Cross of Gold

“In this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom.”

Bryan’s use of “brother against brother” and “father against son” mimics the language surrounding the Civil War, which ended only 31 years before the speech. While noting the conflict within the Democratic Party on the issue of bimetallism, he also implies that those who support gold will lose their political standing and be replaced by supporters of free silver. In addition, by saying it is a “cause of freedom,” he attempts to stir patriotic feelings in the audience.

“When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer.”

The statement sets out one of Bryan’s key arguments for the support of bimetallism. In his definition, the term “businessman” includes the urban man who supports the gold standard and all people who work and have a stake in the economy, including farmers, ranchers, and mineworkers. These workers deserve as many rights as the urban owners of capital.

“We say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing 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 children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.”

Bryan uses this description to invoke pathos or emotion in his audience. The people living in the West are portrayed as being as deserving, if not more, of rights as the people on the East Coast. He achieves this effect by describing how hardworking they are in concrete and imagistic language.

“We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our 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.”

Bryan uses parallelism to create a rhythm that emphasizes the hopelessness of the blue-collar workers during the depression and serves as a call to action for the cause of bimetallism. His use of verbs like “begged” and “entreated” also stokes sympathy in the listener.

“The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.”

The “gentleman from Wisconsin,” Senator William Vilas, compared the free silver movement’s anti-capitalist and pro-labor sentiments to one of the leaders of the French Revolution. Bryan counters his concerns by saying a similar situation would never happen in the United States. He continues that they need strong men in the movement to oppose the overstepping of the rich and invokes the popular figure of President Andrew Jackson.

“The income tax is a just law. 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 pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.”

Bryan’s favor of the income tax connects his speech to the larger theme of equality for the working people of the country over the interests of the rich. When he criticizes those who are against income taxes as being undeserving of being American, he attempts to create patriotic sentiment in the audience.

“Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different 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 the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.”

By contrasting Thomas Jefferson’s views on banking to those of the minority speaker, Senator David B. Hill, Bryan attempts to discredit Hill’s opinions. Jefferson was a man of great historical importance in the United States, and his views should hold weight with a Democratic audience. Bryan makes it clear it does for him and uses it to push his belief that banks should not have control over the US money supply. He also uses the literary device of chiasmus or repeating elements in reverse order, from “government ought to go out of the banking business” to “banks should go out of the governing business.”

“Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans; and everybody three months ago in the Republican Party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but 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.”

Bryan turns a favorable comparison McKinley made between himself and Napoleon into a metaphorical commentary on his belief that the Republican nominee’s popularity was waning. Napoleon was also a powerful man until he overreached and was exiled. McKinley, according to Bryan, is headed for a similar fate.

“If the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare 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 some other nations are willing to help us to let it go?”

Bryan calls into question the views of some of his opponents who believe the United States should adopt the gold standard. They think the decision should be based on the choice of other countries to use gold. Bryan’s view is that the choice, regardless of what it is, should be theirs alone without reference to what other counties are doing. Bryan seems to ignore the point that a major use of money is international trade, so the best choice for the US depends in part on what other nations choose.

“This was a struggle between ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ and ‘the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country’; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall 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 that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter.”

Bryan frames the bimetallism debate as a conflict between the rich and the working people of the country. His language is charged with implications. The rich are “idle” and they “hold” rather than help anyone except themselves. In contrast, the working people “struggle,” but are the ones responsible for allowing the country to function. Bryan calls upon the Democrats to make choices about which group deserves their loyalty and support, both individually and as a party.

“You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these 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.”

Bryan repeats his theme of the power that the working masses in the South, West, and Midwest hold. There would be no cities in America if the rural workers did not provide food and raw materials. Without their labor, the system would crumble.

“It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people.”

Bryan uses a chastisement of the gold supporters to create pathos, calling on the patriotism and pride of the audience. Allowing other countries to make decisions for the United States goes against the independence their forefathers fought to achieve.

“If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.”

Bryan finishes his argument against the case for adopting the gold standard because of international trade. While other countries in Europe also adopted the gold standard, he deliberately mentions England to recall the American Revolution. To make policies just because England does would be, in his eyes, a step backward.