mahatma was onto something that could--and would--benefit baseball.

Finally, what is most distasteful about JKML is that, of all people, it was a Superior court justice who took such a cavalier approach to the process of jurisprudence and who succeeded in sinking the culture of baseball to a banana-republic level. I expect such low-rent nonsense from a player agent, not my commissioner.

In conclusion, a commissioner is not supposed to have any axes to grind, except those which threaten the welfare of his game. JKML was all about settling scores, winning battles, and securing his fiefdom at all costs. My thanks to the sultan for providing the JKML quote that sums him up best:

"This case resolves itself into a question of who is the biggest man in baseball, the Commissioner or the player who makes the most home runs."

What more do we need to know about the man's priorities?

Thanks for listening!

freak

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, having tracked your comments and judicious arbitrations and interventions continuously thoughout my still-short time at BBF, I have gained an enormous respect for your command of the game and its history, even as I occasionally may have a different take on this matter or that. Furthermore, I am honored that you have seen fit to take an interest in this, my first BBF thread. I hope you will continue to jump in and help me guide this thread for as long as it lasts.
I have a different outlook than others. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that the fans were ready to throw off the National Game. I resist that opinion, and feel it was absurd & ridiculous.

For anyone to seriously consider that solid fans of 1920 would, or could, give up baseball for the dishonest wrongs of less than 10 players is just crazy talk to me. The game had so become a part of many fans' psyches, that they couldn't break away any more than we can, due to steroids.

Steroids is probably much more prevalent today, than gambling was to the early days. Baseball ignored both scourges as long as it was allowed to.

The powers that be, the owners, ignored both gambling then, and steroids now, as long as it could, until the problem literally bit them in their collective asses.

Getting back to our original issue, did the fans get that disenchanted with BB due to the Black Sox scandal? Well, they had every right to be disgusted with the offending players. As much as I remember, attendance dipped in 1922-24. But is that reasonable to attribute to fan backlash against the Black Sox? I just don't think so.

1. I believe the fans felt that the offending players were properly punished and moved on. True, the media milked the scandal for all it was worth. But they were entitled to do that. That was their jobs as professional skeptics. They milked it for the sensational aspects of every media circus ever was. There has never been an event that could be turned into a circus that wasn't.

2. Other possible explanations for the dip in attendance were: BB was simply not able to sustain that white hot pitch of intensity as the initial shock of Ruth/Live Ball.

3. Another possible explanation was that the fan community did not find the pennant races of NYC teams that interesting. The Giants/Yankees won their pennant races, 1921-23, and fought 3 straight 'Subway Series' in a row.

Cool for NYC fans, but less so for national fans. The Giants won again in 1924. I believe the attendance started climbing again as soon as the pennant races started going to teams other than NYC teams. The 1921-23 World Series, limited to NYC teams, was so very unhealthy for fans in general.

So, there are two valid possibilities for why fan attendance dipped, 1921-24.

I'm not saying I know that to have been true, but to think that the fans would not return to going to games, so long as they felt that justice was restored to the game, is not realistic.

So, in that particular case, I guess we can thank Judge Landis for doing the specific task for which the owners first sought his help. To clean up the game from the scourge of gambling.

But I still hold out the contention, that the fans would have applauded Judge Landis for holding a separate legal proceeding for both Jackson/Weaver. They alone had some doubts and a legal proceeding would not have turned the fans against the game at all. At least that's what I think.

Bill

[wamby]

Judge and Jury gives a very intreresting rationale about the banning of Buck Weaver. I Don't know if Landis gave the banning of Weaver any serious thought, but I found David Pietrusza's assesment very pursuasive, and I agree with him.

[rugbyfreak]

I have a different outlook than others. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that the fans were ready to throw off the National Game. I resist that opinion, and feel it was absurd & ridiculous.

For anyone to seriously consider that solid fans of 1920 would, or could, give up baseball for the dishonest wrongs of less than 10 players is just crazy talk to me. The game has so become a part of many fans' psyches, that they couldn't break away any more than we can, due to steroids.

Steroids is probably much more prevalent today, than gambling was to the early days. Baseball ignored both scourges as long as it was allowed to.

The powers that be, the owners, ignored both gambling then, and steroids now, as long as it could, until the problem literally bit them in their collective asses.

Getting back to our original issue, did the fans get that disenchanted with BB due to the Black Sox scandal? Well, they had every right to be disgusted with the offending players. As much as I remember, attendance dipped in 1922-24. But is that reasonable to attribute to fan backlash against the Black Sox? I just don't think so.

1. I believe the fans felt that the offending players were properly punished and moved on. True, the media milked the scandal for all it was worth. But they were entitled to do that. That was their jobs as professional skeptics. They milked it for the sensational aspects of every media circus ever was. There has never been an event that could be turned into a circus that wasn't.

2. Other possible explanations for the dip in attendance were: BB was simply not able to sustain that white hot pitch of intensity as the initial shock of Ruth/Live Ball.

3. Another possible explanation was that the fan community did not find the pennant races of NYC teams that interesting. The Giants/Yankees won their pennant races, 1921-23, and fought 3 straight 'Subway Series' in a row.

Cool for NYC fans, but less so for national fans. The Giants won again in 1924. I believe the attendance started climbing again as soon as the pennant races started going to teams other than NYC teams. The 1921-23 World Series, limited to NYC teams, was so very unhealthy for fans in general.

So, there are two valid possibilities for why fan attendance dipped, 1921-24.

I'm not saying I know that to have been true, but to think that the fans would not return to going to games, so long as they felt that justice was restored to the game, is not realistic.

So, in that particular case, I guess we can thank Judge Landis for doing the specific task for which the owners first sought his help. To clean up the game from the scourge of gambling.

But I still hold out the contention, that the fans would have applauded Judge Landis for holding a separate legal proceeding for both Jackson/Weaver. They alone had some doubts and a legal proceeding would not have turned the fans against the game at all. At least that's what I think.

Bill

Bill, you're definitely right-on about certain things:

--When examing attendance figures, whether one team or baseball-wide, so many factors are possible that I would accept any that seem reasonable for the times as contributing factors. (And then, most frustating for the cause-and-effect guys out there, sometimes changing patronage totals are simply the random ebb and flow of life, with no paticular reason at all!).

--I must admit, your theory about the three-peat Yank-Giant Subway Series of '21-'23 not thrilling the rest of the country has merit, and is one I had not even considered. We NYers tend to forget this. I should have remembeed this from '00, when many indicators (including WS TV ratings) told us that the country was not partying the way we were. Anyway, the '21 Yanks only won by 4.5 games and in '22 by just 1 (in '23 it was a rout: 16 games). So, if your theory is to be believed, I don't give fans of the Tribe (second in '21) and the Brownies ('22) much credit for bailing on a close race. Plus, remember, that in '21 the Yanks had not yet won even one pennant, so the fatalistic mindset of "who's playing for second in the AL?" that would indeed plague the league when NY seemed to win it every year was anything but established. But anyway, a valid point on your part.

--I have been guilty, like so many baseball fans, of over-simplifying--and over-estimating--the negative effects of the 1919 WS upon general interest. I hold to the point that many fans were dismayed, even shocked. But baseball then, and many times since, has demonstrated a rasputin-like resilience from its various crises that is almost freakish, and that defy rational business-entertainment pecepts. (Numerous work stoppages, esp. '04, and now steroids.) How else to explain BB attendance being up this year, in spite of unquestionable fan disgust over the steroids crisis?

So you're right that BB was destined to come out of the 1919 crisis intact, thanks to people like the Babe and, yes, Judge Landis. I think this nation's BB fans basically have a love-affair with the game, and give it an enormous amount of slack when it screws up, asking only that the powers that be demonstrate an honest effort to fix the problem (which drug testing, for all its flaws and tardy implementation, would seem to have met).

So, thanks again, Big Bill, for chiming in and getting me to think out of the box. The rest of you--thanks for listening!

freak

[bluezebra]

"...and Jesse Owens was a Black American who was a hero for America"

Yeah, until the Olympics were over. Read about his life.

As for Hitler/WWII ending racism in this country, where have you been lately?

Bob

[Bill Burgess]

I doubt if anything can end racism. Most of it is so subconscious. But we all owe it to ourselves to continuously try to reach the next level up.

Spiritual cleansing is never easy, and never-ending. But alas, in the end, well worth it.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

So, thanks again, Big Bill, for chiming in and getting me to think out of the box.
It's my pleasure. Keep up your excellent posting, Freaky One.

Bill

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have a different outlook than others. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that the fans were ready to throw off the National Game. I resist that opinion, and feel it was absurd & ridiculous.

For anyone to seriously consider that solid fans of 1920 would, or could, give up baseball for the dishonest wrongs of less than 10 players is just crazy talk to me. The game has so become a part of many fans' psyches, that they couldn't break away any more than we can, due to steroids.

I agree with this. I do think that had the gambling problem not been eradicated with Draconian penalties, it would not have stopped in 1920. THAT would have harmed baseball greatly; an ongoing problem leading to a poor reputation for baseball.

I'm not rejecting some of your suggestions for Weaver and Jackson out of hand, but the fact remains that both of these guys participated in meetings where the fix was discussed. Neither did anything to stop it. They let it happen. That really can't be overlooked, even in Weaver's case, and it really can't go unsanctioned.

[Bill Burgess]

but the fact remains that both of these guys participated in meetings where the fix was discussed. Neither did anything to stop it. They let it happen. That really can't be overlooked, even in Weaver's case, and it really can't go unsanctioned.
Actually, Jackson did not attend the 2 hotel meetings of the cheaters. So, Judge Landis' famous ruling that, "No one who sits among those, where throwing games is discussed, and fails to report that to his team . . ." did not apply to Jackson.

Not suggesting that Jackson hadn't heard of it, but he didn't attend their 2 meetings. Just a detail for the record.

[wamby]

Oh, let me see,...maybe because it was the moral and right thing to do? :o

I've been studying the Progressive movement recently and it made think of this thread.

Here is why I think your response here is totally groundless:

[Edited because of political connotations. There will be issues that are quite controversial today which will be legalized within the next 30 to 40 years. One hundred years from now, people will have accepted the change and, if they happen to discuss the change, will wonder why it took so long, just as] we are talking about why segregation in baseball took so long to end. People then might even say: they should have enacted it sooner because 'it was the moral and right thing to do.'

My question to you is: are you ready to decide about the morality of something now (especially something that you maight not agree with), based on how it may judged in the future? I hope you are, because that is exactly the stand you are criticizing Landis for not taking.

It's easy to look backward and criticize. It's a hell of a lot tougher to look forward.

I hope you get a chance to look at this, because I expect this response to be deleted.

[wamby]

Please ignore my above post. The point I was trying to make has been completely undermined.

[The Kid]

I've always found this to be an interesting argument: What do you think of Commissioner Kenesaw Landis and his time as head of the game?

[AstrosFan]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=25181&highlight=landis

This has some opinions on Landis.

[Bill Burgess]

Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis:

Landis was born November 20, 1886, in Millville, Ohio of Swiss ancestry. He received his name from Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia, the scene of a great, but bloody Confederate victory in the Civil War, where the Rebs mowed down wave after wave of brave Yankees, trying to assault their position, going uphill in the heat. Crazy Union tactics, just like at Fredericksburg, sent many brave Yankee kids to Boot Hill. Stupid, inept, incompetent leadership killed almost as many brave Yankee kids as southern bullets ever did. (Fredericksburg, Kennesaw Mountain, Cold Harbor, Grant's "Wilderness Campaign".)

Anyhow, Landis' father, Dr. Abraham Landis had been seriously wounded there. Why they dropped a N from the name is unclear. Landis particularly liked Three-Fingered Brown and had played and managed a local team when 17. He became a champion bicycle rider.

Judge Landis was always a brave man. He went his own way, and danced to a different drummer. His own internal drummer. Once, during WWI, he sentenced 94 members of the International Workers of the World to prison. This resulted in the bombing of his office a few weeks later, but he wasn't there at the time. So the man had guts. He wasn't a racist, and he wasn't even a Southerner, despite his name.

So while Landis was courageous, he was also stubborn. Many, many of his opinions were overturned while he sat on the bench.

Judge Landis took authority as baseball's 1st Commissioner Nov. 12, 1920, I believe it was, and died Nov. 17, 1944. Let's review some dates.

1945 - Jackie Robinson plays his only Negro L. season, Kansas City Monarchs SS.

August 28, 1945 - 11 months after Landis died, Branch Rickey meets with Robinson for the 1st time, outlining his master plan.

October 23, 1945 - Rickey signs Robinson to a Dodger contract. The plan is to integrate the white minor leagues first, in 1946, and then the MLs in 1947.

1946 - Robinson leads the International L. with .349, at Montreal.

1947 - Rickey brings Jackie up to the Dodgers during spring training. Jackie hits .297, leads league in SB with 29. Voted Rookie-of-the-Year.

1949 - Jackie leads league in several major categories, best player in league. Voted MVP.

Now. The important link here, for our purposes, in the slight 11 month interval between Landis dying and Rickey approaching Robinson. Rickey knew that Landis didn't like his farm team system. Fought him all the way on it. Also there had been a covert meeting among the owners about Rickey bringing in Robinson. All opposed him. But the difference was that now that Landis was dead, Rickey felt he could at last do it and not be over-ruled.

Rickey might not have been doing it to advance social progress. Perhaps he only was doing it to bring pennants to Brooklyn. But still, he felt he had to wait until Landis died to attempt his bold move.

Why do I hold Landis to such a seemingly high standard? Because I believe he was smart and principled. To whom much is given, much is required. To whom much authority is given, much is expected.

I feel very deeply, that since he fought so hard against the owners, particularly Rickey on the farm system issue, that he also had it in him to fight for the Negro. And I can not, for the life of me, see why he held back and hesitated. He was asked on a very regular basis, by such stellar sports writers as Wendell Smith, of the black Pittsburgh Courier, 1937-47, and Sam Lacy, of several black newspapers, when baseball would integrate.

And Landis would always state diplomatically, that there was no written or unwritten law, regulation, rule, tenet, or anything else, which prohibited any owner from hiring blacks. So, Landis was pressed, hard and regularly, for many, many years. And those two were not the only ones. Many blacks went to his office over the years, with appointments, to lobby him to help them open up the MLs to blacks. Sometimes Landis side-stepped them, most often he received them graciously, and diplomatically. Just as he ALWAYS graciously assured Buck Weaver he would consider his application for reinstatement. Never did.

Did that excuse his moral responsibility? Why should it? Landis was most intelligent and knew that a huge number of black people were looking towards him for help. He was the only one with leverage on the owners. He could have used it and might have been successful.

Many assume that Landis was seldom asked, and that the moral question was seldom posed for him to deal with. Nothing could have been further from the truth. When one reads the writings of Lacy and Smith, you get the real picture. The feel for the scope of the problem.

Landis never was a born racist. Just a passive, pass-the-buck obstacle/obstructionist on this one issue.

This issue transcends Landis. It involves a lot of people, over a lot of years. The good guys tried VERY hard for a long time, to get their case heard, and move the flag downfield. And no one was better positioned than Judge Landis to move the ball downfield.

I do hold the owners responsible for not hiring blacks, but none of them had the moral responsibility to see to it, that the sport, as a whole, stopped the hate-filled ban. The so-called "ban" was a unwritten "Gentleman's Agreement", among the team owners, to agree to collude to not hire black players in any of organized baseball's leagues. No owner had the leverage to force open the gates. Or so they believed. When Rickey did just that, he proved them all wrong.

I hope this gives a few crumbs of why I hold Ken Landis so responsible for his lack of action, when pressed SO hard for SO long, by both groups and individuals.

So, for me, his failure to act was more than a cardinal sin. His non-action was criminal. And rendered his judgment to not reinstate Jackson and Weaver a monument to hypocrisy of the most extreme order. By one who should have known better. But never did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=445702&postcount=33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question was asked, if Not Judge Landis, who else would have been qualified to become Commissioner? Here was my response.[/COLOR]

Who indeed? Most morally qualified candidates were occupied helping life in a larger context, and barely knew baseball. Some names come to mind, if we could have gotten them.

Mahatma Gandhi, 1869-1948, led India to independence from Great Britain via non-violence demonstrations.

Albert Einstein, 1879-1955, German Jew, theories on physics changed his field.

Albert Schweitzer, 1875-65, German Christian philosopher, physician, humanitarian, missionary, musician.

Nikolai Tesla, 1856-1943, Yugoslavian inventor whose ideas underlaid all modern machines.

Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, The most prominent newspaperman, book reviewer, and political commentator of his day, Henry Louis Mencken was a libertarian before the word came into usage.

Lots of luck in securing any of their services. Although race is, of course, an imperative issue, there are more issues than that, and a candidate must be grounded in principles in general.


Still another issue would have been instituting an early pension system, all star games, dealing with Mexican L. raids, night ball, establishing a formula, whereby a player receives 1/3 of a sale price. Another innovation would have been to supervise a player's association, to serve as counter-balance to owner's rights.

If we want to go further back in this nice little exercise, a commissioner could have tackled abolishing the pitching cheating that was allowed to go on pre-1920. That was ridiculous. He could have also been helpful in seeing to it that the military draft exempted ballplayers. Men in uniform like to read about their heroes, while their off in foreign lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still others who were qualified to become Commissioner, instead of Judge Landis were Francis Richter, John B. Foster, Sam Crane, Ferdinand C. Lane, Taylor Spink, as well as Connie Mack or Branch Rickey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Candidates for Commissioner:

1. Branch Rickey, 1881-1965
2. Connie Mack, 1862-1956
3. Taylor Spink, 1888-1962
4. Grantland Rice, 1880-1954
5. Francis Richter, 1854-1926
6. John B. Foster, 1863-1941
7. Sam Crane, 1854-1925
8. Louis Mencken, 1880-1956
9. Monte Ward, 1860-1925
10. Ferdinand C. Lane, 1885-1984
------------------------------------------------------------
1. When Judge Landis was appointed Commissioner for life, in November 12, 1920, for BB, business was booming. Owners are reluctant to rock the boat, when attendance records are exploding all around them, their personal worths are doubling, tripling. Makes one quite conservative in their approach.

2. Sporting News WAS JG Taylor Spink. Was raised in St. Louis, MO, from 1884 on. Not quite north enough to be that progressive. When we speak of the Bible of the Sport, we speak on nothing more than Spink.

3. Judge Landis was born November 20, 1866, in Millville, OH. Again not quite north enough to draw on the real Progressive Movement.

4. Blacks were in a quite impossible position. How to please whites, without threatening them, but still trying to maintain some semblance of their dignity. Quite impossible. So, they split the difference. When playing against white teams, they went all out, and assembled the best black team to be fielded in 25 miles, and played all out. Won about 70% of their games.

But, playing against themselves, their pitching was chronically weak, despite the presence of rare greats, like Paige, Joe Williams, Joe Rogan. And they also gave in to their instincts to try to amuse their fans. Often joked around and gave Harlem Globetrotteresque-like antics. Which, to ML fans in the stands, could only serve to undermine their seriousness as players. Like I said, impossible position.

Some cursory background on the good judge. His family moved to Delphi, Indiana in 1874 (age 8), and then Logansport, IN, shortly after.

Judge Landis moved to Cincinnati, OH to where he took pre-law courses at the U. of Cinc. Got his law degree from Union Law School (now part of Northwestern U.). He graduated in 1891 & opened his law practice in Chicago.

In March, 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed him to US District Judge for the northern district of Illinois.

It appears that Judge Landis spent his entire formative phases in Ohio / Indiana. It is unclear to what degree, if any, he was exposed to any form of the black freedom movement.

Back to basics. It would have been highly surprising if he or the 16 owners would have been even contemplating assisting the integration movement.

With business booming, and his own plate burgeoning with white only problems, such as the occasional leaked information, that white teams bribed each other to bear down on their rivals, it was all the judge could do to keep the lid on white corruption. And then there was his rival in BB power, Ban Johnson, who seldom missed a chance to take a good swipe at him.

So, the gambling scenario was his primary focus of attention.

You ask for his accomplishments. He did scare the gamblers away, for the most part. I doubt if Arnie Rothstein ever considered messing in baseball again after he came aboard. And he did assist the minor leagues in not becoming farm teams while he was around.

But he also acted too high-handed in expelling players without a due process. Every expulsion should have had its legal appeal. I don't know why players didn't hire lawyers and sue baseball. But as long as BB had its exemption from the national Sherman anti-trust law of 1890, it would have been an uphill legal fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bill Burgess]

I have just consolidated this thread with 2 past Judge Landis threads. So our work remains consolidated, instead of scattered.

[Brownie31]

H.L. Mencken as commissioner? A true American original who was everything Landis wasn't. Great choice, IMHO. Interest to speculate how he would have dealt with another famous Baltimorean-The Sage of Hollins Street and the Sultan of Swat!;)

Brownie31

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm bringing this thread up because it's the anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut in MLB, and the integration of MLB.

I believe that the single biggest key to integration of MLB was Landis' death. Landis was the biggest roadblock to integration, given his absolute power and his intransigence.

[Bill Burgess]

Yes, Judge Landis was most definitely an obstructionist to BB integration. But if anyone thinks he was alone, try reading this boiler-plate that Baseball put out August 28, 1946, as a last ditch attempt to block the road. This was 3 years after Landis' death.
---------------------------------
Sporting News' article (http://www.paperofrecord.com/paper_view.asp?PaperId=834&RecordId=43&PageId=7619468&iDateSearchId={E31BBEAC-6488-4B5F-A260-F324DB5910B8}) (You may have to register, but it is free, and you may have to install Adobe, also for free.
------------------------------------
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=445702&postcount=33

[Windy City Fan]

I don't see how Landis was THE major reason baseball remained segregated. From everything I have read, Landis did not actively enforce or crusade to keep baseball segregated. He simply chose not to fight the owners (many of whom vigorously supported segregation as Bill shows with his link) on the issue.

We can lament this fact, but I find it unreasonable to expect a man from Landis' generation and upbringing to become a civil rights crusader years before the civil rights movement was a major force in America. We forget, baseball was one of the first major institutions to become integrated.

[EdTarbusz]

My belief is that the owners would have fired Landis if he would have pushed for integration in the 20s or 30s. I think the owners would have had visions of white flight from the stands and of their ballparks and would have acted to protect their financial interests.

I also think that it's a misconception that the owners turned to Landis because of the Black Sox scandal. There was already a movement afoot to put him on the National Commission, as a replacement to Garry Herrmann, because of the Carl Mays situation. This was before the 1919 World Series was played.

[Brian McKenna]

Introducing K. M. Landis

Judge Landis became a national figure due to the important cases he ruled upon – mainly the Standard Oil antitrust case in which he forced John D. Rockefeller to travel to Chicago and appear before him. The I.W.W. case during WWI also made headlines as Landis sentenced I.W.W. secretary-treasurer Big Bill Haywood and 92 others to prison. Afterwards a bomb was exploded in the Federal Building, but Landis escaped injury. Landis also jailed Congressman Victor Berger for allegedly obstructing the nation’s war preparations.

As the New York Times stated, Landis also became notable for “his wit and sarcasm – sometimes humorous and sometimes caustic – which he directs at prisoners and counsel.”

Baseball was a lifelong passion of Landis’. He played amateur and semi-pro ball in his hometown of Logansport, Indiana. The New York Times even claimed that Landis turned away offers to play professionally.

Landis worked and lived in Chicago, baseball’s #2-city and the hub of some of the crucial events in baseball history. For one, Chicagoan William Hulbert set out and helped created the National League in 1876 to offset the perennial National Association champion Boston club’s hold on the game. Secondly, the Chicago trio of Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey and Clark Griffith (with Charles Somers) were the driving force behind the American League’s rise in status in 1901. Landis would soon bring the administrative offices of the game to the Windy City.

THE ANSON CASE

July 15, 1908 Judge Landis sat on the bench overseeing the receivership of former Colts’ skipper Cap Anson’s billiard and bowling establishment. Mrs. Charles P. Taft, sister-in-law of presidential candidate William Taft, sued Anson alleging that he owed her $6,500 for rent on the premises. Additional creditors brought Anson’s debt at close to $20,000. Anson’s assets were only about $7-8,000 in the matter.

THE JOHNSON CASE

An occasional ballplayer and gate attraction, heavyweight champion Jack Johnson supposedly escaped out of the country posing as one of Rube Foster’s men. Landis set Johnson’s bail at $30,000 in November 1912.

FRANK CHANCE

Landis sat on the committee throwing a reception for former Cubs leader Frank Chance. The committee wished to honor him, now the Yankees’ manager, with a Frank Chance Day at White Sox Park on May 17, 1913, Chance’s first trip back to the city of his fame.

THE FEDERAL LEAGUE CASE

January 5, 1915 - In Chicago on the Federal League filed suit in U.S. court asking Judge Landis to declare illegal and void baseball’s National Commission and the National Agreement. Landis is chosen because of the national attention he received in the Sherman Antitrust case against Standard Oil.

The main claim was that MLB was operating as an illegal monopoly and wielding that power. The case was filed by the law firm of Myers & Gates, with Keene Addington as chief counsel, on behalf of the Federal League against the NL, AL, A.G. Herrmann, B.B. Johnson and J.K. Tenor, et al. The FL claims that MLB has under its purview all but 300 of the approximate 10,000 professional ballplayers in the country. Landis set a January 20 hearing date.

The FL was asking 11 points:
1-That the National Agreement be declared illegal
2-That the defendants be declared a monopoly
3-That the defendants have conspired against them
4-That all player contracts be declared null and void
5-That the defendants various actions now pending against players de dismissed
6-That the defendants be restrained from seeking injunctions, threats or promises to prevent other players from performing their contracts
7-Asks for preliminary injunctions against defendants
8&9-Ask for damages and relief for injuries done the FL by MLB
10&11-Ask that writs of injunction and subpoenas be issued.

January 6 – Landis issues summonses to the owners of all 16 ML clubs

January 11 – Among the FL filings are affidavits showing the callous actions within the National Agreement, that is, two players were traded for dogs. Miner Brown submitted one of the affidavits claiming that Joe Cantillon, manager of Minneapolis of the AA, traded a player for a bulldog. Brown also claims that Roger Bresnahan, while manager of the Cardinals, traded a pitcher named Hooper to Richard Kinsella, manager of the Springfield, Ill. Club of the Three-I League, for a bird dog. Joe Tinker also filed grievances.

January 12 – Red Dooin, sore at being fired as manager of the Phillies after 13 years of service to the club and being peddled to the Reds, sets out for Chicago to aid the FL with their case. Dooin feels that he should have his outright release from the club; the Phillies ultimately trade him on February 11 to Cincinnati.

January 20 – Hearing held. FL strenuously claims that the minor leagues and the players are oppressed by the monopolistic actions of MLB. Addington argued all day, giving particular attention to the waiver and draft rules and practices. Miner Brown claims that when Chicago president Murphy sold Brown to Louisville it was with the understanding that Brown never be allowed to pitch in the majors again. Even though Brown later pitched in the majors, Addington point was what could occur under the common practices of organized baseball. Landis was particularly interested in the Brown case and asked that it be retold.

January 23 – The FL closes it case and the AL and NL rebut. Landis makes a telling comment – as the New York Times puts it – “He characterized baseball as a national institution and warned both sides that it would not be well for anyone to strike a blow against it.” Additionally, Landis is quoted as saying (to a FL attorney), “Do you realize that a decision in this case may tear down the very foundations of the game, so loved by thousands, and do you realize that the decision might also seriously affect both parties?”

January 24 – Landis begins a long process of mulling the case over.

The New York Times later speculates that many within organized baseball hoped that Landis would find that the Sherman Anti-trust laws didn’t pertain to this case. Furthermore, Landis himself secretly hoped this but found the FL arguments compelling along these lines, causing him to repeatedly ask both parties to what end they felt the suit might lead to.

As this realization hit Landis here tired to chambers and sat on the case. Later, he actively pushed the sides to settle the case so that he wouldn’t be forced to rule on the matter. In the end, when the settlement occurred, Landis made statements along the lines that he considered the case a draw, finding weight in both arguments.

April 26 – The New York Times reports that Judge Landis held a conversation with his personal friend, Judge George Williams of St. Louis, asking him to intercede in securing a peace settlement between the parties. Williams then consulted with Phil Ball, owner of the St. Louis Federals and Browns owner Robert Hedges. Williams was currently and had been for a long time personal counsel to Hedges. Ball and Hedges both travel to Chicago. Perhaps this is the onset to the ultimate conclusion of Ball purchasing the Browns.

December – Peace agreement reached – Baltimore franchise left disgusted – Player dispensation will be a lengthy process. Ball is in negotiations to purchase on of the St. Louis franchises – either the Browns or Cardinals. Weeghman wants in as well. One driving impetus in December is that the FL announced plans to build a ballpark in New York.

January 20, 1916 – Weeghman purchases the Cubs from Charles Taft for $500,000.

February 7 – Landis formally dismisses the case against organized baseball.

UMPIRES

Landis with his new-found fame in the game gives a speech to the Chicago Association of Commerce on July 19, 1916. Always opinionated, Landis bemoans the umpires who “have too much power.” Continuing he says, “This one-man power stuff riles me. If I had their power it would intoxicate me.” - Amusing the hypocrisy of it – of both his legal and baseball career.

GAMBLING

Landis is at head of an anti sports gambling crusade in Chicago in October 1916.

FIRST MENTION

IN November 1916 Judge Landis is mentioned as a favorite of several ML magnates to head the National Commission if Herrmann should step down.

WORLD SERIES IN CHICAGO

The White Sox won the pennant in 1917. Landis can be found in the stands in October among the baseball brass. He is mentioned in the papers as one of baseball’s men of prominence, acknowledging his role in the FL affair. In fact, Landis is a huge baseball fan and can be found in the stands at many games.

COMISKEY PUSH

In a long running feud and in a continued attempt to either push Ban Johnson out or limit his authority, Charles Comiskey authorizes a complete investigation of the financial affairs of the AL on September 16, 1919. It is also expected that a special meeting of the AL and NL directors will soon be held to offer Landis the post of chairman of the National Commission. Ban Johnson is absent from all hearings. Yankees owner Col. Ruppert is present to drive all possible measures against Johnson.

The session is held and five potential successors are mention to replace Herrmann. Landis is the clear favorite of baseball men:
-Landis
-Big Bill Edwards, IRS collector
-John Conway Toole, counsel for the NY Giants
-Senator Walker, sponsor of the bill permitting Sunday baseball in NY
-Harvey Woodruff, Chicago sportswriter

Landis asked to be removed from the list on February 14, 1920. Later Chicago judge Charles McDonald is named as a candidate; however, this is disputed by NL president John Heydler.

GETS THE NOD

On November 12, 1920 Landis is appointed as a one-man commission to act as the sole arbiter in ML disputes. The following day Heydler meets with minor league officials to ensure their cooperation with baseball’s new administration. This strategic support virtually assures the acceptance of the reorganization plan.

Landis’ first official act is to call Herrmann to work out a transfer of league paperwork to Chicago, the game’s new administrative headquarters

[EdTarbusz]

We can lament this fact, but I find it unreasonable to expect a man from Landis' generation and upbringing to become a civil rights crusader years before the civil rights movement was a major force in America. We forget, baseball was one of the first major institutions to become integrated.

Landis was also a well known Progressive, and the Progressive's generally believed in seperate but equal.

[EdTarbusz]

Oh, let me see,...maybe because it was the moral and right thing to do? :o

Who exactly was it that would have thought that integration was the right and moral thing in Landis's lifetime? I doubt if there were many who have bought into it. Just because it's considered the right thing now doesn't mean it was considered the right thing then.

[EdTarbusz]

[
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Candidates for Commissioner:

1. Branch Rickey, 1881-1965
2. Connie Mack, 1862-1956
3. Taylor Spink, 1888-1962
4. Grantland Rice, 1880-1954
5. Francis Richter, 1854-1926
6. John B. Foster, 1863-1941
7. Sam Crane, 1854-1925
8. Louis Mencken, 1880-1956
9. Monte Ward, 1860-1925
10. Ferdinand C. Lane, 1885-1984
------------------------------------------------------------
1. When Judge Landis was appointed Commissioner for life, in November 12, 1920, ------------------------------------------------------------------

Landis was not appointed Commissioner for Life. He signed a series of contracts as Commissioner.

I'm surprised by a couple of your picks. Branch Rickey took the reserve clause as far as it could go with the development of the farm system. Mack and Spink opposed integrating the game.

[trosmok]

Judge Landis was very much a reflection of the era he lived in, but he was also arguably one of the most recognizable and influential Americans for a quarter century. As I posted at the bottom of page one of the original thread, he was the only successful US dictator in history. He was a self-styled "Progressive" who worked to control dissent and defend a vision of society in which the "better sort" of people managed the affairs of everyone else. I despise hypocrites, and he was among the worst because to his grave he continued to deny the fact that there was a color ban in baseball.

"Hypocrisy, the lie, is the true sister of evil, intolerance, and cruelty." ~Raisa Gorbachev

[Brian McKenna]

I'm not sure that I see Landis as a dictator. He was continually overrode on the bench and he often put into check by baseball men. He had many publicized and behind the scenes battles with strong baseball men and personalities. He didn't control the issues and he didn't run autocratically. Baseball owners were the ones who knew how to run the business and they did. They also granted Landis whatever power he had and he wasn't freely given a contract for life.

A dictator wouldn't have to put up with Ban Johnson for so long and have to appeal to AL execs to reign him in.

I can see from a player's perspective how Landis would seem to be a dictator. they had no power.

[Bill Burgess]

I am well-known as being a rather vocal critic of Commissioner Judge Ken Landis.

It occurs to me that I might broaden my criticisms. I should also like to criticize President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for not trying to craft legislation to attack the white wall of Hate - baseball's Color Ban.

Baseball was interstate commerce and was subject to legal sanction. If I knock Landis, how can I exempt Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, etc. I will not stay my keyboard, if I recognize things that deserved censure.

Does anyone have any information on Roosevelts stands on baseball segregation?

[EdTarbusz]

FDR take on baseball's color line? I have one word for that: ridiculous. I don't know what FDRs stand on cil rights was, but it would have been political suicide for him to even address it. His wifes attitudes toward civil rights was enough of a headache for him. FDR was trying to get New Deal legislation passed, trying to get the war effort started and governing in general and he needed the votes of the southern democrats. Even a whiff a civil rights talk and that support evaporates, The 1936 presidentail election could have become the same as the 1948. Civil rights was a leftist cause in the 1930s and support for it could have also cost FDR support of moderate Republicans, which he needed in his second and third terms.

This was an era when federal anti-lynching legislature couldn't be passed. What makes you think the color line would even have a chance to come down?

[Bill Burgess]

This was an era when federal anti-lynching legislature couldn't be passed. What makes you think the color line would even have a chance to come down?
I'm merely trying to be morally even-handed. If I hold Landis to a high standard, it would be hypocritical of me to not hold FDR to a similar standard.

FDR was supposed to be a left-of-center leader. He was not a centrist. So, why would civil rights appear like a Black Mamba to him. He did try to stack the Supreme Court, which itself is radical.

[EdTarbusz]

So, why would civil rights appear like a Black Mamba to him. .

Southern Democrats.

[Bill Burgess]

Southern Democrats.
Not an FDR scholar, but I thought he didn't back off of principle just to avoid a fight. Did I hear wrong?

[EdTarbusz]

Not an FDR scholar, but I thought he didn't back off of principle just to avoid a fight. Did I hear wrong?

FDR was a political realist. He couldn't afford to antagaonize his base, especially after the Supreme Court packing plan. Civil rights was never in FDRs sights.

[Bill Burgess]

FDR was a political realist. He couldn't afford to antagaonize his base, especially after the Supreme Court packing plan. Civil rights was never in FDRs sights.
Alright then. I'm not an historian, just a dabbler who reads obsessively. I'll defer to your more widely-read understanding. Thanks for taking the time to chat with me EdTarbusz! Good solid stuff. I stand corrected.

[EdTarbusz]

So Landis could have said we will integrate, alienated society, the owners and players and been out of the game in 5 years, and all the good he DID accomplish like keeping a creep like Branch Rickey in check in regards to keeping players down in the minors without any rights AT ALL (Rickey was a HORRIBLE person, yet is lionized because he signed Robinson, but in reality he wanted blacks because they were CHEAP)

I agree with you on this. I believe that if Landis had made some statement about wanting the integrate the game, that he he would have been fired by the owners. I also think that baseball would have taken a hit in the public eye by such a statement.

[Bill Burgess]

I just came across this quote in 'Encyclopedia of World Biography' Supplement, Vol. 22. Gale Group, 2002'.

Landis's obstinate views on race thwarted all attempts to integrate baseball under his watch. He repeatedly upheld the sport's unwritten ban against African American players. When the Pittsburgh Pirates sought to sign legendary Negro League star Josh Gibson to a contract in 1943, Landis stopped them. "The colored ballplayers have their own league," he said. "Let them stay in their own league." Owner Bill Veeck claimed Landis prevented him from buying the Philadelphia Phillies because Veeck had told him he planned to integrate the team, but some historians doubt Veeck's account.

I also just came across this quote from 'The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives Thematic Series': Sport Figures. "Kenesaw Landis," Updated: 01/01/2002.

Although Landis did much good by restoring public confidence in professional baseball and should be forgiven for grandstanding and enjoying being commissioner of baseball, he had a dark side. He was often arbitrary, and his decisions did not always make sense. Worse, he was racist. In 1942 he said to a reporter for the New York Daily Worker, "There is no rule, formal or informal, against the hiring of Negro players." In 1943 he declared to Paul Robeson at the annual meeting of Major League team owners, "There is no rule, formal or informal, or any understanding—unwritten, subterranean or sub-anything—against the hiring of Negro players by the teams of organized baseball. Negroes are not barred from organized baseball—never have been in the twenty-one years I have served." In both instances, he lied. In private, he had vowed from the start that African Americans would not be allowed to play in the major leagues while he was in charge.

Efforts by New York Giants manager John McGraw to play African Americans were squelched. In 1935, when Clark Griffith tried to sign Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson to his Washington Senators, he was threatened with financial ruin by other club owners, a majority of whom had throughout Landis's service opposed allowing African Americans into their leagues. In 1940 eccentric baseball man Bill Veeck led a group of investors that tried to buy the Philadelphia Phillies; when word got out that he would include African Americans on his club, Veeck's offer was discarded in favor of a lesser one from William D. Cox (whom Landis later banned from baseball for gambling). Veeck blamed Landis's prejudice against African Americans for his group's failure to buy the Phillies.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bill,

From the what I understand the story about Veeck wanting to buy the Phillies and sign Negro Leaguers is bogus.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill,

From the what I understand the story about Veeck wanting to buy the Phillies and sign Negro Leaguers is bogus.
Maybe so, but that is only part of the charges.

[Brian McKenna]

I'm not a Landis fan but those charges posted in Post #128 are inflamatory and for the most part baseless.

Where are the specifics backing all this up? McGraw, Griffith, Veeck. Don't see anything rooted in solid facts and these topics have been researched quite a bit.

[Bill Burgess]

Yes, I understand this, Brian. Today, most anything and everything related to race is inflammatory. I understand this. I get it.

But just because these accusations are inflammatory, doesn't automatically make them false. But I also get that the accuser has the burden to prove his accusations are true and not just their opinion.

The strongest circumstantial 'evidence' is that so soon after the Judge died, MLB integrated.

August 28, 1945 - 11 months after Landis died, Branch Rickey meets with Robinson for the 1st time, outlining his master plan.

That short time period is somewhat suspicious to my mind. It seems to me that Rickey must have had that plan in his mind for some time, but felt he had to wait until Landis was out of the picture before he dared to make his move.

But I agree that that does not 'prove' the accusations that Judge Landis blocked off Griffith/Rickey/McGraw from hiring black ballplayers.

[Beady]

Sorry if I've missed something in the last 120 plus posts, but is there actually anything to suggest that Landis prevented McGraw from integrating his team? The only relevant incident I am aware of is McGraw's attempt not really to integrate, but to sneak Charlie Grant in disguise onto his Baltimore team, and that occurred nearly two decades before Landis became commissioner.

And likewise, is there any evidence Griffith was serious about integrating the Senators? My understanding is that rental fees from the Homestead Grays were an important part of his revenue stream, and he therefore had some reason to say nice things and stay on the good side of black fans, but a serious attempt to sign black players would have undermined the Grays and his relationship with them. I don't know the subject particularly well, though.

[Brian McKenna]

Bill,

I'm not saying Landis didn't play a heavy hand in the matter. I'm pretty sure he did. And you're right the fact that the league was integrated soon after his death is telling. The problem (and its not a huge problem because everyone knows of his slew of biases) is the lack of direct, specific evidence.

The McGraw and Griffith accounts are suspect. McGraw tried to integrate in 1901, even if it was partly to tick off Ban Johnson (BTW - Griffith was the man that actually hit balls and pitched to Grant during the tryout). Anything specific later that McGraw did hasn't come to light outside his banter which is suspect.

Griffith - one of the few that derived his income solely from baseball - had a big $ incentive to keep the Grays strong and profitable. He indeed attended many Negro league games (probably more than everyone else combined save one guy in Pittsburg - can't think of his name - starts with a B) and chatted often with Negro league players and executives. But did he make a concerted effort to sign any Grays - don't think so.

There is some basis for Veeck's accusation as we've discussed before. I hope more comes to light in this matter.

[Beady]

People like to have a single visible scapegoat for unpleasant things. Whatever the actual truth of Griffith's intentions may have been, the Scribner piece puts the blame on Landis for holding Griffith back, even though it the explicit actions that supposedly restrained him are attributed to the other major league owners, not Landis. Landis seems to be made to bear the entire onus for any action taken anywhere in his vicinity. He was alive during the 1880's, and it's a wonder he isn't taken to task for allowing Cap Anson to draw the color line then.

In the Grant incident, by the way, McGraw was really not attempting to integrate the league, simply trying to sneak Charlie Grant onto his team by having him pass as a native American. He made no effort to set a precedent that could be followed by anybody who wanted to sign black players.

[Bill Burgess]

As everyone knows by now, I am not a particular fan of the Judge. Maybe I am off-base here, but the integration issue cuts deeper for me than a lot of other Fever members here.

Even if Judge Landis did no specific act to block the integration of baseball, is that really enough? As a Commissioner of such unbridled authority, did one in his unique position not have more of an obligation to help push the progressive cause than an individual owner? I think he did.

Everyone give the Judge a pass for various reasons. Some cite that he was brought on-board to clean up the gambling plague. And this he did with admirable alacrity, because he he had the full support of the owners in the gambling mess.

But by the late 30's, the gambling mess was far behind him and he took on the anti-farm system crusade. He did this without the support of the owners, just because he felt morally invested in that particular issue.

So, if he could take on a crusade arbitrarily, why not the segregation issue?

I hold him accountable for his lack of initiative. He made a Big Deal that he did what he did 'for the good of the game'.

He justified himself by an arbitrary standard of 'rightness'. That is his self-evident standard of conduct. I am not putting words into his mouth.

As far as I'm concerned, and I doubt I will ever change my mind on this, Judge Landis had a moral obligation, a moral imperative, to do something, anything, to end the White Wall of Hate.

SO MUCH was riding on it. It was the linchpin which held the over-all racist wall together. Once baseball was breached, hotels came next. Restaurants came next.

Baseball integration was so important that to brush it aside with clichés is not sufficient.

I realize that a lot of members are fed up with my moralistic soap boxes, but look how much good has come about largely due to baseball integration? The issue was just so absolutely HUGE. It was GI-Normous!

[Paul Wendt]

SO MUCH was riding on it. It was the linchpin which held the over-all racist wall together. Once baseball was breached, hotels came next. Restaurants came next.

Baseball integration was so important that to brush it aside with clichés is not sufficient.
It was small potatoes
It didn't amount to a hill of beans.

[Bill Burgess]

It was small potatoes
It didn't amount to a hill of beans.
Thank goodness I can tell well-intentioned humor when I see it. Good one. You had me for a blink.

[yanks0714]

Laying the blame for segregated baseball right at the feet of KML is going a bit far. He has to take some of the blame but it has to be shared by the owners as well.

McGraw tried to sneak one player in. Veeck's assertion about buying and integrating the Phillies is patently false. Griffith had a good reason to keep the Negro Leagues intact because they brought in revenue to him by using Griffith Stadium.

The timing of the Jackie Robinson signing may just be coincidental. It was well past time but I'm not sure KML's death was the 'trigger' ending the racial ban in baseball. Rickey was always looking for ways to improve his club. The steps he took in signing Robinson were simply another step.

I think that WWII, with Negro service, had an effect of lessening predjudice to some extent. Overall, more whites were coming to terms with acceptance of the Negro.

[Beady]

David Pietrusza published a large biography of Landis several years ago that I remember as thoroughly researched and even-handed. I cannot remember what he wrote on this subject.

[EdTarbusz]

(probably more than everyone else combined save one guy in Pittsburg - can't think of his name - starts with a B) .

Benswanger?

[Bill Burgess]

Here is what Charles C. Alexander wrote in 'Our Game' which came out in 1991.

"By the early forties, every honest baseball man recognized that the Negro leagues offered a cornucopia of gifted ballplayers, and a couple of white big-league clubs actually staged meaningless tryouts for selected black players. But when Leo Durocher remarked that he'd seen "a million good colored players" and would have them on his team "if they weren't barred by the owners," commissioner Landis privately warned Durocher to keep his mouth shut on that subject.

Publicly, Landis continued to insist that nothing kept National or American League owners from signing blacks."

[Brian McKenna]

In the Grant incident, by the way, McGraw was really not attempting to integrate the league, simply trying to sneak Charlie Grant onto his team by having him pass as a native American. He made no effort to set a precedent that could be followed by anybody who wanted to sign black players.

I'll make the point though that McGraw kept trying to add Grant to his roster long after he was proven to be the African-American Charlie Grant.

[Beady]

I have reread David Pietrusza's excellent Landis biography, which contains a chapter on Landis and the integration issue. Pietrusza's view is that Landis may well have disliked the idea of integrating the major leagues but that he had little or no responsibility for baseball segregation. He points out that in its first tellings, Bill Veeck's story put most of the onus on NL president Ford Frick, and only later did Veeck start to shift the blame to Landis.

What's particularly interesting is a statement Landis made after Leo Durocher was quoted in 1942 as saying black players were fully able to compete in he major leagues but were kept out by a "grapevine understanding or subterranean rule." After a meeting with Landis in Chicago, Durocher claimed he had been misquoted, and Landis himself issued the following statement:

"Certain managers in organized baseball have been quoted as saying the reason Negroes are not playing organized baseball is [that the] commissioner would not permit them to do so. Negroes are not barred from organized baseball by the commissioner and never have been in the 21 years I have served. There is no rule in organized baseball prohibiting their participation and never has been to my knowledge. If Durocher, or any manager, or all of them, want to sign one, or twenty-five, Negro players, it is all right with me. That is the business of the managers and the club owners. The business of the commissioner is ot interpret hte rules of baseball and enforce them."

He subsequently gave a rather farcical interview to the Daily Worker, of all papers, in which he essentially refused comment about the lack of black players except to say it was the owners' responsibility, not his. Bill Benswanger of the Pirates then went farther, saying there was neither a written or unwritten rule barring blacks and went too far, getting himself far out enough on a limb that he wound up having to back out of reports that said he was going to give tryouts to several black players. Meanwhile, Larry McPhail -- Durocher's boss -- stated forthrightly that there was an unwritten rule and he firmly believed it should be maintained.

Of course, the statement I have quoted above does not mean that Landis was urging the clubs to hire black players. Nor do I think it can be taken either as an affirmation or a denial of an unwritten rule barring them. I don't believe Landis was interested at all in the status of the unwritten rule. What he wanted to say was simply that his job was to enforce the written rules, not unwritten ones; that no written rule barred black players; that he would not take any step to interfere with any club that wishes to hire them; that in general each club management had discretion over the makeup of its team roster; and that if the clubs persisted in an increasingly controversial policy, it was their responsibility, not his.

That seems a reasonable, if not especially heroic point of view, and yet somehow a stand-in-the-doorway segregationist like McPhail gets off scot free today while Landis takes all the heat. It seems to me he committed himself very explicitly by his 1942 statement to accept black players if anybody tried to sign them, and I would guess he would have carried through on his promise, whatever his personal views, if he had been put to the test.

[Paul Wendt]

Of course, the statement I have quoted above does not mean that Landis was urging the clubs to hire black players. Nor do I think it can be taken either as an affirmation or a denial of an unwritten rule barring them. I don't believe Landis was interested at all in the status of the unwritten rule. What he wanted to say was simply that his job was to enforce the written rules, not unwritten ones; that no written rule barred black players; that he would not take any step to interfere with any club that wishes to hire them; that in general each club management had discretion over the makeup of its team roster; and that if the clubs persisted in an increasingly controversial policy, it was their responsibility, not his.
This interpretation seems right to me.

[ol' aches and pains]

Jeez, after reading through some of this thread, I get the impression Landis was the hero and Branch Rickey the villian in the baseball integration saga.

In his book "Baseball's Great Experiment", Jules Tygiel, whom I consider an authority on the subject, says:

While denying the existence of a color line in baseball, Landis carefully guarded his personal opinions on the race issue. Most contemporaries agreed, however, that he adamantly opposed desegregation... During the mid-1930's, according to then National Leauge President Ford Frick, Landis short-circuited a suggestion by several owners to debate the issue in closed session, ruling that the topic had not properly been placed on the agenda. In 1942 when Brooklyn Dodger Manager Leo Durocher stated that he would sign black players if allowed to, Landis publicly proclaimed, "Negroes are not barred from organized baseball...and never have been in the 21 years I have served." The following year, after black leaders addressed a Major League meeting, Landis quickly stifled any discussion of their proposals. "The gentlemen asked for an opportunity to address the joint meeting. They were given the opportunity", he told a dissident owner. "What's next on the agenda?"

The story of Bill Veeck's attempt to purchase the Phillies and stock them with black players, and how he was thwarted, presumably by Landis, after meeting personally with Landis and being given the impression he had the permission of the Commissioner's office, is told in Veeck's autobiography "Veeck as in Wreck". I never saw or heard anything disputing this until this thread.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the first black player was signed in 1945, after Landis died, and Chandler was the Commisioner.

[EdTarbusz]

He was a self-styled "Progressive" who worked to control dissent and defend a vision of society in which the "better sort" of people managed the affairs of everyone else.

This was not an uncommon line of thought among Progressives.. There was also very little inclination among Progressives in regards to integration. Progressives tended to favor the seperate in seperate but equal.

[EdTarbusz]

Was there any owner in the whole bunch who would deny the quality of this talent pool, even the crackerheads? Don't think so. .

Until 1945 every owner denied the quality of this talent pool. I believe that it's impossible to determine how much influence had in the games segrgation policies, because there was no serious move to integrate the game during his tenure.

[EdTarbusz]

It was the St. Louis Cardinals that led the anti-Robinson movement in 1947. The movement, a threatened player's strike, was led by the Southern cabal on that team, led by Terry Moore, Enos Slaughter, and Marty Marion. Consider Landis's posture for years, and contrast it with Ford Frick's posture to the Cardinal Southern Cabal:



A little force, and the racists folded.

That's all it would have taken for Landis to integrate baseball later in his term, if the truth be known. The racists hated blacks, but they weren't willing to give up their cushy jobs playing ball to walk their talk.

Eig's Opening Day stated that there is evidence that Frick's alledged reaction to the Cardinals alledged strike was made up by a New York reporter.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83173

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The story of Bill Veeck's attempt to purchase the Phillies and stock them with black players, and how he was thwarted, presumably by Landis, after meeting personally with Landis and being given the impression he had the permission of the Commissioner's office, is told in Veeck's autobiography "Veeck as in Wreck". I never saw or heard anything disputing this until this thread.

Here is a 12 page report that refutes the entire story of Veeck wanting to buy the Phillies in 1943.

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Bill_Veeck_and_the_1943_sale_of_the_Phillies.pdf

[Beady]

Jeez, after reading through some of this thread, I get the impression Landis was the hero and Branch Rickey the villian in the baseball integration saga.

In his book "Baseball's Great Experiment", Jules Tygiel, whom I consider an authority on the subject, says:

While denying the existence of a color line in baseball, Landis carefully guarded his personal opinions on the race issue. Most contemporaries agreed, however, that he adamantly opposed desegregation... During the mid-1930's, according to then National Leauge President Ford Frick, Landis short-circuited a suggestion by several owners to debate the issue in closed session, ruling that the topic had not properly been placed on the agenda. In 1942 when Brooklyn Dodger Manager Leo Durocher stated that he would sign black players if allowed to, Landis publicly proclaimed, "Negroes are not barred from organized baseball...and never have been in the 21 years I have served." The following year, after black leaders addressed a Major League meeting, Landis quickly stifled any discussion of their proposals. "The gentlemen asked for an opportunity to address the joint meeting. They were given the opportunity", he told a dissident owner. "What's next on the agenda?"

The story of Bill Veeck's attempt to purchase the Phillies and stock them with black players, and how he was thwarted, presumably by Landis, after meeting personally with Landis and being given the impression he had the permission of the Commissioner's office, is told in Veeck's autobiography "Veeck as in Wreck". I never saw or heard anything disputing this until this thread.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the first black player was signed in 1945, after Landis died, and Chandler was the Commisioner.

I've argued that in 1942 Landis was not denying the existence of an unwritten rule barring black players, he was simply going on record as saying he was not going to be the one to be saddled with the increasingly unwelcome burden of enforcing it. I would be interested in knowing who the "dissident owner" was in the later meeting. Pietrusza has the Landis quote, but he says the only owner known to have second thoughts was Rickey, and he kept his peace.

It's true that baseball was not integrated until after Landis' death. In fact, with few exceptions most clubs were not integrated until quite a while later. I really have not followed the Veeck debate at all and don't know how to evaluate the arguments, but even if we assume that Landis did act to keep Veeck out, it' remains a pure leap of faith to assume he did it because of Veeck's plan to integrate the the Phillies. There were always a lot of people who had a lot of reasons to keep Bill Veeck out of the major leagues.

As for heroes and villains, I don't know why every story needs one of each. I've explicitly described Landis' conduct as "not especially heroic," and I don't think anybody else has said anything that would imply it was otherwise. As for Rickey, I'm a great admirer of his, but he was a canny manipulator who makes a rather ambiguous trickster hero, although he was obviously unambiguously on the side of the angels on the integration issue.

[Brian McKenna]

Here is a 12 page report that refutes the entire story of Veeck wanting to buy the Phillies in 1943.

http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Bill_Veeck_and_the_1943_sale_of_the_Phillies.pdf

I believe SABR in one of their subsequent publications, posed a different point of view to this article - bringing new evidence to light and countering and even refuting much of the myth piece.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I believe SABR in one of their subsequent publications, posed a different point of view to this article - bringing new evidence to light and countering and even refuting much of the myth piece.

Oh, I'd like to read that article. Would you have a link?

[Beady]

I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sure it's "Revisiting Bill Veeck and the 1943 Phillies," Baseball Research Journal 35 (2007), pages 109 and following.

[Beady]

From Bill Veeck, "Veeck as in Wreck," pages 171-72. Farther down page 172 he says his primary backer would have been the Congress of Industrial Organizations, presumably because they were interested in promoting racial integration. Interesting to note that, amid all the speculation and hearsay about people's motives here, Veeck says nothing whatsoever about what club owners and organized baseball officialdom might have thought about the possibility of admitting a radical labor organization into their number.

"I made one bad mistake. Out of my long respect for Judge Landis I felt he was entitle to prior notification of what I inteded to do. I was aware of the risk I was taking, although, to be honest, I could not see how he could stop me. The color line was a 'gentleman's agreement' only. The only way the Commissioner could bar me from using Negroes would be to rule, officially and publicly that they were 'detrimental to baseball.' With Negroes fighting in the war, such a rule was unthinkable.

"Judge Landis wasn't exactly shocked but he wasn't exactly overjoyed either. His first reaction, in fact, was that I was kidding him.

"The nxt thing I knew I was informed that Nugent, being in bankruptcy, had turned the team back to the league and that I would therefore have to deal with the National League president, Ford Frick. Frick promptly informed me that he club had already been sold to William Cox, a lumber dealer, and that my agreement with Nugent was worthless. The Phillies were sold to Cox by Frick for about half what I had been willing to pay.

"Word soon reached me that Frick was bragging all over the baseball world -- strictly off the record, of course -- about how he had stopped me from contaminating the league."