Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (9 page)
Authors: Edward J. Larson
BOOK: Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
3.39Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Bryan’s comments reflected the deep ambivalence toward individual rights that underlay his majoritarianism. “No concession can be made to the minority in this country without a surrender of the fundamental principle of popular rule,” he once proclaimed with respect to Prohibition.
52
When a conservative Supreme Court began striking down Progressive Era labor laws on the ground that they violated the constitutional rights of property owners, Bryan sought to limit judicial review of legislation. Similarly he could argue about teachers of evolution, “It is no infringement on their freedom of conscience or freedom of speech to say that, while as individuals they are at liberty to think as they please and say what they like, they have no right to demand pay for teaching that which parents and the taxpayer do not want taught.”
53
To the extent that American political history reflected a tension between majority rule and minority rights, the Commoner stood for majoritarianism. As Edger Lee Masters observed at the time, to Bryan, “the desideratum was not liberty but popular rule.”
54
52
When a conservative Supreme Court began striking down Progressive Era labor laws on the ground that they violated the constitutional rights of property owners, Bryan sought to limit judicial review of legislation. Similarly he could argue about teachers of evolution, “It is no infringement on their freedom of conscience or freedom of speech to say that, while as individuals they are at liberty to think as they please and say what they like, they have no right to demand pay for teaching that which parents and the taxpayer do not want taught.”
53
To the extent that American political history reflected a tension between majority rule and minority rights, the Commoner stood for majoritarianism. As Edger Lee Masters observed at the time, to Bryan, “the desideratum was not liberty but popular rule.”
54
In his crusade to rally the people against teaching evolution, Bryan was nearly omnipresent. He gave hundreds of speeches on the topic to audiences across the country, including major addresses to nine different state legislatures in the South and Midwest. Bryan pushed the attack in dozens of popular books and articles, beginning with major pieces in the
New York Times and Chicago Tribune.
His syndicated “Weekly Bible Talks,” carried in daily newspapers with a combined circulation of over 15 million readers, regularly belabored evolutionists. He personally lobbied countless politicians, school officials, and other public figures on the issue. “Forget, if need be, the highbrows both in the political and college world, and carry this cause to the people,” he declared.
55
And the people responded.
New York Times and Chicago Tribune.
His syndicated “Weekly Bible Talks,” carried in daily newspapers with a combined circulation of over 15 million readers, regularly belabored evolutionists. He personally lobbied countless politicians, school officials, and other public figures on the issue. “Forget, if need be, the highbrows both in the political and college world, and carry this cause to the people,” he declared.
55
And the people responded.
Concern about the social and religious implications of Darwinism had been a secondary issue within the church for two generations, and although the rise of fundamentalism revived those concerns for some, it took Bryan to transform them into a major political issue. Even Bryan’s wife—his closest confidant, who did not share his enthusiasm on this issue—could not understand the response. “Just why the interest grew, just how he was able to put fresh interest into a question which was popular twenty-five years ago, I do not know,” she wrote in 1925. “The vigor and force of the man seemed to compel attention.”
56
The view was much the same from Tennessee. “Bryan can provoke a controversy quicker than any other man in public or private life,” an editorial in the Memphis
Commercial Appeal
observed three months
before
the Scopes trial. “In a public address about two years ago Mr. Bryan saw fit to take a fling at the Darwinian theory. For several years prior to that day we had heard little about evolution.... But the Bryan criticism started another controversy, and evolution has become all but a national issue.”
57
Two years earlier, the always hostile
Chicago Tribune
complained, “William Jennings Bryan has half the country debating whether the universe was created in six days.”
58
56
The view was much the same from Tennessee. “Bryan can provoke a controversy quicker than any other man in public or private life,” an editorial in the Memphis
Commercial Appeal
observed three months
before
the Scopes trial. “In a public address about two years ago Mr. Bryan saw fit to take a fling at the Darwinian theory. For several years prior to that day we had heard little about evolution.... But the Bryan criticism started another controversy, and evolution has become all but a national issue.”
57
Two years earlier, the always hostile
Chicago Tribune
complained, “William Jennings Bryan has half the country debating whether the universe was created in six days.”
58
Bryan wanted more than a heated debate, however; he wanted political reform, and this took time. Most states had part-time legislatures that only met in general session during the first few months of odd-numbered years. Kentucky was an exception, but when its antievolution bill died in 1922, proponents of such legislation had to wait until 1923 for their next shot at lawmaking. The legislatures of six different southern and border states actively considered antievolution proposals during the spring of 1923, with Bryan personally involved in most instances, but only two minor measures passed. Oklahoma added a rider to its public-school textbook law providing “that no copyright shall be purchased, nor textbook adopted that teaches the ‘Materialistic Conception of History’ (i.e.) the Darwin Theory of Creation versus the Bible Account of Creation.”
59
The Florida legislature chimed in with a nonbinding resolution declaring “that it is improper and subversive to the best interest of the people” for public school teachers “to teach as true Darwinism or any other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any form of lower life.”
60
59
The Florida legislature chimed in with a nonbinding resolution declaring “that it is improper and subversive to the best interest of the people” for public school teachers “to teach as true Darwinism or any other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any form of lower life.”
60
The Florida resolution was important because Bryan suggested its language and later claimed that it reflected his “views” on the issue, with one significant exception. “Please note,” he explained, “that the objection is not to teaching the evolutionary hypothesis as a hypothesis, but to the teaching of it as true or as a proven fact.”
61
Bryan also agreed with the resolution’s focus on human evolution. In his Menace of Darwinism speech, he stressed that “our chief concern is in protecting man from the demoralization involved in accepting a brute ancestry,” and conceded that “evolution in plant life and animal life
up to the highest form of animal
might, if there were proof of it, be admitted without raising a presumption that would compel us to give a brute origin to man.”
62
Bryan asked that Florida legislators outlaw such teaching, however, rather than simply to denounce it as improper; but even on this point, the trusting Commoner added, “I do not think that there should be any penalty attached to the bill. We are not dealing with a criminal class.”
63
Cautious legislators in Bryan’s adopted state compromised by unanimously passing an advisory resolution rather than a law, thereby avoiding any risk of a lawsuit over their action. Two years later, Tennessee legislators displayed less caution than their Florida counterparts—and less trust in teachers than Bryan—by opting for a criminal law on the subject, including a penalty provision, and applying it to all teaching about human evolution rather than solely to teaching it as true. These changes set the stage for the Scopes trial.
61
Bryan also agreed with the resolution’s focus on human evolution. In his Menace of Darwinism speech, he stressed that “our chief concern is in protecting man from the demoralization involved in accepting a brute ancestry,” and conceded that “evolution in plant life and animal life
up to the highest form of animal
might, if there were proof of it, be admitted without raising a presumption that would compel us to give a brute origin to man.”
62
Bryan asked that Florida legislators outlaw such teaching, however, rather than simply to denounce it as improper; but even on this point, the trusting Commoner added, “I do not think that there should be any penalty attached to the bill. We are not dealing with a criminal class.”
63
Cautious legislators in Bryan’s adopted state compromised by unanimously passing an advisory resolution rather than a law, thereby avoiding any risk of a lawsuit over their action. Two years later, Tennessee legislators displayed less caution than their Florida counterparts—and less trust in teachers than Bryan—by opting for a criminal law on the subject, including a penalty provision, and applying it to all teaching about human evolution rather than solely to teaching it as true. These changes set the stage for the Scopes trial.
Antievolutionists began targeting Tennessee soon after the 1923 lawmaking season ended without a major victory. Bills to outlaw teaching evolution had died in committees of the Tennessee legislature that year, mostly due to inattention as Bryan and other antievolution leaders campaigned in other states. Now they focused on Tennessee and its neighbor, North Carolina, in anticipation of the 1925 legislative sessions. Bryan gave several antievolution speeches in the two states during this period, including a major address in Nashville on January 24, 1924, attended by most Tennessee state officials. Riley toured the region in 1923, 1924, and 1925, speaking widely in fundamentalist churches and calling on the faithful to drive Darwinism from public schools. The WCFA held major national conferences in both states, further arousing local interest in the topic. Billy Sunday scheduled massive popular crusades in the two states, and encamped in Memphis during the 1925 Tennessee legislative session. T. T. Martin, J. Frank Norris, and John Roach Straton also appeared on several occasions. As a result of these efforts, teaching evolution became a hot political issue in both states during the 1924 elections, with many Democratic candidates vowing to support “Bryan and the Bible.”
Tennessee offered a particularly promising target, and one that proved more vulnerable than North Carolina. Memphis, the state’s largest city, billed itself as “a Baptist stronghold, the citadel of the denomination,” and served as a hub for conservative Protestant publishing.
64
The city’s leading daily newspaper, the
Commercial Appeal,
could be counted on to endorse antievolution legislation. The state as a whole was solidly Protestant, with more than 1 million church members—nearly half of them Baptists—out of a total adult population of 1.2 million.
65
Governor Austin Peay, a popular Democratic politician known as The Maker of Modern Tennessee for his progressive reforms, described himself as an “old-fashioned Baptist” and often complained that some of the doctrines taught in public schools undermined religious faith.
66
“Be loyal to your religion,” he once advised state college students, “scientists and cranks will seek in vain to better it. The Christian faith of our people is the bedrock of our institutions.”
67
64
The city’s leading daily newspaper, the
Commercial Appeal,
could be counted on to endorse antievolution legislation. The state as a whole was solidly Protestant, with more than 1 million church members—nearly half of them Baptists—out of a total adult population of 1.2 million.
65
Governor Austin Peay, a popular Democratic politician known as The Maker of Modern Tennessee for his progressive reforms, described himself as an “old-fashioned Baptist” and often complained that some of the doctrines taught in public schools undermined religious faith.
66
“Be loyal to your religion,” he once advised state college students, “scientists and cranks will seek in vain to better it. The Christian faith of our people is the bedrock of our institutions.”
67
Furthermore, Tennessee had a sufficiently diverse population to raise tensions over recent developments in religion and popular culture. Indeed, Bryan opened his 1924 address in the state capital with the challenge, “I make my religious speech here because Nashville is the center of modernism in the South,” presumably referring to the influence of Vanderbilt University and the city’s nationally famous progressive cleric, James I. Vance.
68
In addition, racial tensions tore at the seams of Tennessee society and exploded into race riots and Klan violence following the First World War. Antievolutionism promised a return to normalcy.
68
In addition, racial tensions tore at the seams of Tennessee society and exploded into race riots and Klan violence following the First World War. Antievolutionism promised a return to normalcy.
Local defenders of teaching evolution tried to stem the rising tide. Vance argued for a middle course between fundamentalism and modernism in his books and sermons, all the while pleading for tolerance. Nashville’s afternoon newspaper, the
Banner,
regularly denounced antievolutionism and sniped at Bryan’s motives. When the Commoner proposed forgiving war debts owned by European nations in exchange for their disarmament, for example, the
Banner
sneered, “Neglecting never an opportunity to secure publicity, out of which he has realized a large private fortune, the distinguished Florida gentleman late of Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, has evolved one of his picturesque and absurd altruistic ideas.”
69
Proposals to outlaw teaching evolution were the real target of this editorial, just as they prompted the
Commercial Appeal
to defend Bryan’s “honestly accumulated” wealth and publicize his angry denial, “I am not a millionaire.”
70
State and local school officials sought to play down teaching evolution in the hope that the crusade would pass them by, but by 1925 this issue had gained too much momentum in Tennessee to be easily turned aside. A legislative confrontation was inevitable.
Banner,
regularly denounced antievolutionism and sniped at Bryan’s motives. When the Commoner proposed forgiving war debts owned by European nations in exchange for their disarmament, for example, the
Banner
sneered, “Neglecting never an opportunity to secure publicity, out of which he has realized a large private fortune, the distinguished Florida gentleman late of Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, has evolved one of his picturesque and absurd altruistic ideas.”
69
Proposals to outlaw teaching evolution were the real target of this editorial, just as they prompted the
Commercial Appeal
to defend Bryan’s “honestly accumulated” wealth and publicize his angry denial, “I am not a millionaire.”
70
State and local school officials sought to play down teaching evolution in the hope that the crusade would pass them by, but by 1925 this issue had gained too much momentum in Tennessee to be easily turned aside. A legislative confrontation was inevitable.
“Fundamentalism drew first blood in Tennessee today,” a January 20, 1925 article in the
Commercial Appeal
reported, “in the introduction of a bill in the Legislature by Senator [John A.] Shelton of Savannah to make it a felony to teach evolution in the public schools of the state.”
71
A day later, John W. Butler offered similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
72
Both legislators had campaigned on the issue and their actions were predictable. Butler justified his proposal on Bryanesque grounds: “If we are to exist as a nation the principles upon which our Government is founded must not be destroyed, which they surely would be if ... we set the Bible aside as being untrue and put evolution in its place.”
73
Butler was a little-known Democratic farmer-legislator and Primitive Baptist lay leader. For him, public schools served to promote citizenship based on biblical concepts of morality. Evolutionary beliefs undermined those concepts. Driven by such reasoning, Butler proposed making it a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $500, for a public school teacher “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal.”
74
Most of Butler’s colleagues apparently agreed with this proposal, because six days later the House passed it without any amendments. The vote was seventy-one to five. Although three of the dissenters came from Memphis and one from Nashville, the bill gained the support of both rural and urban representatives, including most delegates from every major city in the state.
Commercial Appeal
reported, “in the introduction of a bill in the Legislature by Senator [John A.] Shelton of Savannah to make it a felony to teach evolution in the public schools of the state.”
71
A day later, John W. Butler offered similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
72
Both legislators had campaigned on the issue and their actions were predictable. Butler justified his proposal on Bryanesque grounds: “If we are to exist as a nation the principles upon which our Government is founded must not be destroyed, which they surely would be if ... we set the Bible aside as being untrue and put evolution in its place.”
73
Butler was a little-known Democratic farmer-legislator and Primitive Baptist lay leader. For him, public schools served to promote citizenship based on biblical concepts of morality. Evolutionary beliefs undermined those concepts. Driven by such reasoning, Butler proposed making it a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $500, for a public school teacher “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal.”
74
Most of Butler’s colleagues apparently agreed with this proposal, because six days later the House passed it without any amendments. The vote was seventy-one to five. Although three of the dissenters came from Memphis and one from Nashville, the bill gained the support of both rural and urban representatives, including most delegates from every major city in the state.
The House action reflected overwhelming support for the general concept of limits on teaching evolution rather than any detailed consideration of the pending legislation, which Butler had drafted himself. About the only information on the bill that House members received was a free copy of Bryan’s 1924 Nashville speech, which did not offer any specific legislative proposal other than to proclaim that if Christians “cannot teach the views of the majority in the schools supported by taxation, then a few people cannot teach at public expense their scientific interpretation that attacks every vital principle of Christianity.”
75
Bryan’s Florida antievolution resolution expressly incorporated this seemingly balanced restriction on teaching any theory of origins, but Butler’s bill dealt solely with the theory of evolution—and the distinction between the two positions was never discussed by Tennessee legislators.
75
Bryan’s Florida antievolution resolution expressly incorporated this seemingly balanced restriction on teaching any theory of origins, but Butler’s bill dealt solely with the theory of evolution—and the distinction between the two positions was never discussed by Tennessee legislators.
In fact, for various reasons, no specific features of the proposal received a public airing prior to the House vote. First, the press failed to report the bill’s introduction, focusing instead on the earlier Senate proposal. Second, the House education committee recommended passage of the measure without holding a public hearing. At least one committee member did not even know of the committee’s action prior to the House vote but after mild protest supported the bill anyway. Finally, the House leadership scheduled the bill for final passage during an afternoon set aside for considering inconsequential and uncontroversial legislation. “Measures were ground out of the hopper with regularity,” the
Nashville
Banner reported regarding that afternoon in the House, “and with probably less debate than expressed at a session this far along in the life of the legislature.” As the afternoon session proceeded, the House postponed action on any bill arousing prolonged discussion. When the disgruntled education committee member asked to hold over the antievolution bill, Butler objected. “I do not see the need for any further talk,” Butler reportedly said, “as everyone understands what evolution means.” Another representative supported Butler by calling for an immediate vote, and the measure passed without further comment. At the time, this vote received even less attention within the chamber than the passage of a leash law for “egg-sucking dogs,” which at least generated laughter after one member asked how to distinguish which dogs suck eggs.
76
Nashville
Banner reported regarding that afternoon in the House, “and with probably less debate than expressed at a session this far along in the life of the legislature.” As the afternoon session proceeded, the House postponed action on any bill arousing prolonged discussion. When the disgruntled education committee member asked to hold over the antievolution bill, Butler objected. “I do not see the need for any further talk,” Butler reportedly said, “as everyone understands what evolution means.” Another representative supported Butler by calling for an immediate vote, and the measure passed without further comment. At the time, this vote received even less attention within the chamber than the passage of a leash law for “egg-sucking dogs,” which at least generated laughter after one member asked how to distinguish which dogs suck eggs.
76
Other books
Darkness Visible by William Golding
Love M.D. by Rebecca Rohman
Deliverance by Veronique Launier
The Box and the Bone by Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Rides a Stranger by David Bell
Used to Be: The Kid Rapscallion Story by Bousquet, Mark
Mignon by James M. Cain
Thin Air: (Shetland book 6) by Ann Cleeves
Fool's Gold by Jon Hollins
Karolina's Twins by Ronald H. Balson