Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

Search:Larry Search:Female/Girl + (In chronology: girl or lady or ladies or female)
Search:Dave Search:Bans + (In chronology: tags:Bans)
Search:Dave Search:Civil War Chronology search + (In chronology: tags:Civil War)
Search:Larry Search:2 + (In chronology: wicket)
Search:Larry Search:Wicket + (In chronology: wicket)
Search:Larry Search:Wicket1 + (In chronology: wicket)
Dave Search:Clubs Beyond 2000 + (In clubs: year >= 2000)
McKinstry vs. Brooklyn Daily Times + (McKinstry vs. Brooklyn Daily Times: An 186 … McKinstry vs. Brooklyn Daily Times:An 1862 Baseball Rules DisputeBy Steve SistoAs large and detailed as the baseball rulebook is, the game is ultimately a subjective one, requiring an umpire to make split-second judgment calls. Given this, it is only natural that not everyone will agree with an umpire's ruling. In fact, the history of baseball rule disputes dates back almost 150 years ago. This article will examine one of the earliest recorded ruling controversies, between an umpire and a Brooklyn newspaper, from 1862."Go to see the match this afternoon between the Constellation club and the Atlantic club of Jamaica. It will be worth seeing," wrote The Brooklyn Daily Times on July 30, 1862. The paper continued, imploring fans to pay the admission for entry: "Don't stand in the back, but pay your ten cents like men, and go inside. If a game is interesting enough to keep a crowd standing outside in the broiling sun for hours, it is worth the paying of ten cents to go inside and sit down in the shade like a Christian. Go in and shell out."The two teams had played earlier in the month, on July 4, in the Atlantics' territory of Jamaica, Queens. The Atlantics were victorious, 35 to 23. The game on July 31 was to be played on the Union Grounds in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn. Ed McKinstry of the Eckford Club was selected as umpire. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported the score of the game as 24-15 in favor of the Constellations, writing that "the playing throughout was rather mediocre" (Eagle, August 1). The Brooklyn Daily Times, however, scored the game 23-15, arguing that one of the Constellation's runs in the 8th inning should not have counted. According to The Daily Times:It occurred thus: Thomas was on the third base, and Smith was striker. Thomas started to run home before the pitcher had delivered the ball, but the latter seeing his movement, pitched the ball, and Smith hit it, sending it over to shortstop, who fielded the ball over to the first base in time to put Smith out. Mr. McKinstry decided that Thomas had made his run, because he reached the home base before Smith was out. We contend that he did not make his run, and copy the following from the rules and regulations of the National Association to prove our assertion. It must be recollected that Smith was the third hand out."Sec. 24. If two hands are already out, no player turning home at the time the ball is struck, can make an ace if the striker is put out."This will put that matter straight.McKinstry must have read The Daily Times's article, because he wrote a letter to the paper, which it published the next day on August 1:While finding no fault with the spirit which dictated the assumed correction, I nevertheless beg to differ with your reporter, and for the following reason: 'Mr. McKinstry'' did not decide 'that Mr. Thomas had made his run because he reached the home base before Smith was out,' but because, in the opinion of the umpire, Thomas had reached the home base before Mr. Smith hit the ball. The point was a close one, Mr. Thomas arriving at the base at the same moment the ball was hit, in fact touching, or rather coming in contact with Mr. Smith as he started for the first base. This was the state of facts upon which the decision was based, and although several old players in the base ball arena disagree with me as to the correctness of the decision, (they taking the ground that it made no difference whether he arrived at the home base prior to the ball being struck or not, inasmuch as he run on the ball which was struck by the third hand out). I still contend that Mr. Thomas should score his run which was recorded... I remain, yours very respectfully, E. McKinstryThe paper, in introducing the letter, defended its initial opinion, writing: "We are of the same opinion now as we were then, and think the majority of base ball players lean the same way. If Mr. Thomas had reached the base a few seconds before the ball, Smith never could have hit it, as he would have had to get out of the way of Thomas, and never could have recovered himself in time to hit the ball as he did — it was impossible." In the opinion of this writer, The Daily Times was correct and McKinstry was wrong. This writer's interpretation of the rules is that a run cannot be scored during a play in which the third out is made, even if the runner touches home plate before the pitch is thrown, as unlikely as that may be. Of course, vigorous debate over the rules of baseball is healthy, and differing views on this circumstance are more than welcome. Regardless of one's view of the play in question, the mere fact that a dispute of this nature between umpire and newspaper played out all the way back in 1862 is nothing short of fascinating. Anyone who comes across similar disputes, whether before or after this one, is encouraged to share them for further examination and discussion.em for further examination and discussion.)
Notes on the History and Evolution of Stoolball + (Notes on the History and Evolution of Stoo … Notes on the History and Evolution of Stoolball By David Block The documented history of stoolball in Britain dates back nearly 600 years, and the game is often cited as a predecessor to both cricket and baseball. Today it enjoys ongoing popularity as an organized team sport in Sussex and other counties in the south of England. Yet many gaps remain in our understanding of stoolball’s history and development. What follows is a short summation of stoolball’s historical eras, as I perceive them, along with a few additional notes and comments. I realize this is nerdy brew even for the most ardent consumers of this newsletter, given that stoolball’s influence on baseball’s origins is murky at best, so abstainers are forgiven. For a deeper dive into stoolball’s history, especially its ancient/romantic era, please see my 2005 book Baseball before We Knew It. I also recommend English historian Andrew Lusted’s two pamphlets, Girls Just Wanted to Have Fun, and The Glynde Butterflies Stoolball Team, 1866-1887. Stoolball in 1767, from wikipedia First off, What is “Stoolball?” Descriptions of stool-ball prior to 1867 exist, but give few details. (For 1867 and subsequent rules, see below)2 1. In the 1660s, Francis Willughby described a game called stoolball that had similarities to trap-ball (see Protoball.org for trap-ball), but with the batter fungoing the ball rather than using a trap. 2. The poem “Stool-ball, or the Easter Diversion” in 1733 elaborately described a contest played in Wales that included use of a bat, pitching, but no base-running. 3. The stoolball poem in 1744’s “A Little Pretty Pocket-book” implies baserunning with its phrase “swift round his course the gamester flies.” But no bat. 4. Joseph Strutt in 1801 described two forms of stoolball, one a simple two-person game with no baserunning, and the second a multiple base game with multiple base-runners. All subsequent descriptions of stoolball appearing in the 19th century prior to 1867 were modeled on Strutt’s. History of Stoolball The history of stoolball can be divided roughly into two phases, pre-modern and modern, with the 1860s forming the dividing line between the two. The pre-modern period itself can be seen as comprised of two eras, the ancient/romantic and the early competitive. Ancient/Romantic Era: This spans stoolball’s history from its earliest recorded presence in the 15th century through the early decades of the 18th century. This era is characterized by hundreds of references to stoolball in British literature and poetry. These references relate primarily to the game’s role in British popular culture, and secondarily to controversies over its legal standing (stoolball play was permitted, even on Sundays, by Anglican monarchs of the 1600s, an attitude that was bitterly opposed by Puritan authorities). Almost universally, the references to stoolball during these centuries omit particulars about how it was played. Instead, writers of the era, both literally and metaphorically, celebrated the game’s role in springtime courtship rituals, portraying stoolball as an activity where young men and young women could mingle freely, and thus provide opportunities for sexual engagement and romance. If any players during this era embraced the game as a means of serious athletic competition, no record of such activity survives. (Nor is there any evidence to support the venerable legend that stoolball originated when milkmaids laid down their stools to use as wickets for ball play). Early Competitive Era: This period roughly spans the years 1740 to 1860. It marks the almost simultaneous decline of stoolball as a romantic emblem in British literature and the emergence of a game with the identical name as a competitive sport in the southern England county of Sussex. The earliest sign of the latter is a 1747 Sussex newspaper report mentioning a stoolball match played by maidens in the village of Warbleton.3 Similar reports appeared occasionally in the British press toward the end of the 18th century and through the first six decades of the 19th. In nearly all of these reports, groups of women or girls in various Sussex locales formed teams to compete against each other, often at the same locale where male friends and family were playing cricket. There are no surviving rules or descriptions to inform us of how Sussex women and girls played stoolball during those years. Stoolball at Horsham park, 1878 Modern Period: In the 1860s, the first organized stoolball clubs formed in Sussex, and in 1867, William de St Croix, a local vicar in the town of Glynde and the father of several players on the local town team, codified and published the first known set of standardized rules. These rules closely paralleled those of cricket, with several significant exceptions. Of note, a one-handed paddle was substituted for the heavy cricket bat, bowlers served balls underhanded and, instead of wickets, two wooden targets, each a foot square, were positioned atop stakes to serve as goals. Competitions between clubs of women and girls representing various Sussex villages proceeded until the end of the century. The game was revived again periodically in the 20th century, with clubs and associations coming in and out of existence over the decades. The current umbrella organization for the sport, the National Stoolball Association, was founded in 1979 and supervises numerous clubs in Sussex and surrounding counties. It changed its name to Stoolball England in 2010.4 Modern Stoolball (from thisgirlcan.co.uk) Comments/Opinions 1. Beginning in the 18th century and continuing into the 19th, several British newspaper articles mentioned matches of a game called “battle-board.” All of these involved female players from the county of Kent that borders Sussex to the east. In all likelihood battle-board was simply a local Kentish designation for stoolball. A possibly related term—bittle-battle—has been cited on occasion as another alternate name for stoolball. Baseball historian Robert W. Henderson and others have alleged the word battle-battle appeared in the Domesday book. This latter claim is unfounded, although there is at least one, verified use of the term bittle-battle, this being when a local newspaper in the Sussex town of Seaford reported on a game of that name in 1864. 2. Modern stoolball is played in a manner very similar to cricket. Its rules, as first codified in 1867, are plainly modeled after those of the more heralded sport. It may not be a coincidence that reports of women playing cricket in England first appeared in the 1740s, the same decade as the first known competitive stoolball match. And as they did in that stoolball contest, women from Sussex comprised the opposing sides in at least one of the cricket matches. 3. Then again, there is no hard evidence that stoolball assumed its cricket-like essence as early as the 1740s. It is possible that when women in Sussex first began playing competitively they were practicing an earlier form of the game and only gravitated to the cricket model at some later date. It is equally uncertain when adoption of the one-handed racket and elevated targets came into use.5 Sussex historian Andrew Lusted maintains that women in his county had been playing this “modern” version of the game for at least several decades before Reverend de St Croix formalized its rules in 1867. Since the end of the antique/romantic era of stoolball, the game appears to have been played predominantly by females, although there are ample examples of men and boys playing it on mixed teams There is also one anomalous example of two teams of men facing off at stoolball in the town of Sittingbourne in Kent in the year 1785, as reported by a local newspaper. 4. One additional dichotomy between the ancient/romantic era of stoolball versus the competitive and modern periods is where the game was played. During the three centuries prior to the 1740s, stoolball clearly enjoyed popularity throughout Britain. This is suggested by the hundreds of references to the game that appeared in literature, polemics and poetry, including in works written by celebrated authors from Shakespeare to Sir Walter Scott (Scott, of course, wrote in the 19th century, but his reference to stoolball appeared in his novel Ivanhoe which was set in the 12th century). By contrast, from 1747 onward when newspapers reported on actual stoolball matches, nearly all were played in Sussex, with isolated examples from Surrey and Kent (also in southeast England). 5. Stoolball’s distinction as predecessor game to cricket and baseball is based solely upon presumption, not actual proof. Yet, historian Joseph Strutt offered one intriguing description of stoolball suggestive of a possible relationship to baseball. In his iconic work The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England, first published in 1801, Strutt presented the following as one of his two descriptions of stoolball: “A certain number of stools are set up in a circular form, and at a distance from each other, and every one of them is occupied by a single player; when the ball is struck, which is done as before with the hand, they are every one of them obliged to alter his situation, running in succession from stool to stool, and if he who threw the ball can regain it in time to strike any one of the players, before he reaches the stool to which he is running, he takes his place, and the person touched must throw the ball, until he can in like manner return to the circle.” If you can overlook such minor discrepancies as the absence of a bat, the employment of soaking, and the order of play after a baserunner has been retired, then perhaps you can just discern, as I do, a resemblance to a type of baseball where play begins with the bases already loaded. No? Well, eyes of the beholder, and all that.6 6. One other minor baseball comparison came to mind when I read a 1923 letter to the editor of a Sussex newspaper that was brought to my attention by Sussex historian Andrew Lusted. The correspondent was discussing a letter that he himself had received from a veteran stoolball player who recounted a controversy about stoolball’s rules from the late 19th century. It seems that, at the time, players from East Sussex and West Sussex were in the midst of a spirited disagreement, with the former wanting, among other things, to shorten the bowling crease so that the bowler would be positioned mid-wicket. The West Sussex advocates derided this proposal, charging that their counterparts in East Sussex were simply unable to bowl wicket to wicket, and that the rule change was being offered “to cover their incapacity.” While the two sides eventually reached a compromise, the dispute reminded me of a letter that had appeared in Porter’s Spirit of the Times in December, 1856. In that one, an advocate for the Massachusetts game boasted about their use of fast “throwing,” and averred that the type of soft, underhand pitching as practiced in the New York game is never utilized in New England “except by the most juvenile players.” Baseball, too, worked out these differences, with the New York game becoming the standard, but with aspects of Massachusetts game, such as fast overhand pitching and the fly rule, eventually incorporated.and the fly rule, eventually incorporated.)
1863.199 + (Officers of the 24th Massachusetts played baseball at St. Helena Island in the Winter of 1863.)
1798.3 + (Portsmouth NH banned "play at cricket or any game wherein a ball is used..." in the town, the penalty being a fine of from 50 cents to $3.30.)
1862.111 + (Prokopowicz, "All for the Regiment" p. 85 quotes a Feb. 7, 1862 diary entry from a soldier in Co. C, 17th Ohio saying the soldiers play RTB in their spare time. This unit was in camp near Mill Springs, KY at the time.)
Protoball Interview With Richard Hershberger + (Protoball Interview with Richard Hershberg … Protoball Interview with Richard Hershberger Note: Richard Hershberger is the author of Strike Four: The Evolution of Baseball (Rowman and Littlefield, 2019). A frequent (and exacting) contributor to SABR's 19CCB list-serve, he is also one of Protoball's leading data donors, supplying hundreds of summaries of early base ball clubs to the PrePro data base, and submitting his collection of 19C news clips, including over 2000 clips from the Origins Era, to Protoball's News Clips collection -- and it has even more clips for later 19C years. Protoball: Many of us Origins Sleuthlings wandered into the field in a fog of idle curiosity. You seem to have arrived with a pre-fabricated mission of reading primary baseball material, year-by-year. What do you now see as the strengths and weaknesses of that approach?10 My entry was nothing so systematic. When I first became interested in early baseball I focused on the late 1870s and early 1880s. I was fascinated by the interregnum–the period when there was no major league ball in either New York City or Philadelphia. I was not especially interested on baseball’s origins until David Block’s book, Baseball Before We Knew It [2005] came out. With that I was hooked. So now you know who to blame. I also fell by accident into my program of systematic reading. If you look at the better books on early baseball written in the late 20th century you can tell that there were a handful of major baseball newspapers from the 1850s, with the various iterations of Spirit of the Times and the [New York] Clipper frequently cited. There were also mentions of the New York Sunday Mercury, but no citations from it. It clearly was a major paper, but known only by references in other papers. It turned out that the Sunday Mercury was not lost. Copies are extant for 1853 onward, except for 1856 and 1857 (topping my wish list). The problem was that they were scattered, difficult and inconvenient to locate, so no one had done this. Enter Bob Tholkes. He took up the project to track down and scan everything up through the Civil War–the Sunday Mercury and the others as well. You will get to blame Bob as well. At this point I realized that it is entirely doable to read essentially all the newspaper coverage through the end of the Civil War. It isn’t all that much. You could do it in your spare time over a month or so. So I did, taking lots of notes in electronic form. Then I wasn’t bright enough to know to stop. With the postwar baseball boom the newspaper coverage soon becomes too much to read literally everything. I was forced to be selective. In practice this means reading the sporting weeklies and a selection of dailies from the major cities. I have been working my way forward, currently up to 1892. The dual strengths of this approach are that it brings out what they thought was important at the time, and reveals nuggets that are buried in larger items. For example, Erastus Wiman’s lawsuit against the AA [American Association] in late 1885 arguably is one of the most important legal cases in the history of baseball, or even sports in general. It forced the owners to think in terms of a league franchise as a property right with value. It took them a while to work through the implications, but in the end this concept is absolutely foundational to professional team sports. Yet this case is nearly entirely forgotten today. There are entirely understandable reasons for this. Its importance is not as legal precedent, so it flies under the radar of legal historians. Similarly for the historians of the business of baseball, since the idea that a franchise is a property right seems so obvious as not to require explanation. But at the 11 time they thought it was important and had good reasons to think it. These reasons are readily apparent in a systematic read-through, while easily overlooked in a more targeted research strategy. As for buried nuggets, my history of the evolution of the rules would have been impossible with a targeted strategy. A rule is changed because there is a problem to be solved. These problems turn up in day-to-day game play. Sometimes there is a year end wrap-up discussion of problems and proposals to solve them, but you can’t count on this. Even when these discussions are printed, the context can be obscure. There is no substitute for the systematic, plodding approach. As a single example, the infield fly rule is traditionally dated to either 1893 (or 1890 for the Players’ League). It turns out in fact to date from the 1870s. The 1893 rule was the culmination of a twenty-year-long discussion, both what the rule should be and how to express it. The previous twenty years were overlooked by modern researchers because the language of the rule was obscure–even at the time, which is why they changed it. But read game accounts and we can find infield fly situations and discussions of how the umpire should interpret the rules. The weaknesses to this approach are that it is massively time consuming and easy to get bogged down in minutiae. Indeed, it is pretty much necessary to get bogged down in minutiae. It often is not obvious what will be important, so better to take more notes than fewer. I only recommend it for someone with lots of spare time and mental energy to devote to it. But I absolutely wish someone would. I have made just the first pass through the material. There certainly are nuggets that I overlooked. Protoball: The word is that daytimes you have worked as para-legal. Is it a mere coincidence that your first book, the clever and informative Strike Four, was about the evolution of what were once called the "Laws of Base Ball?" Did the book generally turn out the way you thought it would? A lawyer once told me that I think like a lawyer. I responded that I knew she meant it as a compliment, so I would take it that way. But seriously, a lot of what “thinking like a lawyer” really means is simply keeping straight in your mind what it is you are arguing. This is no different from good scholarship. Decades back I considered becoming an academic but decided against it. I don’t regret that decision. I don’t have to grade undergraduate term papers, nor attend department meetings and sit on committees. I call that a win. But I have the academic itch. Writing about early baseball is how I scratch it. I eventually fell backwards into the legal field, where I found my skill set worked well. So while my hobby and professional interests are not unrelated, the relationship is indirect.12 The impetus for the book was purely historical interest. I see the purpose of the study of history to be answering the question “How did we get here?” This is why 19th century baseball fascinates me. They had to figure everything out. Once you get to the 20th century most of the foundational parts of baseball as an institution were understood. The implications still have to play out, but it is a different discussion. This process of figuring it out worked in various ways. As cultural history, they had to through the idea of forming clubs to play a game: was this a reasonable, or even commendable, thing for grown men to do? Once you get into the professional era the question moves to how clubs will interact with one another, first joining in a league, and then how multiple leagues can coexist. There was no precedent for any of this, and these were not easy questions. How they worked this out is the history of professional baseball from about 1870 to the NL-AL peace of 1903. Then there are the rules themselves. Baseball was a schoolyard game adapted for genteel intramural club play. Then in the mid-1850s it was thrust into a competitive cauldron of clubs playing against other clubs, and taking any edge they could find. The instability of the 19th century rules is the response: a half-century of tweaking the rules to adjust for whatever it was that clubs had come up with since the previous tweak. I see these as facets of the same question: How did we get here? The decision to write the rules book first was an accident of editorial interest. I am currently writing a second book, for University of Missouri Press, on the rise of baseball up to 1871. That is much more cultural history. I hope eventually to take the story through 1903. That will be more an organizational history: the development of the business of baseball. Protoball: The last decade of digital technology has opened doors to much factual material for us to process -- will people still be interested in early baseball history in a decade? Absolutely! We are in a period with the digital revolution making a large body of sources available all at once. This is an exciting time to be working the field. But the surge of interest came before the widespread availability of these sources. When I started it was still a matter of tracking down microfilm and bound volumes and taking notes. It still is, to a large extent. Far from everything has been digitized. This will still be true in ten years. And even with the material that has been digitized, the vagaries of OCR, the conversion of the image to text, is such that this material will still turn up nuggets the old fashioned way. In other words, you can't assume that you can search on "base ball" in a text and assume that everything there is to be found will turn up. The current interest is not merely based on the recent findsst is not merely based on the recent finds)
1862.116 + (Robert P. Goodman of the 7th MO Infantry (Union) recalls at at this time, stationed in Lexington, "... sometimes we got up a game of ball in which nearly the whole regiment participated.")
Clipping:Potomac and National Clubs Announce Upcoming Game + (See Comment Section)
1863.150 + (Solders of the 16th Battalion GA Cavalry played town ball at/near Bristol VA on June 8-10, 28, 1863)
1862.121 + (The Burlington Times, Dec. 16, 1862 report … The Burlington Times, Dec. 16, 1862 reports that the 12th Vermont, in camp [near Munson's Hill, Fairfax County, VA] on Thanksgiving Day, played at "foot ball," wrestling and other amusements. There was team play, then one-on-one play, the Colonel vs. the Drum Major, then the Lt. Col. vs. the Chaplain.From the one-on-one mention, it suggest this was a form of soccer, rather than rugby-type football.f soccer, rather than rugby-type football.)
1861.44 + (The Fire Zouaves (11th New York Infantry) while in camp "are kicking foot-ball, playing base ball...")
Clipping:THE INDIAN SPORTS + (The Indian Sports -- consisting of a game … The Indian Sports -- consisting of a game of ball between the Senecas and Tuscaroras - come off at Buffalo on Thursday last, before a large number of spectators who had assembled notwithstanding the rain. In both games played, says the Commercial Advertiser of that city, the Senecas won the feather . . . The Tuscaroras, however, have determined not to give up 'the feather," and are to meet early next spring to decide the question for the last time, prior to their departure.r the last time, prior to their departure.)
1863.154 + (The New York Clipper, June 20, 1863 report … The New York Clipper, June 20, 1863 reports on a game played June 1st in camp, near Falmouth, between the 1st and 4th regiments, Excelsior Brigade, won by the 4th, 18-11. The Excelsior Brigade was a New York/Brooklyn unit. The regiments were the 70th and 74th New York Infantry.70th and 74th New York Infantry.)
1868.10 + (The Utica Daily Observer, Aug. 17, 1868 reports a game of "Old Fashioned Base Ball" that was played, 15 a side, to 100 runs, with one side winning 100-73. The newspaper calls it "base ball as it was played in our grand-fathers days.")
1864.102 + (The diary of Peter Tallman, 152nd NY, while in camp near Stoney Mountain and Brandy Station, VA, records" April 7, 1864: "Had a game of ball" April 8, 1864: "we played ball")
Clipping:Gambling will Destroy Baseball + (The next great abuse of the ball ground is … The next great abuse of the ball ground is gambling, and in this feature it is beginning to rival the race course. Thousands of dollars change hands every time a match is played between prominent clubs. The bets are openly made on the ground, and the money put up before the eyes of the judges and officers of the clubs. The same odium which gambling has brought on horse-racing and billiard playing will attach to base ball playing which will lose its popularity with the better class of our citizens. It is for those who have the best interests of the game in keeping to consider the advisability of checking those practices which are fast bringing our game into disrepute.are fast bringing our game into disrepute.)

owl:differentFrom + (The property that determines that two given individuals are different.)

1862.120 + (The published diary of J. Wyeth of the 44th MA has this entry for Nov. 27, 1862: 'The day opened splendidly; just cold enough to induce the boys to play at foot and base ball; some of the officers taking hold and seemingly enjoying the sport.")
1864.98 + (The soldiers imprisoned at Camp Oglethorpe, in Macon, GA, in 1864, formed "wicket, cricket and baseball" clubs.)
1863.146 + (The soldiers of the 27th Massachusetts Infantry, during the March-April 1863 siege of Washington, NC, engaged "in base ball and kindred sports, and that in full view of the enemy and under fire of their guns.")
foaf:homepage + (URL of the homepage of something, which is a general web resource.)
1865.45 + (While in the Grand Postwar Parade in DC, "Base Ball had its share of attention.")
1863.29 + (While the 11th New Jersey base ball match … While the 11th New Jersey base ball match took place prior to Gettysburg, the third reference involved a game played several months after the battle, not long before Abraham Lincoln gave his historic speech at the new Gettysburg National Cemetery. Playing in the match were members of Battery B of the 1st New Jersey artillery, more popularly known as Clark's battery which served with distinction on both the second and third days at Gettysburg. The base ball connection came to my attention when my friend, Joe Bilby sent me a picture of a print of Clark's battery in camp at Brandy Wine Station, Virginia in November of 1863. The print shows members of the battery engaged in various camp activities including a group in the lower right hand corner playing base ball. Joe cautioned me that the picture was not in the public domain so I set out try to locate the original. My search took me to the Baseball Hall of Fame library which only has a copy and so couldn't give permission to use it. The library also passed on a link to an recent sale of a copy on eBay for about $425. (John Zinn) hn Zinn) )
Search:Dave Search:Within 5 miles of Boston + (Within 5 miles of [Boston])
Search:Larry Search:davious + (anderson)
Search:Larry Search: + (bans OR fine of OR prohibit%)
Search:Dave Search:baseball AND test + (baseball AND test)
Search:Larry Search:black base ball + (colored or Negro or black)
Search:Dave Search:random + (random)
Larry Search:Something + (something)
Search:Dave Search:Fun in NY + (state:NY and fun)
Search:Dave Search:test + (test)
Search:Dave Search:test search + (test search)
Search:Larry Search:wicket in W New England + (wicket)
Search:Larry Search:wicket + (wicket)
Search:Dave Search:women + (woman AND female)
Search:Dave Search:1900 and beyond + (year >= 1900)
Dave Search:2000 and Beyond + (year >= 2000)
Clipping:Hired Players will Destroy Base Ball + (“The great element of popularity of base b … “The great element of popularity of base ball thus far has been the belief that the clubs were composed of young men who played to amuse themselves and improve their leisure hours. This was formerly true, but the champion matches, at first the result of an honest spirit of emulation, have begotten a new order of things—base ball playing from a mere recreation tis becoming a business. … There is hardly a club that pretends to any eminence, or that plays public matches, but employs men at a salary to play in their nines. The National Base Ball Association has discountenanced this practice, but has not been able to check it. There is no secret about it; the names of the men who play for hire are known to the ball players and frequenters of the ball grounds. In some clubs there is an attempt made to cloak this practice, the gratuities of players are made in the shape of benefits, or assistance in a business way. … The professional players will naturally sell their services to the highest bidder; then what is the value of the championship to a club when the very men who won it for them may be hired the next week by a rival club to wrest the title from them. The club that can afford to pay the most money will be champions.” to pay the most money will be champions.”)

Search by property

List of results

Navigation menu

Search