William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech, delivered at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, is famous for its passionate defense of bimetallism. While the speech doesn’t explicitly compare cities to farms, it implicitly contrasts the interests of rural, agrarian America with those of urban, industrial centers, particularly Wall Street and Eastern banking institutions. Bryan’s rhetoric reveals a deep understanding of the economic disparities and conflicting priorities of these two distinct segments of American society.
Bryan’s “Struggling Masses” vs. “Idle Holders of Idle Capital”: An Urban-Rural Divide
Bryan framed the debate around monetary policy as a struggle between “the idle holders of idle capital” and “the struggling masses.” This dichotomy reflected the economic realities of the late 19th century. Farmers, often burdened by debt and reliant on fluctuating crop prices, favored bimetallism (using both gold and silver to back currency). They believed it would inflate the currency, making it easier to repay debts and increase the prices of their goods.
Conversely, Eastern bankers and industrialists, representing the “idle holders of idle capital,” preferred the gold standard. They saw it as a stable and sound economic policy that would protect their investments. This preference aligned with the interests of urban centers, where financial institutions thrived and industrial capitalism flourished. Bryan argued that these “moneyed interests” prioritized their own profits over the well-being of the nation’s farmers and laborers.
The Gold Standard: A “Crown of Thorns” for Rural America
Bryan’s powerful imagery of “crucifying mankind upon a cross of gold” directly attacked the gold standard. He depicted it as a burden imposed upon the working class, primarily farmers in the West and South. This metaphor resonated deeply with rural communities struggling under the weight of debt and economic hardship. The gold standard, in Bryan’s view, exacerbated their plight by limiting the money supply and keeping prices low. He argued that it benefited the wealthy elite in cities while further impoverishing the rural population.
Bimetallism: Prosperity for the “Producing Masses”
Bryan championed bimetallism as a solution that would benefit the “producing masses,” again implicitly referencing the agricultural sector. He believed that increasing the money supply through the inclusion of silver would stimulate the economy, raise crop prices, and alleviate the financial burdens of farmers. This, in turn, would contribute to the overall prosperity of the nation, as the wealth generated in rural areas would “find its way up through every class which rests upon them.” This contrasted sharply with the “trickle-down” economics favored by proponents of the gold standard, who believed that enriching the wealthy would ultimately benefit everyone.
The Legacy of Bryan’s Urban-Rural Divide
Although Bryan lost the 1896 election, his “Cross of Gold” speech remains a powerful testament to the enduring tension between urban and rural interests in American politics. His rhetoric highlighted the economic disparities between these regions and framed the debate around monetary policy in moral terms. While the specific issue of bimetallism has faded into history, the underlying conflict between the priorities of urban and rural communities continues to shape political discourse today. Bryan’s speech serves as a reminder of the importance of considering the diverse economic needs and perspectives of all segments of society when formulating economic policy.
