Book: The Struggle is Eternal: Gloria Richardson and Black Liberation, by Joseph R. Fitzgerald
Jim Block • March 30, 2021
A deliberate, resourceful woman, Gloria Richardson may often have been out of the spotlight, but nevertheless exerted considerable influence as an Eastern Shore civil rights leader in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Struggle is Eternal: Gloria Richardson and Black Liberation, by Joseph R. Fitzgerald (Kentucky, 2018), takes an important step in telling her story, a story that assuredly belongs on the shelf with Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, and Harriet Tubman. Born in Baltimore in 1922, Richardson will turn 99 in May.
In January 1962, Deborah Richardson, Richardson’s older daughter, joined with schoolmates and some college-age members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to protest school segregation and racial injustice in Cambridge, Dorchester County, Md. At the same time, some Black Cambridge citizens organized the Cambridge Nonviolent Action Committee (CNAC). Much like SNCC, CNAC’s purpose was to engage local people directly and immediately to act on their needs as they saw them, rather than slog through the legal system in slow-moving lawsuits overseen by judges mired in the status quo. Protests were organized not by outsiders, but by local school and college students.
Their efforts ceased when local leaders, Black and White, promised to desegregate local public accommodations. When this promise was unfulfilled, CNAC, led by Richardson, took over leadership of the Cambridge efforts. Like SNCC’s operations, CNAC’s were run locally, free of imposition from the established civil rights groups and churches. The egalitarian group, as Fitzgerald writes, “made a conscious effort not to privilege one person’s sexuality, political, or economic philosophy, or religion over another’s.” (Fitzgerald, 80)
To begin their efforts, Richardson (a Howard University sociology major) and CNAC conducted a needs assessment survey to ascertain what the community thought needed most attention. Despite the committee’s expectations, the survey found desegregating public accommodations unimportant. Instead, Black Cambridge residents cited jobs, housing, and schools as their greatest needs.
While Richardson and CNAC pushed for voter education and voting rights, the gerrymandered voting districts maintained the Whites’ power. CNAC also pressed for desegregated workplaces and for a badly-needed public housing project.
In May, the conflict’s momentum increased because police arrested teenage demonstrators roughly at the Dorset Theater and, in response, a crowd of protestors marched on the local jail. Two more teenagers were arrested, and soon the town boiled in civil conflict. Richardson telegraphed U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for demonstrator protection, and two ministers asked for, but failed to get, immediate help from Maryland Gov. J. Millard Tawes. Eventually, a City Council request brought in the National Guard and martial law to make peace.
In Annapolis, Richardson and some Black and White leaders met with Tawes; little came from this meeting except Richardson’s demonstrating CNAC’s influence and letting state and federal officials witness the White Cambridge City Council’s failures.
In June, the Kennedy administration held mediation meetings with CNAC and other Cambridge civil rights leaders. In July, the City Council debated a charter amendment to require that public accommodations to be open to all. Richardson found their amendment proposal worthless because the White majority could easily use a referendum to undo the charter change. She also argued that Whites should not have the power to determine Blacks’ rights. The charter amendment passed, Governor Tawes lifted martial law, and withdrew the Guard, and, according to Richardson’s plan, CNAC resumed demonstrations the next day at a local restaurant. The subsequent all-night conflict included, according to a state police official, gunfire “almost on the scale of warfare” (Fitzgerald, 109). So, the National Guard returned four days later.
The Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights wanted to meet with Richardson, but she refused. She also refused to speak with President John F. Kennedy, telling the Justice Department lawyer to tell “those Kennedy brothers they can both go to hell.” (Fitzgerald, 110)
Attorney General Kennedy held a meeting in July; the attendees included Richardson, SNCC Chairman John Lewis, Maryland Attorney General Robert C. Murphy, and the National Guard commander, Gen. George M. Gelston. Cambridge city officials were not invited. Out of this meeting came the “Treaty of Cambridge,” containing measures CNAC had earlier proposed from the previous community needs survey. In return, CNAC pledged to stop demonstrations. Richardson agreed to ending them because she expected the city government would not keep the agreement and thereby invalidate it. Her role was widely and highly praised. In spite of that recognition, her role at the August 1963 March on Washington was limited, perhaps because March organizers feared controversy from her, including her belief that direct action should be carried out that day.
That summer, as Richardson expected, the White establishment organized a referendum petition to undo the earlier desegregation charter change. Richardson urged Black voters to boycott the referendum because the charter change granted rights already guaranteed by the Constitution. Voting on the charter change gave White voters unjust power over Blacks’ rights, according to Richardson. Fortunately, the referendum vote defeated the amendment.
In the summer of 1964, Richardson’s Eastern Shore civil rights work ended. She left CNAC and (having divorced Harry Richardson in 1960) moved to New York and married photographer Frank Dandridge. According to Fitzgerald, Richardson had intended to lead CNAC only so long as it needed her.
As this review has suggested, Gloria Richardson’s civil rights work was distinctive. The Cambridge movement was not connected with the older, larger civil rights organizations, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Richardson wanted an operation free of the traditional gradualist and male-dominated approach.
In the egalitarian Cambridge movement, she, as a woman, became a key figure. She moved to New York, but her influence in Cambridge remains. She was honored at a Cambridge banquet in August 2010. As a child, Victoria Jackson-Stanley, Cambridge’s first Black mayor (2008-2020), revered Richardson and has said, “Harriet Tubman and Gloria Richardson have been my idols since I can remember. They set the path for me.”
Joseph R. Fitzgerald, The Struggle is Eternal: Gloria Richardson and Black Liberation (Kentucky, 2018)
John Lewis, “Her Legacy Shines on in Cambridge,” Baltimore Sun.
Jim Block taught English at Northfield Mount Hermon, a boarding school in Western Mass. He coached cross-country, and advised the newspaper and the debate society there. He taught at Marlborough College in England and Robert College in Istanbul. He and his wife, Penny, retired to Chestertown, Md. in 2014.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

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

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.

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.