|
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN - FOR SILVER
AND AGAINST GOLD - 1896
Cross of Gold
Go here for more about
William Jennings Bryan.
Go here for more about
Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech.
It follows the full text transcript of
William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech, delivered at
Chicago, Illinois - July 8, 1896.
 |
Mr. Chairman and
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 coinage 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
new leaders have sprung up to give direction to
this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been
waged, and we have assembled here under a
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, 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 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 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 your 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 cross-roads
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 into 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
hardly 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
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 school houses for the education of their
young, churches where they praise their Creator,
and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their
dead, these people, 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 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.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he
fears a Robespierre. My friends, in this land of
the free you need not fear that a tyrant 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 was passed; it 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 Cataline 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 to private
individuals the power to make penal statutes or
levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded
as good democratic authority, seems 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 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 the 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
not intention of affecting those contracts which
according to present laws are made payable in
gold, 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
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
does not apply it to 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 to-day asking for the gold
standard which is not in the absolute control of
the republican party. But note the change Mr.
McKinley was nominated at 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 to-day?
Why, the man who was once pleased to think that
he looked like Napoleon -- than man shudders
to-day when he remembers that he was nominated
on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.
Not only that, but, as the 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 the change evident to any one who
will look at the matter? No private character,
however pure, no personal popularity, however
great, can protect from 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 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 common
people of any land have ever declared themselves
in favor of the gold standard. They can find
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 idle
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 in the
Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of
the fair state of Massachusetts nor the
inhabitants of the 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 them 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."
More History
|
|
