Cross of Gold

“Cross of Gold” was a speech delivered by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois. The speech focuses on the economic situation the United States faced and calls for the readoption of silver coinage. While he was not considered a strong contender, Bryan’s speech earned him the nomination as the Democratic candidate in the 1896 presidential election and is regarded as one of the best examples of oration in US history.

This guide uses the transcript of the speech found in Bryan’s book The First Battle: A Story of the Campaign of 1896, published in 1896. The full text of the book is available electronically via Google Books.

Bryan begins by praising the speakers who came before him. However, he says that the issue they face is about more than the skill of any one individual. The return of silver currency is a crucial matter of principle and the greatest political battle the country has ever faced. He then summarizes the history of support for silver within the Democratic Party. With language often used to describe the Civil War, he says that “brother has been arrayed against brother” in the intra-party conflict between those who support silver currency and those who do not (199).

He addresses two of the prior speakers at the convention: Senator Hill of New York and Governor Russell of Massachusetts, both of whom supported the gold standard. Bryan uses their support of their Eastern urban interests to further his point. They say the readoption of silver money would cause problems with their business and economic interests, but Bryan counters that economic damage is already done to other sections of the population through the removal of silver. He takes issue with the definition they offered of what makes a “businessman” in the United States, saying that it is “too limited in its application” (200). The “businessmen” Bryan concerns himself with are the workers employed in rural places across the country, particularly those in the West, rather than in the metropolises of the East Coast. These people have different needs and should not be ignored.

He responds to a quote from another speaker, Wisconsin’s Senator Vilas. The senator likened supporters of free silver to Maximilien Robespierre, who used the argument in favor of economic equality to justify the purge of the elite during the French Revolution. Bryan counters that there will be no similar tyrant in the United States. He says that a government has to be able to change in response to the needs of its people. Bryan says that rather than Robespierre they need another Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson, who fought against the power of banks during their time. He takes issue with their arguments against term limits, the lack of protection for debtors in their plans, and their insistence on getting an international agreement on gold, which has taken too long to achieve and gone nowhere.

Bryan moves on to talk about the damage caused by the gold standard, noting that most states that want the gold standard are Republican-controlled. The Republican candidate, William McKinley, based his platform on the gold standard, with bimetallism only being adopted if agreed upon internationally. Bryan compares McKinley to Napoleon Bonaparte in that he is a powerful man whose popularity is dwindling. He believes it is because citizens do not want the US to adopt the gold standard or be forced into monetary decisions by foreign powers. He also suggests that bending to outside influences is a sign of weakness among the Republican base.

In his closing arguments, Bryan notes that bimetallism has a historical precedent in the United States. He calls upon the Democratic Party to decide whom they will support moving forward. Either they can defend the “idle holders of idle capital” or “the struggling masses” (205). He reminds them that, rather than supporting the wealthy in the hopes that the rest of the population would see some of that wealth trickle down, the Democratic Party should support the welfare of the majority. Additionally, he makes note that the country’s farms could survive without the cities, but the cities would crumble without farms. Returning to the problem of using gold simply because other countries do, he likens the issue to the American Revolution. The United States, in his view, should not bow to the whims of other countries. Bryan concludes by saying that the masses for whom he speaks will rise against the gold standard and that their opponents “shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold” (206).