Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (38 page)
Authors: Edward J. Larson
BOOK: Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
2.78Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
None of the works cited suggest that the debunking of Bryan would slow the antievolution crusade, because liberal commentators of the day typically viewed fundamentalists as servile rubes immune to shame. In his highly critical 1931
History of Fundamentalism,
for example, Stewart G. Cole ridiculed Bryan’s role in the Scopes trial, yet wrote that it
quickened
the pace of antievolution activity, especially after Riley, Straton, and others began competing to carry on the Commoner’s work. On balance, early historical reflection on the Scopes trial presented the episode as a sign of the times rather than as a decisive turning point.
80
At the decade’s end, the legacy of the Scopes trial remained up for grabs.
History of Fundamentalism,
for example, Stewart G. Cole ridiculed Bryan’s role in the Scopes trial, yet wrote that it
quickened
the pace of antievolution activity, especially after Riley, Straton, and others began competing to carry on the Commoner’s work. On balance, early historical reflection on the Scopes trial presented the episode as a sign of the times rather than as a decisive turning point.
80
At the decade’s end, the legacy of the Scopes trial remained up for grabs.
—CHAPTER NINE—
RETELLING THE TALE
T
HE MODERN SCOPES legend emerged during a thirty-year period bracketed by the appearance of two enormously popular creative works. The process began in 1931, when
Harper’s
magazine editor Frederick Lewis Allen published his surprise best-seller,
Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the Nineteen-Twenties,
and culminated in 1960 with the release of
Inherit the Wind,
a popular motion picture based on a long-running Broadway play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. Far more than anything that actually happened in Dayton, these two works shaped how later generations would come to think of the Scopes trial.
HE MODERN SCOPES legend emerged during a thirty-year period bracketed by the appearance of two enormously popular creative works. The process began in 1931, when
Harper’s
magazine editor Frederick Lewis Allen published his surprise best-seller,
Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the Nineteen-Twenties,
and culminated in 1960 with the release of
Inherit the Wind,
a popular motion picture based on a long-running Broadway play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. Far more than anything that actually happened in Dayton, these two works shaped how later generations would come to think of the Scopes trial.
In writing
Only Yesterday,
Allen never specifically intended to shape public perceptions of the trial; as the country sank into the Great Depression, he simply sought to relate the happier days of the Roaring Twenties in a lively, journalistic fashion. Without any formal training in historical methods but with a reporter’s knack for chronicling events, Allen drew up a calendar for the decade and used old almanacs and periodicals to fill in top news stories for each month. He then transformed his outline into a fast-paced narrative. As the major news story of mid-1925, the Scopes trial became the feature event of a middle chapter in Allen’s book.
Only Yesterday,
Allen never specifically intended to shape public perceptions of the trial; as the country sank into the Great Depression, he simply sought to relate the happier days of the Roaring Twenties in a lively, journalistic fashion. Without any formal training in historical methods but with a reporter’s knack for chronicling events, Allen drew up a calendar for the decade and used old almanacs and periodicals to fill in top news stories for each month. He then transformed his outline into a fast-paced narrative. As the major news story of mid-1925, the Scopes trial became the feature event of a middle chapter in Allen’s book.
Allen presented the trial in cartoonlike simplicity. The growing “prestige of science” sapped the “spiritual dynamic” from modern America, he asserted. Fundamentalists, in reaction, clung to “the letter of the Bible and refused to accept any teaching, even of science, which seemed to conflict with it.” Modernists, in contrast, “tried to reconcile their beliefs with scientific thought; to throw overboard what was out of date.” Skeptics, “nourished on outlines of science,” abandoned religion. “All through the decade the three-sided conflict reverberated. It reached its climax in the Scopes case in the summer of 1925,” Allen wrote. “In the eyes of the public, the trial was a battle between Fundamentalists on the one hand and twentieth-century skepticism (assisted by Modernism) on the other.” Subplots, he suggested, included “rural piety” versus urban sophistication and the South against the North. The defense’s fight for individual liberty and the prosecution’s appeal to majoritarianism disappeared from Allen’s version of events, as did the ACLU and the WCFA. His account pit Darrow against Bryan in a bitter, farcical encounter set amid a media frenzy in the circuslike atmosphere of Dayton boosterism. “The climax—both of bitterness and of farce—came on the afternoon of July 20th,” when Bryan “affirmed his belief” in various Old Testament miracles under Darrow’s withering interrogation. “The sort of religious faith which he represented could not take the witness stand and face reason as a prosecutor,” Allen concluded. “Theoretically, Fundamentalism had won, for the law stood. Yet really Fundamentalism had lost ... and the slow drift away from Fundamentalist certainty continued.”
1
1
In
Only Yesterday,
Allen reduced fundamentalism to antievolutionism and antievolutionism to Bryan. Both reductions grossly oversimplified matters and forced Allen to reconstruct the story. For example, he wrote that under Darrow’s questioning, “Bryan affirmed his belief that the world was created in 4004 B.C.,” whereas Darrow actually wrung out a concession that the Genesis days of creation represented long periods of time, leading to Darrow’s triumphant claim that “Bryan had contradicted his own faith.” Also, Allen never mentioned Bryan’s forced admission on the stand of his ignorance about science, which earlier commentators viewed as so important in debunking antievolutionism. Allen noted only the Commoner’s blind faith in the Bible. Yet equating Bryan with fundamentalism enabled Allen to become the first published commentator to transform Bryan’s personal humiliation at Dayton into a decisive defeat for fundamentalism generally. Of course, he could not cite much hard evidence to support his claim that Americans were losing their religion. Indeed, he conceded, “If religion lost ground during the Post-war Decade, the best available church statistics gave no sign of the fact.” He dismissed such statistics as superficial, however. “In the congregations,” he maintained, “there was an undeniable weakening of loyalty to the church and an undeniable vagueness as to what it had to offer them.”
2
This had been true in his own life, but to extrapolate it to all Americans—and to suggest that the Scopes trial contributed to the process—was sheer speculation.
Only Yesterday,
Allen reduced fundamentalism to antievolutionism and antievolutionism to Bryan. Both reductions grossly oversimplified matters and forced Allen to reconstruct the story. For example, he wrote that under Darrow’s questioning, “Bryan affirmed his belief that the world was created in 4004 B.C.,” whereas Darrow actually wrung out a concession that the Genesis days of creation represented long periods of time, leading to Darrow’s triumphant claim that “Bryan had contradicted his own faith.” Also, Allen never mentioned Bryan’s forced admission on the stand of his ignorance about science, which earlier commentators viewed as so important in debunking antievolutionism. Allen noted only the Commoner’s blind faith in the Bible. Yet equating Bryan with fundamentalism enabled Allen to become the first published commentator to transform Bryan’s personal humiliation at Dayton into a decisive defeat for fundamentalism generally. Of course, he could not cite much hard evidence to support his claim that Americans were losing their religion. Indeed, he conceded, “If religion lost ground during the Post-war Decade, the best available church statistics gave no sign of the fact.” He dismissed such statistics as superficial, however. “In the congregations,” he maintained, “there was an undeniable weakening of loyalty to the church and an undeniable vagueness as to what it had to offer them.”
2
This had been true in his own life, but to extrapolate it to all Americans—and to suggest that the Scopes trial contributed to the process—was sheer speculation.
Allen never claimed to offer more than he delivered. “This book is an attempt to tell, and in some measure to interpret, the story of what in the future may be considered a distinct era in American history,” he wrote in the preface. “One who writes at such close range, while recollections are still fresh, has a special opportunity to reveal the fads and fashions and the follies of the time [and] ... leave to subsequent historians certain events ... the effect of which ... may not be fully measurable for a long time.”
3
This approach struck a responsive chord in the thirties. Allen geared his book for a popular audience and cautiously hoped for modest success, but nostalgia for the twenties propelled sales beyond his wildest dreams. It quickly became a best-seller and ultimately sold over a million copies—more than any other nonfiction book of the decade. More remarkably, it influenced historians and remained widely used as a college history text for more than half a century. “No one has done more to shape the conception of the American 1920s than Frederick Lewis Allen,” the historian Roderick Nash later observed about Allen’s book. It “has been the font at which most subsequent writers about the decade initially drank.” Owing to Allen’s method of “seizing on the decade’s most glamorous aspects and generalizing from a few headlines,” Nash added, “the book’s most enduring bequest to later historians has been the idea that older American values, traditions, and ideals meant little or nothing to the 1920s.”
4
3
This approach struck a responsive chord in the thirties. Allen geared his book for a popular audience and cautiously hoped for modest success, but nostalgia for the twenties propelled sales beyond his wildest dreams. It quickly became a best-seller and ultimately sold over a million copies—more than any other nonfiction book of the decade. More remarkably, it influenced historians and remained widely used as a college history text for more than half a century. “No one has done more to shape the conception of the American 1920s than Frederick Lewis Allen,” the historian Roderick Nash later observed about Allen’s book. It “has been the font at which most subsequent writers about the decade initially drank.” Owing to Allen’s method of “seizing on the decade’s most glamorous aspects and generalizing from a few headlines,” Nash added, “the book’s most enduring bequest to later historians has been the idea that older American values, traditions, and ideals meant little or nothing to the 1920s.”
4
By portraying the Scopes trial as a decisive defeat for old-time religion, Allen fit the episode neatly into his general conception of the twenties as a time when America repudiated its Victorian traditions. As a result, readers accepting Allen’s interpretation saw the trial as a step in the triumph of reason over revelation and science over superstition in modern America. Darrow might welcome such a verdict, but it did not particularly serve the interests of the ACLU, which had instigated the trial as a means to fight for freedom rather than against religion. In fact, Allen’s presentation of fundamentalism as a vanquished foe frustrated ongoing ACLU efforts to portray it as a persistent threat to individual liberty. Moreover, it may have encouraged evolutionists to let down their guard. The Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr immigrated into the United States in the year that Allen’s book appeared. “Looking back that far, my impression is that I thought that this trial was the end of the fundamentalist attacks on evolution,” he later wrote. “I believe my interpretation was widely shared by American evolutionists. As a result not much time and effort was spent by evolutionists in America to prove the fact of evolution and to refute the claims of the fundamentalists.”
5
5
In addition to attributing a decisive outcome to the trial,
Only Yesterday
perpetuated various misconceptions about events at Dayton. For example, not only did Allen pass along an altered version of Bryan’s trial testimony, he sharpened the entire episode. Darrow’s drawn-out questions “about Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the sun,” and the like, now appeared in rapid-fire succession, without any indication of Bryan’s various answers, and the dramatic call for Bryan to take the stand occurred “on the spur of the moment,” according to Allen, instead of as a carefully planned maneuver. He seriously confused the trial’s origins. In his account, the idea for the lawsuit came from Rappleyea and Scopes, not the ACLU; Scopes then intentionally broke the law and “was arrested” while Rappleyea “secured for Scopes the legal assistance of Clarence Darrow” and others. Allen surely did not mean to distort the story—he simply relied on inaccurate news accounts and his own faulty memory. Through his book, this version of events passed into the Scopes legend.
6
Only Yesterday
perpetuated various misconceptions about events at Dayton. For example, not only did Allen pass along an altered version of Bryan’s trial testimony, he sharpened the entire episode. Darrow’s drawn-out questions “about Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the sun,” and the like, now appeared in rapid-fire succession, without any indication of Bryan’s various answers, and the dramatic call for Bryan to take the stand occurred “on the spur of the moment,” according to Allen, instead of as a carefully planned maneuver. He seriously confused the trial’s origins. In his account, the idea for the lawsuit came from Rappleyea and Scopes, not the ACLU; Scopes then intentionally broke the law and “was arrested” while Rappleyea “secured for Scopes the legal assistance of Clarence Darrow” and others. Allen surely did not mean to distort the story—he simply relied on inaccurate news accounts and his own faulty memory. Through his book, this version of events passed into the Scopes legend.
6
Later writers adopted Allen’s verdict and accepted his depiction of events. Gaius Glen Atkins relied heavily on
Only Yesterday
in writing his semipopular 1932 account,
Religion in Our Times.
The journalist Mark Sullivan did the same for his 1935 best-seller,
Our Times: The United States, 1900-1925.
Both books presented the trial as the decisive event in the history of American fundamentalism. For Atkins, it “marked the furthermost advance of the movement.” Sullivan called it the “explosive climax” of the fundamentalist controversy. Both portrayed Darrow’s interrogation of Bryan as the turning point when, as Atkins put it, religion was “made to look ridiculous.” Science and critical thought triumphed, he concluded: “The Scopes trial marked the end of the age of
Amen
and the beginning of the age of
Oh Yeah!”
7
William W. Sweet revised his widely used collegiate religious studies text,
The Story of Religion in America,
to reflect the new view. The 1930 edition of his book depicted the trial as a media event that did not reach the “broad issues” raised by fundamentalism. According to the 1939 edition, however, the trial resolved these issues in the public mind. “Bryan said evolution ... made God unnecessary, denied the Bible and destroyed all belief in the supernatural,” Sweet wrote. “Darrow attempted to make Bryan look ridiculous and submitted him to a mocking examination. It was Fundamentalism’s last stand.” The Scopes trial became a watershed event. Secular commentators generally concurred with the novelist Irving Stone’s 1941 analysis that the Darrow-Bryan clash “dealt a deathblow to Fundamentalism.”
8
Only Yesterday
in writing his semipopular 1932 account,
Religion in Our Times.
The journalist Mark Sullivan did the same for his 1935 best-seller,
Our Times: The United States, 1900-1925.
Both books presented the trial as the decisive event in the history of American fundamentalism. For Atkins, it “marked the furthermost advance of the movement.” Sullivan called it the “explosive climax” of the fundamentalist controversy. Both portrayed Darrow’s interrogation of Bryan as the turning point when, as Atkins put it, religion was “made to look ridiculous.” Science and critical thought triumphed, he concluded: “The Scopes trial marked the end of the age of
Amen
and the beginning of the age of
Oh Yeah!”
7
William W. Sweet revised his widely used collegiate religious studies text,
The Story of Religion in America,
to reflect the new view. The 1930 edition of his book depicted the trial as a media event that did not reach the “broad issues” raised by fundamentalism. According to the 1939 edition, however, the trial resolved these issues in the public mind. “Bryan said evolution ... made God unnecessary, denied the Bible and destroyed all belief in the supernatural,” Sweet wrote. “Darrow attempted to make Bryan look ridiculous and submitted him to a mocking examination. It was Fundamentalism’s last stand.” The Scopes trial became a watershed event. Secular commentators generally concurred with the novelist Irving Stone’s 1941 analysis that the Darrow-Bryan clash “dealt a deathblow to Fundamentalism.”
8
Although Allen unintentionally misinterpreted events leading up to and including the trial itself, ongoing developments led later commentators to follow him. By the 1930s, fundamentalist political activity had decreased to such an extent that outside observers thought the movement had died. The Scopes trial offers a convenient explanation for this development, but the timing doesn’t quite fit. Riley, Straton, and other fundamentalist leaders initially perceived the trial as a victory for their side; none seemed despondent about it at the time. Furthermore, antievolution activism increased noticeably for several years following the verdict, with additional states imposing restrictions. Fundamentalist church membership continued to grow during the twenties and on into the future. While it is true that open warfare between fundamentalists and modernists quieted down during the late 1920s, and that the political crusade to outlaw teaching evolution ended by 1930, at most the Scopes trial contributed only indirectly to any apparent decline of fundamentalism.
Each side went to Dayton confident that a full airing of the issues would aid its cause. “I am expecting a tremendous reaction as the result of the information which will go out from Dayton,” Bryan wrote shortly before the trial. The defense made similar pretrial predictions about its prospects, such as Scopes’s observation, “There is no doubt in my mind that through this open, frank discussion, a better understanding will result.” Each side left Dayton confident that it had achieved its objective.
9
On this issue, discussion did not resolve disagreement; each side so deeply believed in its position that further information simply increased its vehemence.
9
On this issue, discussion did not resolve disagreement; each side so deeply believed in its position that further information simply increased its vehemence.
By focusing attention on the topic of teaching evolution, the Scopes trial encouraged both sides—with the result that, by the end of the decade, most states or localities where fundamentalists held political power had imposed antievolution restrictions by law, administrative ruling, or school board resolution. This included most of the South and some of the West. In the North, however, efforts to outlaw teaching evolution met with stiff resistance and humiliating defeat. In 1927 alone, antievolution bills lost in over half a dozen northern states. The most stunning setback occurred in Riley’s home state of Minnesota where, despite an all-out blitz by fundamentalists, the bill lost by an eight-to-one margin in the state legislature. “This dismal failure was a crushing blow,” Riley biographer William Vance Trollinger, Jr., wrote, and it “signalled the end of William Bell Riley’s efforts to secure antievolution legislation.”
10
The campaigning ended, however, only after it became obvious that each side had reached the geographical limit of its influence. All of the commentators who later pronounced that fundamentalism had died in Dayton (such as Allen, Atkins, and Sullivan) came from the North, where the trial had set back antievolutionism. Southerners saw it differently. During the thirties, for example, the North Carolina sociologist Howard W. Odum could still report about his region that “upon all questions, political, financial, educational, scientific, and technical, the judgement of religion and scripture was likely to be invoked.”
11
. Furthermore, once in place, no southern antievolution restriction was repealed for over forty years.
10
The campaigning ended, however, only after it became obvious that each side had reached the geographical limit of its influence. All of the commentators who later pronounced that fundamentalism had died in Dayton (such as Allen, Atkins, and Sullivan) came from the North, where the trial had set back antievolutionism. Southerners saw it differently. During the thirties, for example, the North Carolina sociologist Howard W. Odum could still report about his region that “upon all questions, political, financial, educational, scientific, and technical, the judgement of religion and scripture was likely to be invoked.”
11
. Furthermore, once in place, no southern antievolution restriction was repealed for over forty years.
Other books
Council of Peacocks by M Joseph Murphy
Claimed by the Secret Agent by Lyn Stone
The Magnificent Lizzie Brown and the Mysterious Phantom by Vicki Lockwood
Shallow Creek by Alistair McIntyre
A Taste for Love by Marita Conlon-McKenna
Always His (Crazed Devotion #1) by C.A. Harms
Shades of Gray by Amanda Ashley
The Little Death by PJ Parrish
Frogmouth by William Marshall
Weddings Suck... by Azod, Shara