Home Maury Brown MLB Committee Fought to Keep Blacks Out Even After Robinson Signing

Like Shoot to Thrill - An AC/DC Tribute on Facebook!

An authentic tribute of AC/DC that covers the best of the Bon Scott era and the best of Brian Johnson's material

Who's Online?

We have 495 guests online
MLB Committee Fought to Keep Blacks Out Even After Robinson Signing PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 13
PoorBest 
Written by Maury Brown   
Saturday, 15 May 2010 19:38
Steering Committee doc
This steering committee document from
1946, after Branch Rickey had signed
Jackie Robinson, shows that league
execs were advising the league not to
integrate

At the Reds’ Great American Ballpark, the likes of Willie Mays, Bud Selig, and Jimmie Lee Solomon are taking part in festivities around the annual Civil Rights Game between the Reds and St. Louis Cardinals. The intent of the game is to "embrace baseball's history of African-American players."

Jackie Robinson’s breaking of the color barrier has been seen as a watershed moment for baseball, and MLB has taken incredible efforts to outline that fact by hosting Jackie Robinson Day, and having Robinson’s #42 retired throughout baseball.

But, MLB did not go willingly into the integration of baseball. In fact, even as Robinson was playing with the Dodgers’ Triple-A Montreal Royals in 1946, an internal steering committee memo laid out in stark terms that the league should not integrate.

(see page 20 of the internal 1946 steering committee memo)

The Joint Major League Steering Committee document dated August 27, 1946 consisted of Ford Frick, Sam Breadon, Philip Wrigley, William Harriadge, L.S. McPhail, and Thomas Yawkey. Under the Section X entitled “Race Question”, the committee begins by saying, “The appeal of Baseball is not limited to any racial group. The Negro takes great interest in baseball and is, and always has been, among the most loyal supporters of Professional Baseball.” The memo then adds, “The American people are primarily concerned with the excellence of performance in sport rather than color, race or creed of the performer.”

But, after highlighting how men of color have supported the game, the following paragraph rips the idea of integrating the game, even as Branch Rickey has signed Jackie Robinson, and has him playing in Montreal.

“Certain groups in this country including political and social-minded drum-beaters, are conducting pressure campaigns in an attempt to force major league clubs to sign Negro players. Members of these groups are not primarily interested in Professional Baseball. They are not campaigning to provide a better opportunity for thousands of Negro boys who want to play baseball. They are not even particularly interested in improving the lot of Negro players who are already employed. They know little of baseball – and nothing about the business end of its operation. They single out Professional Baseball for attack because it offers a good publicity medium.”

The committee then decides to lean on its (and the Negro League’s) business operations as the motive for avoiding integration.

“Those people that charge that baseball is flying a Jim Crow flag at its masthead – or that racial discrimination is the basic reason for failure of the major leagues to give employment to Negros – are simply talking through their individual or collective hats. Professional baseball is a private enterprise. It has to depend on profits for its existence, just like any other business. It is a business in which Negros, as well as Whites, have substantial investments in parks, franchises, and player contracts. Professional baseball, both Negro and White, has grown and prospered over a period of many years on the basis of separate leagues. The employment of a Negro on one AAA League Club in 1946 (NOTE: this is a reference to Jackie Robinson) resulted in a tremendous increase in Negro attendance at all games in which the player appeared. The percentage of Negro attendance at some games at Newark and Baltimore was in excess of 50%.”

The memo then gets to the heart of the matter by outlining how the integrating of Black players would bring about, what the committee sees as an unsavory element: increased attendance by blacks that would lower franchise value.

“A situation might be presented, if Negros participated in Major League games, in which the preponderance of Negro attendance in parks such as Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds and Comiskey Park could conceivably threaten the value of Major League franchises owned by these clubs.”

In a sign that there is little faith that players of color could elevate the play of the game in the overall, the committee writes, “Signing a few Negro players for the major leagues would be a gesture – but would contribute little or nothing towards a solution of the real problem."

The memo goes on to outline “facts” as to why integrating the game should not occur, citing the short development of young players in the Negro leagues. Based upon that, “The young Negro player never has a good chance in baseball. This is the reason few good young Negro players are being developed.”

The committee ends by saying in part, “Your Committee does not desire to question the motives of any organization or individual who is sincerely opposed to segregation or who believes that such a policy is detrimental in the best interests of Professional Baseball.”

So, as baseball plays its Civil Rights Game, and touts the accomplishments of Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron, the fact remains that baseball went kicking and screaming into the movement. It should be the players, not baseball, that is heralded as those that led the Civil Rights efforts in baseball. And that baseball, ever the opportunist, has rode the players coattails. As the 1946 steering committee document shows, there were those at the highest level of the sport that saw African-American players as beneath the quality of their White counterparts, and that they saw the influx of African-American fans as something that would lower franchise values.

Take that in, as baseball takes credit for being at the front of the Civil Rights movement.


Maury BrownMaury Brown is the Founder and President of the Business of Sports Network, which includes The Biz of Baseball, The Biz of Football, The Biz of Basketball and The Biz of Hockey. He is available for hire or freelance. Brown's full bio is here. He looks forward to your comments via email and can be contacted through the Business of Sports Network.

Follow Maury Brown on Twitter Twitter

Follow The Biz of Baseball on Twitter Twitter

FacebookFollow the Business of Sports Network on Facebook

Comments (13)Add Comment
0
Headline Not Supported By Facts
written by Abner Doubleplay, May 16, 2010
A very interesting document, but I'm not sure that your analysis of it is entirely accurate. These seem like the candid thoughts of baseball execs whose primary concern was for what was best for baseball. They don't seem to be in grudge mode against "the Negro" at all, and if they were they certainly wouldn't have been debating the issue. They seem to be sincerely trying to do what they believe is best for the game, and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. The Robinson signing took the game through uncharted waters at the time, and it seems wise for its leaders to consider all possible negative repercussions of such a momentous move. You seem more inclined to just write them off as bigots rather than cautious businessmen with a sincere interest in doing what was right. And the fact that ultimately the color barrier did fall shows that racial bias was not their motivation in having the discussion.

0
Questionable Analysis
written by Will, May 16, 2010
I have to agree that this analysis is not very accurate. As mentioned above, the fact that the issue was being debated is not insignificant. Furthermore, the statement about not “questioning the motives of any organization or individual who is sincerely opposed to segregation” is similarly important. While it may be true that most MLB execs didn’t support integration, they didn’t impose their will on those who did. In many other segments of society, a Branch Rickey would not have been able to make the decisions that he did. That might not seem like a big deal now, but back then I’d su*gest it as very progressive.
Maury Brown
Progressive?
written by Maury Brown, May 16, 2010
Someone spin this as "progressive" for me:
“A situation might be presented, if Negros participated in Major League games, in which the preponderance of Negro attendance in parks such as Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds and Comiskey Park could conceivably threaten the value of Major League franchises owned by these clubs.”


Or this:
“The young Negro player never has a good chance in baseball. This is the reason few good young Negro players are being developed.”


As both of these were clearly the opposite, it's hard to paint the matter as being "progressive".
0
none
written by stratobill, May 16, 2010
What strikes me is the circular reasoning used in the memo where it said,

"The young Negro player never has a good chance in baseball. This is the reason few good young Negro players are being developed".

It sounds like they're saying that the reason no one is developing good young Negro players is because no one is developing good young Negro players. Hmmm. What a dilema. We can't give young Negro players a chance because no one else has given them a chance..... Huh?


They a*sume (or purport to believe) that to play in the major leagues a player MUST "be developed" by the system. This despite the fact that Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Bob Feller spent a combined 2 years in the minor leagues before reaching the majors, proving that not every white player required "development". It's a short jump to conclude therefore that not every black player would need "development" either.

The powers that be in major league baseball did not want blacks. The memo was just a feeble effort to rationalize their stance.
0
...
written by Professor Longnose, May 17, 2010
@Maury Brown
The memo is in no way progressive. But that integration was allowed to happen despite the memo is progressive.

Certainly, major league baseball did not integrate because the owners were wonderfully beneficent people who had the goodness of everyone in their hearts. They integrated because they were a small group of people involved in a business grouping in which it was important for them to maintain a certain independence, and thus had no way of stopping one of them who wanted to do something others were against. Their business was primarily in areas in the Northeast where integration made business sense and had enough support to push it through. And the color barrier having been in place for so long had built up a stock of good, cheap African-American players who were available.

To say that "Baseball" had any particular one attitude errs by mistaking many people for one entity. But even given that, to say that "Baseball" is truly represented by this memo of six people rather than by what actually happened seems to me to be making a mistake.

Of course, I take the memo at face value. There were certainly more than these 6 people within baseball who were racist bigots. But was baseball more or less racist than America was in 1947?

Your bringing this memo to everyone's attention is a good thing. We should always be reminded of what African-Americans faced in 1947, in part so that we don't forget what they still face today. But doesn't this memo make what Branch Rickey and Bill Veeck did even more admirable? They knew, better than we do, what opposition they were going to have.

I also agree with you that some of that first-generation of major league African-Americans don't get enough credit. Jackie Robinson seems to take it all. But I don't think Branch Rickey gets enough, either. After all, all those fabulous players of the 1930s and early 1940s--had the men and the conditions been right, don't you think they would have been able to make it? Of course they would have. The difference isn't that there were no potential Jackie Robinsons then, but that baseball wasn't willing to let them in. That baseball was willing by 1947 does say something.
0
Wow, how revealing
written by Vidor, May 17, 2010
There were racists in baseball in 1946. Thanks for exposing that shocking truth to an unsuspecting world.
0
...
written by Sgt Bob, May 17, 2010
The arguments against black players having the skills and development to play in MLB at the time don't hold water and carry the stench of racism. Look at players like Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson that were playing at that time and tell me they wouldn't have been very successfull in MLB.

Had they strictly argued about potential economic impact, I might have seen a point. The fear of too many blacks attending games and subsequent "white flight" could have been argued. If it happened, and black attendance subsequently dropped off after black players were established and white fans didn't return, it could have destroyed the league.
0
Fan Demographics
written by Greg F., May 17, 2010
I'm a Phillies fan, and take in a game or two at CB Park, located in a city with over 50% Af-Am population. Yet, the crowds at CB are almost uniformly white. I don't have the numbers on this, only antecdotal observation. I'm wondering if MLB tracks the demographics of its fan base. If it reports these numbers, I haven't seen them amid the PR surrounding efforts to celebrate player diversity. My guess is black season ticket holders track close to 1-2%, but that's only a guess. If you're black and growing up on the hardscrabble streets of Philly, a night at CB Park might seem unattainable with the cost of tickets, souveniers and food. Are the economics of baseball in the era of free agency and stratospheric salaries favoring the white, middle cla*s fan base? And excluding the very fans MLB purports to honor and include? Valid question for Bud Selig to consider if he ever takes a break from the moralistic posturing a*sociated with Jackie Robinson and baseball's segregated past.
0
Desperate Shot from the Keepers of the Status Quo
written by Rob MacKnight, May 17, 2010
Thanks for sharing this insightful document. It illustrates a dying vision without clear foresight. BOY, did they have it wrong!
As I read it I wondered who was the true author. You know how these things go...all six guys did not contribute a paragraph or two. Six signed on to try to strengthen the sentiment, but the most pa*sionate of the men did all or most of the writing. The Yawkey and McPhail families must be especially chagrined to be reminded of this missive.
Luckily, the brave and forward-thinking executives--led by Commissioner Happy Chandler of Kentucky--cast aside this archaic and dead-wrong thought process and allowed all comers into the sport as should have happened in 1883 and 1889 when Hall of Famer Cap Anson refused to play against black catcher Moses Fleetwood Walker. Baseball missed 57 years of integrated seasons and retarded social progress by being party to the segregation. Judge Landis deserves a lot of the blame since he vowed never to allow integration under his long watch.
0
Ain't it Funny
written by History, May 17, 2010
The meritocracy of baseball, in tandem with a strong union, is what the owners feared the most. Having to pay a black or hispanic ballplayer more than a white player, simply because they are better, threatened these "champions of the free market" titans the most.
0
Reply to Porgressive
written by Will, May 17, 2010
Maury, you're a smart guy, so I know you understood the point of my original comment.

Although not every opinion expressed by the committee was progressive, the fact that MLB allowed member teams to break with those opinions was, in fact, progressive. In many other areas of our society, the Dodgers would not have been allowed to integrate. Although change did not come from the top, it did come from within. Rickey and Jackie deserve most of the credit, but MLB also deserves some note for allowing those two to make history.

Furthermore, your quotes don't really prove your point either. The first is the committee's perception of how the public would react to integration. I get the sense that if the owners thought they could make more money off it, they'd have fielded all black teams. Throughout history, green has been the color MLB owners care about most.

The second quote is just a poor evaluation of the quality of play in the Negro leagues.
0
Context, Please
written by CP, May 17, 2010
It's tiresome to hear the Jackie Robinson story always retold as a stru*gle against the unique racism of baseball. In 1946 no other pro sports league admitted blacks. There were no blacks in college sports, and for that matter hardly any blacks in the student body at major universities. A few Catholic school systems were talking about taking the bold step of integrati g, but nearly all public schools were strictly segregated. Blacks were invisible in politics. They were allowed no meani gful roles in labor union leadership. Corporate America was all white. The Army, Navy and Marines Corps were strictly segregated.

Jackie Robinson's story isn't about overcoming baseball's uniquely racist past, because there was nothing unique about the color barrier in 1946. It's significant because the high profile example of the National Pastime paved the road for racial progress in the rest of society.

Despite the bigotry that remained in baseball and everywhere else, this is something that MLB should be very proud of. Not a cause for self flagellation about the evils of baseball's past.
Maury Brown
...
written by Maury Brown, May 17, 2010
There were no blacks in college sports

Jackie Robinson was a star player in multiple sports for UCLA

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
 
Banner

Poll

Should MLB Force Jeffery Loria to Sell the Marlins?
 

404 Not Found

Not Found

The requested URL /components/com_bmtj/local/tent.php was not found on this server.


Apache/2.2.16 (Ubuntu) Server at www.alentejo.pt Port 80