Book Review: Civil War on Race Street 

Jim Block • January 9, 2019

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

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More