Abstract
In the aftermath of the Scopes trial, many fundamentalists reeled from the very public attacks on their intellectual credibility. Even before the trial, fundamentalists had been surprised at the vigorous opposition to their school laws. In the years following the Scopes trial, fundamentalists tried a variety of strategies to cope with this surprisingly strong opposition. Some advocated even stronger and more sweeping school laws. Others pressed for more narrowly focused antievolution laws. In both cases, fundamentalist-backed school laws met with mixed success in the later years of the 1920s. Failures often dispirited fundamentalists and convinced them that they did not enjoy the mainstream support many had expected. Even successes often lent increased support to the new stereotype about fundamentalism and the antievolution movement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Quoted in Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 215.
Louisiana House Bills 41, 208, 279, 314, Official Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana at the Third Regular Session of the Legislature 1926, 11, 34, 99–100, 130, 167, 184, 190, 219, 574–75, 642–43, 675, 700, 762, 782, 833; Maynard Shipley, The War on Modern Science (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927), 79.
Kenneth K. Bailey, “The Antievolution Crusade of the Nineteen-Twenties” (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1954), 224.
Bailey, “The Antievolution Crusade,” 250. See also Gerald Skoog, “Topic of Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks: 1900–1977,” Science Education 63 (1979): 621–40.
Richard David Wilhelm, “A Chronology and Analysis of Regulatory Actions Relating to the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools” (PhD dissertation, University of Texas-Austin, 1978), 344–45.
William Bell Riley, “Five Addresses on Evolution in the State of Minnesota,” Christian Fundamentals in School and Church [CFSC] 9 (January–March 1927): 20–21.
Arkansas House Bill 34, Journal of the House of Representatives for the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas 1927, 68–69, 263, 323–24; Bailey, “Antievolution Crusade,” 243–47; Virginia Gray, “Anti-Evolution Sentiment and Behavior: The Case of Arkansas,” Journal of American History 62 (1970): 353–65; Shipley, “Year of the Monkey War,” 326.
William Bell Riley, “The Prospect of a Great Fundamentalist University,” CFSC 8 (January–March 1926): 24–25.
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 189, 191.
Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 102.
T. T. Martin, King’s Business 17 (January–June 1926): 77.
George Washburn, Moody Bible Institute Monthly [Moody Monthly] 26 (January 1926): 229.
Leo P. Ribuffo, The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983), 89; “The Defenders,” CFSC 8 (April–June 1926): 8;
Gerald B. Winrod, “The Fight in Kansas,” CFSC 8 (October–December 1926): 11; The Christian Fundamentalist 1 (November 1927): 22; Fire by Night, 5–24.
William Bell Riley, “Mr. Bryan and the Scopes Trial,” CFSC 9 (January–March 1927): 9.
H. L. Mencken, Prejudices: Fifth Series (New York: Octagon Books, 1977), 111.
Harbor Allen, “‘Supreme Kingdom’s Campaign,” CFSC 8 (October–December 1926): 51.
Washburn to Bryan, 24 July, 1925, Bryan Papers; T. T. Martin, King’s Business 17 (January–June 1926): 77.
LeRoy Johnson, “The Evolution Controversy During the 1920’s” (PhD dissertation, New York University, 1954), 186–87; Bailey, “The Antievolution Crusade,” 224–29.
Willard B. Gatewood Jr., Preachers, Pedagogues and Politicians: The Evolution Controversy in North Carolina, 1920–1927 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1966), 30, 40–44, 49–50, 98–101; North Carolina House Resolution 10, Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina 1925, 18, 203, 225, 280, 290–91.
Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 75.
William V. Trollinger, God’s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 51; Szasz, “William B. Riley and the Fight Against Teaching of Evolution in Minnesota,” 212; “The Anti-Evolution Fight in Minnesota,” CFSC 9 (April–June 1927): 12; “Anti-Evolution Bill Bars Man’s Origin Theory,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 8, 1927; “Riley Upheld in Evolution Debate,” Minneapolis Journal, February 1, 1927.
Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), 756–61.
Michael Lienesch, In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 115–38. Tarrow’s work is paraphrased on page 116.
Copyright information
© 2010 Adam Laats
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laats, A. (2010). School Legislation after Scopes. In: Fundamentalism and Education in the Scopes Era. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106796_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230106796_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-38507-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-10679-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)