Black Ohio and the Color Line, 1860-1915 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS273 were before. One must hope that this book will pave the way for more penetrating studies of the scalawags. University of New Mexico Peter Kolchin Bhck Ohio and the Color Line, 1860-1915. By David A. Gerber. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976. Pp. xii, 500. $14.95.) David Gerber's wide-ranging study of black Ohio surveys racial discrimination in schools and public accomodations, black occupations (oddly omitting white collar employment, however), class structure, institutions, leadership, and politics. The period immediately following the Civil War was one of reduced racial tensions, and a liberalized white sentiment coupled with the crucial importance of the black vote in close state and national elections gave Afro-Americans renewed hope for racial betterment. A school integration law was passed in 1887, a civil rights law in 1894, and an anti-mob violence act in 1896. Black churches and lodges multiplied rapidly during this period; black leadership, though militant on civil rights, remained culturally conservative. Gerber's assessment that the 1890's marked a turning point in the black struggle against adversity is a sound one. Ironically, McKinley 's victory in 1896 led to a decline in black political influence in Ohio, because the Republican party no longer needed its Negro allies as it had prior to 1896, when GOP dominance was less secure . At the same time, the resurgence of white racism and increasing black migration to the cities created vexatious problems for black leaders. A new generation of black leaders, favoring selfhelp and racial solidarity and looking to local machines (rather than the state legislature or federal appointment) for a political base, began to emerge and challenge the old guard. The importance of Gerber's study lies neither in its organization nor in the main thrust of its argument; in both cases there are significant parallels in previous studies by Allan Spear, David Katzman, and myself. Rather his achievement is in the scope and subtlety of his interpretation. He is the first to apply the above themes to a northern state (rather than city), and in doing so he expands our knowledge and explores some new areas. My own recent complaint of "the almost total scholarly neglect of northern blacks who lived outside the larger cities" in the nineteenth century is happily rendered obsolete by Gerber. Prior to the 1880's, many blacks in the North as well as the South lived in small towns or farming communities , and Gerber presents the most detailed analysis available 274CIVIL WAR HISTORY of black Ufe in these areas. In doing so he performs the valuable service of showing that in the North as weU as the South, racial conditions in die late nineteenth century were incredibly diverse. Another unique contribution is his fascinating discussion of the Negro "blue-vein" elite, which existed as a cohesive group until about 1900. In exploring these and other themes, Gerber is always sensitive to the nuances of racial attitudes and class distinctions. For the most part, his book is a model of clarity and balanced judgment. A few of his statements of fact will bear scrutiny. Gerber's claim that twenty-five to thirty percent of Ohio blacks were middle class and another five percent upper class seems inflated, even for the large cities. It is not true that "all but ä handful" of blacks were barred from the skilled trades in Cleveland by the early 1900's. Was black lodge membership limited solely to the middle and upper class, as Gerber contends? I think the employed working class also participated in these organizations to some extent. Finally, his conclusion that "black opposition to reform bore little resemblance to that of deeply entrenched, machine-affiliated elements among white Republicans " (pp. 340-41) is dubious; wider reading in urban history and black ghetto politics would have proven useful at this point. The book is very thoroughly researched; particularly impressive is the use of obscure black newspapers. I was bothered, however, by the failure to cite very many general secondary sources. At no point does Gerber cite Spear, Drake and Cayton, Michael Les Benedict , or Stephan Themstrom, for example, although the works of all four are relevant at times. More...