在某种程度上，杜波依斯对华盛顿的批评是有效的，因为华盛顿几乎没有解决困扰非洲裔美国人种族的社会问题，因此没有对白人群体产生争议或威胁。然而，当看到两位领导人的背景时，他们为何会有如此对立的观点就变得很明显了。华盛顿生来就是南方的奴隶，所以在处理白人的问题时，他自然会更加谨慎和保守，因为他知道大多数人会对非裔美国人造成伤害。当私刑的数量不断增加的时候，他变得成熟起来，因此他会完全认识和理解大多数非裔美国人所生活的恐惧。相比之下，杜波依斯出生在北方，他比南方更自由，也更容易接受，所以他对很多非裔美国人处理的日常问题和焦虑并没有真正的把握。也可以这样说，虽然杜波依斯花了大量时间批评华盛顿，但实际上他并没有采取实际行动来推动美国黑人的进步，就像华盛顿对塔斯基吉研究所所做的那样。
To some degree Du Bois' criticisms of Washington were valid, as Washington did little to resolve the social issues that plagued the African-American race, so as not to seem controversial or threatening to the white population. However, when looking at the backgrounds of the two leaders it becomes obvious why they had such opposing views. Washington had been born a Slave in the South and so he would naturally be more cautious and reserved when dealing with the white population as he knew the damage that a majority population could cause to African-American's. He matured in a time when the number of lynchings was ever growing, and so he would fully recognise and understand the fear most African-American's lived with. Du Bois by contrast, was born a freeman in the North, which was far more liberal and accepting than the South and so he didn't have a proper grasp of the everyday problems and anxieties many African-Americans' dealt with. It can also be argued that while Du Bois spent large amounts of his time criticising Washington, he actually did nothing practical to forward the progress of African-Americans' the way Washington did with the Tuskegee Institute.
