SOURCE: “William Jennings Bryan,” in Four American Party Leaders, Books for Libraries Press, Inc., 1926, pp. 63-74.

[In the following essay, Merriam discusses Bryan's role as a major American political leader despite personal and professional setbacks.]

William Jennings Bryan is a different type of leader from any of those thus far considered. Here was a man who maintained himself in a position of very great political power for a generation, without a political organization, without wealth except his own earnings, without professional position, without holding office except for a brief period. Four years in Congress as a young man and two years as Secretary of State in his maturity constitute his official career. Yet his personal influence upon legislation and public policy is written large in American public life for over thirty years. Since 1892 he was defeated in all elections in which he appeared as a candidate, but no one during this time on the whole wielded greater influence over the minds of men politically than he did. Other men have been far more powerful at given moments than Bryan, but none maintained his ascendancy over the minds of millions of voters for so sustained a period as the Nebraska statesman. Both Roosevelt and Wilson were antedated and outlived by Bryan.

What are the secrets of the power of this notable figure in American political life? How did he maintain himself during all these years against the bitter opposition of many organization workers, against the pressure of the dominant industrial interests, in the face of newspaper attacks, and despite the criticism of the intellectuals? The analysis of this problem is one of the interesting studies in American politics.

Bryan's early life made him familiar with the farming conditions of central Illinois, with the urban situation in Chicago while a student of law, and later with the agrarian problem in Nebraska and the West. He was essentially the product of the economic and political conditions of the Middle West in the early '90s. His background was that of revolt, Western revolt, not so much against the political bosses and the spoils system as against industrial oligarchy, against railroads and trusts as instruments of attack upon agrarian prosperity and upon democracy. Agricultural distress and the fear of plutocracy are the bases of his attitude and career. Business depression fell heavily upon the farmer in the '90s, and made him ready for almost any measures of relief that offered promise of aid. The specific formula relied upon at that time was bimetalism or free silver which appealed to the farmer as likely to aid him in regaining his lost prosperity.

Bryan represented the West and the South as against the East and the Center of the country, and voiced their demand for drastic measures to help the agrarian, debtor communities. This was the same geographical group (relatively) that had elected Jefferson and Jackson and later supported Wilson. It did not bring victory to Bryan, but it brought steady support to his doctrines. Fundamentally it was not the currency or the tariff or imperialism that Bryan assailed, although he attacked all three of these at various times, but the tendency inherent in the current conditions to establish a plutocratic government. While he shifted the specific issues of his campaigns from time to time, undoubtedly he faced in the same direction all of the time.

Throughout life Bryan was gifted with tremendous physical vitality. In college he was an “athlete” although not professionally trained or particularly gifted except in the standing broad jump. Yet he was never in any sense a sportsman, and was little interested in field sports or in fishing or hunting. Nevertheless he maintained a very high degree of physical fitness. He displayed unrivalled capacity for the stress and strain of political campaigns, and for political contacts of all sorts. His remarkable campaign of 1896 eclipsed all previous records in number of speeches and in persons reached. This untiring energy was evident throughout a generation of strenuous endeavor which would have torn most men to tatters, but which left the Nebraskan undisturbed and unruffled. In a country as large as the United States, his sheer strength and endurance were unquestionably significant factors in his political fortunes.

Bryan's intellectual interest from his early days in college was centered in oratory and debate. In both of these fields he soon learned to excel, early attained renown as an orator and a debater, and was made valedictorian of his class. His intellectual interests and capacities inclined him toward forensic struggles in which his readiness and aptness were difficult to match. His debates in Congress on the tariff and the income tax in the early '90s illustrate very well the peculiar facility with which his mind worked in parliamentary situations. As a controversialist, he was at all times a formidable foe, not to be despised by any of his countrymen. At any time a swift thrust might suddenly discomfit an opponent before he could realize what had happened. Not at all a close or profound reasoner, he was nevertheless ready and acute, and disconcerting both in his ability to seize upon a weak spot of the opposition, and in the humorous twist with which his attack might be made. Given the arena of public conflict with the stage set for the contest and he was one of the most dangerous antagonists of his time.

Bryan was endowed with an equable temperament that left him calm and placid through many trying situations that would have unnerved less firmly balanced men. Had there been a test for stability and placidity of temperament, he would doubtless have ranked high. His great good humor and sweetness of disposition in the face of repeated defeat and rebuff under incessantly galling criticism was remarkable. It was said of Bryan at one time that his smile was so broad that he could whisper in his own ear. However that may have been, he remained serene in the face of assaults that would have crushed many another man.

The New York Sun said of him, after the election of 1896:

The wretched, rattle-pated boy, posing in vapid vanity and mouthing resounding rottenness was not the real leader of that league of hell. He was only a puppet in the blood-imbued hands of Altgeld, the anarchist, and Debs, the revolutionist, and other desperadoes of that stripe. But he was a willing puppet, Bryan was, willing and eager. Not one of his masters was more apt than he at lies and forgeries and blasphemies, and all the nameless iniquities of that campaign against the ten commandments. He goes down with the cause and must abide with it in the history of infamy. He had less provocation than Benedict Arnold, less intellectual force than Aaron Burr, less manliness and courage than Jefferson Davis. He was the rival of them all in deliberate wickedness and treason to the Republic. His name belongs with theirs, neither the most brilliant, nor the most hateful in the list. Good riddance to it all:—To the conspiracy, the conspirators, and to the foul menaces of repudiation and anarchy against the life of the Republic.

But Mr. Bryan said:

I shall always carry with me grateful as well as pleasant recollections of newspaper men with whom I was thrown. They were a gentlemanly and genial crowd!

Bryan felt the current of popular movements with great sensitiveness. By way of illustration, he understood the force of agrarian discontent, of opposition to the policy of imperialism, of the widespread fear of plutocracy. Later he sensed the dry movement. He interpreted the general desire for peace, and reflected it in his wide movement for the negotiation of peace treaties. He undertook the championship of government ownership of railroads, but abandoned it after he discovered the stout elements of opposition.

It may be said that he was not always successful in finding the main positive current of national sentiment, but at any rate he found a strong current whether the main one or not. He did not succeed in interpreting Eastern sentiment as well as Western, but his advocacy of anti-imperialism and of the peace movement was representative of other than Western sentiments. In general it may be said that he was more successful in the divination of the tendencies regarding moralistic movements than in dealing with economic movements or tendencies. But taking the period of a generation during which he was called upon to interpret the social political forces, he was certainly uncommonly sensitive to the powerful tendencies of his day.

Bryan was likewise notable for his ability to see ways out of a given situation that puzzled the community. He was by no means always successful in hitting upon plans that were adopted by the dominant forces in the state, but at any rate he was fertile in expedients that were widely accepted, even if not given the force of law. He was an early champion of the income tax, which was not of course his own invention. He championed free silver as a panacea for the industrial and especially the agrarian evils of his day. He opposed the annexation of the Philippine Islands, and probably did not regret his course. He advocated the guaranty of bank deposits as a protection to the depositors. He contended for the dissolution of corporations in which one half of the total product consumed was controlled. He fought for the limitation of the use of the injunction in industrial disputes. He advocated the election of federal judges, “people's rule” in various forms, and the dry law. Some of these plans were adopted from campaigns well started and others were more nearly his own contrivance.

It will not of course be required of a leader that he shall be entitled to a patent on his political invention, but it may suffice if he becomes one of the chief champions of the idea. In this sense Bryan utilized many inventions, and in this sense he may be said to have possessed an inventive mind. He had more than the ordinary bent for the development of some remedy or way out of a distressing political situation. Perhaps the most notably original and successful of these was his plan for the general adoption of arbitration treaties, rudely interrupted by the outbreak of the Great War, but the principle of which went marching on. Broadly speaking Bryan was more of an evangelist than a constructor of original political plans or policies. Yet he undoubtedly had a certain flair for the contrivance of political plans, as ways of escape from certain distressing political situations.

Bryan was a group champion rather than a reconciler of divergent interests of conflicting views and tendencies. He stood for the cause of labor and of the under middle class, especially the agrarian group. He could find no common ground with business enterprises of the larger type and was constantly coming into conflict with their views and policies. He was rarely able to make an all-class combination of the type so frequently perfected by Roosevelt. He held the confidence of the South and West as geographical sections, but with many losses even here. He was frankly the spokesman for the groups that were out of the center of control and were striving to make themselves more effective in the national economic and political life.

Nor did Bryan deal successfully with the party organization which was frequently against him. This was not because he was vehement in his attacks upon the patronage system, for he at one time opposed the merit system, and was usually amenable to organization reason with respect to appointments. Bryan had of course great numbers of friends in the party organization and the numerous battles fought in his behalf could not leave his comrades untouched by a certain admiration for him. The larger bosses of the East and Center were, however, unreconciled to him, and used every occasion to discredit and thwart him. This attitude was not the result of disagreements actual or anticipated regarding the spoils of office, but because of the Bryan attacks upon corporate interests, and his identification of certain bosses with these big business interests. He was indeed in an awkward position, for if he defied Tammany his prospects for carrying a state like New York were somewhat diminished, while if on the other hand he made common cause with the Wigwam and greeted the chief cordially he was at once portrayed through the country as the friend and comrade of a pirate gang.

The Nebraska statesman maintained cordial relations with the religious groups, more extensively and successfully than any of his national contemporaries in politics. His religio-political speeches were widely heard and widely read, as for example, his “Prince of Peace,” and he found it easy to step from the arena of political debate to the calmer atmosphere of the church and the pulpit. There can be little doubt that much of the tenacious strength of Bryan came from the fact that he enjoyed a wide reputation as a “good” man, and from his unceasing and cordial contact with the leaders of the religious world as well as with the rank and file of the church congregations especially upon the Protestant side. In the heat of bitterly fought campaigns, Bryan might be vigorously and intemperately assailed, but between times he was the advocate of peace and of piety; the adroit and sincere defender of the interests of the church. He was orthodox in religion, between his unorthodox political campaigns.

Thus his strength was peculiarly recruited from the agrarian group, the labor group, and the religious group cutting across economic class lines. He had developed here an unusual combination of elements of support, including both the highly pietistic rural group, and the more irreverent working class group of the cities. The labor group was not primarily interested in his moralistic measures but listened with deep interest when he assailed the abuse of the injunction in industrial disputes. The agricultural group was not concerned about the injunction, but were agog when he attacked the railroads and Wall Street and were impressed with his fundamental sincerity and piety.

In personal contacts Bryan was exceedingly strong, perhaps unsurpassed except by Lincoln. He met fewer types of persons than did Roosevelt, but he was warmly liked by almost all those he met. The business group is possibly an exception but even here he had many warm admirers and others who in calmer moments looked upon him indulgently as a “good” type of an American. It was not without reason that he was often called the Great Commoner. His manner and contacts were genuinely democratic, and endeared him to thousands who met him in his ceaseless pilgrimage from one end of the nation to the other. There was no pose in Bryan, only a very simple and unaffected democracy. His genial manner, his broad smile, his ready wit, his democratic simplicity were entirely genuine, and never wore through to arrogance, impatience and irritation. If men were impressed by the energy and solidity of Roosevelt, if they were touched by the sadness of Lincoln, if they were dazzled by the verbal hypnotism of Wilson, they were moved to consider Bryan as “just one of them,” a common man, endowed in some way with unusual talents which did not however affect his plainness and commonness. His enemies endeavored at times to capitalize this “common” quality against him, but never with success. On the contrary, it merely emphasized a trait that endeared him to the mass of the people.

On a platform of amiability alone Bryan would perhaps have been elected President. Many earnestly wished for an opportunity to vote for him personally on some appropriate issue, but were always deterred by the special policy of the campaign. For Bryan never ran as a man—his strongest platform—but always as the advocate of some “paramount” issue which he must thrust to the front of the battle—perhaps to his own loss and harm.

In dramatic power Bryan met all the requirements of the leader in an exceptional degree. He was a born actor for the political stage. In oratory he was unsurpassed during his best days by any of his American contemporaries and perhaps anywhere in the world. His “Cross of Gold” speech in the Convention of 1896 was a masterpiece, and his subsequent speeches were enormously effective. Year after year, in political campaigns and between times, he was incessantly active in his oratory. His golden voice was heard by thousands of people, on many different occasions, and almost always with notable effect. His gift of oratory was beyond question the most notable factor in his political leadership. It enabled him to reach masses of voters in the face of the opposition of an unfriendly press, and to bring to them an impression of his personality and an interpretation of his ideas. It made it possible for him to play a significant rôle in the great party conventions where a vivid type of personality is readily appreciated by the representatives of the party.

Not only did he possess the faculty of oratory, but he was able to seize upon important and significant occasions where this power might be most tellingly employed. Thus he introduced in the 1912 convention at Baltimore the famous resolution that for the time being converted the national party assembly into a bear garden.¹ In the convention of 1904 he rose from a sick bed to address the convention against the dominant gold forces. In later years he was less successful as his prestige somewhat declined. While not notable as an organizer or intriguer, Bryan nevertheless was quite capable of delivering a crafty and effective blow in a critical situation, and was at all times a formidable opponent in a parliamentary situation.

The Great Commoner also possessed the faculty of coining shrewd and telling phrases. The climax of his 1896 speech was a notable example of this:

Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand 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.

His definition of a “business man,” including the farmer and the miner was equally remarkable.² His distinction between the man-made man, the corporation, and the God-made man, the individual, was significant. “Imperialism” was the term he applied with much effect to those who insisted upon the extension of American power across the seas to the Philippine Islands. Of Roosevelt he said in the 1912 campaign: “If Roosevelt thinks he is the Moses of the American people he must have mistaken the voice of Perkins for the voice of God.” In trenchant phrase often with a little humor in it, he was a past master. Without bitterness or malice in his comments, there was a peculiar quality in his remarks that made them difficult to answer without being forced back upon an undesirable and unprofitable defensive. His thrusts were good humored, or if not, were filled with an overpowering righteous indignation, making them in either case difficult to answer, except in the same rare technique.

The chief medium of expression for Bryan was his matchless oratory, but he also made extensive use of the pen. In this he was less skillful, but by no means ineffective. The Commoner which he edited for many years was read by thousands of subscribers, chiefly rural, and proved to be a powerful means of carrying on the advocacy of his ideas and interpretations. It is difficult to estimate the quiet force exerted by this modest agency for propaganda, but to omit it from the Bryan repertoire would be fatal.

Of the spectacular and dramatic in behavior as displayed by Roosevelt there was relatively little in the Bryan temper. It should not be forgotten, however, that when the Spanish War broke out, Bryan was one of the volunteers and as “Colonel Bryan” was ready for any emergency. He also made a tour of the world and was received by thousands of his admirers in New York, perhaps then at the climax of his power. The enthusiasm of some of his followers was cooled, however, by his government ownership speech on this momentous occasion. His campaigns were spectacular in the territory and numbers covered. But his life was otherwise quiet and peaceful, devoid of the unusual or the notable.

The factor of courage was a notable one in the Bryan composition. Perhaps an element of compromise might have added to his strength. Few men in public life have faced greater odds with greater nerve than he, and this not once but upon numerous occasions. Perhaps sublime optimism on each occasion pictured victory instead of defeat, but this seems improbable. It seems more likely that he did not know the meaning of fear, and never quailed before an opponent or a situation. He was constantly obliged to advance in the face of the opposition of most of the party organization, of the attacks of a very hostile press, of the opposition of the business interests of the country, and of the criticism of the intellectuals in various quarters. He was obliged to make his own fortune, establish his own press, develop his own methods of spreading his ideas. This he did without flinching from the struggle or without even losing his temper in the process.

It required high courage to face the inevitable in the Democratic convention of 1904, when it was evident that nothing could sway that body from its predetermined course of endorsing Parker and the gold standard. It called for courage in the 1912 convention when his famous resolution made his party colleagues hiss and spit and strike at him as he came down the aisle. To challenge the dominant financial, social, and legal interests of the land as he did almost continually for a generation also called for sustained courage of the highest type. Only those who have looked closely at the situation realize the compelling power of social pressure and the difficulty with which men withstand it for long periods of time. Most men crumple or flee from the field.

It required courage to urge the adoption of the treaty of peace with Spain in view of the approaching campaign on Imperialism, for it would have been easy to allow the treaty to go down to defeat, and make the battle on surer ground. That Bryan was not averse to or incapable of compromise is shown by his willingness to work with Wilson, even on currency legislation, and by his career as Secretary of State. But his courage is again evident in his withdrawal in face of the military measures made necessary by the Great War.

In a time when corrupt or cowardly compromise characterized much of our political life, the characteristics of Bryan had their peculiar appeal, and their undeniable strength. He lacked, however, the little dash of luck that saved Lincoln and Roosevelt and Wilson. If, instead of languishing in a camp with malaria, Colonel Bryan had been at San Juan and Colonel Roosevelt had been in Florida, there might have been different history. His supreme ill luck, however, was at the time when as Secretary of State he entered upon his great task of tying up all the world with peace treaties—a work on which he had made notable progress—only to find himself in the midst of the world's greatest war, head of the cabinet destined to play a mighty rôle in the titanic conflict.

The outstanding qualities of Bryan were his marvelous power of expression, his warmth of human contacts, his perception of great currents of community feeling, his undaunted courage and persistence, his deep religious fervor. In group diplomacy and in constructive measures, he was less notable. He was neither a demagogue, nor a great constructive statesman, but he was the greatest political evangelist of his day,—a prophet whose voice was raised again and again against the abuses of the time in which he lived. He saw the real danger of the establishment of plutocracy in free America, and the need of effective and continued protest, but he did not see so clearly the lines of advance or the methods of organizing effectively in law and administration the people's will. Roosevelt and Wilson entered into the land which Bryan has seen and toward which he had led the people for many years. Many estimates of Bryan have been made and doubtless they have been well made from special, particular points of view. But it seems to me that they have not fully grasped the significance of this character as a political leader. His democratic sympathies, his magical power of oratory, his persistence and courage, his sweetness of temper, his deep religio-political fervor;—these endeared him to great masses of people, who would not have been attracted by an efficient administrator or a constructive political inventor. Whether he thought or felt his way to his political conclusions did not interest these voters. They saw many men of the highest intelligence and ability opposing the democracy on the income tax, trust control, and other measures where class lines were sometimes drawn; and they concluded that the intelligentsia were not always the safest judges where class decisions must be made. Character and courage and persistence gave him the strength that others gained from other sources, not so readily open to him. Bryan was the prophet and priest of millions, although they did not make him their king. What his enemies could not understand was that the people are as much interested in knowing about their leader's heart as in knowing about his head, and that sympathy no less than intelligence plays its part in the great process of popular control.³

Notes

1. This resolution pledged the Convention against “the nomination of any candidate for president who is the representative of or under obligation to J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas F. Ryan, August Belmont, or any other member of the privilege hunting and favor seeking class.”

2. The First Battle, p. 200. “We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day—who begins in the spring and toils all summer—and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak for the broader class of business men.”

3. Since this lecture was delivered, Mr. Bryan has assumed the leadership of the anti-evolutionist forces in a phase of the struggle between science and religion. It is not within the province of this paper to discuss the interesting problems here presented. In this controversy, however, there may be clearly observed the same traits of leadership that made Mr. Bryan a notable figure in the political field.

References

There is no adequate life of Bryan, but a dissertation upon Bryan as a political leader is being completed by Marietta Stevenson. Of the available titles the following are notable. Williams, Wayne C., William Jennings Bryan: A Study in Political Vindication.

Frank, Glenn, “William Jennings Bryan: A Mind Divided Against Itself.” Century, Sept., 1923.

Masters, Edgar Lee, “The Christian Statesman,” The American Mercury, Dec., 1924.

Smith, T. V., “Bases of Bryanism,” Scientific Monthly, 16, 305.

White, William Allen, McClure's Magazine, 15, 232.

Of great value are Bryan's Speeches: The First Battle, A Tale of Two Conventions: Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan; and the files of The Commoner.