#kenesaw

[newyorkthegoldenage]

In 1921, Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis suspended Babe Ruth and Bob Meusel for "barnstorming" after the Yankees' World Series victory. On March 27, 1922, during spring training, they all shook hands and made up. God knows what Landis would think of today's celebrations, both on and off the field.

Photo: Associated Press

[geekysteven]

Such a good arc for him to go from being a jerk to emphasizing with Shoeless Jorbie

[famousdeaths]

Kenesaw Mountain Landis was an American jurist who served as a United States federal judge from 1905 to 1922 and the first Commissioner of Baseball from 1920 un...

Link: Kenesaw Mountain Landis

[rhodeislandbaseballexperience]

Thursday Afternoon Trip To Kennesaw State University's Soon To Be Mickey Dunn Stadium

On a recent business trip to Atlanta for ABF Freight, I set out north and west of the city to visit nearby Kennesaw State University. Having been to the Atlanta area a few times previously, I wanted to explore some different areas north of the city to find some baseball history and cool fields to experience. Kennesaw is a familiar name in baseball history, so I did some research on that to see if…

[simpleesong]

Concrete Pavers in San Francisco This is an illustration of a sizable front yard with concrete pavers landscaped in the summer in a shabby-chic style that is tolerant of drought.

[1900scartoons]

Stung!

August 5, 1907

Bee Judge Landis stings Rockefeller as he's playing golf in the field of Rebates; his Standard Oil caddy flees.

Landis had handed down a record fine of $29 million for Standard Oil's illegal practices.

See Also: John D. Rockefeller

From Hennepin County Library

Original available at: https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/Bart/id/5359/rec/209

[golly-missmolly]

Traditional Patio - Patio

[blacksheeptown]

Concrete Pavers - Front Yard

[patriottruth]

This is a reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024. Should he fail to do so by December 17th, 2024, he will not be the 47th President of the United States of America on January 20th, 2025.

So I've seen some comments suggesting this is misinformation. It's not. Per the Supreme Court of the United States' own Berger Test to disqualify judges, the MAGA SCOTUS majority ruling pertaining to donald j. trump being permanently immune from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means nothing; because it lacks standing in precedent, law, constitutionality, and relevance.

The three dissenting justices clarify that the only matter that was actually legally settled and, therefore, legally enforceable, pertained to state actions, not federal law enforcement actions against a disqualified insurrectionist presidential or federal candidate, such as donald j. trump, committing the federal crime of being an insurrectionist attempting to hold office without having their insurrectionist disqualification removed via a two-thirds vote of both houses. And so it is legal fact that the Supreme Court did, in fact, order donald j. trump to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses on March 4th, 2024; it's just that donald j. trump and his legal team were too illiterate and unintelligent to actually read what was legal and had standing (state enforcement against federal candidates), and what didn't (federal enforcement against federal candidates). And MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump, so they can't even try to interfere on his behalf again should Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate demand and force a vote on the matter of donald j. trump's disqualification for holding federal office.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

The only misinformation that exists surrounding the Anderson vs. trump ruling is the belief that the MAGA SCOTUS ruling on federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump settled the matter and handed him permanent immunity from prosecution should he ever commit the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office. In legal fact, MAGA SCOTUS' nonsensical ruling attempting to grant donald j. trump permanent immunity from prosecution for insurrection is grounds for immediate and permanent disbarment; as they're clearly attempting to legislate from the bench and prevent Congress from legislating in a way that's unfavorable to their presidential candidate.

This is the only pertinent and legally important part of the Anderson vs. trump ruling with regards to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump or any other insurrectionist committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office without first having their insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses:

Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson Opinion on the Majority Ruling:

Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient ratioAnd MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump.nale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascertain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.

To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). Ante, at 5. In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Even petitioner’s lawyer acknowledged the “tension” in Section 3 that the majority’s view creates. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.

Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation. See, e.g., Art. II, §1, cl. 5 (Presidential Qualifications); Amdt. 22 (Presidential Term Limits). Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.

The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose. It cites Griffin’s Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge. See ante, at 5 (quoting 11 F. Cas., at 26). Once again, even petitioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this case as probative of Section 3’s meaning. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35–36. The majority also cites Senator Trumbull’s statements that Section 3 “ ‘provide[d] no means for enforcing’ ” itself. Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869)). The majority, however, neglects to mention the Senator’s view that “[i]t is the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,” with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more efficient and speedy remedy” for effecting the disqualification. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627.

Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.

Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

What all of that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

Here's why this will work: donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds of both houses vote to remove donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

If anyone is interested in fighting another trump presidency, contact every Democrat representative in the House of Representatives and the Senate and remind them that donald j. trump cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, and be the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025 unless 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification before December 17, 2024. Many of them have online contact forms. You may have to enter an address near their local office in their district for the contact form to go through, but I know they're going to want to be reminded of this by as many people as possible in order to save humanity and American democracy from donald trump. Plus, Kamala Harris can be contacted via the White House Vice President contact form; and as a presidential candidate and the President of the Senate, she and President Biden can do a lot to enforce donald trump having to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate before December 17, 2024.

[deliciouskeys]

Thank you to @abrubag for helping me make this very important compilation:

1. The Peacemakers, George P.A. Healy, Oval Office. 1868. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peacemakers

2. George Washington before the Battle of Trenton, John Trumbull, Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1792. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/12823

3. Battle of Port Hudson, J.O. Davis, Library of Congress. 1887. https://www.loc.gov/item/93510334/

4. A Good Chance, Arthur Fitzwilliam Tait, Yale University. 1862. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Fitzwilliam_Tait_-_A_Good_Chance_-_1932.244_-_Yale_University_Art_Gallery.jpg

5. Battle of Kenesaw Mountian, Kurz & Allison (chromolithograph publishers), Library of Congress. 1891. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Kenesaw_Mountian.png

6. The capture of General Vega (In the act of discharging a canon) by the gallant Capt. May, of the U.S. Army, during the engagement of the 9th May / / Lith. & pub. by Sarony & Major, 117 Fulton St. N.Y.! Library of Congress. 1846. https://loc.getarchive.net/media/the-capture-of-general-vega-in-the-act-of-discharging-a-canon-by-the-gallant

7. Benjamin Franklin: The statesman and philosopher. Currier & Ives. 1846. https://loc.getarchive.net/media/benjamin-franklin-the-statesman-and-philosopher

8. Watson and the Shark, John Singleton Copley. Museum of Fine Arts Boston. 1778. https://collections.mfa.org/objects/30998/watson-and-the-shark

9. George Washington (Lansdowne Portrait), Gilbert Stuart. National Portrait Gallery. 1796. https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.2001.13

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Baseball Commissioner Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, flanked by District Attorney Joab N. Banton and Assistant District Attorney George N. Brothers, gathered to discuss whether to convene a grand jury in the O’Connell baseball scandal, February 16, 1925.

Jimmy O'Connell of the NY Giants had offered Phillies shortstop Heinie Sand $500 (nearly $8,000 in today's money) to throw a series of games while the two teams were fighting for the National League pennant. Sand rejected the bribe and reported it to Phillies manager Art Fletcher. O'Connell was suspended from baseball for life.

Photo: Associated Press via Stadium Talk

[girderednerve]

i went to the baseball hall of fame! here's a very long post about it!

it's not a very good museum, but i found it sort of hypnotically compelling. there are many extremely interesting objects in the baseball hall of fame, alongside some junk, but mostly there's very little effort to actually propose or illustrate any particular baseball narrative and the whole curatorial perspective is deeply conservative (small c, but nevertheless).

the galleries are nominally sorted into exhibits, but in practice only a few areas were actually findable & delineated; most of the space is given to cases of baseball objects, which are not particularly sorted or contextualized, through which one sort of meanders until one stumbles across a dedicated exhibit. we managed to just catch the tail end of their exhibition about the history of black baseball, which was i thought very well-done. if you have been to museums since 2020 you will have noticed that several of them made rather frantic efforts to be more inclusive & aware, with sometimes obvious disagreement among whoever was putting together the exhibit; for example, this exhibit used "black," "African-American," and, on just one placard which implicated inaugural baseball commissioner kenesaw mountain landis in the segregation of baseball, "Black." i am always fascinated by choices like these, especially given that the baseball hall of fame relies heavily on corporate donors and strong, friendly relationships with MLB teams to exist. outside of this exhibit, any time racist discrimination was acknowledged, the conventional formulation that someone was excluded "because of the color of his skin" was employed, which was of course infuriatingly lazy & obscurantist.

other highlights included a fun exhibit about women in baseball, which kept things pretty light, although it did also point out that the gender segregation of sports has always been an aggressively enforced choice (a woman signed to a minor league contract had her employment terminated by the baseball commissioner after a single game, for example). also there was a little bit about effa manley, which was cool because she's my favorite hall of famer (i'm gay & she's the only woman in there). they also have a creepy-looking set of statues of famous fans right at the top of the stairs, and a timeline of changes in baseball stadiums, which was characteristically light on the incredibly fraught urban politics surrounding large sports arenas & blithely asserted that these arenas bring in many measurable benefits, although this claim is, um, contested at best. i was absolutely sure that there'd be like, plans of the stadiums, because baseball is unique in that each baseball field is different & has different dimensions, which is so strange & silly, but they didn't do that. instead there was a big sign about how the stadium is "holy ground" for baseball fans, whatever that means.

the baseball hall of fame is self-consciously the keeper of the story of baseball, but it's very light on any baseball that happens outside of the united states; there was an exhibit about the latino experience in baseball (the only exhibit, btw, with spanish translations of the text) which documented some caribbean leagues, including, very briefly, the mexican league, but it was weirdly squished in a corner & didn't have enough space to go into detail. the records hall also included a few more or less random items for record-holders from the japanese NPB, but there was nothing for other leagues, even the KBO. this was a strange choice to me because the international history of baseball is very interesting & as you might imagine very fraught & openly tied to a history of american military occupation. (the baseball hall of fame plaques have rosettes under the plaques for veterans of WWII, but that's almost it for talking about the army, although the museum offers veteran and active-duty discounts.)

the actual hall of fame was kind of astonishingly horrible (very bright, pretty crowded, limited seating, unfortunate statues of babe ruth & ted williams). my experience was not improved by the multiple dudes in jerseys who elbowed past me to take pictures of plaques for guys they like, although i can't be too mean about it because now i have a selfie in front of old hoss radbourn's plaque. the hall of fame is stodgy & annoying, mostly because the members of the baseball writers' association, who do all the selection voting, are so stingy & convinced that almost no one now is as good as the greats of the past (obvious nonsense). there are a bunch of self-aggrandizing quotes up on the wall of the museum about how the hall of fame is a mecca for baseball fans & players, really leans into the idea that these are the beatified few, which is always such a strange way to me to think about athletes & what they do, although it does at least hold some weight with ballplayers themselves, many of whom care deeply about hall of fame inclusion. i will note that there's a display right outside in the lobby which claims that the HoF inductees are not just baseball icons but role models, and pull out lou gehrig, jack robinson, and roberto clemente as particularly impressive in this regard, and while i don't dispute the legends of any of those three particular people, it does seem like an egregious claim to make when, say, bobby cox is in. but it's a great excuse for leaving barry bonds out!

there's a central wall in the plaques hall for the original five inductees from 1936, but other than that the hall of fame is not very interested in telling you about its own history, perhaps because it's not very flattering. there's a very obvious cutoff where plaques honoring players in the negro leagues appear, and it's right after ted williams' 1966 HoF induction because he famously took advantage of his induction speech to point out that it was a travesty that some of baseball's best players were not included; MLB itself only recognized the negro leagues as "major leagues" for statistical & records purposes in 2020. while marvin miller's plaque credits him with the advent of free agency, curt flood is still not in the hall of fame. & so on.

just in general the hall of fame is weirdly cagey about a bunch of current shifts in baseball, for all that it had annoying touchscreens with fan polls. it has one little case of stuff about labor stoppages in baseball (the quiz is about seeing whether you could "save the season" by agreeing equally with players & ownership on a few contested issues like a salary cap, which is a horrible framing); one of the things in it is a political cartoon about greedy players, and another is a fan-made shirt that says "i survived the baseball strike." nowhere in it is an explanation of what players were actually fighting for; it just seems strange to me that a sports museum is so profoundly uninterested in the actual labor of sports, the opinions & workplace needs of the people who make the game. also just an L, obviously. there's no timeline of equipment or rules changes (designated hitter went universal after the covid-shortened season! let's talk about it! or not?) less loaded but still interesting: the hall of fame doesn't really talk about 'moneyball' or the statistical turn more broadly, even though sports stats were invented by baseball nerds & advanced stats ("sabermetrics") are increasingly important in front offices. lots of people find them confusing or complain about them. the single acknowledgement is a little placard about the 2012 american league MVP selection, which some people argued [correctly] should have gone to the angels' mike trout, primarily on the basis of his 10+ WAR that season. but it doesn't explain what the stats are or who was arguing or if there was a broader context for the argument, because of. some reason.

also. also. i got jumpscared. because in the middle of a random display case they have a helmet that steve dahl wore to conduct the infamous disco demolition. and that's basically all it says - "steve dahl wore this for the disco demolition at the white sox's comiskey park in 1979" - and there's absolutely no other context for what happened; it just says that the white sox had to concede the game, not that there was a whole fuckin riot. as a side note to this completely decontextualized commemoration of a homophobic, racist event, glenn burke appears in the hall of fame only in the sense that the out-of-the-way bookstore sells copies of roger maraniss' YA biography of him. so fuck that. as far as the HoF knows, gay people & baseball have nothing to do with one another.

my experience walking around in the baseball hall of fame was like, "wow, this place is not laid out very well," and then like "wow, this place doesn't want to be a museum so much as it wants to have a lot of objects in it which could be explained to me by my hypothetical grandpa," and then "wow, this museum does not want me to ask any of the questions i came here to ask."

anyway we're going to go back & i'm sure there will be interesting things to look at. but it's bizarre to go to a museum which is so famous & such a destination & so important to the thing it documents & see it bend over backwards to find no narrative in its holdings, no social meaning in its collections. cowardly & kind of sad.

[1900scartoons]

The Chicago Davy Crockett And the Financial Coon

July 2, 1907

Davy Crockett Landis points the Writ gun at the treed raccoon Rockefeller;

The caption reads "John D. - 'Don't shoot, Davy; I'll come down.'"

Rockefeller had been ordered to appear before an Illinois Court by Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis, in regards to the Standard Oil case. After much work, agents had finally managed to deliver a subpoena to him.

See Also: John D. Rockefeller

From Hennepin County Library

Original available at: https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/Bart/id/6060/rec/183

[lboogie1906]

The 1924 Colored World Series was a best-of-nine match-up between the Negro National League champion Kansas City Monarchs and the Eastern Colored League champion Hilldale. In a ten-game series, the Monarchs defeated Hilldale 5 games to 4, with one tie game. It was the first World Series between the respective champions of the NNL and ECL. It was the second year of existence for the ECL, but no agreement could be reached in 1923 for a post-season series, owing primarily to unresolved disputes between the leagues. Five members of the Baseball Hall of Fame participated in the series: Biz Mackey, Judy Johnson, and Louis Santop played for Hilldale, while Bullet Rogan and José Méndez played for the Monarchs. Monarch’s owner J. L. Wilkinson was inducted into the Hall.

After the organization of the first NNL in 1920 and of the ECL in 1923, many Negro League fans hoped that the two leagues would compete in a post-season championship similar to the World Series held by the white leagues. On September 2, 1924, Rube Foster, president of the NNL announced that Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, Commissioner of Baseball for the white major leagues, had been asked to arbitrate the differences between the NNL and the ECL and establish an agreement similar to the one used by the American and National Leagues. The proposed agreement required the two leagues to respect each other’s contracts, made allowances for players who had jumped contracts to stay with their current teams, and for a post-season championship between the leagues. The first game of the championship series opened at Philadelphia on October 3, 1924, between the Kansas City Monarchs of the NNL and the Hilldale Club of the ECL; the final game was played at Chicago on October 20, 1924, with the Monarchs emerging as the series winner. In 1928, the ECL folded, with their teams returning to independent play, and the series entered a 15-year hiatus. The first NNL was folded after the 1931 season. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[spiderine]

A few days after Mitchell struck out Ruth and Gehrig, baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis voided her contract and declared that women were unfit to play baseball as the game was "too strenuous".

Why do we segregate sports by sex?

Disclaimer: this video was intended as a fun look at the inconsistent logic of gender segregation in sports, but as a short-form video, it naturally does not go into much nuance. One thing I want to make clear is that I do believe we should be making sports more inclusive to trans and intersex athletes, and it seems to me that a great starting point would be to stop gender segregating sports that really don’t need it. Like archery!