Socíal and Cuhural Issues ofthe 1920s
Even were one to admit t}rat there existed any serious
"Red menace" before the Attorney General started his
"unflinching war" against it, his campaign has been singulady fruitless. Out of the many thousands suspected
by the Attorney General (he had already listed 60,000
by name and history on Nov. 14, 1919, aliens and citizens), what do the figures show of net results? Prior to
January l, 1920, there were actually deported 263 per'
J*t"ry
1 there have been actually deported
18 persons. Since January I there have been ordered
deported an additional 529 persons, and warrants for
sons. Since
I,547
have been cancelled (after
full hearings and consid-
eration of the evidence) by Assistant Secretery of Labor
Louis F. Post, to whose courageous reestablishment of
American Constitutional Law in deportation proceedings
are due the attacks that have been made upon him' The
Attorney General has consequently got rid of 810 alien
suspects, which, on his own showing, leaves him at least
59,160 persons (aliens and citizens) still to cope with.
A GOVERNMENT OF I-A\øS
It has always been the proud boast of America that this is
a government of laws and not of men. Our Constitution
and laws have been based on the simple elements of
human nature. Free men cannot be driven and repressed;
they must be led. Free men respect justice and follow
truth, but arbitrary power they will oppose until the
end of time. There is no danger of revolution so great
as that created by suppression, by ruthlessness, and by deliberate violation of the simple rules of ,{merican law and
American decency.
It is a fallacy to suppose that, any more than in the
past, any seryant of the people can safely arrogate to himself unlimited authority. To proceed upon such a supPosition is to deny the fundamental American theory of the
consent of the governed. Here is no question of a vague
and threatened menace, but a present assault uPon the
most sacred principles of our Constitutional liberry.
FOR FURTHER READING
Stanley Coben, A. Mitchell Palmn,
Universiry Press, 1963.
Politicat New York: Columbia
David Cole, Enemy Aliens: Double Stand¿rds and Constiutional
Freedoms in the \Y/ar on Terroism. New York: New Press, 2003.
Edwin P. Hoyr, The Palmer Raids, 1919-1920' New York:
Seabury Press, 1969.
Kim E. Nielsen, (Jn-American
lVomanhood: Antirddicalism,
Antifeminism, and the First Red Scare. Col,tmbus: Ohio State
Universicy Press, 2001.
Vicwpo tnt l'/ A
H.L. Mencþen Critiques America (1922)
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
was a noted journalist,
a
writer, and satitist. He was columnist for the
iNTRoDUCTIow 1LZ. Mencken
Baltimore Sunfrom 1906 to 1948 and theþunder
and editor of the nagazin¿ American Mercury.
Mencþen bec¿me celebrated during the 1920s þr his
caustic commentaries on the "trøditional" American
uølues of rural and ¡mall-town Americø in which he
criticized in colorful prose the Amnican "booboisie" for
their narrow-rnind¿dness. His social and literary criticism
greatþ influenced a generøtion ofinnllectaab,
?drt of the "I.ost Generation"
sorne of whom becdme
thøt moaed to Europe in the 1920s while decrying the
limits of American cubure. The following example of
Mencþen's writing is tahen
fom
Prejudices:
Third
Series, ¿ colhction of neuspapo ønd magazine
published in booh
þrm in
essays
1922.
On what points does Mencþen agree with the intellzctuals leauing Arnericø? Which portions of this uirwpoint wouU lou rate mltt connouersial? Wlry?
Apparently there are those who begin to find
it
disagreeable-nay, impossible. Their anguish fills the
Liberal weeklies and every ship that puts out from New
York carries a groaning cargo of them, bound for Paris,
London, Munich, Rome and way points-anywhere to
escape the great curses and atrocities that make life intolerable for them at home. Let me say at once that I find
little to cavil at in their basic complaints, In more than
one direction, indeed, I probably go a great deal further
than even the Young Intellectuals. It is, for example,
one of my firmest and most sacred beliefs, reached after
an inquiry extending over a score ofyears and supported
by incessant prayer and meditation, that the government
of the United States, in both its legislative arm and its
executive arm, is ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, and dis-
gusting-and f¡om this judgment I except no more than
twenfy living lawmakers and no more than twenty executioners of thei¡ laws. It is a belief no less piously cherished
that the administration of justice in the Republic is stupid, dishonest, and against all reason and equity-and
From this judgment I except no more than thirry judges,
including two upon the bench of the Supreme Court of
the United States. It is another that the foreign policy
of the United States-its habitual manner of dealing
with other nâtions, whether friend or foe-is hypocritical,
disingenuous, knavish, and dishonorable-and from this
judgment I consent to no exceptions whatever, either recent
or long past. And it is my fourth (and, to avoid too
depressing a bill, final) conviction that the American people, taking one with another, conscitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs
and goose-steppers ever gâthered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and that they
grow more timorous, more sniveling' more poltroonish,
more ignominious every d^y. ...
Excerpted f¡om "On Being an American" by H.L. Mencken, in.Prejudicer Third
Srrø (New York: Knopf, 1922).
VOL.2: FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PRESENT
B9
I
Part 3: Prcsperìty, Depressiono and War (1920-1945)
\ØHY
I
STAY
'ùØell, then, why am I still here? \Øhy am I so cornplacent
(perhaps even to the point of offensiver.ress), so free from
bile, so little fi'etting and indignant, so curiorLsly happy? . . .
J'o be happy (r'educing the thing to its clen-renrals) I
must be:
¿. \Øell-fecl, unbounded by sor:clid cares, :rr casc
ir.r
Zion,
ú. Full of a cornfo¡table feeling of superiority ro rhe
masses of tly fellow-men.
r. Delicateiy ar.rd unceasingly amused according ro my
taste.
It
is n.ry conrenrion that,
if this deûni¡ion
be accepred,
there is no country on the face of the earth wherein a man
roughly constituted as J âm-a man of my general weaknesses, vanities, apperires, prejudices, and ave¡sions-car.r
be so happy, or even one-half so happy, as he can be in
these fi'ee and inclependenr srares. . . . Here rhe business
of getting a living, particularly since the war brought rhe
loot of all Europe to the narional strong-box, is enormously easier thau it is in any other Ch¡istian land-so
easy, in fact, that an educated and forehandecl man who
fails at it must actually make delibe¡ate efforrs to rhar
end. He¡e the general average of intelligence, of knowledge, of competence, of integriry, of self-respect, of
in preciscly the same way llo sâne man, observing an
Arnelican Secretary of State in negoriation with E,nglishmen ancl Japs, woulcl expect him ro come off better than
secor.rd best. Thilcl-rate nìen, of course, exist in all countrics, but it is only here thar they are in full control of the
state, and with it of all the narional standa¡cls. The land
was peopled, not by the harcly 2lclvenrurers of legend,
but .simply by incon-rpetents who coulcl not get orl ar
home, and the lavishness of narure thar rhey found
hele, the vast ease with which rhey could get livings, confìrmecl and augrnentecl thei¡ narive incomperence. . . .
The United States, to my eye, is ir.rcompalably the
greatest show on eartlì. It is a show which avoids diligently all the kinds of clowning which tire me mosr
example royal ceremonials, the redious
quickly-for
hocus-pocus of haute politique, the taking of politics seriously-ancl lays chief stress upon rhe kinds which delight
tne unceasingly-for example, the ¡ibalcl combats of demagogues, the exquisitely ingenious operarions of maste¡
rogues, the pursuit of witches and heletics, the desperate
struggles of inferior men ro claw rheil way into Heaven.
\Øe have clowns in constant plactice among us who are
as fa¡ above the clowns of any great stare as a Jack Dempsey is above a paralytic-and not a few clozen or score of
them, but whole d¡oves and he¡ds. Human enterprises
which, in all othel Christian countries, are resigned de-
honor is so low that any man who knows his trade, does
not fear ghosts, has ¡ead fifty good bool<s, and pracrices
the common decencies stands out as brilliandy as a warr
on a bald head, and is thrown willy-nilly inro a meager
and exclusive aristocracy. And here, more rhan any'wher-e
else that I know of or have heard of, the daily pano¡amâ
of human existence, of private and communal foily-the
spairingly to an incurable dullness-things rhat seem
devoid of exhilarating amusemenr by their very narureare here lifted to such vast heights ofbuffoonery that con,
templating them strains the miclriff almost to breaking.
I cite an example: the worship of God. Everywhere else
on earth it is carried on in a solemn and dispiriting man-
unending procession of governmental extorrions and chicaneries, of commercial brigandages and throat-slittings, of
theological buffooneries, of aesthetic ribaldries, of legal
swindles and ha¡lot¡ies, of miscellaneous rogueries, vilIainies, imbecilities, g¡otesqueries, and exrravagances-is
so inordinately gross and preposterous, so perfecdy brought
the average man seldom gets a fair chance to laugh at
them and enjoy them. Now come home. Here we nor
only have bishops who are enormously more obscene
than even the most gifted of the English bishops; we
have also a huge force of lesser specialists in ecclesiastical
up to the highest conceivable amperage, so steadily
Xaviers of a hundred fantastic rires, each performing
untiringly and each full of a groresque and illimitable
whimsicaliry. Every Amerìcan town, however small, has
one of its own: a holy clerk with so fine a talent for introducing the arts of jazz into the salvarion of the damned
chat his performance takes on all the gaudiness of a
four-ring circus, and rhe bald announcemenr that he
will raid Hell on such and such a night is enough to
empty all the town blind-pigs and bordellos and pack
his sanctuary to the doo¡s. And to aid him and inspire
him there are traveling experrs to whom he stands in
the relation of a wart ro rhe Marrerhorn-stupendous
masters of theological imbeciliry, contrivers of doctrines
utterly preposterous, heirs to the Joseph Smith, Mother
Eddy and John Alexander Dowie tradition-$Tilliam J.l
enriched with an almost fabulous daring and originaliry,
that only the man who was born with a perrified dia-
phragm can fail to iaugh himself to sleep every night,
and to awake every morning with all the eager, unflagging
expectation of a Sunday-school superintendenr rouring
the Pa¡is peep-shows. . . .
A THIRD-RATE COUNTRY
The United States is essentially a commonwealth of
¡¡6¡-¡[¿¡ distinction is easy here because the
general level of culture, of informarion, of taste and judgment, of ordinary competence is so low. No sane man,
thi¡d-rate
employing an American plumber to repair a leaky
drain, would expecr him to do it at the first trial, and
90
ner; in England, of course, the bishops are obscene, but
mountebankery-tin-horn Loyolas, Savonarolas and
OPPOSING VIE\øPOINTS
IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Socìal
Bryan, [Billy] Sunday, and their like. These are the eminences of the American Sacred College. I delight in them.
Their proceedings make me a happier American.
Turn, now, to politics. Consider, for example, a campaign for the Presidency. Vould it be possible to imagine
anything more uproariously idiotic-a deafening, nervewracking battle to the death between Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, Harlequin and Sganarelle, Gobbo and
Dr. Cook-the unspeakable, with fearful snorts, gradually swallowing the inconceivable? I defy any one to
match it elsewhere on this earth. In other lands, at
worst, there are at least intelligible issues, coherent
ideas, salient personalities. Somebody says something'
and somebody replies. But what did [W'arren G.] Harding say in 1920, and what did [James] Cox reply?
\Øho was Harding, anyhow, and who was Cox? Here,
having perfected democracy, we lift the whole combat
symbolism, to transcendentalism, to metaphysics.
Here we load a pair of palpably tin cannon with blank
cartridges charged with talcum powder, and so let fly.
Here one may howl over the show without any uneasy
reminder that it is serious, and that some one may be
hurt. I hold that this elevation of politics to the plane
of undiluted comedy is peculiarly American, that nowhere else on this disreputable ball has the art of the
to
sham-battle been developed to such fineness. . . .
Mirth is necessary to wisdom, to comfort' above all,
to happiness.'W'ell, here is the land of mirth, as Germany
is the land of metaphysics and France is the land of fornication. Here the buffoonery never stoPs. lü/hat could
be more delightful than the endless struggle of the Puritan
to make the joy of the minority unlawful and impossible?
The effort is itself a greater joy to one standing on the
sidelines than any or all of the carnal joys that it combats. ' . .
One man prefers the Republic because it pays bemer
wages than Bulgaria. Another because it has laws to
keep him sober and his daughter chaste. Another because
the'W'oolworth Building is higher than the cathedral at
Chartres. Another because, living here, he can read the
New York Euening Journø|. Another because there is a
warrânt out for him somewhere else. Me, I like it because
it amuses me to my taste. I never get dred of the show. It
is worth every cent it costs'
\/icrvpoirit l TIl
A Critique of H.L. Mencþen (1928)
Catherine Beach Ely (1873-1936)
INTRODUCTI oN Catherine Beøch Eþ wa¡ a teacher and a
writer on art criticitm and social issues. In thefollowing
aiewpoint, taÞen fom a 1928 article published in the
No¡th Ame¡ican Review, she taþes aim at H'L.
Mencþen, perhaps Americai most Prominent culrural
citic
of the 1920s. Her criticism of Menchen is also a
dcfense of the Arnerican society Mencken made a
point
of satirizing,
with
atd Cuhural
Issues
its optimism, relþious
oftbe 1920s
fahh, and
patriotism.
How does Eþ describe Mencþen? Does her destiptìon
of Menchen and his writing accurateþ fuscibe the tone
of the opposing uiewpoint? Do you thinh she presents an
adequate response to Mencþen's arguments? Why or
wby not?
The exile of Henry Mencken among us ignorant,
naive Americans is a tragedy of modern letters. SelÊcondemned to this unhappy existence by his own decision,
and not by our insistence, he continues to afford us the
unparalleled spectacle of his supreme condescension. He
endures our stupidities and crudenesses with pained dis-
gust.
\øith what one would call a missionary's zeal,
were not the concept missionary so foreign to his taste,
he labors to convert us to the sophisticate's viewpoint.
He abandons the civilizations of other lands, presumably
more in harmony with his fastidious predilections, in
order that we Americans may feel the contrast between
his lofty intelligence and our inane futilities.
'\7hat desperate isolation, that of this apostle of pessimism stranded on the shores of cheerful, constructive
America! Constructive-the very word makes the indignant Mencken shudder at the rawness of a nation bent
on erecting its own desdny and well being, though
undoubtedly this egregiously prosperous country of ours
offers a convenient financial environment to the mental
alien. . . .
AMERICA'S EXASPERATING
QUALITIES
Our idiotic cheerfulness
aggravates Mencken. Destituce
of the acrimony which marks the superiority of
the
aJien literati, we pursue our inferior bourgeois objectives
with hopeful vigor, with candid and unseemly oPtimism'
The world has been revolving on its axis since 1492, and
America has not yet learned the proper attitude of rynical
acquiescence to fate and of jesting unconcern for human
responsibiliry. She insists on being useful and altruistic in
spite of the oral and written precepts of our conspicuous
intellectual, Mencken the Mentor. Full many a time he
pushes us Yankees beneath the dark waters of pessimism,
but unfailingly we bob up again on the life-preserver of
our buoyant instinct for overcoming difficulties and dangers. In America apparendy we cannot realize that conquering obstacles is obsolete.
Mencken deplores our anciquâted regard for the
sacredness
of home, church, and history'
'S7'e
a¡e
so
slow to learn that there is no such word as tradition in
the lexicon of modern chought. Tradition implies affection for the past, whereas the Mencken school would
Catherine Beach Ely, ("The Sorrows oFMencken"') Nortb Ameican R¿uieø, vol.
225, ¡o. | (January 1928)
VOL.2: FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PRESENT
9r
I
P¿rt 3: Prosperity, Depressiort, and lY'ar (1920-1945)
have us understand that we have no past ancl no future
worth cherishing, only the present for clonning harle-
The American bourgeois blunders onwald and upward
instead of reclining at full length in the dly lands of
quin's attire and proclairning the farcical futility of
Rationalism.
human endeavor.
Hero worship exasperates the cynics as the rnost foolish phase of tradition. To malce a hero of an American is
to imply that there is somethir.rg fine in hurnan nature
and, wolst of all, in American human nature. Acknowledging graritucle fo¡ a salienc pelsonality in public life
runs counter to the sophisticate's assumption that gratitude is a weakness and that there is no greatness of character. Yet,
in spite of Mencken's tutoling, incorrigibly
stupid America continues to cherish hel sac¡ed memories
and hopes. She persists ìn erecting monuments to her heroes, ancl in teaching her school-children to believe in
Country ancl Flag-foolish America! disgruntied
Mencken!
Patriotism heads Mer-rcken's list of bourgeois offences. To be a patriot is to sti¡ the risibles of advanced
rhinkers. How arrogant of America to value her experiences as a
Nation, how
tasteless her selÊreminders
of her
evolution as a Republicl Columbus might better have
remained comfortably in ltaly; as for the Puritans, if
they had foundeled in the deep sea, \rye should have
been sparecl the reco¡d of theil austere follies. England
was well rid of us, yet we are none the better for ou¡ independence. This dolla¡-chasing America presumes to
prate of patriotism, to sing the glories of her birth, and
to seek divine guidance. Mencken sorrows over all these
childish tendencies, sorrows because our Nation will
not cast aside her preoccupation with reminiscent emotions. Patriotism implies teamwork, the submersion of
the Ego, the upward look, the strong right arm, the romance of history, whereas Menckenism puts the individual in a vacuum and tells him to exist without the
atmosphere of enthusiasm expressed in national service
and devotion.
MENCKEN'S IMITATORS
As an alleviation for the crass stupidities of the American
"booboisie", Mencken has foundecl a school of congenial
spirits. A select inner circle of Ar¡ericans choose him as
their guide ancl pattern. Our Menckenites fonn an esoteric band of superior minds, whose special function it
is to deride a1l things Americat.r. They reflect his prejudices and imitate his cawings and croai<ings at oul absurdities. Chief among them in stereoryped implicit obedience
is Sinclair Lewis. SelÊacknowledged star pupil of Menckenisrn, Lewis incorporates hìs master's theolies into novels which put the dunce cap on America and cor.rdemn
her to the da¡k corner as the world's rnost imbecile race.
Mencken's band of imitators-the bad boys of literature-console him for his grievance at sentimental
America. He has imparted to them his swagger, his bravado. They jeer at the plain person, who in the grapple
with life turns to sentiments which brighten the bleakness
of an unkind environment by revealing a goal wolth a
struggle. Like street arabs pelting strangers ìn comely garmellts, they throw derisive epithets at the kinclly vi¡tues
and gracious deeds which brighten sombre places.
They have the brawler's delight in destruction-the
instinct to break the bright wings of idealism, to silence
the song of hope, the flutter of expectation. They love
to teâse, to worry, to injure the purposeful citizen pursuing the ¡ound of homely existence. "\ü7hat's the use!" they
sneer; "your work is futile, yor-rr faith nonsensical, your
courage childish-you poor dupe, you preposterous
bourgeois!" Thumbing the nose, they scoff at the harmless effusions of life, Parades, both lite¡al and figurative,
with the old fellows in uniform, the young ones beating
the d¡um and playing the fìfe, the applause and enthusi-
of the crowd as an outlet fo¡ human ardor, offend
the superioriry complex of the Mencken coterie.
America is incurably religious, although Mencken
points inexorably to the signposts of modern intellectualism. She persists in putting faith and will power above
asms
barren mental cereb¡ation. Underneath her crust of materialism she cherishes spiritual ideals. America's spiritual
at our perverse Americanisms with the cup of malice
which he prepares for himself. His caustic middle age
will pass into tart old age spent in the America he disdains
but ¡efuses to desert. For, were he absent from foolish
energy angers Mencken, because he makes himself believe
that the religion of America is synonymous with hypocrisy, superstition and wrong-headedness. \Øhat right
have we Americans to the consolations and inspirations
of pieqy-we least of all peoples!
Mencken, critic in perpetuurn,
assuages
his vexation
gion. She makes it the foundation of her institutions,
the motive-power of her cha¡ities, the keynote of he¡
progress. Mencken sorrorvs over America's narrow confor-
America, his occupation would cease. \ffith no America
to berate, his career would vanish, his mentaliry atrophy.
Having stored up for himself no gentle thoughts, no mellow tradìtions, no mild benignant pleasures of the mind,
how could he live in a land he did not despise? How
could he endure a congenial environment after the bracing air of antagonism to all things American? On his peak
of scorn he noisily bewails America; but he enjoys his
mities, so contrary to the selÊsufficiency of intellectualism.
sorfows.
For the Mencken school faith is demoded, aspiration
a weak delusion. Yet America refuses to repudiate reli-
92
OPPOSING VIE\øPOINI'S
iN AMERICAN
HISTORY
H. L. MENCKEN'S OBITUARY OF MACHEN
"Dr. Fundamentalis"(1)
The Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D. D., who died out in North Dakota on New Year's Day, got, on the whole, a bad press while he lived, and even
his obituaries did much less than justice to him. To newspaper reporters, as to other antinomians, a combat between Christians over a matter of
dogma is essentially a comic affair, and in consequence Dr. Machen's heroic struggles to save Calvinism in the Republic were usually depicted in
ribald, or, at all events, in somewhat skeptical terms. The generality of readers, I suppose, gathered thereby the notion that he was simply another
Fundamentalist on the order of William Jennings Bryan and the simian faithful of Appalachia. But he was actually a man of great learning, and,
what is more, of sharp intelligence.
What caused him to quit the Princeton Theological Seminary and found a seminary of his own was his complete inability, as a theologian, to
square the disingenuous evasions of Modernism with the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. He saw clearly that the only effects that could follow
diluting and polluting Christianity in the Modernist manner would be its complete abandonment and ruin. Either it was true or it was not true. If,
as he believed, it was true, then there could be no compromise with persons who sought to whittle away its essential postulates, however
respectable their motives.
Thus he fell out with the reformers who have been trying, in late years, to convert the Presbyterian Church into a kind of literary and social club,
devoted vaguely to good works. Most of the other Protestant churches have gone the same way, but Dr. Machen's attention, as a Presbyterian,
was naturally concentrated upon his own connection. His one and only purpose was to hold it [the Church] resolutely to what he conceived to be
the true faith. When that enterprise met with opposition he fought vigorously, and though he lost in the end and was forced out of Princeton it
must be manifest that he marched off to Philadelphia with all the honors of war.
II
My interest in Dr. Machen while he lived, though it was large, was not personal, for I never had the honor of meeting him. Moreover, the
doctrine that he preached seemed to me, and still seems to me, to be excessively dubious. I stand much more chance of being converted to
spiritualism, to Christian Science or even to the New Deal than to Calvinism, which occupies a place, in my cabinet of private horrors, but little
removed from that of cannibalism. But Dr. Machen had the same clear right to believe in it that I have to disbelieve in it, and though I could not
yield to his reasoning I could at least admire, and did greatly admire, his remarkable clarity and cogency as an apologist, allowing him his primary
assumptions.
These assumptions were also made, at least in theory, by his opponents, and thereby he had them by the ear. Claiming to be Christians as he was,
and of the Calvinish persuasion, they endeavored fatuously to get rid of all the inescapable implications of their position. On the one hand they
sought to retain membership in the fellowship of the faithful, but on the other hand they presumed to repeal and reenact with amendments the
body of doctrine on which that fellowship rested. In particular, they essayed to overhaul the scriptural authority which lay at the bottom of the
whole matter, retaining what coincided with their private notions and rejecting whatever upset them.
Upon this contumacy Dr. Machen fell with loud shouts of alarm. He denied absolutely that anyone had a right to revise and sophisticate Holy
Writ. Either it was the Word of God or it was not the Word of God, and if it was, then it was equally authoritative in all its details, and had to be
accepted or rejected as a whole. Anyone was free to reject it, but no one was free to mutilate it or to read things into it that were not there. Thus
the issue with the Modernists was clearly joined, and Dr. Machen argued them quite out of court, and sent them scurrying back to their literary
and sociological Kaffeeklatsche. His operations, to be sure, did not prove that Holy Writ was infallible either as history or as theology, but they at
least disposed of those who proposed to read it as they might read a newspaper, believing what they chose and rejecting what they chose.
III
In his own position there was never the least shadow of inconsistency. When the Prohibition imbecility fell upon the country, and a multitude of
theological quacks, including not a few eminent Presbyterians, sought to read support for it into the New Testament, he attacked them with great
vigor, and routed them easily. He not only proved that there was nothing in the teachings of Jesus to support so monstrous a folly; he proved
abundantly that the known teachings of Jesus were unalterably against it. And having set forth that proof, he refused, as a convinced and honest
Christian, to have anything to do with the dry jehad.
This rebellion against a craze that now seems so incredible and so far away was not the chief cause of his break with his ecclesiastical superiors,
but it was probably responsible for a large part of their extraordinary dudgeon against him. The Presbyterian Church, like the other evangelical
churches, was taken for a dizzy ride by Prohibition. Led into the heresy by fanatics of low mental visibility, it presently found itself cheek by jowl
with all sorts of criminals, and fast losing the respect of sensible people. Its bigwigs thus became extremely jumpy on the subject, and resented
bitterly every exposure of their lamentable folly.
The fantastic William Jennings Bryan, in his day the country's most distinguished Presbyterian layman, was against Dr. Machen on the issue of
Prohibition but with him on the issue of Modernism. But Bryan's support, of course, was of little value or consolation to so intelligent a man.
Bryan was a Fundamentalist of the Tennessee or barnyard school. His theological ideas were those of a somewhat backward child of 8, and his
defense of Holy Writ at Dayton during the Scopes trial was so ignorant and stupid that it must have given Dr. Machen a great deal of pain.
Dr. Machen himself was to Bryan as the Matterhorn is to a wart. His Biblical studies had been wide and deep, and he was familiar with the almost
interminable literature of the subject. Moreover, he was an adept theologian, and had a wealth of professional knowledge to support his ideas.
Bryan could only bawl.
IV
It is my belief, as a friendly neutral in all such high and ghostly matters, that the body of doctrine known as Modernism is completely
incompatible, not only with anything rationally describable as Christianity, but also with anything deserving to pass as religion in general. Religion,
if it is to retain any genuine significance, can never be reduced to a series of sweet attitudes, possible to anyone not actually in jail for felony. It is,
on the contrary, a corpus of powerful and profound convictions, many of them not open to logical analysis. Its inherent improbabilities are not
sources of weakness to it, but of strength. It is potent in a man in proportion as he is willing to reject all overt evidences, and accept its
fundamental postulates, however unprovable they may be by secular means, as massive and incontrovertible facts.
These postulates, at least in the Western world, have been challenged in recent years on many grounds, and in consequence there has been a
considerable decline in religious belief. There was a time, two or three centuries ago, when the overwhelming majority of educated men were
believers, but that is apparently true no longer. Indeed, it is my impression that at least two-thirds of them are now frank skeptics. But it is one
thing to reject religion altogether, and quite another thing to try to save it by pumping out of it all its essential substance, leaving it in the
equivocal position of a sort of pseudo-science, comparable to graphology, "education," or osteopathy.
That, it seems to me, is what the Modernists have done, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. They have tried to get rid of all the logical
difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their
imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty as [of] psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes.
They may be good people and they may even be contented and happy, but they are no more religious than Dr. Einstein. Religion is something
else again--in Henrik Ibsen's phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mudupbringing, Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact
upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Mohammed. He failed--but he was undoubtedly right.
Footnote:
1. Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 15.