Prohibition against American Imperialism

As temperance has largely been synonymous with anti-imperialism the world over, Chapter 15 examines it during America’s imperial era: specifically the Spanish-American War and the conquest of the Philippines. It begins by charting the relationship between Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy and William Jennings Bryan, who became America’s most outspoken foe of both American imperialism and the exploitative liquor traffic. The anti-canteen movement arose in response to the increasing drunkenness and exploitation of American soldiers—as well as native Cuban and Filipino populations—by the liquor traffic backed by the US military. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union and the emerging Anti-Saloon League helped secure an anti-canteen law in 1901, effectively getting the US government to restrain its own predatory excesses. The chapter concludes with Bryan’s evangelical, social gospel progressivism, highlighting the shared community protection logic of prohibitionism and anti-imperialism.

The Fundamentalist Menace

Nothing did more to strengthen determination for academic freedom than the fundamentalist attacks of the 1920s. In opposition to Darwinian evolution, fundamentalists found an issue that combined their alarm over the secular direction of modern culture, their reverence for the Bible, and populist appeals. William Jennings Bryan was especially effective in promoting these concerns. A number of states, especially in the South, adopted legislation banning teaching of evolution in schools. States became focal points for controversy. That is illustrated at the University of North Carolina, where, after a major controversy, antievolution forces did not prevail. Bryan helped trivialize the issue with his populist appeals at the Scopes Trial. The antievolutionist argument that if Christianity was not taught in schools, then neither should anti-Christianity be, effective earlier against Jefferson, pointed to the problem in the twentieth century of maintaining a bland blend of Christian and secular thought.

Prawnicze wzorce osobowe na kanwie „małpiego procesu” w filmie Inherit the Wind Stanleya Kramera

The article analyses the film Inherit the Wind, directed by Stanley Kramer in 1960, according to a screenplay inspired by events of the so-called Scopes monkey trial, which took place in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee (US). The filmmakers recreated fairly freely the motive of the controversial ‘trial of the century’, offering the viewers an allegory of political events of the 1950s instead of historical accuracy. At the same time, it was a universal essay on the consequences of institutionalization of ideological and religious fundamentalism. The timeless appeal of Kramer’s motion picture can also be seen in the context of his positive commitment to legal ethics. The plot of the film is a clash of legal professionals, whose personalities are similar to two outstanding lawyers who actually participated in the monkey trial: William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. Kramer’s film presents a positive role model of a lawyer, that is, defence counsel Drummond, contrasting him with the antihero: a lawyer and politician supporting the prosecution, called Brady. The film personalities of Drummond and Brady are reconstructed from the point of view of virtue ethics, using exemplarist moral theory by Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, which enables giving a fuller picture of the created personages than in case of a deontic assessment of the moral validity of their individual acts.

“Mckinley, the God of Fool Negroes”

Chapter 4 offers a rhetorical history of Turner's political career leading up to the 1900 campaign. Second, the chapter offers a rhetorical analysis of speeches and writings from Turner as he campaigned for the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan. Though Bryan lost to William McKinley in a landslide, Turner argued that his support for Bryan was in protest of the Republican Party abandoning the principles of liberty and justice for all.

The Oklahoma State Constitution

In 1907, William Jennings Bryan described the proposed constitution for Oklahoma as “the best constitution in the United States today.” An enduring characteristic of Oklahoma’s constitution has been its faith in direct democracy and its root in Progressive Era politics. This book traces the historical formation and constitutional development of the state of Oklahoma. It provides commentary and analysis on the intent, politics, social and economic pressures, and the legal decisions that shaped and enhanced the Oklahoma constitution since it was adopted in 1907. The text gives a broad understanding of state constitutional law within the context of Oklahoma’s constitutional evolution.

Introduction

“The best constitution in the United States today.” That is how William Jennings Bryan described the proposed constitution for Oklahoma in 1907. Bryan was clearly engaging in hyperbole, but he was signifying that the drafters of Oklahoma’s constitution were guided in the main by many of the concerns which were highlighted during what historians came to dub the Progressive Era....

Ruth Bryan Owen

This chapter examines the diplomatic journey of the first female US chief of mission, Ruth Bryan Owen, minister to Denmark (1933–1936). Owen, daughter of William Jennings Bryan, was a public lecturer and two-term US congresswoman from Florida before being sent to Denmark by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who eagerly promoted the advancement of women, lobbied Roosevelt to make the appointment. Denmark was a gender-progressive country and considered of lesser importance in Washington. Despite some skepticism and hostility from career diplomats, Owen performed creditably and was extremely popular in her host country, especially due to her decision to reach out to Danes beyond elite circles. And although she was forced to resign when she married a Dane in 1936, her performance paved the way for Roosevelt to appoint a second female envoy the following year.

Aimee Semple McPherson’s Pentecostalism, Darwinism, Eugenics, the Disenfranchised, and the Scopes Monkey Trial

This article posits that the cultural battle waged by Aimee Semple McPherson in concert with William Jennings Bryan over evolution and modernism was largely focused on a popular social theory linked to eugenics. On July 21, 1925, in the city of Dayton, Tennessee, a twentieth-century watershed event became a harbinger of the age: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, popularly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. The public remembers the event as spotlighting the fundamentalist-modernist controversy with respect to the teaching of evolution in the public-school curriculum against the protests of fundamentalist Christians who advocated Creationism. The historical event was far more complicated than the popular recollection. By revisiting primary materials, this investigation will demonstrate that much of the protest voiced by McPherson and Bryan involved Social Darwinism and eugenics and a concern over the impact of these popular theories upon the Social Gospel.

STRATEGIC CALCULATIONS IN WOODROW WILSON'S NEUTRALITY POLICY, 1914–1917

This article analyzes Woodrow Wilson's view of the First World War's implications for U.S. national security and the way in which he related the balance of power between the belligerents at different points in time to his diplomatic objectives. It approaches this topic, which is a subject of much debate among historians, by comparing Wilson's view of the war from late 1914 to early 1915 with that of his secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, and by examining how those perceptions shaped the response of the two leaders to the sinking of theLusitania. Bryan and Wilson both wanted the United States to stay out of the war, both wanted the United States to mediate an end to it, and both of them saw mediation as a doorway to reforming international politics. Unlike Bryan, however, Wilson saw Germany as a potential threat to the United States and paid close attention to the balance of power between the Allies and Central Powers; he specifically believed that the Allies were likely to win the war. These views led Wilson to reject Bryan's advice to de-escalate theLusitaniacrisis and to adopt a much more confrontational policy toward Germany, one of the most consequential decisions Wilson made in the neutrality period.