DIRECT LINK TO “WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN’S LAST CAMPAIGN” ARTICLEYOUR ESSAY PROMPT: AND BACKGROUND INFO AND FURTHER IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS FOR HISTORICAL METHODS PAPER (100 pts.):This is a challenging essay/review to write. You are to write one essay/review using the three sources provided by your Professor. Please listen first to the audio of William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold Speech” and then watch the video on WWI, and finally read the article by Stephen J. Gould. Be sure to include information from all three sources in your essay/review and cite the information with reference notes and a bibliography and the body of the essay must be at least 3 pages long. This is the one required major writing assignment for the semester. A little background before you begin….first, listen to the actual Speech by William Jennings Bryan I provide as a primary source so that you can actually hear his voice and get an idea as to how good a speaker he was, this is his most famous speech which may seem a bit boring today, but back then it was very interesting since it affected every common person’s pocketbook, then, listen to the second video which gives a general overview of the effects of Social Darwinism on WWI and how it affected the German intellectuals, military leaders and colonial administrators prior and during World War I. Then, read Steven J. Gould’s article “William Jennings’ Bryan’s Last Campaign” Then, you are to write an essay/review in response to the questions below….First, the article is fascinating because it was written by a Harvard Professor, (now deceased), who was one of the world’s leading proponents of evolution, left-wing in his politics and an agnostic, (someone who does not believe there is enough evidence to prove there is or isn’t a God). He wrote about William Jennings Bryan, who was a major politician of a past generation, a fundamentalist Christian, and someone who fiercely opposed the teaching of evolution. At first glance, you would think there could be no possible agreement between these two on anything, and yet, it is very evident that Gould was quite impressed with Bryan and even sympatric with him on some issues. Ask yourself as you read the article if Gould made a few mistakes in his historical analysis of Bryan’s role opposing evolution. Also ask yourself why Gould simply chooses not to mention information that would better explain his topic. For example he doesn’t even discuss the terminology “Social Darwinism,” even though much of the article is about Bryan confusing the scientific theory of evolution with the unscientific social theory of Social Darwinism. {Social Darwinism is the racial theory which holds simply that some races are inherently superior to others and since the only law of the Social Darwinist is “Survival of the Fittest” then it is O.K. for the superior race to subjugate the inferior races}… Do you think perhaps, he is so embarrassed by this concept that he just could not bring himself to use the terminology? No where does Gould break down evolution into component parts. For example, some talk of Macro Evolution (which deals with the origin of life) and Micro Evolution (which deals with changes within living organisms). When Gould talks about evolution being a fact he is speaking of Micro-Evolution, and most lab work in the world today is working on Micro-Evolution experiments….for example, if you take fruit flies and bombard them with radiation, you are going to see changes that can be observed, measured and replicated in experiments. Macro-Evolution, however, presents many problems for Science ….how do you put the big bang in a test tube??? Who among us observed the beginnings of the universe, or of first life? Do you think Gould and many of his fellow scientist, perhaps, show a reluctance to even acknowledge that here we approach the realm of philosophy and even theology? Note at the beginning of Gould’s article, he clearly states his reason for writing the article, yet at the end of the article, he launches into a passionate tirade over something he read in “A Civic Biology”, the section on Parasitism…pay close attention to that section and then tell me if the following information I am going to give you indicates that Gould had another hidden agenda for writing the article….Gould had a son that he dearly loved and was severely autistic.Another thing that I would like you to hold in the backs of your mind as you listen to the audio, watch the video and read the article, is that Gould discusses the gross misuse of evolution by the Germans and Scientists in WWI and how Bryan read about it and was very worried and upset .… Gould does not address, however, what happens after World War I, the rise of the Fascists in Italy and Spain, and Nazi Germany (All based on Social Darwinism) or of the rise of the USSR and Communist China (whose ideology of communism is based largely on a cooperative view of evolution for humanity…however, if you refuse to cooperate, then we can kill you!!!). When one considers that Hitler was credited with killing around 18 million people and Stalin for 20 million and Mao for killing 40 million, (and these are conservative estimates) do you think Gould gives Bryan enough credit for having reason to be worried even if he did not clearly understand everything. Finally, I have said little about Bryan, the subject of this article….I think Gould correctly credits him for his role in reforming American society and his steadfast support for progressive reform…however most modern students’ view of Bryan has been warped by the Movie entitled “Inherit the Wind” loosely based on the Scopes “Monkey Trial” which depicts Bryan as a bigoted yahoo who was trying to suppress academic freedom while his opponent, Clarence Darrow was portrayed as a champion of academic freedom….I would like to simply point out that Clarence Darrow was a lawyer who could argue any side of any argument. Bryan pointed this out in the actual Scopes trial…. When he point blank asked Darrow, if he had always supported academic freedom and the teaching of evolution, Darrow answered yes. Bryan then dramatically proved Darrow was lying when he read verbatim from a trial transcript that Darrow had previously served in as a defense attorney. In the case, Darrow claimed that two college students he was defending for a particularly hideous murder and that the students actually admitted to committing, should nevertheless be found innocent of that murder since the real blame, said Darrow should fall on their college professors who taught them the damnable doctrines of Nietzsche who supported evolution!THE PROMPT: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED IN YOUR MAJOR ESSAY/REVIEW FOR 100 PTS.O.K. here’s the question which includes several side questions…..After listening to the audio of Bryan’s Speech, how would you compare that speech to a political speech today/ After watching the video, just how serious in your view was the problem of Social Darwinism and how was it affecting the Germans prior to and during WWI. After reading the article, in your own words, tell me what you think about Gould’s implying in his article that he thinks that the Arkansas State Supreme Court (some students make the mistake of thinking this was a Federal case since Gould just says ‘Supreme Court’ in the article) has finally ended the controversy over evolution vs. creation…do you think he was correct to say that there would have never been a legislative attempt to curb evolution without Bryan. To use his favorite word, how does Gould’s view of Bryan “evolve” in the article? What does Gould believe about Bryan? What does he believe Bryan got confused about evolution, and what does he believe Bryan got right? Why do you think Bryan got upset after reading Headquarters Nights and The Science of Power? If you had read these books, what would you think? How accurate were Kellogg’s predictions about Germany? Finally, what did you think about the section where Gould gets very upset about the book that John Scopes used to teach evolution at the school in Dayton Tenn. which touched off the Scopes Monkey Trial….did you get the impression that this leading proponent of teaching evolution would have agreed with Bryan, at least in regard to this book ,“A Civil Biology” that it should not be used in the classroom and why? Worth 100pts.for the students to write an Historical Methods Paper in an essay/review format which should reveal the complexity of the topic under consideration. Requirements:
600-word (3pages) (minimum) (double spaced) written project that requires students to create a historical argument, analyze and interpret the assigned sources, and relate the “cause and effect” relationships revealed within the source material.
A professional product – i.e., spelling, grammar, syntax, presentation, etc. count.
Sources must be documented in an appropriate format. (MLA or Chicago Turabian Citation.)
Use a common rubric (see below) for grading.
Students MAY post (under the CONTENT Tab of your E-campus D2L and then the Historical Methods Paper ASSIGNMENT: Folder) one TYPED (double spaced) Review/Essay (contrast and comparison) of the Article on Bryan by Gould, the U-Tube speech by Bryan and the U-tube vid. on the Origins of WWI… The essay will be due as stated in your syllabus. The review/essay should not be shorter than 3 pages. Each review should SUMMARIZE and ANAYLIZE the MAIN POINTS of the article and videos and (should read textbook for background) and give the student’s REACTION to them. (further Content directions below ) The review/essay can be simply cut and pasted into the Dropbox or attached as a single WORD document in the appropriate assignment drop box. A maximum of 100 points will be awarded for Papers that adequately covers the assigned rubric. Late reviews will not be accepted. (A student can earn up to 100 pts. by doing this assignment.) Review/Essay Format: Title: Author/s or Producers: (tell me who is writing or producing the article or vid. and why)Thesis: (what is the main point you believe the author or producer is trying to make)Summary: (give a brief overall summary of the article and videos)Author’s and Producers Conclusions: (what major points do the authors of the article or video believes to be true)Your Reactions: (were they well written or produced, how do they compare, did you learn anything, would you recommend them to someone else etc…)Include a bibliography and proper citations and footnotes***One of the most important parts of your review/essay will be your ability to notice what was historically accurate about the article and videos and what was inaccurate. The review should be based on the article and videos provided by your Professor, and he will expect to see plenty of direct quotations taken from the reading or videos included in the review and many specific examples drawn from these sources as well….the Professor wants evidence that the student read the assignment and watched the videos. It is important that each student understands the materials and now can explain it to others.
directions_on_how_to_do_a_historical_methods_paper__100pts._.docx
how_to_properly_cite_your_historical_methods_paper.docx
william_jennings_bryan_s_last_campaign_article__read_here_.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Directions for Required Historical Methods Paper Assignment:
FIRST: listen to the Audio….SECOND: watch the Video….THIRD:
read the Article in this order.
Assignment Purpose
Program/Course assessment: Students are use primary and secondary
sources provided to create an argument through the use of historical evidence
that analyzes various aspects of the past (social, political, economic, cultural)
and their relationship to the present on the topic of Social Darwinism and how
it affected a major American Politician of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s .
Core assessment: Measures students’ ability to think critically and
communicate effectively. Students must demonstrate an awareness that
personal and social decisions of the past play a role in personal and social norms
of the present.
Purpose of Paper:
To understand Social Darwinism and how it affected a major American
Politician and others in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and this is
the specific topic related to your particular history course for the topic of
your review. The two videos and one written article should provide an
appropriate amount of both primary and secondary sources for the
student to write an essay/review which should reveal the complexity of
the topic under consideration. Requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
600-word (at least 3pages) (minimum) (double spaced) written
project that requires students to create a historical argument,
analyze and interpret the assigned sources, and relate the “cause
and effect” relationships revealed within the source material.
A professional product – i.e., spelling, grammar, syntax,
presentation, etc. all count.
Sources must be documented(footnotes or reference notes and
Biblography are required) in an appropriate format. (MLA or
Chicago Turabian Citation.)
Students should demonstrate an ability to recognize the difference
between Primary and Secondary sources.
4. Use a common rubric (see below) for grading.
Students MAY post (under the CONTENT Tab of your D2L the
completed Historical Methods Paper) one TYPED (double spaced) in the
format of a Review/Essay (contrast and comparison) of the reading and two
U-tube assignments The essay will be due on on the date set in your
syllabus. The Paper should not be shorter than 2-4 pages. The paper should
SUMMARIZE and ANALYZE the MAIN POINTS of the article and the two Film
Clips and give the student’s REACTION to them. (further Content
suggestions below ) The review/essay is to be cut and pasted or attached as
a single word document in the appropriate assignment drop box. A maximum
of 100 points will be awarded for the review/essay, if it adequately covers
the assigned rubric. Late reviews will not be accepted.
A Suggested but not required Review/Essay Format:
Title:
Author/s: (tell me who is writing the article or producing the film
or audio clips and why)
Thesis: (what is the main points you believe the authors or
producers are trying to make)
Summary: (give a brief overall summary of the article or film or
audio clips)
Authors and Producers Conclusions: (what major points the
writer/producer of the article/ film or audio clips believes to be
true)
Your Reactions: (was it well written/produced, did you learn
anything, would you recommend it to someone else etc…)
Include a bibliography and proper citations and footnotes
***One of the most important parts of your review/essay will be
your ability to notice what was historically accurate about the
article/film and what was inaccurate. The review should be based
on the article/ film or audio clips read or viewed and the your
Professor will expect to see plenty of direct quotations taken from
the reading or film or audio clips included in the review and many
specific examples drawn from the reading as well….the Professor
wants evidence that the student read or listened to the
assignments, understood them and now can explain them to
others.
When citing sources in history classess, students will use either the The Chicago Manual of Style, or
the condensed its version, known as A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and
Dissertations. These are the standard style manuals most commonly used for written papers in
history courses. These guides are similar to the standard style manuals used in other fields, such as
English, Psychology, Journalism, etc. (i. e., MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, and The Associated Press Stylebook. To learn more
about these style guides and the difference between them, click on the titles above.
These style manuals are designed to help us standardize the way we cite our sources.
We will only use the Chicago Manual of Style or the A Manual for Writers of Research Papers,
Theses, and Diseertations (often referred to simply as Turabian, named after the person who
compiled the information, Kate L. Turabian) in this course. Turabian is a condensed version of
the Chicago Manual of Style. Turabian primarily contains just the information students need to
properly cite their sources.
Because the Historical Methods Paper is more of a process paper (an assignment designed to
introduce you to research methodology in history), you will not be required to actually have to search
for the sources used in the assignment (a major part of writing a research paper). Instead, the
sources are provide for you. Remember, you can only use the sources (readings) assigned by your
instructor. Thus, it is possible for your instructor to show you exactly how to format your sources in
the notes and bibliography. Below is the proper way to cite the sources (the “N” represents the way
the source should appear in your endnotes; the “B” represents the way that the sources should
appear in the bibliography). The “N” and “B” will not appear in front of your note or bibliographic
entry.
Citation of Sources Assigned
NOTE 1: randomly selected notes appear in the examples for how to format an
endnote. Your numbers will be sequential, meaning your endnotes will be number 1, 2, 3,
4, and so on. DO NOT LEAVE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PROVIDED WITH THE EXAMPLES
BELOW IN YOUR ENDNOTES.
NOTE 2: There are no numbers used in the bibliography. The bibliography is arranged
alphabetically by the authors last name.
NOTE 3: Please pay close attention to the differences in the way that the endnotes are
formatted in comparison to the bibliography entries (they are not the same). The authors
names are in a different order, indentatio is different, punctuation is different, etc.
Primary Sources:
(N=endnote; B = Bibliography)
Smith’s “How Jefferson Lived in the White House”
N:
1. Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith, “How Jefferson Lived in the White House,” in
Witness to America: A Documentary History of the United States from the Revolution
to Today, edited by Douglas Brinkley (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), 38.
[38 is the page number–you will insert the page where your information or quote is
located–same for all examples]
B:
Smith, Mrs. Samuel Harrison. “How Jefferson Lived in the White House.” In
Witness to America: A Documentary History of the United States from
the Revolution to Today, edited by Douglas Brinkley, 37-41. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2010.
_______________________________________________________________
Jefferson’s “First Inaugural Address”
N:
2. Thomas Jefferson, “First Inuagural Address (March 4, 1801),” in The
Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M. Yarbrough (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc., 2006), 57.
B:
Jefferson, Thomas. “First Inuagural Address (March 4, 1801).” In The
Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M. Yarbrough, 55-58. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006.
_______________________________________________________________
Jefferson’s “Second Inaugural Address”
N:
3. Thomas Jefferson, “Second Inuagural Address (March 4, 1805),” in The
Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M. Yarbrough (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc., 2006), 61.
B:
Jefferson, Thomas. “Second Inuagural Address (March 4, 1805).” In The
Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M. Yarbrough, 60-64. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006.
_______________________________________________________________
Jefferson’s Letter “To Elbridge Gerry”
N:
4. Thomas Jefferson, “To Elbridge Gerry, Philadelphia, Jan. 26, 1799,” in The
Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M. Yarbrough (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc., 2006), 61.
B:
Jefferson, Thomas. “To Elbridge Gerry, Philadelphia, Jan. 26, 1799.” In The
Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M. Yarbrough, 190-92. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006.
_______________________________________________________________
Jefferson’s Letter “To the U.S. Minister to France”
N:
5. Thomas Jefferson, “To The U.S. Minister To France (Robert Livingston),
Washington, Apr. 18, 1802,” in The Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean M.
Yarbrough (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006), 198.
B:
Jefferson, Thomas. “To The U.S. Minister To France (Robert Livingston),
Washington, Apr. 18, 1802.” In The Essential Jefferson, edited by Jean
M. Yarbrough, 198-200. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.,
2006.
===============================================================
===
Secondary Sources:
Gish and Klinghard’s “Republican Constitutionalism in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of
Virginia”
N:
6. Dustin A. Gish and Daniel P. Klinghard, “Republican Constitutionalism
in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia,” The Journal of Politics
74, no.1 (January 2012): 38-39, accessed on January 15, 2016,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381611001125.
B:
Gish, Dustin A., and Daniel P. Klinghard. “Republican Constitutionalism
in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia.” The Journal of Politics
74, no.1 (January 2012): 35-51. Accessed on January 15, 2016.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381611001125.
_______________________________________________________________
Helo and Onuf’s “Jefferson, Morality, and the Problem of Slavery”
N:
7. Ari Helo and Peter Onuf, “Jefferson, Morality, and the Problem of Slavery,”
The William and Mary Quarterly 60, no. 3 (July 2003): 590, accessed
January 15, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3491552.
B:
Helo, Ari, and Peter Onuf. “Jefferson, Morality, and the Problem of Slavery.”
The William and Mary Quarterly 60, no. 3 (July 2003): 583-614.
Accessed January 15, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3491552.
_______________________________________________________________
Tucker and Hendrickson’s “Thomas Jefferson and American Foreign Policy”
N:
8. Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, “Thomas Jefferson and American
Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 69, no 2 (Spring 1990), accessed January 15, 2016,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1990-03-01/thomas-jefferson-and-american
-foreign-policy.
B:
Tucker, Robert W., and David C. Hendrickson. “Thomas Jefferson and American
Foreign Policy” Foreign Affairs 69, no 2 (Spring 1990). Accessed January
15, 2016. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1990-03-01/thomasjefferson-and-american-foreign-policy.
_______________________________________________________________
Wood’s “Hope and Heritage”
N:
9. Gordon S. Wood, “Hope and Heritage: Myth and Thomas Jefferson,” in
Readings in United States History, ed. by Ron Wright, Larry Watson,
and Blanche Brick (Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning, 2014), 128.
B:
Wood, Gordon S. “Hope and Heritage: Myth and Thomas Jefferson.” In
Readings in United States History, edited by Ron Wright, Larry Watson,
and Blanche Brick, 119-132. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning, 2014.
Full Citation: Stephen Jay Gould, “William Jennings Bryan’s Last
Campaign,”Nebraska History77 (1996): 177-183
William Jennings Bryan’s Last Campaign
Scientists and their acolytes are partly to blame
for the lengthy and bitter struggle against creationism
By Stephen Jay Gould
I have several reasons for choosing to celebrate our legal victory over
“Creation Science” by trying to understand with sympathy the man who
forged this long and painful episode in American history-William Jennings
Bryan. In June, 1987 the Supreme Court voided the last creationist statute
by a decisive 7-2 vote, and then wrote their decision in a manner so clear,
so strong, and so general that even the most ardent fundamentalists must
admit the defeat of their legislative strategy against evolution. In so doing,
the Court ended William Jennings Bryan’s last campaign. The cause that
he began just after World War I as his final legacy, and the battle that
took both his glory and his life in Dayton, Tennessee, when, humiliated by
Clarence Darrow, he died just a few days after the Scopes trial in 1925.
My reasons range across the domain of Bryan’s own character. I could
invoke rhetorical and epigrammatic expressions, the kind that Bryan, as
America’s greatest orator, laced so abundantly into his speeches–Churchill’s motto for World War II for example: ”In victory: Magnanimity,”
But l know that my main reason is personal, even folksy, the kind of oneto-one motivation that Bryan, in his persona as the Great Commoner,
would have applauded. Two years ago, a colleague sent me an ancient
tape of Bryan’s voice. I expected to hear the pious and polished shouting
of an old stump master, all snake oil and rotund sophistry. Instead, I heard
the most uncanny and friendly sweetness, high pitched, direct, and
apparently sincere. Surely this man was more than what H.L. Mencken,
reporting the Scopes trial for the Baltimore Sun, called “a tin pot Pope in
the Coca Cub belt.”
I wanted to understand a man who could speak with such warmth,
yet talk such yahoo nonsense about evolution. I wanted, above all, to
resolve a paradox that has always cried out for some answer rooted in
Bryan’s psyche. How could this man, America’s greatest populist
reformer, become, late in life, her arch reactionary?
For it was Bryan who, just one year beyond the minimum age of thirtyfive, won the Democratic presidential nomination in 1896 with his
populist rallying cry for abolition of the gold standard: “You shall not press
down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify
mankind upon a cross of gold.” Bryan, who ran twice more, and lost in
noble campaigns for reform. Particularly, for Philippine independence
and against American imperialism in the election of 1900. Bryan, the
pacifist who resigned as Wilson’s secretary of state because he sought a
more rigid neutrality in the First World War. Bryan, who stood at the
forefront of most progressive victories in his time: woman suffrage, the
direct election of senators, the graduated income tax (no one loves It. but
can you think of a fairer way?). How could this man have then joined
forces with the cult of biblical literalism in an effort to purge religion of all
liberality, and to stifle the same free thought that he had advocated in so
many other contexts?
This paradox still intrudes upon us because Bryan forged a living legacy,
not merely an issue for the mists and niceties of history. For without
Bryan, there never would have been anti-evolution laws, never a Scopes
trial, never a resurgence in our day, never a decade of frustration and
essays for yours truly, never a Supreme Court decision to end it all. Every
one of Bryan’s progressive triumphs would have occurred without him.
He fought mightily and helped powerfully, but women would be voting
today and we would be paying income tax if he had never been born. But
the legislative attempt to curb evolution was his baby, and he pursued it
with all his legendary demoniac fury. No one else in the ill organized
fundamentalist movement had the inclination, and surely no one else had
the legal skill or political clout. Ironically, fundamentalist legislation
against evolution is the only truly distinctive and enduring brand that
Bryan placed upon American history. It was Bryan’s movement that finally
went down in flames last June in Washington.
The paradox of shifting allegiance is a recurring theme in literature about
Bryan. His biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica holds that the Scopes
trial “proved to be inconsistent with many progressive causes he had
championed for so long.” One prominent biographer located his own
motivation in trying to discover what had transformed Bryan from a
crusader for social and economic reform to a champion of an
anachronistic rural Evangelism, cheap moral panaceas, and Florida real
estate” (L. W. Levine. Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan, the
Last Decade. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).
Two major resolutions have been proposed. The first, clearly the
majority view, holds that Bryan’s last battle was inconsistent with, even a
nullification of, all the populist campaigning that had gone before. Who
ever said that a man must maintain an unchanging ideology throughout
adulthood and what tale of human psychology is more familiar than the
transition from crusading firebrand to die hard reactionary? Most
biographies treat the Scopes trial as an inconsistent embarrassment, a sad
and unsettling end. The title to the last chapter of almost every book
about Bryan features the word “retreat” or “decline.”
The minority view, gaining ground in recent biographies and clearly
correct in my judgment, holds that Bryan never transformed or retreated.
and that he viewed his last battle against evolution as an extension of the
populist thinking that had inspired his life’s work (in addition to Levine,
cited previously, see Paolo E. Coletta, William Jennings Bryan, vol. 3..
Political Puritan, University of Nebraska Press. 1969; and W. H. Smith, The
Social and Religious Thought of William Jennings Bryan, Coronado Press.
1975).
Bryan always insisted that his campaign against evolution meshed with his
other struggles. I believe that we should take him at his word. He once
told a cartoonist how to depict the harmony of his life’s work: “If you
would be entirely accurate you should represent me as using a doublebarreled shotgun, firing one barrel at the elephant as he tries to enter the
treasury and another at Darwinism—the monkey—as he tries to enter the
schoolroom.” And he said to the Presbyterian General Assembly in
1923: “There has not been a reform for 25 years that I did not
support. And I am now engaged in the biggest reform of my life. I am
trying to save the Christian Church from those who are trying to destroy
her faith.”
But how can a move to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools
be deemed progressive? How did Bryan link his previous efforts to this
new strategy? The answer lies in the history of Bryan’s changing attitudes
toward evolution.
Bryan had passed through a period of skepticism in college. (According
to one story, more than slightly embroidered no doubt, he wrote to
Robert G. Ingersoll for ammunition but, upon receiving only a pat reply
from his secretary, reverted immediately to orthodoxy.) Still, though he
never supported evolution, he did not place opposition high on his
agenda, in fact, he evinced a positive generosity and pluralism toward
Darwin. In “The Prince of Peace,” a speech that ranked second only to
the “Cross of Gold” for popularity and frequency of repetition, Bryan said:
“I do not carry the doctrine of evolution as far as some do; I am not yet
convinced that man is a lineal descendant of the lower animals. I do not
mean to find fault with you if you want to accept the theory….While I do
not accept the Darwinian theory, I shall not quarrel with you about it.”
(Bryan, who certainly got around, first delivered this speech in 1904, and
described it in his collected writings as “a lecture delivered at many
Chautauqua and religious gatherings in America, also in Canada, Mexico,
Tokyo, Manila, Bombay, Cairo, and Jerusalem.”)
He …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
