The History of Jewish Cleveland

Courtesy of the Jewish Virtual Library and the Encyclopaedia Judaica

The link is here

CLEVELAND, city situated in Northeast Ohio on Lake Erie. Its metropolitan area has the largest Jewish population in the state (81,500 in 1996). Jewish settlement began in the 1830s, when Daniel Maduro Peixotto (1800–43) joined the faculty of Willoughby Medical College in 1836 and Simson Thorman (1812–1881), a trader in hides, came from Unsleben, Bavaria, settling permanently in Cleveland in 1837. The opening of the Ohio and Erie canals and the development of stage routes provided countless economic opportunities for new immigrants, and Thorman must have written to his family in Unsleben; in 1839 a group of 19 departed on the sailing shipHoward and 15 made the trip to Cleveland, arriving in July of that year, joining two other men who had emigrated from Unsleben.

Community Life to 1865

The Unsleben group arrived in America prepared to continue Jewish observance. They carried with them an ethical testament, known as the Alsbacher Ethical Testament, written by their teacher in Unsleben, who implored them not to forsake their heritage. Simson Hopferman (later Hoffman) served as a ḥazzan and shoḥet.They had a Sefer Torah, and with enough men to form a minyan, established the Israelitic Society in 1839. In 1840 the group purchased land on Willett Street for a cemetery, and more Jewish settlers arrived. There were two married and five single women with the Howard group, and marriages and births quickly followed.

In 1841 internal divisions led to the formation of a second congregation, Anshe Chesed (today known as Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple). The two groups reunited temporarily, but split again in 1850, when a group of some 20 dissidents left to establish Tifereth Israel (today known as The Temple – Tifereth Israel). Rabbi Isadore Kalisch (1816–1886), later coauthor with Isaac Mayer *Wise of the first American Reform prayer book, Minhag America, led the new congregation. Both congregations moved towards reform before the Civil War.

In addition to the congregations, there were six communal organizations that were established before the end of the Civil War, including a local chapter of B’nai B’rith (1853), the Hebrew Benevolent Society (1855), the Young Men’s Literary Society (1860), the Jewish Ladies Benevolent Society (1860), the Zion Singing Society (1861), and the Hungarian Aid Society (1863). These reflected the growth of the Jewish community to approximately 1,000 individuals, 78% from German states (primarily Bavaria), and 19% from the Austrian Empire (primarily Bohemia). Benjamin Franklin Peixotto (1834–1890) was a founder of some of these organizations; while living in Cleveland, he owned a clothing factory and wrote for the local newspaper, The Plain Dealer, before leaving the area.

Most of Cleveland’s Jews through the Civil War were laborers, peddlers, or small merchants, but even then they were gravitating toward the garment industry, which was to become the nation’s second largest concentration of such businesses. Several Jewish firms made uniforms for Civil War soldiers, including Sigmund Mann and Davis and Peixotto & Co. Some 38 men from Cleveland served in the Civil War, including Joseph A. Joel, later known for his comic description of a wartime Passoverseder published in the Jewish Messenger in 1862.

From 1865 to the 1890s

The Cleveland Jewish population grew from approximately 1,000 at the close of the Civil War to 3,500 in 1880. During this period the pioneering families and newer settlers established congregations and cultural institutions, built businesses, and were active in public affairs and politics. B’nai Jeshurun and Anshe Emeth (both still in existence in 2004 with the latter known today as Park Synagogue) were founded, respectively, by Hungarian and Polish immigrants in 1866 and 1869, while the earlier congregations, Anshe Chesed and Tifereth Israel, continued to grow. The Jewish Orphan Asylum (today known as Bellefaire) was established by B’nai B’rith in 1868 to care for the region’s Civil War orphans. The Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (1875) and Montefiore Home to serve the aged (1881) were formed to complete services to a growing community. The Jewish elite enjoyed the Excelsior Club (1872). The Anglo-Jewish press began with the Hebrew Observer in 1889; four years later the Jewish Review appeared, and the two merged as The Jewish Review and Observer in 1899. The Jewish Independent was founded in 1906.

Members of the community were successful in business and public affairs. Kaufman Hays (1835–1916) began as a peddler, and in 1894 took over the Cleveland Worsted Mills. Other major clothing manufacturers were Joseph and Feiss, Richman Brothers, Printz-Biederman, and Kaynee. The major department stores, Halles, The May Company, and Sterling Lindner, were owned or managed by Jews.

Jewish participation in general community life took many directions. By 1892 a number of Jewish merchants were members of the Cleveland Board of Trade, whose president that year was Frederick Mulhauser, a mill owner. Rabbi Moses J. Gries (1868–1918) was a trustee member of the Society of Organized Charities, founded in 1881. Baruch Mahler and Peter Zucker were presidents of the Board of Education (1884–85 and 1887–88), and Kaufman Hays was vice president of the City Council in 1888. Louis Black, of Hungarian origin, served as United States consul in Budapest under presidents Cleveland and Harrison. Joseph C. Bloch became the first Jewish judge in Cleveland.

The 1890s through World War I: The Impact of East European Immigration

The Jewish population of Cleveland increased greatly from the 1880s on, as East Europeans fled pogroms and economic hardships. In 1890 the Jewish population was over 5,000 and by 1900 it was 20,000; at the end of the immigration period the estimated Jewish population of Cleveland was between 90,000 and 100,000. Clustered in the Woodland Avenue/55th Street neighborhood, the East Europeans worked as peddlers, in small businesses, and as employees in the clothing industry dominated by the established firms of the preceding immigrant generation. The new settlers were more attached to Orthodox traditions, and decidedly poorer, putting a strain on the existing social institutions. The Cleveland Section of the National Council of Jewish Women (founded in 1894) created an ambitious social settlement house through the Council Educational Alliance in 1899. To prevent duplication of efforts in activities and fundraising, in 1903 the established leadership created the Federation of Jewish Charities. In spite of these efforts, there were tensions between the newcomers and the earlier settlers. The East Europeans created their own institutions, including the Yiddishe Velt, a newspaper established by Samuel Rocker in 1911, a Jewish Relief Society (1895), an Orthodox Home for the Aged (1906, today known as Menorah Park Center for Senior Living), and the Orthodox Orphan Home. An attempt to create an Orthodox hospital failed when the existing Mt. Sinai Hospital (founded in 1903) agreed to provide kosher food. Numerous landsmanshaften also helped new immigrants adjust to Cleveland life, and at least 25 small Orthodox congregations could be found in the neighborhood, often associated with their members’ place of origin in Europe. Yiddish theater flourished in the community; one of the theater owners, Harry “Czar” Bernstein (1856–1920), was also a colorful Republican ward boss.

Many of the East European immigrants brought with them a trade-union outlook. The years before World War I were the high point of Jewish labor activity, particularly in the garment industries, where a series of strikes, not all successful, took place. A notable example of Jewish trade unionism was the Jewish Carpenters’ Union Local No. 1750, chartered in 1903. In 1910 William Goldberg began his lifelong leadership of the union and became a prominent figure in Ohio labor circles. Years later the garment workers’ union and the carpenters’ local lost their Jewish character as Jewish occupations shifted to the professions, service industries, and business enterprises. Unique expressions of Jewish economic activity were the Cleveland Jewish Peddlers’ Association, formed in 1896, and the Hebrew Working Men’s Sick Benefit Association.

Jewish Life through World War II

With the East European influx into Cleveland also came enthusiasm for Zionism. While Reform rabbis Moses Gries and Louis Wolsey opposed the movement, Zionist groups of all political persuasions proliferated, especially after two new rabbis were installed at the Reform congregations, Abba Hillel *Silver (1893–1963) andBarnett R. *Brickner (1892–1958). Many national conferences were held in Cleveland, notably the 1921 meeting that led to a schism between the factions headed byLouis *Brandeis and Chaim *Weizmann. *Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization, was established in Cleveland in 1913, and a Cleveland nurse, Rachel (Rae) Landy (1884–1952), along with New Yorker Rose Kaplan began visiting nurse services in Palestine that year. Zionism also affected Jewish education. Abraham H. *Friedland (1892–1939), brought from New York to direct the Talmud Torah supplementary school system, infused Hebrew language and Zionist philosophy into its educational curriculum. He also headed the Bureau of Jewish Education (founded in 1924) until his death in 1939.

After World War I, the Jewish community migrated east of the Woodland neighborhood: Glenville, a city neighborhood northeast, became a center of middle-class life with Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform congregations, and boasted a much admired public school system which had illustrious graduates such as U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (b. 1917) (D-Ohio) and Joe *Shuster (1914–92) and Jerome *Siegel (1914–1996), creators of the comic hero Superman. Mt. Pleasant-Kinsman, to the southeast, larger geographically but less densely Jewish, had only an Orthodox synagogue and was noted for its working-class and Yiddish-language atmosphere, with trade union headquarters and organizations such as the Workmen’s Circle. The more affluent began settling in the eastern suburbs of Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights, and in 1926 B’nai Jeshurun, which had joined the Conservative movement, built an impressive structure in Cleveland Heights, where it was known for the next 55 years as Temple on the Heights.

The events of the 1930s – economic depression and increased local and international antisemitism – moved the Jewish community in various ways. First, the Federation of Jewish Charities underwent an effective reorganization, creating a Welfare Fund to coordinate fundraising and a Community Council to mediate local disputes and represent the Jewish community to the general public. Second, the nonsectarian League for Human Rights, led behind the scenes by Abba Hillel Silver, strongly reacted to events in Europe by boycotting German-made products, monitoring the German-American Bund and other such organizations’ local activities, and providing an organized response to German student exchange in Cleveland. Several Jewish Clevelanders, including David Miller (1908–1977) and Morris Stamm (1904–2000), served in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War.

By the eve of World War II, Cleveland Jewry had fewer internal disagreements as the more recent immigrants had acculturated and the leadership of major organizations was no longer exclusively in the hands of the earlier families’ descendants. Although there was never a Jewish mayor of Cleveland, Jews were active in local politics and in the judiciary. Alfred A. *Benesch (1879–1973) served for 37 years on the Cleveland Board of Education, Maurice Maschke (1868–1936) was a Republican leader between 1900 and 1940, and judges Samuel H. *Silbert (1883–1976) and Mary Belle Grossman (1879–1977) had long periods of service on the bench.

World War II and the Establishment of the State of Israel

Of the 8,500 Cleveland men and women who served in the armed forces during World War II, over 200 lost their lives. In 1943 Rabbi Barnett Brickner was selected by the National Jewish Welfare Board to serve as executive chairman of the Committee on Army and Navy Religious Activities and traveled throughout the war theaters. The Telshe Yeshiva was relocated in Cleveland, its rabbis escaping Europe prior to its destruction. Several thousand Holocaust survivors settled in the metropolitan area after the war was over.

In 1945 David *Ben-Gurion met with 17 Americans at the Sonneborn Institute to discuss strategies in anticipation of establishing the State of Israel. Among them was former Cleveland law director Ezra Z. *Shapiro (1903–1971), who would later immigrate to Israel to head *Keren Hayesod. Continuing his activist role in rallying the community to the Zionist cause, Abba Hillel Silver dramatically addressed the United Nations in 1947 calling for a Jewish state. Over the years, after the establishment of the state, the Israeli landscape would become dotted with schools, synagogues, community centers, parks, and businesses bearing the names of Cleveland-area philanthropists and Zionists, including Max Apple, the Mandel, Ratner, and Stone families, and the Cleveland sections of ZOA, Hadassah, Na’amat USA, Amit Women, and the Histadrut.

Post–World War II through the 1970s

The trickle of families into the Eastern suburbs accelerated after World War II, and the bulk of the population relocated to Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University Heights, and Beachwood despite some restrictive covenants that were overturned. Institutions quickly followed, leading to the merger of no fewer than 15 smaller Orthodox congregations into Taylor Road Synagogue, Warrensville Center Synagogue, Green Road Synagogue, and Heights Jewish Center. The massive Cleveland Jewish Center, originally Anshe Emeth, relocated from Glenville into an architecturally notable building in Cleveland Heights designed by Eric Mendelsohn, and became known as Park Synagogue. This congregation had joined the Conservative movement earlier in the century after a fierce legal battle. The Reform movement experienced growth in the suburbs as well. Two new congregations, Emanu El and Suburban Temple, were founded. Arthur J. *Lelyveld (1913–1996) led Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple from 1958 to 1986. Active in the civil rights movement, Lelyveld was severely beaten in Mississippi in 1964, and also officiated at the funeral of slain civil rights worker Andrew Goodman. At the Temple-Tifereth Israel, Daniel Jeremy Silver (1928–1989) became senior rabbi upon the death of his father, Abba Hillel Silver; he oversaw that congregation’s building of a satellite structure in the suburbs, published several scholarly works, and was instrumental in establishing the National Foundation for Jewish Culture.

Although a 1962 book called Cleveland “a city without Jews,” this was not strictly accurate, as Beth Israel-The West Temple served the Jews living on Cleveland’s West Side. This small congregation made several important contributions to Cleveland’s Jewish history. Scientists were important in its founding, among them Abe Silverstein (1920–2002), who worked at the nearby NASA Lewis Research Station and contributed to the Mercury and Apollo programs of the U.S. space effort. One of the congregation’s students, Sally *Priesand, went on to become the nation’s first female rabbi, and in 1963 three of its members founded the Cleveland Council on Soviet Antisemitism, the first known advocacy group in the Soviet Jewry movement which would eventually lead to some 6,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union settling in Northeast Ohio.

This was an extremely productive time for the Jewish Community Federation, which in 1951 merged its two divisions, the Jewish Welfare Federation and the Jewish Community Council. Under the leadership of Sidney Z. Vincent (1912–1982) and Henry L. Zucker (1910–1998), the Federation was the first in the nation to directly fund day school education (to the Orthodox Hebrew Academy), pioneered leadership training courses, and developed a comprehensive approach to building endowment funds. Cleveland was subsequently known as the most successful city in the United States in per capita fundraising as well as a training ground for future federation directors. In later years, Boston, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Seattle, and New York, among others, would be headed by individuals who started their careers in Cleveland.

The workforce moved from the labor unions into the professions, service industries, light manufacturing, and banking. Fewer spoke Yiddish, and the longtime Yiddish newspaper ceased publication in 1952. In 1964 the two English-language newspapers became the Cleveland Jewish News, which continues as an independent publication.

1975 to 2006

In the last quarter of the 20th century and into the 21st, the Cleveland Jewish community has been concerned with geography and identity. The numbers appear to have remained constant; although a 1987 population survey showed a decline to 65,000, the 1996 survey estimated the population to be 81,500, casting some doubts on the previous survey’s methodology. The inner ring eastern suburbs house nearly half of this population, yet movement to more affluent areas farther east continues, including institutions. A concerted effort by the Jewish Community Federation to slow population movement from Cleveland Heights has succeeded to some extent in keeping several centers of Jewish life viable. In Cleveland Heights, the Taylor Road area is home to kosher stores, the Jewish Education Center of Cleveland (a reconfigured Bureau of Jewish Education, founded earlier in the century), several Orthodox synagogues, including a Taylor Road Synagogue with a much smaller membership, and two large Orthodox day schools. Hebrew Academy, Cleveland’s first day school, continues to thrive in its Taylor Road location, while the ultra-Orthodox-built Mosdos Ohr Hatorah’s girl’s division is close by. Park Synagogue (Conservative) has its main sanctuary several blocks away, and a new egalitarian traditional congregation purchased Sinai Synagogue, whose members now meet farther east in University Heights. Chevrei Tikva, a congregation reaching out to gays and lesbians (founded in 1983), also meets in Cleveland Heights. In University Heights, Fuchs Mizrachi School (founded in 1983) has grown rapidly to over 300 students, from preschool through high school in a Zionist, Orthodox setting.

Another center of Orthodox life flourishes in the Green Road area, the border between Beachwood and University Heights. Green Road Synagogue moved here in 1972, later joined by Chabad of Beachwood and Young Israel in reconverted houses. In the late 1990s, Chabad, Young Israel, and the Hebrew Academy proposed building plans for an Orthodox campus in this location, which were accepted, rejected, and then accepted with modifications during a period of contentious discussions noted nationally as an example of dissension within the Jewish community. The Jewish Federation created a task force, B’Yachad/Together, to try to heal some of these rifts. The Beatrice Stone Yavne School for Girls has since been built, as has the new Young Israel building, with Chabad under construction at this writing. The Green Road area also has kosher food stores, restaurants, and gift shops.

The Laura and Alvin Siegal College of Jewish Studies, formerly housed on Taylor Road, moved to a new building in Beachwood, which it shares with the Agnon School, a community day school. This campus also houses the Mandel Jewish Community Center in its only remaining building now that the Cleveland Heights JCChas been sold; the eastern satellite of Temple-Tifereth Israel; and the new (2005) Milton and Tamar Maltz Museum of Jewish Heritage, a collaborative effort of the Temple-Tifereth Israel, the Jewish Community Federation, and the Maltz family, with many artifacts and documents from the Cleveland Jewish Archives collections of the Western Reserve Historical Society. Slightly to the east in Pepper Pike are B’nai Jeshurun and the Gross Schechter School, both associated with the Conservative movement.

Despite continued strength in the inner suburbs, buildings housing Jewish institutions continue to be constructed in suburbs farther east, with a new branch of the Cleveland Hebrew Schools under construction in Solon, Montefiore Home’s assisted living facility in Bainbridge, along with several small congregations.

Mt. Sinai Hospital, after a near century of providing outstanding health care, research breakthroughs, and opportunities for Jewish physicians, was sold to a for-profit health care system that eventually dissolved the hospital. Jewish physicians and scientists have increasingly made their mark at the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, and Case Western Reserve University, where earlier Albert *Michelson (1852–1931) won a Nobel Prize in 1907, and Harry Goldblatt (1891–1977) made notable contributions in the field of renal hypertension. Philanthropic dollars have constructed major buildings at each of these facilities, including the Lerner Research Building and the Sam and Maria Miller Emergency Room at the Cleveland Clinic, the Mandel School of Advanced Social Services, the Peter B. Lewis Building of the Weatherhead Business School and the Wolstein Research Building at Case Western Reserve University, and the Horvitz Tower at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital. In the business world, the Stone and Weiss families continue to lead the American Greetings Corporation, the Ratner family heads Forest City Enterprises, a major construction firm, and Peter Lewis’ Progressive Insurance Company employs over 14,000 workers.

In politics, Beryl Rothschild, Harvey Friedman, and Merle Gordon served as mayors of University Heights and Beachwood; in addition to Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate, Eric Fingerhut has represented the district in Ohio state government. Milton A. Wolf served as ambassador to Austria during the Carter administration.

Contributions to the Arts and Popular Culture

Cleveland Jews have enriched the cultural life of the community in many areas. In literature, Martha Wolfenstein, Jo *Sinclair, Herbert *Gold, Jerome Lawrence, and more recently, Alix Kates Shulman, Susan Orlean, and Harvey Pekar worked in Northeast Ohio. David Dietz was a noted science writer, while David B. Guralnik (1920–2001) was the chief editor of Webster’s New World Dictionary for more than 40 years. Abraham H. Friedland, Libbie Braverman (1900–1990), and Bea Stadtler (1921–2000) wrote in the field of Jewish education. In the visual arts, Max Kalish (1891–1945), William *Zorach (1887–1966), and Louis Loeb were sculptors, Abel and Alex Warshawsky were painters, and Louis Rorimer (1872–1939) was influential in interior design. In music, Nikolai Sokoloff (1886–1965) was the first conductor of the Cleveland Orchestra; composer Ernest *Bloch (1880–1959) was the first director of the Cleveland School of Music and Arthur *Loesser(1894–1969) and Beryl *Rubinstein (1898–1952) led the piano departments at the school. Cleveland has also been called the birthplace of rock and roll music, beginning with the 1952 Moondog Coronation Ball, led by disk jockey Alan *Freed (1922–1965). Dorothy Fuldheim (1893–1989) was the first woman in America with her own television news program. Some Cleveland Jewish individuals and families have long been interested in professional sports. Max Rosenblum founded a professional basketball team in the 1920s. Members of the Gries family, Art *Modell, and Alfred Lerner all owned or shared in the ownership of the Cleveland Browns football team.

Garment Industry in Cleveland from the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History


The Garment Industry in Northeast Ohio from the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

The link is here

GARMENT INDUSTRY. As early as 1860 the manufacture of ready-to-wear clothing became one of Cleveland’s leading industries. The garment industry probably reached its peak during the 1920s, when Cleveland ranked close to New York as one of the country’s leading centers for garment production. During the Depression and continuing after World War II, the garment industry in Cleveland declined. Scores of plants moved out of the area, were sold, or closed their doors. Local factors certainly played their part, but the rise of the ready-to-wear industry in Cleveland, as well as its decline, paralleled the growth and decline of the industry nationwide. Thus the story of the garment industry in Cleveland is a local or regional variant of a much broader phenomenon.

The Ironing Department of L.N. Gross Co., ca. 1930. WRHS.

In the early 19th century clothing was still handmade, produced for the family by women in the household or custom-made for the more well-to-do by tailors and seamstresses. The first production of ready-to-wear garments was stimulated by the needs of sailors, slaves, and miners. Although still hand-produced, this early ready-to-wear industry laid the foundations for the vast expansion and mechanization of the industry. The ready-to-wear industry grew enormously from the 1860s to the 1880s for a variety of reasons. Increasing mechanization was one factor. In addition, systems for sizing men’s and boys’ clothing were highly developed, based on millions of measurements obtained by the U.S. Army during the Civil War. Eventually, accurate sizing for women’s clothing was also developed. The Depression of 1873 contributed to the growth and growing acceptance of men’s ready-to-wear, because men found in off-the-rack garments a satisfactory and less costly alternative to custom-made clothing. The production of ready-made men’s trousers or “pants,” separate from suits, stimulated during the depression of the 1870s, allowed men to supplement their outfit without having to purchase a complete suit. In general, however, the great expansion of the ready-to-wear industry coincided with and was partly the result of the tremendous urbanization and the great wave of immigrants that came to the U.S. in the last decades of the 19th century and early decades of the 20th. Industrial cities such as Cleveland also experienced rapid growth, and it was during this period that Cleveland’s ready-to-wear clothing industry blossomed.

The early entrepreneurs of the clothing industry in Cleveland were often JEWS & JUDAISM of German or Austro-Hungarian extraction. Their previous experience in retailing prepared them for the transition to manufacturing and wholesaling ready-to-wear clothing. One example was Kaufman Koch, a clothing retailer whose firm eventually evolved into the JOSEPH & FEISS CO., a leading manufacturer of men’s clothing. The company still exists in the early 1990s, although it is no longer locally owned. The entry-level manufacturer needed relatively little capital to launch a garment factory. H. Black & Co., which would become a major Cleveland manufacturer of women’s suits and cloaks, started out as a notions house. The Black family, Jews of Hungarian origin, decided to produce ready-to-wear clothing based on European patterns in their own home. Later, fabric was contracted out to home sewers and then returned to the factory for final assembly. This system of contracting was widely practiced at this stage of the garment industry’s development, but by the close of the 19th century home work had been generally superseded by factory production. Garment manufacturing started in the FLATS, but in the early 20th century, it was concentrated in what is now called the WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, an area bounded by W. 6th and W. 9th streets and Lakeside and Superior avenues. L. N. Gross Co., founded in 1900, was one such firm in the growing garment district, specializing in the production of women’s shirtwaists. Many women wore suits, and the separate shirtwaist provided a relatively inexpensive way to modify and vary their wardrobe. L. N. Gross also pioneered in the specialization and division of labor in the manufacturing process. Instead of having one person produce an entire garment, each garment worker specialized in one procedure, and then the entire garment was assembled.

As the garment industry spread to other areas of the city, the CLEVELAND WORSTED MILL CO. dominated the skyline on Broadway near E. 55th St. First organized in the 1870s and controlled after 1893 by KAUFMAN HAYS†, the Worsted Mills produced fabric for Cleveland manufacturers, as well as for garment manufacturers in other parts of the country. The company owned and operated a total of 11 mills in Ohio and on the East Coast. During the first 3 decades of the 20th century, the garment industry spread from downtown to the east side along Superior Ave. between E. 22nd and E. 26th streets. The RICHMAN BROTHERS CO. built a large plant on E. 55th. near St. Clair. Founded in Portsmouth, OH, the company moved to Cleveland in the late 1890s, specializing in the production of men’s suits and coats–an activity in which Cleveland was a close runner-up to New York. In order to reduce the risk of large cancellations by wholesalers, Richman distributed its product directly to the customer in its own retail outlets. The plants of other garment manufacturers dotted the east side well into the 1960s, including BOBBIE BROOKS, INC. on Perkins Ave. and the Dalton Co. at E 66th and Euclid. The PRINTZ-BIEDERMAN CO.was founded in 1893 by Moritz Printz, for many years the chief designer for H. Black & Co. Printz-Biederman specialized in the production of women’s suits and coats, a branch of the garment industry in which Cleveland ranked second to New York. In 1934 the company left the St. Clair area to build a modern factory on E. 61st between Euclid and Chester avenues. The large knitwear firm of Bamberger-Reinthal built a plant on Kinsman at E. 61st St.; Joseph & Feiss was located on the west side on W. 53rd St.; Federal Knitting had a plant on W. 28th and Detroit,; and the Phoenix Dye Works was still located on W. 150th St. in 1993.

For approximately 50 years after the 1890s, about 7% of Cleveland’s workforce toiled in the garment factories. The ethnic origins of those who worked in the industry were as varied as the immigrants who flowed to the U.S. in the early decades of the 20th century. Although Jewish workers played a prominent role, other immigrant groups such as CZECHSPOLESGERMANS, and ITALIANS were also employed in large numbers, and many of the garment factories were located in the ethnic neighborhoods from which they drew their workforce. Small workshops also proliferated in the ethnic neighborhoods, and many garment workers labored in sweatshop conditions. Unlike in New York, however, where the majority of shops employed 5 or fewer workers, 80% of Cleveland’s approximately 10,000 apparel workers were employed in large and well-equipped factories by 1910. Although working conditions were somewhat better in Cleveland than in New York, Cleveland garment workers generally received low wages and worked long hours with few, if any, benefits. Like garment workers elsewhere, they sought to improve their wages and working conditions by organizing. In 1900 a number of small craft and trade unions joined together in New York City to form the INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, and in 1911 Cleveland garment workers staged a massive strike. On 6 June the employees of H. Black & Co. walked out, and up to 6,000 of Cleveland’s garment workers followed them. The ILGWU sent officials from New York to encourage the strikers, but in spite of considerable support for the workers in the community at large, the owners resisted. Attempts to negotiate a settlement failed, and by October those who could returned to work. The strike had been lost (see GARMENT WORKERS’ STRIKE OF 1911).

During World War I, the garment industry produced a variety of apparel for the armed forces, and in 1918 wartime inflation and prosperity prompted the ILGWU to organize another strike in Cleveland, involving approximately 5,000 workers. To avoid the disruption of local production of military uniforms, secretary of war and former Cleveland mayor NEWTON D. BAKER† intervened, prevailing on both sides to accept a board of referees, which gave the workers a substantial increase in wages. This event marked a watershed in relations between management and labor in Cleveland’s garment industry. The threat of unionization and the influence of “Taylorism” or “Scientific Management” persuaded the large Cleveland garment factories to provide increased amenities for their workers, which reached a peak in the 1920s. PAUL FEISS†, of Joseph & Feiss, was a convinced exponent of scientific management, and time and motion studies were implemented in order to make production more efficient and cost-effective. Working conditions also were improved in order to reduce employee turnover and to provide the best possible environment for maximum productivity. The local garment factories began to provide clean and well-run cafeterias, clinics, libraries, and nurseries for children. Employees of both sexes were urged to participate in sports, theatricals, and other activities, and the factory was also a place where immigrants learned English and a variety of homemaking skills. One consequence of paternalism was a brake on the growth of unionism.

The Depression and the New Deal had a major impact on the garment industry. Those manufacturers who survived the Depression were faced with a powerful new labor movement bent on organizing the unorganized garment industry. Bolstered by the provisions of the NRA and the National Labor Relations Act, both the ILGWU and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, which represented workers in the men’s garment factories, successfully waged organizing campaigns (see AMALGAMATED CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION). Some owners acquiesced; others resisted or simply closed their doors. The process of decline in Cleveland’s garment industry began during the 1930s. During World War II, the industry was once again geared for war production. Factories produced uniforms, knit scarves, and parachutes. LION KNITTING MILLS was famous for its production of the knitted Navy watch cap. Following the war, a number of garment manufacturers were unable to adjust to new market conditions and to new price levels. But while some companies fell by the way, new and vigorous garment factories grew, especially in the 1950s. Among them was Bobbie Brooks, founded by MAURICE SALTZMAN†, and the Dalton Co., organized by Arthur Dery. In fact, the Cleveland garment industry was still so large and influential in the 1950s that Cleveland manufacturers were able to convince the Phoenix Dye Works of Chicago to relocate in Cleveland, where many of its customers were located. Throughout the years other businesses ancillary to garment manufacturing also flourished in Cleveland.

Since World War II, the once-vigorous Cleveland garment industry has dwindled considerably, especially since the 1960s and 1970s when the decline accelerated. In some instances, management has transferred manufacturing operations elsewhere while retaining offices in Cleveland. In some cases an entire operation moved from the Cleveland area, usually to the South. Many companies sold off all or part of their businesses or simply closed. The reasons for this shift are complex and varied, some deriving from local conditions and some from conditions that are national or even global in nature, affecting the industry as a whole throughout the U.S.

The garment industry is traditionally a low-paying industry, and rising labor costs aggravated the industry’s problems. Although most of the large Cleveland manufacturers were unionized, unionization itself did not necessarily mean that one company had an unfair advantage over another. The city’s garment unions, however, generally sought and received wage settlements above the national minimum. Labor costs were considerably less in the South, and Cleveland manufacturers as well as garment and textile workers throughout the U.S. faced growing competition from lower-paid workers in other parts of the world. For example, knitwear and other textile products produced in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore could be sold in the U.S. at substantially less than the same products manufactured in this country. Another factor that may have discouraged some Cleveland manufacturers was the changing workforce. Until the 1950s and 1960s, many women workers had a limited number of employment opportunities, particularly the European immigrant women who dominated the workforce of the garment industry. During the postwar period, there was a new generation of women working who had many more employment opportunities at wages much higher than could be earned in the garment industry. However, while labor costs in Cleveland were relatively high in comparison with some regions, there were some industry authorities who contended that additional factors contributed to the industry’s decline. For example, some family-owned concerns were sold or simply dissolved when family shareholders could no longer agree on management decisions. In other cases, the heirs preferred some profession or occupation outside the garment industry.

The apparel industry was also subject to changes in technology and to the rapidly changing conditions of the marketplace. Cleveland firms often did not or could not respond with sufficient alacrity or astuteness to such changing conditions. Cleveland was perhaps too divorced from the center of the market in New York. It lacked a regional market of importance, and thus many manufacturers lost touch with what consumers wanted, and when the competitive price structure changed after World War II, some companies could not adapt to a shifting and rapidly changing marketplace. In the 1980s New York came to dominate the industry as both a marketplace and a manufacturing center, and substantial Cleveland manufacturers must constantly study and test the marketplace trends in New York City. In addition, there are other important regional markets, such as Dallas and Los Angeles, which served to move the focus of the industry away from Cleveland. Perhaps that is part of a larger underlying transformation of the American economy resulting in the loss of preeminence of the older industrial centers of the Great Lakes region and Middle West. On the other hand, Cleveland garment manufacturers who take advantage of new technologies, who learn to cut costs, and who learn to respond effectively to the marketplace may still survive and even flourish.

Stanley Garfinkel

Kent State Univ.

Residual Neighbors Jewish-African American Interactions in Cleveland From 1900 to 1970 by John Baden

(Masters Thesis-Jan, 2011)

Department of History, Case Western Reserve University

The original pdf is here (4.3mg download)

This master’s thesis examines Jewish and African American relations in Cleveland, Ohio from 1900 to 1970. It argues that interactions between Jews and African Americans in the North have been forged by their history of shared urban space which fostered inter-reliance between Jewish entrepreneurs and their black customers. While this African American-Jewish inter-reliance has been explored in the context of civil rights, an examination of street-level interactions in shared urban spaces such as Jewish- run corner-stores, nightclubs, music shops, housing, and even criminal enterprises reveals that relations between African Americans and Jews have been driven as much by entrepreneurship, markets, and patterns of consumption as by their history as two oppressed peoples. Although this study focuses on Cleveland, it also illustrates some of the basic dynamics of demographic change and inter-ethnic activity in urban America during the twentieth century.

Economic cooperation and antagonism between African Americans and Jews have been critical to the history of U.S. cities. Since discrimination prevented most African Americans from opening their own stores, blacks heavily relied on Jewish-owned enterprises for groceries, housing, credit, leisure, and employment in many cities.1 Such

1 In 1920, 61.90 to 73.01 percent of Central Avenue grocers (the heart of Cleveland’s African American population) were Jewish, while Jews constituted about 9-12.5 percent of the city. For methodology on grocers, see footnote #48. This level of uncertainty for Jewish population data is due to the lack of Jewish population numbers for 1920. Instead, a range of 1918 and 1923 were used. There was also ambiguity in the Jewish population report if the numbers referred to Greater Cleveland or Cleveland proper which figured into the range presentedCleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications) and The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, “Estimating Cleveland’s Jewish Population 1979,” (The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland,1980), in North American Jewish Data Bank, Estimating_Cleveland’s_Jewish_Population.pdf. Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Cleveland: A Bicentennial Timeline,” Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,

For other cities, see also Louis Wirth, The Ghetto (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997), 151. St. Clair Drake and Horace R. Cayton, “The Growth of a ‘Negro Market,’” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey

businesses provided needed services for the under-served urban African American community, and some like Record Rendezvous in Cleveland and the Chess Records in Chicago played a key role in the development and popularization of cultural expressions like jazz, rap, and rock ‘n’ roll. Other businesses, however, were known to exploit African-American residents, which led to mistrust, boycotts, and property destruction.

Jewish-African American relations in Cleveland began in earnest around 1890 as black migrants from the South and Jewish immigrants from Europe began to share neighborhoods in Cleveland’s near-East Side, especially in the section of town known as Central. Both communities came to Cleveland in hopes of economic advancement and to avoid persecution in their former homes. Once there, many Jews opened up stores in the Central neighborhood. After African Americans entered the city en masse during World War I, they became a crucial customer-base for these entrepreneurs. As Jews moved to better neighborhoods during the mid-1920s, they often retained stores in what were becoming largely African American sections of town. Meanwhile, persistent racism and a lack of capital prevented the overwhelming majority of African Americans from opening stores themselves. As a result, they continued to rely on Jewish-owned establishments for decades to come.

By the 1960s, nearly all of Cleveland’s Jews had moved into practically all-white suburbs, and the city’s black population found themselves abandoned in a city with

(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 367. A footnote in this selection notes that 3/4ths of the merchants in the Bronzeville neighborhood of Chicago were Jewish, but also notes that in New Orleans, “Italian merchants predominate.” Dominic J. Capeci Jr., Black-Jewish Relations in Wartime Detroit: The Marsh, Loving, Wolf Surveys and the Race Riot of 1943,” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 384, 393. This article notes that businesses damaged during the 1943 race riot predominately affected Jewish-owned businesses, and the large number of Jewish businesses in the riot area were a result of it previously being a Jewish neighborhood.

fleeting job opportunities and a diminishing tax base. Despite collaboration between African Americans and Jews to combat segregation and prejudice during this era, social and economic disparity ultimately fueled tensions between the two communities.

These tensions reached a boiling point in the late 1960s, and riots broke out in 1966 and 1968. During these riots, white owned businesses, including the dozens of Jewish businesses in African American neighborhoods were soft targets for rioters upset at the lack of social and economic progress in their communities. By the end of the decade, fear of unrest, rising insurance rates, a diminishing customer base, and an aging population of storekeepers caused many if not most of the businesses to close. By the end of the 1970s, hardly any commercial interactions persisted between Jews and African Americans in Cleveland proper.2

While this study primarily focuses on street-level interactions between African Americans and Jews, a separate activist relationship has existed between black and Jews since the turn of the twentieth century. Jews have historically played a disproportionate role in both funding and founding organizations like the NAACP, volunteering for black voter registration drives in the South, and providing legal support in landmark Civil Rights cases. The development of this “alliance” between Jews and African Americans and the tensions that it experienced from the late 1960s to the 1990s is the most researched aspect of African American-Jewish relations. There have been far fewer studies of commercial and lay interactions.

2 City Directory information shows that over 50 percent of grocery stores on Central Avenue closed between 1960 and 1970. Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications).
In 2006,
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article on Gordon’s Cycle Shop that referred to it as Glenville’s last Jewish-owned business. Michael Sangiacomo , “He’s not ready for cycle to end: Glenville bike shop owner continuing family tradition,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 26, 2006, in

Arnold Berger, Gordon Cycle & Supply-The Last Jewish – Owned Business in Glenville,” Cleveland Jewish History,

Three notable works about activism have been Cheryl Greenberg’s Troubling the Waters, Jonathan Kaufman’s Broken Alliance, and Seth Forman’s “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Jewish (which became the basis for his book Blacks in the Jewish Mind).” Greenberg wrote that the purpose of her book was to “temper the idealized vision of perfect mutuality by demonstrating that blacks and Jews had different but overlapping goals and interests which converged in a particular historical moment [the 1950s-60s].”3 Kaufman’s work consists of several case studies that demonstrate what the author sees as the downfall of a African American-Jewish alliance. Like Greenberg, Kaufmann wrote that African American-Jewish collaboration was “rooted as much in the hard currency of politics and self-interest as in love and idealism,” and fell victim to “sleeping in the same bed, [but] dreaming different dreams.”4 Seth Forman’s 1997 article entitled “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Jewish,” took a different approach. Forman argued that “the decision of the major Jewish organizations to pursue civil rights for all constituted a commitment to Jewish ‘otherness’ through liberalism,” and that supporting civil rights more than other whites “was one way of ensuring communal purpose and survival.”5

Other studies touch upon street-level interactions, but remain primarily focused on civil rights or urban demographic change as is the case with Beryl Satter’s Family Properties and Wendell Pritchett’s Brownsville, Brooklyn. Beryl Satter’s Family Properties addresses commercial relations in much more detail, but focuses on real estate exploitation and the author’s father, who was a civil rights activist. Other works like

3 Cheryl Lynn Greenberg, Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century, Politics and Society in Twentieth-century America (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2006), 1.
4 Broken Alliance: The Turbulent Times Between Blacks and Jews in America (New York: Scribner, 1988), 267- 268.

5 Seth Forman, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Jewish: Desegregation in the South and the Crisis of Jewish Liberalism (1997),” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey (Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 631.

Wendell Pritchett’s Brownsville, Brooklyn analyzes neighborhood transition, but focuses on demographic change and community activism rather than residual businesses that remain in the neighborhood after it becomes predominantly African American.

One possible reason so many authors have shied away from discussing African American-Jewish relations in the economic sphere is that it is a sensitive topic for both communities. For centuries, Jews have been wrongly stereotyped as obsessed with money. During the 1960s and 70s, some African American activists perceived Jews as influencing too much control over institutions (from SNCC to liquor stores to record labels) that they feel should be controlled by their own community. One possible reason for the absence of more historical examinations of African American-Jewish commercial relations since the 1960s may be due to fears of re-opening these conflicts, and inadvertently adding to stereotypes of Jews as exploiters and blacks as violent. When asked about the role of Jews in rhythm and blues, producer Jerry Wexler (who has been credited with coining the term) responded, “That gets very hairy and I’d rather not get into that,” and “it opens up too many questionable areas, and I’m not going to fuck with that.”6 Wexler, had reason to remain silent. As New York Times journalist John Leland wrote in his book Hip: The History, that Wexler was hung in effigy at a 1968 black music conference, and believed “there was a plot to kill him to protest white control of the music business.7

Studies of African American-Jewish relations that have included economics have generally done so for the purposes of providing historical perspective for the various conflicts between the two communities, rather than as something that warrants study in

6 John Leland, 208. 7 Ibid., 208.

its own right. St. Clair Drake and Horace R. Cayton’s 1945 book Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City analyzed the growth of what they called “the negro market,” and the trouble black businesses had with competing against white (mostly Jewish) establishments in Chicago. In wake of the 1943 Detroit riots, Wayne State University launched a study headed by sociologists, Donald C. Marsh, Eleanor Wolf, and Alvin Loving to investigate African American-Jewish relations, and determine if the riots that had burned many Jewish businesses were motivated by anti-Semitism. They concluded this was not the case.

Since World War II, discussion of African American-Jewish commercial relations has been sparse. Robert G. Weisbord and Arthur Benjamin Stein’s 1970 book, Bittersweet Encounter, included an exploration of African American-Jewish street level interactions, but once more dedicated most of its pages to ideological issues and points of tensions. As the book’s introduction notes, its purpose was “to provide a study which places contemporary Jewish-Negro relations in historical perspective; and hopefully to shed some light on an area of interracial relations that has already generated much heat and misunderstanding in recent years.” In 1985, historian Dominic Capeci re-examined the Marsh, Loving, and Wolf study, and supported its findings.

Jennifer Lee’s 2002 book, Civility in the City: Black, Jews, and Koreans in Urban America offers a sociological examination of contemporary inner-city retailers, primarily in Philadelphia and New York.8 Although the book is an excellent work of contemporary sociology, it fixes on one point in time and on cities which have vastly different histories than Cleveland or other Great Lakes industrial cities. In Cleveland, white flight has been

8 Jennifer Lee, Civility in the City: Blacks, Jews, and Koreans in Urban America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).

more widespread, few Jewish businesses remain in black neighborhoods, and far fewer immigrant entrepreneurs have opened up inner-city retail businesses. Thus, it is crucial to carefully examine how ethnic relations have changed over time, and to account for regional differences within those changes. While this study focuses on Cleveland, it will explore similarities and differences with other cities across the United States.

There have also been several works written about African American-Jewish relations in the music industry, like Jeffrey Paul Melnick’s A Right to Sing the Blues: African Americans, Jews, and American Popular Song, a chapter in John Leland’s book on hip culture, and several biographies of notable Jewish Americans music entrepreneurs like Alan Freed. These works, however, are highly specialized and are not intended to be a multi-faceted analysis of African American-Jewish relations. One objective of this study is to bring these instances of cultural exchange into a broader context of African American-Jewish relations, examining the role spatial relations played in shaping such interactions, rather than simply studying economic relations between the communities to better understand points of tension.9

Finally, this study seeks to complicate Lizabeth Cohen’s analysis in Making a New Deal. Cohen which states that neighborhoods in early twentieth century industrial cities like Cleveland and Chicago “isolated workers geographically and culturally from other workers in the city.”10 According to Cohen, this communal isolation “illuminate[s]”

9 John Leland, Hip, the History, 1st ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2004). John A. Jackson, Big Beat Heat: Alan Freed and the Early Years of Rock & Roll (New York City: Schirmer Books, 1995), Louis Armstrong, “The New Orleans Jewish Family (1969),” in Louis Armstrong, in His Own Words Selected Writings ed. Thomas Brothers (New York, NY: Oxford U.P, 1999), Jeffrey Paul Melnick, A Right to Sing the Blues: African Americans, Jews, and American Popular Song (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999).

10 Lizabeth Cohen, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 21.

why the strikes of 1919 in Chicago failed.11 While this communal isolation was certainly real in many neighborhoods, there were exceptions in what could be called ethnic borderlands. Such borderlands could consist of either residential or commercial space that was shared by ethnic groups. Generally, such borderlands consisted of African Americans who shared urban space with immigrants and other ethnic groups that have been called “middlemen” minorities by some historians and sociologists.12 Such areas were usually commercial hubs some distance away from factories, and often located near transit hubs.13 In Cleveland, Italians, Bohemians, Greeks, Jews, and blacks all shared the Central neighborhood’s residential space. Many of the old residential borderlands tended to fade in the Midwest and Northeast (the West Side of Chicago and New York City being exceptions) after the halt of large-scale immigration, although new ones have replaced them. For instance, the suburb of Cleveland Heights can now be considered a racial borderland, due to its racial integration and location between the predominantly black East Side of Cleveland and the predominantly white suburbs. In the western United States, many of the old racial borderlands have persisted because Latino immigrants have inhabited much of the urban space vacated by immigrant whites. Contrary to the model offered by Cohen, neighborhoods like Central were multicultural, integrated, and included dozens of assorted ethnic businesses during the late 1910s. By the time of the great unionization efforts of the 1930s, such neighborhoods were almost entirely African

11 Ibid.
12 The term middlemen minority is taken from the “Middleman minority theory.” For an overview of this theory, see Pyong Gap Min, Caught in the Middle: Korean Merchants in America’s Multiethnic Cities (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 21-22.
13 Examples of historical racial borderlands in 1940 located near the city’s central train station could be found near the Basin Street Station in New Orleans, Union Station in Kansas City, Union Station in Chicago, 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, Exchange Street Station in Buffalo, and Union Station in Los Angeles (especially for Asians). Prior to the opening of Cleveland’s Union Terminal in 1930, Cleveland’s racial borderlands were serviced by a number of street-cars who terminated in nearby Public Square. None of these neighborhoods relied on industry.

American (although residual white businesses did remain) and thus more “communally isolated” than they had been in 1919.

A study of ethnic interactions is also needed for Cleveland because the city’s historiography lacks many studies of cross-racial interaction. While Identity, Conflict and Cooperation which is edited by David Hammack, Diane Grabowski, and John Grabowski, examines relationships between Central European immigrants, studies on African Americans and Jews are primarily focused only on the community being studied. Works about Jews in Cleveland, most notably A History of the Jews of Cleveland by Lloyd P. Gartner and Merging Traditions by Judah Rubinstein and Jane Avner, do not include in any detailed analysis of Jewish relations with African Americans or other ethnic groups. Similarly, works about African Americans like Kenneth Kusmer’s A Ghetto Takes Shape and Kimberly Phillips’s Alabama North have little discussion of African Americans’ interactions with other ethnic groups like Jews. Todd Michney’s dissertation, “Changing Neighborhoods: Race and Upward Mobility in Southeast Cleveland, 1930-1980” does a remarkable job of including all of Southeast Cleveland’s ethnic communities, but is limited to only one section of town. Furthermore, it focuses on neighborhood change rather than ongoing relations between the ethnic groups. This study will examine the history of shared space between Jews and African Americans throughout Cleveland, and explore the historical and cultural impact of this relationship in the city and throughout the nation. 


Part I Neighborly Mistrust
The first widespread instances of African American-Jewish interactions in 
Cleveland occurred around 1890, as black migrants from the South moved into the heavily Jewish and Italian Central Avenue neighborhood, located just to the east of downtown. Jewish migration to Cleveland stemmed from changes in the European economy and a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the latter half of the nineteenth century which caused millions to leave their homeland for the United States. The industrial revolution forced economic changes which made many traditional Jewish occupations in Europe like the village peddler less sustainable.14

According to Hasia Diner in The Jews of the United States, more successful Central European Jewish (Germans, Swiss, and Austrians are included as Central Europeans throughout this paper) merchants moved to European cities during this era of transformation, while “the poorest chose America instead.”15 After inaccurate rumors blamed Jews for the assassination of Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881, waves of murderous anti-Jewish rioting known as pogroms spread across the Russian Empire and persisted for decades. For the next ten years, the Russian government enacted legislation that restricted the residence, occupation, and education of Jews. This wave of anti- Semitism combined with the “pull” of economic opportunity prompted around 2.5 million Jews to leave Eastern Europe for the United States between 1881 and 1924.16 The rapidly expanding industrial metropolis of Cleveland attracted many of these immigrants along with others who moved to Cleveland from other American cities. As a result, the city’s Jewish population grew from a mere 3,500 people in 1881 to 30,000 in 1905 and then 60,000 in 1910.17

14 Hasia R Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 82.
15 Ibid., 84. Central European throughout this paper will include Germans, Swiss, and Austrians.
16Ibid., 88.

17 Judah Rubinstein and Jane Avner, Merging traditions: Jewish life in Cleveland (Kent: Kent State University Press, 2004), 29.

During the mid to late nineteenth Century, the Haymarket District was the center of Jewish life in Cleveland. The Haymarket District was located just south of Public Square in the city’s downtown, where many Central European-Jewish pioneers worked as merchants. Steadily, the Central European-Jewish population moved east along Woodland Avenue, which became the new center of Jewish life in Cleveland until the mid 1920s.18 Although Woodland’s residents were employed in a wide range of labor– based occupations such as garment making (the neighborhood’s most critical), merchants were the most visible members of the community, since their businesses were frequented by the most people. Woodland Avenue was home to numerous bakeries, grocery stores, and other assorted businesses that shared the avenue with hucksters who sold food from horse-drawn wagons and peddlers who went from street to street selling wares, and searching for scraps to sell.19 According to Lloyd P. Gartner’s History of the Jews of Cleveland, in 1912, all but two or three of these shopkeepers were Jewish.”20 Lithuanian- born artist William Zorach described Woodland in his autobiography as “a wide street with clanking streetcars…wagons drawn by six galloping horses, smells, kids yelling ‘ho, ho, honey dumpers.’ Woodland Avenue, once a beautiful, wide, tree-lined street…then a dilapidated slum…a market street where farmers lined their produce up along the sidewalks and cried their wares.”21

18 Levy, Donald, A Report on the Location of Ethnic Groups in Greater Cleveland, (The Institute of Urban Studies, 1972), 24.
19 Lloyd P Gartner, History of the Jews of Cleveland, (Cleveland: Western Reserve Historical Society and Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987). Lloyd P Gartner, History of the Jews of Cleveland, 2nd ed. (Cleveland: Western Reserve Historical Society in cooperation with the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, 1987). 125-127.

20Ibid., 127.
21 William Zorach, Art Is My Life: The Autobiography of William Zorach (Cleveland: World Pub. Co, 1967). in (Judah Rubinstein, Merging Traditions: Jewish Life in Cleveland, Rev. ed. (Kent, [Ohio]: Kent State University Press, 2004).) chapter two insert (un-numbered page).


Figure 1 A map of Cleveland’s Central neighborhood.

Although most histories of Jews in Cleveland refer to this neighborhood as “Woodland,” it encompassed many surrounding blocks, including Central Avenue which had already become the heart of the city’s black community. This cluster of African Americans known as the “Central” neighborhood also stretched beyond the street as far as Woodland Avenue. Thus, such distinctions between “Central” and “Woodland” are simplistic if not inaccurate, since residents shared many community institutions like transit lines, schools, and stores. Furthermore African Americans and Jews had both lived in around Central and Woodland Avenue. For the purposes of this study, this area will henceforth be referred to as “Central,” the name most frequently used today.

As Jewish immigration to Cleveland skyrocketed from 1890 to 1910, the city’s black population remained small, but steadily climbed from 3,035 to 8,448.23 During this time, Cleveland was known for its relative tolerance. Schools were integrated, blacks could vote, and most city institutions were open to blacks. Economic discrimination, however, prevented most African Americans from employment in factories and trade unions.24 By 1910, most of Cleveland’s African Americans had settled in the Central neighborhood. This likely occurred because the neighborhood offered better access to

22, 1920 United States Federal Census [database on-line] (Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2009).
23 Kenneth L Kusmer, A Ghetto Takes Shape: Black Cleveland, 1870-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), 10.
24 Kenneth Kusmer, “African Americans,” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, cgi/

jobs open to African Americans. Since nearly all factory work was off-limits to blacks, African Americans needed access to low-skilled service jobs (such as porters, janitors, and chauffeurs) offered downtown and the near-East Side’s markets as well as Cleveland’s wealthy and middle class neighborhoods where work could be found as domestic servants. Perhaps most importantly, much of Central’s housing had been sub– divided into low-cost dwellings.25 As a result, Jewish immigrants and blacks at this time tended to cluster near one another in commercial districts close to downtown, while other immigrant groups tended to settle near factories. This was a pattern that could also be found throughout the North, in places like Hastings Street in Detroit, the Hill District in Pittsburgh, Harlem in New York City, and the Near-East Side in Buffalo.26 In Los Angeles, there were far fewer Jews living in the heart of the city’s African American community of South Central, although African Americans lived in the traditional Jewish neighborhood of Boyle Heights.27

After World War I began in 1914, Northern cities faced worker shortages brought on by limited immigration from Europe and wartime conscription after the United States’

25 Rubinstein and Avner, Merging traditions, 29.
26 For Detroit, Jewish Virtual Library, “Detroit,” Jewish Virtual Library,, Lowell Boileau, “The Lost Synagogues of Detroit,”, Vivian Baulch, “Paradise Valley and Black Bottom,” The Detroit News, August 7, 1996,, For Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, “The Hill District,” Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, JewishGen ShtetLinks, “Pittsburgh,” JewishGen ShtetLinks,, for New York City, excerpt from Jeffrey S. Gurock, When Harlem was Jewish, 1870-1930, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) found on Columbia 250,,

for Buffalo, Mark Goldman, High Hopes: The Rise and Decline of Buffalo, New York (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 212-216, 279 found on Chuck LaChiusa, “Jewish-American History in Buffalo,” Buffalo Architecture and History, and .
27 Josh Sides, L.A. City Limits: African American Los Angeles from the Great Depression to the Present, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 18., Mark Wild, Street Meeting: Multiethnic Neighborhoods in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2005), 33.

entry into the war. As the labor pool of white males shrank from military conscription, the war effort increased the demand for labor, leading many manufacturers to hire African Americans. This Great Migration of African Americans from the South to the North increased Cleveland’s African American population from 8,448 in 1910 to 34,451 in 1920, most of whom settled in the old Woodland/Central neighborhood.28

At this time, African American and Jewish experiences with shared space in neighborhoods, stores, and often schools shaped opinions of one another. By the 1920s, when African Americans were a large portion of the population living in Central, there were at least 39 Jewish owned grocery stores and three pawnshops on Central Avenue alone, although the actual number is certainly larger.29 The renowned African American writer Langston Hughes recalled that when he attended Cleveland’s Central High during the late 1910s, it was “nearly entirely a foreignborn school,” and that “we got on very well.” His best friend was Polish and he remembered having “lots of Jewish friends” who were “less antiNegro” than native whites, and even recalled going to the symphony with a Jewish girl.30 While Jews and Africans Americans shared much of the same residential, educational, and recreational geography in Cleveland, economic disparity led to unequal control of such space.

28 Kusmer,283.
29 A 1920 city directory of Cleveland indicates that 61.90 to 73.01 percent of grocers of grocery store owners on Central Avenue had Jewish surnames. Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications) and Cleveland Public Library, “Cleveland Necrology File,” Cleveland Public Library, See footnote #48 for methodology. For Jewish and Cleveland population numbers,
The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland
, “Estimating Cleveland’s Jewish Population 1979,” (The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland,1980), in North American Jewish Data Bank, Estimating_Cleveland’s_Jewish_Population.pdf.
30 Langston Hughes (Introduction by Joseph McLaren), Autobiography: The Big Sea (University of Missouri Press, 2002), 49.

Most African Americans came from vastly different backgrounds than Jews, which significantly influenced the economic fortunes of both communities. Since the days of slavery, the vast majority of African Americans at this time earned their subsistence through labor (especially in agriculture) or unskilled service jobs like domestic servants.31 Education was forbidden to slaves, limited available after emancipation, and for the most part, centered around vocational training in the North. Although some African Americans had lived in Southern cities before migrating north, many families came as agricultural workers or domestic servants. Once in Cleveland, higher paying labor jobs as well as union membership were generally off limits to blacks.32 The non-union jobs available to African Americans offered little hope of social mobility, and prevented African Americans from accumulating capital that could be used for community interests.

The opposite was true for Jewish-Americans. European discrimination barred most Jews from agricultural work, so many (but certainly not all) developed skills in small-scale production like needlework and minor entrepreneurial ventures such as peddling. Although not all European Jews came from cities, most had at least lived in small towns, and developed skills applicable to an urban environment. Furthermore, medieval European usury laws which forbade Christians from lending money with interest allowed some Jews to become successful in banking. While most Jews worked in occupations far less profitable than banking, Jewish lenders were able to benefit their

31 Thomas N. Maloney, “African Americans in the Twentieth Century,” Economic History Association,
32 Kusmer, 66-67.

community through financing benevolent causes and floating low or zero percent loans to other Jews through agencies like the Hebrew Free Loan Society.33

In her book, The Jews of the United States, Hasia Diner describes the progression of economic mobility for many Jewish peddlers in the nineteenth century. The process began when immigrant peddlers purchased supplies from Jewish wholesalers in major cities, and then carried the goods to remote parts of the country where they sold their wares to farmers, miners, and others in the frontier. The peddlers often worked with family members to cover more territory and to save enough money to set up a shop, which could be subsidized by zero interest loans from other Jews. Once a storefront was established, the store owner could hire more family members to help. The store could then be used by new peddlers to obtain supplies and carry them further into the frontier. Even after the old frontier towns like Cleveland turned into large cities, peddlers in the form of pushcart salesmen and horse cart “hucksters” were still prominent.

Other industries which had a significant Jewish presence like garment-making, similarly relied on family and small-scale community production where individuals sewed or repaired clothes in the backrooms of stores, and then sold them in the front of the building. Although large factories became common in later years, it was still easier for someone in the garment industry to begin as a worker and rise to an employer, because of its low start up costs.34 This ability to start up businesses, access capital, and benefit from the wealthiest of the community’s charity all contributed to a relationship in

33 Diner, Jews of the United States, 135-138.
34(Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000., 102-107)

which African Americans generally patronized Jewish businesses rather than the reverse.35

When African Americans moved into Central, the neighborhood already had dozens of Jewish-owned stores, and blacks frequented them as did many other ethnic groups in the same area. The presence of Jewish retailers gave African American consumers more locations to shop, but also made it more difficult for blacks to start up their own businesses, since dozens of businesses already serviced their community from the day they moved into the neighborhood. Since banks frequently discriminated against African Americans, Jewish-owned pawnshops somewhat filled this void by offering small-scale loans.

As a result, Jewish entrepreneurs and African Americans developed a strong commercial relationship. Two vastly different histories shaped the nature of this relationship. Jewish migrants to Cleveland did not generally become more economically successful because of any inherent ability or superior planning by their leadership. Although both Jews in Europe and blacks in the United States faced threats of violence, economic discrimination was far more intense against blacks, and as a consequence forged two very different occupational paths. Of course some African Americans owned stores and many Jews were laborers, but the significantly larger number of proprietors and level of capital in the Jewish community was an advantage the black community never had. As a result of this economic disparity, African Americans controlled little of Central’s residential or commercial space. Poor wages forced many blacks to rent housing, and a lack of capital prevented the overwhelming majority from operating retail

35 Garment workers, unlike most black industrial workers, were able to form and join unions. As early as 1911, 5,000-6,000 Cleveland garment workers went on strike. Both the employers and strikers have been cited as almost entirely Jewish. Ibid., 109-110. and Rubinstein and Avner, 29-30. 

establishments. As a result, control of neighborhood space allowed many whites, including Jews, to profit off the land by renting housing to blacks and managing grocery stores. Such circumstances would continue even after white families no longer resided in Central.36

New Space, Old Patterns
From 1917 to 1925,
most of Central’s Jewish population had moved out of the

neighborhood, while its African American population continued to increase.37 This was largely due to a drop in European immigration and a subsequent rise in Southern African American migration to the North after World War I. The war had simultaneously increased demand for production and decreased the labor supply because of obligatory military service and limited immigration. As a result, many Cleveland employers turned to African Americans as a source of cheap labor.

Many ethnic and foreign born whites in Central had improved their economic standing, and began to move to better neighborhoods. In previous years, their vacated homes in Central would have been replaced by the next wave of poor immigrants. Since large-scale European immigration to Cleveland had halted by 1921, African Americans primarily filled their spots from that time on.

Jewish movement out of Central during this era was exceptionally expeditious. At first, this move was generally confined to the area around Eeast 55th and Woodland, just to the east of the heart of the old Jewish community. By the mid-1920s, however, most had moved on to the far-eastern neighborhoods of Glenville and Mt. Pleasant that

36 Cuyahoga County Auditor Book, 103- Page 30-31, Cuyahoga County Auditor’s Office, Cleveland, OH. 37 Levy, 24-26.

were non-contiguous with Central.38 Reasons for moving varied. Many Jews had improved their economic standing and wished to move to less crowded and more prestigious neighborhoods. Others likely left because the composition of the neighborhood became decidedly less Jewish after their neighbors began to leave and were replaced with African American families. After many in the old neighborhoods left, Jewish congregations moved their synagogue to the new neighborhoods. Many Orthodox Jews were compelled to follow the synagogue after it moved in order to fulfill Sabbath obligations like refraining from travel and driving a car. This motivated many Orthodox Jews to move near the new synagogue, since they are expected to walk to services. Finally, the ability of white property owners (including Jews’) in Central to sell or rent their old dwellings to African Americans for high prices aided the pace of relocation. Langston Hughes recalled this in his autobiography, The Big Sea.

“We always lived, during my high school years, either in an attic or a basement, and paid quite a lot for such inconvenient quarters. White people on the East Side of the city were moving out of their frame houses and renting them to Negroes at double and triple the rents they could receive from others. An eight-room house with one bath could be cut up into apartment renting for what the whole house had rented for before.”39

While most of these landlords were white, (given the demographics of the area many of these whites were Jewish), black real estate dealers who were members of the Cleveland Realty, Housing, and Investment Company took part in the same exploitative practices.40

Adding to this housing shortage was the proliferation of restrictive housing covenants and similar unofficial agreements that prohibited the sale of homes to African

38 Levy, 23-26.
39 Hughes, 47.
40 Kusmer, 192-193.

Americans as well as Jews.41 This severely limited which neighborhoods both could live in and often confined them to the same spaces. As a result, African Americans who moved out of Central in latter decades primarily moved to neighborhoods that had a large Jewish presence, including Kinsman/Mt. Pleasant in southeast Cleveland, and Glenville on Cleveland’s northeast periphery.42 One exception to this was a small neighborhood of blacks that settled in Lee-Miles by 1940 where there was no significant Jewish presence.

Figure 3 Previously Jewish neighborhoods are shaded in blue, and compared to African American neighborhoods in 1950.43

41 For the usage of covenants during and immediately following the Great Migration, Kusmer 46, 167 For housing discrimination against Jews, Kusmer 170.
42 If Jews lived in them, and blacks were a presence in this neighborhood as early as the 1930s, it is unlikely racially restrict covenants existed.

43 Donald Levy, 24., Howard Whipple Green, Jewish Families in Greater Cleveland (Cleveland: Cleveland Health Council, 1939) and Socialexplorer, “1950 County and Census Tract,” Socialexplorer,

While Cleveland’s Jewish population moved eastward, many retained their businesses in Central. Many of these stores were run by individuals who grew up in Central, but had since moved. For example, Russian-born Hyman Koslen was a Jewish businessman who owned a grocery store at 7106 Central Ave in 1930. At this time, he lived on 10128 North Boulevard in Glenville, but had been raised at 2643 East 53rd in Central. Another Jewish businessman, Polish-born Aaron Zinamon, ran a store on 2917 Central in 1930. Ten years earlier, he had rented a home on 2921 Central Ave. By 1930, he moved to 3394 East 117th with three other families who shared a home in the Kinsman area, a neighborhood in Southeast Cleveland consisting primarily of Jews, Italians, and African Americans.44 These examples demonstrate that Jewish businesses were in African American neighborhoods because of a history of spatial interactions that continued even after Jewish residents had moved on to a different neighborhood, which attests to the profitability of such inner-city stores. In 1945, scholars St. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton commented on the phenomenon of Jewish Americans in Chicago, who were “increasingly conscious[ness] of the purchasing power of several hundred thousand solidly massed in one compact community,” had created a socalled “Negro market” where many Jewish Americans competed with African Americans for business.45

Evidence for the importance of this history of shared space can be found by contrasting the number of Jewish grocers in Cleveland’s largest black neighborhood, Central, with the number in Los Angeles’s South Central neighborhood, the heart of the city’s African American population. Although some Jews in Los Angeles did reside and

44, 1910-1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line] (Provo, Operations Inc, 2009).
45 St. Clair Drake and Horace R. Cayton, “The Growth of a ‘Negro Market,’” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey (Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 355.

work in South Central, their largest community was across the Los Angeles River, in Boyle Heights.46 As a result, Jews and African Americans had a much weaker geographic relationship with one another in Los Angeles than most northern cities.

In 1929, 13 to 33 percent of grocers between 3300 and 5326 South Central Avenue, the heart of Los Angeles’s African American community, were Jewish.47 Numbers for the following decade were similar. Like many proprietors of the era, the two Jewish grocers and at least two of the three grocers of unknown origins in 1929 lived in the neighborhood they operated their stores in. This demonstrates that like Northern cities like Cleveland, Jewish Americans who operated businesses in African American neighborhoods in Los Angeles did so because they lived nearby, or had lived nearby at one time. Since Jews were a minority in the neighborhood, they constituted a minority of South Central Avenue’s grocers.

Cleveland’s Central, however, had once been the historical center of the city’s Jewish community. In 1920, when the area was still the center of Jewish life in Cleveland, 61.90 to 73.01 percent of grocers on Central Avenue were Jewish. One decade later, after most Jews had moved to other neighborhoods, 46.5 to 58.1 percent of Central

46 Wild, Street Meeting.
47 Ten out of fifteen grocers (67 percent) in the community did not have Jewish surnames. Two grocers were confirmed by census records to be Jewish, and three were unknown (of these unknown, two were of Polish or Russian origins, and one was named Herman Brown). Thus, 13 percent to 33 percent were Jewish. These numbers were determined using’s “Learn about the family history of your surname,” to look up the surname origins of listed proprietors. I then looked up individuals whose ethnicity could not be determined on After this process three individuals’ ethnicity still could not be determined., “Learn about the family history of your surname,”,
Los Angeles Directory Co. (1931),
Los Angeles City Directory (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1931) and Los Angeles Directory Co. (1941), Los Angeles City Directory (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1942).

Avenue grocers were still Jewish.48 This demonstrates that the stronger the historical connections to a given neighborhood, the more Jewish stores were in that community. After Jews moved out of a neighborhood, the percentage of Jewish businesses decreased, but retained a significant presence in the area.

The pattern of pawnshop locations in Cleveland presents another striking example of this commercial relationship between Jews and African Americans. Throughout the twentieth century, Jewish-Americans have owned most of the pawnshops in Cleveland.49

48 1930 numbers were determined through searches on the Cleveland Public Library’s online Necrology File to see if an individual was buried in a Jewish cemetery. If an individual could not be found, but was mentioned in the obituary of a family member buried in a Jewish cemetery or interned at a Jewish funeral home, they were tallied as Jewish. If an individual was not mentioned in any obituaries, but people by the same surname were overwhelming interned in Jewish funeral homes or buried in Jewish cemeteries, they were also tallied.

1920 numbers were determined using’s “Learn about the family history of your surname” feature to look up the surname origins of listed proprietors. I then looked up individuals whose ethnicity could not be determined on the Cleveland Public Library’s Necrology online file, and used the above methodology. If no information could be found, I then used’s “search all records,” for historical data (mainly census information that lists if they or their parents were Yiddish speakers) on the individual.

Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications)., “Search All Records,”,,, Learn about the family history of your surname,”,, Cleveland Public Library, “Cleveland Necrology File,” Cleveland Public Library,, “Search All Records,”,, Eileen Beal, “Funeral Homes and Funeral Practices,” Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,, Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland, “Cleveland Jewish Cemeteries,” Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland,

49 The 1899-1900 City Directory indicates that at least 69 percent of pawnshop owners listed had common Jewish surnames. Only those names which are primarily Jewish/Ashkenazic were tallied as “commonly Jewish.” 1899-1900 numbers were determined by using’s surname origin website. One ambiguous name, Gutentag, was then entered into the Cleveland Public Library’s necrology search, which revealed that nearly with that surname in Cleveland used Jewish funeral services. One listing was for Henry Harris, which was a common name for both Jews and gentiles. I located him through, and revealed that he lived on Woodland Court and came from Poland. This likely means he was Jewish for Christian Poles did not have a significant presence in this neighborhood. Another listing for Harris, which did not have a first name was not tallied as being Jewish because it was impossible to determine.

1941 numbers were determined by using a necrology search for 1941 pawnshop proprietors using the same necrology methodology as footnote #48. This revealed at least 69 percent to 94 percent of listed pawnshop owners were Jewish. Of the names that could be determined, 92 percent were Jewish. Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications)., “Search All Records,”,,, “Learn about the family history of your surname,”,, Cleveland Public Library, “Cleveland Necrology File,” Cleveland Public Library,

From the 1920s to the 1970s, these businesses increasingly relied on African Americans customers.50 From at least 1879 to 1910, most of Cleveland’s pawnshops were located north of downtown on Ontario and Superior Avenues. By 1920, this had changed, likely because of the city’s beautification efforts to “improve” downtown which pushed many small businesses out of the district and depopulated the district. Three out of eight pawnshops were now located on Central Avenue. Another four were now located on Prospect Avenue, a district which had a large number of Jewish businesses since its days as the Haymarket District and a large number of African American customers because streetcar lines that connected Central and Mt. Pleasant to downtown terminated there.51 By 1930, fourteen out of nineteen pawnshops were located in African American neighborhoods. This predominance subsided over the decade as more pawnshops opened on Prospect Avenue, a commercial district located in a racial borderland downtown that also had many African American customers.52 The increasing concentration of pawnshops in Central (and to some degree Prospect) is significant because it demonstrates that Jewish-Americans who opened up businesses in Central were deliberately locating their businesses in African American districts. This was likely due to pawnshop proprietors’ recognition that African Americans often lacked access to credit, and were more likely to purchase second-hand pawned products., “Search All Records,”,, Eileen Beal, “Funeral Homes and Funeral Practices,” Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,, Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland, “Cleveland Jewish Cemeteries,” Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland,
50 The extraordinarily high number of pawnshops in African American neighborhoods suggests that pawnshops tended to rely on African American customers.
51 James A. Toman & James R. Spangler, Cleveland and Its Streetcars (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2005), 23.
52 See more on Prospect Avenue in section on Record Rendezvous page 51.

The knowledge of this market, though, was likely gained from pawnbrokers’ experience in the neighborhood. Pawnbrokers who grew up in Central were aware the neighborhood was a prime location for their trade. They could also likely take advantage of acquaintances they had met, who also owned businesses and other institutions in the neighborhood.

The quantity of pawnshops in African American neighborhoods in other non- Southern cities seemed to be influenced by two major factors. One was the historical precedence of Jews in a particular neighborhood and the other was the population of downtown. For instance, Cleveland had an abnormally low number of residents living downtown, so pawnbrokers instead often opted for locations in black neighborhoods. In Detroit, 75 percent of pawnbrokers located their businesses downtown where there were more residents than in Cleveland’s, and still near the African American Paradise Valley and Black Bottom districts. Seven out of the eight pawnshops remaining were located in African American neighborhoods, primarily on Hastings Street, the heart of the black community and formerly the center of Jewish life in the city.53 By contrast, Los Angeles did not have a strong history of shared neighborhoods between African Americans and Jews, but a large downtown population. As a result, 77 percent of the city’s pawnshops were located between 100 and 700 South Main Street in 1941 (the census tract for this area in 1940 was only 1.2 percent African American). In total, thirty-four out of thirty thirty-five pawnshops were located downtown. The one store located outside of

53 R.L. Polk and Company, Polk’s Detroit City Directory (1941), 2932 and Socialexplorer, “1940 County and Census Tract,” Socialexplorer,

downtown, however, was in a black neighborhood.54 It is also notable that no pawnshops existed in Boyle Heights, the traditional heart of Los Angeles’s Jewish community, thus demonstrating that Jews did not automatically open businesses in their old community.


Figure 4 Location of pawnshops in Cleveland in 1941. Note that nearly all are located in African American neighborhoods marked in red, or downtown where hardly anyone lived at the time. Locations with multiple shops have shadows.55 Generally uninhabited areas in downtown and the Industrial Valley are marked in black.

54 Socialexplorer, 1940 County and Census Tract,” Socialexplorer, Los Angeles Directory Co. (1941), Los Angeles City Directory (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Directory Co., 1942), 213-4.
55 Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research

Publications)., Socialexplorer, “1940 County and Census Tract,” Socialexplorer,

The identification of Jews as neighborhood entrepreneurs could lead to both positive and negative sentiments. Jews provided much needed services and jobs for Cleveland’s African Americans and some were able to win the support of their customers and the black press. When the African American Future Outlook League urged blacks to patronize stores that employed African Americans, many if not most were Jewish- owned.56 Sociologists St. Clair Drake and Horace R. Cayton documented in their 1945 book, The Black Metropolis that many African Americans actually preferred shopping at Jewish owned stores in Chicago over black-owned businesses because of the accessibility to credit. One frustrated African American grocer told the authors that because of Jewish businesses’ ability to offer credit, “our people would just rather trade with the Jew.”57 Yet other Jewish businessmen, who were perceived as exploiters, severely damaged relations between the two communities. The accomplished essayist and novelist James Baldwin captured this resentment in his 1967 article, “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White.”

“When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them…the grocer was a Jew and being in debt to him was very much like being in debt to the company store…the butcher was a Jew…we bought our clothes from a Jew…and the pawnbroker was a Jew- perhaps we hated him most of all.”58

56 The Voice of the League, March 2, 1946 and January 27, 1940. For more discussion see pages 33-34.
57 St. Clair Drake and Horace R. Cayton, “The Growth of a ‘Negro Market,’” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 358-60.
58 James Baldwin, “Negroes are AntiSemitic Because They’re Anti-White (1967).” in Paul Berman, Blacks and Jews: Alliances and Arguments (New York: Delacorte Press, 1994), 31-33.

Baldwin, however, blamed Christians, not Jews for this situation and concluded his essay by writing that “I refuse to hate Jews…because I know how it feels to be hated. I learned this from Christians, and I ceased to practice what the Christians practiced.”59

Perhaps what was most frustrating of all to African Americans was the feeling that they continued to lack control over their urban territory. Even though Central was predominantly African American, they still lacked anything near to proportionate control over policing, property, and commerce.60 This meant rent prices, decisions on building repairs, hiring practices of local stores, grocery prices, food quality, and interest rates were all set by white outsiders. As Baldwin’s essay points out, many blacks perceived Jewish entrepreneurs to be in control of a number of institutions controlling these issues. While Cayton and Drake’s research demonstrates that Jewish owned stores were perceived as more likely to offer credit than competing black establishments, their presence became symbols of uneven power dynamics in the city to many blacks. This sentiment can be found in a 1936 Call & Post article that bemoaned the fact that African Americans tended to patronize white businesses, “particularly…when the white man happens to be a member of the Jewish race.” The columnist continued,

“…almost everyone of ‘our’ night clubs have Jewish men owning them even though most of them have colored man fronting for them…I have nothing against the Jews as they are more fair for the Negro than any other white nationality because they know what persecution is…But did you ever hear of a Jew that would patronize a Negro when he could get the same thing from a member of his own race?

The columnist then finished with the blunt message, “Patronize your own.” 61

59 (Ibid, 40-41.)
60 For predominately African American, Socialexplorer, “1940 County and Census Tract,” Socialexplorer, For numbers on African American police officers and store keepers 1890-1930, Kusmer, 285. For homeownership, Kusmer, 211.
61 “ON THE AVENUE:WITH TDS NITECLUB LULLABY,” Cleveland Call and Post, April 30, 1936, (accessed November 18, 2009).

From 1890 to 1940, the ethnic succession of neighborhoods throughout the urban North significantly shaped relations between African Americans and Jews. Since Jewish Americans had owned property in neighborhoods that became predominately African American, many already owned property in the area, taught at its schools, and operated shops in its commercial districts. Such a relationship likely was amplified by the misconception that all inner-city retailers were Jewish. For instance, Boston Globe journalist Jonathan Kaufman wrote in his book Broken Alliance that prominent Civil Rights activist and lead organizer of the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin noted during the 1960s that, “of the five people that a black meets in the course of the day– the storekeeper, the landlord, the school-teacher, the social worker, and the police officer- four were Jewish and one, the police officer was Irish.”62 Such misconceptions could be problematic because if one had been gouged by rent, he or she might assume the landlord was Jewish, even if they weren’t. As professors Robert G. Weisbord and Arthur Stein wrote,

“A popular misconception in some urban ghettos where rent gouging was a constant irritant was that all white landlords and shopkeepers were Jews. In certain cities Jews constituted a majority in those categories. Undoubtedly, they were present out of proportion to their numbers in the overall population…particularly…in cities where the black ghettos were previously Jewish neighborhoods.”63

This analysis is backed by city directory and city auditor data in Cleveland that reveals a disproportionately Jewish, but diverse mixture of ethnic property owners and shopkeepers in Central from the 1920s onward.64

62Kaufman, 272.
63 Robert G. Weisbord and Arthur Stein, “Negro Perceptions of Jews between the Word Wars (1969),” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 410.
64 See Appendix.

“A Poor Time to Discriminate Against Negroes”
By the mid-1930s, significant tensions surfaced between Jews and African Americans in Cleveland and throughout the North. Much of this conflict arose in African

American neighborhoods were whites, including Jews, still controlled much of the area’s commercial space and economic power. In 1935, riots broke out in Harlem which destroyed 200 businesses after a white/Jewish shopkeeper got into a scuffle with a Puerto Rican shoplifter. According to Hasia R. Diner’s In the Almost Promised Land, Yiddish newspapers often called the riots a “pogrom” since a majority of the affected shopkeepers were Jewish, but most of the storekeepers interpreted the actions to be a riot against white businesses, rather than an attack on Jews specifically.65

Campaigns also sprang up across the nation that urged blacks, “don’t shop where you can’t work” aimed at increasing employment opportunities for blacks. Since so many businesses in black communities were owned by Jewish Americans, such establishments were often the targets of protest.

In New York City, ethnic tensions between the Jewish community and the African American jobs campaign were particularly pronounced. The leader of New York jobs campaign, Sufi El Hamid (born Eugene Brown) was taken to court for “disorderly conduct” in 1934 for allegedly saying that he was “the Black Hitler,” and the “only one fit to carry on the war against the Jews.”66 El Hamid denied saying this and frequently maintained he was not anti-Semitic.67

65 Hasia R. Diner, In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935, 1st ed. (Westport, CT: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 80.
66Winston McDowell, “Race and Ethnicity During the Harlem Jobs Campaign, 19321935,” The Journal of Negro History 69, no. 3/4 (Summer – Autumn 1984): 134-146.

67 Winston C. McDowell, “Keeping Them ‘In the Same Boat Together?: Sufi Abdul Hamid, African Americans, Jews, and the Harlem Jobs Boycotts,’” in Vincent P. Franklin, African Americans and Jews in the Twentieth Century: Studies in Convergence and Conflict (University of Missouri Press, 1998), 228.

While African Americans were justified in demanding more jobs, some Jewish shopkeepers believed that hiring their own did not constitute a bigoted or unfair practice. As historian Hasia Diner wrote of the situation,

“These efforts [the jobs campaign] targeted many small Jewish mom-and-pop stores that had long relied on the labor of family members. Particularly during the Depression, those who held on to such stores tried to help out unemployed relatives first. But in the eyes of Sufi El Hamid, the organizer of the campaign in Harlem, this made the Jews evil exploiters of black people…”68

In Cleveland, the Future Outlook League, headed by John Holly and The Cleveland Call & Post (Cleveland’s black newspaper) editor William O. Walker, led the local “don’t buy where you can’t work” efforts. The Future Outlook League took active steps to prevent the organization from being perceived as anti-Semitic. This can be seen in the organization’s newspaper, The Voice of the League. In a July 16, 1938 an article stated, “Don’t spend your money where you can’t work. And don’t let your boycott against local merchants lead you into an anti-Semitic campaign. Do not curry favor with anyone by showing them how much you hate the Jews or anyone else.”69

Furthermore, the Cleveland movement did not solely rely on boycotts, but also encouraged people to shop in stores that did employ blacks. In the same issue of The Voice that urged readers to reject anti-Semitism, another article recalled the successful boycott of a Woodland Avenue pawnbroker who “received almost one hundred percent patronage from Negroes,” but did not hire any black clerks. Adding to these tensions was the fact that the owner with a surname of unknown origins (Levenger) had earlier been exonerated for allegedly shooting a black man (no more details about this case were provided) in his store earlier in the year. After only a week of protesting the pawnshop’s hiring practices, however, the owner hired a full time African American clerk and

68 Diner, The Jews of the United States, 211.
69 J.M. Dowden, “Boycotts,” The Voice of the League, July 16, 1938.

promised to hire another African American later in the year.70 Although the Future Outlook league is best remembered for boycotts, it also promoted businesses who hired African Americans. One article from the fore mentioned issue of The Voice of the League urged readers to “pay Stall No. 32 [at the Woodland E. 5th St. Market] a visit when you do your shopping this Saturday,” because its owners, “Mr. Baumeister and Mr. Schmiedl” kept a black butcher on the job with full pay after he broke an arm.71 Similarly, advertisers in the Voice of the League like Rosenberg’s Drug Store, Hoicowitz Dept. Store, Cohen’s Southern Food Store, and Kritzer Bros Bakery broadcasted their business’ hiring practices.72 Such advocacy of Jewish businesses demonstrates there was never a targeted effort against Jews as a people by the jobs campaign in Cleveland. Instead, the Future Outlook League was largely concerned with African Americans’ ability to reap some of the profits being their made off their community’s purchases and space.

70 “Woodland Ave. Pawn Broker was Brought to Terms with Future Outlook League Employees Union,” The Voice of the League, July 16, 1938.
71 “untitled article,” The Voice of the League, July 16, 1938.
72 The Voice of the League, March 2, 1946 and January 27, 1940.

Figure 7 Some common advertisements found in the Voice of the League. Many advertisements tell readers that they hire blacks from March 2, 1946. These advertisements appeared on the same pages, but were spliced together for the benefit of the reader73

Still, friction existed between some Jewish businesses in African American neighborhoods and their customers in Cleveland. In 1934, an altercation at a Jewish- owned Quincy Cut Rate Grocery store nearly escalated into an all out riot.74 On July 13th, a scuffle between the store’s staff and an African American woman named Irene Holland broke out regarding a salad she had bought which was missing dressing. Locals from the black neighborhood then demonstrated outside the store after being told that Holland was physically assaulted. Before long, some demonstrators vandalized the store, and cries of “lynch him” were reported by the Cleveland Call & Post.75 Later that night, a crowd of about 1,500 people again gathered around the store, and pelted it with bricks.

73 (Ibid)
74 Throughout this paper, I will use the term “riot” over other terms like “rebellion” or “uprising” in the hopes of applying neutral language. Although riotcan have negative connotations, it is meant to simply refer to a noisy usage of force that includes public disorder, and does not imply it was unjust. Whereas if I were to use the term “rebellion” and “uprising” it would imply my siding with those causing the disorder. 75 “Jacob Blumensohn Nearly Lynched By Infuriated Men And Women.” Cleveland Call and Post (1934- 1962), July 21, 1934, (accessed March 9, 2010).

Police arrested nine African Americans for “noisy assemblage” and three for malicious destruction of property. One was fined an additional $25 for hitting the store owner with a brick. A warrant was initially issued against the store’s owner for battery against Holland, but then refused by Police Prosecutor Michael Picciano. On July 21st, the usually restrained Call and Post wrote in an article entitled “TOLERANCE ENDS,” declaring that “the men who wrecked the Quincy Market Cut Rate Market in retaliation…deserve the praise of every Negro in Cleveland,” and that those who were arrested “are entitled to the support of the entire race.”76 Another article in the Call and Post claimed that the fines against two of the men were out of proportion to fines levied against unions who engaged in similar crimes, and that the penalties were influenced by the fact that both the store owner and the judge issuing the fines were Jewish.77

The crowd’s actions reflect the frustrations many in Central had about the lack of control in their own neighborhood. Institutionally induced poverty (slavery, white-only unions, job discrimination, educational under-funding and bank discrimination) had prevented most African Americans from opening stores of their own, and forced most to rely on white businesses that many in the black community saw as taking advantage of them. Furthermore, when Irene Holland claimed that she had been struck by the store’s owner, most in the community did not expect the police to believe her. The community’s assessment proved to be accurate, given that the police arrested several black men and never followed through with the warrant issued against the store owner. Thus, if police would not offer protection to African Americans, many felt they had to demonstrate a

76 “TOLERANCE ENDS,” Cleveland Call and Post, July 21, 1934, (accessed November 18, 2009).
77 “JUDGE STACEL,” Cleveland Call and Post, July 21, 1934, (accessed November 18, 2009).

measure of power in their neighborhood to prevent future abuses. This was summed up in a Call & Post article that stated, the store owner thought he could “forever get away with roughing and bluffing the Negro customers on whose trade he had waxed fat and rich,” but had “made the mistake of roughing one customer too many.”78

While this incident somewhat resembles future urban riots that ravaged retail establishments in black neighborhoods during the 1960s, it has significant differences that should be noted. One difference is that the anger of the crowd was directed at an individual, and did not spread to other businesses. Furthermore, the police did not respond to the demonstrations with violence, as they would do during the 1960s. Most importantly, calm was restored in the following days, and businesses stayed put. In fact, only one month later, a new Jewish-owned business opened up at the same location, interestingly named the “Lincoln Square Deal Market.”

Five years later, a similar incident occurred (but had a strikingly different outcome) when a Jewish-owned café was forced to pay a customer $300 for pouring salt into a black woman’s food to maintain a white-only clientele. The judge who ruled on the case, Louis Drucker (who was Jewish), noted the irony of such an offense on the eve of Hitler’s invasion of Europe by telling the operators of the café that it was, “a poor time to discriminate against Negroes.”79

Further evidence of spatially-based economic tensions between African Americans are found in The Cleveland Call and Post during this era. In 1934, the paper

78 TOLERANCE ENDS.Cleveland Call and Post (1934-1962), July 21, (accessed March 9, 2010).
79 “JUDGE SCORES JEWISH FIRM FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGRO DINERS IN LUNCH ROOM :Cafe Employees ‘Salt’ Food to Discourage Patronage of Negroes-Judge Awards Mrs. Washington $300.00,” Cleveland Call and Post, June 15, 1939, (accessed November 18, 2009).

harshly criticized Rabbi Barnett Brickner of the Euclid Avenue Temple for allegedly calling on African Americans to “return to the farm.” The article concluded by saying that, “Rabbi Brickner should consult some of the Jewish businesses who conduct business in Negro neighborhoods and see how anxious they are for the return of Negroes to the farms…the collections in the Euclid Avenue Temple would be greatly reduced and the Rabbi would not have an affluent congregation over which to preside.”80 The article also sarcastically noted that, “If Jewry in Europe were not being harassed, we could understand how Rabbi Brickner would have so much time to devote [to] solving the Negro’s problem,” and that “it is a gross inconsistence for any Jew in America to join the race prejudice brigade in persecuting the Negro.”81 A 1935 article reported that Hitler had deflected criticism of his persecution of the Jews by telling Americans to “tend to your own lynchings of Negroes.”82 It ended by reminding readers that the United States had still failed to pass an anti-lynching bill, and that “America has a lot of housecleaning to do before she can start finding fault with other nations.”83

Another article appeared in the December 8th Cleveland Call & Post weekly column, “Mose of the Roaring Third” which offered opinions from a fictional street– talking African American. The column stated that “he [Mose] feels sorry for de way dey [Jews] is being treated an segregated by Hitler” and that “Mose cin weep rell teer fer de Jews what am being depressed, robbed, and stolen from,” but that “Mose could feel sorrier and could cry louder and longer if’n he hadn’t experienced der same treatment

80 “BRAYINGS FROM DR. BRICKNIER,” Cleveland Call and Post, January 20, 1934, (accessed November 18, 2009).
81 Ibid.
82 “THE NAZIS POKE FUN AT AMERICA,” Cleveland Call and

Post, August 22, 1935, (accessed November 18, 2009). 83 (Ibid.)

from der same Jewish race.”84 The article goes on to note segregation and racist hiring practices that occurred in Jewish owned businesses like the upscale Halle Brothers department store in downtown Cleveland.

A Call and Post article from 1936 notes that an Italian and Jewish entrepreneur had opened up a nightclub at a location that was denied to black businessmen. The author encouraged blacks to stop patronizing the business and instead visit the Silver Leaf Club which employed blacks in “all departments.”85 In 1937, the weekly Call and Post “On the Avenue” column bemoaned the fact that the lack of black businesses in Cleveland ensured that their community would benefit little from the upcoming national Elks Lodge convention, and that much of the money would instead go to Jews. According to the columnist, “the Jew…in his typical way will foresee the coming of the Elk money and start planning for them…while the colored man will sit by watching him.” The closing paragraph called on blacks to “open up a decent colored night club where we and the Elks can go so we can stop patronizing the Jew who in reality want us but only our money so that he can build himself a fine home on the heights and then not permit you to live next to him but only work in the kitchen.”86 Subsequently, the author offered an apology in the following week’s “On the Avenue.” The columnist acknowledged that many people had “rightly” been offended over his words and that he should have used the word “white”

84 “MOSE of the ROARING THIRD: MOSE WEEPS.” Cleveland Call and Post, December 8, 1938, (accessed March 15, 2010).
85 Ed Brown, “Says Race Must Support Its Own Business Men,” Cleveland Call and Post, May 21, 1936, (accessed November 18, 2009).
86 T.D.S., “ON THE AVENUE:DAMON TURNS SPEED DEMON,” Cleveland Call and Post,
April 8, 1937, (accessed November 18, 2009).

rather than “Jew” which “singled out the race that is closer and more able to understand the Negro.”87

By 1938, however, events in Europe changed the way in which many black newspapers covered their relationship with the Jewish community. In November of that year, German authorities systematically forced some 25-30,000 Jews into concentration camps, destroyed thousands of businesses, and burned over two-hundred synagogues in what is now known as Kristallnacht. While the Call & Post had always condemned racism of any kind, the events appear to have demonstrated the urgency of the situation of Jews in Europe.88 Now, rather than note the irony of America’s condemnation of anti– Semitism while supporting racism against blacks, the Call & Post regularly ran stories decrying the situation in Europe and called on Jews and blacks to unite against racism. The week after Kristallnacht, the Cleveland Call & Post ran a story entitled, “When Man Turns to Beast,” which declared that “the sins of Germany are bound to catch up with her, for no nation can sow the wind of oppression, without reaping the whirlwind of retribution.” Another article in that issue entitled, “The Negro and the Jew, Partners in Distress,” spoke of both the need for cooperation and inequalities between blacks and Jews. The article reads,

“This partnership [Jews and blacks] in distress inevitably brings about a fellow feeling between these two persecuted races. The Negro is persecuted because of his alleged ineptness for civilized ways, while the Jew is persecuted because he matches and masters his persecutors in various features of civilization. By virtue of this partnership, the Jew will become the leader of the backward Negro in commerce and business,”

then continues by saying,

87 T.D.S., “ON THE AVENUE: MY APOLOGIES,” Cleveland Call and
, April 15, 1937, (accessed November 18, 2009).
88 “‘Crucify Him,” Still Rings In The World Today.’” Cleveland Call and Post (1934-1962), March 25, 1937, (accessed March 15, 2010).

“The Negro is in a large measure the beneficiary of Hebrew persecution. The vial of wrath which was poured out upon the head of the Negro alone, is now spread out so as to cover the Jews as

The article concludes by saying that their partnership will triumph over evil, and

Christianity and democracy over irreligion and dictatorship. While this article expresses a sincere regret for the persecution of Jews and hope for a joint front again racism, the author makes a serious gaffe in heralding the inevitable triumph of Christianity (given that the writer is calling for increased cooperation between blacks and Jews). Later that year, articles entitled, “AntiSemitism, A Weapon of the Lynch Lords,” “Racial Persecution is Contagious,” “The Plight of the Jews,” “Negroes are Not Opposing Haven for German Jews,” filled the Call & Post. One poem from the column, “Editorial and Rhyme” contained the lines, “The Negro, ground beneath the heel, of racial cruelty, sends his heartfelt sympathy, to the Jews in Germany.”90

Part II-Cooperation and Flight
African American-Jewish relations from 1939 to 1966 were marked by a paradox

of organizational cooperation and white flight from the inner city. Across the nation, activists from both communities worked together on numerous efforts to combat racism, enforce fair hiring practices, and advocate open housing. While this time period has been called “the golden age” of African American-Jewish relations by many historians, it was also an era of Jewish flight from Cleveland’s city limits. As a result of the historical spatial relationship between African Americans and Jews in Cleveland, however, dozens of Jewish owned businesses still relied on African American customers. Thus, street-level

89 Kelly Miller, “The Negro And The Jew, Partners in Distress,” Cleveland Call and Post, November 17, 1938, (accessed March 21, 2010).
90 Chas Loeb, “Editorial In Rhyme: PASSED UP,” Cleveland Call and Post, December 1, 1938, (accessed November 18, 2009).

interactions between the two communities during this era became increasingly characterized by commercial exchange.

After the start of World War II in Europe in 1939, Jewish and African American organizations worked together to combat racism and foster better relations between their communities. This cooperation included advocating for the integration of the military and monitoring the enforcement of the Fair Employment Practices Commission (that had a mandate to eliminate discrimination in the defense industry). A number of meetings between black and Jewish newspaper editors also took place.91 After the war ended in 1945, the level of cooperation between organizations increased once more. Most blacks found the “democracy” they fought for overseas to be elusive at home and discrimination as rampant as ever. Simultaneously, Jewish intellectuals who had now become aware of the full extent of Hitler’s atrocities were galvanized to fight even harder against bigotry and prejudice. Throughout the next decade, African American and Jewish civil rights organizations fought together against racist restrictive housing-covenants, immigration limits, and dozens of other laws that upheld discrimination.92 According to Jonathan Kaufman’s book on African American-Jewish relations, Broken Alliance, “Jews made up more than half the white lawyers who went south to defend civil rights protesters,” and “half to threequarters of the contributors to civil rights organizations.”93 Jews also made up much of the white volunteers for organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) who sponsored the 1964 Freedom Summer project to register African Americans in

91 Cheryl Greenberg, “Negotiating Coalition: Black and Jewish Civil Rights Agencies in the Twentieth Century (1997),” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 480.
92 (Ibid. 484-487)

93 Jonathan Kaufman, 86.

Mississippi. That year, three volunteers for Freedom Summer, James Chaney who was black and Jewish-American activists Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered for registering African Americans to vote in Mississippi.

In Cleveland, numerous local outreach programs were launched to foster better relations and cooperation between the two communities. The local chapter of National Conference of Christians and Jews led some of the most notable these efforts which included putting on workshops for teachers to promote tolerance in the schools and dispel stereotypes. In 1955, the national organization ousted the local organization’s leader, James D. Noble for these actions, because they were deemed outside of the organization’s mission. In response, members of the Cleveland chapter formed their own organization, the Council on Human Relations later that year. In 1949, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of the Temple-Tilfereth Israel attended the Methodist Ministers Union at St. John’s AME Church to build support for Zionism in the black community.

The enormous level of organizational and activist cooperation between blacks and Jews during this era did not translate to improved relations on the streets or an increased willingness to share residential space with one another. In fact, residential separation between blacks and Jews drastically increased, and tensions remained between Jewish storekeepers in black communities and its residents.

By World War II, defense jobs had attracted tens of thousands of southern blacks to northern cities like Cleveland and the city’s African American population nearly doubled from just under 85,000 in 1940 to 148,000 in 1950.94 Meanwhile, money earned from wartime manufacturing jobs along with housing subsidies like the G.I. Bill allowed

94 Thomas F. Campbell, “Public Housing (last modified November, 2009),” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,

many of the city’s white residents to move eastward to the suburbs, while most African Americans remained cramped in their pre-war neighborhoods. From 1940 to 1950, the racial boundaries of Cleveland’s Central and Mt. Pleasant neighborhoods remained nearly the same.95

Glenville, however, transitioned from a predominately Jewish neighborhood (over 70 percent Jewish in 1936) that was over 90 percent white in 1940, to one that was nearly 50 percent African American in 1950.96 County auditor information shows that block by block, dozens of homes in Glenville switched from owners with common Jewish surnames (such as Hertzberg, Hurwitz, Soloman, and Schwartz) during the 1940s to owners with English names commonly held by African Americans (like Walker, Blount, and Moore).97

In the fall of 1950, a Call & Post team headed by writer Marty Richardson surveyed Glenville for a story on its changing demographics. While there were signs all around of African Americans escaping the overcrowded Central neighborhood for homes in the desirable Glenville neighborhood, Richardson detected ominous signs of abandonment by whites. White churches, whose parishioners had fled the neighborhood, faced closure. A survey of the area between Ashbury and Parkwood to St. Clair and East 99th found over twenty churches that “have either recently been sold to Negro congregations, are reportedly or actually for sale,” and a building on Kimberly Avenue “that would cost more than a halfmillion dollars to build…is reportedly on sale for

95 Socialexplorer, “1940 County and Census Tract,and 1950 County and Census Tract,Socialexplorer,
96 Rubinstein and Avner, 111. Marty Richardson, “Sweeping Population Shift Hits Glenville Churches Hard: Falling Congregations Close Up Many Institutions; Values Drop,” Cleveland Call and
, September 2, 1950, (accessed November 18, 2009).
97 See Appendix A. Given the demographics of Glenville at this time, those with German and Eastern European surnames were almost certainly Jewish and those with English names were almost certainly African American.

$75,000.”98 Richardson also felt that the situation, as reflected in the turnover of synagogues, was “a disaster,” and ended the article by observing that one synagogue on East 105th was, “now surrounded by stores, two night clubs, restaurants and bars, predominantly colored, and another [synagogue] on E. 105th st. which closed its doors and the ‘owner’ has gone to Florida.”99


Figure 8 Corey United Methodist Church in Glenville. Note the Hebrew writing from its days as the Jewish Center (photo by author).

Unfortunately, money could be made in the region by encouraging whites to leave a neighborhood in order to bring down housing prices and then sell or lease the homes to African Americans at inflated prices, a technique known as blockbusting. Real estate agents often accomplished this by calling home-owners and declaring that their neighborhood was about to become all-black and that it was their last chance to sell

98 (Marty Richardson, September 2, 1950) 99 (Ibid)

before their home value crashed.100 The Call & Post reported one instance where the residents of an apartment complex operated by a Jewish owner in Glenville were allegedly told to “vacate by Oct. 1 to make room for Negro tenants or their rents would automatically be increased to as high as $20 a month (a 25 percent increase).101 Ironically, The Call & Post article noted that the owner even belonged to the same lodges as many of the people he was “evicting.”102 While such practices were exploitative, property owners in Glenville were only able to take advantage of African Americans because most of the city’s neighborhoods forbade blacks from purchasing houses. Thus, the case of Glenville evidences prejudice and white flight, but also demonstrates that at a time when residents in many white neighborhoods still refused to sell or rent to blacks, Jews in Glenville did so by the thousands.103

The process of Jewish flight from Mt. Pleasant was less sudden and likely less racially motivated than Glenville. The area had an African American presence since the turn of the century, and the racial boundaries of the neighborhood remained limited to the same census tract in 1950 as it was in 1940. Moreover, the black population of the census tracts south of Kinsman Avenue, where most Jews lived changed only modestly.104 Thus, it is likely that most in Mt. Pleasant left because they had improved their economic situation in the war-time economy, and could afford to move out of the cramped

100 Jonathan Kaufman, Broken Alliance.165-195. and Norris Vitchek (pseudo.) and Alfred Balk, “Confessions of a Blockbuster (1962),in Major Problems in American Urban and Suburban History: Documents and Essays, edited by Howard P. Chudacoff and Peter C. Baldwin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2005).
101 Charles Price, “Whites Evicted, Rent Goes Up For Negroes,” Cleveland Call and
, September 22, 1956, (accessed November 18, 2009).
102 (Ibid.)
103 From the 1940s to 1960, Glenville turned into a predominately Jewish to overwhelmingly African American neighborhood. For the data of one block in Glenville, see Appendix A.
104 Socialexplorer, “1940 County and Census Tract,and 1950 County and Census Tract,Socialexplorer,

working-class neighborhood and into the suburbs. By contrast, Glenville was already a largely middle-class and desirable neighborhood. Mt. Pleasant was also likely deemed “hazardous” by the government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation during the 1930s because of its integration, which may have made it difficult for home-owners to receive federal subsidies. Furthermore, private enterprises often used such government classifications for their own red-lining efforts.105

The Council Educational Alliance and Jewish Community Center’s Mt. Pleasant Advisory Committee decision to sell their facility in 1949 in favor of a new one in Shaker Heights despite increased usage of the Mt. Pleasant facility, made conditions even less favorable for Jews to stay in Mt. Pleasant. Afterwards, remaining Jewish residents had to meet at members’ homes for services that were previously provided by the center.106 While demographic transformation occurred slower in Mt. Pleasant than Glenville by the mid-1950s, most Jews had left the area and by the 1970s it was almost an entirely African American neighborhood.107 This influx of African Americans into Jewish neighborhoods once more led to a plethora of Jewish businesses being located in areas now predominantly occupied by African Americans.

While these instances of white flight were widespread, other Jews played a role in trying to halt white flight and promote integration. For instance a number of Jews played key roles in the Ludlow Community and Lomond Associations, which helped stabilize the integration of the formerly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) suburb of Shaker

105(Thomas J Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, Princeton studies in American politics (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1996). 43-44)
106Todd Michael Michney, “Changing neighborhoods : race and upward mobility in southeast Cleveland, 1930-1980,(PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2004), 233.

107 Rubinstein and Avner, 164.

Heights.108 Furthermore, African Americans who were able to move out of the city generally migrated to suburbs that had a significant Jewish population.109

Although very few Jews resided in Cleveland’s neighborhoods, business presence remained strong in the Glenville, Kinsman, Central neighborhoods and along Prospect Avenue. In 1962, the Association for Jewish Communal Relations’ president, Sidney Vincent, commented on the situation in a chapter entitled, “Cleveland, City Without Jews” for the book A Tale of Ten Cities. Vincent wrote that once Jewish neighborhoods “have been left, they have been totally abandoned, to the point where today, perhaps uniquely among American cities, Cleveland proper is almost literally a city without Jews.”110 Furthermore, Vincent noted that relations between blacks and Jews were complicated by economic inequality. Every morning, Vincent wrote, scores of African American women traveled to suburban households that were often Jewish where they worked as domestic servants, while at the same time dozens of Jewish businessmen passed by these workers on their way from suburbs to their jobs in the inner-city.111 Furthermore, a “substantial share of housing in the Negro area-with all the attendant irritation-is owned by Jews, partly because the neighborhoods are largely formerly Jewish,” and observed that when blacks did move to suburbs, “in almost every case, it has been a leap into a Jewish neighborhood.”112

108 Charles Bromley, Interview by author, Cleveland, OH, July 2009.
109 This was determined by examining the demographics of Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Beachwood, and University Heights, and comparing them with Mayfield, Mayfield Heights, Lyndhurst, and Euclid. Euclid is one exception of a suburb with a large African American population without a significant Jewish population.
110 Eugene J Lipman, A Tale of Ten Cities; the Triple Ghetto in American Religious Life (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1962). 1962, 47.
111 Ibid., 58.
112 Ibid., 58.

This demonstrates that while Jewish civil rights organizations in Cleveland like B’nai B’rith and the National Conference of Christians and Jews labored together for “brotherhood,” street-level interactions were severely compromised by wide-spread flight from the city and economic inequality. As more Jews left integrated neighborhoods, street-level relations between African Americans and Jews became increasingly centered on commerce at Jewish owned businesses. Many of these were run by individuals who had grown up in the neighborhood and continued to work in the area after they moved. In 1930, a time when hardly any Jews remained in the neighborhood, 46.5 to 58.1 percent of grocers on Central Avenue were Jewish, while the number on nearby Woodland Avenue (since it was the traditional heart of the Jewish community) was probably higher.113 While this can partially be attributed to the disproportionate number of Jews who worked in retail, few if any stores on Clark Avenue on the West Side of Cleveland were owned by Jews. This demonstrates that historical ties to the neighborhood were more important than ethnic occupational tendencies. In 1941, nearly all of Cleveland’s pawnshops were located in areas frequented by blacks, like Central and Prospect Avenue, and 69 percent to 94 percent of listed pawnshop owners were Jewish.114 This undoubtedly caused some black residents to resent fleeing Jewish residents who appeared to believe they were too good to live with blacks, but still operated businesses in the area.115 The noted African American writer James Baldwin summed these feelings up when we wrote that,

113 This estimation is based off entering the names of grocers listed on Central Avenue in the 1930 Cleveland City Directory into a necrology search on the Cleveland Public Library to determine where they were buried.
Cleveland Directory Co.,
Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications). Cleveland Public Library, “Cleveland Necrology File,” Cleveland Public Library,
114 See footnote #49.
115 Determined by entering names of grocers in Central from 1930 into a search of, 1910- 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line] (Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2009).

“It is bitter to watch the Jewish storekeeper locking up his store for the night…with your money in his pocket, to a clean neighborhood, miles from you, which you will not be allowed to enter. Nor can it help the relations between most Negroes and most Jews when part of this money is donated to civil rights…this money can be looked on as conscience money merely, as money given to keep the Negro happy in his place, and out of white neighborhoods.”116

Such sentiments demonstrate African American-Jewish relations were not entirely shaped by civil rights activism, and underlying tensions in the streets could severely undermine organizational cooperation. Furthermore, it reveals perceived exploitation by whites was particularly infuriating when it occurred in black neighborhoods because it pointed out the lack of control African Americans had over their lives and urban space.117

While it may be true that some Jewish supporters of civil rights feared sharing their neighborhood’s space with African Americans, it is simplistic and insensitive to attribute the sacrifices of Jewish civil rights activists to self-interest. Street-level relations were usually divorced from civil rights activism. Slain Jewish activist Andrew Goodman was not motivated by a desire to keep blacks happy in their neighborhood. Nor can activists’ efforts be attributed to a high level contact with African Americans. Many prominent Jews who participated in civil rights efforts, like Jack Greenberg (Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund), Joel Spingarn (an NAACP president), Michael Schwerner (slain CORE volunteer), and Julius Rosenwald (philanthropist to African American causes) were from middle class or wealthy backgrounds far removed from black neighborhoods. Thus, Jewish-black relations were often driven by two crucial, but practically divorced forces. One of shared activism and another of shared space.

116 Baldwin, 34.
117 For more on charges of exploitation, see 65-66

The Post-war Entertainment Business in Cleveland
While relations between Jewish businesses and African American customers were 
often marked by tension, they could also be a source of immense creativity and cultural importance. One such example of this was the music store Record Rendezvous, whose owner, along with Alan Freed coined the term “rock ‘n’ roll.”118 Record Rendezvous was owned by Leo Mintz who had grown up in Central and Mt. Pleasant, but by 1936 lived in the suburbs. During the 1930s, he worked as an assistant manager at a pawnshop, before opening up his record store in 1939.

Mintz’s Record Rendezvous was located on Prospect Avenue, a critical downtown commercial district that catered to an inter-racial and largely working-class clientele. Dating back to its days as part of the Haymarket District, Prospect was home to many Jewish-owned businesses like cigar stores, shoe retail and repair outlets, small restaurants, bakeries, and jewelers, as well as the Central Market that housed a variety of ethnic vendors. The avenue was also an important shopping district for black Clevelanders because of its proximity to Central and because nearly all streetcar routes used by African Americans (except for those in Glenville and the #33 bus route during the 1950s) destined for downtown terminated on Prospect, near Record Rendezvous.119

As a result of the store’s location, it enjoyed a diverse cliental of whites and blacks of all ages who were allowed to preview the music they were interested in before purchasing it, a unique business innovation for the time. By 1951, Mintz detected an interest in rhythm & blues music by both his black and white customers. Convinced of its

118 John A Jackson, Big Beat Heat: Alan Freed And the Early Years of Rock & Roll (New York: Schirmer Trade Books, 1991), 82. The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Leo Mintz,” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,
119 James R Spangler and James A. Toman, 23.

marketability, he invited his friend, a Jewish classical disc jockey named Alan Freed to his store in order to convince him to switch his radio format to rhythm and blues. The trip made an impression on Freed who recalled, “I spoke to some of the kids buying records at the shop. It became apparent that they were not only from the immediate neighborhood but from all parts of town.”120 Since nearly all of Cleveland’s African Americans were confined to the adjacent Central Avenue neighborhood and with a few exceptions to nearby areas on the East Side, Freed appears to be saying that whites as well as blacks were among those listening to rhythm and blues albums that day. Freed followed Mintz’s advice and began a regularly scheduled one hour rhythm and blues segment following his classical program on WJW in July of 1951. In a likely plan to broaden the appeal of the music for whites, Mintz and Freed came up with the idea to name the music “rock ‘n’ roll” (and sometimes blues & rhythm) rather than the accepted terms of the era, “rhythm & blues” or race music.121

120 Alan Freed, “Alan Freed Says: ‘I Told You So…,” Downbeat, September, 19 1956, 44. 121 Jackson, 82.




Figure 9 & 10 On the left is an advertisement for Alan Freed’s radio show found at the Cleveland Broadcast Museum. Note the banner for Record Rendezvous on the bottom. On the right is a contemporary shot of Prospect Avenue. The arrow points to the building where Record Rendezvous was located. Street-cars originating from the city’s outskirts would pass through African American neighborhoods like Central, before terminating at this point and looping around, thus ensuring a racially mixed shopping district (photos by author).

On March 21, 1952, Mintz, Freed, and local promoter Lew Platt, hosted what has somewhat erroneously been labeled the world’s “first” rock ‘n’ roll concert, the Moondog Coronation Ball at the Cleveland Arena. While it may have not been the first, it was certainly the largest of its time.122 In fact, the concert sold more tickets than the arena could hold. When the show began, fights broke out in the Cleveland Arena over seats and fire marshals cancelled the concert after only one song. While the show was a fiasco, it caught the attention of the city’s press and some professionals in the national media who

122 All of these artists had played previous concerts. So by definition, the Moondog Coronation Ball can’t be said to have been the first if the same songs were played at previous gigs.

were astounded by both the concert’s fights and size of the crowd, which was nearly all black.

Cleveland’s African American newspaper, the Call & Post believed Freed and his partners were exploiters of young African Americans who foolishly worshipped the white disc jockey. An article in the Call & Post declared that “it is appalling to think that Moondog with his late-hour radio show on WJW would appeal to so many Negro teen- agers…that their parents would tolerate their actual addiction to a show of ‘gut bucket blues and lowdown rhythms.’”123 In an interesting series of events that pitted generations against each other across racial lines, many blacks wrote back to the Call & Post defending Freed. The next week, Call & Post writer Marty Richardson acknowledged that “never in recent history of the Call and Post has there been such an avalanche of letters been received” and “never before have a group of fine youngsters made a more brilliant defense of one of their idols.” Nevertheless, Richardson went on to lambast Freed and the music industry for exploiting the black community and tarnishing the community’s image with “suggestive,” “gutbucket rhythms.”124 Richardson declared that “race music” “is quite likely a filthy, suggestive, unwholesome thing,” and a “jim-crow record” that is forced upon “composers of trash” (black R&B musicians) by “merchants of filth.” Richardson finished his diatribe by “thanking” young fans for their letters, but informing them that they were “grossly misled.” He called on them to ask record promoters and disc jockeys “if their Irish or Hungarian or Jewish records are like ‘Race’

123 Valena Minor Williams, “Moon Doggers ‘Break it Up,” Cleveland Call and Post, March 19, 1952. Three-A.
124 Marty Richardson, “Today’s Youngsters: Teen-Agers or Moon-Doggers?,” Cleveland Call and Post, April 26, 1952, (accessed November 18, 2009).

records: so dirty that they wouldn’t pass a deaf, dumb and blind board of censors.”125 Despite these attacks, Alan Freed’s show became a national sensation, and placed the term “rock ‘n’ roll” in the American lexicon forever. Mintz and Freed’s efforts were eventually immortalized with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s opening in Cleveland in 1995.

The Cleveland Call & Post’s objections demonstrate the ambiguous sentiments of appreciation and mistrust many blacks had for Jewish businessmen who relied on African American customers. Many middle-class African Americans like Richardson were extremely distrustful of white promoters who seemed to be exploiting black youth with “gutbucket rhythms,” even though Cleveland’s first black disc jockey, Bill Hawkins played much of the same music. On the other hand, Freed was a white man many young African Americans felt “understood them” and professed his adoration for his listeners night after night in his broadcasts. Freed and Mintz were people who opened the doors for black artists and listeners into the city’s biggest venues. Of course there was truth to both sentiments. For instance, Alan Freed later took song-writing credits for Chuck Berry’s song, “Maybellene” and thus a portion of the song’s royalties even though he did not write it. Also, because of factors which included race, Freed became a national legend while Hawkins fell into obscurity.126

In the next issue of the Call & Post following Richardson’s editorial, the newspaper published letters from readers. While some letters applauded Richardson’s critical stance, most of the featured letters written by young people were upset with the journalist’s diatribe. One letter signed by a “group of Disgusted TeenAgers (sic),” wrote

125 (Ibid.)
126 Hawkins was also an independent disc jockey with infrequent show airings, which made it more difficult for him to attract the same following as Freed.

that Richardson’s article “downing our favorite disc jockey” was “disgusting” and rhetorically asked if the journalist must “make such a big fool of himself?” One reader, Leola Adams, wrote that “I went to the Moon-Dog ball and I agree a lot of damage was done…I hope Allan Freed keeps the good work up.” Another letter written by a reader named of Dorothy Stokes wrote that she was “writing on behalf of a group of teen-agers on the East Side…” and “would like to prove that all teen-agers are NOT turning into Moon-Doggers.” The letter continued by saying that “We feel we have sense enough to know what is good about his program, and what is wrong.”127

To many African American youths, it seemed that Freed had treated his listeners with respect and deference to their tastes. At the same time, Mintz’s Record Rendezvous booths and Hawkins’s and Freed’s radio shows allowed many whites to anonymously listen to a forbidden art while not threatening the physical color line, thus unwittingly allying black and white youth into a separate but equal rebellion against their elders. Record Rendezvous demonstrates that by no means were all Jewish businessmen disliked by the African American community, and their reliance on black customers can be attributed to ethnic spatial relations rather than a plot to exploit a vulnerable community. Freed’s success as a disc jockey became legendary, and is now an integral aspect of Cleveland’s identity as a “rock ‘n’ roll capital.”

Although Mintz and Freed played a significant role in introducing “race music” to white Americans in ethnic borderlands like Prospect Avenue and radio programs in the privacy of the home, attempts to physically integrate Cleveland’s night club scene were much more contested. As in the case of previously mentioned businesses, Jewish

127 “Today’s Youngsters: Teen-Agers or Moon-Doogers?” Cleveland Call and Post (1934-1962), May 3, 1952,

American nightclub owners were more likely than others to welcome black customers into their businesses. As was the case with other Jewish businessmen who relied on black customers, many of the nightclub owners had grown up in racially mixed neighborhoods. One such club was the Towne Casino, located near Euclid and East 105th street and owned by Jack Rogoff and Edward Helstein. Rogoff, like Leo Mintz, had grown up in a racially mixed block in Central, before moving to Glenville.128 By 1951, he had moved to University Heights and opened the Towne Casino (originally China Casino) along with Helstein. Since advertisements appear in the Cleveland Call & Post from its opening, it is safe to assume that its owners hoped to attract African Americans to their club in the all- white University Circle area.

On a late Monday morning in March of 1953, music enthusiasts packed into the integrated Towne Casino to witness the most beloved jazz musician of all time, Louis Armstrong. Patrons danced and listened to tunes like “Blue Berry Hill,” before retiring back to their homes after the concert. As Monday night drifted into Tuesday morning, the club’s porter, Fowler Williams answered a loud knock on the door. After watching two men run into the distance, a blast ripped across the Towne Casino, shattering windows, and throwing Williams to the floor. Afterward, one of the club’s owners told the Call & Post that he knew of “no trouble” or motivation to bomb his establishment. His statements were only half true. The club had challenged white segregation along Cleveland’s famed Euclid Avenue and fears of inter-racial dating and miscegenation were mounting.129 Two months later, the liquor board cited the nearby integrated Play

128 1930; Census Place: Cleveland, Cuyahoga, Ohio; Roll 1773; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 445; Image: 503.0. from 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line] (Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2002).
129 Howard Drechsler, interview by author, notes, Beachwood, OH, August 2009.

Bar for a “lewd act” involving “barely clad” dancers engaging in what the liquor agent described as “bumps and grinds.”130 The Play Bar, like Record Rendezvous and the Towne Casino, had a Jewish owner who had been raised in a racially-mixed neighborhood in Central. The Call & Post reported that the same show had been given to all black crowds in the past without disturbance, and that the Play Bar’s patrons firmly believed they were trying to be driven out for having an integrated club.131 In June, a bomb was tossed on the roof of the Play Bar club during business hours. Later, the bar was given a ninety day suspension for the “lewd act.”132 The Play Bar disappeared from the headlines from that point on.

The fate of the Towne Casino was not much brighter. On May 28th, a bomb once again damaged the Towne Casino during operating hours. In July, yet another bomb placed in the upper floor of the building blasted a hole in the ceiling and damaged offices above the Town Casino. The next month, the Towne Casino closed, and someone left a note on the club reading, “Don’t bomb us;; we quit.”133

The examples of the Towne Casino and Play Bar illustrate that while introduction of “race” music (rock ‘n’ roll music) and integration of musical preferences are fondly remembered instances of Cleveland racial relations, its scope was limited. Most whites were introduced to the music through listening to the radio in the privacy of one’s house, or in Record Rendezvous, neither which challenged the city’s racial geography. Attempts to physically integrate the city’s music scene on Euclid Avenue near University Circle

130 “RAIDED! Black and Tan Club Charges Persecution,” Cleveland Call and Post, May 16, 1953, (accessed November 18, 2009).
131 Ibid..
132John Fuster, “Tips FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN:ENTERTAINMENT,” Cleveland Call and Post, August 15, 1953, (accessed November 18, 2009).

133 “Bombings Force Towne Casino to Close,” Cleveland Call and Post, August 8, 1953, (accessed November 18, 2009).

(and just north of Glenville) were met with violent resistance. Furthermore, the fact that Alan Freed, Leo Mintz, and the owners of both the Play House and Towne Casino were all Jewish is no surprise, since Jewish-Americans had long established ties in Cleveland’s black community. Thus, their entrepreneurship in the black community was not an attempt at integration or to tap into a new market, as much as a residual spatial relationship between the two communities that survived the era of white flight.

Encroachments on the racial geography of residential neighborhoods were as violently contested as entertainment space. As previously mentioned, Cleveland’s Jews were more likely to sell to African Americans than other whites. As a result, many whites feared Jews in their neighborhood could upset the area’s racial geography. In A Tale of Ten Cities, the president of the Association for Jewish Communal Relations, Sidney Vincent recalled a letter by a man who claimed that neighborhoods ran deteriorated because,

“In the first instance the Negro follows the Jews in housing;; no Jews, no Negroes to follow….The Jew is too greedy when it comes to the almighty dollar. You will think this man is prejudiced and biased who is writing this letter, but I am not! These are the facts: it is food for thought.”134

One week after the second bombing of the Towne Casino, a Jewish businessman sold his house (in the Lee-Harvard neighborhood) to an African American mortician, Wendell Stewart, allegedly out of contempt towards his former neighbors.135 Many white neighbors became irate over the prospect of having a black neighbor and protested at the previous home-owner’s store. In a report for the Jewish Community Federation, Sidney

134Sidney Z. Vincent in Eugene J Lipman, A Tale of Ten Cities; the Triple Ghetto in American Religious Life, 72.
135 Sidney Z. Vicent, MEMORANDUM ON HOUSING SITUATION, LEE-HARVARD AREA,” in Remembering: Cleveland’s Jewish Voices, ed. Sally Wertheim & Alan Bennett (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2011 (citation taken from manuscript copy).

Vincent recorded that some Jewish neighbors “felt extremely threatened by the growing restlessness, since such great resentment was expressed against ‘Jews who pulled this dirty trick on us [white residents] by selling to Negroes.”136 Upon learning of the brewing tensions, prominent black organizations including the Future Outlook League and Antioch Baptist Church, along with two city councilmen offered their support to Stewart and his wife. A police detail guarded the home twenty-four hours a day. After more negotiations and raucous neighborhood meetings, Mayor Thomas A. Burke decided to address the angry residents of Lee-Harvard at Gracemont School. One speaker for the neighbors said that Wendell Stewart moving in was a “well laid out Communist plot, carefully worked out to invade our neighborhood and take away our rights.” After the Mayor asked the disgruntled neighbors “how discrimination against Negroes differ from discrimination against your people – Jews, Hungarians, Italians,” a speaker for the neighbors responded “We’re all white.”137

African American-Jewish Relations in Crime
The spatial relationship between residual Jewish businesses in Central and their

black customers extended to the underground economy. During the 1930s, the Jewish criminal syndicate and the Italian mafia, who were often allied, branched out to loan- sharking, prostitution, gambling, labor unions, and “protection” fees to protect their profits in a post-prohibition Cleveland.138 The Cleveland mafia also attempted to break into the African American policy market, an illegal lottery at the time, and offered “protection” (usually from themselves, but also from police harassment) to black

136 Ibid.
137 Ibid.
138 Daniel R Kerr, “’The Reign of Wickedness’: The Changing Structures of Prostitution, Gambling and Political Protection in Cleveland from the Progressive Era to the Great Depression,” 1998, (M.A. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University, 1998), 45.

racketeers in exchange for a forty percent take in gambling operations and three dollars a week from each prostitute.139 African American vice operators who did not cooperate were often beaten or shot. By June 1932, the Jewish-Italian organized crime operation finally secured protection money from African American policy operators, and police raids did in fact halt.140 Two whites who grew up in Central were particularly critical in securing this arrangement between the mafia and black policy operators. One was Italian-American Angelo Lonardo (who grew up in Central) of the Mayfield Mob.141 Another was Jewish gangster Alex “Shondor” Birns(stein), who had been raised at the Jewish Orphan Asylum on Woodland Avenue, and was used by Lonardo as muscle to violently enforce their agreement and keep racketeers in line.142 While this agreement stifled mob violence for some time, Shondor Birns later waged war on black operators who attempted to break away from his patronage.

In the years following World War II, the relationship between blacks and whites in the Cleveland criminal underworld became increasingly contentious. In 1953, a bomb rocked the house of black numbers racketeer, Ernst Render, and police immediately questioned Birns.143 Although Birns was never brought to a trial for this bombing, he was tried twice for bombing the house of another black policy operator, Joe Allen, who refused to pay Birns for protection. Birns was acquitted, and then unsuccessfully accused of jury tampering.

139 (Kerr 1998, 45-47) Services were paid for “protection” from authorities, but often meant protection from their gang attacking the numbers operators.
140 Ibid., 48.
141, 1920 United States Federal Census [database on-line] (Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2010).

142 Lonardo’s role is found in Kerr, 47.
143 Marty Richardson. “FEDS ROUND UP COUNTERFEIT GANG: BOMBING IGNITES RACKET WAR Racketeers Hauled In For Questioning.” Cleveland Call and Post (1934-1962), September 5, 1953, (accessed July 21, 2010).

In 1957, a bomb blasted the front porch and living room of yet another black policy racketeer, the future boxing promoter, Don King. At the time, King was one of five numbers racketeers who had been paying Shondor Birns 200 dollars a week for “protection” as well as to ensure that competitors would not offer five-hundred to one paid odds to customers.144 Earlier that year, King stopped paying Birns, insisting that he had left the numbers racket. Police arrested Birns and two other suspects less than three hours after the bombing.145 Birns was charged with blackmail, with King scheduled to testify as the star witness. More intimidation followed. One October morning, an assassin waited outside the King household with a gun, while King, two friends, and his wife played bridge. According to King’s account, he walked outside to his car to bring in theater tickets, when the gunner took aim. The police theorized that the gunman planned to shoot King inside his car after he pulled out of his house, but was surprised when he exited the car and headed back inside. Unwilling to wait for another opportunity to get King, the assassin open fired from about twenty-five feet away, spraying him with birdshot before fleeing. King was rushed to St. Luke Hospital where his head wounds were said not to be life threatening.146 Birns was later tried for attempting to murder King, but Birns’s defense managed to force a hung jury.

The gang wars between black numbers racketeers and their Jewish “patron” were not over after this incident. Two years later, Birns escaped an assassination attempt. Not long afterwards, a car approached an African American suspect in the shooting named Sunny Coleman, and its occupants fired on him. According to the Call & Post, Coleman,

144 Fred McGunagle, “Cleveland’s Killer Celebrities, Part 1,”truTV,
145 “Birns is Jailed in Bombing; Charge 1000-aWeek-Plot,” Cleveland Press, May 20, 1957.
146 “Birns Tipster Shot, Lucky to be Alive;; Gunman’s Plans Upset, Police Believe,” Cleveland Press, October 5, 1957.

who had been wounded, dove through a plate-glass window for shelter and called the police. After initially telling the police that he was a burglar who had just been shot by a woman, Coleman then said that he had been shot by an unidentified black man, firing from a car driven by Shondor Birns.147 In reporting the incident, the Call & Post asked if the shooting “mark[ed] the fade-out of the formerly invincible control of Alex (Shondor) Birns over the destinies of Cleveland’s Negro numbers operators.” The article then declared,

“Some fact are clear. Not since the days of the notorious Mayfield Road gang have Negro numbers operators in Cleveland been thoroughly under the control of their white puppet masters. Nobody has successfully proved it, but Birns is the man credited by both numbers hustlers and the police with controlling the strings.”148

Coleman, however, changed his story and told a judge at a Common Pleas Court that his allegations against Birns were false and that he couldn’t remember what happened that night.149 The police then arrested Coleman as a material witness, and he agreed to testify against Birns. His waffling testimony, combined with a neighbor’s testimony who backed Birns’s alibi convinced the jury to reach a verdict of not guilty, and once again Birns walked.150 Coleman was later sentenced to one to three years in prison for carrying a concealed gun into a courtroom.151

Birns carried on his operations until 1975 when he was killed by a car bomb near the Flats. The case of Shondor Birns demonstrates that the historic spatial relationship

147“Shootings Seen Prelude to Battle for Control :Wounded Hood Fingers Birns,” Cleveland Call and Post (1934-1962), April 18, 1959, (accessed November 18, 2009).
148 Ibid.
149 Bob Williams, “Refuses to Finger Birns Under Oath: Can’t Explain Who Shot Him, Faces

Perjury,” Cleveland Call and Post, June 20, 1959, (accessed November 18, 2009).
150 Fred McGunagle, “Cleveland’s Killer Celebrities, Part 1,”truTV,

151 Cleveland Call and Post “Sunny Coleman Gets 3-Years,” Cleveland Call and Post, December 5, 1959, (accessed November 18, 2009).

between Jewish and African Americans that led to residual Jewish entrepreneurship in black neighborhoods also existed in the black market. In both the illicit and mainstream economy, prejudice, lack of capital, and competition with established white enterprises often led blacks to becoming the clients of Jewish entrepreneurs or other whites who came from their neighborhood. Furthermore, the example of Shondor Birns demonstrates that relations between the two communities were not always driven by sympathy between mutually oppressed peoples, but from space and markets. As was the case in the mainstream market, white underground entrepreneurs from the Italian and Jewish- American communities who grew up in Central dominated business in their old neighborhood long after it had become predominantly African American. Since Central had once been home to thousands of Jewish and Italian-Americans, many of these entrepreneurs were from these heritages.

Flight and Separation
By the 1960s, interactions between Jewish family businesses and African

Americans began to wane. Large chain-stores drove many smaller Jewish retail establishments out of business and fewer Jews had any ties to Central. In 1930, there were forty-three grocery stores on Central Avenue, the heart of Cleveland’s African American community, but by 1960 there were only twenty-four.152 Still, such Jewish- owned businesses played a crucial role in African American-Jewish relations during this era because of the lack of residential interaction between the two communities in the city. Determining the ethnicity of the proprietors after the 1950s is extremely difficult because city directories did not list the store owners’ name. According to a supplemental study for

152Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications)., (Cleveland: Cleveland Public Library, Preservation Office, 1990).

the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 39 percent of their sample of “ghetto merchants” (52 percent of white merchants) in fifteen non-Southern cities were Jewish.153 Since African Americans in Cleveland still remained especially confined to formerly Jewish neighborhoods like Central and Glenville, the city probably had a larger percent of Jewish entrepreneurs than other cities like Detroit where this was no longer the case.154

Relations between merchants and customers during this period were ambiguous. According to the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, inner-city retailers generally charged more than others, but much of this could be attributed to the higher costs and the level of risk associated with operating a business that relied on impoverished residents who had to purchase goods through installment plans or on credit. Unfortunately, such customers were more likely than most to be unable to pay off the installments.155 The practice of contract purchases also harmed merchant-customer relations because customers who entered such contracts could have their goods repossessed if they were unable to make the payments without a refund. In about 40 percent of states, garnishments could be taken out of a buyer’s paycheck for failure to make payments, even after a good was repossessed.156

Perceived disrespect by storekeepers could also lead to resentment or confrontations, although it appears such instances were infrequent. One former Cleveland

153 Peter H. Rossi, Richard A. Berk, David P. Boesel, Bettye K. Eidson, and W. Eugene Groves, “Between black and white;; the faces of American Institutions in the Ghetto (1968),” in
Supplemental Studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1968), 126-127.

154 Socialexplorer, “1960 County and Census Tract,” Socialexplorer,
155 National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, New York Times ed. (New York: Bantam Books, 1968), 275-276.
156 Ibid.

resident, W. Allen Taylor, who worked at both an Italian and Jewish-owned grocery store in the mainly middle-class Lee-Harvard area, recalled that

“There was some tension, especially during the mid to late sixties as black folks became more vocal about their demands for respect. I do remember seeing black folks, for instance, getting in the face of the Jewish man who owned one of the grocery stores that I worked in as a teen. This would happen from time to time if they perceived him to be disrespectful to them in any way (usually over attitude more than event). For the most part, however, the Jewish retailers who maintained a presence in my mostly black neighborhood, understood how to relate to black folks with a minimum of tension, so it was fairly peaceful.”157

The findings of a supplemental study prepared for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders entitled, “Racial Attitudes in Fifteen American Cities,” supports this observation. According to the study, only 3 percent of African American respondents reported that they were “often” treated disrespectfully in nearby stores, but 25 percent stated that this occurred sometimes or rarely. Similarly, only 24 percent respondents responded that they were “often” overcharged for goods, but 46 percent had reported that they had experienced it sometimes or rarely.158 This demonstrates that the majority of African Americans did not view most inner-city merchants as rude or exploitative, but did believe that some were. Businesses that were considered hostile towards their customers often became targets during the wave of inner-city disorders during the 1960s.

In Cleveland, the first such disorder broke out in the Hough neighborhood in 1966. The disturbances began when a group of whites attacked two young blacks in the Sowinski area of Hough on June 22, 1966.159 When the police refused to pursue the incident, a crowd began throwing rocks and bottles. Later that night, a white motorist shot a black ten year old after his car was hit by a rock. The disturbances then escalated

157 W. Allen Taylor interview, interview by author, email, March 2010.
158Angus Campbell and Howard Schuman, “Racial Attitudes in Fifteen American Cities (1968),” in Supplemental Studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders Supplemental Studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1968), 45.
159Marc E. Lakritz, “The Hough Riots of 1966,” (senior thesis, Princeton University,1968), 44.

into a riot which left a supermarket on Superior Avenue in flames and others damaged in what became a precursor to the much larger riot in the area the following month. After several days, the violence subsided, but The Cleveland Call & Post ran an editorial predicting that because of the deplorable conditions in African American neighborhoods like Hough, “time was running out” to avoid a riot.160 The editorial was prophetic.

That July, a heat wave hit the Great Lakes region. On July 12th, riots broke out in Chicago after African American youths who had no access to swimming pools were ordered to stop using fire hydrants to cool themselves. On July 18th, in Cleveland, an African American woman who was reportedly a prostitute walked into the Seventy- Niner’s Café in the Hough neighborhood, owned by Jewish Americans Abe and Dave Feigenbaum, and asked patrons to donate money for the children of a deceased prostitute. After the owners told the woman to leave, Dave Feigenbaum and the woman exchanged curses. Soon afterwards, a young black man ordered a bottle of wine and asked for a pitcher of ice water. Feigenbaum refused to serve water since his order was a takeout, and according to a man at the bar at the time, told a waitress not to serve water to “niggers.”161 After the man left, someone placed a sign which read “no water for niggers” on the bar’s window. After a crowd gathered outside the bar, the owners called the police and then went outside, one armed with a pistol and another with a rifle. When the police arrived, the crowd threw a volley of rocks and bricks at them, and before long, neighbors looted and burned stores in the neighborhood.162 During the night, the looting became worse and shots rang out through the dark streets. As in the case of other riots, the words

160 William O. Walker, “Time is Running Out,” Cleveland Call and Post, July 2, 1966, (accessed February 6, 2010).
161 (Marc E. Lakritz, 7)
162 (Ibid., 7)

“soul brother” or “black owner” were painted on property owned by African Americans, leaving property owned by Jews and other whites vulnerable to arson and looting. On July 20th the National Guard arrived, but the rioting continued until July 23rd. By that time, four African Americans had been killed, about 240 fires reported, and around 300 people arrested.163 Although far greater in scale, the Hough Riots bore a striking resemblance to the disorder outside the Quincy Market in 1934. Both events occurred at nearly the same time of year, at a Jewish-owned business, and arose over an altercation about service. Damage in 1934, however, was limited to the store in question and businesses continued to operate, as opposed to 1966, when vandalism was widespread.

Figure 11’s map of Cleveland’s black population

163 The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “The Hough Riots,” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, and Marc E. Lakritz, 7.


Figure 12 A Google map of Cleveland’s East Side. The thumbtack in the middle was the location of Leo’s Casino. The thumbtack on the right was the location of the bombed Towne Casino.

Amidst Cleveland’s greatest crisis, another Jewishowned business, Leo’s Casino, exemplified the other side of this relationship by remaining open the Sunday of the riots, and luring whites and blacks from across town to the outskirts of Hough to watch the Supremes play two sets. Leo’s Casino had opened in 1952 and soon became known as an establishment with open racial policies that hosted nationally known music acts and open racial policies, prompting comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory to call it, “the most fully integrated nightclub in America.”164 While many of its contemporaries like the Play Bar and Towne Casino near Euclid and East 105th were harassed and bombed into closure during the decade, Leo’s thrived, perhaps due its location in an established borderland rather than University Circle, which local whites attempted to prevent from becoming integrated.

164 The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Leo’s Casino,” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,

Similar disorders occurred throughout the nation. It is hard to determine whether or not businesses were damaged or looted because they happened to be caught in the crossfire of urban unrest, or if they were specifically targeted because of exploitative practices or bigoted attitudes. In fact, merchants were divided over the issue themselves. According to a supplemental study for The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (NACCD), “merchants whose stores were not touched claimed good community relations as the reason, but those whose stores were damaged felt that the damage was not directed particularly at their stores but rather against stores in general.”165 While participants of the disorders were not interviewed, another supplemental study for the NACCD cited, “discrimination, unfair treatment” as the most numerous cause (48-49 percent) cited by African Americans who participated in the poll.166

Regardless of the motivations behind the disorders, relations between African Americans and white merchants in African American neighborhoods appear to have reached a particularly low point across the nation.167 Many merchants had experienced severe damages during riots, and others were afraid that future disorders could spell the end of their own livelihoods.168 On top of this, an inner-city merchant was more likely than most in the mainstream economy to be the victim of theft or armed robbery. Although such crimes are uncommon and perpetrated by an extremely small handful of

165 Peter H. Rossi, Richard A. Berk, David P. Boesel, Bettye K. Eidson, and W. Eugene Groves, 75.
166 Angus Campbell and Howard Schuman , 48.
167 According to a supplemental study for The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, “merchants in our sample [of fifteen non-Southern cities, 39 percent of which were Jewish] were among the most unsympathetic to the plight of the ghetto Nero of any occupation group in the study,” and that “the merchants endorsed attitudes about Negroes that would lead us to believe that they are apt to treat Negro customers considerably less well than white customers.” Peter H. Rossi, Richard A. Berk, David P. Boesel, Bettye K. Eidson, and W. Eugene Groves, 131.

168 Ibid., 130.

people, they were a very real threat to inner-city merchants who heard first-hand accounts of crimes committed against fellow merchants in the neighborhood. Thus, it is understandable that many inner-city merchants became disenchanted with their livelihood during this era, and their children often desired to find other professions. Such conditions greatly contributed to end of Jewish predominance in inner-city Cleveland retail businesses.

The Stokes Era
The 1960s was a disastrous decade for Cleveland. The city endured urban unrest,

job loss from de-industrialization, and a lack of confidence in its future. For perhaps the first time, city leaders recognized that the city’s success depended on calming racial tension. Many in the business community believed the election of black mayoral candidate Carl Stokes could quell some of this turmoil. Stokes had been narrowly defeated by fewer than four thousand votes as an independent with little institutional support in the 1965 mayoral election. In 1967, Stokes believed he could muster enough business and institutional support to seal a victory as the Democratic candidate. Jewish- American Kenneth G. Weinberg (who was from the Cleveland area) captured the hope that many white intellectuals and businessmen held for a Stokes mayoralty in the preface of his 1968 book, Black Victory.

“The significance of the election of a Carl Stokes lies elsewhere. He has, for the time being at least, demonstrated that black political activity can provide a viable alternative to violence in our cities… ‘The Fire Next Time’ has become a prophecy fulfilled, and the mind reels under shrill cries of separatism, nationalism, Malcom Xism, and a sad prediction by the President of the United States that our cities will almost surely experience several more summers of violence.”169

169 Kenneth G Weinberg, Black Victory; Carl Stokes and the Winning of Cleveland (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968), 8.

Whether for these or other motives, many Jewish Americans like Weinberg and Marvin Chernoff, a key volunteer organizer on the campaign who helped put together Stokes’ impressive grassroots network, played an integral role in the campaign. Despite the presence of several key Jewish supporters, a detailed or accurate examination of Jewish support or opposition to Stokes is nearly impossible. No precincts in Cleveland were predominantly Jewish at this time, which denies the researcher the ability to determine vote totals, the most important indicator of support. Thus, it is impossible to tell what percentage of the Jewish community supported Stokes.

After Stokes’s election, it seemed for a time that the presence of a black mayor could help resolve many of the city’s problems. While many U.S. cities experienced rioting after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Stokes was given great credit for keeping Cleveland peaceful. Stokes channeled this enthusiasm for his administration by working with Cleveland businesses to fund his Cleveland Now! Program which sought to raise 1.5 billion dollars over ten years for social service efforts and neighborhood improvements. The enthusiasm for Cleveland Now! and Carl Stokes, however, dissipated after the events of July 23, 1968.

On that day, black militants under the leadership of Fred “Ahmed” Evans engaged in a shootout against law enforcement officials in Glenville. The shootout began after Cleveland authorities had received reports that Evans was stocking weapons and planning violence.170 Frustrated by what Evans and his followers perceived as police harassment, a militant from Evans’s group shot an unarmed tow-truck driver he mistook for a

170 Sergeant Bosie Mack, “Statement by Bosie Mack (1971),” in Carl Stokes, Promises of Power: Then and Now ( Friends of Carl B. Stokes, 1989), 207-209.

policeman.171 The police responded in force, and the ensuing shootout claimed the lives of three policemen, three suspects, and one civilian.172 Violence spread throughout the Glenville area as angry crowds looted and burned numerous businesses in and around the East 105th and Superior Avenue intersection.173 The shootout ended all hopes that Stokes could avert violence, and accelerated business flight from the neighborhood. Prior to the shootout, East 105th, which is the main commercial artery of Glenville had lost 24 percent of its grocery stores from 1960-1966.174 After the shootout, the main commercial artery of Glenville went from having twenty-two grocery stores in 1966, to fourteen in 1971, a 37 percent loss. Many storekeepers had been ruined and many more no longer felt welcomed in black neighborhoods throughout the city.

Determining the extent of Jewish business flight is difficult. Most stores at this time had ambiguous names like “Corner Grocery” which do not reveal the ethnic origin of the owner. Janice Eatman-Williams, who grew up in Glenville during the 1960s recalls that at the time, there was a mixture of African Americans, Jews, and Italians running stores. She notes that most grocery stores were run by Jewish-Americans or other white ethnics, while personal care services like salons, and medical care were provided by African Americans. By this time, most white retailers had a racially mixed staff.175

171 A comprehensive examination can be found in Louis H. Masotti and Jerome R. Corsi’s Shoot-Out in Cleveland: Black Militants and the Police. The violence was not one-sided and misunderstanding was rife on both sides. The details and motivations of the shootout, however, are out of the scope of this study. Louis H. Masotti and Jerome R. Corsi, Shoot-Out In Cleveland: Black Militants and the Police, July 23, 1968, 1st ed. (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969).

172 The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Glenville Shootout,” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,
173 Louis H. Masotti and Jerome R. Corsi, Shoot-Out In Cleveland: Black Militants and the Police, July 23, 1968, 1st ed. (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), 61.

174 Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications).
175 Janice Eatman-Williams, interview by author, tape-recorder and notes, February 2010.

Furthermore, determining the cause of the absence of businesses is complicated. The city’s population shrank by at least eleven percent (60,000 people) per decade from 1970 to 1990. It had lost nearly 180,000 residents during the 1960s alone. Many small stores could not handle the population loss, and others were forced out of business because of competition from national chains. What is apparent is that businesses departed from black neighborhoods at alarming rates. Hough Avenue, which had fifteen grocery stores in 1960, had only eight in 1970. Central Avenue, which experienced little or no rioting, went from twenty-four grocery stores in 1960 to twelve in 1970. Both of these cases represent approximately 50 percent losses in a decade. This number greatly contrasts to Lorain Avenue on the predominantly white West Side which went from twenty grocery stores in 1960 to fifteen in 1970, only a 25 percent loss.176 Pawnshops in Cleveland, which had historically been run by Jewish proprietors declined from twenty- two in 1966 to only eight in 1970, a nearly 64 percent closure rate in only a half- decade.177 The reasons for this are complex. Some stores, of course, were burned, and many store owners feared the same fate awaited them if they stayed.178 Also, crime in nearly every category increased during the 1960s. National robbery rates more than tripled from 1960 to 1970, and continued to rise for the next two decades.179 This increased crime also made operating businesses in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods increasingly difficult. This, however, is only part of the picture. The era of family-run Jewish grocers was also fading across Cleveland. Many Jewish grocers who

176 Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications).
178 Peter H. Rossi, Richard A. Berk, David P. Boesel, Bettye K. Eidson, and W. Eugene Groves, 130.
179 U.S. Census Bureau, Crimes and Crime Rates by Type of Offense: 1960 to 2002,U.S. Census Bureau,

grew up in Glenville during the 1930s and 40s were retiring. Their children were often raised in more affluent households than their parents, and preferred to go into other vocations or to work in other neighborhoods.180 Furthermore, one large chain store could encompass the services of many small independent grocery stores. Decisions on where to operate such businesses, however, were made by a corporation often located outside of town, and not the individual store manager. Given the riots in America during the 1960s, out-of-town corporations were reluctant to open new businesses in black neighborhoods which generally had lower incomes, could experience riots again, and had much higher insurance rates than the suburbs. Furthermore, chains could order successful stores to close if they decided to pull out of a region, as was the case of the Tops Grocery store in Glenville.181 This changing businesses environment helped end a multi-generation commercial relationship between Jews and African Americans in Cleveland proper.

180 Bill Rogoff, interview by author, notes, phone-call, March 2010.
181 (Williams interview, 2010)., TOPS Friendly Markets, TOPS MARKETS ANNOUNCES DECEMBER CLOSING OF NORTHEAST OHIO STORES,” TOPS Friendly Markets,


Table 1 Although the number of pawnshops was already decreasing during the 1960s, nearly 64% closed between the Hough Riots and 1970.182

Table 2 Note the disappearance of grocery stores in African American neighborhoods after the riots, while, the number remains stable on Lorain, which is an historically white street on the West Side. 2010 Yellow Book information does not appear to include most convenience stores as grocers. 183

As of 2009, only a handful of Jewish businesses still operated in Cleveland’s

African American neighborhoods. Determining the exact number is difficult because

hardly any stores feature the owner’s surname anymore and contemporary businesses

directories do not list the proprietor. In 2006, The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article

on Gordon’s Cycle Shop that referred to it as Glenville’s last Jewish-owned business.184

Local Jewish-owned chains like Dave’s Supermarket have branches in African American

neighborhoods. Such retailers, however, are unlikely to affect African Americans’

perceptions of Jews since most customers do not know who runs the business, and

because employees they come in contact with now come from the neighborhood. Given

182 Cleveland Directory Co., Cleveland City Directory [microfilm], (Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications).

183 Ibid. For 2010, Yellowbook, Cleveland:Greater Cuyahoga County Area (Yellow Book Sales Distribution Company, Inc., 2010). Note that Yellow Book does not appear to include most convenience stores as grocers.
184 Michael Sangiacomo , “He’s not ready for cycle to end: Glenville bike shop owner continuing family tradition,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 26, 2006, (accessed March 13, 2010).

this lack of direct contact, such businesses cannot be said to form an integral element of African American-Jewish relations.

Political, commercial, and entertainment relations between African Americans and Jews, however, continue throughout the nation and in the Cleveland suburbs. To end this narrative in 1968 is not to support false notions that a historical coalition has ended or that relationships have deteriorated. The date, however, effectively marks a terminal point in the relationships between African Americans and independent Jewish entrepreneurs in Cleveland proper. Since hardly any Jews lived in Cleveland, the end of this economic relationship spelled the end of the historical spatial relationship between blacks and Jews in Cleveland proper.

Although nearly all of Cleveland’s Jewish institutions and residents have left the city, it is not unusual in the early 2000s to see blacks and Jews living side by side in suburbs like Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights. African Americans continue to shop in traditionally Jewish commercial districts such as along Taylor Road and Coventry. In many regards, the spatial relationship between blacks and Jews has grown stronger in the suburbs in the post-1980 era than it has been in the Cleveland metropolitan area since the Great Migration. Addressing this suburban history, however, requires new research that cannot be accomplished in the confines of this study. While contemporary historians like Andrew Wiese are beginning to explore African American suburban history, there is a scarcity of historical studies on inter-racial relations in the suburbs, especially in the economic realm.185

185 Andrew Wiese, Places of Their Own: African American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2004).

The historical spatial relationship in the city of Cleveland, however, remains dormant. From the turn of the twentieth century until the 1970s, Cleveland’s blacks and Jews shared urban space, which had bred close relationships between the communities. From 1900 to the 1920s, both communities clustered in the Central/Woodland neighborhood in Cleveland. From the 1930s to 1950s, Jew and Africans shared the neighborhoods of Glenville and Mt. Pleasant, although integration there was never as strong there as in Central. By the 1950s, most Jews lived in the suburbs, while blacks were confined to Central and Glenville. The experience of shared space, however, continued to influence Jewish-African Americans relations for many decades to come. Jews still operated a disproportionate number of the businesses in neighborhoods that had once been Jewish, and had transitioned to African American. Many Jews had established businesses in their old neighborhoods that had come to rely on African Americans customers. As a result, Jewish entrepreneurs like Leo Mintz played key roles in disseminating African American art forms and styles to the American mainstream. By the 1960s, however, most Jews who had grown up near African Americans were reaching retirement age and any kind of “special” spatial relationship between the two communities had been severely weakened. When black neighborhoods experienced rioting throughout the nation during the 1960s, many of the businesses targeted were Jewish-owned.186 Competition from chain stores, inner-city abandonment, and urban rioting further accelerated the disappearance of Jewish owned businesses from Cleveland’s inner-city.


186 Lee, 28. Min, 70, Diner, Jews of the United States, 338.

This study has examined how a history of common space fostered street-level interactions between African Americans and Jews in Cleveland, Ohio. After Jews moved out of neighborhoods in which they shared space with African Americans, interactions did not cease. Many Jewish merchants retained their businesses in the area, and others opened new ones in their old neighborhood. Such institutions played a key role in shaping each community’s perceptions of one another from 1930 to 1970. At times, interactions between these proprietors and their customers were a source creativity and at other times, rife with suspicion and resentment.

While historians tend to focus on a community’s exceptionally articulate and proliferate individuals, ordinary people often act independently from organizations and leaders that are supposed to represent them. Thus, it has been this study’s intent to focus on interactions between laymen in urban space that have been crucial to each community’s understanding of one another. This was accomplished by a combination of conventional and novel methodologies. Thanks to demographic studies provided by Howard Whipple Green, Donald Levy, and the website, it was possible to examine patterns of ethnic succession in neighborhoods. This revealed that from 1890 to 1970, African Americans generally lived in the same neighborhoods that Jews once inhabited. Rather than simply focus on the process of ethnic succession as most urban community studies have done, this study explored residual street-level interactions that occurred between African Americans and Jews in the years following ethnic succession. Keyword searches of the Cleveland Call & Post revealed a high level of commercial interactions between Jews and African Americans these years. To further examine commercial relations, some novel methodological approaches were needed. To determine the extent of these interactions, necrology searches were used to detect the ethnicity of neighborhood grocers listed in the city directory. This revealed a disproportionate, but not monopolizing number of Jewish grocers who operated in African American neighborhoods. searches of some of these proprietors showed that many of these had grown up in the neighborhood that they did business in, even if they later lived on the city’s periphery. Oral interviews were also conducted to obtain a better understanding of relations between inner-city merchants and their customers. While this particular study focuses on Cleveland, similar patterns existed in metropolitan regions throughout the Midwest and Northeast. Websites dedicated to local ethnic history in other cities revealed a pattern of shared neighborhoods in Chicago, Harlem, Boston, Detroit, and Buffalo.

Interactions between African Americans and Jews, whether in a schoolhouse, a picket-line, a neighborhood uprising, or nightclub are fundamental to some of the most issues in the formation of perceptions of other communities. While migration and ethnicity have become central components of historical study since the 1960s, most examinations remain confined to a single group. Cross-ethnic interactions, however, occurred throughout the country, especially in the nation’s borderland communities that were characterized by lax racial restrictions. Thus, historians must engage in similar inter-ethnic studies in cities throughout the nation to better understand how communities viewed one another and interpreted race.

Examining the role geography and residual ethnic businesses played in this relationship steers us away from stereotypical “essentialist” explanations that have plagued the popular image of African American-Jewish relations through the last century. 

Jews were not from a culture or genetic stock obsessed with money that led them to open stores in African American neighborhoods. African Americans did not shop at their stores because they were intellectually incapable of running their own. Instead this relationship was created by structural issues like access to capital, differences in discrimination, migration patterns, and occupational histories. The examination of such structural inequalities adds dimension to our understanding of the construction of race in the United States.


1930; Census Place: Cleveland, Cuyahoga, Ohio; Roll 1773; Page: 8A;

Enumeration District: 445; Image: 503.0. from 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Operations Inc, 2002. 1910-1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2009.

Armstrong, Louis, “The New Orleans Jewish Family (1969),” in Louis Armstrong, in His Own Words Selected Writings ed. Thomas Brothers, (New York, NY: Oxford U.P, 1999.

Baldwin, James. “Negroes are AntiSemitic Because They’re AntiWhite (1967).” in Berman, Paul. Blacks and Jews: Alliances and Arguments. New York: Delacorte Press, 1994.

Balk, Alfred. “Confessions of a Blockbuster (1962).” in Major Problems in American Urban and Suburban History: Documents and Essays, edited by Howard P. Chudacoff and Peter C. Baldwin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2005.

Baulch, Vivian. “Paradise Valley and Black Bottom.” The Detroit News, August 7, 1996,

Beal, Eileen. “Funeral Homes and Funeral Practices.” Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. (accessed July 2010).

Campbell, Angus and Schuman, Howard. “Racial Attitudes in Fifteen American Cities (1968).” in Supplemental Studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders Supplemental Studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1968.

Campbell, Thomas F.. “Public Housing (last modified November, 2009).” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, cgi/ (accessed July, 2010).

Capeci Jr., Dominic J.. “Black-Jewish Relations in Wartime Detroit: The Marsh, Loving, Wolf Surveys and the Race Riot of 1943.” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2000.

Dowden, J.M.. “Boycotts.” The Voice of the League, July 16, 1938.
Downes, Randolph C. “Negro Rights and White Backlash in the Campaign of 1920.”

Ohio History, 88, vol. 75 (Winter 1966), html&StartPage=85&EndPage=107&volume=75&newtitle=Volume%2075%20P age%2085.

Drake, St. Clair and Cayton, Horace R. “The Growth of a ‘Negro Market.’” In Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, edited by Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Forman, Seth. “The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Jewish: Desegregation in the South and the Crisis of Jewish Liberalism (1997).” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations

Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H.

Bracey, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.
Freed, Alan. “Alan Freed Says: ‘I Told You So…” Downbeat, September, 19 1956. Fuster, John. “Tips FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN:ENTERTAINMENT.” Cleveland

Call and Post, August 15, 1953, (accessed November

18, 2009).
Goldman, Mark,
High Hopes: The Rise and Decline of Buffalo, New York Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1983.
Greenberg, Cheryl. “Negotiating Coalition;; Black and Jewish Civil Rights Agencies in

the Twentieth Century.” In Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, edited by Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Gurock, Jeffrey S.. When Harlem was Jewish, 1870-1930. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. found on ,

Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland. “Cleveland Jewish Cemeteries.” Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland. list.htm.

Kenneth G Weinberg, Black Victory; Carl Stokes and the Winning of Cleveland (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968), 8.
Kenneth Kusmer, “African Americans,” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History,
Lakritz, Marc E. “The Hough Riots of 1966.” Senior thesis, Princeton University, 1968. McDowell, Winston C.. “Keeping Them ‘In the Same Boat Together?: Sufi Abdul

Hamid, African Americans, Jews, and the Harlem Jobs Boycotts.’” in African Americans and Jews in the Twentieth Century: Studies in Convergence and Conflict , edited by Vincent P. Franklin, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1998.

McGunagle, Fred. “Cleveland’s Killer Celebrities, Part 1.” truTV.

9.html (accessed March, 2010).
Rossi, Peter H., Berk, Richard A., Boesel, David P., Eidson, Bettye K., and Groves, W.

Eugene. “Between black and white;; the faces of American Institutions in the

Ghetto (1968).” in
Sangiacomo, Michael. “He’s not ready for cycle to end: Glenville bike shop owner

continuing family tradition.” Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 26, 2006, (accessed March 13, 2010).

Sergeant Bosie Mack, “Statement by Bosie Mack (1971),” in Stokes, Carl. Promises of Power: Then and Now Friends of Carl B. Stokes, 1989. “1960-70 Census Tract Map.”

s%20Tract&themei=1 (accessed March, 2010).
Taylor, W. Allen. “Walkin’ Talkin’ Bill Hawkins.” In Search of My Father…Walkin’

Talkin’ Bill Hawkins,

Taylor, W. Allen. interview by author. phone call, April 2009.
The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Cleveland: A Bicentennial Timeline.” The

Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. (accessed

July, 2010).
The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, “Glenville Shootout,” The Encyclopedia of

Cleveland History, (accessed

March, 2008).
The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. “Leo’s Casino.” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland

History (last modified May 2001).

(accessed July, 2010).
The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. “The Hough Riots.” The Encyclopedia of

Cleveland History (last modified July 1997).

cgi/ (accessed July, 2010).
The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland.
“Estimating Cleveland’s Jewish

Population 1979 (1980)”

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.
Supplemental Studies for the

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Frederick A.

Praeger, Publishers, 1968.
Thomas N. Maloney, “African Americans in the Twentieth Century,” Economic History

TOPS Friendly Markets.

ress_id=233 (accessed July 2010).
U.S. Cen
sus Bureau. “Crimes and Crime Rates by Type of Offense: 1960 to 2002.” U.S.

Census Bureau. (accessed July

Vicent, Sidney Z.

AREA.” In Remembering: Cleveland’s Jewish Voices, edited by Sally Wertheim & Alan Bennett, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2011 (citation taken from manuscript copy).

Weisbord, Robert G. and Stein, Arthur. “Negro Perceptions of Jews between the Word Wars (1969).” in Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, ed. Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.


Capeci, Dominic J. “Black-Jewish Relations in Wartime Detroit: The Marsh, Loving, Wolf Surveys and

the Race Riot of 1943 (1985).” In Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States, edited by Maurianne Adams and John H. Bracey, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Cohen, Lizabeth. Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Daniels, Roger. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Perennial, 2002.

Davis, Mike. Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the US Big City. Rev Exp. Verso, 2001.

Davis, Russell H. Black Americans in Cleveland. Washington D.C.: Associated Publishers, 1990.

Diner, Hasia R. In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915-1935. — Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977.

———. The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000. Jewish communities in the modern world 4. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.

Family and Housing Characteristics. Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Real Property Inventory.!23588~!0&profile=

Gartner, Lloyd P.
History of the Jews of Cleveland. 2nd ed. Cleveland: Western Reserve

Historical Society in cooperation with the Jewish Community Federation of

Cleveland, 1987.
Green, Howard Whipple.
Jewish Families in Greater Cleveland. Cleveland: Cleveland

Health Council, 1939.
Greenberg, Cheryl Lynn.
Troubling the Waters: Black-Jewish Relations in the American Century. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Hayden, Dolores.
Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. 1st

ed. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003.
Hazzard-Gordon, Katrina.
Jookin’: The Rise of Social Dance Formations in African-

American Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.
Hertzberg, Arthur.
The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter : a

History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
Horne, Gerald.
Fire This Time: The Watts Uprising and the 1960s. Carter G. Woodson

Institute series in Black studies. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia,

Hughes, Langston (Introduction by Joseph McLaren).
Autobiography: The Big Sea.

Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2002.
Jackson, John A..
Big Beat Heat: Alan Freed and the Early Years of Rock & Roll. New

York City: Schirmer Books, 1995.
Kaufman, Jonathan.
Broken Alliance: The Turbulent Times Between Blacks and Jews in

America. New York: Scribner, 1988.
Kusmer, Kenneth L.
A Ghetto Takes Shape: Black Cleveland, 1870-1930. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press, 1978.
Lee, Jennifer.
Civility in the City: Blacks, Jews, and Koreans in Urban America.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Leland, John.
Hip, the History. 1st ed. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005.
Levy, Donald and Cleveland State University.
A Report on the Location of Ethnic Groups

in Greater Cleveland. Cleveland, Ohio: Institute of Urban Studies, Cleveland

State University, 1972.
Lipman, Eugene J.
A Tale of Ten Cities; the Triple Ghetto in American Religious Life.

New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1962.

Louis H. Masotti and Jerome R. Corsi’s Shoot-Out in Cleveland: Black Militants and the Police. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

Melnick, Jeffrey Paul. A Right to Sing the Blues: African Americans, Jews, and American Popular Song. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Min, Pyong Gap. Caught in the Middle: Korean Merchants in America’s Multiethnic Cities. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Phillips, Kimberley L. AlabamaNorth: African-American Migrants, Community, and Working-Class Activism in Cleveland, 1915-1945. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999.

Real Property Inventory of Metropolitan Cleveland. Population, Family, and Housing Data by Blocks, Cuyahoga County. [Cleveland, 1941.!133793~!25&profil e=wrhsl.

Rubinstein, Judah. Merging Traditions: Jewish Life in Cleveland. Rev. ed. Kent, [Ohio]: Kent State University Press, 2004.

Rubinstein, Judah and Avner, Jane. Merging traditions: Jewish life in Cleveland. Kent: Kent State University Press, 2004.

Satter, Beryl. Family Properties: Race, Real Estate, and the Exploitation of Black Urban America. 1st ed. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2009.

Spangler, James R. Cleveland and Its Streetcars. Images of America. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2006.

Josh Sides, L.A. City Limits: African American Los Angeles from the Great Depression to the Present, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 18., Mark Wild, Street Meeting: Multiethnic Neighborhoods in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2005), 33.

Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks & Jews in the United States. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Sugrue, Thomas J. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton studies in American politics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Weinberg, Kenneth G. Black Victory: Carl Stokes and the Winning of Cleveland. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968.

Wexler, Jerry, and David Ritz. Rhythm and the Blues: A Life in American Music. St Martins Pr, 1994.

Wiese, Andrew. Places of Their Own: African American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2004.

Wild, Mark. Street Meeting: Multiethnic Neighborhoods in Early Twentieth-Century Los Angeles. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2005.

Winston McDowell. “Race and Ethnicity During the Harlem Jobs Campaign, 1932- 1935.” The Journal of Negro History 69, no. 3/4 (Summer – Autumn 1984): 134- 146.

Wirth, Louis. The Ghetto. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997.
World Community of al-Islam in the West.
The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and

Jews. Chicago, Ill: Nation of Islam, 1991.

Yellowbook. Cleveland: Greater Cuyahoga County Area. Yellow Book Sales Distribution Company, Inc., 2010. Zorach, William. Art Is My Life: The Autobiography of William Zorach. Cleveland: World Pub. Co, 1967.

Cleveland Call & Post Cleveland Gazette Cleveland Plain Dealer Cleveland Press Downbeat

The Voice of the League


Unpublished Papers and Dissertations

Kerr, Daniel R. “’The Reign of Wickedness’: The Changing Structures of Prostitution, Gambling and Political Protection in Cleveland from the Progressive Era to the Great Depression.” M.A. Thesis., Case Western Reserve University, 1998.

Lakritz, Marc E. “The Hough Riots of 1966.” Senior thesis, Princeton University, 1968. Michney, Todd Michael. “Changing Neighborhoods: Race and Upward Mobility in

Southeast Cleveland, 1930-1980.PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2004. Interviews

Bromley, Charles. Interview by author. Cleveland, OH, July 2009.
Drechsler, Howard. Interview by author. Beachwood, OH, August 2009. Eatman-Williams, Janice. Interview by author. Cleveland, OH, February 2010. Rogoff, Bill. Interview by author. Phone call, March 2010.
Taylor, W. Allen. Interview by author. Phone call, April 2009.
Taylor, W. Allen. Interview by author. Email, March 2010.

Other Primary Sources

Cleveland Directory Co. City Directories of the United States, 1902-1935 [microfilm] Cleveland, Ohio. Woodbridge, CT: Research Publications, 1983.

CNN. “President;; National Exit Poll.” CNN. (accessed

March, 2010).
Cuyahoga County Auditor Book. 103- Page 30-
31. Cuyahoga County Auditor’s Office.

Cleveland, OH.
Los Angeles Directory Co. (1931).
Los Angeles City Directory. Los Angeles: Los Angeles

Directory Co., 1931.
Los Angeles Directory Co. (1941). Los Angeles City Directory. Los Angeles: Los Angeles

Directory Co., 1942.
Cleveland Directory Co.
Cleveland City Directory. Cleveland City Directories. Cleveland

(Ohio): Cleveland Directory Co.

R.L. Polk and Company. Polk’s Detroit City Directory. 1941.

1930; Census Place: Cleveland, Cuyahoga, Ohio; Roll 1773; Page: 8A;

Enumeration District: 445; Image: 503.0. from 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line] (Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2002) (accessed July, 2010). 1910-1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Operations Inc, 2009. “Learn about the family history of your surname.” (accessed July 2010). Berger, Arnold. “Cleveland’s Synagogues.” Cleveland Jewish History. (accessed July, 2010). Boileau, Lowell. “The Lost Synagogues of Detroit.” The Lost Synagogues of Detroit. (accessed July, 2010).
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. “The Hill District.” Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. (accessed

July, 2010).
Cleveland Public Library. “Cleveland Necrology File.” Cleveland Public Library. (accessed July, 2010).
Google. “Google Maps.” Google. (accessed July, 2010). Jewish Virtual Library. “Detroit.” Jewish Virtual Library.

ml (accessed July, 2010).
Jewish Genealogy Society of Cleveland. “Cleveland Jewish Cemeteries.” Jewish

Genealogy Society of Cleveland.

list.htm (accessed July, 2010).
JewishGen ShtetLinks. “Pittsburgh,” JewishGen ShtetLinks. (accessed July,

LaChiusa, Chuck.
“JewishAmerican History in Buffalo,” The History of Buffalo, New

York. (accessed July, 2010). Mapquest. (accessed July, 2010).
Proquest. “Historical Newspapers.” Proquest.

PTAmVkVSPTI=&clientId=21282 (accessed July, 2010) Socialexplorer. “19402007 County and Census Tract.” Socialexplorer. (accessed July,

The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland.
“Estimating Cleveland’s Jewish

Population 1979 (1980).” Cleveland-1978-Estimating_Cleveland’s_Jewish_Population.pdf (accessed July, 2010).


Abba Hillel Silver


Abba Hillel Silver (1893-1963)

The pdf is here

Abba Hillel Silver by Rafael Medoff

“Silver, Abba Hillel (28 Jan. 1893-28 Nov. 1963), rabbi and Zionist leader, was born Abraham Silver in the Lithuanian village of Neustadt-Schirwindt, the son of Rabbi Moses Silver, a proprietor of a soap business, and Dina Seaman. The family immigrated to the United States in stages, settling on New York City’s Lower East Side in 1902, when Silver was nine years old. He attended public school in the mornings and Jewish religious seminaries in the afternoons yet still made time for his growing interest in the fledgling Zionist movement. He and his brother Maxwell founded the Dr. Herzl Zion Club, one of the first Zionist youth groups in America, in 1904. On Friday evenings, Silver attended the mesmerizing lectures of Zvi Hirsch Masliansky, the most influential Zionist preacher of that era. “I can still taste the sweet honey of his words,” Silver remarked many years later. Inspired by Masliansky, Silver soon developed a reputation of his own as an orator, equally eloquent in Yiddish, Hebrew, and English. He addressed the national Federation of American Zionists convention when he was just fourteen.

During his high school years, Silver excelled in secular studies and increasingly moved away from his Orthodox religious upbringing. Upon graduation, in 1911, he enrolled at the University of Cincinnati and the Hebrew Union College, the rabbinical seminary of Reform Judaism. He was not fazed by the Reform movement’s anti-Zionism; indeed, it may have whetted his appetite. He organized Zionist activity on campus, edited student publications, won prizes in public speaking contests, and graduated in 1915 as valedictorian of his class.

At his first pulpit, in Wheeling, West Virginia, Silver soon earned a local and regional reputation as an orator. He also earned the enmity of more than a few Wheeling residents by his involvement in controversial causes, especially his sponsorship of a lecture in 1917 by Senator Robert M. La Follette, who opposed U.S. entry into World War I. That summer, Silver was lured away from Wheeling to Cleveland, Ohio, to become the spiritual leader of the Temple (Tifereth Israel), one of the country’s most prominent Reform congregations. In Cleveland he continued to attract public attention, usually as an outspoken defender of labor unions, and frequently sparred with groups such as the Daughters of the American Revolution, which denounced him as a dangerous radical.

Still, it was the cause of Zionism that was closest to Silver’s heart, reinvigorated by a visit to British-administered Palestine in the summer of 1919. Soon he was speaking throughout the United States on behalf of the Zionist movement, attracting large audiences and rave reviews. “Many who heard him last night pronounced him as one of the greatest orators the

Jews possess,” a newspaper in Texas declared after one of Silver’s addresses. In 1923 he married Virginia Horkheimer; they had two sons. While two assistant rabbis handled the bulk of the Temple’s routine rabbinical duties, Silver rose to prominence on the national Jewish scene. As leader of Cleveland’s Zionists – who comprised one of the largest districts of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) – he spearheaded protests against British restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine and organized boycotts of products from Nazi Germany.

The escalating Nazi persecution of Jews, the apathetic response of the Roosevelt administration to news of Hitler’s atrocities, and England’s refusal to open Palestine to refugees from Hitler, stimulated a mood of growing militancy in the American Jewish community during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Silver both symbolized American Jewish militancy and helped encourage its spread. In August 1943, he was appointed co-chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), a coalition of the leading U.S. Zionist groups, alongside Rabbi Stephen Wise. Until then Wise had been widely regarded as the most powerful leader of the American Jewish community. Silver’s elevation to the co-chairmanship of AZEC launched a bitter political and personal rivalry between the two men that would endure for years.

While Wise, a loyal Democrat, was reluctant to criticize the Roosevelt administration’s hands-off attitude toward Palestine and European Jewry, Silver did not hesitate to speak his mind. Silver’s followers characterized the contrast between the two as “Aggressive Zionism” versus “the Politics of the Green Light [from the White House].” Within weeks of assuming the AZEC co-chairmanship, Silver spoiled Wise’s plan to downplay the Palestine issue at that year’s American Jewish Conference. Wise had hoped to mollify Washington and London, as well as Jewish critics of Zionism, by skirting the Jewish statehood issue, but Silver electrified the delegates with an unannounced address in which he vigorously demanded Jewish national independence. The “thunderous applause” that greeted his speech said as much about Silver’s new prominence as it did about the American Jewish mood.

Under Silver’s leadership, American Zionism assumed a vocal new role in Washington, D.C. Mobilized by AZEC, grassroots Zionists deluged Capitol Hill with calls and letters in early 1943 and late 1944, urging the passage of a congressional resolution declaring U.S. support for creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The opposition of the War and State Departments stalled the resolution in committee but did not deter Silver from campaigning in the summer of 1944 for the inclusion of pro-Zionist planks in the election platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties

that summer. Silver’s ability to maneuver the two parties into competition for Jewish electoral support was a testimony to his political sophistication even if, much to Wise’s chagrin, the Republican platform went beyond what AZEC requested by denouncing FDR for not challenging England’s pro-Arab tilt in Palestine.

While successfully usurping Wise’s leadership role in the Jewish community, Silver took care to guard his own right flank. He quietly hired several militant Revisionist Zionists to help shape AZEC policy and guide its public information campaigns. He also engineered a public reconciliation between the Revisionists’ U.S. wing and the mainstream Zionist movement.

During the postwar period, Silver and AZEC stepped up their pressure on the Truman administration with a fresh barrage of protest rallies, newspaper advertisements, and educational campaigns. Silver’s effort in early 1946 to link postwar U.S. loans to British policy in Palestine collapsed when Wise broke ranks to lobby against linkage. More successful were Silver’s behind-the-scenes efforts to mobilize non-Jewish Americans on behalf of the Zionist cause. AZEC sponsored the American Christian Palestine Committee, which activated grassroots Christian Zionists nationwide, and the Christian Council on Palestine, which spoke for nearly 3,000 pro-Zionist Christian clergymen.

Although the Truman administration wavered in its support for the 1947 United Nations plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, a torrent of protest activity spearheaded by Silver and AZEC helped convince the president to recognize the new State of Israel just minutes after its creation. Silver’s protests against the U.S. arms embargo on the Middle East, however, were consistently rebuffed by the administration.

In the aftermath of Israel’s birth, Silver pressed for a clear separation between the new state and the Zionist movement, insisting that Israel should not control the World Zionist Organization or other Diaspora agencies. The leaders of the ruling Israeli Labor party had always viewed Silver with some suspicion because he preferred the free market advocates of the General Zionist party to the socialists of Labor. His effort to break Israeli hegemony over the Diaspora enraged Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. The Labor leadership threw its support behind a faction of disgruntled ZOA members who resented Silver’s prominence, and together they forced Silver and his followers from power in 1949.

Silver resumed full-time rabbinical duties at the Temple, with only an occasional and brief foray into the political arena when he could utilize his Republican contacts to lobby on Israel’s behalf. He turned his attention to

religious scholarship, reading voraciously and authoring several well- received books on Judaism. He died suddenly at a family Thanksgiving celebration in Cleveland.

Silver’s reign marked a political coming of age for American Jewry. His lobbying victories infused the Jewish community with confidence and a sense that their agenda was a legitimate part of American political culture– no mean feat for a community comprised largely of immigrants and children of immigrants. The Silver years left their mark on the American political scene as well. After the inclusion of Palestine in the 1944 party platforms, Zionist concerns assumed a permanent place in American electoral politics. Additionally, the swift U.S. recognition of Israel in 1948, a decision made, in large measure, with an eye toward American Jewish opinion, was a first major step in cementing the America-Israel friendship that has endured ever since.”

Rafael Medoff

“Abba Hillel Silver” From the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

Abba Hillel Silver: A Personal Memoir by Rabbi Leon I Feuer

The Jewish State in Abba Hillel Silver’s Overall World View by Zohar Segev

The American Herzl? from the Jerusalem Post 11/30/2010

Abba Hillel Silver’s Rise to Zionist Leadership by Dr. Rafael Medoff

Abba Hillel Silver Obituary (NY Times 11/29/1963 from Cleveland Jewish

Video of Abba Hillel Silver’s Speech to the United Nations May 8, 1947 (starts at approximately 2:30)

Abba Hillel Silver website by Dr. Arnold Berger




60 Years Ago This Week: Abba Hillel Silver’s Rise to Zionist Leadership by Dr. Rafael Medoff (2003)

60 Years Ago This Week: Abba Hillel Silver’s 

Rise to Zionist Leadership

by Dr. Rafael Medoff 

Sixty years ago this week, Jewish leaders gathered in New York City for a conference that was supposed to be a display of unity–but instead turned into the scene of a bitter struggle that helped catapult Cleveland’s Abba Hillel Silver to national leadership and revolutionized the American Jewish community.

Leaders of B’nai B’rith, the American Jewish Congress, and other groups organized the conference in pursuit of an old but elusive Jewish goal: to overcome political and religious differences and reach a consensus on issues of Jewish concern. The effort was given added urgency by the ongoing Nazi slaughter of European Jewry and Britain’s shutdown of Palestine to Jewish refugees.

American Jews were divided over how to respond to the Holocaust and the Palestine problem. Some wanted an activist approach, but the most prominent Jewish leader, Rabbi Stephen Wise, urged caution. An ardent supporter of President Roosevelt, Wise opposed any Jewish criticism of FDR’s refusal to rescue Europe’s Jews.

The rescue issue was not even included on the conference’s original agenda. A handful of students from the Jewish Theological Seminary stood outside the hotel on the first day of the conference and handed the delegates a leaflet pleading with them to make rescue a priority. In response to criticism from grassroots activists and the Jewish press, a committee on rescue was indeed added at the last moment. But it was the issue of Zionism that would dominate the proceedings.

World Zionist Organization president Chaim Weizmann, although sympathetic to Wise’s outlook, feared that Wise’s low-key approach was gutting American Zionism, leaving it dispirited and apathetic. To energize the movement, Weizmann, in early 1943, turned to the dynamic Abba Hillel Silver, spiritual leader of Cleveland’s The Temple. He asked Silver to join Wise as co-chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, the umbrella group for all major U.S. Zionist organizations.

The Wise-Silver power-sharing agreement was finalized in August, just before the American Jewish Conference opened. It seemed fitting that the conference, with its theme of unity, would be the first event featuring appearances by the unlikely new team of Wise, the fervent Democrat who favored ‘the politics of caution’, and Silver, the outstpoken activist who was close to the Republicans.

It seemed unity was finally at hand. But trouble was brewing.

The State Department had been quietly urging FDR to issue a statement demanding that all Jewish “agitation” for a Palestine homeland be suspended until the end of the war. State argued that Zionist activity undermined the war effort by irritating the Arabs and thereby endangering the Allies’ position in the Mideast.

When word of the proposal leaked out and Wise and other Jewish leaders protested, State Department officials threatened that the statement would be issued unless Wise prevented the American Jewish Conference from speaking out on Palestine.

Wise, intimidated by the State Department and hoping to keep the anti-Zionist American Jewish Committee from quitting the conference, omitted Jewish statehood from his keynote address. To keep Dr. Silver from leading a rebellion, the conference schedule was arranged so there would be no time for Silver to speak.

But it was the delegates from Wise’s own American Jewish Congress who led the revolt. Feeling betrayed by Wise’s backtracking on Palestine, they maneuvered to give Silver the time slot that they had been alloted to their own delegation’s spokesman.

This was Silver’s moment. He rose to the podium and delivered a rip-roaring appeal for Jewish statehood, which “swept the conference like a hurricane,” as one delegate put it. “There was repeated and stormy applause, the delegates rising to their feet in a remarkable ovation,” followed by the repeated singing of Hatikvah, the Zionist anthem.

The “electric excitement” generated by Silver’s speech forced the statehood resolution to a vote. Wise was helpless to stop it–as his close ally Nahum Goldmann put it, “we would be torn limb from limb if were now to defer action on the Palestine resolution.” It passed by 498 to 4–an overwhelming vote of American Jewish support for Silver’s line and, in effect, a repudiation of Wise.

(The repercussions from the State Department that Wise feared, never materialized. The proposed ban on Zionist “agitation” in America was shelved by FDR, who decided that such a gag order would be too controversial.)

Silver quickly transformed American Zionism into a vigorous activist movement. He mobilized both grassroots Jews and pro-Zionist Christians to demonstrate, write, and pressure Congress and the White House to support Jewish statehood–the beginnings of the Jewish-Christian alliance that continues to this day. Silver convinced the Republican Party to include a pro-Palestine plank in its 1944 platform, which forced the Democrats to do likewise–a precedent that assured Zionist concerns a permanent place in American electoral politics. And Silver’s nationwide protest campaign in1948 helped secure swift U.S. recognition of the new State of Israel–the first step in cementing the America-Israel friendship that has endured ever since.

The dramatic leadership change that took place at the American Jewish Conference in August 1943 would, within the space of just five years, changed American Jewry, and American politics, forever.

From Google

(August 2003)


Cleveland: City Without Jews by Sidney Vincent (1962)

Courtesy of The link is here

Written in 1962 by Sidney Vincent, then leader of the Cleveland Jewish Federation

The article pdf is here

CLEVELAND City without Jews By Sidney Vincent (1962) 


That boast is by all odds the best-known “commercial” in the Cleveland area. For years industry and newspapers have made it the central theme for promoting Ohio’s metropolis. And though the slogan was designed to highlight the geographic and industrial advantages of Cleveland’s central location, workers in the field of human relations have tended to adopt it as their own. 

With justifiable pride (as many Clevelanders believe) or with unjustified smugness (as others are quick to point out), the claim is often made that Cleveland is the best location in the nation in terms of good community relationships. 

Some fairly impressive evidence can be mustered to support the contention. Cleveland has perhaps the richest variety of ethnic and cultural groups of any city in the country. Here is America’s largest settlement of Slovenians, and one of the leading centers of Hungarian life; Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Germans, Irish, Rumanians, and Italians have all been attracted to Cleveland in large numbers by the city’s heavy industries but no one ethnic group predominates. Four consecutive mayors in recent years were of British, Slovenian, Irish, and Italian backgrounds. 

The city’s white population is almost equally divided between Catholics and Protestants (about a third of a million each), and the Negro population of 250,000 is among the highest of northern cities in percentage terms. The Jewish community of 85,000 (in the county) is probably the sixth largest in the country. 

Not a single major outbreak of religious or racial violence has resulted from this colorful mingling. Cleveland has had no race riots or cemetery desecrations. Schoolboy fights along religious or racial lines and “swastika incidents” have been rare enough so that they shock the community conscience. There has been little hostility or even ill- tempered joining of issues in the local religious press. 

Cleveland was the third city in the nation to pass a municipal FEPC; it has been cited frequently by various national organizations for its outstanding record in human relations; it has elected three Negroes to judicial posts; it accepted matter-of-factly the selection of a Jew as chairman of the board of lay advisers (Board of Trustees) of the local Catholic university. It is probably the only city in the country with a Negro as the (elected) president of the Board of Education and a Jew as superintendent of schools. Visitors to the city are often taken on a tour of the Cultural Gardens, where twenty-seven nationality and religious groups have developed attractive centers of ethnic culture, honoring the contributions of poets, statesmen, and scientists to their own culture and to mankind. All military figures are strictly excluded.

But slogans are not reality, and a visitor who decides to study Cleveland in depth, rather than being contented with a surface (though undoubtedly significant) show of amity, will have no difficulty in discovering that the picture is not all rosy. The most casual observation will, for example, reveal a strong tendency toward self- segregation by most of these ethnic groups. 

The Jewish community is merely the most classic example of an almost universal tendency. Since the turn of the century, five neighborhoods have been centers of Jewish settlement each progressively further east from the center of the city. (The western half of the city has never had more than 500 Jewish families.) When these neighborhoods have been left, they have been totally abandoned, to the point where today, perhaps uniquely among American cities, Cleveland proper is almost literally a city without Jews. (At a recent Jewish affair a candidate for state office remarked not-so-facetiously to the mayor of Cleveland, “What in hell are you doing here?”} Over 90 per cent of the Jews of Cuyahoga County, in which Cleveland is located, live in the suburbs and only two of the twenty-five synagogues are still in the city itself. Of the estimated 1000 Jewish graduates of public high schools of the county in June, 1961, a maximum of half a dozen received diplomas from Cleveland’s schools and the number will soon disappear almost entirely. Only some 250 of the 140,000 children attending Cleveland’s public schools are Jewish. All but three of the Jewish service agencies are located in the suburbs.

Moreover, the concentration within certain specific suburbs is remarkably high, even though housing restrictions against Jews have all but disappeared everywhere. The Jewish density in a few middle and upper middle class suburbs is probably just as high as it was fifty years ago in the downtown, rundown districts, when the Jewish community was overwhelmingly immigrant and first generation and had yet to be “accommodated” to the general culture. One suburban street, surrounded by homes that are quite new, is irreverently known as the “Rue de la Pay-ess”* because it contains so many Jewish institutions, particularly Orthodox ones. Economic status has little effect on the tendency to cluster; those who purchase homes in the $50,000 class tend to concentrate in Jewish neighborhoods about as much as those on the $20,000 level. And a 1961 Yom Kippur census indicates that the concentration continues within the suburbs. Two older suburbs are well on the way to losing their Jewish population completely; another is becoming almost completely Jewish.

Although the “mother city” has completely disappeared, the line of Jewish settlement runs in an unbroken rough crescent, swinging north and then east through eight contiguous suburbs. One of the suburbs is primarily the home of newly-married or relatively young couples and another tends to have somewhat more status than the rest, but the similarities among the suburbs are far greater than their differences. Jews continue to think of themselves as a single community rather than as a series of separate neighborhoods. Attempts by national agencies to organize along distinctive suburban lines are frequently resisted. 

The Roman Catholic community has had a somewhat similar history since the end of the Second World War. 

* Payyos are the ritual earlocks worn by some groups of Orthodox Jews. 

The population of the local diocese has grown in unprecedented fashion, but the number of Catholics in the city proper is about the same as it was in 1945 a third of a million. All the rapid growth has been suburban, with the result that less than half of the diocesan population now lives in Cleveland proper, whereas only thirteen years ago more than two out of three Catholics lived in the city. And the outward movement of Catholics is far from complete. “The Catholic diocese is not following the shift to the suburbs,” its paper points out. “It is ahead of it. It owns twenty-five properties in rural areas for future expansion.” It is worth noting, however, that though the Catholic growth has been all suburban, Catholics have, unlike the Jews, held their own in the city.

The astonishing recent growth of parochial schools almost all of them suburban is another harbinger of things to come. The post-war years have been a period of swift increase in the child population, and it it therefore not surprising that the parochial schools have increased in numbers.

But the increase has been vastly greater than the normal growth expected for the period. The percentage of Roman Catholic children in the diocese who attend Catholic schools has risen from 50 per cent to 67 per cent, so that the diocesan school system now numbers over 125,000, making it the largest school system in the state except for the Cleveland public schools. The goal of “every Catholic child in a Catholic school” may be soon substantially within reach, thus contributing to the growing tendency of public schools to be one-group, racially and religiously.

The birth rate for Catholics in the diocese is thirty-three for each 1,000 people, as contrasted with twenty-four for non-Catholics, and it is therefore probable that the future will bring an even heavier Catholic concentration in the county than the present 34 per cent. 

Easily lost sight of in the wide attention given to these highly visible Jewish and Roman Catholic migrations outward is the fact that the first group to move to the suburbs was the old line, long-established Protestant. Almost without exception, every suburb was developed and settled by Protestants, and the problems of suburban accommodation (to be spelled out in some detail later) are to a major degree the result of the impact of Catholic and Jewish (and just now beginning, Negro) out-migration upon conservative, middle-class, long- established Protestant communities.

Who then is left in the central city? The fact is that in the past twenty years, during a time of dynamic population growth, the central city has actually decreased in numbers. All the dramatic increase of population has been suburban. As a matter of fact, the white population of the city has in the past ten years dropped dramatically despite the recent markedly increased birth rate, the significant immigration of southern whites to help man Cleveland’s heavy industry, and the fairly substantial migration from overseas following World War 2, all tending to increase the white population of the city. The places of the whites have been taken by the Negro community which has grown during this period from approximately 85,000 to close to 250,000.

In summary, then, as contrasted with 1940, the central city has far more Negroes; it is almost completely emptied of Jews, and its white population is somewhat more Catholic since the out-migration of Protestants to the suburbs has been at an even more rapid rate than has been the case among Catholics.

One obvious result of these changes can be seen in the political life of the city. Negro political awareness has grown markedly, with the Negro newspapers on almost a weekly basis stressing the need to elect Negro candidates. (As one editorial pointed out: “Particularly if they are well qualified.”) The major concrete result of this militancy has been the steady increase of Negro councilmen in the central city to the point where there were, in 1961, eight Negroes (out of thirty- three) as contrasted with two at the end of the war. In each case but one, the addition of a Negro to council has been at the expense of a Jewish representative, and at a recent election the last remaining Jewish Cleveland councilman was defeated, thus ending an era when Jews played an outstanding role in Cleveland’s political life.

Somewhat the same process can be seen in the (elected) Board of Education where the single remaining Jewish representative has served for almost three decades and will undoubtedly be the last Jewish member to serve on that important public body. When the Board of Education considers released time proposals or the city council considers legislation enforcing Good Friday closings, it makes a difference that not a single Jew is involved in the debate and even more important that the Jewish constituency has been completely eliminated. And policies arrived at in the central city often have a powerful effect on suburban schools and councils. 

Religiously speaking, the decisive influence in Cleveland’s political life in recent years has been Roman Catholic. For more than two decades, Cleveland has had only Catholic mayors and it seems unlikely that the foreseeable future will change this pattern. Religion has in practice if not in theory become a test for high office in the city. During the same period of time there has never been more than a handful of white Protestants among the city’s thirty-three councilmen, and city council at present is almost exclusively either Catholic or Negro. 

The dominance by Roman Catholics of the Democratic party machinery has its effect on certain county elections as well. The delegation to the State Legislature from Cuyahoga County is for all practical purposes chosen at the Democratic party primaries from a long list of names, often over 100 in number, largely of political unknowns. Party endorsement and a “good” name therefore become crucial, and the result has been that the delegation has been almost solidly Catholic. In 1961, for example, not a single Negro or Jew held any of the twenty- three places, and white Protestant representation was limited to one. 

However, county elections involving national office, where candidates are far better known, present a significantly different picture. Cuyahoga County’s four Congressmen in 1959 included two Republicans both Protestant and both from the suburbs and two Democrats both from the city proper and both Catholic. This would seem to reflect rather accurately how the population movements of recent years have affected political patterns in the city and the county. Cleveland is overwhelmingly Democratic and elects Catholics. The county outside the city is (though far less decisively) Republican and elects Protestants. 

Religion had a strong effect upon the 1960 election in Ohio. Many observers attributed Senator Kennedy’s loss of Ohio to the “Catholic issue.” In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) itself, the Democratic standard-bearer ran up a majority of 150,000 but this was 75,000 below expectations. A precinct breakdown suggests that Kennedy scored strongly among Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Negro voters; and Nixon was overwhelmingly ahead in Protestant areas. Despite the stratification of voting along faith lines, religious tension was not markedly overt in the campaign, perhaps because evangelical Protestantism is weak in Cleveland. Considerable anti-Catholic literature poured in from out-of-town but no organized campaign of bigotry developed in Cleveland. 

The Catholic archdiocesan newspaper reported, more in sorrow than in anger, the incidents of anti-Catholicism in other parts of the country. At no time was Kennedy endorsed. Even after his victory, Roman Catholic leaders permitted no gloating to disturb the serious dignity with which they met the test of the strange and historic campaign of 1960. 

The intense concentration of Jews in certain of the suburbs has led only slowly to the assumption of political responsibility. Although Jews constitute 70 per cent of the population in one of the eight suburbs in which most of them live, and form more than a majority in two others, there has never been a Jewish mayor in any community. With two exceptions, there is no more than a single Jew on any Board of Education. In the suburb where Jews have lived for the longest period of time since before the First World War there has never been a Jewish councilman who came to office originally through election. Both present representatives on city council, as well as their few predecessors, were appointed to fill vacancies by the administration in power and have subsequently been elected as “members of the team.” 

The only real breakthrough has been in the past two years when the suburb with the highest Jewish density finally elected Jews to the majority of councilmanic posts. It may be significant that this community, as will be indicated below, subsequently almost split into two sections, with the non-Jewish section seeking through a long process to secede from the northern “Jewish” section.

In general, the “old settlers” retain a firm grip on the administration of suburban communities, and the incoming Jewish group makes inroads, if at all, slowly and fearfully, with a constant desire to include non- Jewish candidates on any slate that appears to be too strongly Jewish. The point of view of the newcomers (mostly Jewish) tends to be liberal and Democratic; the original group (mostly Protestant) tends to be conservative and Republican. No wonder tensions develop! The best symbol of the determination of the entrenched group to hold on to the machinery of power is to be found in the various appointive bodies which often remain almost completely Christian even in communities that are overwhelmingly Jewish. Not a single Jew serves on the Zoning Commission and only two of seven on the Library Board both appointive of the suburbs with the largest Jewish population, although, particularly in the former case, they make decisions which vitally affect Jewish institutions.

On the other hand, it is common to find Jews leaning over backward not to assume positions of responsibility too hastily. P.T.A. officers, for example, tend to remain overwhelmingly or predominantly Christian long after the school population has become mostly Jewish. In two instances, an unwritten rule is observed: one year a Christian president, the next year a Jewish one and all without public discussion. It is simply understood that such topics are for the closed conference of top leadership, not the public platform of general debate. 

The few suburbs that have, even more recently, become predominantly Catholic, reflect no comparable reluctance to assume power. Roman Catholic mayors and councilmen are frequent in these circumstances. 

Ethnic patterns often reinforce religious segregation. A recent survey of mailing addresses of local foreign language newspapers revealed that the movement out from the original nationality islands has not gone haphazardly into the suburbs. Particular ethnic groups almost all Roman Catholic move to specific new settlements. In Cleveland, if you name your ethnic background, it is not difficult to venture a well educated guess about where you live and into which suburb you are likely to move. But unlike Jews, the nationality groups do not totally abandon the old neighborhoods. Usually, they spread outward from a home base that remains identifiably and substantially Hungarian or Polish or whatever; the Jewish withdrawal is total and rapid. A Jewish leader recently took his children to see the house he lived in until the late thirties in what was then an overwhelmingly Jewish neighborhood. There was not a single Jewish family left on the entire street. Italian or Slovenian parents who have moved out of the old neighborhoods have no need to take their children on nostalgic tours of the past. In most cases, grandparents or an uncle or cousins newly arrived from the old country still live in the original family home.

Even within suburbs with strong Jewish or Catholic components, there is nearly always a clustering in certain areas rather than a general dispersal into the new neighborhood. A recent Yom Kippur survey of one of the suburbs, for example, revealed that of its ten elementary schools, four had Jewish populations well in excess of 90 per cent while two had virtually no Jewish students. Real estate agents accept as a perfectly normal part of their daily operations that Catholics will want to settle only near new suburban parochial schools, Jews around the many new institutions they have built, and Protestants in “their” neighborhoods. 

Certainly, the pattern of housing and voting, both in the suburbs and in the central city, makes any claim that Cleveland has solved its interreligious problems seem shallow and incomplete. Conflict is rare, but so is integration, no matter how one interprets that all-inclusive term. 


Increasingly, a kind of high-level irritation with problems of Negro- white relationships breaks through the overlay of good feeling. The dramatic migration from the South in recent years of rural Negroes (and whites) unprepared for city living has resulted in a growing number of crimes of violence. One paper, reviewing 1958, reported that 55 per cent of all convictions for crimes in the Common Pleas courts of the county involved Negroes. 

Much lively discussion has resulted on the question of group responsibility. Who should “educate” the newcomers? Does the Negro community as a whole have any responsibility for colored malefactors? Negro leadership rejects any such idea. It stresses that both Negro and white newcomers to the city are victims of inadequate housing and schooling and services. The problem is one for the total community, they claim.

Liberal white leadership agrees, but a sensational murder or rape by a Negro inevitably raises anew the question in the press, on the air, or in private conversation: “Why don’t they (Negro leaders) do something about conditions?” 

Negro irritability and militancy also seem to be growing. A recent widely-heralded, privately-financed urban renewal project turned sour when the rents $105 a month proved too high, A “rent strike” flared up and the neighborhood was rocked by demonstrations. A reporter who interviewed the tenants found massive resentment of white owners, despite an inability to point out a single specific ground for complaint. Significantly the most bitter charge was: “They treat us like boys. We want to be treated like men.” 

Negro-Jewish relationships are particularly complicated. Every morning at the bus stops in the central city, there are knots of Negro women waiting for buses to transport them from their ghettos to suburban homes often Jewish where they spend the day making white homes clean and comfortable. At the same hour, dozens of Jewish businessmen will be passing them going the other way from the suburbs to all sorts of business establishments in the city that serve the Negro trade. A substantial share of housing in the Negro area with all the attendant irritations is owned by Jews, partly because the neighborhoods are largely formerly Jewish. 

Mistress and servant storekeeper and client landlord and tenant. Some of these relationships can be and are warm and creative. But the tendency is the other way. There are no peer relationships, few opportunities for meeting as equal to equal. 

The picture is radically different, however, on the leadership level. The NAACP and the Urban League have always worked in close association with various Jewish agencies, in addition to the fact that a substan- tial number of Jews belong to both. There are few community relations questions where the leaders of the two minorities do not work together with considerable harmony and mutual respect. But this holds true only on the leadership level. Three new Negro organizations have come into being in the past two years sharply challenging the NAACP, Urban League, and the churches for being too “soft.” There is every reason to believe these groups will grow in influence, with an inevitable unsettling of Negro-white relationships.

In addition, a few Negro professionals and businessmen have succeeded in making the leap into the suburbs. In almost every case, it has been a leap into a Jewish neighborhood. One Negro social worker put it, “I wouldn’t think of moving anywhere except into a Jewish suburb. It’s the only place I’d feel safe.” Despite the official positions adopted by Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, and although fear and prejudice against the Negro is a Jewish as well as a Christian phenomenon, the Negro feels he has a far better prospect of acceptance in a Jewish neighborhood than anywhere else. 

So the Negro-Jewish pattern is a strange mixture. Negro anti-Semitism co-exists with feelings of warmth toward Jews. The immediate symbol of the white hostile world too often happens to be a Jewish merchant or landlord, but at the same time, the opener of closed doors in employment or housing is also likely to be Jewish. 

At least equally complicated is the feeling of Jews towards Negroes, compounded as it is of active support and understanding of a fellow minority, and uneasiness at the constant pressures on each successive neighborhood to which Jews move. The entire relationship presents a tremendous challenge to sober and objective social, economic, and psychological study. 

What of religious relationships? 

On the formal level a rather good report could be made despite such irritations as the exclusion of Jews from the higher Masonic degrees and a few other status organizations. The annual drives of the Catholic Charities, Jewish Welfare Fund, or the YMCA’s attract contributions from individuals of all groups. Bequests are frequently reported designating as beneficiaries the charitable institutions of all three faiths. 

There are projects on which the three religious communities or more precisely, their leadership work closely together. The Cleveland Committee on Immigration, for example, is primarily composed of representatives, official and semi-official, of the three religious faiths. 

All three faiths are on record as being profoundly concerned with problems of housing for minorities (euphemism, for the most part, for Negroes). The Auxiliary Bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese and a Presbyterian minister have won civic awards and many kudos for their joint efforts in rehabilitating parts of the community. This Catholic- Protestant partnership has been highlighted regularly in news items; it is a rare enough occurrence to warrant feature treatment. Two tense neighborhood situations that developed because of the first purchase of a home by a Negro in a hitherto all-white neighborhood resulted in all three religious groups working actively to secure acceptance of the new neighbors by their constituents.

Hearings on civil rights proposals nearly always feature a Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish spokesman, and some kind of secular instrument is usually formed for interreligious consultation. It is significant that such secular instrumentalities are necessary for this purpose.

These kinds of cooperation, however, are a long way from creating strong and permanent bonds of association. Particularly in the case of the Roman Catholic community, activities are likely to be on a “separate but equal” basis. In each of the housing situations described above, there was no joint statement or shared program of attack on the problem as between the Catholic and the other two religious groups. Contact with the parish priest resulted in his undertaking to interview certain key parishioners and to speak on the problem at Sunday services. Attempts by the other two groups to involve Catholic leadership in an ongoing program of interpretation and consultation were fruitless.

Similarly, although the vast majority of refugees from abroad have been Roman Catholic, there has been a strong tendency by Catholics to view modification of the McCarran-Walter Act as a “Jewish” interest primarily. When Jewish representatives on the city’s Immigration Committee decided not to continue in the role of prime leadership, there was no assumption of responsibility by the Catholic groups. This was evidently not an issue that “counted.” Despite strong official backing by the Roman Catholic bishops of the state for FEPC, almost all the planning and activity for city and state campaigns for legislation (and proper enforcement after a bin was passed in 1959) was the result of the cooperation of Protestant and Jewish organizations with interested secular groups. Almost never has there been more Catholic involvement than the appearance of a spokesman at a hearing. Representation from Protestant churches and from synagogues and other Jewish organizations has not been paralleled by comparable support from Catholics. They are rarely “on the team.” Even a television program on “The Moral Viewpoint” could be initiated only with the understanding that Catholics would have their exclusive hour every third week with the rabbis and ministers joining to produce together the other two programs.

Deeper than the contacts in the area of community relations are the relationships that have developed in the health and welfare field. Cleveland has a reputation for being a highly-organized (or overorganized) community. Certainly, the innumerable committees of the Community Chest and the Welfare Federation of Cleveland with its six councils (for hospitals, children’s services, group work services, case work services, problems of the aged, and area councils) provide almost daily opportunities for staffs and lay leadership of various agencies, religious and non-sectarian, to work together on problems of services and finances in which they are all mutually involved. 

The links between the Welfare Federation and the Jewish Federation are particularly close. The same building houses both agencies; the staffs hold joint meetings on regular occasion; Jewish health and welfare agencies place a high priority on work in their respective welfare federation councils. The immediate past president of the Community Fund was simultaneously a vice-president of the Jewish Community Federation. 

The Area Council movement has its origin in Cleveland and is probably more fully developed there than anywhere else in the country. It seeks through its seventeen councils to bring together organizations and individuals in a given neighborhood to work on problems of immediate local significance traffic control, liquor control, zoning, lighting and policing, juvenile delinquency, and general neighborhood improvement. Churches and synagogues are basic members of these organizations and important interreligious cooperation has at times developed out of the shared absorption in common problems. Three councils have given considerable importance to intergroup relations problems, and colorful intercultural programs have been held, featuring the cultural diversities in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, area councils have had the least success in the sophisticated suburbs, and since the Jewish community has largely withdrawn from the central city, there is a decreasing impact of Jewish organizations and individuals on this important grass roots development.

Other formal interreligious contacts are moderately frequent. In addition to the program of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, which is of course based on equal formal representation from the three faiths, exchanges of pulpits between rabbis and Protestant ministers occasionally take place and neighborhood interreligious Thanksgiving celebrations have become more common. The annual Institute on Judaism sponsored by a local congregation results in a fine attendance of Protestant ministers. The Catholic university has in recent years become more of a center for consideration of intergroup relations problems.

There is considerable question, however, as to the depth of many of these contacts. The Ministerial Alliance is exclusively Protestant and there is no medium of any kind for regular exchange of views by the clergy. Indeed, except for the leading figures, rabbis and ministers scarcely know one another. On the lay level, however, the staffs of the Church Federation, the over-all Protestant group, and the Jewish Community Federation consult frequently and are part of an over-all clearing house in intergroup relations that meets monthly and involves all agencies in the community except the Roman Catholic ones. The women’s organizations have a forum involving official representation from all three groups, but they are constantly bedeviled in program planning by the problem of addressing themselves to questions that are within the scope of all. A recent institute on housing, originally sponsored jointly by the Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic women’s organizations, led to the somewhat embarrassed withdrawal of the last group on instructions of church officials who felt that matters of faith might somehow be injected into the programs. A subsequent program on religious music of the various faiths was “unsponsored” by the Orthodox Jewish women as well as by the Catholic group. 

Vital interreligious relations seem to result least out of directly religious concerns. They would seem to grow if at all from sweating out the numerous problems of daily living housing, education, employment. 

What are the formal issues that divide the community religiously? A reading of the religious press would indicate that they are chiefly Sunday closings, the campaign against “indecent” literature and films, and problems of separation of church and state. The most space given to any single local issue during the past two years in the local diocesan paper is the need for some control of the mass media. “Art theaters and condemned movies are spreading like crabgrass in Cleveland,” pronounced the Roman Catholic bishop recently, and it is certainly true that, in an industry which has been generally de- pressed, the art theaters have shown remarkable vitality. 

In the summer of 1958 a parish priest in a Catholic neighborhood announced to the general press that he had “lost all patience” with attempts to persuade the owner of an art theater in a Catholic neighborhood to modify his booking policy, and he was therefore instructing his parishioners that they must refuse to attend all movies at the theater until the owner agreed to conform more closely to Roman Catholic standards of decency. Ironically, the week he issued the statement the theater was playing Peter Pan. The boycott announcement led to a lively debate in the general press, but there is no indication that such official pronouncements have had much effect one way or another on the attendance at the offending theater. Although the organized Jewish community has refrained from adopting any position on the boycott issue, there can be no doubt that the fact that almost all the theater owners in question are Jewish injects a religious irritation into the situation.

Ohio was one of the last states to be forced by court decisions to abandon pre-censorship of films. The Roman Catholic diocesan papers of the state have for the past four years led vigorous campaigns in the Legislature to recreate an Ohio Film Censorship Board. Although token support has been given by the Protestant church women, no position of any kind has been adopted by the Jewish group, with the result that the campaign remains almost exclusively Roman Catholic. 

Recently, attention shifted to attempts to police literature in drug stores and similar establishments. A Committee for Decent Literature was established on both the local and state level and considerable prominence in the Catholic press is given to any Protestant or Jew who joins the movement or publicly stresses the need to combat “smut and obscenity.” Considerable impatience is displayed with the American Civil Liberties Union or any other organization that raises questions as to the wisdom of censorship or the means by which it can properly be exerted. In general, civil liberties as contrasted with civil rights get little or negative attention in official Roman Catholic organs. 

The leadership of campaigns to enforce Sunday closings has primarily been Protestant, with active support from the Catholic community. Unlike New York and many other states, Ohio enjoys full Sabbatarian rights and Jewish store owners in communities that enforce the state’s blue laws are given the option (which sometimes is an advantage) of closing Saturday or Sunday. Partly for this reason and partly because of the sensitivity of the issue, the Jewish leaders of the state, in- cluding Cleveland, have chosen not to participate in the campaigns for (or against) enforced Sabbath closings of business, although in principle their position is opposed to that of Catholics and Protestants. On these two issues censorship and Sunday closings Jews officially tend to be on the sidelines about as completely as the Catholics are when civil rights are involved, with this difference: Jewish leaders feel strongly they should be in the battle opposing censorship and Sunday closings, but are often not prepared to pay the price of opposition. Catholics feel mildly they should be in the battle for civil rights but usually are not sufficiently interested to enlist with enthusiasm in the various campaigns.

The real drive behind recent activities aimed at enforcing the state law on Sunday closings that has for years been unobserved is, however, economic rather than religious. More and more places of business, particularly in the suburban areas, have opened on Sunday and have begun to cut seriously into the business of the large downtown stores. In retaliation, an organization has been formed called “Sunday, Inc.,” which is an unusual combination of business and religious leadership. Its president has stated, “We have not approached this problem on religious lines. We have as our common bond a desire to keep merchants from doing unnecessary business on Sunday. The laws are on the books.” But the same article announces the officers of the organization: a number of key businessmen, the executive director of the Cleveland Church Federation “representing Protestants,” a leading Catholic official “representing Catholics,” and a Jewish businessman “representing Jews.” Here again almost all of the “offending” merchants are Jewish. Religious tension sometimes results, but as in the case of the art theaters, there would seem to be relatively little mass support by their constituencies of the official stands taken by the authoritative Christian groups, if one is to judge from the volume of Sunday sales in many neighborhoods that are certainly not Jewish. 


Problems of church-state relationships occur most frequently in the public schools. This is an issue that strikes home. Every Christmas season the irritations break out with renewed vigor in Jewish neighborhoods. 

On the one hand there is the organized Jewish community, committed to the separation of church and state, determined to resist tactfully butfirmly the annual Christological invasion of the schools. On the other hand, there are the Christian parents, some seeking to “put Christ back into Christmas,” others outraged that there should be resistance to “the perfectly beautiful celebration our children always enjoyed so much until. . . .” Still others warn of the terrible and certain dangers of juvenile delinquency and even Communism “if religion is banished from the classroom.”

Some liberal Christians are firm separationists and others plead the case for using the season for joint understanding. To complicate matters further, there are many Jewish parents who cheer every introduction of Chanuko despite the stern warnings of Jewish leaders. In a mixed suburban school, a teacher’s lot is not a happy one in December; many dread facing the annual problem of just what they are supposed to do anyway. In one overwhelmingly Jewish school, a parent violently objected to her son’s bringing home a red-striped candy cane because it was a religious symbol while another parent gathered money to buy the school an electric menorah! 

Separation in general seems to be a fluid concept capable of a variety of meanings sometimes strangely contradictory. At a conference in the Church Federation office, a brochure was prominently displayed stressing the need to preserve separation of church and state by actively campaigning against an ambassador to the Vatican. The conference itself was devoted to the desire of the Church Federation office to conduct a religious census of school children under public school auspices. In one case separation was proper and “good”; in the other it was irrelevant and “bad.” 

A Roman Catholic official vigorously denounced separation as a “shibboleth” when Christian celebrations in the public schools were being opposed on that basis; but when a Methodist minister told Protestant students at a high school that they had no obligation to keep a promise to raise children as Catholic if they intermarried, he commented, “Considering separation of church and state, is it proper for a minister to go into a public school even to conduct a counseling course?” The YMCA holds a position of official status in many public high schools, and at least one priest has forbidden his parishioners to join the Y, since it is a means of spreading the Protestant position.

Jewish community organizations, unlike some Jewish parents, have consistently adhered to a strict separationist policy. As a result, school superintendents in the suburbs with significant Jewish enrollments have, ia recent years, become sensitive to problems of Bible reading, prayers, grace before meals, and scheduling of school events on religious holidays. The rapid turnover of faculty in the elementary schools, and the need during the desperate shortage to import teachers from small communities where religion is accepted as an unquestioned part of the curriculum have, however, led to repeated classroom intrusions of religion despite official attitudes of the administration. One superintendent raised the interesting question as to whether the school calendar, which is obviously designed to accommodate Christian holidays, ought not to be revised to avoid conflict with Jewish observances since the community has become primarily Jewish. Although Jewish parents and the community insist upon the right of children to observe religious holidays, they avoid carefully any suggestion of tailoring school calendars or procedures along “Jewish” lines.

All these issues, however, paled in 1961 in compareson to the struggle over federal aid to parochial schools. Here is a real “bread and butter” issue that the local Catholic diocese has begun to feature far more than any other. The Protestant church for once was united; every spokesman has vigorously opposed such aid. A number of Orthodox rabbis for the first time broke the solid Jewish “separation front” by endorsing government aid, but the Federation overwhelmingly repeated its traditional support of the separation principle. There can be little doubt that this will for years to come constitute the most controversial of interreligious issues. 


Problems which in other cities seem to raise interreligious blood pressures, have made little impact in Cleveland. Warm expressions of sympathy for Israel from the Christian clergy are not too frequent, for example, but on the other hand there is an almost complete absence of hostile comment, even when the Middle East situation is tense. Occasionally, newspaper stories will feature disputes arising out of adoptions across religious lines, but at no time has any real controversy developed. The general bland attitude toward issues in this area may well be a reflection of a certain absence of emotion connected with issues in general. Civic problems, war and peace, recession and recovery, are often conversation pieces, but rarely lead to stirring debate. Even the attitude toward the local baseball team is remarkably low pressured in recent years! 

Considerably greater emotional involvement is seen when the issues touch home directly, rather than being concerned with philosophical differences. Almost any Jewish institution seeking to build for the first time in a new suburb is likely to encounter resistance. Twice in the past decade, cases involving the right of synagogues to build in suburban areas had to be carried to the Ohio Supreme Court.

One of the cases had an ironic ending. For years, counsel for the suburb fought through three courts with unprecedented tenacity to prevent the building of a synagogue. Despite all sorts of guarantees and assurances, it was alleged that the town would suffer from increased traffic problems, difficulties in providing services, and other similar situations. But the temple was hardly completed when the city fathers, faced by a desperate shortage of public school facilities, requested (and were granted) space in the new synagogue’s school until a new public school could be built. 

Religious exclusions practiced in a number of the suburbs by the company that developed the area were broken in the mid-fifties only after a bitter campaign and threats of taxpayer suits that would have depressed land values considerably. One suburb enforces a complicated 25 per cent quota on Jews, and the northern section of a suburb that is half- Jewish has developed a neighborhood compact that has succeeded so far in keeping out all but a single Jew. One community was almost torn apart by a campaign for a second high school, which many contended was motivated primarily by the desire of the northern half of the community (strongly Christian) to have “their” school, while resigning the original high school to the southern, “Jewish” section. In another suburb, an election was held on the question of dividing into two villages, one overwhelmingly Christian, the other just as strongly Jewish. Both efforts failed but only after bitter campaigns. Permission to build a Jewish community center in a suburb was secured only after a long struggle, although a Lutheran high school was approved far more easily on an adjoining parcel of land. 

In each of these cases there were more factors involved than religious differences. But no one who attended the various meetings of zoning commissions, city and village councils, or neighborhood town halls could escape the conclusion that, although problems of zoning and traffic and taxes were involved, religious hostility or unfriendliness were also powerful determinants of attitudes. Few situations present “clean” examples of bigotry; there is almost always a complicated intermingling of economic, sociological, psychological, and religious interests. 

Sometimes, hostile attitudes are expressed crudely and in the unmistakable accents of the bigot, as in the case of the man who wrote in explanation of why neighborhoods run down: “In the first instance the Negro follows the Jew in housing; no Jews, no Negroes to follow. . . . The Jew is too greedy when it comes to the almighty dollar. You will think this man is prejudiced and biased who is writing this letter, but I am not! These are the facts; it is food for thought.”

Much more significant and typical, perhaps, is the attitude revealed in a tribute in the Roman Catholic diocesan paper to a converted Jew who had just died. “Dad always saw to it that we children did not miss mass on Sunday,” the daughter proudly writes. “If we were reluctant, Dad would threaten, ‘All right, then, we will go to temple.’ You never saw children hurry to church as we did.” That homely vignette reveals an attitude that may well be just beneath the surface of much of the “tolerance” that is so wide-spread. 

Sometimes neighborhoods change so completely as to create religious problems where there is no bigotry at all. One worried Christian mother, whose daughter attended a junior high school that is overwhelmingly Jewish, described in a thoroughly rational and unpunishing manner how her child was treated with perfect fairness and friendship during school hours, but was increasingly excluded from the social contacts that were becoming important to her. The family subsequently and regretfully moved from the neighborhood since dating possibilities had become virtually impossible for the daughter! 

Despite the occasional highly dramatic cases where Jews have achieved top leadership in various civic roles, the community as a whole is, in a quiet and undramatic fashion, divided along religious lines. Cleveland has an FEPC, but evidence indicates that perhaps one out of every four job orders filed with private employment agencies is discriminatory against Jews. Perhaps equally significant is the increasing self-segregation in employment. A leading utility in Cleveland, which had been closed to Jews for years, changed its policy and freely accepted Jewish clerical help. The local Jewish Vocational Service soon found itself encountering substantial difficulties in filling job orders, because the girls wanted to work in places “where they could meet Jewish fellows”! 

Any observation that social life in Cleveland tends to follow rather closely along religious lines is often greeted with indignant instancing of various parties and gatherings of Jews and non-Jews. Nevertheless, these are overwhelmingly the exception and the so-called “5 o’clock shadow” is clearly visible in the community’s social life. Jews socialize for the most part with Jews; Catholics with Catholics; Protestants with Protestants.

In 1958 the executives of two well-established women’s civic organizations requested help in increasing Jewish participation in their work. The fact that these organizations contained few Jews could not be ascribed to discrimination; both have been eager for some time to expand their Jewish membership. Why, they asked, do Jewish women join so enthusiastically in the work of Hadassah, Council of Jewish Women, Sisterhoods, the Welfare Fund Appeal, and many other Jewish organizations, but are often so hard to interest in non-secta- rian groups? Surely Jewish women are civic minded; surely they have much to contribute.

An easy and truthful answer would be that opportunities for advancement to top leadership are best in one’s “own” organization. But like most easy answers, that explanation is only part of the truth. Over and over again, leaders of Jewish organizations described their impatience as they sat at meetings of a number of non-sectarian organizations, where the issues being discussed were “piddling” a budget item of a few dollars or a minor, unexciting program detail. The really successful Jewish organizations, they claim, present far bolder challenges. What is to be avoided at all costs is dullness. And, they conclude, those non-sectarian organizations that are truly not perfunctorily open to all women and that grapple with basic community needs do attract Jewish women. Unspoken is what may well be the most important factor: Jewish women in Cleveland are more comfortable with Jewish women. But in any case, the fact remains unchallengeably true that the overwhelming majority of Jewish (or, for that matter, Catholic and Protestant) women are “club ladies” within their own religious groups.

Although the world of business necessarily involves more contact across religious lines, it is nevertheless true that the husbands, too, eat lunch (when there is no business appointment), play golf, and attend committee meetings most frequently with men who are of the same religious faith. If they are Jewish, they are very likely to have a Jewish insurance man, a Jewish lawyer, a Jewish doctor except in the case of specialists. And, with variations, the same generalizations could be made about the other religious groups. 

In summary, then, interreligious relationships in Cleveland might be 
characterized by the following generalizations:

1. Little overt conflict exists, and there is a pervasive atmosphere of avoiding tension situations. As a result, there is little “dialogue” among the religious groups, and the price of relatively little conflict is relatively shallow interreligious contacts. Blandness is the key everywhere. 

2. Close interreligious cooperation, where it exists, is rarely on specifically religious projects. It is more likely to occur on civic, philanthropic, and business levels. 

3. The Roman Catholic community is the most isolated of the three major faith groups. The Archbishop explains the withdrawal: “Our inferiority complex reveals itself even today in the tendency to isolate ourselves from the community as a whole.” There is only now, with the beginning of an interreligious dialogue, faint stirring toward increasing participation. These efforts are sparked by Catholic laymen. 

4. Each religious group has issues in which it is primarily interested: the Catholic priority is increased policing of the mass media and gaining support for their schools; the Protestant, changing neighborhoods; the Jewish, church-state relationships. Closest cooperation exists, particularly between liberal Protestants and Jews, in the area of civil rights. 

5. Almost all areas of daily living reflect an increasing sifting down into religious compartments. Churches and synagogues have become more central institutions; schools, housing, and social satisfactions are likely to follow religious lines. Even employment and (to a lesser degree) business patterns have increasingly an element of religious self- segregation. Weekly ads in the diocesan paper seem to symbolize the strange ways of this apartness: “Low cost hospitalization,” it emphasizes in large headlines, “available only to Ohio Catholics.” 

6. The white population of all three religious groups is becoming increasingly suburban. Despite the growth of religious institutions and the separateness that has been described, religious issues and values seem to count less than the absorbing interest in material satisfactions that characterize all three groups. The “things” of suburban living outweigh religious values or differentiation.

Is Cleveland, then, the best location in the nation? If the negative test of absence of conflict is applied, the boast can be very largely madegood. But if the aim is a culturally diverse community where creative living of cultural groups is balanced by full and easy communication across religious lines, Cleveland, like most cities, still has a long road to travel. 

Teaching Cleveland Digital