The Film & More
Reference
Interview Transcripts | Bibliography | Primary Sources
"Cross of Gold"
William Jennings Bryan, campaign speech, 1896
Mr. Chairman & Gentlemen of the convention: I would be presumptuous,
indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have
listened if this was a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest
between persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor
of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak
to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty, the cause of
humanity.
When this debate is concluded a motion will be made to lay upon the table the
resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the
resolution offered in condemnation of the administration. We object to bringing
this question down to the level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he
is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a
contest over a principle.
Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a
contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the history
of American politics has a great issue been fought out, as this issue has been,
by the voters of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a few Democrats,
most of them Members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the
nation, asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour;
declaring that a majority of the Democratic party had the right to control the
action of the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the request
that the believers in the free coin age of silver in the Democratic party
should organize, take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic party.
Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver
Democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming their belief, and
declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize into a platform the
declaration which they had made. Then began the conflict. With a zeal
approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the
Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory until they
are now assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment
already rendered by the plain people of this country. In this contest brother
has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The warmest ties of love,
acquaintance and association have been disregarded; old leaders have been cast
aside when they have refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom
they would lead, and now leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause
of truth. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as
binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of
the people.
We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been glad to
compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we know that the
people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where
he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it was not a question
of persons; it was a question of principle, and it is not with gladness, my
friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now
arrayed on the other side.
The gentleman who preceded me [ex-Governor Russell] spoke of the State of
Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this convention
entertains the least hostility to the people of the State of Massachusetts, but
we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the
greatest citizens in the State of Massachusetts. When you [turning to the gold
delegates] come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your
business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by
course.
We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited
in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man
as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as
the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the crossroads
store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who
goes forth in the morning and toils all day - who begins in the spring and
toils all summer - and who by the application of brain and muscle to the
natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as
the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the
miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet
upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding-places the precious metals
to be poured in the channels of trade, are as much business men as the few
financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come
to speak for this broader class of business men.
Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic
coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the
wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose - the pioneers away
out there [pointing to the west], who rear their children near to Nature's
heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds - out
there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young,
churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes
of their dead - these people, as we say, are as deserving of the consideration
of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak. We
do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in
the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and
out (sic) petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties
have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity
came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre. My friends,
in this land of the free you need not fear a tyrant that will spring up from
among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood,
against the encroachments of organized wealth.
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that
changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which democracy
rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new
conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to meet those
conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here;
that it is a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court
of the United States. My friends, we have not criticized; we have simply called
attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting
opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They say that we passed
an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income-tax law was not
unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time; it
did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and
we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax
is just. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the
backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is
not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects
him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like
ours.
They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. If you will
read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in searching history,
he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was Cicero, who
destroyed the conspiracy of Catiline and saved Rome. Benton said that Cicero
only did for Rome what Jackson did for us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy
and saved America. We say in our platform that we believe that the right to
coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe
that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to
private individuals than we could afford to delegate private individuals the
power to make penal statues or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once
regarded as good Democratic authority, seemed to have differed in opinion from
the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are
opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function
of the bank, and that the Government ought to go out of the banking business.
I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that
the issue of money is a function of government, and that banks ought to go out
of the governing business.
They complain about the plank which declares against life tenure in office.
They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we
oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is being built up in Washington,
and which excludes from participation in official benefits the humbler members
of society.
Let me call your attention to two or three important things. The gentleman
from New York says that he will propose an amendment to the platform providing
that the proposed change in our monetary system shall not affect contracts
already made. Let me remind you that there is no intention of affecting those
contracts which according to present laws are made payable in god, but if he
means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting
those who have loaned money before the change was made, I desire to ask him
where, in law or in morals, he can find justification for not protecting the
debtors when the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that we must protect
the creditors.
He says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for the suspension
of free coinage if we fail to maintain the parity within a year. We reply that
when we advocate a policy which we believe will be successful, we are not
compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what we shall
do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply his logic to us, why he doesn't
apply himself. He says he wants this country to try to secure an international
agreement. Why does he not tell us what he is going to do if he fails to
secure an international agreement? There is more reason for him to do that
than there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the parity.
Our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international agreement,
and those are waiting for it most patiently who do not want it at all.
And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask us why it
is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question,
I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold standard has
slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we do not embody in our
platform all the things that we believe in , we reply that when we have
restored the money of the Constitution all other necessary reforms will be
possible; but that until this is done there is no other reform that can be
accomplished.
Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the country?
Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believe in
the gold standard would frame our platform and nominate our candidates, even
the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a
president. And they had good reason for their doubt, because there is scarcely
a State here today asking for the gold standard which is not in the absolute
control of the Republican party. But note the change. Mr. McKinley was
nominated as St. Louis upon a platform which declared for the maintenance of
the gold standard until it can be changed into bimetallism by international
agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans, and
three months ago everybody in the Republican party prophesied his election.
How is it today? Why, the man who was once pleased to think that he looked
like Napolean--that man shudders today when he remembers that he was nominated
on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only that, as he listens, he
can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat
upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.
Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for change evident to
anyone who will look at the matter? No private character, however pure, no
personal popularity, however great, can protect form the avenging wrath of an
indignant people a man who will declare that he is in favor of fastening the
gold standard upon this country or who is willing to surrender the right of
self-government and place the legislative control of our affairs in the hands
of foreign potentates and powers.
We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount
issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will
dare to challenge battle. If they tell us that the gold standard is a good
thing, we shall point to their platform and tell them that their platform
pledges the party to get rid of the gold standard and substitute bimetallism.
If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your
attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention
today and who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of international
bimetallism--thereby declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the
principle of bimetallism is better--these very people four months ago were open
and avowed advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that we
could not legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the world.
If the gold standard is a good thing, we ought to declare it in favor of its
retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad
thing why should we wait until other nations are willing to help us to let go?
Here is the line of battle, and we care not upon which issue they force the
fight; we are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell
us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them
that this, the most enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never
declared for a gold standard and that both the great parties this year are
declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization,
why, my friends, should we not have it? If they come to meet us on that issue
we can present the history of our nation. More than that; we can tell them
that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance
where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but
not where the masses have.
Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle holders of
capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes
of the country," and my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which
side will the Democratic party fight: upon the side of the "idle holders of
idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is the question
which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each
individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the
platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the
foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There
are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do
prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic
idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous,
their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon
them.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold
standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile
prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will
spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow
in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people
on every question, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation
on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every state of New York by
saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare
that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of
1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the
courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall
we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we
are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, that will never be
the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle
is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until
other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because
England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism
because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field
and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight the to the
uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world,
supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers
everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them:
You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall
not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
(back to Primary Sources)
|
