Inherit the Wind: A
Hollywood History
of
the 1925 Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’
By David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Rarely, it seems, does a year go by that the
Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee play Inherit
the Wind about the famous “monkey trial” is not produced by local high
schools and colleges. In addition, the 
1960
film of the same name featuring Frederic March and Spencer Tracy appears frequently
on local television. Lest there be even a few who have some how failed to
see these productions, NBC produced its own color remake of Inherit
the Wind in 1988 which it has aired twice on nationwide television. All
of these versions of Inherit the Wind
are quite similar, with both film versions expanding on certain themes of
the original play.
The great interest in Inherit the Wind rests largely on its perceived relevance to the
growing creation-evolution controversy. While Inherit the Wind is obviously not a documentary, it is understood
to be a documentary-drama of the famous Scopes Trial of 1925, which pitted
William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow in a classic confrontation over
the teaching of evolution and creation in the public schools. Considerable
theatrical liberties were exercised in developing the plot but occasional
courtroom exchanges were taken verbatim from the transcript of the Scopes Trial.
The composite that resulted has unfortunately become widely perceived as
essentially an historical account of the trial. This widely held misconception
has been reinforced by the extensive promotions, advertisements and reviews
that preceded the showing of the NBC television version of Inherit the Wind. Many grade schools and high schools throughout
the nation asked their students to watch NBC’s Inherit the Wind so that they might better understand the events
and issues surrounding the nation’s most famous courtroom battle.
The original film version of Inherit the Wind has long been used as
an educational film in science, history and social studies classes. In the
Mehlville school district in St. Louis County, for example, this film has been
shown to junior high students in their earth science class. Their teacher claimed
that the film shows “the triumph of science over religious dogma.” But does Inherit the Wind, or even the Scopes Trial
itself, show the triumph of science (evolutionism) over religious dogma
(special creation)? More importantly, is the play/film a fair and accurate
representation of the great battle of ideas and beliefs that was waged at the
Rhea County Court House in Dayton, Tennessee? The answers to these questions
are important in view of the impact that the frequent showing of the various
versions of Inherit the Wind are
likely to have on the attitudes and beliefs of its viewers.
historical
accounts of the trial and its participants. The transcript of the Scopes Trial
is available on microfilm in most university law libraries, but for convenience
in study, I chose to use a reprint of the original transcript published in
its entirety at the time of the trial in the book, The
World’s Most Famous Court Trial. All page references to the “transcript”
in this study refer to this book.
Curiously, the film Inherit the Wind, unlike other documentary-dramas such as Gandhi and Patton, does not use the actual names of either the participants or
places it portrays. Although some characters like the Rev. Jeremiah Brown
and his much persecuted daughter Rachel are purely fictitious, the rest of
the principal characters in the play and film versions of Inherit the Wind clearly represent well known
participants in the Scopes Trial. Lest there be any doubt, even the pattern
of the names and the number of syllables in each name carefully match the
real names of the people they purport to portray.
In both the play and film versions, the
character Matthew Harrison Brady represents William Jennings Bryan, Henry
Drummond represents Clarence Darrow, Bert Cates represents John Scopes and E.
K. Hornbeck represents H. L. Mencken. I have chosen to use the proper names of
the principals in the Scopes Trial to avoid confusion since there has never
been any doubt who the chief characters in the film are intended to represent.
I believe that the following observations
will show that there are profound discrepancies between the film and the
relevant historical evidence. With the exception, perhaps, of the degree to
which this is true, these differences were not unexpected. What is more
significant, however, is that there is considerable evidence to suggest that
the film is not simply inaccurate, in the way of ‘Hollywood history,’ but
rather is highly biased in its intent. The historical inaccuracies are
systematic and of a kind that presents a consistent bias of slanderous
proportions against a particular class of people and their beliefs.
Specifically, people who believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible, and especially the biblical
account of creation, are portrayed in an outrageously uncomplimentary way. On
the other hand, those who are critical or virtually unbelieving, with regard to
the miracles of the Bible, are
portrayed as eminently reasonable people who must suffer the abuse, threats and
ignorance of the fundamentalist Christians around them.
In the observations that follow, segments of
the general story line of the film are presented in roughly chronological order
under the heading “MOVIE:;” immediately following, under the heading “FACT:,”
is a discussion of each film segment in the light of the Scopes Trial
transcript as well as other historical sources. Although the following story
lines and criticisms refer specifically to the 1960 film version of Inherit the Wind, in most instances they
apply with equal validity to the original play as well as the NBC television
remake.
MOVIE: Begins with an off key vocal dirge on the song Old Time Religion repeated for numerous
choruses. Drums pound ominously in the background as sinister men (clergymen
and businessmen) gather to do foul deeds in the name of God. They intrude into
the biology classroom where John Scopes is caught teaching evolution with
enthusiasm and conviction, and there indict Scopes for breaking the law against
teaching evolution. Scopes is immediately jailed and remains in jail throughout
the trial. Out of fear, Scopes sends a letter to a newspaper requesting help
assuming, it would appear, that the news media can always be counted on to
defend evolutionism. The notorious reporter and editorialist H. L. Mencken
comes to the rescue and enlists the aid of the famous trial lawyer, Clarence
Darrow. And none too soon, for the fundamentalist Christians of Dayton hate
John Scopes and gather outside his jail cell window to throw things at him and
chant that they are going to lynch him.
FACT: No one intruded in John Scopes’ classroom. Scopes was not
a biology teacher. Scopes only filled in for two weeks near the end of the
school year for the biology teacher, Mr. Ferguson, who was ill. 
Scopes
didn’t even have a college degree in science (he had an undergraduate major
in law at the University of Kentucky). Scopes was hired to teach math and
coach the football team. The team improved during the year under Scopes and
he was generally well liked by the people of Rhea County. Prior to the trial,
no one outside his school knew or cared what Scopes taught in school. Scopes
maintained to his death in 1970 that he never taught evolution during the
two weeks he substituted for the biology teacher but rather simply reviewed
the students for their final exam. In Sprague de Camp’s book, The Great Monkey Trial there is recorded a remarkable conversation
between Scopes and reporter William K. Hutchinson of the International News
Service which occurred during the last days of the trial. Scopes said: “There’s
something I must tell you. It’s worried me. I didn’t violate the law ...I
never taught that evolution lesson. I skipped it. I was doing something else
the day I should have taught it, and I missed the whole lesson about Darwin
and never did teach it. Those kids they put on the stand couldn’t remember
what I taught them three months ago. They were coached by the lawyers. Honest,
I’ve been scared all through the trial that the kids might remember I missed
the lesson. I was afraid they’d get on the stand and say I hadn’t taught it
and then the whole trial would go blooey. If that happened they would run
me out of town on a rail.”
When Hutchinson replied that would make a
great story, Scopes said: “My god no! Not a word of it until the Supreme Court
passes my appeal. My lawyers would kill me.” (de Camp, page 432)
Hutchinson
did claim he overheard Clarence Darrow coaching the students on what to say,
but even with coaching, only one of the students clearly implied that Scopes
taught evolution. There is clearly a more interesting story here than the
public has been told: Clarence Darrow, who was presumably supposed to defend
his client from a law that forbid the teaching of evolution, apparently coached
his client’s students to perjure themselves by claiming that John Scopes taught
evolution when in fact he hadn’t!
Given that John Scopes was a popular
football coach in Dayton who never taught evolution and didn’t feel strongly
about the subject—how then did he get indicted for violating a Tennessee law
which forbid teaching the evolution of man? The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) in New York City and George Rappleyea, a local mine operator in Dayton
Tennessee, were responsible for indicting John Scopes for teaching evolution.
The ACLU was anxious to get a test case in Tennessee which they might be able
to use to repeal or nullify the Butler Act.
This act forbid public school teachers in the state of Tennessee to deny the
literal biblical account of man’s origin and to teach in its place the
evolution of man from lower animals. The law, incidentally, didn’t forbid
teaching the evolution of any other species of plant or animal. George
Rappleyea read a press release from the ACLU in a Chattanooga paper, The Daily Times, which said in part: “We
are looking for a Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services in
testing this law in the courts.” The release promised legal services without
cost and implied that the Ku-Klux Klan and “professional patriotic societies”
were the “inspiration” for the law. Rappleyea
apparently had reasons of his own for trying to embarrass the fundamentalist
Christians of Tennessee by challenging and perhaps overthrowing a law which
favored teaching the biblical account of man’s creation. During the Scopes
trial George Rappleyea told the press about his reason for setting the Scopes Trial
in motion. Rappleyea was apparently upset with a fundamentalist preacher who he
claimed declared that a dead boy would be cast into the “flames of hell”
because he had neither “confessed Christ” nor was baptized. This apparently did
not agree with Rappleyea’s religious views and he vowed that he would “get
even” with the “fundamentalists” who he believed were responsible for the
antievolution law (de Camp, pages 6-7). Rappleyea said “I made up my mind I’d
show the world.”
Rappleyea, who de Camp describes as an
“intense, argumentative, garrulous man,” lost no time in seeking out John
Scopes and in pressuring him to accept the ACLU offer. Scopes was apparently
reluctant to get involved and told Rappleyea that he had not actually taught
evolution. Rappleyea insisted that since the biology text book taught
evolution, that was close enough and with Scopes’ permission he wrote out a
telegram on the spot to the ACLU which read:
“Professor
J.T. Scopes, teacher of science Rhea County high School, Dayton, Tenn., will be
arrested and charged with teaching evolution. Consent of superintendent of
education for test case to be defended by you. Wire me collect if you wish to
cooperate and arrest will follow.”
Apparently Rappleyea didn’t even wait for
the ACLU response as he went right out to a justice of the peace to get a
warrant for Scopes’ arrest. Sue Hicks, a local lawyer who went along with the
plan, filled out a makeshift arrest warrant while Rappleyea swore to the truth
of the statement and signed the warrant. He then found a sheriff and demanded
the arrest of John Scopes. Scopes was arrested and immediately released on a
bond of $1,000. It should be emphasized that, contrary to the film, Scopes was
never jailed for teaching evolution. In portraying Scopes as a ‘prisoner,’ the film obviously tried to invoke sympathy
for Scopes as a man who was persecuted for his beliefs by prying fundamentalists.
In his book, Sprague de Camp dispelled what he called “the widespread myth” of
the dedicated school teacher who was persecuted for his courageous stand on
behalf of evolution by “witch-burning” fundamentalists: “The trial wasn’t a
‘witch hunt’ as it has been called, because the accused and his defenders—the
‘witches’—were actually the hunters, stalking the law with the intent of
overturning it or at least making it unenforceable.” (de Camp, page 490)
MOVIE: Throughout the film William Jennings Bryan is portrayed as
closed-minded, pompous, stupid, intolerant, hypocritical, insincere and a
glutton. As the trial progresses, Bryan becomes virtually obsessed with his
mission of prosecuting John Scopes and keeping evolution out of the schools.
Even Bryan’s wife gradually comes to realize that her husband is a religious
zealot and seems to regret that she didn’t get to know the agnostic Clarence
Darrow a little better in their younger years. Even Bryan’s reputation as an
orator is called into question in the film which portrays him as a strutting
and arrogant sounding ‘flim-flam man’ whose style and tedious sense of humor
appeals only to ignorant folks (ie. Christian fundamentalists). It is hardly
possible to watch the film without developing a sense of contempt for William
Jennings Bryan and the Christian fundamentalists who somehow find something to
admire in the man.
FACT: In his book The Great
Monkey Trial, Sprague de Camp repudiates Bryan’s conservative Christianity
and misses no opportunity to be critical of his scientific views and yet,
honesty compelled him to 
give
Bryan credit for at least some of his undeniable virtues: “As a speaker, Bryan
radiated good humored sincerity. Few who heard him could help liking him.
In personality he was forceful, energetic, and opinionated but genial, kindly,
generous, likable and charming. He showed a praise worthy tolerance towards
those who disagreed with him. Bryan was the greatest American orator of his
time and perhaps any time.” (de Camp, page 37)
This is obviously not the man portrayed in
the film, but de Camp’s description of Bryan’s character is entirely consistent
with the major biographies of Bryan’s life (see Levine, 1965 and Coletta,
1969). None the less, many of Bryan’s enemies insisted that, regardless of his
many virtues, he was ignorant and even dangerous when it came to scientific or
factual matters. The historical record does not support this accusation.
Bryan was not just a “commoner,” as even he
liked to portray himself, but was also an immensely productive and progressive
politician who was the recognized leader of the Democratic Party for 30 years
and was three times nominated by his Party as their candidate for President of
the United States. Although Bryan was never elected president, he did serve as
Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson during which time he devoted most of
his attention to negotiating treaties with foreign nations in an effort to
prevent the outbreak of World War I. During his political career, Bryan
strenuously fought for some of the most progressive legislation of his time,
including the popular election of senators, an income tax, the free and
unlimited coinage of silver, requirements for the publication of the
circulation and ownership of newspapers, the creation of the department of
labor, and women suffrage. Bryan appealed to a broad cross section of people
including those whose political views were decidedly liberal. Clarence Darrow
himself twice campaigned for Bryan when he ran for President of the United
States. Many of the “progressives” who supported Bryan, however, came to
despise him for his outspoken Christian convictions, particularly when he dared
to speak out against Darwinism.
MOVIE: The conservative Christian people of Dayton, Tennessee are
portrayed as greedy, ignorant, closed-minded, discourteous and even threatening
towards the lawyers for the defense, the news media and outsiders in general.
FACT: The transcript of the Scopes Trial shows this to be
precisely the opposite of the truth: Darrow: “I don’t know as I was ever in a
community in my life where my religious ideas differed as widely from the great
mass as I have found them since I have been in Tennessee. Yet I came here a
perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found
upon anybody’s part—any citizen here in this town or outside the slightest
discourtesy. I have been treated better, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied
would have been the case in the north.” (transcript, pages 225-226).
Newspaper man from Toronto: I would like to
“express my great appreciation of the extreme courtesy which has been accorded
me and my brethren of the press by the court and the citizens of Dayton. I
shall take back with me a deeper appreciation of the great republic for which
we have felt so kindly, and whose institutions we so magnify and admire.”
(transcript, page 315)
MOVIE: Bryan, but not Darrow, is referred to as “Colonel” in the
court room because only Bryan had been made an “honorary Colonel” in the state
militia of Tennessee. Darrow understandably resents this gross display of bias
and the State reluctantly makes Darrow a “temporary honorary Colonel” in a
bungling effort to hide their obvious partiality to Bryan.
FACT: “Colonel” was a customary honorary title used in the
courtroom and was extended to all of the legal counsel in the Scopes case. It
had nothing whatever to do with the military or favoritism. Both Darrow and
Bryan, indeed all of the lawyers in the case, were frequently referred to as
“Colonel” during the trial. Incidentally, unlike Darrow, Bryan really was a
Colonel in the U.S. Army.
MOVIE: Darrow objects to the announcement of an evening prayer
meeting at the end of the first day of the trial.
FACT: No such announcement was ever made during the trial but
Darrow and the other defense lawyers repeatedly objected to the opening of each
session of the court with prayer as was customary in Tennessee and still is in
our own U.S. Supreme Court.
MOVIE: Darrow gets Bryan to admit that he is totally opposed to
the use of Darwin’s book The Descent of
Man in the Rhea County High School Biology classroom despite the fact that
he, Bryan, has never read Darwin’s book nor does he ever intend to read it.
FACT: It was Hunter’s Civic
Biology that was used in the classroom, not Darwin’s book. It was Bryan,
not Darrow, who introduced Darwin’s The
Descent of Man as evidence in the trial and who quoted from it (transcript,
page 176). Bryan proved, for example, that Darwin did in fact claim that man
descended from a monkey, a point the defense had tried to deny. Bryan is
reported by one of his biographers, Lawrence W. Levine, to have read Darwin’s On The Origin of Species already in
1905—20 years before the Scopes Trial! Although Bryan’s reservations about the
theory of evolution were certainly influenced by his religious beliefs, he had
written many well argued articles which were critical of the scientific
evidence used in his day to defend the theory of evolution. Bryan had also
carried on a long correspondence on the subject of evolution with the famous
evolutionist, Henry Fairfield Osborn. Certainly for a layman, Bryan’s knowledge
of the scientific evidence both for and against evolution was unusually great.
By comparison, the trial transcript shows that Darrow gave the impression of
having a very poor grasp of both the meaning and putative mechanism of
evolution. Darrow appeared to rest his belief in evolution on scientific ‘authority,’
which he accepted without question, and on his total rejection of all the
miracles of the Bible including, of
course, the Genesis account of
Creation.
MOVIE: Scopes’ fiance “Rachel Brown” is called as a witness and is
badly mistreated by Bryan who forces her to testify against her own fiance by
insisting that she repeat deeply personal conversations between her and Scopes
which Bryan had pried out of her in “confidence” only the night before. Bryan,
always the fanatic, loses his self control and becomes cruel and merciless in
his questioning of the frightened young lady. Darrow, on the other hand,
magnanimously agrees not to cross examine Rachel lest she be further
discomfited after Bryan’s unconscionable abuse.
FACT: No women participated in the trial. Scopes did not have a
special girl friend or fiance at this time though he dated several Dayton
girls. Bryan was courteous at all times in his handling of witnesses as an
examination of the trial transcript will reveal. Darrow, on the other hand, was
at times condescending and contemptuous in his treatment of witnesses, jurists,
opposing lawyers and even the judge. Darrow was, in fact, cited for contempt of
court for repeatedly interrupting and insulting judge Raulston. Darrow
persecuted Bryan so relentlessly for his religious beliefs, when he called him
on the stand, that some have suggested that Darrow actually hastened Bryan’s
death. This possibility was undoubtedly on H.L. Menckens’ mind who on learning
of Bryan’s death shortly after the trial said, “Well, we killed the son of a ......”
Darrow’s treatment of Bryan was perceived as so deplorable that even many
supporters of the ACLU successfully exerted pressure to prevent him from
representing Scopes when the case was later appealed to the State Supreme
Court. Liberal clergymen who supported the ACLU maintained that Darrow had
succeeded in turning many “moderate” theologians against evolution and the ACLU
by his apparently hostile attitude toward Christianity and Bryan.
MOVIE: The defense is unable to get permission to use their
several expert witnesses because Bryan is afraid of their testimony and
considers it irrelevant. One by one, Darrow calls his distinguished scientists
to the stand but each time, thanks to an ignorant and biased judge, Bryan needs
only to say, “objection—irrelevant,” and that is the end of it.
FACT: Technically, the only point at issue in the trial was whether
or not John Scopes actually taught the evolution of man from lower orders
of animals, so naturally the lawyers for the prosecution did question the
relevance of the testimony of expert witnesses. The verbal testimony of the
evolutionists assembled by the defense was prevented, however, because Darrow
adamantly refused to let his scientific witnesses be cross-examined by the
prosecution (transcript, pages 206-208). Bryan had asked for, and received,
the right to cross-examine the expert witnesses, but Darrow was so opposed
to allowing his 
experts
to be questioned that he never called them to the witness stand! Bryan pointed
out that under the conditions demanded by Darrow, the evolutionists could
take the witness stand and merely express their speculations and opinions
on evolution without fear of being contradicted. The wisdom of this position
was amply demonstrated by the confused and convoluted opinions of the one
scientist who had been permitted to testify earlier for the defense. Throughout
the trial the definition of the term evolution was so hopelessly muddled by
the defense and its’ witnesses that it seems unlikely that any of the jurors
could have known exactly what evolution is and is not. Evolution, for example,
was repeatedly confused with embryology and even aging! The defense lawyer,
Dudley Field Malone, is a case in point: “The embryo becomes a human being
when it is born. Evolution never stops from the beginning of the one cell
until the human being returns in death to lifeless dust. We wish to set before
you evidence of this character in order to stress the importance of the theory
of evolution.” (transcript, page 116)
Another lawyer for the defense, Arthur
Garfield Hays, added chaos to confusion when he said:
“I
know that in the womb of the mother the very first thing is a cell and that
cell grows and it subdivides and it grows into a human being and a human being
is born. Does that statement, as the boy stated on the stand, that he was
taught that man comes from a cell—is that a theory that man descended from a
lower order of animals? I don’t know and I dare say your honor has some doubt
about it. Are we entitled to find out whether it is or not in presenting this
case to the jury?” (transcript, page 156)
Darrow himself gave the impression that he
had almost no understanding of the meaning of the term evolution. When Judge
Raulston, who became understandably confused by all of the double talk on the
subject of evolution, asked Darrow if he believed that all life came from one
cell, Darrow replied: “Well I am not quite so clear, but I think it did.” “—
All human life comes from one cell. You came from one and I came from
one—nothing else a single cell.” (transcript, page 189)
Even Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist
from Johns Hopkins University, made this same mistake in his expert testimony
and then went on to obfuscate the definition of evolution beyond recognition.
First Dr. Metcalf assured the court of his qualifications as an evolutionist by
stating:
“I
have always been particularly interested in the evolution of the individual
organism from the egg, and also the evolution of the organism as a whole from
the beginning of life, that has been a sort of peculiar interest of mine,
always.” (transcript, page 136)
When asked by Darrow to tell what is meant
by “the fact of evolution,” Dr. Metcalf responded with this: “Evolution I think
means the change; in the final analysis I think it means the change of an
organism from one character into a different character, and by character I mean
its structure, or its behavior, or its functions or its method of development
from the egg or anything else—the change of an organism from one set
characteristic which characterizes it into a different condition, characterized
by a different set of characteristics either structural or functional could be
properly called, I think, evolution—to be the evolution of that organism; but
the term in general means the whole series of such changes which have taken
place during hundreds of millions of years which have produced from lowly
beginnings the nature of which is not by any means fully understood to organism
of much more complex character, whose structure and function we are still
studying, because we haven’t begun to learn what we need to know about them.”
(transcript, pages 139-140)
So much for the fact of evolution. One can
only imagine what questions Bryan might have asked Dr. Metcalf if Darrow would
have allowed his expert witness to be questioned. Bryan was clearly aware of
the confusion that was being introduced by the defense on the definition of
evolution and pointed out that even one of the school children who had
testified seemed to have a better grasp of evolution than the lawyers for the
defense: “The little boy understood what he was talking about and to my
surprise the attorneys didn’t seem to catch the significance of the theory of
evolution—he thought that little boy was talking about individuals coming up
from one cell.” Bryan emphasized that evolution was, “Not the growth of an
individual from one cell, but the growth of all life from one cell.”
(transcript, page 173)
Bryan pointed out that even the National
Education Association was confused on the subject and as a result, their
attempt to make an official statement condemning Tennessee for “ignorance and
bigotry” was frustrated by their inability to agree on a definition for
evolution (transcript, page 173). Perhaps the most significant fact is that the
movie Inherit the Wind chose to
ignore virtually all of the scientific commentary and testimony that was
presented during the trial including that of Dr. Maynard Metcalf. While this
may have been just as well for reasons I have described, the movie certainly
does not depict a “triumph of science over religious dogma.” As for dogma, the
trial transcript reveals that there was plenty of that on both sides of this
dispute.
MOVIE: Bryan admits that he takes every word of the Bible literally.
FACT: From the transcript (page 285) we read: Darrow: “Do you
claim that everything in the Bible
should be literally interpreted?” Bryan: “I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given
there; some of the Bible is given
illustratively. For instance: ‘Ye are the salt of the earth.’ I would not
insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used
in the sense of salt as saving God’s people.”
MOVIE: Darrow asks about sex in the Bible and Bryan replies that all sex is sinful.
FACT: Nothing was discussed about sex in the trial. Apparently
Hollywood just couldn’t resist introducing a little sex in the film and
implying that Bryan was a prude.
MOVIE: Bryan claims that he knows that the age of the earth is the
exact date calculated by Archbishop Ussher which placed the date of creation at
9 o’clock in the morning on the 23rd of October in 4004 BC.
FACT: Bryan didn’t claim to know how old the earth was. From the
trial transcript (page 296) we read: Darrow: “Mr. Bryan could you tell me how
old the earth is?” Bryan: “No sir, I couldn’t.”
Darrow: “Could you come anywhere near it?” Bryan: “I wouldn’t attempt to. I
could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more
accurate before I give a guess.”
MOVIE: As the trial grinds to an end, Darrow fights valiantly to
establish the innocence of his client John Scopes. On one occasion when it
appeared that Scopes wanted to give up the fight to prove his innocence, Darrow
asks “Are you going to find yourself guilty before the jury does?”
instruct
the jury to find his client guilty (abstract page 306)! This incredible concession,
together with the judge’s decision to strike Bryan’s testimony from the record,
was very much to Darrow’s personal benefit because it prevented him from being
subjected to the same kind of inquisition he had just put Bryan through. Bryan
had agreed to take the witness stand to answer questions on his Christian
beliefs with the understanding that Darrow would then also be required to
take the stand to answer questions about his own agnostic and evolutionary
beliefs (transcript page 284). Both Judge Raulston and Darrow had agreed to
this condition. When Bryan asked if Darrow himself knew the answer to some
of his more ludicrous questions (ie. “Do you know how many people there were
on this earth 3000 years ago?” ), Darrow responded with “wait until you get
to me.” Despite the increasing hostility of Darrow’s questioning, Bryan thwarted
repeated attempts by his colleagues to stop it. Bryan: “I want him to have
all the latitude he wants. For I am going to have some latitude when he gets
through.”
Darrow: “You can have latitude and longitude.” (transcript page 288)
It is most unlikely that Darrow had any
intention of giving Bryan “latitude and longitude.” He had, after all, been
unwilling to let Bryan question even his expert witnesses on their religious
and evolutionary assumptions, how much less likely would he be willing to
subject himself to such questioning after what he had put Bryan through? As it
turned out, of course, Bryan was given no opportunity to ask Darrow his
questions during the trial. In the movie, Darrow is portrayed using these very
words, “latitude and longitude,” but in a totally different context
(philosophical lecture to the jury) that did not begin to suggest the clever
maneuver in which they were actually employed!
MOVIE: The ‘prisoner,’ John Scopes, is found guilty and Darrow is
visibly shaken by this great injustice against his client. Bryan, on the other
hand, is vindictive and complains bitterly about the paltry $100 fine leveled
against John Scopes for a crime of such great magnitude.
FACT: Violation of the Butler
Act was punishable by a fine of no less than $100 and no greater than $500;
imprisonment was not a provision of the law. Bryan was not the least bit
concerned about the fine nor was anyone else, indeed, Bryan himself had offered
to pay Scopes’ fine. All of Scopes’ expenses relating to the trial were covered
by various vested interests as was the tuition for his graduate education after
the trial. John Scopes’ guilt or innocence was not even a primary concern of
any of the participants in the trial. The whole purpose for bringing this case
to trial was to: 1) declare the Butler Act
unconstitutional, 2) expose ‘fundamentalist’ Christian views on the subject of
origins to public ridicule in the press, and 3) focus the attention of the
world on evolution (de Camp, page 492). In his autobiography, The Story of My Life, Clarence Darrow
explained his strategy this way: “My object, and my only object, was to focus
the attention of the country on the program of Mr. Bryan and the other fundamentalists
in America.”
MOVIE: The movie builds to a noisy and chaotic climax as Bryan
loses all sense of dignity and reason and goes into an incoherent tirade in an
attempt to read his very lengthy concluding statement. The crowd is bored and
walks out while Bryan’s wife looks on in horror at what had become of her once
sane and caring husband. Finally, overcome by religious zeal, Bryan mindlessly
recites the names of the books of the Bible
and collapses in the throes of death on the courtroom floor.
FACT: Neither Bryan nor Darrow ever attempted to give the
customary closing argument to the jury. Once Darrow accomplished his purpose of
ridiculing Bryan’s beliefs in biblical miracles he conceded Scopes’ guilt and
in so doing, obviated any closing arguments. Bryan had put a great deal of
effort into his closing statement and this maneuver by Darrow eliminated his
opportunity to give what was a rather well supported scientific and religious
argument against the theory of evolution. Bryan was quite anxious that the text
of his speech be made available to the public and he made provision for its
publication only one hour before his death. This speech is appended to the
transcript used in this study and provides an excellent insight to Bryan’s
views on education, evolution and the implications of the Scopes Trial. The
speech is cogently argued and hardly the raving of a mad man unless, of course,
all Bible believing Christians are to
be dismissed as ‘mad men.’
Finally, Bryan did not die in the court
house in a raving frenzy. Bryan died in his sleep of unknown causes five days
after the trial. It is believed that his death might have been at least
indirectly related to his untreated diabetic condition which, incidentally, was
also probably responsible for his frequent eating. On being informed of his
death by a reporter who suggested that Bryan might have died of a broken heart,
Darrow responded “Broken heart nothing; he died of a busted belly.” A little
later Darrow commented to friends: “Now wasn’t that man a God-damned fool?”
Even Bryan’s untimely death could not assuage the contempt of many of his
detractors who had come to despise him for his stand on creation. In what must
be one of the most heartless obituaries ever written, H. L. Mencken insisted
that Bryan “was deluded by a childish theology full of almost a pathological
hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble
things. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.”
Conclusion
One simply cannot escape the conclusion that
the writers of the screen play, Inherit
the Wind, never intended to write a historically accurate account of the
Scopes Trial, nor did they seriously attempt to portray the principle
characters and their beliefs in an unbiased and accurate way. But some may
argue that criticisms of the type presented in this study are inappropriate for
a documentary-drama because historical accuracy is only the inadvertent victim
of attempts to ‘liven up’ the plot. It is typical, for example, to introduce a
fictional love story in ‘Hollywood history.’ The evidence suggests, however,
that the inaccuracies encountered in the film Inherit the Wind are substantive, intentional and systematic. It is
actually quite easy to see a pattern in the inaccuracies and from this one can
make reasonable guesses as to the motive. The Christian fundamentalists and
particularly William Jennings Bryan are consistently lampooned throughout the
film, while skeptics, and agnostics are consistently portrayed as intelligent,
kindly and even heroic.
Who, we might ask, are these maligned
fundamentalists, and why should we be so concerned about offending them? Today
we hear the news media apply the term “fundamentalist” not only to Christians
but to certain Muslim sects as well. The term, “fundamentalist,” now appears to
be used by the media only in a pejorative sense to label those who are
considered to be highly zealous, inflexible and intolerant in their religious
or philosophical beliefs. But such an unrestricted definition of
“fundamentalism” might even apply to some evolutionists. Historically the term
fundamentalism applied to a loose association of Christians who were influenced
by a series of 12 booklets called The
Fundamentals which were published beginning in 1909. Fundamentalism was an
attempt to get back to the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith which
had begun to be eroded in some churches by the growing “modernist” trend around
the turn of the century.
The fundamentals included five basic
doctrines; the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary
atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ and Christ’s return in
Glory. It should be noted that these beliefs are not simply the creed of a
fanatic and insignificant minority in Christendom, as some suggest, but are
shared by most Bible believing
Christians in the world. Although a miraculous divine creation was not one of
The Fundamentals, it too is believed by most Christians. A Gallup Poll in 1982
showed that 44% of all Americans believe that “God created man pretty much in
his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” Another 38% believe
God actively guided the process of evolution and only 9% believe that God had
no active part in the process. In short, the beliefs of the much maligned
fundamentalists of Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 are not greatly different from
that of nearly half of the students in the average public school classroom
today, and it is these who are offended and demeaned by the film Inherit the Wind !
What then is the purpose of showing the film
Inherit the Wind in the history,
social studies or science classroom? As history it is not only inaccurate but
highly misleading. As a social study it is highly biased against a particular
class of people and their religious beliefs. As science it has nothing to offer
at all. If teachers feel compelled to get involved in the evolution-creation
controversy in their classroom, they have much more current material at their
disposal. There have recently been many exciting debates on this issue between
qualified scientists who are quite sophisticated in their knowledge of the
scientific evidence. Most people who have witnessed these debates find that
Creationist scientists have held their own quite well, indeed, some
evolutionists have conceded that creationists often win these debates! Both
audio and video cassettes of debates and lectures, as well as numerous books
and pamphlets on the scientific evidence relative to the creation-evolution
controversy, are available from several sources.
Finally I should add that my own highly
critical observations on the film, Inherit
the Wind are consistent with those of others who have compared the film
with the historical evidence. In his definitive three volume biography of the
life and work of William Jennings Bryan, Paolo Coletta said: “Bryan’s image was
badly hurt not so much by the Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee play Inherit the Wind as by the moving
picture of the same title. In the film, Frederick March portrayed Bryan as a
low-comedy stooge, Gene Kelly represented an unrecognizable Mencken, and
Spencer Tracy, as Darrow, emerged as the hero. The film also assails the fundamentalist
position without satisfactorily substituting science for religious faith and
experience.”
Bibliography
The World’s Most Famous Court Trial. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Book Company,
1925.
Darrow, Clarence. The Story of My Life.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965.
de Camp, Sprague L. The Great Monkey
Trial. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1968.
Coletta, Paolo E. William Jennings Bryan
III: Political Puritan, 1915-1925. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska
Press, 1969.
Levine, Lawrence W. Defender of the
Faith—William Jennings Bryan: The Last Decade, 1915-1925. New York: Oxford
University Press., 1965.
