In March of 1925, with the signature of governor Austin Peay, Tennessee became the first state of the union to pass a true anti-evolution law. Previously, anti-evolutionists had only two partial successes. The first was an amendment to a free text book bill in Oklahoma that prohibited the state from purchasing any text books that mentioned Darwinism. The purpose of the law was to provide students in public schools with free text books for their classes, and some thought that the addition of the anti-evolution clause was an attempt to kill the bill. Nevertheless, it passed, but was repealed a few years later due to budgetary concerns. The second was a non-binding resolution passed in Florida to discourage public school teachers from teaching evolution in their classes. It, however, carried no penalties and was thus unenforceable.

The 1925 Tennessee anti-evolution law, known as the “Butler Act” after John Washington Butler, the House Representative who drafted it, or sometimes dismissively as the “monkey law,” essentially made it a misdemeanor for any public school teacher in the state to teach a theory that denied divine creation as taught in the bible and taught instead that man descended from a lower animal. The full text of the law read:

The Butler Act

An Act prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

This was, in fact, the third attempt to pass such a law in the state of Tennessee. The first anti-evolution bill proposed in the state of Tennessee was introduced during the 1923 legislative assembly (during this time they convened every two years), which was one year after the first such attempt in the entire nation, in neighboring Kentucky, failed to pass by a single vote. The bill was introduced in the Senate by a Mr. Whitfield and read as follows:

Senate Bill 681 1923

An Act to make it unlawful to teach or permit to be taught in any institution of learning, supported by public taxation, atheism, agnosticism, Darwinism, or any other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any other form of life.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall hereafter be unlawful for any teacher, principal, superintendent, trustee, director, member of a school board, or any other person exercising authority in or over a public school, college, university or other institution of learning, whether holding such office or position by election or appointment, to teach or permit to be taught in any institution of learning, supported by public taxation, atheism, agnosticism, Darwinism, or any other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any other form of life.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

(Tennessee State Library and Archives)

There are two things that stand out in marked contrast to the Butler Act. First, Whitfield’s bill mentions not just Darwinism but also atheism and agnosticism and then essentially conflates all of these together under the category of ‘hypotheses that link man in blood relationship to any other form of life.’ This is a common theme that continually crops up during this period – the idea that Darwinism and atheism are practically one and the same thing. The second is that Whitfield does not mention the Bible or divine creation. While Butler’s bill can be read as one that explicitly protects biblical doctrines and teachings, Whitfield’s is simply trying to prohibit a certain and specific scientific idea with no other express reason. This idea that Bible teachings must be protected from harmful critiques, underlying Butler’s act, I think is important in considering why that bill found so much favor whereas this one did not.

Whitfield’s bill was referred to the Committee on Education. Committees will usually return a bill with either a recommendation to pass it or a recommendation to reject it. The Committee on Education, however, returned this bill with no recommendation and nothing further was done with it in the Senate. The House version of the bill, however, was returned by its Committee on Education on the same day with a recommendation to pass it. Even with this apparent support in the House, however, the records indicate that no further action was taken with the bill.

The second attempt to pass an anti-evolution law in Tennessee also occurred during the 1925 legislative session. Senator Shelton introduced his own anti-evolution bill into the Senate one day before Butler introduced his into the House (which is probably not a coincidence). The Shelton bill was significantly different from Butler’s:

Senate Bill 133 1925

An act to prohibit the teaching of Evolution and Darwinism in the Public Schools of Tennessee and to prescribe the punishment for violation of this act, and to prohibit the employing of any one who believes in the same.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any person to teach the doctrine of Evolution and Darwinism in any of the Public Schools of Tennessee or in any school supported in whole or in part by public taxation. Any person teaching either of the same shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as hereafter prescribed.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any school board, or any person employing teachers, to make any contract with any person to teach any school in Tennessee supported in whole or in part by public taxation who believes in Evolution or the teaching of Darwin and any person guilty of the violation of this act will be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as hereinafter prescribed.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That the Circuit and Criminal Judges of this State shall give this law in their charges to the Grand Juries and that said grand juries shall have inquisitorial powers to inquire of violations of this act.

Section 4. Be it further enacted, That any person violating sections one and two of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10.00 and not more than $25.00 for each offense.

Section 5. Be it further enacted, That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act be and the same are hereby repealed, and that this act take effect from and after is passage, the public welfare requiring it.

(Tennessee State Library and Archives)

I have left in the parts that Shelton went back and crossed out by hand on the original copy of the bill because I think that it is interesting how he presumably saw Evolution and Darwinism to be synonymous, even though scientists at that time understood that they are not. The first section of the act is similar to the 1923 bill in that it is prohibiting a specific doctrine, however, here it applies to Evolution in general and not just the idea that humans are evolved. But what is really significant here is that Shelton’s bill not only prohibits teachers from teaching Evolution but prohibits the State from hiring teachers who believe in Evolution! Shelton wanted to regulate what teachers taught and thought.

In contrast, the Butler bill, as mentioned already and quoted above, emphasizes protecting biblical doctrines of creation over merely prohibiting a certain theory or a certain group of hypotheses. Its language can actually be taken to provide somewhat of a loophole. What if a teacher taught a theory of evolution that does not deny but incorporates the divine story of creation? Presumably, even if that was not its original intention, the Butler law’s language allows that. After all, it prohibits teaching that man descended from a lower animal instead of being divinely created. Its specificity in this regards actually allows, depending on how one wants to interpreted it, quite a bit of leeway. Indeed, Governor Peay, upon signing the bill into law, stated that he believed that nothing about the state’s biology curriculum would have to be changed on account of it.

Shelton’s bill was rejected by the Senate Committee on Judiciary by a 5-4 vote. The passage of Butler’s bill in the House forced the Senate to re-consider Shelton’s bill in conjunction with Butler’s. They ended up recommending Butler’s anti-evolution bill and shelving Shelton’s. It is not terribly difficult to see why. Given the context of these other two bills, Whitfield’s and then Shelton’s were more radical in the extent of what they prohibited. Compared to them, but especially to the Shelton bill, the Butler Act actually seems somewhat conservative. Ironically, therefore, it may have, to some extent, been the Butler bill’s conservatism that allowed it to find so much favor among the General Assembly and the Governor of Tennessee in 1925.

This is an especially interesting observation when considered in conjunction with an anti-atheist bill that was also introduced in the House that same year – which I will cover in a separate post.