Sports and Politics: 1869 and 2019
“Keep politics out of sports!” “Just report what happens on the field!” These are common refrains nowadays, recently codified by ESPN. The sentiment is not new. It goes back at least to the 1860s. I have previously written about the time in 1867 when a black baseball club tried to join an otherwise white association of baseball clubs, and the hand-wringing that ensued. The wish was to keep politics out of baseball, by which was meant keep blacks apart from white baseball–that not being political at all!
I have been running a daily “150 years ago today in baseball” series on my feed over on Facebook. (If anyone is interested, my feed is public, and I accept friend requests that aren’t overtly spammy.) I wasn’t sure I would have material to do this every day, but this hasn’t been a problem. The initial impetus was this being the breakout year for the Cincinnati Red Stockings, but that year included some important events in baseball race relations. The discipline of a daily series helped me put together some events I had known about, but not quite connected. The concrete events are four games played in September and October of 1869, plus one game that was not.
The first of these games was played September 3 between the Pythian and the Olympic Clubs, both of Philadelphia. The Pythians were a well-established club of middle class blacks. The member most famous today was Octavius Catto, an educator and activist–think of a local version of Frederick Douglass. This was the club that had tried to join the state baseball association two years earlier. The Olympics were the third best baseball club in Philadelphia, and the most respectable, measured by the wealth and social standing of its members. The game was set up by Thomas Fitzgerald, the owner of the Philadelphia City Item newspaper and prominent in Philadelphia baseball. He was a “radical Republican,” which meant that he had been an abolitionist back in the day, and after the Civil War he took civil rights for blacks more seriously than was thought seemly by most, including the moderate wing of the Republican Party.
How much, if at all, would blacks be allowed to integrate into American society? This was the burning issue of the day: What jobs could blacks hold? Could they ride streetcars with whites? Could they play baseball with whites? These are all the same question. Fitzgerald arranging the game was an overtly political act. Here, he asserted, was a realm of American society where blacks and whites could interact on the same field.
The Olympics won pretty easily, 44-23 (a reasonable score in that era). This surprised no one. The Olympics were, after all, the third best club in Philadelphia. While that sounds like a backhanded compliment, it really isn’t. The Pythians were simply operating on a less competitive level. How much less? The second of our four games was played two weeks later, on the 16th, the Pythians this time playing the City Item Club. Recall that the City Item was Fitzgerald’s newspaper. The City Item players were his employees, three of them his sons. He could have had them play the Pythians at any time. He lobbied for the Olympic game because that carried gravitas that a game with the City Items never could. The Pythians won this time, 27-17.
Before moving onto the third game, let us look at the coverage of the first two. There existed at this time both a national and local sporting press. The Olympics were a prominent club, well known to that sporting press. When the Red Stockings came into town, a game with the Olympics was on the schedule as a matter of course, and the game received full coverage. The Olympics’ games with minor clubs also received notice. This could be spotty in the national press, but the local Philadelphia papers would include such games in their routine coverage. The Philadelphia Sunday Mercury in particular acted as the de facto paper of record for the Philadelphia baseball fraternity.
So what did the Sunday Mercury have to say about the Olympics’ game with the Pythians? Nothing. There was no mention. Neither was there in the New York Sunday Mercury (which was unconnected with the Philadelphia paper of the same name) or the New York Clipper, the two major national baseball papers. Dead silence.
Keep politics out of sports! Just report the game on the field! But what if the game on the field is itself political? The City Item reported it, of course. So did the Philadelphia Inquirer, also a Republican paper. Democratic papers ignored the game because they opposed its politics. Independent papers ignored the game because that way they could imagine they weren’t engaging in politics. Reporting the game on the field was itself political. No one imagined otherwise. But so, therefore, is not reporting it.
The third game was played just a few days later, on the 20th. This time it was between the white Olympics of Washington (who were unconnected to the Olympics of Philadelphia: duplicate club names were common) and the black Alert Club, also of Washington. The Pythian precedent was being copied. The Olympics were a professional club, though not of the top tier. The Alerts didn’t have a chance, losing 56-4, but that wasn’t really the point. The other major club in Washington was the Nationals. The Nationals were associated with the Democratic Party. Their heyday had been during the Andrew Johnson administration, when they had access to patronage positions in the Treasury Department for their players. September of 1869 was, however, the Grant administration. The Nationals were on the wane. The Olympics, their Republican counterparts, had access to that sweet, sweet patronage. They also were willing to make the political statement of playing a black club.
Here is the description of the two clubs, from the Washington National Republican of the following day:
The clubs to contend were the Olympics of this city–who within the past year have acquired quite a reputation as “ballists” of a high order of merit–and the Alerts–a club composed of colored men, who presented for their nine yesterday a body of stalwart players, who with one exception were evident Simon-pure Africans. They were uniformed neatly in blue shirts and caps, black cloth pants, with broad yellow leather belts. This club has been doing some good playing this season, and are the especial proteges of a number of our wealthiest colored citizens, who have materially aided their organization, and who had such a high opinion of their abilities as “ballists” as to cause them to propose a game with the club acknowledged to present the strongest nine of any in the city.
OK, what about it? Similar background bits were common in game accounts. The Alerts were not widely known, so there was interest in who they were. That’s not what stands out. Rather, it is the generally respectful tone. The paper was owned by William J. Murtaugh, a former abolitionist. Writing respectfully of a black club was a political act. By way of comparison, here is an excerpt from a report two years earlier, in the New York Dispatch of October 6, 1867, of a game between two black clubs, the Excelsiors of Philadelphia and the Uniques of Brooklyn:
The match between the Excelsiors, of Philadelphia, and the Uniques, of Brooklyn…proved to be about as interesting, amusing, and laughable, as anything we have seen this season. We have had the real thing now, and hereafter Tony Pastor and the minstrels will have to take a back seat, unless they were upon the grounds Thursday, and can improve on the display by the original article, which we very much doubt. … The colored belles of both Philadelphia and Brooklyn were out in force, and enthusiastically applauded the efforts of their favorites. The backers of the nines followed the example of their white brethren, and invested their money freely on the results. We heard on enthusiastic “gomman” crying out “Ise bet nineteen dollars, and Ise got jus’ one more dollar to bet on the ‘Celsior Club.” The Umpire, Mr. Patterson, of the Bachelor Club, of Albany, was subjected to a fearful amount of chin music, and finally had to call upon the police to protect him from the players. One pugilistic darkey in the crowd called out to him when he was about to give a decision: “Youm say dat man am out, and I jis knock youm damn head off.” Players running the bases, unable to hear the decisions of the Umpire, were informed by their captain that, “Judgement says dat am out,” or “Judgment says dat am foul.”
Blacks playing baseball: Comedy gold! Of course treating it as comedy is also political.
Next is the game that didn’t happen. Not everyone agreed that blacks should be allowed to play baseball with whites. Immediately after the Olympic-Alert game, the Maryland Club of Baltimore passed a resolution not to play a game with the Olympics. Their reason, as reported in the Daily National Intelligencer and Washington Express of September 22, was
Their action is based upon the fact of the latter club playing a match game with the Alert Base-ball Club (colored) of this city, which is not a convention club.
This is bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense of the word. By “convention club” they meant a member of the National Association of Base Ball Players, the governing body for baseball from 1858 through 1870. The NABBP never, however, comprised all, or even most, baseball clubs, and there never was any prohibition on NABBP member clubs playing non-member clubs. Such games occurred routinely with no objections made. Indeed, this is literally the only instance I know of in this era of any hint otherwise. Not only was this bullshit, it was obviously so: a rule invented on the spot for an immediate purpose, and immediately forgotten once its purpose had been served.
What was this purpose? What was the point? There is no great mystery. We see the same thing all the time today. When a bigot finds himself in circumstances where open bigotry is not a winning argument, his fallback is to find some criterion that avoids openly stating the bigotry, but which achieves the same result. Done well, the bigot can present himself as no bigot at all, but a hard-headed realist. The only thing surprising about the Maryland Club’s resolution is why they felt the need to obfuscate. The answer is that this was 1869, not 1889. There was a short period immediately after the Civil War when a significant portion of the American white population took serious civil rights for blacks. It didn’t last long. Reconstruction ended in 1877, when there were no longer enough people who cared to matter. But in 1869 there were enough to cramp the style of the Maryland Club, forcing them to aim for politically correct language while seeking their safe space.
This was not a meaningless gesture. The Maryland Club was of the same class as the Olympics: a professional club, but not of the top tier. This made the two clubs natural rivals. They had split four games earlier in the season, setting up a potentially lucrative rubber game. We know they felt strongly about the matter if they were willing to sacrifice revenue for principle.
This brings us to the last of our four games. The Olympics responded to the Marylands’ resolution on October 12 when they played a game with another black club, the Mutuals of Washington. So much for the Marylands’ sensibilities.
These games set the baseline for the next eight decades. Black clubs and white clubs could compete against one another. There were variances from this baseline. There was a period in the 1880s of limited integration, with about a dozen blacks playing on white clubs, mostly on the minor league level. This was not an expression of racial unity. Baseball enjoyed rapid expansion in the 1880s, and competent players were in short supply. Sometimes managers were driven to desperate measures. As the player shortage eased up, blacks were eased out. In the other direction, teams occasionally rebelled against playing black clubs. But this was unusual. In the ordinary course of play, blacks and whites could play against one another–just not on the same team.
What does this have to do with today? Everything. It all still goes on today. It isn’t so crude as in the past, but the same stuff goes on in a more subtle form. Blacks on the field are not controversial, but how we talk about them is different from how we talk about whites, with coded language for black quarterbacks in the NFL. And sure, blacks on the field is not controversial. But how about gays? There are no openly gay players in the NFL. This doesn’t mean there are no gay players–just that they feel the need to stay in the closet. Who gets to play is still political. So is talking about it. Or not talking about it. Of course the same closeting doesn’t occur, or at least isn’t mandatory, in women’s sports. But women’s sports is totally political. Their mere existence in their modern form comes from Title IX, a political act. How much coverage does your local paper give women’s sports? Let’s ignore professional sports and just look at high school and rec leagues. Does the paper give equal coverage? Probably not. What gets covered and what doesn’t is political, just like in 1869
“Keep politics out of sports!” “Just report what happens on the field!” When I hear these words, I know I am listening to someone who at best doesn’t understand the issue.
Segregation. ipso facto every single complaint about media coverage of non-straight-white male players in sports (from the left) carries with it the righteousness and gravity of the fight against those evils. It’s getting harder to tell whether articles like these come from an “arc of history” perspective or if we are just so inured to using painfully-stretched analogies to rope in visceral disgust to win a petty argument about basic cable talking heads that most folks just tune it out.
Yawn.Report
(If you want to see the last time we discussed this, you can do so here.)
The main thing that I noticed was that we were all arguing about ESPN’s decision to back off of politics and we were all invested in it… but damn few of us watched ESPN ourselves. Like, to the point where I’m not sure that we had anybody who watches ESPN show up in the comments. (I mean, maybe they did… but I asked “But do we even have anybody on the site who watches ESPN?” and nobody jumped up to say “I do! I do!”… which is not, of course, anything near proof that nobody on the site watches ESPN. But we didn’t have any evidence in the comments there that anybody here does. Just that we have opinions about what ESPN shows despite our not watching it.)
Which is wacky!
I’ll repeat something that I said then:
Anyway, the argument that everything is political reminds me of the argument of my youth that everything was religious and I had a choice between being Christian or being Worldly. I appreciate all of the volunteer moral authorities I have surrounding me explaining to me what I ought to enjoy (as opposed to the things I do enjoy). Thanks for trying to move the overton window to where it ought to be, guys!
I hope you don’t mind when I, too, say things that aren’t quite in it.
Yet.Report
But it isn’t like these things. It’s very different. If some business denies service to a trans person, that is different from which RPGs you decide to play. It doesn’t matter whether I personally shop there. If you cannot see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
Many civil rights activists didn’t happen to live in the towns where blacks were denied lunch service. All the same, the recognized the moral evil of racism and joined the movement to change things. If, by contrast, someone started a movement to make you play RPG-1 versus RPG-2, then that just wouldn’t be the same. Not at all. Honestly, it’s batshit to think otherwise.
Like, what the hell dude?
I don’t watch ESPN, and I have no particular opinion on how the network should approach most issues. I don’t care about their balance between football coverage versus baseball coverage. Not my circus, not my monkeys. However, if they work to maintain a racist, sexist, or homophobic status quo, I care, for the same reason I care if some random diner in Birmingham has a “no colored” sign on its door.
You seem to reflexively treat civil rights as a matter of taste. That is very wrong, and very political.Report
If some business denies service to a trans person, that is different from which RPGs you decide to play.
Oh, I wasn’t comparing “I’m not going to watch ESPN if they keep talking about politics” to “businesses should be allowed to deny services to people they don’t like”.
I was comparing it to stuff like “people saying that they weren’t going to watch the new Ghostbusters” or that sort of thing.
I don’t watch ESPN
See? How weird would it be for me to tell you that you should watch ESPN even though it is not serving up the content that you look for in your leisure time?
You seem to reflexively treat civil rights as a matter of taste.
So the “ESPN should talk about politics!” debate is a civil rights thing, is it?
I admit that I see this sort of thing as taking matters of taste and turning them into matters of morality and then proclaiming those who disagree to be sinners (or whatever the modern term for that sort of thing is).Report
Jaybird, the issue is that veronica is actually entirely okay with people’s recreational spaces being busted up if they permit activity and expressions-of-thought that society sees as immoral. She just doesn’t think her shit is immoral.Report
If I were trying to get someone to move from “this is a matter of taste!” to “this is a matter of morality!”, I’d try to wander through “this is a matter of aesthetics!” first.
(To be honest, the stronger “this is like trans rights!” comparison to non-politicos not watching ESPN is to trans people refusing to vacation in (homophobic state). I’m the one saying “if you don’t like it, don’t give them your money!” ESPN said “hey, wait… we want the money of those people who stopped coming here” and THEY CHANGED.)Report
Yes, that. In the last 20 years I’ve watched one football game. If I could totally remove sports from my newsfeed I would.
I’m not opposed to sports, I just have no involvement or interest other than the teams my kids join.
However I also have no interest or involvement in trans rights. I’m not opposed. I’m not threatened.
It’s your body, do what you will. But this is not an issue that calls to me.
Insisting that it’s “political” that it doesn’t call to me is simply a power move.Report
The assumption is that saying you don’t care is in fact a political act because it’s an expression of the privilege that you have to not have to care.Report
Do I need to say this is so many words? I watch sports on ESPN, especially baseball, but football too. But if they’re going to do political crap like firing Colin Cowherd for saying that baseball must be simple if Dominicans can play it, I may have to reconsider. Thank God good old apolitical Fox snapped him right up.Report
It’s certainly not true that everything is political; it’s just that, in sports as in so much else, almost nobody objects to the things that are political unless they disagree with the politics. As an ESPN watcher, I don’t pay much attention to the politics — any of the politics — but I swallow the ordinary political stuff and, when some out of the ordinary political stuff happens, wait for people who object to the out-of-the-ordinary politics to whine about keeping the politics, that is to say, somebody else’s politics, out of sports. I’m never disappointed.
There is, to be sure, a principled case for keeping all sorts of politics out of sports, but the decision-makers aren’t interested in principle; they’re interested in what sells their product.Report
As someone who actively participates in a sports blog with a “no politics” policy, I find the policy very satisfying and easy for everyone to understand and honor. I think it elevates the sports discussion and attracts a larger number of contributors.
I can’t say that I watch ESPN hardly ever, and frequently I watch sports with the sound-off because the broadcasters usually are not that good and frequently start going off topic.Report
My guess is that by “no politics” they mean don’t post “Trump [or Pelosi] sux!” But what about when some NFL team signs a backup quarterback who isn’t Colin Kaepernick, and who looks very much like he isn’t as good as Kaepernick, either? Is it off limits to talk about how Kaepernick might have been a better choice, or is this off limits? Or if it is discussed, is it off limits to suggest that there might be some non-football related reason he wasn’t signed? And if the rule is we don’t talk about any of this, in what conceivable sense is that not political?Report
Better at throwing a ball? Perhaps. But the measuring stick is whether or not he makes the company more money. Dragging in hot button political issues into every game might not be in the best interests of the company. If I tried that in a public forum where I was representing the company, I’d be fired.
A lot of who-gets-covered seems more “cultural” than “political” (unless everything is political but if everything is then nothing is).Report
It’s a baseball blog, and I don’t think Kaepernick ever comes up, or would expect to come up. The team it follows seems non-political (perhaps a little sanitized) and the site has an analytical bent. I’m not suggesting there aren’t interesting overlaps between sports and politics and culture, what I’m saying is that non-political forums are popular and can generate broader support than one’s that won’t, and I’m not shocked that mass-entertainments want to be massively popular and not divisive. The people who enjoy their sports within a political context are a minority, like Deadspin readers.
I should also point out that the site also has a similarly enforced policy against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or other forms of discrimination. Again doesn’t come up much, and usually someone suggests they think a little more about what they just wrote. I don’t believe those are political issues.Report
It’s been my experience that “no politics” is less about the Trump supporters than it is about the Not Trump Supporters who can’t keep their damn mouths shut and go into fits of scream-crying–and get angry when the rest of the board doesn’t join in.Report
Conflict is inevitable. We all have our personal interests and want those interests to prevail. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is a way to resolve those conflicts through a process that requires give and take by all sides. This leads to dissatisfaction because the “winner” doesn’t get everything he wanted, but it avoids the obvious downsides of open combat. Our institutions give a great deal of weight to orderly transmission of property to avoid disputes. No one owns the right a professional sports position. Thus professional sports positions are always up for grabs and much less secure than many other prestigious profitable enterprises. African-Americans want in on these good things. They were clearly excluded for years. Sports in many ways actually led our society in opening up opportunities with Jackie Robinson representing a huge step. The sports world did not achieve these advances smoothly or uniformly; when John Wooden showed up to coach UCLA there only two blacks on the squad, and Warren Moon went undrafted despite an outstanding college career.
We will keep politics out of sports when we keep conflict out of human relations. Not on this side of Elysium.Report
Back when I had a long car commute, I used to listen to Jim Rome’s show*. One Martin Luther King Day, he took the day off and had two guest hosts instead, who spent much of the broadcast talking about what happened when Bear Bryant integrated the University of Alabama football team. Just political as all hell.
* I know that my view that Rome is at heart a moralist is a minority one.Report
Once upon a time, I ran a guild in Everquest 2, along with two other friends. We had a “no politics” rule. We didn’t talk about political issues or events of the day.
And, at the same time, we were gay/queer friendly. “That’s so gay” was a popular phrase in the MMO/pvp world at the time, and I had discussions with people who used it in guild chat. Usually privately or semi-privately. And I got a good response generally.
So, the “no politics” rule didn’t stop us from acting on our beliefs, even those that might be political. It just headed off the discussion. But an MMO guild is a participatory thing, unlike a cable channel.
Likewise, at a recent family reunion, one cousin came in and started complaining about Trump (he’s ex-military and a Democrat from the word go. His grandmother had all kinds of politicians from her city and county at her funeral). Another cousin, a Mormon and Republican simply said, “Do we talk about politics at these things?” Which got an abrupt halt out of the first cousin.
I really like both of these guys, and they like each other, it seems to me.
To me, this is a legitimate thing to do. And it’s also the case that sometimes the “no politics” is a smokescreen for “don’t upset the status quo”, as Richard indicates.Report
The Christmas Wars take many forms. I have no shortage of people in my life who say “MERRY CHRISTMAS” pointedly to minimum wage workers who say “happy holidays!” at the end of a transaction.
The “you can’t avoid talking about politics” seems to have a similar thing going on. “Happy holidays” versus very pointed “MERRY CHRISTMAS”es.Report
“Peace on earth, good will towards men! Asshole.”Report
The thing is, they are right. Retail workers often are instructed to use “Happy Holidays” so as to include the widest range of customers. The “MERRY CHRISTMAS” crowd quite explicitly disagrees with this inclusiveness. That means being inclusive or noninclusive is a political matter. Realize that the “MERRY CHRISTMAS” crowd would be at least as aghast at a policy of making no mention of any holiday, and we have closed the circle. Whatever you say is political, and this includes not saying anything. There is no opting out.Report
There is no opting out.
And if a company decides that saying “Merry Christmas” is costing them money and switching to “Happy Holidays” makes them money…
Well, there’s nothing wrong with snarling “MERRY CHRISTMAS” to the happy holiday wishers.
But the Christmas people really should spend more money if they want to drive the policy their way.Report
What’s merrier than snarling?Report
Being able to opt out, of course.Report
If Christians are going to get pissed off because everyone else isn’t a Christian, then it’ll be exactly like the last thousand years.Report
I kinda wish that the Christians would get on board with the whole modernity thing and we could finally have a pleasant monoculture but they’re really stubborn.Report
We must have different ideas about what a monoculture is.Report
It’s people saying “Happy Holidays” at Epcot.Report
It’s the goal of people who think that restricting others’ rights for their personal benefit is the moral thing to do.Report
I infinitely prefer people who just shrug and exit.Report
To Sorehead Ohmommy? Me too.Report
“It’s the goal of people who think that restricting others’ rights for their personal benefit is the moral thing to do.”
hahahahahaha
hahaha…?
you, ah, you aren’t joking here…are you?Report
ya gotta understand Duck,
There is wiggle room for freedoms of speech to be voted on.
There is wiggle room for the 2nd to be voted on.
That religious stuff, oh hell no, that was settled long ago.
Haha, it’s like the Schrödinger’s cat of majority rule morality.
and isn’t it weird that the people who were so dismissive of rights just a few years ago now are really concerned about them?Report
Well, there’s nothing wrong with snarling “MERRY CHRISTMAS” to the happy holiday wishers.
Well, no. One is politely saying an anodyne thing that happens not to be the preference of the hearer. The other is being an asshole.Report
I’ll steal Chips majority rule routine for a moment and say “Let’s put this national religion thing up to a vote of The People!”. That whole separation of church and state thing, that’s just politics, and everything is political, up for a vote.
HahaReport
“Let’s put this national religion thing up to a vote of The People!”.
We did that, more or less, in the 1780’s, though some folks might want a do-over. But what has any of that to do with who is being the asshole in an ordinary social interaction?Report
Ah, so now claims of what was settled in the 1780’s. It’s weird how when it’s time to say that this thing was settled way back then is pretty rigid when it’s needed, but to dismiss other stuff from back then when it is convenient.
Did I mention we are going to have problems with social objectivity, and maybe who is the for realz asshole?Report
Do you really want to put the question of who the asshole is in the Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas scenario up to a majority vote? I don’t think much of the idea, but not because I fear the result.Report
Let’s move these dots a little closer together:
If you think you own social objectivity, your probably the asshole, even though, you really want the other guy to be the asshole.Report
I’d say the guy who snarls because other people didn’t use exactly the words he wanted to hear is the asshole.Report
good, now how many progressives get hit with that stick about gender speech?
(better yet, when someone on the left snarls, because the words “this didn’t impeach Trump”)Report
This is what happens when you translate Sal-speak into English.Report
[Says the guy that makes abstract references to 1940’s Broadway/Movie Musicals.]Report
They were in English, last I looked.Report
I rest my case.Report
What do we mean by “politics”? I’ve been through a bunch of sports and politics conversations, and I think three different things get conflated under the word. First is discrimination by trait. It may relate to the sport in discussion, or sports in general. Outright bans, under-representation, pay gaps, ceilings, et cetera. Second is partisan endorsement or preference. Owners or players supporting a candidate or elected official. This now includes White House visits. Third is, I don’t know how to describe it – I want to say “other”, but that’s lazy. It’s the support of a policy rather than a person, and it’s not based in the sport itself. Discrimination policies may spill over from the sport to the broader world, but it’s easy to see how a sports conversation could lead to a discussion of race. A discussion of policing, less so.
It’s interesting that Kaepernick’s controversy had nothing to do with his race, per se. It was squarely in my third category. I think it’s fine when athletes raise political issues, but I’m going to weight their opinion on their expertise and experience, the same as I would anyone else. I’d listen closer to an athlete on something like head trauma or NCAA reform, if they’d done the research, just like I’d pay more attention to a lawyer or a convict on criminal justice reform.Report
Is this written by thee Richard “Roland” Hershberger of 6778 Abrego Road in Isla Vista at UCSB circa 1985? I’m the guy who borrowed, ok stole, your L.A. Times sports section the morning after Roger Clemons struck out 20. My wi-fi was down and I needed to “read all about it” asap. If it is you, and I have little doubt it is, please shoot me an email.
Rene RandelReport