Gilded Age Politics

Jeremy Keeshin History Questions

Gilded Age Politics Documents: Part III, Doc. 6&7: Whose argument on the silver issue is more convincing to you, “Coin” Harvey or James Laughlin’s? Explain using specific language of each author. The most fundamentally interesting thing about both the arguments of W. H. “Coin” Harvey and James Laurence Laughlin is that they use some of the same points to argue polar sides of the issue. “Coin” Harvey spoke allegorically about the boon of silver while Laughlin spoke vehemently against him for the use of the gold standard. Both of their arguments revolved around the main point of their particular metal being more stable than the other, however, Laughlin’s was more convincing. Like Harvey said in his Coin’s Financial School about the scarcity of gold and abundance of silver: “This was the principal reason that led them to the conclusion to select silver, the more stable of the two metals, upon which to fix the unit.” Laughlin argued the opposite point with the same contention of stability in his answer to Harvey: “Silver has lost its stability of value. It is no better than any ordinary metal for stability.” Harvey’s reasoning for the metal of the everyman could not stand up to the more logical global view of the economy and metals of Laughlin. Harvey argues that “gold was considered the money of the rich” and that in order to bolster the economy, the use of silver would get more money circulating. However, Laughlin made the strong counter to that by saying that if the standard were switched to silver, not only would more money not be circulating in the economy, but also the prices of everything would be raised, and in turn the wage and spending power of the common man would be diminished. Laughlin made the important point that money is worth what people accept and refer it to as by calling it a “common denominator” of sorts. The gold standard would allow the United States to be on the same page with the rest of the world and allow better trade relations. The standard that was accepted to pertain value was gold, just as today’s paper fiat currency has accepted worth. This was a much stronger point than made by Harvey saying that the gold standard would give in to England (as well as the big rich businessmen) and that was not good. Harvey and silver’s ideology could not compare with Laughlin and gold’s platform of progression. Documents: Part III, Doc. 8, Bryan “Cross of Gold” What is Bryan’s view of democracy? Is it compelling? Does it reflect today’s American society? In his moving “Cross of Gold” speech, William Jennings Bryan has a few very compelling points about American democracy specifically dialed in to the currency controversy, but his prediction does not reflect today’s socioeconomic setup. Bryan plays himself out as the speaker of the masses and this is one of the main points he attempts to make about American society. He argues that business is made up of businessmen, but businessmen are not limited to Northern and Eastern lawyers, bankers and the like. He argues the equal right of the miner and farmer to the title of businessman. His most compelling argument is one he calls his cause of humanity. His view of humanity in harmony with democracy is the big businesses coexisting with the producers. “Burn

Jeremy Keeshin History Questions 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.” Here he plays the necessity of the producing class and the lack of respect they get. Today’s society does not conform to Bryan’s viewpoint. The current government still does not give the farmers the egalitarianism of business. Bankers and lawyers of the Northeast were dominant back then, and bankers and lawyers continue to be dominant now. Bryan did make other contentions for democracy in his speech. He spoke about the malleable nature inherent to democracy: “The principles upon which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise.” His loose view of the Constitution and democracy as a living document and ideology are very compelling as insight to the nature of America. He also spoke about the necessity of the governed to succumb to the fair government, his Lockean view on the income tax. Another main insight he had on American democracy was that it was independent on itself and should make autonomous decisions albeit the actions of countries in Europe. Applied specifically, he thought the United States could make the decision about the gold standard and let England and other such countries act based on them. This precedent held in American politics as we have as a nation acted very much on our independent interests.