Just now the white people even in the South—have felt the pressure of the new Negro’s manhood demands, in spite of the fact that backward-looking Negroes like _The Age_’s editor condemn the inflexible spirit of these demands. All over the South, the white papers, scared by the exodus of Negro laborers who are tired of begging for justice overdue, are saying that we are right, and friendlier legislation has begun to appear on Southern statute books. Mr. Mencken and other Southern writers are saying that the Negro is demanding, and that the South had better accede to his just demands, as it is only a matter of time when he will be in position to enforce them. One should think, then, that those who have been parading as our professional friends would be in the van of this manhood movement. But the movement seems to have left them in the rear. Now, that we are demanding the whole loaf, they are begging for half, and are angry at us for going further than they think “nice.” It was the N.A.A.C.P. which was urging us to compromise our manhood by begging eagerly for “Jim Crow” training camps. And the same group is asking, in the November _Crisis_, that we put a collective power-of-attorney into their hand and leave it to them to shape our national destiny. The N.A.A.C.P. has done much good work for Negroes—splendid work—in fighting lynching and segregation. For that we owe it more gratitude and good will than we owe to the entire Republican party for the last sixty years of its existence. But we cannot, even in this case, abdicate our right to shape more radical policies for ourselves. It was the realization of the need for a more radical policy than that of the N.A.A.C.P. that called into being the Liberty League of Negro Americans. And the N.A.A.C.P., as mother, must forgive its offspring for forging farther ahead. Then, there is the case of the New York _Evening Post_, of which Mr. Villard is owner. This paper was known far and wide as “a friend to Negroes.” But its friendship has given way to indifference and worse. In the good old days every lynching received editorial condemnation. But the three great lynchings this year which preceded East St. Louis found no editorial of condemnation in the _Post_. It was more than luke-warm then. But, alack and alas! As soon as the Negro soldiers in Houston, goaded to retaliation by gross indignities, did some shooting on their own account, the _Evening Post_, which had no condemnation of the conduct of the lynchers, joined the chorus of those who were screaming for “punishment” and death. Here is its brief editorial on August 25th: