Booker T. Washington and Others

Easily the most striking thing in the history of the American Negro since 1876 is the ascendancy of Mr. Booker T. Washington. It began at the time when war memories and ideals were rapidly passing; a day of astonishing commercial development was dawning; a sense of doubt and hesitation overtook the freedmen’s sons,—then it was that his leading began. Mr. Washington came, with a simple definite programme, at the psychological moment when the nation was a little ashamed of having bestowed so much sentiment on Negroes, and was concentrating its energies on Dollars. His programme of industrial education, conciliation of the South, and submission and silence as to civil and political rights, was not wholly original; the Free Negroes from 1830 up to war-time had striven to build industrial schools, and the American Missionary Association had from the first taught various trades; and Price and others had sought a way of honorable alliance with the best of the Southerners. But Mr. Washington first indissolubly linked these things; he put enthusiasm, unlimited energy, and perfect faith into his programme, and changed it from a by-path into a veritable Way of Life. And the tale of the methods by which he did this is a fascinating study of human life.

By far the most striking development in Black American history since 1876 is the rise of Mr. Booker T. Washington. His rise began as memories and ideals of the Civil War were rapidly fading. An era of astonishing commercial growth was beginning. Doubt and hesitation had overtaken the sons of formerly enslaved people. That was when his leadership began. Mr. Washington arrived with a simple, clear program at just the right psychological moment. The nation felt a little ashamed of having shown so much sympathy for Black people. It was now focusing its energies on Dollars. His program called for industrial education, making peace with the South, and submission and silence concerning civil and political rights. The program was not entirely original. From 1830 until the Civil War, free Black people had worked to build industrial schools. The American Missionary Association had taught various trades from the beginning. Price and others had sought a way to form an honorable alliance with the best Southerners. But Mr. Washington was the first to bind these efforts inseparably together. He brought enthusiasm, boundless energy, and complete faith to his program. He transformed the program from a side path into a true Way of Life. And the story of the methods he used offers a fascinating study of human life.

It startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a programme after many decades of bitter complaint; it startled and won the applause of the South, it interested and won the admiration of the North; and after a confused murmur of protest, it silenced if it did not convert the Negroes themselves.

The nation was startled to hear a Black man support such a program after decades of bitter complaints. The program startled the South and won its applause. It also interested the North and won its admiration. And after a confused murmur of protest, the program silenced Black people themselves, even if it did not persuade them.

To gain the sympathy and cooperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington’s first task; and this, at the time Tuskegee was founded, seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And yet ten years later it was done in the word spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted it in different ways: the radicals received it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding. So both approved it, and to-day its author is certainly the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis, and the one with the largest personal following.

Mr. Washington’s first task was to win sympathy and cooperation from the various groups within the white South. When Tuskegee was founded, this task seemed nearly impossible for a black man. Yet ten years later, he achieved it with these words spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by far the most notable achievement of Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted the compromise in different ways. Radicals saw it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality. Conservatives saw it as a generous framework for working toward mutual understanding. So both groups approved the compromise. Today, its author is certainly the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis, and has the largest personal following.

Next to this achievement comes Mr. Washington’s work in gaining place and consideration in the North. Others less shrewd and tactful had formerly essayed to sit on these two stools and had fallen between them; but as Mr. Washington knew the heart of the South from birth and training, so by singular insight he intuitively grasped the spirit of the age which was dominating the North. And so thoroughly did he learn the speech and thought of triumphant commercialism, and the ideals of material prosperity, that the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities. One wonders what Socrates and St. Francis of Assisi would say to this.

Next in importance comes Mr. Washington’s success in gaining standing and respect in the North. Others, less shrewd and tactful, had tried to win over both North and South and failed with both. But Mr. Washington understood the South through his birth and upbringing. With remarkable insight, he also intuitively understood the spirit of the age dominating the North. He so thoroughly absorbed the language and thinking of triumphant commercialism, and the ideals of material prosperity, that his outlook changed. A lone black boy studying French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed utterly absurd to him. One wonders what Socrates and St. Francis of Assisi would say about that judgment.

And yet this very singleness of vision and thorough oneness with his age is a mark of the successful man. It is as though Nature must needs make men narrow in order to give them force. So Mr. Washington’s cult has gained unquestioning followers, his work has wonderfully prospered, his friends are legion, and his enemies are confounded. To-day he stands as the one recognized spokesman of his ten million fellows, and one of the most notable figures in a nation of seventy millions. One hesitates, therefore, to criticise a life which, beginning with so little, has done so much. And yet the time is come when one may speak in all sincerity and utter courtesy of the mistakes and shortcomings of Mr. Washington’s career, as well as of his triumphs, without being thought captious or envious, and without forgetting that it is easier to do ill than well in the world.

And yet this single-minded vision and complete harmony with his age are marks of a successful man. It is as though Nature must make men narrow in outlook to give them strength. So Mr. Washington’s movement has gained unquestioning followers, and his work has flourished remarkably. His friends are countless, and his enemies are baffled. Today he stands as the one recognized spokesman for his ten million fellow Black Americans. He is also one of the most notable figures in a nation of seventy million people. One therefore hesitates to criticize a life that began with so little and has achieved so much. And yet the time has come to speak with complete sincerity and courtesy about Mr. Washington’s mistakes and shortcomings. We may discuss these alongside his triumphs without being considered petty or envious. And we may do so without forgetting that it is easier to do harm than good in the world.

The criticism that has hitherto met Mr. Washington has not always been of this broad character. In the South especially has he had to walk warily to avoid the harshest judgments,—and naturally so, for he is dealing with the one subject of deepest sensitiveness to that section. Twice—once when at the Chicago celebration of the Spanish-American War he alluded to the color-prejudice that is “eating away the vitals of the South,” and once when he dined with President Roosevelt—has the resulting Southern criticism been violent enough to threaten seriously his popularity. In the North the feeling has several times forced itself into words, that Mr. Washington’s counsels of submission overlooked certain elements of true manhood, and that his educational programme was unnecessarily narrow. Usually, however, such criticism has not found open expression, although, too, the spiritual sons of the Abolitionists have not been prepared to acknowledge that the schools founded before Tuskegee, by men of broad ideals and self-sacrificing spirit, were wholly failures or worthy of ridicule. While, then, criticism has not failed to follow Mr. Washington, yet the prevailing public opinion of the land has been but too willing to deliver the solution of a wearisome problem into his hands, and say, “If that is all you and your race ask, take it.”

The criticism Mr. Washington has faced so far has not always taken this broad view. In the South especially, he has had to tread carefully to avoid the harshest judgments. This is natural, since he is dealing with the subject the South is most sensitive about. Twice, Southern criticism has been fierce enough to seriously threaten his popularity. The first time was at the Chicago celebration of the Spanish-American War. There, he referred to the racial prejudice that is “eating away the vitals of the South.” The second time was when he dined with President Roosevelt. In the North, people have several times voiced concerns that Mr. Washington’s advice to submit ignored certain qualities of true manhood. They have also argued that his educational program was unnecessarily narrow. Usually, however, such criticism has not been expressed openly. Still, the spiritual heirs of the Abolitionists have not been willing to dismiss the schools founded before Tuskegee. Those schools were founded by men with broad ideals and a self-sacrificing spirit. The Abolitionists’ heirs have not been ready to call those schools complete failures or worthy of ridicule. So, although Mr. Washington has faced criticism, public opinion across the country has been all too willing to defer to him. The public has been eager to leave the solution to a tiresome problem in his hands and say, “If that is all you and your race ask, take it.”

Among his own people, however, Mr. Washington has encountered the strongest and most lasting opposition, amounting at times to bitterness, and even today continuing strong and insistent even though largely silenced in outward expression by the public opinion of the nation. Some of this opposition is, of course, mere envy; the disappointment of displaced demagogues and the spite of narrow minds. But aside from this, there is among educated and thoughtful colored men in all parts of the land a feeling of deep regret, sorrow, and apprehension at the wide currency and ascendancy which some of Mr. Washington’s theories have gained. These same men admire his sincerity of purpose, and are willing to forgive much to honest endeavor which is doing something worth the doing. They cooperate with Mr. Washington as far as they conscientiously can; and, indeed, it is no ordinary tribute to this man’s tact and power that, steering as he must between so many diverse interests and opinions, he so largely retains the respect of all.

Among his own people, however, Mr. Washington has faced the strongest and most lasting opposition, sometimes bitter. Even today, that opposition remains strong and persistent, although national public opinion has largely silenced its public expression. Some of this opposition is, of course, nothing more than envy. It reflects the disappointment of displaced demagogues and the spite of narrow-minded people. But beyond this, educated and thoughtful Black men throughout the country feel deep regret, sorrow, and anxiety. These feelings concern the widespread acceptance and growing influence of some of Mr. Washington’s theories. These same men admire his sincerity of purpose. They are willing to forgive much when honest effort achieves something worthwhile. They cooperate with Mr. Washington as far as their consciences allow. Indeed, Mr. Washington must navigate many conflicting interests and opinions, yet he largely retains the respect of all. This is no small tribute to his tact and power.

But the hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing. It leads some of the best of the critics to unfortunate silence and paralysis of effort, and others to burst into speech so passionately and intemperately as to lose listeners. Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched,—criticism of writers by readers,—this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss,—a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders. The way in which this is done is at once the most elementary and the nicest problem of social growth. History is but the record of such group-leadership; and yet how infinitely changeful is its type and character! And of all types and kinds, what can be more instructive than the leadership of a group within a group?—that curious double movement where real progress may be negative and actual advance be relative retrogression. All this is the social student’s inspiration and despair.

But silencing honest opponents’ criticism is dangerous. It drives some of the best critics into an unfortunate silence and leaves them unable to act. Others speak out so passionately and recklessly that they lose their listeners. Honest, sincere criticism from those most directly affected, including readers’ criticism of writers, is the soul of democracy. Such criticism also safeguards modern society. If outside pressure gives the best of the American Negroes a leader they had not previously recognized, there is a clear gain. Yet there is also an irreparable loss. A group loses a uniquely valuable education when it does not find and choose its own leaders through searching and criticism. How a group chooses its leaders is both the most basic and the most delicate problem of social growth. History is simply the record of such group leadership. Yet how endlessly the form and character of that leadership change! And among all kinds of leadership, what could teach us more than the leadership of a group within a group? Here is a curious movement in two directions. Real progress may be negative, and actual advancement may mean falling behind in relative terms. All this inspires and frustrates those who study society.

Now in the past the American Negro has had instructive experience in the choosing of group leaders, founding thus a peculiar dynasty which in the light of present conditions is worth while studying. When sticks and stones and beasts form the sole environment of a people, their attitude is largely one of determined opposition to and conquest of natural forces. But when to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms,—a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion. The influence of all of these attitudes at various times can be traced in the history of the American Negro, and in the evolution of his successive leaders.

In the past, Black Americans have learned important lessons from choosing their group leaders. In doing so, they have established a distinctive line of leaders worth studying in light of present conditions. When a people’s surroundings consist only of sticks, stones, and animals, their response is largely determined resistance to natural forces. They seek to conquer those forces. But when their surroundings include other people and ideas, the confined group may respond in three main ways. The first is a feeling of revolt and revenge. The second is an attempt to bring all thought and action into line with the larger group’s will. The third is a determined effort to fulfill their potential and develop themselves despite the opinions of those around them. The influence of all these responses can be traced at different times in Black American history. The same influences can also be traced in the development of successive Black leaders.

Before 1750, while the fire of African freedom still burned in the veins of the slaves, there was in all leadership or attempted leadership but the one motive of revolt and revenge,—typified in the terrible Maroons, the Danish blacks, and Cato of Stono, and veiling all the Americas in fear of insurrection. The liberalizing tendencies of the latter half of the eighteenth century brought, along with kindlier relations between black and white, thoughts of ultimate adjustment and assimilation. Such aspiration was especially voiced in the earnest songs of Phyllis, in the martyrdom of Attucks, the fighting of Salem and Poor, the intellectual accomplishments of Banneker and Derham, and the political demands of the Cuffes.

Before 1750, the fire of African freedom still burned in the veins of enslaved people. All leadership, or attempts at leadership, had just one motive: revolt and revenge. The fearsome Maroons, the Danish blacks, and Cato of Stono embodied this spirit, spreading fear of uprising throughout the Americas. The growing spirit of liberty in the late eighteenth century brought friendlier relations between black and white people. Along with these changes came hopes of eventually finding common ground and blending into one society. These hopes found particular expression in the heartfelt songs of Phyllis and the martyrdom of Attucks. They also appeared in the fighting of Salem and Poor and the intellectual achievements of Banneker and Derham. The political demands of the Cuffes expressed these hopes as well.

Stern financial and social stress after the war cooled much of the previous humanitarian ardor. The disappointment and impatience of the Negroes at the persistence of slavery and serfdom voiced itself in two movements. The slaves in the South, aroused undoubtedly by vague rumors of the Haytian revolt, made three fierce attempts at insurrection,—in 1800 under Gabriel in Virginia, in 1822 under Vesey in Carolina, and in 1831 again in Virginia under the terrible Nat Turner. In the Free States, on the other hand, a new and curious attempt at self-development was made. In Philadelphia and New York color-prescription led to a withdrawal of Negro communicants from white churches and the formation of a peculiar socio-religious institution among the Negroes known as the African Church,—an organization still living and controlling in its various branches over a million of men.

Severe financial and social pressures after the war cooled much of the earlier humanitarian enthusiasm. Black people’s disappointment and impatience with the persistence of slavery and serfdom found expression in two movements. In the South, enslaved people were undoubtedly stirred by vague rumors of the Haytian revolt. They made three fierce attempts at rebellion. Gabriel led the first in Virginia in 1800, and Vesey led the second in Carolina in 1822. The third came in Virginia in 1831, led by the fearsome Nat Turner. In the Free States, by contrast, Black people made a new and unusual effort to develop their own institutions. In Philadelphia and New York, racial discrimination led Black worshippers to leave white churches. They formed a distinctive social and religious institution known as the African Church. The organization still exists, and its various branches govern more than a million people.

Walker’s wild appeal against the trend of the times showed how the world was changing after the coming of the cotton-gin. By 1830 slavery seemed hopelessly fastened on the South, and the slaves thoroughly cowed into submission. The free Negroes of the North, inspired by the mulatto immigrants from the West Indies, began to change the basis of their demands; they recognized the slavery of slaves, but insisted that they themselves were freemen, and sought assimilation and amalgamation with the nation on the same terms with other men. Thus, Forten and Purvis of Philadelphia, Shad of Wilmington, Du Bois of New Haven, Barbadoes of Boston, and others, strove singly and together as men, they said, not as slaves; as “people of color,” not as “Negroes.” The trend of the times, however, refused them recognition save in individual and exceptional cases, considered them as one with all the despised blacks, and they soon found themselves striving to keep even the rights they formerly had of voting and working and moving as freemen. Schemes of migration and colonization arose among them; but these they refused to entertain, and they eventually turned to the Abolition movement as a final refuge.

Walker’s fierce appeal defied the spirit of the times and showed how the world was changing after the cotton gin’s arrival. By 1830, slavery seemed hopelessly entrenched in the South, and enslaved people seemed thoroughly intimidated into submission. Free Black people in the North began to change the basis of their demands. They were inspired by mixed-race immigrants from the West Indies. They acknowledged that enslaved people were slaves, but insisted that they themselves were free. They sought full integration and intermingling with the nation on the same terms as other men. Thus, Forten and Purvis of Philadelphia, Shad of Wilmington, Du Bois of New Haven, Barbadoes of Boston, and others struggled. They worked alone and together as men, they said, not as slaves, as “people of color,” not as “Negroes.” But the prevailing attitudes denied them recognition except in individual, exceptional cases. Society treated them as no different from all the despised Black people. Soon, these free Black people were struggling even to keep their existing rights to vote, work, and move freely. Plans for migration and colonization arose among them, but they refused to consider these plans. Eventually, they turned to the Abolition movement as a last refuge.

Here, led by Remond, Nell, Wells-Brown, and Douglass, a new period of self-assertion and self-development dawned. To be sure, ultimate freedom and assimilation was the ideal before the leaders, but the assertion of the manhood rights of the Negro by himself was the main reliance, and John Brown’s raid was the extreme of its logic. After the war and emancipation, the great form of Frederick Douglass, the greatest of American Negro leaders, still led the host. Self-assertion, especially in political lines, was the main programme, and behind Douglass came Elliot, Bruce, and Langston, and the Reconstruction politicians, and, less conspicuous but of greater social significance, Alexander Crummell and Bishop Daniel Payne.

Here, led by Remond, Nell, Wells-Brown, and Douglass, a new period of self-assertion and self-development began. To be sure, the leaders’ ultimate ideal was freedom and assimilation. But they relied mainly on Black people asserting their own rights as human beings. John Brown’s raid carried that approach to its furthest extreme. After the war and emancipation, the towering figure of Frederick Douglass, the greatest of American Black leaders, still led the movement. Self-assertion, especially in politics, was the main program. Following Douglass came Elliot, Bruce, and Langston, along with the Reconstruction politicians. Alexander Crummell and Bishop Daniel Payne were less prominent, but had greater social significance.

Then came the Revolution of 1876, the suppression of the Negro votes, the changing and shifting of ideals, and the seeking of new lights in the great night. Douglass, in his old age, still bravely stood for the ideals of his early manhood,—ultimate assimilation through self-assertion, and on no other terms. For a time Price arose as a new leader, destined, it seemed, not to give up, but to re-state the old ideals in a form less repugnant to the white South. But he passed away in his prime. Then came the new leader. Nearly all the former ones had become leaders by the silent suffrage of their fellows, had sought to lead their own people alone, and were usually, save Douglass, little known outside their race. But Booker T. Washington arose as essentially the leader not of one race but of two,—a compromiser between the South, the North, and the Negro. Naturally the Negroes resented, at first bitterly, signs of compromise which surrendered their civil and political rights, even though this was to be exchanged for larger chances of economic development. The rich and dominating North, however, was not only weary of the race problem, but was investing largely in Southern enterprises, and welcomed any method of peaceful cooperation. Thus, by national opinion, the Negroes began to recognize Mr. Washington’s leadership; and the voice of criticism was hushed.

Then came the Revolution of 1876, the suppression of Black votes, changing ideals, and the search for new light in the deep darkness. In his old age, Douglass still bravely upheld the ideals of his youth. He sought eventual assimilation through self-assertion, and on no other terms. For a time, Price emerged as a new leader. He seemed destined not to abandon the old ideals, but to restate them in terms less offensive to the white South. But he died in his prime. Then came the new leader. Nearly all the earlier leaders had gained their positions through the unspoken support of their peers. They had sought to lead only their own people. Except for Douglass, they were usually little known outside their race. But Booker T. Washington emerged essentially as the leader of two races, not one. He brokered compromises among the South, the North, and Black people. Naturally, Black people resented signs of compromise that surrendered their civil and political rights. At first, their resentment was bitter, even though those rights were to be exchanged for greater opportunities for economic development. The wealthy and powerful North, however, was not only tired of the race problem. It was also investing heavily in Southern businesses and welcomed any way to cooperate peacefully. Thus, under the influence of national opinion, Black people began to accept Mr. Washington’s leadership, and criticism fell silent.

Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission; but adjustment at such a peculiar time as to make his programme unique. This is an age of unusual economic development, and Mr. Washington’s programme naturally takes an economic cast, becoming a gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life. Moreover, this is an age when the more advanced races are coming in closer contact with the less developed races, and the race-feeling is therefore intensified; and Mr. Washington’s programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races. Again, in our own land, the reaction from the sentiment of war time has given impetus to race-prejudice against Negroes, and Mr. Washington withdraws many of the high demands of Negroes as men and American citizens. In other periods of intensified prejudice all the Negro’s tendency to self-assertion has been called forth; at this period a policy of submission is advocated. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples the doctrine preached at such crises has been that manly self-respect is worth more than lands and houses, and that a people who voluntarily surrender such respect, or cease striving for it, are not worth civilizing.

In Black thought, Mr. Washington represents the old attitude of adapting and submitting. But his program is unique because he calls for adaptation at such an unusual time. We live in an age of extraordinary economic growth, so Mr. Washington’s program naturally focuses on economics. His program becomes a gospel of Work and Money that seems almost entirely to overshadow life’s higher aims. Moreover, races considered more advanced are coming into closer contact with races considered less developed, intensifying racial feelings. And Mr. Washington’s program effectively accepts the supposed inferiority of Black people. In our own country, the backlash against wartime sentiment has also strengthened racial prejudice against Black people. In response, Mr. Washington drops many of the far-reaching demands Black people make as human beings and American citizens. In other periods of heightened prejudice, Black people’s full drive to assert themselves has emerged. Yet in this period, submission is the policy being promoted. In the history of nearly all other races and peoples, the message preached during such crises has been different. The message has been that a person’s self-respect is worth more than land and houses. A people who willingly surrender that self-respect, or stop striving for it, are not worth civilizing.

In answer to this, it has been claimed that the Negro can survive only through submission. Mr. Washington distinctly asks that black people give up, at least for the present, three things,—

In response, some have claimed that black people can survive only by submitting. Mr. Washington clearly asks black people to give up three things, at least for now:

First, political power,

First, political power,

Second, insistence on civil rights,

Second, demanding civil rights,

Third, higher education of Negro youth,—and concentrate all their energies on industrial education, and accumulation of wealth, and the conciliation of the South. This policy has been courageously and insistently advocated for over fifteen years, and has been triumphant for perhaps ten years. As a result of this tender of the palm-branch, what has been the return? In these years there have occurred:

Third, higher education for Black youth, and focus all their energy on industrial education, building wealth, and winning over the South. This policy has been promoted courageously and persistently for over fifteen years. It has prevailed for perhaps ten years. What has been received in return for this offer of peace? During these years, the following have occurred:

1. The disfranchisement of the Negro.

1. Denying Black people the right to vote.

2. The legal creation of a distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro.

2. The creation by law of a separate, inferior civil status for Black people.

3. The steady withdrawal of aid from institutions for the higher training of the Negro.

3. The steady withdrawal of support from institutions providing higher education for Black people.

These movements are not, to be sure, direct results of Mr. Washington’s teachings; but his propaganda has, without a shadow of doubt, helped their speedier accomplishment. The question then comes: Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and allowed only the most meagre chance for developing their exceptional men? If history and reason give any distinct answer to these questions, it is an emphatic No. And Mr. Washington thus faces the triple paradox of his career:

These movements are not, of course, direct results of Mr. Washington’s teachings. But his public advocacy has, without any doubt, helped bring them about more quickly. The question then is: Is it possible, and likely, that nine million men can make real economic progress under these conditions? Can they do so if denied political rights, reduced to a subservient caste, and given only the slightest chance to develop their most gifted men? If history and reason offer any clear answer to these questions, the answer is an emphatic No. And so Mr. Washington faces the three-part paradox of his career:

1. He is striving nobly to make Negro artisans business men and property-owners; but it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for workingmen and property-owners to defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage.

1. He is making a noble effort to help Black artisans become businessmen and property owners. But under modern competitive conditions, workers and property owners cannot possibly defend their rights or survive without the right to vote.

2. He insists on thrift and self-respect, but at the same time counsels a silent submission to civic inferiority such as is bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run.

2. He insists on saving money and having self-respect. But at the same time, he advises silently accepting an inferior status as citizens. Such submission is bound to weaken the manhood of any race over time.

3. He advocates common-school and industrial training, and depreciates institutions of higher learning; but neither the Negro common-schools, nor Tuskegee itself, could remain open a day were it not for teachers trained in Negro colleges, or trained by their graduates.

3. He supports public schooling and job training. He also downplays the value of higher education. But neither Negro public schools nor Tuskegee itself could stay open a single day without teachers trained in Negro colleges or by graduates of those colleges.

This triple paradox in Mr. Washington’s position is the object of criticism by two classes of colored Americans. One class is spiritually descended from Toussaint the Savior, through Gabriel, Vesey, and Turner, and they represent the attitude of revolt and revenge; they hate the white South blindly and distrust the white race generally, and so far as they agree on definite action, think that the Negro’s only hope lies in emigration beyond the borders of the United States. And yet, by the irony of fate, nothing has more effectually made this programme seem hopeless than the recent course of the United States toward weaker and darker peoples in the West Indies, Hawaii, and the Philippines,—for where in the world may we go and be safe from lying and brute force?

Two groups of Black Americans criticize this triple paradox in Mr. Washington’s position. One group descends spiritually from Toussaint the Savior, through Gabriel, Vesey, and Turner. This group stands for revolt and revenge. Its members blindly hate the white South and distrust white people generally. To the extent that they agree on a definite course, they believe Black Americans’ only hope is leaving the United States. Yet, ironically, nothing has made this plan seem more hopeless than the United States’ recent treatment of weaker, darker peoples. These are the peoples of the West Indies, Hawaii, and the Philippines. For where in the world can we go and be safe from lies and brute force?

The other class of Negroes who cannot agree with Mr. Washington has hitherto said little aloud. They deprecate the sight of scattered counsels, of internal disagreement; and especially they dislike making their just criticism of a useful and earnest man an excuse for a general discharge of venom from small-minded opponents. Nevertheless, the questions involved are so fundamental and serious that it is difficult to see how men like the Grimkes, Kelly Miller, J. W. E. Bowen, and other representatives of this group, can much longer be silent. Such men feel in conscience bound to ask of this nation three things:

The other group of Black people who cannot agree with Mr. Washington has so far said little publicly. They disapprove of divided advice and internal disagreement. Above all, they dislike seeing their fair criticism of a useful, sincere man become an excuse for small-minded opponents’ hatred. Nevertheless, the questions at stake are so fundamental and serious that continued silence seems difficult to imagine. How much longer can men like the Grimkes, Kelly Miller, J. W. E. Bowen, and others representing this group remain silent? These men feel their conscience requires them to ask three things of this nation:

1. The right to vote.

1. The right to vote.

2. Civic equality.

2. Equal rights as citizens.

3. The education of youth according to ability. They acknowledge Mr. Washington’s invaluable service in counselling patience and courtesy in such demands; they do not ask that ignorant black men vote when ignorant whites are debarred, or that any reasonable restrictions in the suffrage should not be applied; they know that the low social level of the mass of the race is responsible for much discrimination against it, but they also know, and the nation knows, that relentless color-prejudice is more often a cause than a result of the Negro’s degradation; they seek the abatement of this relic of barbarism, and not its systematic encouragement and pampering by all agencies of social power from the Associated Press to the Church of Christ. They advocate, with Mr. Washington, a broad system of Negro common schools supplemented by thorough industrial training; but they are surprised that a man of Mr. Washington’s insight cannot see that no such educational system ever has rested or can rest on any other basis than that of the well-equipped college and university, and they insist that there is a demand for a few such institutions throughout the South to train the best of the Negro youth as teachers, professional men, and leaders.

3. Educating young people according to their abilities. They recognize Mr. Washington’s invaluable service in advising patience and courtesy when making these demands. They do not ask that uneducated black men be allowed to vote when uneducated whites are barred from voting. Nor do they oppose any reasonable restrictions on voting rights. They know that the low social standing of most black people accounts for much discrimination against the race. But they also know, as does the nation, that relentless racial prejudice more often causes black people’s degraded condition than results from it. They seek to reduce this remnant of barbarism. They do not want every institution of social power, from the Associated Press to the Church of Christ, systematically encouraging and nurturing racial prejudice. Like Mr. Washington, they support a broad system of public schools for black children, supplemented by thorough vocational training. But they are surprised that a man with Mr. Washington’s insight cannot recognize the foundation such a system requires. No such educational system has ever rested, or can rest, on anything other than well-equipped colleges and universities. They insist that a few such institutions are needed throughout the South. These institutions would train the most capable black young people as teachers, professionals, and leaders.

This group of men honor Mr. Washington for his attitude of conciliation toward the white South; they accept the “Atlanta Compromise” in its broadest interpretation; they recognize, with him, many signs of promise, many men of high purpose and fair judgment, in this section; they know that no easy task has been laid upon a region already tottering under heavy burdens. But, nevertheless, they insist that the way to truth and right lies in straightforward honesty, not in indiscriminate flattery; in praising those of the South who do well and criticising uncompromisingly those who do ill; in taking advantage of the opportunities at hand and urging their fellows to do the same, but at the same time in remembering that only a firm adherence to their higher ideals and aspirations will ever keep those ideals within the realm of possibility. They do not expect that the free right to vote, to enjoy civic rights, and to be educated, will come in a moment; they do not expect to see the bias and prejudices of years disappear at the blast of a trumpet; but they are absolutely certain that the way for a people to gain their reasonable rights is not by voluntarily throwing them away and insisting that they do not want them; that the way for a people to gain respect is not by continually belittling and ridiculing themselves; that, on the contrary, Negroes must insist continually, in season and out of season, that voting is necessary to modern manhood, that color discrimination is barbarism, and that black boys need education as well as white boys.

These men respect Mr. Washington for his efforts to make peace with the white South. They accept the “Atlanta Compromise” in its broadest sense. Like him, they see many signs of promise in the South, and many men with high aims and fair judgment. They know the South faces no easy task, already struggling under heavy burdens. Still, these men insist that the path to truth and justice requires straightforward honesty, not praise given without distinction. They believe in praising Southerners who do good and firmly criticizing those who do wrong. They believe in using the opportunities available and urging other Black people to do the same. But they also remember that their higher ideals and hopes remain possible only if they hold firmly to them. They do not expect to gain the freedom to vote, enjoy civil rights, and receive an education all at once. They do not expect years of bias and prejudice to vanish at the sound of a trumpet. But they are absolutely certain that people cannot gain their rightful freedoms by willingly surrendering them and claiming not to want them. Nor can people gain respect by constantly belittling and ridiculing themselves. On the contrary, Black people must insist at all times, whether welcome or not, that voting is essential to modern manhood. They must insist that racial discrimination is barbaric, and that Black boys need education just as white boys do.

In failing thus to state plainly and unequivocally the legitimate demands of their people, even at the cost of opposing an honored leader, the thinking classes of American Negroes would shirk a heavy responsibility,—a responsibility to themselves, a responsibility to the struggling masses, a responsibility to the darker races of men whose future depends so largely on this American experiment, but especially a responsibility to this nation,—this common Fatherland. It is wrong to encourage a man or a people in evil-doing; it is wrong to aid and abet a national crime simply because it is unpopular not to do so. The growing spirit of kindliness and reconciliation between the North and South after the frightful difference of a generation ago ought to be a source of deep congratulation to all, and especially to those whose mistreatment caused the war; but if that reconciliation is to be marked by the industrial slavery and civic death of those same black men, with permanent legislation into a position of inferiority, then those black men, if they are really men, are called upon by every consideration of patriotism and loyalty to oppose such a course by all civilized methods, even though such opposition involves disagreement with Mr. Booker T. Washington. We have no right to sit silently by while the inevitable seeds are sown for a harvest of disaster to our children, black and white.

If educated Black Americans fail to state their people’s rightful demands plainly and firmly, they would avoid a serious responsibility. They must speak even at the cost of opposing an honored leader. They owe this responsibility to themselves and to the struggling masses. They also owe it to the darker races, whose future depends so heavily on this American experiment. Above all, they owe it to this nation, our shared homeland. It is wrong to encourage a person or a people to do wrong. It is wrong to help commit a national crime simply because refusing to help is unpopular. The growing spirit of goodwill and reconciliation between the North and South after the terrible conflict a generation ago deserves celebration. Everyone should deeply welcome this reconciliation, especially those whose mistreatment caused the war. But what if reconciliation means economic slavery and the loss of civil rights for those same Black people? What if laws permanently force them into an inferior position? Then those Black men, if they are truly men, must oppose that course through every civilized means. Every duty of patriotism and loyalty demands their opposition, even if opposing it means disagreeing with Mr. Booker T. Washington. We have no right to sit silently while the seeds of inevitable disaster are sown for our children, Black and white.

First, it is the duty of black men to judge the South discriminatingly. The present generation of Southerners are not responsible for the past, and they should not be blindly hated or blamed for it. Furthermore, to no class is the indiscriminate endorsement of the recent course of the South toward Negroes more nauseating than to the best thought of the South. The South is not “solid”; it is a land in the ferment of social change, wherein forces of all kinds are fighting for supremacy; and to praise the ill the South is today perpetrating is just as wrong as to condemn the good. Discriminating and broad-minded criticism is what the South needs,—needs it for the sake of her own white sons and daughters, and for the insurance of robust, healthy mental and moral development.

First, Black men have a duty to judge the South carefully and fairly. The present generation of Southerners is not responsible for the past. They should not be blindly hated or blamed for that past. Furthermore, no group finds blanket approval of the South’s recent treatment of Black people more sickening than the South’s finest thinkers. The South is not “solid”. It is a land undergoing turbulent social change, where forces of all kinds are fighting for control. Praising the wrongs the South is committing today is just as wrong as condemning the good it does. The South needs fair, open-minded criticism for the sake of its own white sons and daughters. Such criticism is also needed to ensure strong, healthy intellectual and moral development.

Today even the attitude of the Southern whites toward the blacks is not, as so many assume, in all cases the same; the ignorant Southerner hates the Negro, the workingmen fear his competition, the money-makers wish to use him as a laborer, some of the educated see a menace in his upward development, while others—usually the sons of the masters—wish to help him to rise. National opinion has enabled this last class to maintain the Negro common schools, and to protect the Negro partially in property, life, and limb. Through the pressure of the money-makers, the Negro is in danger of being reduced to semi-slavery, especially in the country districts; the workingmen, and those of the educated who fear the Negro, have united to disfranchise him, and some have urged his deportation; while the passions of the ignorant are easily aroused to lynch and abuse any black man. To praise this intricate whirl of thought and prejudice is nonsense; to inveigh indiscriminately against “the South” is unjust; but to use the same breath in praising Governor Aycock, exposing Senator Morgan, arguing with Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, and denouncing Senator Ben Tillman, is not only sane, but the imperative duty of thinking black men.

Even today, Southern whites do not all share the same attitude toward black people, as so many assume. Ignorant Southerners hate black people. Workingmen fear their competition. Those seeking profits want to use them as laborers. Some educated whites see black people’s advancement as a threat. Others want to help them rise. These supporters are usually the sons of slaveholders. National opinion has enabled these supporters to maintain public schools for black children. It has also enabled them to give black people some protection for their property, lives, and physical safety. Pressure from those seeking profits puts black people in danger of being reduced to near slavery, especially in rural areas. Workingmen and educated whites who fear black people have joined forces to deny them the vote. Some have called for their deportation. Meanwhile, ignorant whites are easily stirred to lynch and abuse any black man. Praising this tangled mix of thought and prejudice is nonsense. Condemning “the South” without distinction is unjust. But praising Governor Aycock, exposing Senator Morgan, debating Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, and denouncing Senator Ben Tillman can go together. Doing all these things is not only reasonable but an urgent duty for thinking black men.

It would be unjust to Mr. Washington not to acknowledge that in several instances he has opposed movements in the South which were unjust to the Negro; he sent memorials to the Louisiana and Alabama constitutional conventions, he has spoken against lynching, and in other ways has openly or silently set his influence against sinister schemes and unfortunate happenings. Notwithstanding this, it is equally true to assert that on the whole the distinct impression left by Mr. Washington’s propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro’s degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro’s failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth. The supplementary truths must never be lost sight of: first, slavery and race-prejudice are potent if not sufficient causes of the Negro’s position; second, industrial and common-school training were necessarily slow in planting because they had to await the black teachers trained by higher institutions,—it being extremely doubtful if any essentially different development was possible, and certainly a Tuskegee was unthinkable before 1880; and, third, while it is a great truth to say that the Negro must strive and strive mightily to help himself, it is equally true that unless his striving be not simply seconded, but rather aroused and encouraged, by the initiative of the richer and wiser environing group, he cannot hope for great success.

It would be unfair to Mr. Washington not to acknowledge his opposition to several Southern movements unjust to Black people. He sent formal petitions to the Louisiana and Alabama constitutional conventions. He has spoken against lynching. In other ways, openly or quietly, he has used his influence against sinister schemes and unfortunate events. Despite these actions, Mr. Washington’s public advocacy leaves three clear impressions overall. First, the South’s present attitude toward Black people is justified because of their degraded condition. Second, the main reason Black people have not advanced more quickly is their misguided education in the past. Third, their future advancement depends primarily on their own efforts. Each of these claims is a dangerous half-truth. We must never lose sight of the truths that complete these claims. First, slavery and racial prejudice are powerful causes of Black people’s condition, even if they do not fully explain it. Second, vocational and basic schooling necessarily took time to establish. These schools had to wait for Black teachers trained by institutions of higher education. Whether any fundamentally different development was possible is extremely doubtful. Certainly, a school like Tuskegee was unthinkable before 1880. Third, Black people must indeed work hard, and very hard, to help themselves. But an equally important truth is that their efforts need more than support from the wealthier, better-informed group around them. That group must take the initiative to inspire and encourage those efforts. Without such initiative, Black people cannot hope for great success.

In his failure to realize and impress this last point, Mr. Washington is especially to be criticised. His doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs.

Mr. Washington deserves particular criticism for failing to understand and emphasize this last point. His teaching has tended to make white people, North and South, shift responsibility for the Negro problem onto Black people. It has encouraged white people to stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators. But the burden actually belongs to the nation. None of us has clean hands if we do not devote our energies to righting these great wrongs.

The South ought to be led, by candid and honest criticism, to assert her better self and do her full duty to the race she has cruelly wronged and is still wronging. The North—her co-partner in guilt—cannot salve her conscience by plastering it with gold. We cannot settle this problem by diplomacy and suaveness, by “policy” alone. If worse come to worst, can the moral fibre of this country survive the slow throttling and murder of nine millions of men?

Frank and honest criticism should lead the South to live up to its better nature. It should also lead the South to fulfill its duty to the race it has cruelly wronged and still wrongs. The North shares the South’s guilt and cannot soothe its conscience with money. We cannot solve this problem through diplomacy and smooth talk, through “policy” alone. If the worst happens, can this country’s moral strength survive the slow strangling and murder of nine million people?

The black men of America have a duty to perform, a duty stern and delicate,—a forward movement to oppose a part of the work of their greatest leader. So far as Mr. Washington preaches Thrift, Patience, and Industrial Training for the masses, we must hold up his hands and strive with him, rejoicing in his honors and glorying in the strength of this Joshua called of God and of man to lead the headless host. But so far as Mr. Washington apologizes for injustice, North or South, does not rightly value the privilege and duty of voting, belittles the emasculating effects of caste distinctions, and opposes the higher training and ambition of our brighter minds,—so far as he, the South, or the Nation, does this,—we must unceasingly and firmly oppose them. By every civilized and peaceful method we must strive for the rights which the world accords to men, clinging unwaveringly to those great words which the sons of the Fathers would fain forget: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Black men in America have a duty to fulfill, one that is both difficult and delicate. We must move forward by opposing part of our greatest leader’s work. As long as Mr. Washington promotes thrift, patience, and industrial training for the masses, we must support him. We must work alongside him, celebrate his honors, and take pride in his strength. He is a Joshua, called by God and humanity to lead a people without a leader. But when Mr. Washington excuses injustice, North or South, we must firmly and constantly oppose him. We must also oppose him when he fails to recognize the value of voting as a right and duty. The same applies when he downplays how caste divisions strip people of power and dignity. And it applies when he opposes higher education and ambition for our brightest minds. Whenever he, the South, or the Nation takes these positions, we must firmly and constantly oppose them. Through every civilized and peaceful method, we must fight for the rights the world grants to men. We must hold firmly to the great words the descendants of the Founding Fathers would gladly forget: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain rights that cannot be taken away. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”