Cross of Gold

The “Cross of Gold” speech strikes a balance between logic and emotion. Bryan rebuts the arguments used by his opponents against bimetallism, and then turns to a combination of persuasive tactics and radical language to stir up the crowd. “Cross of Gold” served as a rallying cry not only for supporters of bimetallism and the free silver movement but for any people who aligned themselves with the “laboring masses” of the country. While he did not win the election, and the changes he hoped to make never came to pass, the speech cemented his position as one of the greatest orators in US history.

The crux of his speech lies in two interconnected parts. The first is his appeal to the economic issues of the time, namely the debate whether only gold or gold and silver should be used to back the US dollar. The second is impassioned support for the rural population of the United States who faced devastation to their livelihoods from the recent depression.

Bryan opens the speech by portraying himself as a humble man. He gives the prior speakers their due before he gets to his point. By doing so, he appears to the audience as a reliable figure. It gives him credibility when he says bimetallism is not only an important issue for the audience to consider but also the most important political battle they have ever faced. Later in the speech, he doubles down on this point when he says that he is not taking up this cause for the votes. Instead, he says, “We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise” (203). He says he has no personal animosity against his opponents: “[I]t was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle” (200). His tone is that of a humble individual supporting an important cause, which may make his audience more receptive to his message.

He approaches every argument of the gold-supporting Democrats with clear and concise rebuttals. He says the income tax is not unconstitutional. A single judge overturned it, and it serves as a way to spread out the tax burden in a fair way. In addition, controlling the country’s money is not the responsibility of the banks. Instead, it is the government’s, and no widespread national institutions should be run by private enterprises. He turns away from the infighting among the Democratic ranks to address the platform of the Republican nominee, McKinley. His support for gold is due to it being used by most other countries and thus important to international trade. Bryan counters by saying that this is not a reason for the United States to adopt gold. To do so would give control of America’s interests to outside forces.

While Bryan does use a well-formed series of logical counterarguments throughout the speech to cast doubt on the position of his opponents, he also appeals to the emotions of his audience. Here, he focuses on the rural population of the United States and their condition. Sympathy for them is critical because they are the people Bryan believes will suffer the most from the use of the gold standard. He describes them as “hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness” (200) and contrasts them with the “idle holders of idle capital” supported by the Republicans (205). He says the Democratic Party should be “on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party” (205). The people supported the party and should be supported in turn.

In most of his emotional appeals, Bryan uses figurative language in the form of allusions or metaphors. This includes referring to historical figures both to support his argument and to discredit others, including Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon Bonaparte. Much of his language involves warfare. He says that supporters of bimetallism are “fighting in the defense of [their] homes” (200). On the conflict over money, he says, “[T]here is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle” (205). Bryan invokes the history and ideals of the United States to win over the audience. He says that adopting the gold standard because other countries use it, or waiting to adopt bimetallism until others do, is a return to the problem of the Revolutionary War. He calls on the audience to ask, “Shall we, their descendants […] declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?” (206). This cements the issue that not only is the gold standard a threat to their economy, but it is also a threat to their identity as Americans. These passages place Bryan in the position of a defender of American ideals.

The most powerful example of figurative language is the religious one that comes at the end of the speech. In his concluding remarks, Bryan criticizes those who do not support the adoption of bimetallism in the United States. He insists they “shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns” or “crucify mankind on a cross of gold” (206). The central symbols upon which he builds these phrases belong to the crucifixion of Jesus. Both the “crown of thorns” and “gold” in “the cross of gold” refer to the use of gold to back money. The “brow of labor,” meanwhile, is the figurative representation of “the producing masses of this nation and the world” (206). Bryan draws a parallel with this image between the suffering of the American people under the burden of the gold standard to the sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of humanity. It again reinforces that the adoption of the gold standard will be a damaging blow to the interests of the working majority population. He implies his opponents on the matter of bimetallism align themselves with sin. He believes his cause, as he said outright at the beginning of the speech, is the righteous one.