Speech given 9 July 1896 at the
Democratic National Convention in
Chicago by presidential candidate
William Jennings Bryan, advocating the removal of the
gold standard in favor of "
bimetallism." (For more
background, please see the Bryan WU.)
Also a song by Michael W. Smith, from his 1992 Change Your World CD, decrying the actions of those wearing crucifix jewelry (very popular at the time of the release) without buying into the belief behind the symbol. ("What's your line / tell me why you wear your cross of gold / State of mind / or does it find a way into your soul?")
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 were 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 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 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 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 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, 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 desregarded; 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
these 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
criticism. 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
would 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 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
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 no intention of affecting those contracts which
according to present laws are made payable in gold; but
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 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 reform 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 to 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 it
to-day? Why, the man who was once pleased to think
that he looked like Napoleon --that man shudders to-day
when he remembers 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.
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 substitue
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 to-day, and who tell us that we ought to
declare in favor of international bemetallism --
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
fixt 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 3,000,000 in
number, had the courage to declare their political
independence on every other nation; shall we, their
descendants, when we have grown to 70,000,000 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.
Source: http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/bryan.html