When considering why the Scopes trial and the antievolution crusade of the 1920’s occurred when they did, one aspect to consider is that social issues like this often flare up most intensely when there is little else of consequence to be concerned with. Darwin’s Origin was published in 1859 and his Descent was published in 1871. In between, while the British were busying themselves with imperial fun and arguing over the heathenism that was Darwinism, Americans were largely preoccupied with fighting and then attempting to recover from the Civil War. By the time Reconstruction ended and the country started settling back to a normal state of affairs, Darwinism was falling out of favor as the preferred method of evolution among scientists. Why fight over something that seems to be losing the debate anyway?
By contrast, the 1920’s were a time of peace and post-WWI prosperity. And Darwinism had largely triumphed in academic circles and only now posed a serious threat. The fight against Darwinism also needs to be placed in proper context as part of a larger movement of do-gooding (for lack of a better term) through political coercion. See prohibition as a prime example of another well intentioned, but not so well thought out plan of the same period.
Aside from the issues mentioned above, there is a key difference in the civic cultures of the U.S. and Europe that helps explain why the showdown in Dayton took place in the manner and time that it did. Larson touches on this towards the end when he explains that “Despite their traditionalism, American Catholics did not join Bryan’s antievolution crusade, in part because they already had their own parochial schools and colleges” (p. 262). He also describes how after the 1920’s fundamentalist protestants often followed the examples of the Catholics and withdrew from the public school system, creating their own parallel communities and private education systems. While I don’t claim to be an expert on European primary and secondary education systems, this seems to be the kind of thing that most Europeans would never consider. Or if they considered it, it would be much harder to pull off. The open and decentralized nature of American civic society provided more of an opportunity for dissenters to withdraw. While this allows each side to claim victory and move on with their lives, the downside is that the process of reaching a final consensus is much slower.
As part of the more decentralized state of affairs under the American federal system, it should be remembered that Americans have traditionally had a different sense of the citizen-state relationship, insisting that the state works for the citizen, not the other way around. In the case of the Scopes trial, there was only a legal issue insofar as the schools were funded by taxpayer money and run by the government. With those conditions in mind, it seemed a very reasonable and logical argument that the citizens (through the elected legislature) could decide what could and could not be taught. Without those conditions, there may still have been a moral and cultural debate. But even Bryan would’ve been forced to admit that local civilian ownership over the government system provided the only basis for a legal challenge.
You bring up a good point about Americans being distracted with war during the time when Darwin was splashing across news headlines and jumping into scientific debate in England. I wonder then how the impact of greater world views from the returning soldiers of WWI impacted American thoughts and ideas. It seems that their interactions with Britons and other cultures would have increased the cultural exchanges, and as far fetched as it may sound, maybe soldiers on the frontlines did consider the immortal future and hope for something more than just survival of the fittest, but rather a grander plan for their fate.
I’d be interested to know if you believe the “showdown” between Fundamentalism and Evolution in America was inevitable, or had key figures like Bryan and Riley listened to Bryan’s wife and decided not to make an issue out of it would the clash still have been so acrimonious?
To make a bold and unequivocal answer… I would say yes and no.
Obviously the persons involved shape both the timing and the tone of an event. So if there was no Bryan or no Billy Sunday (and I would include Darrow on the list of unfavorables in this), or if those folks had chosen to take a different tack, this could’ve been a much less contentious process. But my thinking is that the culture of local civic activism and taxpayer funded schools meant that there would at least be sections of America that did not take this as lightly as Europeans seem to have done.
So the presence of disagreement and political debate was probably close to inevitable. But the trial, the vitriol, and the national polarization could have been at least tempered, if not largely avoided.
I do think Larson makes a strong point that the town of Dayton saw an opportunity to expand its commercial success when it had faced decline in the previous years. It seemed like the townspeople pulled together to provide lodging and meals for the anticipated 30,000 visitors as well as planning for extra train stops, more train cars, extra communication wiring, police support, public venues, etc. What an incredible amount of logistical planning and foresight this must have required and who really was the media boss? The key word here is OPPORTUNITY: legal, commercial, financial, personal – anyone connected with the events could hope for a piece of the pie, but at what cost? In an age when fortunes could be made or lost (was the Horatio Alger mystic still in force?) I’m sure many people thought this event could be their “big break”. Sadly, once you go into the spotlight, you create a long shadow.
Wouldn’t you love to read the diaries of the wives? Do you suppose they were really “stand by your man” ladies or did they have a larger role in their husbands’ rise to prominence? Behind every great man is an awesome woman holding him up…(or so I’m told)