1989 Happy Chandler Interview

[Brian McKenna]

In a March 22, 1989 interview Happy Chandler confirmed the existence of a secret report urging African-Americans to be excluded from the bigs. Supposedly, it was penned by the following:

Ford Frick National League president
William Harridge American League president
Sam Breadon St. Louis Cardinals owner
Phillip Wrigley Chicago Cubs owner
Larry MacPhail New York Yankees executive
Tom Yawkey Boston Red Sox owner

I am looking for any information about this interview. Is it legit? Where was the interview?

[Chisox]

I can't help you, but I am thoroughly interested. What year was this? Post or pre-integration.

[Brian McKenna]

i would have to say 1946 or early 1947

[shlevine42]

In Maury Allen's book about Robinson, Chandler tells of a meeting he called some time in '46, after Robinson's successful season in Montreal. He had called all the owners together at the Waldorf Hotel in New York to vote on Rickey's plan to bring Jackie up to the Dodgers for the '47 season.

The vote was 15-1 against the idea.

[Barnstormer]

I don't know about the interview, but the report exists and is called the Macphail Report.

http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/MACPHAILREPT.htm

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't know about the interview, but the report exists and is called the Macphail Report.

http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/MACPHAILREPT.htm
While racism can certainly be cited based on the report, I think this is more of an example of extreme short-sightedness and lack of willingness to move from a firmly established staus quo. essentially, we've gone this long without black players, so, what good would it do? Kind of like out of sight, out of mind, don't worry about actually seeing or thinking.

[Brian McKenna]

While racism can certainly be cited based on the report, I think this is more of an example of extreme short-sightedness and lack of willingness to move from a firmly established staus quo. essentially, we've gone this long without black players, so, what good would it do? Kind of like out of sight, out of mind, don't worry about actually seeing or thinking.

Wasn't that the politically correct excuse for maintaining all segregation?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Wasn't that the politically correct excuse for maintaining all segregation?
Pretty much. While they may not necessarily have been real racists (a hatred of another race due to an incorrect assessment of superiority), it's not any better.

[Brian McKenna]

Rickey first exposed this report in February 1948:

[Brian McKenna]

A follow up to the Rickey speech:

[Brian McKenna]

MacPhail's reply:

[Brian McKenna]

From my reading of the three articles plus the 1989 interview:

The following admit the existence of the document and the discussion:
Branch Rickey
Larry MacPhail
Happy Chandler

The following deny it:
Alva Bradley
Wrigley
Ray Mack
Warren Giles
Joe Cronin

The ever-quiet toady Ford Frick failed to respond to inquiries.

MacPhail says that he had a copy in 1948 and was willing to produce it; however, I can't find that he ever did.

Bradley went so far as to say, "As a matter of fact, I was chairman of that meeting and we never discussed the subject."

[shlevine42]

I don't know what role Frick played in the McPhail meeting, but I do know that in 1947, with the Cardinals in town for a series with Brooklyn and threatening to strike to protest the presence of Jackie Robinson, Frick spoke to the Cardinals players at the Hotel New Yorker and said the following:

"If you do this you will be suspended from the league. You will find that the friends you think you have in the press box will not support you, that you will be outcasts. I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

That doesn't sound like an "ever-quiet toady" to me.

[EdTarbusz]

According to William Marshall, the Major Leagues voted almost unimously to approve a version of MacPhail's report on August 27, 1946. Rickey always maintained the vote was 15-1, with himself being the lone dissenter. Alledgely the race issue was dropped from the report. macPhail is supposed to have argued that integration would doom the Negro Leagues, which was a source of income for some owners, that few, if any, Negor players were good enough for the Majors and that attratcting Black fans to the ballpark would discourage white fans from attending games. Koppett said this was baseball's version of saying that Blacks in the crows would decrease thew values of the teams. MacPhail also is supposed to have said that if any one team integrated (this was probably directed squarley at Rickey) the entire League might be Pressured to follow suit.

Marhall's footnotes say that the MacPhail report is located in the following collections: the Chandler Papers. He also says the original and final version are included in the Celler Report.

Rickey appears to gone public with the report on February 17, 1948 during a speech at Wilberforce University.

[EdTarbusz]

I can't help you, but I am thoroughly interested. What year was this? Post or pre-integration.

It depends on your definition of integration. It was after Jackie Robinson integrated the International League, but before he integrated the National League.

[EdTarbusz]

Bradley went so far as to say, "As a matter of fact, I was chairman of that meeting and we never discussed the subject."

If the meeting took place on August 27, 1946, Bradley would have most likely not been there, because Bill Veeck became the Indians owner on June 21, 1946. I don't think Veeck would have voted for the proposal if he had been in attendence, so I think it was actually debated in late 1945 or early 1946.

[Brian McKenna]

That doesn't sound like an "ever-quiet toady" to me.

Seems to be that Frick blew with the prevailing wind depending on who he answered to at any given time. If Landis felt one way, so did Frick. If Chandler felt another way, so did Frick. If the majority felt still another, so did Frick.

[Brian McKenna]

Marhall's footnotes say that the MacPhail report is located in the following collections: the Chandler Papers. He also says the original and final version are included in the Celler Report.


Where did Marshall talk about this?

Jim, Have you ever looked up these reports?

Where are the Chandler Papers - Cooperstown, Kentucky, D.C.?

Where would one find the Celler Report?

[Ubiquitous]

From what I have read (and I am not sure if it is still an issue) all copies of the report were destroyed except for the Commissioners report which he filed away. I believe several decades later someone happened upon them and released the report again. His files were apparently donated to the University of Kentucky library.

I think I read that in the Bud Selig book by Andrew Zimbalist.

So if somebody wants a copy of the report they should call up or email the University of Kentucky.

[EdTarbusz]

Where did Marshall talk about this?

Jim, Have you ever looked up these reports?

Where are the Chandler Papers - Cooperstown, Kentucky, D.C.?

Where would one find the Celler Report?

Marshall talked about it in Baseball's Pivotal Era. The Chadler Papers are at the University of Kentucky. The Celler Report is located at Study Of Monopoly Pwer: Organized Baseball in the House of Represenatives. I haven't looked at these reports but I want to try to get a copy of the Celler Report.

[EdTarbusz]

In the February 25, 1948 issue of the Sporting News, Rickey said that all copies of the memo were destroyed. MacPhail said that they weren't. In answer to Rickey, MacPahil said that discussion of this issue was in 1945 and that Ricket said nothing for or against it. MacPhail said the reason that the reprt was revised was because it contained a criticism of Chadler by MacPhail that Chandler wanted exunged. In te TSN story, MacPhail calls Rickey a liar for saying that the owners voted to keep blacks out of the game. He also said Rickey was lying about the report being destroyed. MacPhail claimed that the Major League owners wanted the Negro Leagues to assist the Negro Leagues financially and then subject them to a Major League draft. He criticized Rickey for sigining players from the Negro Leagues and not compensating their former teams. The owners that Brian mentioned were quoted as saying the meeting never happened.

[Brian McKenna]

In the February 25, 1948 issue of the Sporting News, Rickey said that all copies of the memo were destroyed. MacPhail said that they weren't. In answer to Rickey, MacPahil said that discussion of this issue was in 1945 and that Ricket said nothing for or against it. MacPhail said the reason that the reprt was revised was because it contained a criticism of Chadler by MacPhail that Chandler wanted exunged. In te TSN story, MacPhail calls Rickey a liar for saying that the owners voted to keep blacks out of the game. He also said Rickey was lying about the report being destroyed. MacPhail claimed that the Major League owners wanted the Negro Leagues to assist the Negro Leagues financially and then subject them to a Major League draft. He criticized Rickey for sigining players from the Negro Leagues and not compensating their former teams. The owners that Brian mentioned were quoted as saying the meeting never happened.

Thanks Jim - that's all in the articles at Posts #9-11.

I'm not sure if MacPhail response to Rickey's charges was given to the press orally or in written form. I wouldn't put it by the often crude MacPhail if he formally wrote the statement with the numerous uses of the word "lying" (see Post #11) MacPhail could no more hold his tongue when he was angry than with a scotch in his hand.

It seems very logical that MacPhail was the one on the defense who was misrepresenting the facts. The meeting surely took place after Rickey announced his signing of Robinson. My guess is after spring training when the site of black faces at Triple-A shocked the multitude. Rickey kept signing black players and I bet that really heightened the situation for many.

It is also obvious that MacPhail was touting b.s. when he said:
-that owners didn't keep blacks out of the game (I mean who did - Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny)
-that the report wasn't destroyed (it was collected, destroyed and if a copy was saved no one that I know of at BBF has seen it - it was still a mystery when Chandler brought it up again in 1989)

The claims that the Negro leagues had to do A, B, C, etc. to be deemed worthy of MLB recognition smacks of Jim Crow chatter.

Rickey did deserve some heat for his raiding clubs of players under contract and for his convienant wholesale dismissal of the legitimacy of the Negro leagues. For here, I believe shows an underlying contempt which Rickey's legend has so far been excused for.

I believe Clark Griffith's concern for the contract busting because it happened immediately in October 1945. He was MLB's connection between the two worlds. MacPhail, on the other hand, just repeated something he thought might bolster his argument against Rickey in 1948.

It's funny how Chandler, Rickey and MacPhail recall the meeting but others convienantly forgot.

[EdTarbusz]

I didn't realize the Sporting News article was linked (my computer froze when I tried to open it).

In my opinion, MacPhail was doing nothing but spin-doctoring in the article. I would wager that if the Robinson experiment had been a failure, MacPhail would have produced an original copy of the report with a huge 'I told them so'. I also think his criticism is mainly because of their feud from 1947. I also agree with Brian that the conditions alledgely set by the Majors in regard to the Negro Leagues smack of Jim Crowism, especially the talk of Negro Leaguers' character.

I found the comments from Griffith about Landis to be interesting. He makes it sound like Landis was amenable to integrating the game and the meeting with Paul Robeson proved it. Today the Robeson is generally seen as the Landis's most overt action in maintaining the color line. Griffith also maintained that Landis that an owner could sign any player he wanted was proven when Rickey signed Robinson. I'm not totally convinced that Landis was being anything but cynical when he made that statement. Maybe he actually meant it, while figuring that no owner would go so far as to sign a black ballplayer.

[LeoD]

http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/MACPHAILREPT.htm

[Brian McKenna]

I found the comments from Griffith about Landis to be interesting. He makes it sound like Landis was amenable to integrating the game and the meeting with Paul Robeson proved it. Today the Robeson is generally seen as the Landis's most overt action in maintaining the color line. Griffith also maintained that Landis that an owner could sign any player he wanted was proven when Rickey signed Robinson. I'm not totally convinced that Landis was being anything but cynical when he made that statement. Maybe he actually meant it, while figuring that no owner would go so far as to sign a black ballplayer.

I think at the time baseball was coming under a lot of fire in the black press concerning adding black players in the early 1940s. Griffith attended a lot of Grays games at his park. He would constantly be approached about the issue by Sam Lacy and others.

There came a point where formal meetings were set up. Landis didn't want to be involved. He wasn't fit to do so either for many of the same reasons that FDR couldn't stand him.

So, just like the discussions with government and military officials during the war, the amiable Griffith took the lead. I think after a few meeting Landis may have actually granted an audience though I'd have to check my notes on that.

Griffith for his part wasn't ready to integrate the majors (though he really already had as a manager and owner) - at least he wasn't ready to be the maverick that did so (remember he was a generation older than Rickey - Rickey actually played for Griffith).

There were other factors here - a big one was the fact that he was making huge profits loaning his ballpark to black teams and the Redskins. I have the figures and he was making a lot of money during this time period (more than he ever had or would) and it wasn't because of the product the Senators were showcasing on the field.

D.C. was also one of two segregated cities in the majors. It was bold that he signed so many Spanish-speaking ballplayers, many not of pure Castillian descent. This was roundly noted in the black press but usually just skimmed in the white press, if discussed at all.

I haven't quite figured this one out but it was bizzare that he didn't gain much backlash for doing so - at least from the city. It is evident from things that were said after Robinson was signed that some baseball officials had/were indeed talking about it behind Griffith's back. There may have been private meetings about the issue but I haven't found any.

[Brian McKenna]

This section of the MacPhail Report closed with a thinly veiled warning to Rickey and the Dodgers: "There are many factors in this problem and many difficulties which will have to be solved before any generally satisfactory solution can be worked out. The individual action of any one Club may exert tremendous pressures upon the whole structure of Professional Baseball, and could conceivably result in lessening the value of several major league franchises." But the Dodgers had the last laugh. While the lily-white lineups fielded by Breadon's Cardinals and Yawkey's Red Sox -- who met in the last pre-Robinson World Series -- faded from contention, Robinson, Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe helped the Dodgers dominate the NL for a decade.

Thanks LeoD

This reports seems quite extensive. How certain owners like Bradley could swear that it never happened is amazing.

[EdTarbusz]

In my opinion, 1945 was the real turning point for integration in the game. You had the try-outs that Isadore Mushnick strong armed the Red Sox into actually holding (even though they were overshadowed by FDRs death) and the passage of the Quinn-Ives act in New York. Some of the owners seemed to finally be taking the black press seriously and were saying that the days of segregation in the game were numbered.

[Rome Colonel]

To put all this in a slightly wider context, integration was advancing on the pro football front. The AAFC Cleveland Browns and the NFL Los Angeles Rams both signed black players before the 1946 season, i.e., before Robinson played for the Dodgers. By 1949 there were 27 black players in the two pro leagues. Given the chages underway in football I think it would have been very difficult for the baseball owners to maintain segregated leagues into the 1950s.