Lobster Shells, Baseball Cards and Other Artifacts

In the Lord Peter Wimsey murder mystery, "The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club," Lord Peter insists on seeing books owned by one of primary suspects in the case. He explains this to his great and good friend, Inspector Parker of Scotland Yard when he says, "Books, you know, Charles are like lobster shells, we surround ourselves with 'em then we grow out of em' and leave 'em behind, as evidence of our earlier stages of development."

I thought of this today while continuing my ongoing quest to bring some degree of order to our attic. We moved into this house on Memorial Day weekend of 1977 and we have certainly accumulated enough stuff. My current task is sorting through a lot of Paul's belongings - when he was here at Christmas we reached some general agreement on parameters which I am now implementing and finding some interesting things.

Today, for example, I found a bound copy of his senior English thesis at Bates. The subject was the minor characters in James Joyce's "Ulysses." Of course, I set that aside to share with DT. It's not everyone who has an equal grasp of Shakespeare, Chaucer, the Beowulf poet, Wordsworth and Joyce as DT does. Once he reads it perhaps, DT and Paul can discuss some of the finer points of this enigmatic work.

The main thing I have been going through, however are baseball cards, literally hundreds and hundreds of baseball cards. Of course like everyone else in my generation my parents threw away almost all of my baseball cards helping to create the scarcity that drives up the prices of those cards today. I checked this first with Paul so the purging is all done with his approval. I have to be careful going through the cards because mixed in with his are the few of mine that survived like the 1959 Sandy Koufax card pictured upper right. In addition to the Koufax card I was surprised to find cards for Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris and Don Drysdale which have to have some value today.

As I was working on this today, I realized that what I am really doing is going through the artifacts of the early years of Paul's life. All those cards, many housed in notebooks and organized in boxes are the tangible evidence of something that was a major priority in his life for a number of years. There's an folk song - "Puff the Magic Dragon" that has a line to the effect - "Dragons live forever, but not so little boys." And just like so many little boys, including myself, Paul is no longer that little boy, but has left these metaphorical lobster shells behind him. They all can't be kept, of course, but getting rid of these things also means getting rid of that evidence and to some extent those memories.

As a result as I go through these things, I do consciously try to save some things, if nothing else to help maintain those memories. Some of the connections like the baseball cards are obvious, but I find other things where only Carol, Paul and/or I might remember the significance. Today in another box of Paul's things, I found an Essex County jurors badge - it took a minute, but then I remembered why it was there. It dates back to one of my first stints on jury duty when he was very young. For some reason he was fascinated by the badge and wanted me to give it to him when I was finished even though you were supposed to turn the badge back in at the end of your time. Of course, I kept the badge and it has been around ever since, I doubt if he remembers how important it was to him all those years ago. So as I go through this process, I am constantly making decisions about what things should be kept - for some reason, the badge wasn't a very difficult decision.

Before Lunch

I thought that I had noticed a pattern in the last two or three of the Angela Thirkell novels that I have been reading with great enjoyment. Most of the book is taken up with the semi-comic comings and goings of a large cast characters, some of whom have appeared in the earlier novels. Then just when I thought it would never happen, a serious issue or issues arise the resolution of which brings the story to a more or less satisfactory conclusion.

Most of these elements appear in "Before Lunch," the last of the series to be written prior to World War II. Indeed this, of the all those read so far, seems to have more of the characters from prior novels including tying up some loose ends from other stories - in one case without the characters in question saying a word. The caption on the book cover (above left) calls this "a glorious social comedy of rural England," which is certainly true, but in my opinion doesn't go anywhere near far enough.

As noted in the first paragraph, most of the novel seems to be taken up with the social comedy aspects of the story. But once again just in the nick of time, the serious issues arise - in this case they seem to be more about what to do when one makes a commitment in a relationship, but then realizes it is a mistake. As usual these issues come out of love triangles or, as I call them, 2/1 dynamics. The the end of the book is taken up with resolving these issues "before lunch," which happens in typically elegant Thirkell style. However this time there is more, at the very end one, and probably two, of the characters are in a great deal of pain. Exactly why isn't explained and, while one can infer, the logical inference seems hard to believe. This answers the one concern I have had about Thirkell's novels - fairy tale endings with everyone more or less happy. It will be interesting to see if there is some further explanation or resolution of this pain.

Something else that is interesting about Thirkell's novels is that while they are stories of the gentry and upper classes, the servants are presented as developed characters who hold their own with their masters and mistresses. These relationships were part of rural life in England during the period, Thirkell couldn't have changed that reality, she could, however, have chosen to ignore the servants, but to her credit doesn't do so. As noted this is the last of the novels set in pre World War II England, it will be interesting to see how Thirkell treats this issue in her post war novels. From some fiction I have read recently (especially Mollie Panter Downes - "One Fine Day," the unwillingness of people to continue in those servant roles forced a major adjustment on the middle class/gentry during the post war years. However, I still have to read my way through Thirkel's 4-5 novels set during the war itself - so many books so little time!

I Get Into the Game (At Least Metaphorically)

Yesterday Carol and I drove down to Newtown, Pennsylvania for a vintage base ball game between the Eureka and our "mother" club the Flemington Neshanock. The match was organized as part of the town's Memorial Day observation and they did a great job of promoting it. The crowd looked to be somewhere between 2-300 by far the largest crowd I have ever seen at a vintage game. In fact, there had to be more people there than have attended all the other games I have been at combined. Brad Shaw, the President of the Neshanock, says that the best way to schedule is as part of an event and yesterday certainly illustrated the truth of that statement.

For those of us who are historic purists there were some unhistorical features of the day including the National Anthem (probably began during WWI) and singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" (no either than 1908). However since the vintage base ball postage stamp to the upper right also uses baseball's theme song in an uhistorical way I suppose I can't complain to much. There were also some baseball trivia questions for those in the stands some of which were absurdly easy - "When was the first World Series played?) (bad) and "Which team has won the most World Series? (by far the worst - both because it is so simple and because the answer is so depressing).

The venue was spectacular, a field with a grass infield, well maintained with plenty of shade all around. Once again the Eureka got off to a slow start and lost to the Neshanock, but it was a good game. One thing that always strikes me about vintage games is the combination of adapting to the old rules (1864 in this case) and remembering some aspects of the game that probably have never changed. In the latter category are things such as how one bad play can lead to a disastrous inning, not making the first or last out of inning at third, and the importance of getting runners into scoring position with two out. On the other side are things like 3 balls for a walk, batters/pitchers getting a warning pitch before balls and strikes are called, any ball caught on the bounce being an out, underhanded pitching, and not being allowed to over run first base.

Because of the travel involved, most of these games tend to take a whole day. Almost without exception the day before the game, I start thinking about how else I could use that time. Yet from the moment I get there I enjoy the whole experience. A big part of that is just the fun of being back participating in a game I love, the game that I played more than any other growing up. I wish I had known about vintage base ball at least 10 years ago when I could have still played and it might have been possible to make it a father and son activity. At least this time part of me did get into the game - one of our younger players didn't have a uniform so I lent him my shirt so he could play. Anything (well almost anything) for the team!

Lest We Forget

Today is the 38th anniversary of the worse day of my life. Some may find it difficult to make that statement with such clarity, but for me to this point there has never been any doubt. On May 23, 1971, I left my parents home in Wayne, New Jersey for army duty in Vietnam. I had to fly from Newark airport to San Francisco, go to a base in Oakland, California where I would board a plane for Seattle, Tokyo and ultimately Saigon.

I couldn't face the idea of my parents driving me to Newark Airport so I asked a long time friend of mine (still a friend today) to take me. As he turned his car around to pass my parent's house on the way to the airport, the only thought in my mind was that this might be the last time I ever saw my parents, sister or the house I grew up in. It was a beautiful spring day like it is today, a Sunday, and all I could think of was what felt like the unfairness of being on the way to war while everyone else had more pleasant things to do. It got worse on the plane to San Francisco - I enjoy irony, but I have come to realize that irony is a lot less enjoyable when one is the target. On the plane was someone who I went to graduate school with - he had done everything in his power to get out of the draft and had succeeded. Now he was on his way to San Francisco for vacation and job interviews. When he heard where I was going, his body language was as if he was accompanying my coffin - just great.

Many years later when I came to write "The Mutinous Regiment," I began one chapter just after the regiment had fought its last battle with the following words:

"If life is unfair, little in life is less fair than war. In every war some go through
combat unscathed to live long and full lives, while others, for no reason besides
luck or chance, die without ever having had the chance to live."

In addition to the reasons already mentioned, this has been on mind because I am close to having the William Lloyd letters ready to go to potential publishers. Lloyd was a sergeant in the 33rd who left the largest collection of letters of any member of the regiment. One of the characteristics of his letters is their total honesty, anything he thought or was unhappy about, he wrote about it. While working on this I have tried to remember that he was only 21, married for about three months when he enlisted in the 33rd, his wife couldn't have been much older. Imagine being that young and trying to cope with adjustments and stress that seems almost unimaginable. Lloyd's story has a happy ending, not only did he survive the war, he lived until 1928.

Yet that's just the point about the unfairness, Lloyd was in every battle and every campaign, lived to tell about it and live a full life thereafter. Another 163 members of the regiment weren't quite so fortunate - they never had a chance to live. The fact is that it is unfair and that can never be changed. To me that means at least two things - war has to be really justified before bringing that kind of unfairness into play. There is no doubt in my mind that the Civil War was such a war which brings in the second issue. The fact that it is so unfair to those who give their lives, it is even more important that we never forget those "who gave their lives that that nation might live," not just in the Civil War, but all wars.

Edward II

In some previous posts I noted that I had read in several places that Shakespeare's early work was influenced by interaction with his contemporary, Christopher Marlowe. I had certainly known about Marlowe, but had never knew much about him, nor had I read any of his works. That changed last night when I finished Marlowe's one English history play, "Edward II."

The historical Edward II was probably one of England's worse kings - catering to favorites, in conflict with his nobles to the point of the Civil War. The end result was Edward's deposition in favor of his son, Edward III who would go on to be a great medieval king. Interestingly Edward II's, father and his son were both great English kings. After his deposition, Edward II was brutally murdered, for medieval kings giving up the crown usually meant giving up one's life as well.

The first two acts of Marlowe's play focus on the conflict between Edward and his nobles over the kings favorite - Gaveson - a relationship that Marlowe makes pretty clear was homosexual in nature. What struck me about these first two acts was the frenetic nature of the pace - Gaveson is recalled from exile, barely arrives and is exiled again, just leaves for exile and is recalled again and then on his return is condemned and executed. Trying to visualize it on the stage made me feel like it would be like watching a movie where the film is being shown at too fast a speed - sort of like the Keystone Cops.

In fact, that was sort of my reaction to the first four acts - they were episodic in nature at a pace that seemed to allow little time to develop anything in any depth. Surprisingly all of this seemed to change in Act V. At this point Edward has been deposed and is in prison while his queen and Mortimer are plotting his murder. All of the sudden the action seemed to slow down, creating drama about the events and making Edward appear almost sympathetic which is no small feat. There are similarities between the both the historical and the dramatic Edward II and Richard II. I have always found Richard II to be about as unsympathetic a character as there is, but Edward goes even beyond that with his obsessions first with Gaveson and then with Spencer.

One of the things I noticed in reading the introduction to the play was critical commentary suggesting that "Edward II" is really not a history play because it doesn't address any of the issues typical of that genre. Rather it is the story of people who just happen to be in those positions - perhaps if the characters weren't kings and nobles, nobody would care. I think there is something in that view of the play. I didn't come away feeling I had learned anything about kingship or leadership as I do in Shakespeare's plays. The lessons appear to have more to do with the dangers of obsessions with someone or something. Edward II's obsessions seem extreme, but that may be artistic license to make a point. In any event I came away with another reminder of the importance of balance in one's life - an important lesson for anyone, king or not.

Discerning the Lack of a Call

A few weeks ago I wrote a post where I said that a casual lunch time conversation at the 19th Century Baseball conference in Cooperstown convinced me that I had a call to write a book about early baseball in New Jersey. With the past few days, it has also become clear to me that I don't have a call regarding another possible book topic - Andrew Jackson and his war against the Second Bank of the United States.

I have written before about how this is a topic that I have been interested in since high school, primarily for two reasons, nothing that I have read has ever explained how the bank operated and there seemed to be so many arguments that the bank was a good idea. Over the past six months, I read Robert Remini's "Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, as well as Jon Meacham's Pulitzer Prize wining biography - "American Lion." (Sometime I may write about my reaction to the latter book winning that award). In both cases, the author's did not explain how the BUS (pictured above left) worked nor did they give (in my opinion) any good explanation of why the bank was a bad idea. The merits of the bank just get dismissed by saying the issues were really political.

I decided to keep reading about this to see if there was, in fact, a call to try to write a book about the topic. My next book was Thomas Govan's "Nicholas Biddle: Nationalist and Public Banker," basically a biography of Biddle as a banker. Govan's book had been criticized by Remini (the dean of Jackson scholars) as being prejudiced, a complaint that I sometimes think can be made against Remini. Reading the book gave me a little more sense of how banking worked in the 1820's and 1830's, but it still seems a very complicated topic. More importantly was the portrayal of Biddle, for more than half the book, it certainly seemed as if he was far from the evil figure portrayed by Jackson and then subsequent biographers and historians.

However as I read on it seemed like Biddle was indeed guilty of some of the things he had been accused of, some of which Govan admits and some of which he seems to excuse. For some reason, as I read the second half of this book, I lost a lot of my interest in the topic. As noted I think it is a very complicated one and it also appears that a lot of the original source material, especially the records of the bank, do not survive. More than these things though is that my interest, almost passion, for the subject took a big hit. It may come back, but it doesn't feel like it now.

In any event recognizing the lack of a call is a sort of negative clarity which isn't such a bad thing, but it helps simply things. It also isn't like I have a lack of potential writing projects, I am very hopeful about the Ebbets Field book, still have to finish editing the Lloyd letters and have a clear sense of a call on the New Jersey baseball book. There are some smaller projects in the offing as well including a chapter in a book about New Jersey and the Civil War plus the possibility of contributing something to a book about the greatest baseball games of the 19th century. Beyond or behind all of this is another possibility for a book on a much larger scale - a book about Charles Ebbets, Brooklyn and the Dodgers. In a lot of ways the Ebbets Field book would be a way to pursue that further so here is hoping that works out and I continue to get more clarity about what I should and shouldn't be doing.

Thinking In Time

After Sunday's vintage games on Central Park's North Meadow, I was walking to the subway with one of my Eureka teammates and we started discussing some of the different rules of the 19th century game. For example, I mentioned that I don't enjoy watching the 1890's overhand game (or the 1880's game either for that matter) primarily because it is not a lot different from the modern game. As a result the experience loses its uniqueness and is little different than any older group of men (and sometimes women) playing baseball.

There is, however, one significant difference between the 1890's game and the modern one - the foul strike rule. Under this rule, foul balls are not strikes thereby significantly increasing the potential length of any at bat. I believe this was a big controversy at the end of the 19th century since players like John McGraw would endlessly foul off pitches until they either got a walk or a pitch they wanted to swing at. I don't like that rule either so for me 1890's games aren't unique and they have at least one rule that prolongs the game unnecessarily.

My teammate, however, had another rule, he didn't like - one in use in the 1860's and 1870's - the bound rule, especially as how it applies to foul balls. Through 1864 any ball caught on a bounce was an out, after 1864 through the 1870's, the rule still applies to foul balls. As my teammate mentioned from a hitter's standpoint, little is more sickening than tipping a pitch - thinking it is just a foul ball and then watching the catcher come up with it on the bounce and realizing the at bat is over. As a score keeper, its a wrinkle I have to keep an eye on or I end up missing outs.

I was thinking about all of this because of something I read in William Ryczek's new book, "Baseball's First Inning." He was talking about the typical experience of those playing vintage baseball for the first time and how frustrated they get with it, leading to comments about certain rules being stupid. According to Ryczek the best response is, yes ,it is a stupid rule and that is why they changed it. This reminded me of a reality of historic recreations like vintage baseball, we operate under the disadvantage of realizing how the game has changed and evolved. The pathfinders of the early game were unhampered by that knowledge and so they are playing and thinking about the game, especially how it can be changed and improved. Those attempting to recreate or re-enact look at the game from an entirely different perspective that makes it more difficult to get a sense of what it was like to know only the beginning.

That may or may not be of great significance to some one who is only try to re-enact history. It can be much more important for those trying to write history - it's the old thing about 20-20 hindsight. It is far to easy to be critical of those who came before because they made decisions and took actions with less information and less time for consideration. Another example of this was the last panel discussion at the Civil War conference, Carol and I attended in Richmond last month. The last discussion was on looking forward to the election of 1860 knowing only what was known in 1859. As a result Abraham Lincoln was hardly mentioned in the discussion because he wasn't considered to be that much of a factor. This whole way of thinking in time is something for me to keep in mind with all of my historical writing.

Getting there (and back) is half the fun

Back in 1964 when Shea Stadium and the New York World's Fair opened simultaneously and adjacent to one another, there was a commercial that said that half the fun was the subway special that took you there. I was reminded of that today when I traveled to the North Meadow of Central Park (pictured above left) in New York City for the second day of the annual Gotham Cup. The Gotham Cup is a vintage base ball festival that draws clubs from up and down the east coast, from as far away as Providence and Maryland.

My team, the Eureka, played two games today, the first at the ungodly hour of 9:00 a.m. I remember going through the North Meadow almost three years ago as part of the New York City 1/2 Marathon, but today was the first time I was conscious of the magnificent quality of the grass and what seemed like unlimited baseball and softball fields. I got there about 8:20 and there were already games going on as far as the eye could see, which was pretty much the case until I left a little after 4:00.

Recently I have started using the New York City subway to get around in Manhattan, usually after driving and parking at the Port Authority. It has worked pretty well and with the AIDS walk going on in the same area, driving didn't seem like a real great idea. Getting to the Port Authority early on Sunday morning, was no problem, I followed the signs to the C train, used my Metro Card and all of the sudden saw a sign that said "No C trains - 5/16-5/19. My confidence took a big hit, but below that statement was the question - "How does this effect me," followed by directions to take the A train if you wanted to go uptown. Sure enough about 10 minutes later the A train arrived, I took it to 96th Street and Central Park West and arrived at the North Meadow.

With the uncertain weather forecast, I was focused on the possibility of rain and didn't pay too much attention to the temperature so I was fairly cold most of the day, especially when the wind picked up. As noted our first game began at 9:00 and it was somewhat reminiscent of last week's Mets-Braves game that Carol and I attended. It was a back and forth affair that we finally lost 11-10 in the bottom of the 11th inning, an exciting well played game.

Unfortunately, due to the vagaries of the schedule our next game wasn't until 2:15, giving us almost 3 hours to kill. There were other games going on at the time so I watched them including an overhand game by 1884 rules - the first time I had seen this version of base ball. Like the underhand game no gloves are allowed in the field, with the one exception being the catcher. The really strange rule, however, was six balls being required for a walk. If they used that rule today, games would last four hours.


Finally our second game began about 2:30 against the host team, the Gotham club of New York City. It was another well played game that we lost, this time 10-6 after being tied 6-6 going into the 7th inning. Although we have lost all five games this year, we have been in every one and could easily have won one, if not both games today. I hope the players don't get discouraged because we don't seem to be that far way.

The second game didn't end until a little after 4:00 and I was sure it would take me forever to get home. By the time some of my teammates and I reached the subway station it was 4:17, to my surprise, I pulled into our driveway almost exactly an hour later at 5:17. Carol didn't seem too impressed with that, but it surprises me that I could go from 96th Street and Central Park West to Verona in just 60 minutes. The subway ride may not be half the fun, but it certainly works pretty well and I am glad that I have been able both to understand and use it on a more regular basis.

The Brandons - Angela Thirkell Strikes Again

As I read my way through Angela Thirkell's novel, "The Brandons," I thought that this was one book that was just a light story of the gentry in the English countryside with nothing really serious to say. I had the same feeling through much of "Summer Half" and, once again, I was wrong. In the editions, I have been reading, "The Brandons," is one of the longest and it took a long to time to get to the serious bit, but it was there none the less.

The character in question is a Miss Morris who is serving as companion to the elderly, eccentric and infirm Amelia Brandon. The daughter of a widowed clergy man, Miss Morris apparently served as his unpaid administrative and sometimes pastoral assistant. Once he died, she was left without money and/or a career and had to resort to serving as a companion to a succession of elderly ladies. Based on how Thirkell describes Miss Morris' experience, it sounds like the 1930's version of having the Victorian situation of governesses.

As noted, in this book Miss Morris is serving that role for Amelia Brandon, who in addition to her other characteristics is very wealthy and living on a large, but unattractive estate. The remaining Brandons are Lavinia Brandon and her two children, Francis and Delia plus a cousin named, Hilary Grant, who is conveniently living and studying with the local vicar, a Mr. Miller.
Amelia Brandon has a large fortune to dispose of and no immediate heirs so one of the questions is who will inherit, an especially interesting question because the obvious male candidates, Francis Brandon and Hilary Grant both want nothing to do with property. When Thirkell does resolve the question, she does so with a Dickensian twist that is not without humor.

But as noted earlier what was of most interest to me was the situation with Miss Morris who is once again without a "home" when Amelia finally does die. There are, of course, financial and romantic aspects to this which get full treatment, but more important from my point of view was that the work Miss Morris did for her father was clearly a calling. Thinking about it much of her frustration with her current situation doesn't appear to be either the romantic or financial side, but rather the frustration of not being able to do what she does well and loves to do. The exploration of that issue by itself was important, something I have found in each of Thirkell's novels.

"The Brandons" is also full of the Barsetshire characters from other novels and while it isn't necessary to read them in order, I do think it helps. The book also has an interesting 2/1 dynamic or love triangle where both Hilary Grant and Mr. Miller are infatuated with Mrs. Brandon whom, at some level, seems oblivious to the whole thing. It wasn't the most attractive part of this novel, but on reflection, it was probably used as a vehicle to help both Grant and Miller come to a better understanding of themselves and what they both want and need. Most, if not all, of Thirkell's novels end with a series of engagements or marriages. In "The Brandons," the different situations seem headed there, but not with quite that level of closure. I am not sure whether that was intentional understatement or there are some surprises ahead. The only way to find out will be to read on, with "Before Lunch" next up on the list.

New Analysis of Old Data

Supposedly when George Eliot was writing her first novel, "Adam Bede," the publisher sent her a letter asking about the topic. She responded by saying she didn't want to answer that question because she believed that art was not the subject, but the treatment of the subject. "Adam Bede," by the way is still my favorite Eliot novel. My cultural companion, DT prefers "The Mill on the Floss" since he thinks using dental floss for a building foundation shows the Victorian early appreciation of environmental issues.

I have always liked Eliot's position on this and it came to mind again as I was reading William Rcyzek's new book, "Baseball's First Inning." I was first introduced to Rcyzek's work in "When Johnny Came Sliding Home," a history of the game in the immediate post Civil War era. The author had previously written about the first professional teams so his latest work represents the the last volume in a trilogy basically written backwards - sort of like Shakespeare's approach with his two sets of four history plays. Since Rcyzek looks at the early days of baseball from a larger perspective, his work helps me set a context for the work I am doing on early New Jersey baseball.

I am only about 50 pages into the latest book, but it was the author's treatment of the question of who invented baseball that made me think of Eliot's position on art. Rcyzek doesn't offer any new information, but he analyzes the existing information in an important and helpful way. Basically he says that if we look at baseball from a genealogical perspective, everything that comes after the New York Knickerbocker Club (pictured above left) can be more or less traced back to or through that club. The Knickerbockers were founded in 1845 and played their first game or match a year later.

The problem, Rcyzek notes is what happens when anyone tries to move back earlier than the Knickerbockers. As he notes when the Knickerbockers wrote down the rules for the first time (or the first set that has survived) they were obviously working of some form of baseball game since their rules don't provide a full explanation of how to play the game. What no one has been able to do is prove or document what game it provides the basis for the game that they codified. That game which may never be found would be the missing link in baseball history on the national level. Like most people who have studied or thought about the question, Rcyzek doesn't believe that any one person invented baseball, rather it gradually evolved. Yet his perspective on the Knickerbocker's is both interesting and helpful.

As noted my own research focuses on early baseball in New Jersey where the proximity to New York City certainly was important. The current beliefs are that the first New Jersey club was the Newark club founded in 1855 and the first game or match was played that season. I believe, but have not yet been able to prove that the Newark club was not the first club, I think a Jersey City club is a more likely candidate. I started looking a week or so ago at 1854 newspapers to see if I can find a game for 1855, no luck so far, but it would be like the missing link of New Jersey baseball history and is, therefore, well worth pursuing.

I Don't Care if I Never Get Back (Well Almost!)

In our book about the 1916 baseball season, Paul and I argue the season was important because it represented baseball at its best. We looked at the issue in terms of a season and concluded that close pennant races, controversy, record setting performances and teams that never quit are some of the elements that make baseball such a great game. Interestingly we didn't look at that on the level of individual games - what is that makes one game, baseball at its best.

I thought about this after Carol and I went to today's Mets-Braves game which I believe was one of the best games that I ever attended. That same sentiment was expressed by a number of people on the return trip on the LIRR (upper right) after the game. The Braves won 8-7 in 12 innings in a game that featured a grand slam home run, over 20 hits by both teams, a number of double plays and both managers using almost their entire rosters. After the Braves went ahead in the 12th, Jose Reyes just missed tying it again and then was left on third base when Gary Sheffield struck out looking on one of the wickedest pitches I have ever seen (with the benefit of watching it on television when we get home).

Usually when people talk about what makes an exciting game, they tend to focus on pitcher's duels. I still remember an epic Roger Clemens - Pedro Martinez match up on Sunday night baseball one Memorial Day weekend - I was also fortunate enough to see in person a Bob Gibson - Tom Seaver duel, won by Seaver and the Mets. Roger Angell once wrote something to the effect that pitcher's duels make the most exciting games because they force managers and teams to maximize their creativity since runs are so few and far between. There is a lot of truth in that and I certainly enjoy that kind of game much more than some the softball like scores that many American League teams tend to play - remember I am an old National League guy.

Yet at the same time, I have to say that in person, I do prefer games with some hitting. One thing that was interesting about today's game is that in spite of the scoring and extra innings, the game moved along - 12 innings 8-7 in 3:46 isn't too bad under today's standards. I guess for me a big issue continues to be the American League's use of the designated hitter. While it doesn't seem like it should make that much difference, the absence of that one relatively easy out just seems to make it too easy to score runs. I think it also contributes to what I think has always been more or less the norm in the American League wait for someone to hit a home run instead of trying to make things happen. The Mets so far this year remind me of an American League team because I think that is the way they play even with all the offense they generated in this game.

Almost as enjoyable as the game itself was the feeling that I am starting to deal with my anxiety about traveling to and from games. For some reason, I always worry about getting out afterwards to the point that it influences how I choose to travel and thinking when, or if, to leave early. Some of that anxiety is due to bad past experiences, for example taking an hour to get out of the parking lot at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia last July 4th - putting up with that knowing you have a two hour ride afterwards is not pleasant. But a larger part of it is just some unexplainable worrying that might have made some sense when I was working and had limited free time. Now however, in retirement it's not like I have that many places I have to go or things I have to do by certain times. I kept telling myself that throughout the day and was comfortable staying the for the whole game, recognizing that if we got home at 8:00 rather than 7:00 it was no big deal. I am very grateful for what feels like some progress because I really like Citi Field and hope to get there on some kind of a regular basis.

West Point

Supposedly the motto of Princeton University (in Latin, of course) means "in the service of the nation" or words to that effect. I once read a column in the New York Times that claimed that it really meant "boy do we have networks." Since I don't understand Latin and am not that interested, I will leave it up to others to debate what it really means.

However, this year I have gotten a sense of how beneficial networks can be. My work on the New Jersey Civil War 150th Committee has introduced me to a number of dedicated and helpful people including the good folks at the Phil Kearny Civil War Roundtable especially Joe Truglio, the group's leader. Working with them and speaking at their March meeting has led to three other speaking (and book selling) opportunities, one last February in Rockland County, last night at the West Point Museum and next month at the Wyckoff Historical Society.

Last night's talk was to the West Point Chapter of the Company of Military Historians. This group has chapters throughout the country and as the name suggests they meet to hear presentations on different aspects of military history. The meeting was at the West Point Museum which is actually not on the grounds of the military academy itself, but rather located not far from the main gate. A few of them hosted Carol and I for dinner before hand and I had the opportunity to talk with the chair who is very active in the study of civilian and women's issues related to the Civil War. Since this will be an important part of the New Jersey 150th anniversary observations, she could be a very helpful resource.

The talk went well and I sold five books which was especially gratifying. I have come to realize that I shouldn't have expectations about how many, if any, copies I will sell and just take it as it comes. As I noted in a recent post, I have learned that it is my job to write the books, not sell them. I will still take advantage of opportunities like these, but will be careful about how far I will travel to do so. West Point is probably a little further than I would normally want to travel, but the opportunity to go there was one that I would not pass up. I have been to West Point many times over the years, primarily for Rutgers football games, but when I was in college, I was there as a basketball and baseball manager. On one occasion we had the opportunity to have dinner in the dining hall an opportunity that doesn't come along very often in life.

I have now given my basic talk about the 33rd New Jersey enough times that I don't need a lot of practice and preparation time. Up until last November the talk consisted of telling about the regiment's troubled beginnings and then an overview of its service. At a talk to a New Jersey CWRT where I sold only one book, I realized that I was telling too much of the story leaving little incentive for anyone to buy the book. Since then I have changed the second half of the talk to focus specifically on the Atlanta campaign, leaving a lot of other material for people to read about in the book itself.

Interestingly last week in the Rutgers library I found an article about the 33rd's second regimental reunion on September 5, 1892. The article indicated that they chose early September for the reunion because it was the time they left Newark and the time (a year later) that they entered Atlanta with the rest of the triumph Union army. Unintentionally on my part, I had decided to focus two periods that the participants themselves thought were especially important - a nice feeling of connection with them. I would like to do more research on the 33rd especially their post war lives - I am not sure if there is another book there or not - I am also wondering if there is another New Jersey regiment whose story needs to be told - we will see.

"Oh to be in England"

Initial planning for our next trip to England began today over a Mother's Day lunch at Pal's Cabin in West Orange. Tentatively set for late spring of 2010, this will mark our fourth trip to the land of my ancestors, the most recent being the Shakespeare marathon in early 2008. This will be shortest turn around for a trip to England which is a sign of how much Carol and I both like it there - no small statement for two people who are not the most enthusiastic travelers.

The givens for this trip are visits to the homes of my ancestors - Audley in Staffordshire, Horsley/Nympsfield in Gloucestershire and the city of Worcester. The last time we visited Gloucestershire I wasn't sure that my ancestors were from Nympsfield so this will be our first visit to the place where the Window/Winder family lived for generations before moving to Horsley and then Worcester. The other given is a return to Stratford-on-Avon perhaps for a play, but definitely for a visit to Warwick Castle which is only eight miles away - we should have visited it in 2008.

Up until now, the only other place under serious consideration was Dartmoor (pictured above right) because of its connection to the classic Sherlock Holmes' story, "The Hound of the Baskervilles.'' Now one of England's largest national parks, supposedly it is possible to find the sites that Conan Doyle used in writing his story of death and terror on the moor - "Beware the moor during the hours of darkness when the powers of evil are exalted," - you can believe we will take that seriously.

After some reflection over the past few days, we have added to the list the Lake District in northwestern England and the city of Salisbury, especially Salisbury Cathedral. The latter place gave Anthony Trollope the inspiration for his much beloved Barchestershire novels and both the Cathedral and the city are supposed to be well worth seeing. It also helps that Salisbury is on the rail line to Dartmoor. The Lake District is supposedly one of the most beautiful places in all of England with a lot of opportunities for walks over spectacular country. It is also a large area and I was trying to think of how to focus that part of the trip and realized last night that the best approach might be to focus on the great English poet, William Wordsworth.

Wordsworth lived at Dove Cottage in the village of Grasmere from 1799 to 1808 when he apparently wrote most of his greatest poetry. Apparently Grasmere is right in the center of the Lake District so a brief (1-2 day) stay in the area would allow us to learn more about Wordsworth as well as go on some long walks throughout the area. I am not sure about how my poetic partner, DT, will feel about me stepping outside of the Elizabethean era but given the openess of his mind, he will be as fond of Wordsworth as he is of Shakespeare. In any event, as they say in England, it is "early days" yet, but it is exciting to start thinking about this trip which will take a lot of planning and thought.

Brooklyn and Ballparks - Continued

Reflecting some more on Walter O'Malley's move of the Dodgers to Los Angeles makes me wonder if the Brooklyn owner may have been ahead of his time, ahead in an unhelpful way - looking for a new ballpark for a sitting team. What I mean by that is building a new ballpark for a team that was staying in the same city.

The first two decades of the twentieth century marked the beginning of the concrete and steel era of ballparks where club owners could replace the inadequate and dangerous wooden ballparks with new larger structures that were not at such great risk of fire. Of the 16 major league teams in existence between 1900-1920 all but a handful built new parks during that period or became tenants in one - the Yankees leasing of the Polo Grounds from the Giants is an example of the latter.

With the exception of Yankee Stadium (early 1920's) and possibly Cleveland, the only new ballparks built between 1920 and 1955 (let's say) were facilities for teams that had moved. Of the Dodgers direct competitors in the National League, the only club playing in a new ballpark were the Braves after their move to Milwaukee. That, of course, for O'Malley was the case in point, a team that hadn't offered much competition, moving and becoming an instant competitor with record setting attendance. Looking at the overall situation, however, it seems that little was being done in terms of building new ballparks for existing teams. Even after 1955, it is almost 15 years before the new stadiums are built in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia - all of them unattractive and relatively short lived.

Given the difficulties building a new ballpark almost any place, consider the difficulties O'Malley had building Dodger Stadium as an example, makes me wonder if combining those challenges with an idea that was probably out of fashion was just too much to overcome. After reading "Forever Blue" and thinking about it, my feeling is that it is simplistic to accept the evil image of O'Malley, especially the one created in the media. It was his misfortune to offend a number of articulate and visible writers. Certainly there is enough blame to go around for what still must be considered the tragedy of the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn. However, it is also, I think a mistake to conclude O'Malley had no choice, as mentioned in the earlier post the success of Fenway Park and Wrigley Field shows that it can be done even without much parking.

It is somewhat ironic to be thinking about all of this at the same time that two new stadiums have opened in New York City. I have been to Citi Field once and will be there again this week, I like it and the Mets certainly needed a new ballpark. It looks like I will be going to the new Yankee Stadium a few times this year, from what I can see of it on television, it looks like they tried to make it exactly like the old one, but much more fan friendly. If so that would make it the only one of the new generation of stadiums where the new stadium is so similar to its immediate predecessor.

That similarity may be part of the reason that a New York Times columnist, Harvey Araton or Ira Berkow - I think, wrote a column surveying fans at Fenway Park (above left) about how they felt about their 1912 vintage park. Almost to a person they liked things as they were and had no desire for a new ballpark leading the writer to question the wisdom of building the new Yankee stadium. It's a fair question when the new park is so much of a replica of the old one. I also have to say, however, that attending a game at Fenway Park has its challenges.

Because Paul and Sarah live in the Boston area, I have been there many times, probably 15-20 and once the novelty has worn off, it is certainly not the most fan friendly venue. I am not a big patron of concessions at ballparks, but I do need to get out of my seat once and while - in a lot of locations, to do that for any basic human need, means missing an inning even with how long it takes to play an inning today especially in the American League. I am going to stop here because if I don't, I will go on to all the other things I don't like about the modern game which even with its faults is still my favorite.

Forever Blue - One Owner - One Team - Two Cities

In writing the latest version of the Brooklyn Dodgers much lamented departure from Brooklyn in 1957-58, Michael D'Antonio had full access to Walter O'Malley's papers and related documents - apparently the first writer to have used this resource. This material enables him to more fully develop the revisionist version which I read for the first time in Michael Shapiro's, "The Last Good Season" - the story of the 1956 baseball season, my first season of active baseball interest. I use the word revisionist in a non-judgemental way, this piece of history like any other should be subject to revision if new material and perspectives become available.

According to this version, the true villain of the piece is not O'Malley, but rather Robert Moses, a perhaps even more controversial figure than O'Malley. For decades Moses who never held elective office and seldom, if ever, paid government positions was the final authority on all development projects in New York City. According to his biographer, Robert Caro, the primary reason that Moses had this power was his ability to get things done. That is, the failure of the elected officials to build highways, housing, parks etc, enabled someone who could, to acquire and hold this vast power over the city. Certainly the picture painted in D'Antonio's book confirms this view, Mayor Robert Wagner and other government officials seem singularly inept in dealing with the situation. It is hard to visualize today how a New York City mayor could survive allowing sports institutions like the Dodgers and Giants to leave town.

Some of the blame is also laid at the feet (perhaps literally) of the Brooklyn fans who didn't go or stopped going to Ebbets Field - one particularly striking image is empty seats at the sixth game of the 1952 World Series when the Dodgers had a chance to win their first World's Championship. Given the success of the Dodgers in the late 1940's and 1950's, declining or static attendance is hard to understand. But this is also where the revisionist story breaks down to some degree. One reason that O'Malley has been, and probably always will be, criticized for moving the Dodgers is that his was a preemptive strike.

With, I think, one exception every other shift of a franchise was due to years of poor attendance and little or no fan interest - the Giants are a striking example. While Dodgers attendance may have been disappointing or falling behind the competition, the team was still very successful financially. The moved was more based on potential losses and a future lack of competitiveness and that will always be hard to justify. Ironically the only other example, I can think of, where a team abandoned a city where it was doing well was the Braves move from Milwaukee to Atlanta. Ironic because it was the success of the original move from Boston to Milwaukee that escalated O'Malley's belief that he needed a new stadium.


Another problem which is offered with the benefit of hindsight is that it appears that the possibility of rebuilding or renovating Ebbets Field may not have gotten adequate consideration. Certainly it is not considered in any depth in this book or others on the subject. In addition to the inadequacies of the stadium itself, the pressing issue was supposed to be the lack of parking that would deter all of those Brooklynites moving to the suburbs from returning for games. Yet two of today's most successful stadiums are Fenway Park in Boston and Wrigley Field in Chicago, both built in the same era, both with very little parking. Indeed I have stopped driving to Mets games even though there is plenty of parking so this may not have been the crucial issue it seemed at the time. One wonders what could have happened at Ebbets Field had some real creativity been applied to that option - the issue of renovating old parks vs building new ones will be the subject of a further post.

As I read "Forever Blue," I thought that there wasn't much in it that I hadn't read in Shapiro's book. One exception was the difficulty O'Malley had building Dodgers Stadium which if it was in the other book, I don't remember it. Certainly the owner of the Dodgers found that to be no easy task, but at least he had some political leaders who stood up for him and his team. Yet in spite of what was not a lot of new material and even with knowing the ending, the book held my attention. D'Antonio uses the material from the O'Malley archives to give a fuller, more balanced picture of this controversial figure who becomes far more human than the unfortunate caricatures developed over the years. It is certainly a book for every Dodger fan, Brooklyn or Los Angeles and for anyone interested in the history of the game.

Better Late Than Never

My intellectual buddy, DT, and I agree on most things, but one place where we part company is on libraries. I think libraries are one of our greatest institutions while DT moved to his community because of the library (they don't have one!). I have to admit, however, that I came to the belief fairly late. In fact, I am sad to say that in the past ten years, I have spent far more time in the Alexander Library at Rutgers (pictured above left) than I ever did as an undergraduate in the 1960's.

Some of that time has been spent finding books on the different topics I have been working on, but literally hours have been spent in the microform department reading old newspapers on microfilm. The Alexander library has one of the best collections of newspapers in the state and, I would guess, also in the region. For example, they have full runs of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, a Chicago newspaper and the Washington Post which greatly facilitated our research on the 1916 baseball book. I have also made extensive use of this collection for every other topic I have researched, ranging from the Civil War to various topics in baseball history. If, and when, I ever stop working there, they should probably retire my copy card.

Today I made a relatively brief visit to the library and worked on the following:

1. Biographical information on Nathan Barnert for the biography project of the NJCW150 committee. Barnert was a Jewish immigrant from Germany who settled in Paterson during the Civil War period, made a fortune supplying uniforms to the Union army and then gave away a lot of that fortune to charities and religious causes in the Paterson area. For example, Barnert Hospital and Barnert Temple were both named after he and his wife.

2. Biographical information on Madaline Williams, the New Jersey state assembly woman who the organizers of a Civil War centennial commission meeting in Charleston, South Carolina tried to bar from the conference hotel because of her race.

3. Researching early base ball games in New Jersey as part of the nationwide Protoball project which has its goal to tabulate all base ball games played in 1860 or earlier. The earliest documented game in New Jersey was played in 1855 so the holy grail, so to speak, would be a game played before that. Today I looked through two months of the Newark Daily Advertiser from 1854, but found only a couple of cricket games.

4. Researching reunions of the 33rd New Jersey, someone gave me pictures of reunion medals for the regiment with dates on them so I looked for newspaper accounts. I didn't find too much, but did learn that they tried to have their initial reunions (1891-92) in early September which was the anniversary of both their troubled departure from Newark in September of 1863 and the fall of Atlanta a year later. Since my basic talk about the regiment focuses on those two events, it was interesting to see that they did much the same thing.

Of course, while there I also made a quick tour of the stacks picking up books on Shakespeare, Marlowe and Andrew Jackson's war against the 2nd Bank of the United States. Will I read all of them? Probably not, but since they are on loan at no cost, there is no real downside. And one thing is for sure, I will be back there often enough that it won't be inconvenient to return them!

The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare

My cultural buddy, DT, is always telling me that to fully appreciate Shakespeare, I need to study his work in context. Of course by context, DT means his opinion, but even considering the source the idea still has merit. For example, in the last two books, I have read about Shakespeare there has been several references to the idea that much of Shakespeare's early work was in response to the work of Christopher Marlowe (pictured above right). Shakespeare's need to respond to Marlowe ended when Marlowe was killed in a tavern brawl - that's the kind of story that would appeal to DT.

In an effort to work on the whole context issue, I just finished reading Irving Ribner's book - "The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare." While written a long time ago, I found it very valuable in terms of understanding the whole genre of the the history play. Among other things the book helped me to understand how the history play evolved. I think there is a tendency to think of many things as just starting one day - that someone gets a brainstorm and just decides to start writing plays about English history or to invent baseball -things like that. My guess is that in reality that seldom happens, that almost everything evolves from something else - why, for example, would anyone believe that one person, like Abner Doubleday would one day just invent baseball. It is much more reasonable to believe that it evolved by people making adjustments with what they had to work with, in that case other bat and ball games.

In the case of the history play, Ribner shows how it is rooted in the different kinds of plays that preceded it such as morality plays or chronicle plays. Then the playwrights of the Elizabethan age took those forms and adapted them to meet their own needs and, one suspects, the demands of both the public and patrons. The plays of that time, or any time for that matter, were also influenced by the beliefs and norms of that time. For example, a primary purpose of history for the Elizabethans was to teach, especially to teach lessons relevant to the current time. This was a higher value than historical accuracy so the liberties that Shakespeare and others took with English history were completely reasonable if it was done to help teach an important lesson.

Reading this book is also leading me to think that my basic idea for a book about the history plays would probably not work. My thought had been a book looking at the plays in regnal order to try to analyze what Shakespeare believed about kingship or, in other words, leadership. While Ribner's book has another purpose, he also says much of what I was thinking and I am sure there are others who have done the same. Given the centuries of Shakespeare criticism, it is unlikely that I am going to come up with something new especially without the benefit of a graduate education.

While any such book was not imminent, I need to do some more thinking about this. One question is whether just because you are interested in something you need to write a book about it. Or perhaps the book needs to be different - less emphasis on academic scholarship and instead writing about the importance of these plays to me as sort of a combination memoir and book promoting their interest to others. In going through some of Paul's stuff from a college theater trip to England, I found the program from "Henry IV, Part I" from an RSC production in 2000. A lot of emphasis in the program is placed on the father and son aspect - I have written before about how that alone would make the play a good introduction to Shakespeare for high school students, especially in all male private schools.

As I said, nothing was imminent here so a change in direction is not necessarily a bad thing. I will continue to read about Shakespeare, his history plays as well as going to see them. In the latter regard I have pretty much decided to take a trip to the Blackfriars Theater in Staunton, Virginia this fall for a production of "Henry IV, Part I," possibly in conjunction with a visit to Harper's Ferry. In addition I plan to start learning more about Christopher Marlowe and his approach to the history plays as part of getting even a better sense of context.

Pomfret Towers

Many years ago, "Pomfret Towers" was my introduction to the Barsetshire novels of Angela Thirkell. I am now trying to read all of them in sequence and the end of "Summer Half" brought me to this one which I had read out of sequence. While I usually don't read many books more than once, I decided to do so in this case (and will do the same with "Before Lunch") because I didn't remember that much of the story.

I did remember that some of the action centered on a weekend house party given by Lord Pomfret at his ancestral home, but I had forgotten how much, indeed more than one half of the book. As usual there is a connection between the characters in this novel and Thirkell's other novels. In this case, Lord Pomfret's sister is the Lady Emily of "Wild Strawberries," an earlier novel in the series. In addition to being siblings, the Pomfrets have something tragic in common, both of them lost their eldest son to the carnage of World War I.

Obviously that is sad in both cases, but in the case of the Pomfrets it raises other issues as the Pomfrets have no other children so there is no immediate heir to the family's wealth and estates. The next in line is an elderly, unloved man in ill health so the real heir apparent is a young man named Gillie Foster. Most of the story in "Pomfret Towers" centers on who he will marry and unlike the 2/1 dynamics set up by many authors in these situations (including Thirkell), this time there is actually a 3-1 dynamic. Obviously there can only be one "winner," and not surprisingly, Foster makes the right decision which is confirmed by the lady's response.
Interestingly though at the end of the story, the two who weren't asked (and probably aren't disappointed by the fact) are in what are clearly "to be continued" situations. I think I know how one comes out, it will be interesting to see about the other.

As I got to the end of this book, I thought that this time Thirkell would not include the two things that I had seen in the last two novels, "August Folly" and "Summer Half" - unspoken masculine communication to resolve problems and a deeper issue somewhat below the surface. I was definitely wrong on the first one because at the very end there is a situation where one of the male characters expects a "homily" from another, but the issue is again dealt with in an unspoken way.

I am not sure about the deeper issue - in "Summer Half" at first I found Rose Birkett to be such a caricature that it was hard to take her seriously thus, I thought, weakening the book. The longer I thought about it, however, the more it seemed that she was presented in that way as a vehicle to present a deeper issue. In that case, the danger of unhealthy relationships. In "Pomfret Towers" I was put off by Alice Barton who's timidity and shyness seemed to be as much of a caricature as Rose Birkett. I did remember Alice from my first reading and for some reason, it didn't put me off that time. Thinking about it now, I wonder if the extreme shyness of Alice is again a vehicle for consideration of some deeper issue - if it is, the issue isn't clear to me at the moment. But it may be that part of Thirkell's skill as a writer is to portray these almost caricature characters to allow the reader to consider deeper issues - perhaps different issues depending on the reader and how he or she interprets the book. Something to think about as I move on to "The Brandons."

Making Sense of John Brown

While I prefer to make up my own titles for posts, in this case I am borrowing the title from the Virginia conference panel discussion because I think it best describes the issue. As I wrote in the last post, the second morning workshop was about Virginia and the south in 1859. About one-third of the discussion focused on the slave trade in Richmond and while the panelists eventually moved on to other topics, for me the morning ended with this sense of the omnipresence of slavery, and the perhaps even more depressing thought that few, if any, thought it was wrong. And that those who did think it was wrong couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it.

Enter then for the first afternoon session, a discussion about John Brown, someone, who has title suggests, we have a hard time understanding. On the one hand, Brown brutally murdered five slaveholders in Kansas during the struggles over whether that state would be slave or free. Then at Harper's Ferry in October of 1859, he launched a raid on the Federal Arsenal designed to free slaves and steal weapons and ammunition for further attacks. Apparently Brown's original plan was to stay at Harper's Ferry only long enough to accomplish those two objectives and then retreat back into the mountains to begin a series of terrorist attacks on slaveholders. For some reason, Brown did not follow his original plan and stayed long enough for Federal and state authorities to capture or kill the entire party.

Looked at from that perspective Brown was a cruel murderer as well as a traitor who took the law into his own hands. Yet at the same time, Brown was someone who had committed his life to do something about a monstrous evil, an evil that most people were willing to ignore or at the very least accept. Given that situation it is hard to understand how slavery could have been ended without violence or war. There was some speculation in the discussion that Brown decided to stay at Harper's Ferry because he felt that he could best serve the anti-slavery cause by being a martyr to it. Supposedly between the time of his capture and his execution, Brown wrote over 100 letters designed in large measure to bring attention to the evil of slavery and the need to do something about it. One question raised in the discussion that was never answered was why did the state of Virginia allow him to send all those letters that gave more ammunition to the abolitionist movement.

Perhaps the real difficulty in making sense of John Brown lies in the question of whether it is ever legitimate to use violence to fight evil. Some of Brown's contemporaries who usually thought otherwise seemed to think it was appropriate in this case. For example, Henry David Thoreau, one of the leading proponents of civil disobedience and pacifism supported Brown's actions. Still no matter, how great the evil, even if violence is the only solution, it seems hard to justify taking the law into one's own hands. And yet, it is hard to see how slavery would have been ended without war - certainly nothing in 1859 suggested there was any other alternative. It is a question that may very well be unanswerable suggesting why 150 years later, it is still so difficult to make sense of John Brown

"If Slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong"

The Virginia Sesquicentennial conference last week consisted of four panel discussions. I wasn't sure what to expect from the format, but this experience showed that when it is done well, it is a great approach, something that could be applied to almost any subject. In each case the President of the University of Richmond, Ed Ayers (himself a Civil War scholar) led a discussion among four panelists each of whom had a lengthy resume of Civil War scholarship.

The one topic that I thought would be of least interest to me was about Virginia in 1859, primarily because it would be of more local interest. Yet like the rest it turned out to be a fascinating discussion especially the 20 minutes or so that was devoted to the slave trade in Richmond (picture above in an 19th century drawing). Apparently the records of one slave trading company survive and one of the panelists had analyzed the figures. As I remember them, this one slave trader reported annual volume of about $2 million (about $40 million in today's money) and this was only one of four or five large slave trading operations in Richmond.

As the discussion went on, it made it clear how the slave trade permeated every aspect of Richmond both its economy and its society. No matter what aspect of life the panelists talked about it seemed clear that the slave trade was accepted as a normal business and there was no one who opposed it in any significant way. To me, at that point, the tone was almost one of despair when one of the panelists finally said that he had grown up in the segregated south which was another society that tolerated something that was morally wrong. This led to some discussion about the idea that there is something in human nature that allows us to accept or at least tolerate things that we know are wrong.

My immediate reaction when I heard this was to think of something that I read somewhere about Shakespeare's play, "Richard III." The critic, whoever, he or she was, said that one of the major points of the play is the importance of resisting evil. It just demonstrates once more the broad application of Shakespeare to almost every human situation.

This discussion brought home as clearly as anything I have heard heard or read about the horror of slavery. Thinking about it, my sense is that slavery was such a terrible institution because it draws on three of the worst human sins - racism, greed and lust - the latter because of the way black women were further exploited by white men. Each of these sins is powerful by itself, combined together they would have incredible power. For example, if blacks are inferior and worthy only to be slaves, then there is every reason to exploit them for both economic and sexual reasons. Seen like this, Abraham Lincoln's quote which is the title for this post seems even more accurate and appropriate.

This panel discussion was the second of the two morning sessions, the next immediately after lunch was entitled "Making Sense of John Brown." The discussion about slavery put the John Brown discussion in context and set the stage for that difficult issue - something that will be the subject of the next post.

A Quiet Saturday

A couple of months ago I was telling a friend of mine how I was going to manage all of the different things I am involved with. My final comment was that I would have to be careful not to take on too many things. That earned me a withering look of disbelief. I don't know why people complain about those who don't understand them, I have a lot more trouble with the people who do understand me.

My activities today gave plenty of support for that look of disbelief. The day began at 7:00 a.m. as I drove down to Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia for the annual meeting of the Connie Mack SABR chapter. I was there to give a brief talk called, "The best of times, the worst of times - the Phillies and the A's in the 1916 pennant races," and also to sell books - the goals were not necessarily in that order. This was the first time I have spoken about the 1916 book, it was well received with at least a half of a dozen people complimenting me on it. However, it was like the operation that succeeded, but the patient died - no one bought the book. This is the first time that I have tried to actively sell a book and I am realizing it is not a good idea - my job is to write them, it is the publisher's job to sell them. I do plan to continue to give talks about my books, but will be a lot more selective as to when and where - especially where.

From there I drove to Washington's Crossing State Park on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River for the annual Spirit of the Jerseys State History Fair. I had two purposes in going to this event, the first was to attend part of what was supposed to be a baseball game between the Neshanock and my beloved Eureka. Unfortunately once again, Eureka attendance was a problem and the game was basically a Neshanock inter-squad game. There are some real concerns about our ability to continue the Eureka which would be a real shame. Hopefully we will be able to keep it active to some level while we recruit more players.

Once that game was over, I went to the booth of the 12th New Jersey Civil War regiment to find one of my counter-parts on the New Jersey Civil War 150th Anniversary Committee - a film producer. He wanted to tape a public service announcement about the committee and its work with me as the spokesperson. It was interesting as he had me walk past a group of re-enactors talking about the upcoming anniversary and its importance. We did it in two takes so I guess it was all right - supposedly it will appear on Comcast in South Jersey and possibly on NJN as well.

All of this would have been a pretty busy day in its own right, but it followed a week where I went to a game at Citi Field with Paul, down to Elkton, Maryland for a vintage tournament followed by two days in Virginia for a sesquicentennial conference. At the moment I don't feel too tired from all of this, but the good news is that there is nothing of this magnitude on the calendar for a while - the challenge will be to make sure that it stays that way. Wait a minute, was that another withering look of disbelief?

Opening Shots of the Sesquicentennial

This past Wednesday, Carol and I attended the Virgina Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission's signature conference on America in 1859. It was stated frequently that this was the first event of the observation of the 150th anniversary, not just in Virginia, but nation wide. If so, it got off to a good start and I will write in more detail about the content of the program in future posts.

Today, however, I want to focus on the history not of the Civil War, but of Civil War anniversaries. While we were driving home, Carol wondered about what the Civil War Centennial observations were like. That led me to tell her one part of the story that I learned about in working on the New Jersey 150th, but which is probably not that well known.

For the centennial observations, New Jersey like other states appointed official government commissions that in addition to planning New Jersey observations represented New Jersey at the national level. In April of 1861, the national commission held its annual meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, the site of the first shot of the war at Fort Sumter. One member of the New Jersey commission was Ms. Madaline A. Williams, the first African-American woman elected to the New Jersey State Legislature as a member of the assembly. Because she was black, Ms. Williams was denied accommodations at the hotel that was to host the conference. Protests reached the White House where President John Kennedy intervened saying that the commission which was funded by the government had an obligation to be sure that every was treated equally. Incredibly (or perhaps not), the commission's executive committee initially refused to change its plans before ultimately moving the meeting to the Charleston Naval Base.

Thinking about that incident after attending this conference demonstrates that today we live in a very different country. The panels that discussed the issues at the conference were made up of very diverse voices especially from the African-American community. The topics did not dodge the tough issues especially the session that focused on Virginia in 1859, about 1/3 of that session was devoted to a discussion of the slave trade in Richmond. The discussion vividly illustrated how the slave trade was enmeshed with every aspect of Virginia society and that there were few if any voices raised in opposition. It couldn't have been an easy discussion for Virginia residents and all the more credit to those who planned and carried out the conference for their commitment to honesty and integrity.

Just the difference between how the country looked at the Civil War a 100 years later and how we look at it now 150 years later demonstrates how important the War remains today. More about this in future posts over the next week.