Scholars Divided: Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois on Black Progress
Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois are considered two of the most influential figures during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Both intellectuals lived through Reconstruction and pioneered the movement for Black equality in America, though they employed different strategies. The origin of their distinct approaches to gaining Black rights can be traced back to their early lives and the environments in which they grew up. Washington, born in 1856, spent the first nine years of his life enslaved on a plantation in Virginia. Conversely, Du Bois, who was born in 1868 in Massachusetts, grew up in a family that had been free for generations — it is believed Du Bois’ maternal great-great-grandfather, Tom Burghardt, gained his freedom from serving in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. As such, two disparate figures emerged: Washington grew up having experienced the barbarity of slavery firsthand, lived through the Civil War, and received a vocational education at the Hampton Institute, whereas Du Bois knew freedom from birth, and grew up in an America where slavery was abolished and citizenship and voting rights for Blacks were promised. Du Bois pursued academic education, eventually becoming the first Black man to receive a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Thus, the two matured in starkly contrasting realities. This led to their contrasting approaches to fighting for Black equality. Yet although the two are notoriously portrayed as polar opposites, Washington and Du Bois were two sides of the same coin; both wanted the same thing, and both agreed that education for Blacks was a critical precursor to achieving their goals, yet they disagreed on the most effective type of education and method to reach their objectives.
Every social movement throughout history has had leaders who disagreed. Variety in leadership and constructive criticism of varying opinions are necessary for growth and change. The question then becomes: between the two scholars, who was right? The distinct strategies of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois to reach Black equality were similarly biased and inversely valuable, yet not equally effective, and their dispute further nurtured their respective ideologies.
On September 18, 1895, Washington delivered the most notable speech of his life: The Atlanta Exposition at the Cotton States and International Exposition held in Atlanta, Georgia (a recording of the speech was made in 1908, which you can listen to here). The audience was nearly all white and responded favorably to Washington’s message: Blacks should not prioritize advocating for social or civil rights at the moment; instead, they should pursue vocational education to become an integral part of the workforce. Washington argued that civil rights would naturally follow once Blacks were recognized as essential to the American economy. While Washington’s gradualist ideology has been criticized by many for being too conciliatory, his position was born from his intimate knowledge of the practicality of vocational education in the South. Near the end of his speech, Washington declared,
“In all things that are purely social, we can be as separate as the fingers, yet as one hand in all things essential to mutual progress…The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing. No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized. It is important and right that all privileges of the law be ours, but it is vastly more important that we be prepared for the exercise of these privileges. The opportunity to earn a dollar in a factory just now is worth infinitely more than the opportunity to spend a dollar in an opera-house…”
(Booker T. Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” Speech — Library of Congress).
Though the conclusion of his speech was met with roaring applause, handshakes, and bouquets of flowers, there became a growing controversy over Washington’s words. White supremacists saw in his ideas an opportunity to further disenfranchise Blacks and perpetuate Jim Crow laws without resistance. And over time, many Blacks, including Du Bois, came to view the ideas communicated in his speech as an obstacle to Black progress. Du Bois would go on to argue that Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” (a name Du Bois coined to expose what he considered a compromise of Blacks’ rights) encouraged complacency among Black Americans and acceptance as an inferior class. In the Atlanta Compromise, Washington promoted socially regressive conditions for Blacks, yet his ideas were “born out of present [southern] reality” (W.E.B. Du Bois — The Atlantic). The placative nature of Washington’s ideas lead many to wrongly believe that he didn’t think political and social rights were important for Blacks; however, it is quite the opposite, as pointed out by Rose D. Greco in “The Educational Views of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois: A Critical Comparison.” Greco writes, “Washington proposed industrial education not because he wanted to limit the Blacks but because he wanted them to build a strong economic base to enter the world of business and commerce” (Greco, 63). Du Bois’ contentions, though justified in hindsight, came from a place of privilege and idealistic ignorance, having grown up in the North sheltered from the harsh circumstances Washington faced his entire life. C. Spencer Poxpey explores this in “The Washington-Du Bois Controversy and Its Effect on the Negro Problem:”
“[Washington knew the South] as well as anyone…He knew, as Du Bois could not know, the antipathies of the leading class and the lower whites who were to take over and make worse the Negro problem. He knew by experience the problems faced by the Negroes, the vast majority of whom were living in a section where the stresses and strains were at the breaking point. He knew where the points of conciliation were; indeed, he was an integral part of that society. He had first-hand knowledge of the high illiteracy of both the whites and the Negroes…”
(Poxpey, 129–130).
With this in mind, Washington’s “conservative” approach, though accommodative and narrow-lensed, is understandable, perhaps even practical for many southern Blacks, for a brief time. His stance was molded by his experience and the same can be said for Du Bois.
Though the two are often portrayed as always having opposing beliefs, Du Bois initially supported Washington’s stance. In fact, in a letter sent to Washington after the Atlanta Compromise speech, Du Bois congratulated Washington on “a word fitly spoken” (Letter from W.E.B. Du Bois to Booker T. Washington, September 24, 1895 — Columbia University).
However, Du Bois’ position diverged at the turn of the 20th century. In “Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois: The Problem of Negro Leadership,” Robert A. Gibson analyzes “Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others,” an essay Du Bois included in his 1903 book, The Souls of Black Folk. Gibson writes,
“[In the essay] Du Bois charged that Washington’s program tacitly accepted the alleged inferiority of the Negro. Expressing the sentiment of the radical civil rights advocates, Du Bois demanded for all Black citizens 1) the right to vote, 2) civic equality, and 3) the education of Negro youth according to ability. Generally, Du Bois opposed Washington’s program because it was narrow in its scope and objectives, devalued the study of the liberal arts, and ignored civil, political, and social injustices and the economic exploitation of the Black masses”
(Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois: The Problem of Negro Leadership — Yale New Haven Teachers Institute).
Du Bois approached the fight for Black equality with fierce promptitude, in a manner that did not try to accommodate the wishes of whites. With progressive awareness, he argued that vocational education was not sufficient to overcome racial inequality. In “The W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington Debate: Effects upon African American Roles in Engineering and Engineering Technology,” Keith V. Johnson and Elwood Watson discuss the ultimate abandonment of vocational education with the growing industrialization of the South and country as a whole. In the following excerpt, Johnson and Watson use quotes from Michael R. Wintson in his 1971 paper “Through the Back Door: Academic Racism and the Negro Scholar in Historical Perspective:”
“Educationally, vocational training was a failure: It not only failed to prepare Blacks to move up in society, but it also guaranteed that they would move down. The emphasis on manual training and the trades served to destroy the educational aspirations that had been aroused during Reconstruction and wiped out the hope that education could provide a way out of poverty. By 1930 industrial education was seen as a “cynical political strategy, not a sound educational policy” and proved to be the “great detour” for Blacks from which they are just beginning to return”
(Johnston and Watson, 66; Winston, 683).
And so, while Washington’s approach may have been temporarily valuable, it was not an effective long-term strategy to gain Black equality and eventually became obsolete.
Du Bois also advocated for the establishment of what he called the “Talented Tenth.” In The Autobiography of W. E. B. Du Bois, Du Bois explained the ideology: “I believed in the higher education of a Talented Tenth who through their knowledge of modern culture could guide the American Negro into a higher civilization…” (Du Bois, 70). This idea has been categorized by some as an “elitist approach,” relying on a highly-educated top 10% of the Black population to cultivate change for the masses. Yet it was this idea that guided Du Bois and others in the creation of the Niagra Movement in 1905 and ultimately the NAACP in 1910. Both Washington and Du Bois fought for the same fundamental goal: Black equality. Their dispute “polarized African American leaders into two wings–the ‘conservative’ supporters of Washington and his ‘radical’ critics” (Booker T & W.E.B | The Two Nations Of Black America — PBS). Neither was completely “right” — they addressed the problem with their unique perspectives, yet Du Bois’ approach was more progressive and effective. In an interview with Du Bois in 1963, at age 95, only months before he died, Du Bois reflected on his philosophical feud with Washington. Du Bois said, “I never thought Washington was a bad man…I believed him to be sincere, though wrong…I admired much about him. Washington died in 1915. A lot of people think I died at the same time ” (W.E.B. Du Bois — The Atlantic). The rivalry between the two was tangible, as though it had a life of its own, and it catalyzed the development of their respective ideologies.
Washington knew that many southern Blacks needed to work their way up; they could not immediately advocate for political rights if they did not even know what those rights entailed and did not know how to read or write. Du Bois knew that becoming an integral part of the American economy would not guarantee social and political rights for Blacks. An elitist class did not need to lead the Black population. And a working class did not need to dominate the Black population. For change to occur, there needed to be a balance of both. The two distinct approaches represented the bifurcating needs of Black Americans. Washington understood and personalized with many southern Blacks, and his approach catered to the needs of formerly enslaved Blacks and their children. Yet that population was shrinking and a newer, more progressive strategy was needed to fight for Blacks’ rights. Du Bois, unlike Washington, was able to envision a future where southern Blacks did not need to wait to obtain social and political rights. While the rivalry between Washington and Du Bois may have temporarily weakened the movement for Black equality in the early 20th century, their feud also fueled a generation of revolutionary thinkers. The publicity of the Washington-Du Bois controversy fostered a renewed national focus on the educational, social, and political rights of Black Americans, paving the way for the Civil Rights movement only a few decades later.
