The Significance Of The Scopes Trial

The Scopes Trial of 1925 was not simply a case to be tried, but a war to be fought on many fronts, set against the back drop of the hottest summer Dayton Tennessee had ever experienced. Along with the extraordinary temperature came the heat of passion emanating from those people involved in the trial. From the science to the theology, the fundamentalist’s folks to the flourishing flappers, and the suited lawyers to the appareled primates, everyone was prepared for battle, with the American public eagerly awaiting the outcome. While the moral implications concerning the roles of women that many traditionalists believed would follow an innocent verdict were significant to the trials progression, as were the likely subsequent academic affects
Scopes and a group of civic leaders to test the Butler Act, a law prohibiting teachers from teaching evolution in the state of Tennessee. Scopes would be the defendant, and would be arrested for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution at the Dayton high school. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had issued a challenge to any Tennessee teacher willing to defy the act, and vowed to represent him or her should they choose to accept the task set forth. Rappleyea anticipated that the trial would bring news coverage and national attention. The men wanted to put Dayton on the map, and bring more attention to their small corner of the world. They never could have imagined the beast they were about to
One such student, Howard Morgan, provided one of the most significant testimonies favoring the defense during the trial. At 14 years of age, Morgan spoke with elegance and courage amidst a ravenous and sweltering crowd. When asked about Mr. Scopes’ teachings, and if anything he had been taught had hurt him in any way, Morgan replied simply, “No sir.” (105). Influence over the minds of the next generation has always been at the forefront of political movements, and this was no different. The implications of Morgan’s testimony would have lasting effects on the minds of many Americans long after the trial was over. The debate on religious freedom versus legislative authority was present in Tennessee’s ability to enforce laws that some argued contravened the First Amendment. The power of a state to “outlaw unpopular religions, or establish a particular church” (34) were protected though, as the amendment stated that Congress would make no laws dictating states’ rights concerning the subject of