Recently, the long-standing prohibition on Pete Rose participating in professional baseball was lifted by Rob Manfred, the MLB Commissioner. This change permits Rose to be considered for entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Along with Rose, Manfred also reinstated 17 additional players who had been permanently barred, among them key figures from the infamous 1919 Chicago White Sox who were implicated in fixing the World Series, notably the star player Joe Jackson, best known as ‘Shoeless’ Joe.
Many believe the decision to reinstate these players has been heavily influenced by the gambling industry, a major partner of MLB, and possibly swayed by the expressed interests of President Donald Trump, a persistent advocate for Rose’s inclusion in the Hall of Fame. Manfred justified this controversial choice by declaring that a deceased individual could no longer harm the credibility of the sport.
Surface level, his explanation reflects a significant lack of appreciation for the crucial role of history in shaping integrity. Deep understanding of history — its characters, the errors they made, the meaningful impact of their actions on surrounding communities— is imperative to nurture integrity.
History, by its nature, offers multiple interpretations of an event. Whether discussing Napoleon Bonaparte’s Russian campaign, the sinking of the Titanic or the killing of JFK, it is impossible to fully comprehend the thought process or behavior of those involved. Nonetheless, unraveling history to the best of our understanding can certainly help debunk common inaccuracies or misconceptions.
Joe Jackson’s involvement in the 1919 World Series presents an intriguing case of how nuanced the concept of integrity can be. A century later, an emerging narrative portrays Jackson as an unwitting part of the series fix. This notion largely stems from two factors: his commendable batting average in the series and a lack of conviction under law.
Jackson’s standout statistics in the series could be misleading. His team lost five games intentionally (then, nine games decided the series winner). Jackson’s inability to score runs contributed directly to the initial four defeats. His average saw a considerable boost in the remaining playable games, but it is critical to note that his only home run of the series, alongside a double clearing the bases, came in the final, fixed game when no doubt remained over the ultimate outcome – a victory for Cincinnati.
Jackson’s stunning series statistics resulted from a combination of poor performance in the purposely lost games, effort in winning three games, and a match in which his contributions were negligible due to a guaranteed defeat. Notably, his fielding abilities during the series raised many eyebrows. An intensive look at his performance throughout the series brings to light his lackluster efforts, particularly in the vital first two games.
In a lawsuit that followed, the presiding judge remembered Jackson’s admission that he didn’t play to the best of his ability in key games. His skills did not falter, he maintained, but he had not given his utmost. As for his legal exoneration and that of his compatriots, they were acquitted not because they were found innocent, but because their actions, while morally reprehensible, were not legally defined as a crime.
Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis responded quickly, imposing lifetime bans on the players involved in the scandal. He was credited with restoring integrity to baseball, a endeavour also supported by the popularity of budding star Babe Ruth.
In his initial grand jury testimony, Jackson admitted to being part of the plan to fix the series. However, he later recanted this admission in a civil court, thereby essentially committing perjury. Additional queries linger, such as the reason every other member implicated in the scandal also implicated Jackson, or why Jackson’s claim of wanting to return the bribe money was contradicted by his deposit of the amount into a local bank in Georgia.
Despite Jackson’s claims of innocence, the evidence strongly suggests his willing involvement in the infamous plot. Prominent historian, Lamb, points out that the fact Jackson was seen as likable and insisted on his innocence does not alter the historical records.
Jackson’s persistent demands for his promised payoff as the series progressed casts a harsh light on his later denials of involvement. In retrospect, Shoeless Joe Jackson presents a tragic figure, a player banned from the game he adored during the peak of his career. But most historical and factual perspectives concur that he was far from an innocent victim.
Commissioner Manfred might not fully grasp that the culture of baseball invariably mirrors greater societal norms and values. The reinstatements of Rose and Jackson further exemplify this: the current societal trend of disregarding history for convenience.
Ethics has seemingly become an afterthought. Unethical actions can now be covered up with cleverly presented statistics or intricate legal defenses. The reinstatement of players once barred for jeopardizing the game’s integrity might appear as a trivial footnote in history.
However, by undermining the importance of ethics and integrity, we risk setting a dangerous precedent. The re-admittance of these players into official baseball history has the unsettling implication that ethics and history are for those who can afford to care.
This situation reminds us that the past is not merely a canvas we can repaint at will according to our present needs or desires. Should we continue to disregard it, we risk losing a vital compass guiding our future actions.