The Sporting News

[Bill Burgess]

As to a book on early St. Louis baseball, it's a work in progress. I'm still trying to figure out how to write it without having it turn into a three volume epic that no one would want to publish or read. And I appreciate the complement on my plodding writing style (and your kind refusal to comment on my inability to spell).

Reasons I think you should keep plugging away at writing your own book.

1. You're one of the only writers I know who doesn't knock der Ahe. That alone gives you a different perspective worth investigating.

2. Few others are interested in shedding light on 19th Century baseball in as great a detail as you seem capable of.

3. You seem to also have a grasp on how the Spink brothers controlled public opinion on St. Louis baseball in the early days, and their take on Chris Von der Ahe is the one that has come to predominate in our later readings of that day.

So, all in all, I think your in-depth chops need to ventilate in a printed book. Am I persuasive? Are you taking the bait? Hope so.

Keep plugging my friend. Bound to get there sooner or later, Jeff. Hope its sooner for the sake of documenting early baseball!

[Chadwick]

I think you can trace the decline of TSN to two things.

The first was when C.C. Johnson Spink sold out to Time. TSN stopped being a family run business and became just another cog in a corporate machine. You see it all the time when a small business sells out and the quality of the product declines under new management.

The second thing was when the paper stopped publishing every box score. For the one-time Bible of Baseball, this was arch-heresy and the end of everything TSN once stood for. I can't exactly remember when that was but I had long since stopped reading the paper (which I used to subscribe to and read religiously) and moved on to Baseball Weekly, whose sad decline followed the same arc as TSN's.

And I should also add that when TSN stopped being an actual newspaper and morphed into some weird magazine-type thing, it was really, really over.

I know that we're witnessing the rapid collapse of the newspaper industry and that we're actually rather blessed by the information revolution that we're living through but, for those of us of a certain age, the decline of papers like TSN and Baseball Weekly that we grew up with and loved is a rather sad event to witness.

Amen. I still remember the first time I saw USA Today's Sports Weekly on the cover. I've never given USA Today a dime since.

Sadness.

[hubkittel]

how the Spink brothers controlled public opinion on St. Louis baseball in the early days

This is an interesting subject that I don't think has been given enough attention. I really didn't give it much thought until I read a fascinating article by James Brunson about Henry Bridgewater and the Black Stockings of St. Louis. Brunson is an art historian and is interested in how the 19th century black athlete was represented in contemporary artwork and language (and I think he has a book coming out on the subject in May). In his article he wrote the following:

Throughout the 1870's, the white press' coverage of colored baseball declined. In 1878, when the Globe-Democrat reported only games the sports editor "deemed sufficiently interesting," colored clubs became the first casualties. In 1876, newspapers reported over thirty games; in 1877, only three contests appear in print, among them the Black Stockings vs. Our Boys (the "Blacks" won 6 to 4). Colored clubs disappeared from the sports pages until 1881. Of course, the Red Stockings, Brown Stockings, and Empires received coverage. And sports editors devoted attention to white business and trade nines. Coverage seems to have been based on their social and business relations with newspapers. This exclusion represented only part of a strategic plan, that being the desire of the professional league to control labor, eliminate the numerous teams competing for attention (the Globe-Democrat identified over 200 nines in the city), and consolidate the market.

In the Mound City, guardians of baseball high culture-the Spink brothers, the McNeary brothers, Gus Solari, and Christopher Von der Ahe-wielded the civic clout and socioeconomic control to push an exclusionary agenda.

Brunson's interpretation of baseball events in St. Louis during the 1870's and 80's is absolutely fascinating and unique. While he doesn't necessarily agree with me, I think he's making the argument that there was a group of men in St. Louis (that certainly included William and Al Spink) who were attempting to organize and control the St. Louis baseball market.

The Spink brothers didn't just see themselves as newspapermen but as baseball men as well who were involved in the serious business of the "upbuilding" of the game. They weren't just reporting the news but attempting to influence the market. They were as much advocates as they were journalists.

In 1875, at the beginning of the openly professional era in St. Louis, the Spink brothers and the Globe-Democrat were overtly pro-Red Stockings and actually mocked the Brown Stockings as outsiders and hired guns. The following year, they argued against the formation of the National League, decried it as an oppressive monopoly and supported efforts to form another league that would compete with the NL. Their editorial stance almost certainly had an impact on the Brown Stockings support and attendance. In 1877, William Spink, with his reporting on the gambling/fixing scandal, helped kill the club.

Once the Brown Stockings folded, the Spink brothers helped pick up the pieces and were instrumental in the organization of a new, independent Brown Stocking club. The worked with Solari and Von der Ahe to keep professional baseball alive in St. Louis and their labor paid off when the club joined the American Association in 1882.

TSN, under Al Spink, naturally took a pro-Browns editorial stance. Spink had played a large role in the creation and management of the club and, more importantly, the club was winning. Once the Browns started losing in the 1890's, the paper, under Charles Spink at this point, viciously turned on Von der Ahe and never missed an opportunity to mock, humiliate or criticise him. It was week after week and year after year of Chis Von der Ha Ha Ha! the ignorant buffoon who was so dumb he built waterslides at his ballpark. Even though VdA had been involved in baseball for almost 20 years at this point, the paper portrayed him as someone who was completely ignorant of all aspects of the game. While this anti-VdA editorial stance was almost certainly a ploy to sell papers, the constant mockery and the open forum for any and all VdA criticism had a major impact on the man's historical legacy. By the time VdA's finances collapsed in the late 1890's, TSN was more then willing to help essentially run the guy out of town. They had spent almost ten years preparing the St. Louis baseball public for that moment.

I honestly don't believe that there's a way to overstate the influence and importance of the Spink brothers and TSN on the history of St. Louis baseball.

[Bill Burgess]

I honestly don't believe that there's a way to overstate the influence and importance of the Spink brothers and TSN on the history of St. Louis baseball.

What you say is very interesting to me. I agree that TSN became a powerful instrument of public opinion.

I have read that it supported the owners in maintaining a segregationist stance and when Branch Rickey finally brought Jackie Robinson on board, TSN tried to belittle its significance and said it wouldn't amount to much.

I would like to see if anyone can find such an opinion in TSN's editorial opinions.

[Beady]

From my point of view Brunson seriously underestimates the practical complexities of relations among the various strata of clubs in St. Louis and other cities. But he's looking at the matter from the perspective of the black clubs, and if the people with control of the ball fields and sports pages all drew the color line, it might well look like a conspiracy to them.

But, Jeff, do I understand you are implying that the accusations against Battin and Blong may have been a deliberate ploy on Spinks' part to undercut the Brown Stockings? And was the other league you mention the organization that was shortly formed as the International Association? I must say, the IA was a competitor of the NL's in the fond imaginings of people associated with the St. Louis Reds but never in the minds of most of its members.

I must say, I know Al Spink's work primarily through the early years of TSN, and judging by that I am not a fan. He could brag all he wanted about circulation and column inches of advertising, but if providing quality baseball coverage was the standard by which baseball papers were to be judged, then Sporting Life was far, far ahead of TSN in the late 1880's.

[hubkittel]

I would like to see if anyone can find such an opinion in TSN's editorial opinions.

We would have to figure out how to access TSN at Google News Archive first. Does anybody know how to work that thing?

[hubkittel]

From my point of view Brunson seriously underestimates the practical complexities of relations among the various strata of clubs in St. Louis and other cities. But he's looking at the matter from the perspective of the black clubs, and if the people with control of the ball fields and sports pages all drew the color line, it might well look like a conspiracy to them.

Brunson certainly brings a unique point of view and I'm looking forward to reading his book. It's interesting to filter basball history through some of his interpretations. I think a lot of us are approaching the material from the same perspective-we're basicly talking amongst ourselves, influencing each other and leading the conversation in a certain direction. It's a good idea to have someone who's essentially an outsider like Brunson come in and take a fresh look at the material. It helps to look at the material with a fresh pair of eyes.

But, Jeff, do I understand you are implying that the accusations against Battin and Blong may have been a deliberate ploy on Spinks' part to undercut the Brown Stockings?

Is that a bad thing?

I think the evidence supports the idea that Battin and Blong were guilty. My point about Spink helping to kill the Brown Stockings has more to do with the fact that the story broke at the exact same time that the club was revealing the depths of their financial problems and attempting to raise funds. It was the combination of the club's economic problems and the revelations about Louisville and Battin/Blong/et al. that put an end to the club rather than a deliberate plot on the part of Spink.

Having said that, he was pushing an anti-Brown Stocking/pro-Red Stocking editorial policy throughout this period. I don't remember seeing any 10,000 word essays about Joe Blong in 1875 when accusations about him were flying around rather liberally.

And was the other league you mention the organization that was shortly formed as the International Association? I must say, the IA was a competitor of the NL's in the fond imaginings of people associated with the St. Louis Reds but never in the minds of most of its members.

Off the top of my head, L.C. Waite of the Reds was pushing some kind of scheme in 1876 when it became clear that the NL was going to shut out the minor clubs. I think the idea started out as a reorganization of the National Association and then, the next year, turned into the International Association movement. Certainly it all came to nothing but the Globe, and Spink, was again supporting the Reds point of view that they, and the other clubs outside the NL, were an aggrevied party being preyed upon by monopolistic forces. Al Spalding actually took notice of the paper's stance and wrote a very long letter to the editor (Spink) arguing against the criticism the League received from the Globe.

I must say, I know Al Spink's work primarily through the early years of TSN, and judging by that I am not a fan. He could brag all he wanted about circulation and column inches of advertising, but if providing quality baseball coverage was the standard by which baseball papers were to be judged, then Sporting Life was far, far ahead of TSN in the late 1880's.

Sporting Life was a heck of a good paper and I can't criticise it. Their coverage of the Von der Ahe collapse and the process by which the Robisons came to St. Louis was outstanding. I will say, in Al Spink's defense, that TSN had great coverage of the local St. Louis baseball scene in the mid to late 1880's. As the paper grew, the coverage of the local amateur scene decreased but it's a valuable source of information. I'll also say that I think William Spink was a better writer than Al.

[Bill Burgess]

We would have to figure out how to access TSN at Google News Archive first. Does anybody know how to work that thing?

So far, the online archives are, as yet, still unavailable, ever since Google took them off-line.

Hopefully, they will put them back online soon. I hope.

[Paul Wendt]

I recall reading coverage of a local colored team in the Louisville Courier-Journal during 1875(?), nothing like thirty games but it was a surprise to me both because I didn't guess that any team existed and because I have heard that newspapers generally ignored them. I think I recall reading some of the same in a Cincinnati newspaper during 1875 or was it 1876?

Those newspapers did not continue coverage as I hoped, which I interpreted as the effect of the National League. After the NL organized with clubs in Louisville and Cincinnati the local baseball coverage focused on those NL clubs. My own survey was narrow, a look at 1875 and 1876 only, in the leading (ie the one available) newspaper from each city.

I am not local to Louisville or Cincinnati and I wouldn't know how to pursue the subject, during the narrow time period, except by finding more newspapers in a local public library.

Were there "lesser" newspapers in St Louis that continued to cover the Black Stockings?

[hubkittel]

Were there "lesser" newspapers in St Louis that continued to cover the Black Stockings?

That's a good question and I personally don't have an answer for you. But the research, as always, is ongoing. All the references that I've found to 19th century black baseball in St. Louis has come from the Globe except for an 1867 reference in The Atlantic Monthly.

Checking the notes in Jon David Cash's book, the Globe and the Chicago Tribune were his main sources on the subject. It will be interesting to see what sources Brunson used for his book.

[Beady]

Just scanning the footnotes in Brunson's article and not paying any attention to what he is citing them for, I see the St. Louis/Missouri Republican (I presume this is one paper under two names at different times), Daily Globe; Globe-Democrat; Sunday Star Sayings; and Evening Chronicle. Also a few papers, most or all of them from the black press, outside St. Louis.

Since I know Cincinnati well, by the way, I'll say that for 1875 and 1876 the Enquirer (the modern paper of record and the easiest to find) is the perfect choice if you can only look at one paper -- the best local coverage and one of the country's finest baseball writers in O.P. Caylor. For about a three year period from 1883 to 1886, however, the Enquirer's coverage, though still very strong, was unbalanced by a feud conducted by the paper's publisher against the Cincinnati club's interests. It would be better to correct its bias by consulting other local papers, especially the Commercial Gazette. It sounds as though the same sort of partisanship was at work in the middle 1870's in St. Louis.

[Bill Burgess]

I find it fascinating (and disappointing) to learn that newspapers, which are supposed to be above the partisan fray, sometimes acted like sports teams, in competition with each other.

Too bad they all didn't give Negro baseball good coverage. Come to find out it was spotty at best. And their support and coverage of new baseball leagues turns out to be partisan and uneven. How distressing!

The Sporting News and Sporting Life, as baseball newspapers, had a special obligation to treat new baseball leagues even-handedly and with non-partisanship. 1890 Players League, American League, Federal League, etc. The word 'outlaw' should have never come up or been written. It was not the place of a non-partisan newspaper to take a side or slacken its' coverage. If it was credible baseball, it should have been covered in an even-handed, non-partisan, comprehensive manner. That's what credible journalism is all about.

[Beady]

In 1875 the St. Louis Reds were a club with local roots and young St. Louis players, and the Browns, were a new organization backed by considerable wealth and featured a roster more or less entirely consisting of highly paid, big name players from the east. It is altogether possible that Al Spink may have favored the Browns out of sympathy for the underdog. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he had a financial interest of one sort or another at stake.

To illustrate, here are a few facts I happen to know about how things operated back then:

I have no information about Ren Mulford, but at one or another time during the 1880's every other major baseball writer in Cincinnati was in the pay of a local ball club, while still continuing to write for his paper. O.P. Caylor was for several years club secretary and then manager of the Reds. Frank Wright and Ban Johnson were secretaries respectively of Cincinnati's Union Association and 1891 American Association clubs. These affiliations were not a secret, but the writers never went out of their way to publicize them.

When a change in ownership and management of the Reds ended the Enquirer's feud with the team in the fall of 1886, Harry Weldon of the Enquirer was offered the position of club secretary. The Enquirer management refused to let him take the position, so instead he was put on the Reds' payroll because, as the owner's son explained many years later. he performed "public relations services" for the club. I'm sure he did. The club's financial records survive for 1887 and show Weldon was receiving a tidy sum on a monthly basis. This, of course, was not publicized by the Enquirer, although I have seen a passing reference to it by Ban Johnson in the Commercial Gazette.

In a day when there were no regular scouting staffs, reporters also worked as agents acting as middle men between players and clubs who were looking for talent. Joe Pritchard was one of these, the very well known Tim Murnane was another. Both of them were excellent writers, and I'm sure reliable virtually all the time, but there is obvious potential for conflict of interest when, for example, a reporter may happen to be comparing two players, only one of whom he has an interest in promoting.

Finally, I have this note from the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch, May 19, 1890:

Early this spring the editor of this column [Frank Arnold] was offered a $50 ‘gift’ by Columbus manager Al Buckenberger [about $1,000 in modern money]. The same was offered to every baseball writer in town. Will Parsons of Daily Press and E.K. Rife of Journal told this writer they had accepted the $50. Recently, Charles Wikoff of the Post [brother of a former American Association president] asked Arnold if he had accepted money and was told he had not. Last week, club official A.B. Cohen called Arnold in to talk about the Dispatch’s hostile treatment of the club. He explained that money had not been offered to Arnold because it was not certain who would be Dispatch’s regular baseball writer, but now that it was settled he renewed the $50 offer. [not clear why this conflicts with what Arnold wrote at the start] Arnold reported this to the Dispatch management who told him anyone who took a bribe in any form would be fired. This is printed now because three Sunday papers have made an issue of offers of money to staffers on two morning papers.

The Dispatch and the Ohio State Journal were constantly squabbling, and the following from the April 4, 1890 issue of the Journal seems to refer to Arnold of the Dispatch.

An [unnamed] young man has been upset because he did not receive a free pass from the club as soon as he thought he should and has begun fabricating stories such as the sale of the Columbus club to Indianapolis, a weakness in the team due to the loss of Baldwin and Orr [jumped to the PL], a freeze out of the Syracuse, Rochester and Toledo franchise by the AA. The club has now determined not to give him a free pass at all and his employers have been notified.

[james e. brunson]

st. louis newspapers that report on colored ball clubs

Below is a sampling of regional and national papers and journals that report on St. Louis colored aggregations in the postbellum era, especially Henry Bridgewater's Black Stockings:

Evening Chronicle; Globe; Globe-Democrat; Republic; Missouri Republican; Post Dispatch; Chronicle; Sunday Star Sayings; Daily Times (all of St. Louis)

Sedalia Daily Democrat; Rockford Register; Chicago Tribune; Daily Illinois State Journal;Elgin Morning Frank; Chicago Times; Cleveland Leader; Saginaw Morning Herald; New York Clipper; Sporting Life; Tribune (larence, KS); New York Clipper Almanac; National Police Gazette; Dayton Daily Democrat; New York Globe; Cleveland Gazette; New York Freeman; Courier Journal; and Daily Picayune.

Many more are listed in the upcoming book "The Early Image of Black Baseball, 1870-1890."

[Bill Burgess]

What you say is very interesting to me. I agree that TSN became a powerful instrument of public opinion.

I have read that it supported the owners in maintaining a segregationist stance and when Branch Rickey finally brought Jackie Robinson on board, TSN tried to belittle its significance and said it wouldn't amount to much.

I would like to see if anyone can find such an opinion in TSN's editorial opinions.

I have finally found a source that seems to shed some light on this very interesting and important subject. Of whether or not JT Taylor Spink supported the integration of baseball or its continued segregation.

The following excerpts are from the book, 'Blackout: The Untold Story of Jackie Robinson's First Spring Training, by Chris Lamb, 2004.

'On August 6, 1942, Sporting News editor J. G. Taylor Spink defended segregation in an editorial called "No Good from Raising Race Issue". In it, he said that no rule was needed to keep blacks out of organized baseball because it was in everyone's interest to keep the races separate. Integration would ruin the Negro Leagues, he said, and without the Negro Leagues, blacks would have nowhere to gain the training to play in either the major or the minor leagues. Spink blamed communists for stirring up trouble, referring to them as "agitators" who used the issue for their own benefit.'

. . .

'The Sporting News' J. G. Taylor Spink, for example, was a staunch defender of segregation and an unabashed supporter of the myth that all were equal on a baseball diamond. "No matter how humble the home from which an American youth may come," he wrote in an editorial, "an opportunity to rise above his environment is open to him, if he has the necessary energy and talent." He continued: "That is the American way, and baseball, as America's national pastime, offers an easy entry into the field of opportunity." Yet, in another editorial, Spink writes that it was not appropriate to comment on the unwritten rule excluding blacks. And in still another, he said that "no good" would come in even discussing the race issue because the color line was in the best interests of both blacks and whites.

Sportswriters like Spink protected segregation in baseball by ignoring it as long as they could. In doing so, they conspired with league executives and team owners to keep blacks out of baseball. Simultaneously, black and communist sportswriters were crusading for integration, black athletes were proving their ability both in baseball and in other sports, and World War II was illustrating the irony of a country fighting against racism abroad while allowing it to exist on its home soil.