The paranoia created by McCarthyism in the 1950s echoed the outrage caused by the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial” case, as people in both cases were fighting either for or against the right to hold varying opinions. Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee wrote the play Inherit the Wind in response to McCarthyism and based it on the Scopes Trial, warning that threats to freedom of thought will continue in the future if such hysteria is repeated.
The play follows fictional characters based on the real participants of the trial as Bertram Cates and his lawyer Henry Drummond fight not only for the right to teach evolution in ublic schools but also the right to think. Drummond’s determination, wit, and sensitivity compel the Christian Fundamentalist crowd in Hillsboro and others to be open- minded to his ideas. Drummond’s determination assists in achieving his goal to persuade people that everyone has the right to free thought. When Cates begins to doubt his morality, Drummond tells him, “Ill change your plea and we’ll call off the whole thing-on one condition.
If you honestly believe you committed a criminal act against the citizens of this state and the minds of their children. If you honestly believe that you’re wrong and the law’s ight” (Lawrence 52). Drummond is not trying to prove Cates’s innocence because Cates did break the Butler Law and teach evolution to the children of Hillsboro; however, Drummond wishes to convey that the law itself is unjust and that this is not a “criminal act. ” If Drummond was only trying to defend Cates and his innocence, he would look for evidence that proved he did not teach evolution.
Instead, Drummond’s claim that the law is wrong is proved by facts of modern science that contradict with the Bible. His determination to fight this unfair law, even when his client doubts himself, allows him to convince Cates hat he is fighting for a just cause, and thus, continue the trial instead of canceling it out of cowardice. Furthermore, when Cates is declared guilty and receives a $100 fine for his sentence, Drummond announces to the courtroom, “Bertram Cates has no intention whatsoever of paying this or any fine.
He would not pay it if it were one single dollar. We will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of this state” (Lawrence and Lee 116). Drummond does not ask Cates whether or not he wants to appeal; rather, he speaks on his behalf indicating that as the defendant, he has no intention of leaving this case or letting Cates pay his fine. Also, by saying that the fine would not be paid even if it were a single dollar, Drummond implies that the case is about preserving free thought and not only proving Cates’s innocence.
A dollar is an insignificant amount of money to pay for committing a crime, so if Drummond only cared about proving his client innocent, he would not appeal to a higher court because the matter would be resolved. Drummond will not give up in order to get his desired outcome-winning the case and simultaneously protecting the right to think independently-which will lead his case to receive more news nd radio coverage, and disseminate his points to people all across the country. Drummond’s conviction in himself and his cause makes him adamant about advocating his claim to as many people as possible.
In addition, Drummond’s wit allows him to convey his opinions successfully to the courtroom despite several obstacles. When all of his witnesses with science backgrounds are declared irrelevant, Drummond quickly comes up with a plan to make Brady his witness as an expert on the Bible. “All right. I get the scent in the wind. We’ll play in your ball park, Colonel. Now let’s get this straight… This is the book that ou’re an expert on? ” (p. 87). While a fragrance is not visible, its presence can be felt. Therefore, the “scent in the wind” refers to the implication that the case is already biased against Drummond.
Drummond has an ability to think quickly because this is not his original plan. Brady’s “ball park,” an idiom meaning a person’s area of expertise, is the Bible, so in order to prove himself correct, Drummond must show the fallacies of the Bible. Instead of admitting defeat, Drummond creates a new scheme that still proves his argument. As he cross-examines Brady, Drummond brings up a story from the Bible in which Joshua akes the sun stand still. He asks Brady, “If they say that the sun stood still, they must have had a notion that the sun moves around the earth.
Think that’s the way of things?… Now if what you say factually happened… the earth, arrested in its orbit, shriveled to a cinder and crashed into the sun. How come they missed this tidbit of news” (Lawrence and Lee 89). Drummond assumes the Bible to be correct so that Brady does not object to him immediately for bringing up “irrelevant” science, but then points out that the earth would have exploded in that instant if the Bible is factual. Since that did not occur, Drummond discredits both the Bible and Brady’s faith in its literal word to the audience.
Drummond cleverly finds a way to mention science and logic despite his witnesses being rejected, so he presents his points after all. Drummond’s shrewdness helps him make his points even though he is not allowed to support his case straightforwardly. Drummond’s ability to empathize with someone helps him provide a new perspective to Hillsboro’s citizens. Before the trial begins, he tells Rachel and Cates not to give up or feel bad for being aberrations in the town: “I understand what Bert’s going through. It’s the loneliest feeling in the world-to find yourself standing up when everybody else is sitting down” (Lawrence and Lee 51).
Drummond compares Bert’s isolation in terms of opinion to a person standing when everyone else is sitting, or doing a different action from everyone else. Also, the idiom “to stand up for oneself” is hinted at in Drummond’s statement with his comparison that involves standing. Since the idiom relates to defending one’s belief, Drummond tells Cates he must do the same. Because he realizes Bert is alone, Drummond decides to also “stand” with him and defend his principles to the best of his bilities, which requires him to present this stance to the townsfolk of Hillsboro.
Additionally, when Hornbeck mocks Drummond for defending Brady after his death, Drummond responds, “Why? Because I refuse to erase a man’s lifetime? I tell you Brady had the same right as Cates: the right to be wrong! ” (Lawrence and Lee 127). Drummond’s sensitivity is demonstrated by his refusal to “erase,” or undermine, Brady’s perspective. He understood Brady had the right to an opinion as well. Because of this understanding, Drummond conveys to Hornbeck that even poor opinions must be defended.
Drummond’s empathy for all people and perspectives means he can better present his case that others should have the same sensitivity. Drummond’s intelligence, perseverance, and empathy allow him to sway the heavily biased audience and nation into considering evolution as plausible and free thought as necessary. The chilling paranoia that McCarthy created required a man like Drummond to calm it since his ability to persuade the courtroom spectators could be used to persuade real people too. His words, thoughts, and actions can quell future calamity as well because of their universal application.
