Biscoveanu 1 Sylvia Biscoveanu Dr. Freymiller Rhetoric and Civic Life 7 October 2013 Strategic Organization in William Jennings Bryan s Cross of Gold Speech William Jennings Bryan ran for President as the Democratic candidate three times and lost all three times. Despite this seeming failure, he was one of the most significant American politicians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and one of the most important losers in American political history, serving in the House of Representatives and as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson (Richman and Freemark). The Cross of Gold speech that he gave at the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago was the most successful rhetorical performance of his career. He was only 36 years old and had no expectation of being a leading candidate for the presidency at the beginning of the convention, but by the next day, he was chosen to be the Democratic candidate on the fifth ballot (Richman and Freemark). The issue at hand was whether or not the Democratic Party should endorse the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16: 1, silver to gold. Bryan speaks to defend the free coinage of silver, and claims to represent the struggling masses. This measure would have caused inflation, putting more money into circulation and helping the debt- ridden farmers of the West (Bryan). While the political importance and effects of this speech have been widely addressed, its literary value has not been investigated as thoroughly, which is why I ve chosen to analyze Bryan s use of rhetorical appeals in this speech. He begins by introducing the topic and the role of the delegates in settling it, largely depending on ethos. He then maneuvers into an impassioned, pathos-filled defense of the laboring masses, citing them as the people that the Democratic Party represents. The largest section of the speech is devoted to refutation based on logical appeals. The closing arguments are the ideal blend of the three rhetorical appeals, leading to an uproarious reaction from his audience. Through
Biscoveanu 2 this carefully chosen organizational structure, Bryan manages to create a cogent argument and an unforgettable rhetorical performance that would catapult him to political prominence. Bryan begins with the humble statement that he would not have the audacity to present himself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom [the audience had] listened if this were but a measuring of ability (Bryan). This is intended to show that he is not speaking because he considers himself a great speaker, but because he feels he has something worthwhile to say, giving weight to his message. He emphasizes that the issue at hand is not a contest of individual preference or popularity, but of principle, which leaves an eternal impact on society. This ethical appeal again increases the validity of his argument by eliminating all doubt in the listener s mind that he is in fact speaking solely for the purpose of defending the free coinage of silver and not for ingratiation. He then presents a brief overview of the Democratic Party s response to the free coinage issue until that point and concludes this section with the statement that now is not the time for discussing the issue further, but for acting on it, giving urgency and importance to his argument. Bryan claims that there has never been an issue so divisive as this in the history of American politics. While this may seem like a hyperbole, the ethical appeals he uses up to this point in the speech have given enough importance to the issue and enough credibility to him as the speaker that the audience fully accepts this statement as a natural extrapolation of his argument. Bryan presents the two delegates that had spoken previously as having respectable personal opinions but not ones that could be reconciled with the best interests of the party. Throughout this whole introduction section, Bryan describes the issue as a righteous cause the cause of humanity, the cause of freedom, and the cause of liberty. By using repetition and diction that embodies the ideals of America, he is able to successfully use ethos to lend credibility to his cause and present himself as a defender of the American principles. Using this credibility, he then beings to describe the people that the Democratic Party represents, employing vivid imagery and antithesis to rouse the emotions of his audience and to make
Biscoveanu 3 them want to fight for the interests of the common man. He uses parallelism in a series of statements where he argues that the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, the miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth, and the merchant at the crossroads store are as much businessmen as their city- dwelling counterparts. The internal repetition of as much a businessman as and the corresponding use of parallelism captivate the audience s attention and help to create one comprehensive and continuous image of the backbone of the Democratic Party. The contrast between the struggling masses and the well- to- do professionals of the cities ignites a feeling of empathy in the audience because they can appreciate the difficulty and importance of the work of the pioneers compared to the comfortable lifestyle of a businessman with an office job. Bryan continues his description of the pioneers by emphasizing the commonalities between them and the members of the audience. They have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead. This is intended to soften the hearts of the other delegates and to prove to them that the laboring class of the West is as deserving of political representation as are any other citizens of the United States. The pathetic appeal is continued with a direct call to action. He claims that we have petitioned we have entreated and we have begged but that these efforts so far have been useless. Bryan uses anaphora through the repetition of we have to show that these were actions of the past and contrasts this by presenting the actions of the present: We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them! He maximizes the contrast between the timid actions of the past and the bold ones of the present by employing a similar syntactic structure in both statements. This pathos-filled call to action was followed by an uproarious and supportive reaction from the audience. Bryan took a step back, and they began to stomp and throw things in the air, but stopped as soon as he stepped forward to continue his address (Richman and Freemark). This
Biscoveanu 4 demonstrates that even at this early point in the speech, Bryan had gained complete control of his audience and proves the effectiveness of his manipulation of their emotions. The largest section of Bryan s speech is a logos- based refutation of the anticipated arguments of gold standard supporters. He places himself in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson against moneyed interests, and compares the fight of the free silver Democrats to Jackson s fight against the national bank, adding that Jefferson felt that money was the business of the government and that banks should stay out of it (Schlesinger). By presenting evidence that the founding fathers would have agreed with the free coinage of silver, Bryan makes his argument seem logically appealing and consistent with historical precedent. He also defends the income tax law, which had been passed with the support of the Democratic Party and had recently been unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. He justifies the necessity of such a tax because the people who benefit from the services of the government should have to pay for these services like they should for any other goods they purchase. Bryan then moves into an attack of the character and principles of Republican candidate William McKinley through an extended metaphor comparing him to Napoleon. That man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo [and] 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. By drawing this comparison, Bryan claims that McKinley is turning his back on the masses of America and is putting their future into the hands of other countries because his platform calls for continuing the gold standard until an international agreement allowing bimetallism could be reached. This compelling logos based refutation of the opposition made the free coinage of silver seem like a suitable solution to the struggles of the laboring class high debt, small business failure, and the inability to compete with monopolies (Ong).
Biscoveanu 5 Bryan concludes his speech by fusing the three types of rhetorical appeals into an impassioned summary of his main points. He uses logos when he questions why the Republicans would want to switch to bimetallism through an international agreement if the gold standard were a good thing. Surely if neither party supports the gold standard, it must be replaced. He reiterates that the struggling masses have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party and that these are the people who actually pay taxes and without which the cities of the East could not exist. By presenting the Democratic Party as the true representative of the best interests of the American masses, he is increasing the ethos of his party and of the free silver platform. He then calls upon the American spirit of independence, saying that America should not wait for international permission to serve its people, just like it didn t wait in 1776. This is intended to stir feelings of patriotism and to emotionally prepare his audience for his final call to adopt the free silver platform. Bryan ends his speech with the rousing religious allusion We shall answer their demands 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. After delivering this last line, he stepped back from the podium and posed as if nailed to a cross for about five seconds. Had it been another speaker, the crowd would have accused him of blasphemy, but because Bryan was known as a fundamental evangelical, the crowd erupted in applause and cheers (Voiland). This pathos- filled ending was the final nail in the coffin of Democratic support for the gold standard, and Bryan s skillful combination of the three rhetorical appeals in this impassioned conclusion is perhaps the most important reason for the speech s success. The short term effects of the speech are undeniable; the audience members began screaming, opening umbrellas, and throwing canes and hats up in the air, the Democratic Party adopted a free silver platform, and Bryan won the nomination for the Democratic candidate for president (Richman and Freemark). The strategic organization of the speech and the chronological layering of rhetorical
Biscoveanu 6 strategies are key to its power. Bryan begins by introducing the issue and the role that the delegates will have in settling it, simultaneously increasing his ethos. He then transitions into a dramatic description and defense of the struggling masses, the backbone of the Democratic Party, through a series of pathetic appeals. The refutation section of the speech is loaded with logos and provides a credible and logical defense of the free coinage of silver, the income tax law, and the general principles of the Democratic Party. The conclusion reiterates all the previous main points and employs all three types of rhetorical strategies, finishing on such a powerful note that the audience is sent into hysterics. This speech was so successful because Bryan was able to simultaneously address all three of the rhetorical appeals and build the audience s confidence in the free silver platform by layering the dimensions of his argument. He left no room for doubt because he convinced the audience of the logical infallibility of his argument and gained their emotional support after having established himself as a reliable authority on the subject. While Bryan didn t win the presidency, this speech changed him almost overnight from an unknown House member from Nebraska into one of the most respected speakers and politicians in America.
Biscoveanu 7 Works Cited Bryan, William Jennings. "Cross of Gold Speech." Speech. Democratic National Convention. Chicago Coliseum, Chicago. 9 July 1896. Historymatters.gmu.edu. George Mason University, 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. Ong, Carah. "Bryan's Cross of Gold and the Partisan Battle over Economic Policy." Miller Center. University of Virginia, 9 July 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. Richman, Joe, and Samara Freemark, prods. "William Jennings Bryan: An Electrifying Orator." All Things Considered: The Contenders. NPR. WITF, State College, PA, 14 Oct. 2008. Npr.org. National Public Radio, 10 Oct. 2008. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. Transcript. Schlesinger, Robert. "The 12 Most Memorable Political Convention Speeches." US News and World Report. US News and World Report LP, 3 Sept. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. Voiland, Adam. "Immortal "Cross of Gold" Speech Lifts William Jennings Bryan." US News and World Report. US News and World Report LP, 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.