Booker T. Washington and the Historians

Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2015 Booker T. Washington and the Historians: How Changing Views on Race Relations, Economics, and Education Shaped Washington Historiography, 1915-2010 Joshua Thomas Zeringue Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Zeringue, Joshua Thomas, "Booker T. Washington and the Historians: How Changing Views on Race Relations, Economics, and Education Shaped Washington Historiography, 1915-2010" (2015). LSU Master's Theses. 1154. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1154 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON AND THE HISTORIANS: HOW CHANGING VIEWS ON RACE RELATIONS, ECONOMICS, AND EDUCATION SHAPED WASHINGTON HISTORIOGRAPHY, 1915-2010 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Joshua Thomas Zeringue B.A., Christendom College, 2010 December 2015 To Monica, Sam, and Noah. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I was twelve years old my father gave me a piece of advice. “Son,” he said, “whenever you read a book, be sure to note when it was written.” Though I did not understand at the time, my father had taught me the most basic principle of historiography. I want to thank him and my mother for having the courage to offer me an excellent homeschool education. Acknowledgement must go my undergraduate mentors at Christendom College as they first instilled in me a love of historiography and Southern history. To Professors Christopher Shannon, Adam Schwartz, and Bernard Way, I say thank you. I cannot thank my thesis advisor, Professor Gaines Foster, enough for his patience, encouragement, and wisdom. I could not have asked for a better advisor or writing experience. Thanks also to the members of my thesis committee, Professors Nancy Isenberg and David Culbert, for their time and for their indispensable suggestions. This thesis would have suffered if not for the professional editing skills of my sister-in-law, Katie Montelepre Zeringue. Thank you for your time and encouragement. I would also like to thank all those who offered constant support and encouragement, particularly Cathy and Bill Pacheco, Joan and Bryan Zeringue, and Hans and Josephine Van Beek. Last but never least, thank you to my wife, Monica Pacheco Zeringue. Without you I would be nothing. No one has sacrificed more to see this thesis to completion. I love you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iii ABSTRACT . v INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER I: THE HAGIOGRAPHERS, 1910-1950 . 10 CHAPTER II: THE EMERGENCE OF THE CRITICAL PARADIGM, 1950-1970 . 44 CHAPTER III: WASHINGTON ON TRIAL, 1970-2000 . 78 CHAPTER IV: THE RETURN TO SYMPATHETIC SCHOLARSHIP, 2000-2010 . 120 CONCLUSION . 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 163 VITA . 167 iv ABSTRACT “Booker T. Washington and the Historians” analyzes the past century of scholarly writings on Booker T. Washington and seeks to describe the major paradigms used to explain his life and work. Between 1915 and 2010 four major paradigms emerged. The hagiographic paradigm, which offered an uncritical and triumphal account, dominated Washington scholarship from 1915 to 1950. In the 1950s the critical paradigm became widely accepted among historians; Washington was viewed as a compromiser with white supremacists and Northern industrialists. In the 1990s and 2000s the educational paradigm, which focused on Washington’s pedagogy and educational achievements, developed as an alternative to the critical paradigm. In the 2000s, the contextual paradigm challenged the critical paradigm, presenting Washington’s activities in the context of the virulent white supremacy of his era. Historians writing within a particular paradigm shared common assumptions about race relations, economics, and education. When these views shifted, new paradigms materialized. v INTRODUCTION As November 2015 marks the centennial of the death of Booker T. Washington, a historiographical review of Washington scholarship is timely. In the past century, historians have painted incredibly disparate portraits of Washington. Some viewed him as a savior, the black leader par excellence. Others condemned him for selling his race out to white supremacists and greedy industrialists. Sometimes he was characterized as a trenchant conservative, other times as a progressive icon. His pedagogy has alternately been described as outmoded or visionary. Was he a black nationalist or a racial assimilationist? Some historians marveled at his saintly forbearance in the face of criticism; others described him as a thin-skinned, Machiavellian dictator. These debates have raged for a century. It is the goal of the historiographer not to settle these controversies, but to outline the evolution of these debates, explaining why historians in different eras have come to divergent conclusions regarding the meaning of Washington’s life, work, and philosophy. This is a story which adds to our understanding of the progression of ideas in the historical profession in the past century and helps us grow closer to understanding the enigma that is Washington. Before examining the ways historians have interpreted Washington’s leadership, a brief summary of his biography is in order. Though the exact date of Washington’s birth is unknown, it was probably around 1856. The son of an unknown white man and an enslaved woman, he grew up in the slave quarters of a small farm belonging to James Burroughs, near the town of Hale’s Ford in southwest Virginia. After emancipation, his mother, Jane, moved the family to Malden, West Virginia, to join her husband, Washington Ferguson, a worker in the salt mines. As an adolescent, Washington developed an appetite for education. He attended school in Malden despite the protestations of his stepfather, who felt Washington would be more useful in the mines. According to Washington’s autobiographies, on his first day of school, his teacher asked for his last name; having grown up a slave and thus not knowing the answer, he claims to have deliberately adopted the surname “Washington” in honor of the first United States president. As a teenager, Washington was afforded more positive contact with whites than most of his peers. At the age of ten or eleven, he entered the employ of a wealthy white family, the Ruffners, as a domestic helper. Later, he traveled 500 miles 1 to attend the Hampton Normal and Industrial Institute in Virginia. The Institute was run by Samuel Chapman Armstrong, a former colonel in the United States army, under the auspices of the American Missionary Association (AMA), an organization dedicated to educating blacks in the values of Protestantism and classical liberalism. Later, Washington described Armstrong not only as a mentor, but also as the greatest man he had ever known. While at the Institute, Washington imbibed the values of the AMA and, for the rest of his life, promoted industrial education, racial self-help, practical religion, moral rectitude, entrepreneurship, interracial cooperation, and American democracy. In 1881, the state legislature of Alabama asked Armstrong to recommend a candidate competent to establish a school for blacks in Tuskegee, Alabama. When Armstrong offered him the position, Washington, who had undertaken several unsuccessful careers since his graduation in 1879, enthusiastically accepted. As principal of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute, Washington spent the next decade building the school into a “Hampton” for southern blacks. The funds earmarked by the state of Alabama for the Tuskegee Institute were limited, so Washington spent much of his subsequent career courting northern white philanthropists for donations. In the course of his entreaties, he developed close personal relationships with many of the titans of industry, including John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Julius Rosenwald, and Robert Ogden. Washington was wildly successful; at the height of his career, he served as the intermediary for practically all philanthropic donations to black institutions. Washington catapulted to national prominence after delivering a famous speech at the Cotton States Exposition in Atlanta in 1895. The meaning of his speech is one of the most hotly contested aspects of his legacy, but what is certain is that the majority of liberal and moderate whites, as well as most blacks, praised the speech as providing a pragmatic vision of race relations. Only truculent white supremacists complained. Washington emerged as the most influential back leader in America. In the years following the speech, Washington set about extending his influence until he wielded a virtual monopoly over black cultural and political affairs. Washington published over a dozen popular books promoting his ideology, the most significant being his autobiographies, The Story of My Life and Work and Up from Slavery. He delivered countless speeches promoting the Tuskegee Institute and his philosophy of race relations. Washington also established numerous

Load more