Thanks for the wonderful article on the old Boston Braves. I was 16 when they left town for good, and have never forgotten them and the impact they had on my early childhood years. Now, it all seems like part of a lost ghost world. Day games, 50 cent tickets, those great uniforms with the Indian on the sleeve and the tomahawk on front — they can have all the big money and hype we must endure in major-league baseball today. What I wouldn’t give for just one more day, circa 1949–50, at Braves Field, watching a big-league doubleheader for 50 cents.
John Blake
Revere
Excellent article on the Boston Braves! I remember asking my dad, the son of Irish immigrants in South Boston, if he rooted for Ted Williams when he was a kid. He said the Red Sox were for the rich kids and that he was a Braves fan. I’ll never forget that. You did a great job capturing the flavor of the Braves and what they meant to the working-class families of that time. Nice work!
Coleman Nee
Cohasset
I was born on November 7, 1952, so technically I was around when the Braves were still in Boston. However, I grew up hearing about the Milwaukee Braves, and not knowing their history. That is, until I came across a 1952 date book that showed the schedules for the Boston Red Sox and the Boston Braves. My first guess was that they were an old minor-league team — until my dad told me they were the same franchise that was then called the Milwaukee Braves.
Shortly afterward, around 1961, my father took me past Nickerson Field to point out what was left of Braves Field: the old light towers, the right field wall, the old track for the outfield wall inside this wall, the right field pavilion, and even the trolley tracks next to the ballpark. How stupid it was to tear down part of a perfectly good ballpark to put up dormitories! Sometimes, even today, I’ll walk into the pavilion and look for the seams that mark where the Braves shifted the foul lines in their last years here. Or, I’ll head to the western end, where another seam marks the end of the old pavilion, and try to imagine the grandstand beginning a few feet away, the jury box, the bullpen nearby, and the idea of seeing National League teams without the need for interleague play. I’m happy with the Red Sox now — don’t get me wrong — but it would be nice to have a choice.
Jonathan T. Melick
Dorchester
Loaded gun
Your recent “Presidential Tote Board” column contains some interesting commentary, but is way off on guns. People do hunt with handguns, and state law does not allow the use of assault rifles for hunting purposes. In fact, in order to be classified as an assault rifle, a rifle must be capable of full automatic fire. I don’t know of any state that allows that. The above is a moot point, however, since the Second Amendment doesn’t refer to hunting; it refers to an individual’s right to have firearms. Hunting is not a requirement of the Second Amendment.
Stephen Kerner
Biddeford, Maine
Steven Stark responds: I plead guilty to the astute points you have made and apologize for the error on handguns. This is obviously a field with which I have little familiarity. Next time Mitt Romney goes hunting, I’ll ask him to bring me along.
