Glory of Their Times

[Mark17]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzbJn2UAoIs

Compelling case for Cobb being a non-racist.

[Case12]

I grew up in the deep South Georgia in the 60's. My family back to the Civil War. Concept of racism is different back then than today. Back then, culture and color segregation was not seen as racist. It was normal. Racist then was if you really hated the negros. So, taken into context of history, did Cobb hate negros?.... If he didn't, he was normal like most all other of us white folk...

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Case12

I grew up in the deep South Georgia in the 60's. My family back to the Civil War. Concept of racism is different back then than today. Back then, culture and color segregation was not seen as racist. It was normal. Racist then was if you really hated the negros. So, taken into context of history, did Cobb hate negros?.... If he didn't, he was normal like most all other of us white folk...

Not really getting this. So during slavery, because it was the norm and the law, you wouldn't call the slave states racist?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Not really getting this. So during slavery, because it was the norm and the law, you wouldn't call the slave states racist?

Not sure I understand that one entirely either.

But to your point regarding Cobb using the term "Negro" to refer to someone in a letter that he wrote, of course that is a racist thing to do, without question. It was also a fairly normal thing to do back then. So I do not think that the point is whether or not Cobb was racist or not. It is fairly clear that he was. The question is more along the lines of whether or not he was a virulent racist as he has been portrayed for decades. The evidence may be pointing to that not being the case. It seems more likely that he was as racist as the everyday person of his time, which, granted, by today's standards is quite alarming.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

The question is more along the lines of whether or not he was a virulent racist as he has been portrayed for decades. The evidence may be pointing to that not being the case. It seems more likely that he was as racist as the everyday person of his time, which, granted, by today's standards is quite alarming.

Was he portrayed routinely as virulently racist? By whom? My impression in that regard was formed mostly by Crawford on the "Glory" tapes, I think, and as I've said, that doesn't seem to me now nearly enough to have drawn any kind of conclusion in that regard. My only other deep dive into Cobb was reading the Alexander book back in the day, and I can't remember what he wrote about it. I had always thought of Cobb mostly as quick-tempered, a brawler, with a fierce drive to win at all costs, confirmed both contemporaneously and in later accounts by my research. Other than that, my impression of his racial attitudes would probably have been similar to comments here to the effect that like most people he was a product of his time and environment and it would have been surprising and admirable had he NOT held the attitudes prevalent in those. Now I'm seeing some evidence that the latter might indeed be the case, and I hope that turns out to be true.

[byrone]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Not really getting this. So during slavery, because it was the norm and the law, you wouldn't call the slave states racist?

The "slave states". Yeah, racist

All the people of those states? No, not all were racist.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by byrone

The "slave states". Yeah, racist. All the people of those states? No, not all were racist.

Agree 100%.

[rhettyeakley]

Came across this again in my stuff while searching for something and thought it would be a good addition to the original thread here...

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Came across this again in my stuff while searching for something and thought it would be a good addition to the original thread here...

How many authors of such a book would have cut all the players in on the royalties? Just that one check was a decent amount of money in those days, equivalent to two or three grand today. But Larry didn't do it for the money. He was a peach.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Came across this again in my stuff while searching for something and thought it would be a good addition to the original thread here...

That check is so cool, and a great piece of baseball and literary history.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by byrone

The "slave states". Yeah, racist

All the people of those states? No, not all were racist.

It obviously must be said that many in the North were racist in there own way, and unions were extremely racist, blackballing African Americans from certain trades in order to protect the wages of white workers. No region of the US was free from racism, I live in Washington State, and segregated neighborhoods - due to activities of Realtor groups - existed even here, from Tacoma on the Puget Sound to Spokane on the Idaho border. And one need not be a virulent racist to be racist - simply saying something like "There goes the neighborhood" when a African American family moved in was simple enough to be racist.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by todeen

It obviously must be said that many in the North were racist in there own way, and unions were extremely racist, blackballing African Americans from certain trades in order to protect the wages of white workers. No region of the US was free from racism, I live in Washington State, and segregated neighborhoods - due to activities of Realtor groups - existed even here, from Tacoma on the Puget Sound to Spokane on the Idaho border. And one need not be a virulent racist to be racist - simply saying something like "There goes the neighborhood" when a African American family moved in was simple enough to be racist.

I am currently reading a book on the life of Octavius Catto. If anyone wants a true eye opener as to how racist the North got, just pick up a copy of this book.

[lumberjack]

An interesting thing about the audio version of Ritter's work is what was left out.

Chief Meyers, a charmer on tape, remained bitter about the treatment of Native Americans, something we couldn't pick up on in the book.

Rube Bressler, who was cut by the Cardinals at the end of his career, was still very angry about his treatment in St. Louis. His take on Branch Rickey is eye-opening.

Ritter was interviewed by Mike Shannon for "Baseball The Writers' Game." It is very insightful. Ritter mentioned interviewing a player who was senile (we don't discover who). He also said not all of the interviews were productive, but he blamed himself for that. Someone (it may have been Ritter) said Willie Kamm was so dispassionate about his baseball career that he could have been talking about someone other than himself.

As for Cobb being a racist, where this thread seems to be leaning, let's just say that Ty Cobb was difficult. Odd might be a better fit. There IS plenty of evidence of that.
lumberjack

[Klrdds]

Having seen the royalty checks posted here , and seeing others in the past I wonder about the differing amounts per player , and how the royalty amounts for each player were determined as well as how long did the players receive the royalty checks ?
One thing is clear and that is that Ritter did a great job with the book and by all I’ve ever heard or read he tried to treat the players fairly throughout the process .

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Klrdds

Having seen the royalty checks posted here , and seeing others in the past I wonder about the differing amounts per player , and how the royalty amounts for each player were determined as well as how long did the players receive the royalty checks ?
One thing is clear and that is that Ritter did a great job with the book and by all I’ve ever heard or read he tried to treat the players fairly throughout the process .

Interesting, it doesn't appear there was a set amount each player rec'd as the amounts in the checks are very different, although they were all written at different times so no true 1:1 comparison. The Roush check being the largest is interesting but it also appears to be the oldest check (1967) so maybe that was an initial amount rec'd for the ability to interview & their time and the later smaller amounts were royalties based on book sales? I believe the book came out initially in 1966.

Each player may have negotiated their own contract. If you have ever read anything about Roush he was a pretty shrewd and somewhat demanding player when it came to his contracts so he may have just negotiated better? Or it could be based on portion of the book that was dedicated to their story... the more interesting players likely got more press and thus a larger check? Interesting questions.

[lumberjack]

Here's what Ritter told Mike Shannon: "I don't remember how much each [subject] got...but it was something like 10, 15, 20,000 dollars.....Even when they died, we had written documents as to who was to get their share in the future."

This went on until, as Ritter said, the bookkeeping got to be too much. He eventually bought out everybody for $500 for their share. This would have been around 1987.

Ritter did not take anything from the project as it would have created tax problems for him. He was pretty well off and certainly in better shape than the retired players.
lumberjack

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Interesting, it doesn't appear there was a set amount each player rec'd as the amounts in the checks are very different, although they were all written at different times so no true 1:1 comparison. The Roush check being the largest is interesting but it also appears to be the oldest check (1967) so maybe that was an initial amount rec'd for the ability to interview & their time and the later smaller amounts were royalties based on book sales? I believe the book came out initially in 1966.

Each player may have negotiated their own contract. If you have ever read anything about Roush he was a pretty shrewd and somewhat demanding player when it came to his contracts so he may have just negotiated better? Or it could be based on portion of the book that was dedicated to their story... the more interesting players likely got more press and thus a larger check? Interesting questions.

It would make sense that the largest checks were at the beginning, then diminished over time. I'm pretty sure Larry didn't have any contracts with the players since he had no publisher for the book when he did the interviews and didn't really know if there would be one. He told us that Billy Werber refused to be interviewed unless he was paid, so there was no interview. Werber told Larry he planned to write his own book, so why would he give Ritter the information for free? Larry took some satisfaction in recounting how his book made many of the players famous again and how he was sure that Werber regretted his decision. It's surprising to me that so few of Larry's "Glory" checks have surfaced over the years considering he probably wrote at least one a year to all 28 players in the book for years. But I don't think I've ever seen one later than the early 70s. You would think if some of them came out, they all would have come out. In the dim recesses of my mind, I think autograph dealer Doug Averitt might have bought them from Larry, I know he had a bunch of them in the late 90s.

[lumberjack]

Memory is a funny thing.

Ritter told Mike Shannon that he interviewed Bill Werber. He considered the interview "terrific." It was kind of explosive. Weber had second thoughts and threatened to sue Ritter. Okay. Werber stayed out of the book.

When Don Honig began his tape recorded interviews with former players, Bill Werber turned up in his second book, "Baseball Between The Lines."

Ritter gave Honig three of the interviews that never made it into "Glory." We can assume that the Werber chapter is one of the three.

Werber, by the way, once threatened Red Smith before the start of a game. Smith recalled that he was ready to hit Werber with his typewriter. Why would anybody threaten Red Smith?
lumberjack

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Memory is a funny thing.

Ritter told Mike Shannon that he interviewed Bill Werber. He considered the interview "terrific." It was kind of explosive. Weber had second thoughts and threatened to sue Ritter. Okay. Werber stayed out of the book.

When Don Honig began his tape recorded interviews with former players, Bill Werber turned up in his second book, "Baseball Between The Lines."

Ritter gave Honig three of the interviews that never made it into "Glory." We can assume that the Werber chapter is one of the three.

Werber, by the way, once threatened Red Smith before the start of a game. Smith recalled that he was ready to hit Werber with his typewriter. Why would anybody threaten Red Smith?
lumberjack

Thanks for the information, my memory is certainly not what it used to be. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that Larry told us the reason Werber declined to let him use the interview had to do with money, that Werber figured he could cash in on his memoirs so why would he give it away? I'm guessing after the success of the book and the renewed prominence it gave the players, Werber realized he had made a mistake and allowed Donald Honig to use it. And yes, Larry said that his friend Honig kept bugging him so much about doing a sequel to "Glory" that Larry gave Honig the four interviews he hadn't used and told him, "I did my book, if you think there should be a sequel then go ahead and do it yourself!"

[lumberjack]

Henry, I believe you. Ritter did all of those interviews in the early '60s, however, and maybe he developed sort of a composite memory of what happened as the decades rolled by. "Glory" remains a treat.
lumberjack