The Election of 1900: William Jennings Bryan,
The Rise of Anti-imperialism, and the Case Against Free Silver
Jim Safley

Within a month after his second nomination for president, Democratic leader William Jennings Bryan delivered a long acceptance speech in Indianapolis, Indiana. In his peroration, Bryan spoke at lengths denouncing the Republican administration for their colonialist policies, and defending his own anti-imperialist views. Many anticipated him to lapse into the issue that had sustained him in the previous election – free silver – but, other than a few vague references condemning the worship of money, he avoided it. By not mentioning free silver, Bryan broke from a nearly five-year tradition: in every address before Indianapolis, Bryan unfailingly championed the unlimited coinage of silver and denounced the gold standard.[1] Why, then, did Bryan choose not to mention free silver in the most important speech of his campaign? To answer this question, one must first interpret the circumstances that preceded the speech.

At the end of President Grover Cleveland’s second term, the Democratic Party faced bitter internal conflict due to a severe economic depression that predominantly affected the rural areas of the West and South. By the 1896 Democratic convention, rural factions were in open revolt against the Cleveland Administration. William Jennings Bryan, a young former representative from Nebraska, using his masterful oratory abilities, moved the discontent crowd into adopting his economic platform. His famous “Cross of Gold” speech embraced the merits of the unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen to one. He advocated the principle of bimetallism (the use of two metals, ordinarily silver and gold, for currency) in that it “makes a nearer approach to stability, to honesty, to justice, than a gold standard possibly can.”[2] Bryan claimed that the gold standard (having gold as the currency’s only base), which was established in 1873, was the cause of the economic crisis afflicting so many Americans.

Bryan appealed to the working class more than anyone. To farmers, Bryan was seen as a defender of agrarian virtues and fighter of depreciation and debt; to laborers, he was seen as a promoter of employment and economy. Bryan’s overwhelming charisma and bold reform ideas inspired the Democratic convention, and he was nominated for president on the fifth ballot, with Arthur Sewall, a Maine banker, as vice-president. After his nomination, Bryan traveled extensively for his campaign, addressing impoverished workers across twenty-nine states. His fervent speeches and exhaustive campaign, however, did not guarantee him victory. In November 1896, Bryan lost to Republican nominee William McKinley. The loss was a serious setback in the eyes of farmers and laborers in their struggle against the industrialists. Big business now had clear representation in government, and many feared that the interests of farmers and small businesses would be neglected.

As was expected, Bryan did not back down from his position that the gold standard was the central reason for economic despair. Intent on pressing his views, he continued denouncing the gold standard with the same zeal as during the campaign. He could not, however, foresee the coming war and the economic boom that followed it. When the United States entered the war against Spain in 1898, the question of imperialism entered the political arena: should America expand beyond its borders? The McKinley administration favored expansion, while most Democrats – including Bryan – rejected American meddling in foreign affairs. When the influx of gold from 1897 to 1900 caused widespread prosperity (in direct contrast from Bryan’s claims), the silver issue faded from importance, duly replaced by the now prevalent imperialistic sentiments. It was difficult though for Bryan to drop the silver issue and talk of relevant subjects; his passions for the unlimited coinage of silver ran deep, and even explicit proof that he had been wrong could not separate him from the issue that had sustained him for so long.

After the election of 1896, Bryan found himself pulled between his crusade for free silver and his Christian influenced opinions on imperialism. He spent most of 1897 protecting his position as Democratic leader from gold Democrats, including former president Grover Cleveland. Keeping faith with his past convictions, he toured the country advocating bimetallism and other Democratic principles. In one speech late in 1897 he insisted that “free and unlimited coinage of silver at 16 to 1 is nearer now than it was a year ago.”[3] At the same time, however, prosperity in America was evident. The year 1897 brought the opening of foreign markets, and the severe depression that the country faced since the panic of 1893 quickly abated. Ironically, farmers, who were one of Bryan’s most dedicated supporters in the previous election, profited most with the increased export of grain. As gold reserves increased, the case for silver lost much of its momentum.

Before long, the war with Spain and its prospective consequences moved to the forefront of public debate. A series of events that led to the conflict – including the deaths of 260 American soldiers aboard the battleship Maine – ignited a nation-wide call for action. Bryan, like most Americans, supported war, but not without reservations. Early in 1898, when jingoism was reaching its height, Bryan still hesitated to publicly endorse the war. Here was Bryan’s first attempt to reconcile his fervent views on silver and the prevailing controversy over imperialism. Initially, he argued that more Americans died every year from the gold standard than Cubans died from Spanish brutality;[4] but his logic was arguable and public opinion overwhelmingly favored war, so he was forced to switch issues, at least temporarily.

Bryan moved headlong into the war with Spain. Upon hearing in late April that Congress had declared war, he offered his services to the war effort. Bryan was made a colonel of Nebraska’s Third Regiment, though they never saw action (Bryan believed that his regiment’s stagnancy was a political trick by McKinley).[5] It is not difficult to understand why Bryan decided to enter the war. He realized the dangers of imperialism, and was mindful that the war could open the doors to such a policy; but he also appreciated the positive side of the war. Among other things, it was an opportunity to promote democracy by defending Cuba against the Spanish Empire. Moreover, Bryan was a constant humanitarian, and tales of Spanish atrocities horrified him. After only four months of fighting, the war was over with a major victory on the American side.

Even before the conflict ended, the McKinley Administration turned course on what Bryan had hoped was a humanitarian crusade, and settled on a policy of imperialism. Bryan protested this movement toward annexation of the defeated Spanish colonies, including Puerto Rico and the Philippines, but he knew that in his current capacity he was all but helpless to stop it. Even so, he was undeterred by the situation, resigned from military duty, and gave anti-imperialist speeches all across the nation. Soon he was the leading political opponent of McKinley’s imperialist policies. Bryan had found an issue virtually comparable to free silver, and he was determined to use it to keep himself in the public eye until the next campaign.[6] This is not to say he disregarded unlimited coinage of silver – he merely accepted the fact that at that moment anti-imperialism surpassed it in importance.

Bryan was quick to criticize America’s direction on foreign policy. In a Jackson Day speech at Cincinnati on January 6, 1899, he denounced American presence in the Philippines as a “colonial policy” which compromised fundamental democratic principles.[7] Later in the same month the Paris Peace Treaty faced senate approval. It was undeniably a document of imperialism, as it authorized the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. One might have expected Bryan to oppose the treaty, but he wanted an end to the war so he moved for its ratification. His support for the treaty perplexed staunch anti-imperialists. He rationalized that without the ratification, McKinley would have “an excuse for military expenditures which cannot be justified after the conclusion of peace”;[8] also, he feared that there was a potential that Spain would recolonize the Philippines if the treaty did not pass. The treaty’s passage (by a margin of one vote) was a small sacrifice for Bryan, for he had faith in the American people to eventually rescind imperialism and give the Filipinos their independence.

The outbreak of violence between Filipino insurgents and Americans, however, destroyed any hope for the future independence of the islands. The Senate, angered by the insurgents, quashed a measure that would have granted the Philippines future independence. Riled by the Senate’s actions, anti-imperialists rallied to their cause in large numbers. Also agitated, but perceptive of the political upsides, Bryan offered himself as the standard-bearer to the anti-imperialists. Though they were still indignant toward Bryan for his support of the Paris Peace Treaty, the anti-imperialists accepted him.[9] Seeing that many of his past conservative enemies were now flocking to his cause, Bryan reveled in the possibility of victory in 1900. He foresaw that anti-imperialism would invigorate his presidential campaign, as free silver had in 1896.

To Bryan free silver was, without a doubt, as important as anti-imperialism, maybe even more so. In every speech he derided the gold standard as often as he warned of the moral implications of expansion. He was unwavering in his convictions on the unlimited coinage of silver, even while his silver allies dwindled in numbers. Silver was quickly becoming a stale issue. Along with the opening of foreign markets, a more efficient extraction process and the discovery of fresh gold deposits relieved the money shortage plaguing the working class.[10] Nevertheless, Bryan refused to believe that silver was a dead issue and pledged to incorporate the silver plank into the Democratic platform. Later in his campaign, several Democrats, fearing party embarrassment, pleaded for Bryan not to mention silver in his speeches, but he held fast, determined to “stand just where I stood” on the silver issue in 1896. The editor of the Republican New York Press reflected the attitude of many Americans by stating, “Sit down Mr. Bryan. You must be awfully tired, too.”[11]

The gold standard was safe for now, but Bryan’s fight against imperialism worried Republicans. Boosted by anti-imperialist sentiments in the Middle West, Democrats saw a potential weakness in the ranks of their opponents. But if foreign policy were to be the major topic in the coming presidential campaign, Bryan would have to exploit it, even at the expense of free silver. Even so, Bryan did not distinguish the gold standard and imperialism as separate issues (as the majority of Americans viewed them); rather, he saw them as symptomatic of a larger, more pervasive problem. On the night of the Democratic convention, Bryan stated, “The issue presented in the 1900 election is the issue between plutocracy and democracy. All the questions under discussion will… disclose the conflict between the dollar and the man.”[12] Imperialism was, in a sense, the younger brother of the gold standard – both raised under the base instincts of covetousness, avariciousness, and stealing.[13] He was determined to expose these policies for what they were: moral abominations.

In a measure of Bryan’s predominance within his party, he was not present when the Democratic convention in Kansas City reaffirmed the silver plank of 1896. The reaffirmation was a controversial one, though, as 75 percent of the delegates opposed it.[14] Fearing a mutiny, Bryan phoned every important leader to vote for the plank, and prepared a special train to take him to Kansas City if its passing required his personal attention.[15] He even refused to accept the nomination if the 1896 plank was rejected. When it finally passed Bryan was pleased, yet disheartened. Free silver, in which he believed in unconditionally, was becoming a source of contention, not only from the McKinley Administration, but also within Bryan’s own party. In his opinion silver deserved the highest priority in the Democratic platform, but the delegates, as well as his closest associates, pushed for anti-imperialism as the “paramount” issue.[16] Under much pressure, Bryan acquiesced and endorsed a platform emphasizing anti-imperialism over free silver. He was subsequently elected as the Democratic nominee for president.

On August 8, within a month after his nomination, Bryan gave his acceptance speech in Indianapolis. Many have said it was one of his greatest addresses, comparable to his “Cross of Gold” speech four years earlier.[17] He spoke in a downtown park in front of at least forty thousand lively spectators. In an impassioned, yet circumspect, tone, Bryan focused exclusively on the expansion issue. It was no mere coincidence that he chose to ignore the gold standard. While he still felt dear to his personal cause for free silver, he recognized that his constituents did not feel the same way. The events that transpired during the convention made it difficult for him to justify concentrating on the unlimited coinage of silver, especially in his most conspicuous campaign speech. Democrats allowed him to include his silver plank into the platform, but insisted that anti-imperialism was a priority. Bryan would have violated his bond to his party if he had used his acceptance speech to advance silver. Even so, the 1900 election was an even greater defeat for Bryan than it had been four years earlier. It was not until 1907 that he would admit that silver was no longer a political issue.[18]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] David D. Anderson, William Jennings Bryan (Boston: Twane Publishers, 1981), 103.

[2] Gilbert C. Fite, “Election of 1896,” in History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-1968, vol. 2, 1848-1896, eds. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Fred L. Israel (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971), 1854.

[3] Quoted in Louis W. Koenig, Bryan: A Political Biography of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Putnam’s, 1971), 271, from LeRoy Ashby, William Jennings Bryan: Champion of Democracy (Boston: Twane Publishers, 1987), 73.

[4]Ashby, 74.

[5] Walter LaFeber, “Election of 1900,” in History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-1968, vol. 3, 1900-1936, eds. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Fred L. Israel (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971), 1879.

[6] Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men who Made It, with a forward by Christopher Lasch (New York: Random House, 1989), 253.

[7] LaFeber, 1880.

[8] William Jennings Bryan, Republic or Empire?: The Philippine Question (Chicago: Independent Co., 1899), 15, from Ashby, 77.

[9] Ashby, 78-79.

[10] Hofstadter, 254.

[11] LaFeber, 1911.

[12] William Jennings Bryan, “The Issue for 1900,” North American Review 170 (June 1900): 753-71, from Ashby, 80.

[13] Anderson, 103.

[14] Ashby, 83.

[15] LaFeber, 1890.

[16] Ibid., 1891.

[17] Ibid., 1893; Ashby, 84.

[18] LaFeber, 1911.