William Edward White = 1st Black?

[Wolf Hopper]

Baseball historians are trying to determine whether William Edward White was the first black player in the Major Leagues.

White played one game for the Providence Greys of the National League on June 21, 1879, and the Society for American Baseball Research is researching his history.

Is this important?

[LeGrandOrange]

It's not important, but it's interesting. I'll still acknowledge Fleet Walker as the first one though...

[SmedIndy]

I think it is for history's sake.

[Wolf Hopper]

I think it is for history's sake. Why and how?

[SmedIndy]

It just is...you always want the history of the game correct and accurate.

[nyy26wc]

It just is...you always want the history of the game correct and accurate.

Some people want the history of the game to be correct and accurate. But, others, like the Elias and The Sporting News, prefer the it's always been that way, it will always be that way approach.

The classic example of that is how many hits Ty Cobb had. The old school still wants to insist that the mathematical errors that led to the 4191 total still stay entenched in the records.

[LeGrandOrange]

Sometimes, the desire for accuracy is trumped by the romanticism of certain feats and accomplishments. Babe Ruth, for example, really has 715 home runs but historians still score one of his walk-off homers a double (based on rules of the time) because we're so used to 714.

[SmedIndy]

I just want the facts to come out, if it's the case.

[Elmo]

I think one of the difficulties with ascertaining who was the first...or indeed the participation of black players in the 19th century is something that plagues historians and statisticians about almost everything in the 19th century and indeed part of the 20th. There were different associations and teams and a real fluidity as to who was playing in what league and who they played and what constituted a 'major' league and how that related to our conception of major leagues today.

The HR rules are one, Barnes' skill at landing bunts fair that would go foul - and any number of other considerations are areas that are pretty subject to interpretation...and varying interpretations. There aren't 'wrongs' and 'rights' per se - nor 'facts' that neatly categorize themselves.

Black players participation in professional baseball associations was a decidedly mixed deal. fraught with de facto bans, local Jim Crow Laws, the ban on 'new' contracts with black baseball players in the '80's. None of these things crossed various association borders with any consistency.

Blacks DID play in the 1800's. It's fairly likely that there were any number of black players in one association or another from the very first days of organized baseball. Whether player A) or B) is the 'first' seems more a question of definition as to what is 'professional' what is 'major' and so on.

But it's still important, because the more investigation on the 19th century roots of baseball and also the role of black players happens, the more it adds to our understanding not only of baseball, but of the social history of the time...and out time.

[sweaver]

One problem with identifying the first black to play in the major leagues, is the definition of "major leagues" was more fluid back then.

[Craig S.]

It just is...you always want the history of the game correct and accurate.

That's my feeling on it, too. Baseball history has plenty of inaccuracies, so any time they can get the truth is great.

For anyone who has read it, was the WSJ article more comprehensive than the ones I've read online from other newspapers? I'm curious about the background of this case.

[nyy26wc]

There is also the big question of what does "black" mean.

According to the laws of many states back then, a person would be classified as black even if just 1/16 black blood. In other words, between the person's parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great grandparents, just 1 black individual equals a classification of black.

Such a system resulted in people who you couldn't tell the difference, by sight between them and other white people being legally classified as colored.

The infamous Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson involved a person who was actually white, but was declared black by the laws of Lousiana.

I've seen reports that said that William Edward White was able to pass for a white man. So, assuming that's accurate, there would be the good chance that he really was white, but arcane laws would be the reasons why records of the day would say otherwise.

[KCBOOMER]

I am not sure if this really matters or not. It will not change any thing that matters. The treatment of blacks throughout our history will not be any less shameful no matter who the first black player was.

[gyb13]

and racism won't end until people start thinking of people as just 'people' and not subcategorizing them into blacks, whites, etc etc

[SmedIndy]

But if he was allowed to play in that time, and if it was known that he was a person of color, it would be of great import....simply due to the sociological implications...

[Wolf Hopper]

But if he was allowed to play in that time, and if it was known that he was a person of color, it would be of great import....simply due to the sociological implications...

That fact that he only played one game makes me wonder if this was more of a case of trying to sneak him in rather than let him play.

[gyb13]

white was one of 8 players who played just one game for the 1879 NL

[SmedIndy]

Many players only played one game back in the day. Sometimes a team being short handed on the road would pick up a local to fill out their nine.

[Wolf Hopper]

Smed - 8 is many?

[nyy26wc]

Smed - 8 is many?

That's 8 out of 118 players, or 6.7%.

By comparision, in 2003, there were 16 out of 1231, or 1.2%.

[SmedIndy]

I wasn't just saying that year in particular, Wolfie. Over time, back in the day, it happened.

[Wolf Hopper]

That's 8 out of 118 players, or 6.7%.

By comparision, in 2003, there were 16 out of 1231, or 1.2%.

But, there are many more teams in 2003 and a lot less chances to play - - less roster spots, less games - - in 1879, no?

[SmedIndy]

I think you're trying to grasp at something that isn't there - do teams nowadays pick up players for a game or two if they have an injury from locals off the street basically.

And isn't this totally veered from the topic at hand?

[Wolf Hopper]

I think you're trying to grasp at something that isn't there - do teams nowadays pick up players for a game or two if they have an injury from locals off the street basically.

And isn't this totally veered from the topic at hand?

It all relates to my view on the topic, no?

That fact that he only played one game makes me wonder if this was more of a case of trying to sneak him in rather than let him play.

[LeGrandOrange]

That's 8 out of 118 players, or 6.7%.

By comparision, in 2003, there were 16 out of 1231, or 1.2%.

I only counted 1,230 last year. Not that that has to do with anything...:) Heck, I'm not even sure what the percent is for.

Just out of curiosity, and to make my post mean anything, are there any professional opinions about this development? I'm just wondering what the normal baseball community thinks.

[SmedIndy]

Not really Wolfie - I was just trying to point out they may not have tried to just "sneak him in", instead, it was more common for players to play just one or a handful of games due to various and sundry issues, then we got sidetracked on semantics.

[sweaver]

I'm just wondering what the normal baseball community thinks.
I'd say the "normal" baseball community is ignoring the whole thing. This is a couple SABR guys researching through the Hall of Fame and newspaper archives and such.

It's a footnote to history, really, but I would like to know.

[SmedIndy]

I'd say the "normal" baseball community is ignoring the whole thing. This is a couple SABR guys researching through the Hall of Fame and newspaper archives and such.

It's a footnote to history, really, but I would like to know.

btw - It is also rumored that Sandy Nava, a catcher with the Grays in their 1884 season, was half African-American. He came from California, and it is notable that (besides his inability to hit) he disappeared from the ML scene at the same time baseball blacklisted the other African-Americans in 1887.

[Wolf Hopper]

That fact that he only played one game makes me wonder if this was more of a case of trying to sneak him in rather than let him play.

Since White did play just one game, is it truly a "landmark breakthrough milestone" type thing - or, just a version of Gaedel?

[SmedIndy]

Neither - as I said before, I don't think this was a stunt or anything like that since there are several circumstances that could lead to just a one-game career.

And who knows, since they barnstormed a lot of games in those days he could have played against other competition as a member of the Grays. Many players in those times with little major league service actually stayed the whole year with the club and filled in during those games.

[Dykstra]

btw - It is also rumored that Sandy Nava, a catcher with the Grays in their 1884 season, was half African-American. He came from California, and it is notable that (besides his inability to hit) he disappeared from the ML scene at the same time baseball blacklisted the other African-Americans in 1887.

Nava - "According to his death certificate, his mother was Mexican, and he appears to have been very dark-skinned in the 1884 team picture" - http://www.providencegrays.org/Old_Grays/Vincent_Nava/vincent_nava.html

[SmedIndy]

I saw that - in photos I've seen of him I doubt if he'd be welcomed into MLB much past 1887 or so.