I think the Scopes trial brought together a great cast of characters: three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan; America's best defense attorney, Clarence Darrow: and its most popular journalist, H. L. Mencken. It was a trial about ideas, a contest between traditionalism, the faith of our fathers, and modernism, the idea that we test faith with our intellect. And it had what the New York Times called the most memorable event in Anglo-Saxon court history: Darrow's calling of William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor, to the stand and examining him on his interpretation of the Bible. Seventy-five years later, this trial has stood the test of time. Clarence Darrow was a nearly-70 year old attorney who was largely regarded as America's most eloquent defense attorney. He had the ability to transform almost any courtroom trial into a much larger context, and raised large social and political issues that captured the public imagination. He also had a very good sense of humor, which sometimes got him into trouble, as in the Scopes case, when complaining to the judge after his request to introduce scientific expert testimony had been rejected said, "Why is it that all of our requests are rejected?" The judge answered, "I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the Court?" Darrow replied, "Well, Your Honor has the right to hope." H. L. Mencken was the reporter who played a large role in the trial, and is well-known as one of America's most colorful, acerbic, and in his own way, prejudiced reporters, but his colorful reporting added greatly to our understanding of the trial. William Jennings Bryan was a three-time failed presidential candidate who, in the years preceding the Scopes trial, had transformed himself into a sort of fundamentalist pope. He campaigned against evolution, at one time offering to pay $100 to anyone who personally could prove that he descended from a monkey. If the trial were held today, the law would be held unconstitutional as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause in the First Amendment. The trial would thus have been decided on the motion to quash the indictment, and there would have been no witnesses and none of the entertainment that we got in 1925. Scopes' Place in Culture The Scopes trial came at a crossroads in history - as people were choosing to cling to the past or jump into the future.
...his seemingly routine case of fornication and premarital pregnancy proved to be significant for early American legal history. The unfolding of this story and the legal changes that it brought about makes evident that by the end of the seventeenth century, The Eastern Shore had shaped a distinct legal culture. The characters involved in each case also revealed the extent the powerful players were able to shape the law to their own self-interests. The goal of the powers to be was to protect property interests, protect personal reputation and liberty, and to maintain social order.
He was a mysterious unknown figure in the shadows; a slithering serpent in the courtroom. The defense attorney for the Scopes Monkey Trial was a cunning man. Clarence Darrow had difficulty defending his client, John T. Scopes, against his opponent, William Jennings Bryan. To everyone’s surprise however, he proved that he could prevail, even if he was under pressure from the world around him. Though Scopes was found guilty under Darrow, he surprisingly only had to pay a fine of one hundred dollars. With such a minor sentence, Darrow is said to be the person who actually won the trial. In the play Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, the character, Henry Drummond, parallels his real-life counterpart, Clarence Darrow, through intelligence, bitterness, and determination.
Early in his career, Drummond defended two teenage child murderers and helped them escape their consequences. Due to this act, he entered Dayton surrounded by strong feelings of hatred. After his scientists were refused a spot on the stand, Drummond was enraged. Henry decided to put Matthew Harrison Brady on the stand to question him. “I call to the stand one of the world’s foremost experts on the Bible and its teachings – Matthew Harrison Brady” he insisted (Lawrence and Lee 82). After Cate’s verdict was announced, Drummond appealed it, causing it to be sent to a higher court. All these actions resemble the same activities of Clarence Darrow during the Scopes Trial. Clarence Darrow was frowned upon because of his success while taking on the teenage murderer’s situation. When he put William Jennings Bryan on stand, the crowd was shocked by his unorthodox action, but he knew exactly what he was doing. “On the seventh day of the trial, on a platform outside the Dayton, Tennessee courthouse, he called William Jennings Bryan to the stand as an expert on the Bible” (“People & Events” 1). His plan worked, allowing him to reduce the sentence to a reasonable consequence, but he was still unhappy about the verdict. He requested that the case be taken to a higher court in hopes of reversing the outcome. All in all, Henry’s actions are a near mirror image of Clarence’s.
Ever since human civilization came into existence, people have been putting rules in place to determine who is behaving according to social norms and moral values and who is not. Because the majority of Western societies have historically been democratic, it makes sense that the public have a say in the enforcement of said rules. It is for this reason that the trial became a popular means of deciding upon punishment for those perceived to have broken the law, while also allowing them an opportunity to testify against their charges. Socrates underwent this process in 399 BC on charges of impiety and corruption of the youth of Athens , as did Louis Riel in 1885 on charges of treason for leading a Métis rebellion . Although they lived during vastly
the court, and for saying “I say-I say – God is dead” (p.115). The day
There were no trials for those who were accused. Everybody simply ignored this. This was simple and clear violation of the constitution and its amendments. This situation had lots of similarities with the Salem witch trials because in both cases none of those accused had a fair trial or a chance to get out of the situation they were in. In both situations most of the time the accused got hanged.
(Ray p.32). However, as more fragments of textual evidence occur, historians are making new evaluations of how the witch trials were exaggerated by recent literature. Some historians like Richard Godbeer,
In the beginning of the late seventeenth century a sense of fear and panic was sweeping throughout the colonies of North America this fear began in a small town in Massachusetts called Salem and would lead to the death of nineteen people. This fear was caused by young Puritan girls who started randomly convulsing and accusing people of being witches many of the accused were women many single or widowed who owned land and this event was titled The Salem Witch Trails, but another smaller very significant event also took place during this period of time that event is the attempted hanging of Mary Webster. Both of these events are very significant in the fact that they would become a basis of American literature and would bring about a very big theme even in today`s literature that theme being “A majority does not always make the right decision.” Both of these events would lead to the writing of two significant pieces
It has been one hundred and twenty-two years since "Lizzie Borden took an axe..", in accordance to the folk rhyme, and Andrew and Abby Borden were brutally murdered in their home; but still today it remains one of America's most famous, or infamous, unsolved crimes. Although Lizzie was acquitted and no one was ever proved guilty of committing the crime; it is still the popular opinion that Lizzie was, in fact, the murderer. Not many people have in doubts in their mind about Lizzie's guilt, although there is no one alive today who could witness to what happened. The eventful day in August was followed by a very short trial. There are many reasons she could have been proven guilty but also an abundance of rationalities for her acquittal; and it makes sense that it is discussed and talked about in the year 2014.
11.) The Trial of Lizzie Borden, with a history of the case" by Edmund Pearson
The aim of this paper is study the same primary sources that other historians have studied and see what conclusions if any can be drawn from them. The primary sources that will be used in this paper include but are not limited to online transcripts of the trial records, and other material written by the many historians of the years.
... times and the changing of social norms. Clarence Darrow and those on the defense were fighting for more freedom. The believed that the Butler Laws were imposing religious matters on them when they did not want it. They wanted to be able to have science and religion work together in a way that one does not out rule the other; that they are coequal and cover different questions. No matter which way you spin the results from this trial, the only true winners were the monkeys.
middle of paper ... ... indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.) rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. Government In both cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/
The Rosenberg trial, which ended in a double execution in 1953, was one of the century's most controversial trials. It was sometimes referred to as, "the best publicized spy hunt of all times" as it came to the public eye in the time of atom-spy hysteria. Husband and wife, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage. Most of the controversy surrounding this case came from mass speculation that there were influences being reinforced by behind-the-scenes pressure, mainly from the government, which was detected through much inconsistencies in testimonies and other misconduct in the court. Many shared the belief that Ethel Rosenberg expressed best as she wrote in one of her last letters before being executed, "-knowing my husband and I must be vindicated by history.
Answering these questions is the purpose of this essay. I begin by arguing that the Bible cannot be adequately understood independent of its historical context. I concede later that historical context alone however is insufficient, for the Bible is a living-breathing document as relevant to us today as it was the day it was scribed. I conclude we need both testimonies of God at work to fully appreciate how the Bible speaks to us.