Right in the middle
of their big rally in Montgomery, Alabama Citizens for Constitutional
Reform got blindsided. They had expected opposition, but figured it would
come from "special interests" that feared a rewritten constitution might
raise property taxes or allow home rule or increase financial flexibility.
They weren’t ready for a group calling itself the Association for Judeo-Christian
Values to announce that it opposed reform because it believed that the
reformers real purpose was to get "God out of our constitution."
Yessir, that caught
'em by surprise.
Of course the reformers
(whose leaders include a preacher or two) quickly denied any such intent.
Counterattacking, they suggested that people of faith should ask themselves
how much Godliness could there be in a constitution like ours, one filled
with "blatant racism and sexism," not to mention some pretty unChristian
penalties on the poor.
I see their point.
Just because our constitution acknowledges God doesn't mean that the document
is "sacred," as at least one of the anti-rewrite coalition claimed. People
acknowledge God all the time, then go off and do stuff that God probably
would have said “don’t do” if they had asked him.
But on the other hand,
we would be wrong to think that the authors of our constitution were not
sincere when they invoked “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” on
their undertaking. Though I cannot look into the souls of those men long
dead, I suspect that most of them were regular church goers who came to
the convention convinced that God endorsed what they were doing.
The writers of our
constitution believed, as so many believed back then, that God gave certain
people authority over, and responsibility for, what the popular English
poet, Rudyard Kipling, called the "lesser breeds without the law." And
believing, surely, that they were among those “certain people,” our founding
fathers gathered in Montgomery in 1901 to draw up a constitution to guarantee
that God’s will would be done.
But what convinced
these men that God chose them for this task -- or at least that God did
not oppose what they were doing?
Well, I can't answer
this for sure -- and you better watch out for those who say they can.
But in reading the constitution they wrote, I get the nagging feeling
that the authors were more influenced by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species
than Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount."
Now I’ve stepped in
it. If I were to ask members of the Association for Judeo-Christian Values
to list of the Top 10 "all-time enemies of the faith," I betcha Darwin
would be right up there behind Satan himself. For me to suggest that by
defending the current constitution the Judeo-Christian Values folks are
defending a Darwinian document is sure to bring howls of protest.
And why shouldn’t
they be upset? What proof do I have that members of the 1901 convention
had ever read Darwin? None! Moreover, conventioneers who had heard of
Darwin and his theory of evolution, most likely would have denounced man,
message, and the horse he rode in on.
So how can I say that
there is more Darwin than Deity in the document? I say it because, whether
intended or not, the Alabama Constitution of 1901 conforms to one of the
key elements of Darwin’s thesis -- "natural selection."
Now how can this be?
Well in the first
place, you don't have to read and study something to be influenced by
it. By 1901, Darwin's theories had found their way into almost every aspect
of American life -- religion, science, society, economics, and, of course,
politics. And while the men at the convention would have roundly rejected
the religious implications of evolution, and would not have paid much
attention to the scientific aspects of the theory, the socio-economic-political
elements were downright appealing to them.
What they liked was
this. In the
Darwinian scheme of things (as most understood it), when a species evolved
the strong kept going and the weak fell by the wayside. The strong then
passed on that strength to later generations, which overpowered the weak
in their turn. Brutal, heartless, maybe. But it was nature's way.
One of Darwin's disciples,
Herbert Spencer, applied this scientific theory to human society and its
institutions, which he argued, also underwent a natural selection process.
He called it the "survival of the fittest."
Soon this concept
was used to explain and justify, all sorts of things, like big companies
gobbling up small. In the South, however, the theory was used most often
to legitimize white supremacy.
In a way, white southerners
were Darwinian before Darwin was cool. They had justified slavery by claiming
that blacks were inferior to whites, and survival of the superior race
depended naturally on the subjugation of the inferior. The end of slavery
in no way altered this outlook. Much of the political history of the post-Civil
War South is the history of white efforts to restore the old, "natural"
order, and make sure that society was not weakened by an inferior infusion.
It did not hurt this effort that it occurred at the same time that Darwin's
theory of natural selection was becoming so popular.
But natural selection
involved struggle, for the superior must prove themselves such, and in
Alabama that struggle was not easy. Obviously the state's "better men"
-- planters, industrialists, professional people -- had to turn back African-American
efforts to gain a measure of political, economic, and social equality.
But these superior individuals also had to deal with inferiors of their
own race -- lower class whites who were demanding the equality to which
they believed their whiteness entitled them.
The solution: a constitution
that would reduce blacks and poor whites to the status for which nature
intended them, a constitution that would clearly define who was superior,
who was inferior, and make it all but impossible for the latter to challenge
the former. A constitution that would confirm nature's selection, for
obviously only superior men could write such a document!
And that's what they
did.
But why didn't Alabama's
religious leaders, who you would think would be anti-Darwin, rise in protest
over the constitution's Darwinian discrimination?
Possibly because no
one made the connection that I am making now. Or perhaps because other
issues, like prohibition, were more important to them. Or likely because
in almost every white denomination there were preachers who were comfortable
with natural selection when it was applied to blacks, and many (especially
those from more affluent, urban congregations) who were willing to apply
the same criteria to poor whites.
In their minds the
distinctions between the races, and between the classes, were God's distinctions,
not man's. Therefore the Constitution of 1901 only confirmed and made
permanent the order God had ordained. That this also gave constitutional
sanction to the theory of natural selection was of apparently no concern
to them.
I wonder if this is
of any concern to supporters of the old constitution today?
As I mentioned before,
judging from their statements on other matters -- displaying the Ten Commandments,
school prayer, evolution disclaimers in biology textbooks, etc. -- I think
it is safe to assume that many, if not most, members of the Association
for Judeo-Christian Values take a dim view of Darwin and his theories.
But do they see the Darwinian design in the 1901 constitution?
Over the years many
conservative Christians have found natural selection at least as troubling
as Darwin's perceived attack on the Biblical literalism. Not the least
among them was William Jennings Bryan, evangelical Christianity's champion
who defended Tennessee's anti-evolution law at the famous Scopes trial
in 1925. To Bryan, natural selection was a "cruel doctrine," part of a
"conspiracy" to rob civilization of pity and mercy.
I doubt if Bryan
ever read Alabama's constitution, but I wonder what he would have thought
of it if he had?
Would he and others
like him have declared that our constitution was "ordained and established
by the sovereignty of God"? Or would he have seen its true intent and
denounced it for what it was -- Darwin in disguise?
I wonder.
Hardy Jackson is
professor of history at Jacksonville State University.
|