Du Bois describes the creation of the public school system during Reconstruction. He focuses on the role of Black Americans in creating public schools. Enslaved people were not permitted to learn to read or write. After Emancipation, they eagerly participated in the opportunity to gain an education so as to “rise out of their condition” (570).

Du Bois notes that before the Civil War and Reconstruction, there were limited to no opportunities for public education in the Southern United States for white or Black people. He argues that Black people led the movement for the creation of public schools in the South. He details the history of the creation of public school systems in North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, and other Southern states. 

These state histories share many commonalities. Free Black people, missionary groups, and Northern charitable groups established the first schools for Black Americans in the South, some of them illicitly. Most of the teachers in these schools initially were white Northerners. Several normal schools, or schools for training teachers, were established throughout the South during Reconstruction to train Black Americans as teachers. These private or illegal schools were later incorporated into the newly-created public school system during Reconstruction. Black Americans advocated for integrated school systems, although white people largely rejected this, choosing instead to privately educate their children, if at all.

Du Bois argues against the myth that Southern white people approved of educational programs for Black people. He provides quotes from reports at the time illustrating that Southern white people were overwhelmingly against educating Black people. They particularly resented that their taxes were being used to educate Black children. He notes that the creation of public school systems in the South is closely linked with Black suffrage, as it was a chief concern of the Black delegates at the state constitutions during Reconstruction. These public schools improved educational opportunities for white children as well as Black students.

When the Freedmen’s Bureau’s work was ended in 1870, funding for public schools generally was widely reduced. Where public school systems were maintained, they were segregated, which created administrative burdens and inefficiencies.

Du Bois concludes that Black advocacy for, and participation in, the public school system with the support of white carpetbaggers helped develop Black leadership in the years following Emancipation.

Du Bois describes the violence and oppression that took place throughout the South following the end of Reconstruction and the withdrawal of federal support for Black Americans in 1874. He emphasizes the role of white terror organizations based on “a new doctrine of race hatred” (599), namely the KKK and the White League. He describes this period as an extension of the Civil War.

Immediately after the Civil War, the South was plagued by lawlessness, crime, and murder by roving bands of former Confederate soldiers and other white mobs who attacked recently emancipated Black Americans. Du Bois notes that the relative poverty of the planter after the Civil War and Black Emancipation should have provided opportunity for poor white people to acquire land. However, they were shut out of economic recovery by the influx of Northern capitalists with the support of the federal military dictatorship. Poor white people directed their resentment not toward the federal government, but toward Black people through “armed guerrilla warfare” (602). Thousands of Black Americans were killed in white mob violence. Du Bois argues white mobs were driven by “fear of unemployment” (606) entwined with racism. 

By 1868, white terrorists had organized into secret societies like the KKK to prevent Black people from exercising their voting rights. In 1871, President Grant’s administration passed a law to crack down on Klan activities. However, white Southern juries refused to convict their activities and ultimately only 903 people were convicted. In 1874, only four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida) remained under Republican control. The White League and similar organizations organized murder, voter intimidation, and ballot-box stuffing to ensure a return to Democratic control. Du Bois disputes claims by some white supremacist historians like “Rhodes and others” (615) that such activities have been exaggerated. Du Bois points to the Majority Report of the Ku Klux Committee and other evidence to justify his claims.

Du Bois notes that the end of Reconstruction was led by changes in the Supreme Court. In 1870, “Northern Big Business” (617) was able to ensure it had three appointees on the Supreme Court and their ally Morrison Waite was appointed Chief Justice. These justices used their power to “fre[e] land and capital in the South from any fear of control by black and white labor” (617). In 1876, the Waite court revised interpretation of the Fifteenth Amendment to state that citizenship did not confer the right of suffrage. Many Black Americans lost their right to vote as a result. That year, Republican presidential candidate Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove federal troops from the South in exchange for Democratic support as long as the Democrats agreed to reduce mob rule and lawlessness against Black Americans so as not to interfere with profits. 

Reconstruction came to a close. Although some Black Americans continued to advocate for suffrage and civil rights, they largely turned away from political activity. As Du Bois notes, “From 1880 onward, in order to earn a living, the American Negro was compelled to give up his political power” (619). Black Americans were denied suffrage, segregated, and exploited in enslavement-like conditions through low wages and the convict labor system,  wherein Black men are arrested for minor or nonexistent crimes, imprisoned, and then leased out to private companies as forced labor.

Du Bois argues that had the working classes united across the color line during Reconstruction, they could have pushed back against the excesses of the capitalist class and improved living conditions overall. However, Southern white working class people would “rather have low wages” than see Black people earn a “decent wage” (626). He notes that Black people have accomplished many great things despite the oppression they have faced. He argues that white Americans have also suffered as a result of this oppression, as they too are disadvantaged by the “fraud and oligarchy in the South” (629). He concludes that although Reconstruction failed, it was a “splendid failure” that showed the possibilities for Black Americans and a truer form of American democracy with equality and labor rights for all.

In his final chapter, Du Bois critiques the historiography of Reconstruction. He opens with a description of the typical narrative Americans learn about the Civil War and Reconstruction. He notes how many Americans are taught that the Civil War was about “State Rights,” rather than enslavement. They are taught that Black Americans were ignorant, “lazy, dishonest, and extravagant” and therefore were the culprits of the graft and corruption that took place during the Reconstruction Era (635). 

Throughout Black Reconstruction, Du Bois has countered these claims by illustrating how the Civil War was about enslavement and how Black Americans contributed to good governance, such as the creation of the public school system, while only minimally taking part in the rampant graft and corruption of the era.

Du Bois criticizes white historians for their misrepresentation of the facts of the Civil War and Reconstruction. He notes that many white historians are white supremacists, leading them to make claims about Black Americans rooted in racism rather than facts. He argues that they selectively use evidence to support their claims while excluding evidence that runs counter to their assertions. In many instances, they overlook Black Americans and the economic foundations of the political turbulence of the Reconstruction Era. 

He argues that historians should be more scientific and less propagandistic in their work. He states that they should use more government records rather than “selected diaries, letters, and gossip” (646). He regrets that he was not able to use more primary documents in his own study of Reconstruction, as many records have been destroyed. He advocates for more accurate study of Reconstruction and suggests it can inform contemporary labor and civil rights struggles.