Book Review: Civil War on Race Street
The Cambridge, Md., racial conflict in 1967 took place at the same time as other racial violence in the nation that summer. However, the standard historical interpretation of the Cambridge events, that they were caused by African American militants, does not rest on fact. Many believed then, and may now, that plenty of harmony and little friction existed then between the races in Cambridge. Peter B. Levy’s well-researched account of Cambridge’s racial history, Civil War on Race Street (University Press of Florida, 2003) presents another interpretation.
In 1967, three analyses—by the Justice Department, the Associated Press, and a Maryland race-relations commission—declared Cambridge’s racial climate much improved since earlier clashes in 1963. Progress made after 1963 included anti-poverty programs, new public housing, and improved employment.
But in the early summer of 1967, fires occurred in the black district at two white-owned businesses and at the black elementary school. Further friction arose over a judge’s unbalanced sentences of two males—one black, one white. The white male got a much lighter sentence. In addition, the Cambridge blacks suffered some disunity. Gloria Richardson, an under-recognized local civil rights leader, brought H. Rap Brown, a SNCC officer, to Cambridge to help rebuild the city’s black leadership. The speech Brown delivered was fiery and provocative, but, according to Levy, the audience’s response was rather mixed, surely not a match for Brown’s passion.
The exact aftermath of the speech may never be fully and accurately determined, but Levy found enough information to demonstrate that Brown’s speech did not incite a riot. After the speech, Brown and local activists went to the Cambridge SNCC office for some planning. A police officer fired two shotgun blasts to stop some marchers. Some of the shot bounced off the street and hit Brown, injuring him slightly. After brief hospital treatment, Brown left town immediately.
When fire broke out again at the elementary school, the alarm was not sounded for 45 minutes; when the trucks did arrive, the all-white firefighters did not begin to extinguish the fire for another 45 minutes. Only when the state attorney general took command of the fire truck did the firefighting start. Some bystanders helped the firefighters. The fire destroyed two square blocks and more than 20 structures, including a church and grocery store. More than 40 residents lost their houses. The press reported a riot, including arson, that did not take place. Some gunfire did take place, but it was incidental and harmed no one.
At a later inquiry by the Senate Judicial Committee, the Cambridge police chief inaccurately blamed Brown as the sole cause of the violence and destruction. In addition, the committee chair, Sen. James Eastland, declared that the violence was part of a communist conspiracy. Pundits and politicians at the time generally agreed that Brown’s speech and other black radicals had caused the riot. The National Guard commander George Gelston testified that there were serious race problems in Cambridge, despite the wide civic belief that racial hostility locally was minimal. The Kerner Commission agreed with Gen. Gelston and other witnesses that white racism was in the long run the main cause.
Some of the Kerner staff, in an unreported view, did not think that either Brown or town safety officers were primarily responsible; instead, they said that confusion and incomplete information caused misunderstandings that night. Had all parties known all the facts and the intentions of others, the disturbance might not have happened. However, Levy claims, many civil rights historians buy into the false notion that Brown’s hate-filled speech caused the damage and violence.
Two additional characters must be mentioned to round out Levy’s account, one national figure and one local, quite under-recognized figure. The Cambridge affair gave national recognition to governor Spiro Agnew. When elected in 1966, Agnew was a moderate “Rockefeller Republican,” endorsed by the New York Times , the Baltimore African American , and the Americans for Democratic Action. His appointment of black officials in Annapolis won him support in the black community. But after the Cambridge troubles, Agnew strongly condemned provocation by “professional agitators” and their “inflammatory statements” which intentionally provoked violence. He quarreled with the Kerner Commission report because it concluded that white racism was the cause of the conflict in Cambridge and across the country. Agnew’s quick and dramatic change attracted the attention of Richard Nixon, who later took on Agnew as his running mate.
Gloria Richardson, a SNCC board member, had a racial justice perspective that differed from that of many moderate blacks and white liberals. To many, the method of non-violence and the goals of integration and legal rights properly unified the civil rights movement. In Cambridge, Richardson and her allies did not fully support those methods and goals. Their goal was full equality in all aspects of American life, not the least of which were in housing, employment, and education. And they believed direct confrontation was often an effective method.
Significant demonstrations in the summer of 1963 by racial justice advocates and counter-demonstrations by white opponents eventually brought Richardson and others to meet with Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In Washington, they agreed on the “Treaty of Cambridge,” which included a charter amendment outlawing public accommodation discrimination. A segregationist business group put up a referendum on the desegregation of public accommodations. To the shock of African American leaders and white liberals, Richardson argued for blacks to boycott the referendum. She argued that citizens possessed Constitutional public accommodation rights to begin with so that voting on them was moot. To put one Constitutional right to a vote could do the same other rights and risk their loss. The referendum measure was defeated. Richardson and moderate liberals found themselves increasingly separated, and moderation diminished in Cambridge.
Written in the somewhat thick prose of academic history, the book’s general point is that things are not always what they seem. Apparent unity covered over divisions in the racial justice movement. The white belief that race relations were healthy and sound obscured the harms done by racism and economic injustice. One wonders what Cambridge residents think now of their city’s racial situation.
Civil War on Race Street by Peter B. Levy provides an excellent, detailed history and analysis of the Civil Rights Movement in Cambridge, Maryland, in the 1960s.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
