Cross of Gold
William Jennings Bryan
(1860—1925)
Delivered in the Chicago Democratic Convention on July 8, 1896, in closing
the debate on the adoption of the platform.
I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished
gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 today? Why, the man who was once pleased
to think that he looked like Napoleon—that man shudders today 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 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 the 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.
|