is palma mallorca and palma majorca the same place

Palma de Majorca (/ˈpɑːlmə/ or /ˈpɑːmə/, Catalan: [ˈpalmə], Spanish: [ˈpalma]), often called Palma de Mallorca, is the capital and largest city of the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands in Spain.[2] It is situated on the south coast of Majorca on the Bay of Palma. As of the 2009 census, the population of the city of Palma proper was 401,270, and the population of the entire urban area was 621,000,[1] making it the twelfth largest urban area of Spain. Almost half of the total population of Majorca live in Palma. The Cabrera Archipelago, though widely separated from Palma proper, is administratively considered part of the municipality. Its airport, Palma de Mallorca, serves over 22 million passengers each year.

Palma, Majorca

Palma was founded as a Roman camp upon the remains of a Talaiotic settlement. The city was subjected to several Vandal raids during the fall of the Western Roman Empire, then reconquered by the Byzantine Empire, then colonised by the Moors (who called it Medina Mayurqa) and, in the 13th century, by James I of Aragon.

After the conquest of Majorca, the city was loosely incorporated into the province of Tarraconensis by 123 BC; the Romans founded two new cities: Palma on the south of the island, and Pollentia in the northeast - on the site of a Phoenician settlement. Whilst Pollentia acted as a port to Roman cities on the northwestern Mediterranean Sea, Palma was the port used for destinations in Africa, such as Carthage, and Hispania, such as Saguntum, Gades and Carthago Nova. Though present-day Palma has no significant remains from this period, occasional archaeological finds are made in city centre excavations.

Though the period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Muslim conquest is not well understood (due to lack of documents), there is clear evidence of a Byzantine presence in the city, as indicated by mosaics found in the oldest parts of the Cathedral, which was in early medieval times part of a paleo-Christian temple.

Between 902 and 1229, the city was under Islamic control. It remained the capital of the island and it was known as Medina Mayurqa, which in Arab means "City of Majorca".

The arrival of the Moors in the Balearic Islands occurred at the beginning of the 8th century. During this period, the population developed an economy based on self-sufficiency and piracy, and even showed evidence of a relative hierarchy. The dominant groups took advantage of the Byzantine withdrawal due to Islamic expansion across the Mediterranean, to reinforce their domination upon the rest of the population, thus ensuring their power and the gradual abandonment of Imperial political structures.

In 707, a Muslim fleet, under the command of Abd Allgaht ibn Musa, son of the governor of Ifriqiya, Musa ibn Nusayr, stopped off at the island. It appears that Abd Allah convinced the powers of the city to accept a peace treaty. This treaty was granted in exchange for a tax, respect for social, economic and political structures to the communities that subscribed to it, as well as the continuity of their religious beliefs.

After 707, the city was inhabited by Christians who were nominally in allegiance to the sovereignty of the Umayyad Caliphate, yet who, de facto, enjoyed absolute autonomy. The city, being in Majorca, constituted an enclave between western Christian and Islamic territories, and this attracted and encouraged increased levels of piracy in the surrounding waters. For wide sectors of the city's population, the sacking of ships (whether Muslim or Christian) which passed through Balearic waters was a source of riches over the next fifteen decades. Eventually, continued piracy in the region lead to a retaliation by Al-Andalus which launched a naval fleet against the city and the whole of the Islands. The Islands were defended by the emperor Charlemagne in 799 from a Muslim pirate incursion.

In 848 (maybe 849), four years after the first Viking incursions had sacked the whole island, an attack from Córdoba forced the authorities to ratify the treaty to which the city had submitted in 707. As the city still occupied an eccentric position regarding the commerce network established by the Moors in the western Mediterranean, the enclave was not immediately incorporated into Al-Andalus.

While the Emirate of Córdoba reinforced its influence upon the Mediterranean, Al-Andalus increased its interest in the city. The consequence of this was the substitution of the submission treaty for the effective incorporation of the islands to the Islamic state. A squad under the command of Isam al-Jawlani took advantage of instability caused by several Viking incursions and disembarked in Majorca, and after destroying any resistance, incorporated Majorca, with Palma as its capital, to the Córdoban state.

The incorporation of the city into the Emirate set the basis for a new society. Commerce and manufacturing developed in a manner that was previously unknown. This caused considerable demographic growth, thereby establishing Medina Mayurqa as one of the major ports for trading goods in and out of the Emirate of CÃ³rdoba.

The Umayyad regime, despite its administrative centralisation, mercenary army and struggle to gain wider social support, could neither harmonise the various ethnic groups inside al-Andalus nor dissolve the old tribes which still organised sporadic ethnic fighting. During the 11th century, the Caliphate's control waned considerably. Provinces broke free from the central Cordoban administration, and became effectively sovereign states - taifas - under the same governors that had been named by the last Umayyad Caliphs. According to their origin, these "taifas" can be grouped under three broad categories: people of Arab, Berber or Slavic origin.

Palma was part of the taifa of Dénia. The founder of this state was a client of the Al-Mansur family, Muyahid ibn Yusuf ibn Ali, who could profit from the progressive crumbling of the Caliphate's superstructure to gain control over the province of Dénia. Subsequently, Muyahid organised a campaign throughout the Balearic Islands to consolidate the district and incorporated it into their "taifa" in early 1015.

During the following years Palma became the main port from where attacks on Christian vessels and coasts could be launched. Palma was the base from where a campaign against Sardinia was launched between 1016 and 1017, which caused the Pisans and Genoese forces to intervene. Later, this intervention set the basis for Italian mercantile penetration of the city.

The Denian dominion lasted until 1087, a period during which the city, as well as the rest of the islands, was relatively peaceful. Their supremacy at sea was still not rivalled by the Italian merchant republics, thus there were few external threats.

The Banu Hud conquest of DÃ©nia and its incorporation to the Eastern district of the taifa of Zaragoza meant the destruction of the legacy of Muyahid. The islands were freed from mainland dominion and briefly enjoyed independence, during which Medina Mayurqa was the capital.

The economy during this period depended on both agriculture and piracy. In the latter 11th century, Christian commercial powers took the initiative at sea against the Muslims. After centuries of fighting defensively in the face of Islamic pressure, Italians, Catalans and Occitans took offensive action. Consequently, the benefits of piracy diminished causing severe economic stress on the city.

The clearest proof of the new ruling relation of forces, from 1090, is the Crusade organised by the most important mercantile cities of the Christian states against the Islands. This effort was destined to finally eradicate Muslim piracy mainly based in Palma and surrounding havens. In 1115, Palma was sacked and later abandoned by an expedition commanded by Ramon Berenguer III the Great, count of Barcelona and Provence, which was composed of Catalans, Pisans and other Italians, and soldiers from Provence, Corsica, and Sardinia, in a struggle to end Almoravid control.

After this, the Islands became part of the Almoravid dynasty. The inglobement of all the taifa to a larger state helped to re-establish a balance along the frontier that separated western Christian states from the Muslim world.

The situation changed in the mid-12th century, when the Almoravids were displaced from al-Andalus and western Maghreb by the Almohad. Almoravid dominions, from 1157 on, were restricted to the Balearic Islands, with Palma again acting as the capital, governed by Muhammad ibn Ganiya. Massive arrival of al-Andalus refugees contributed to reinforce the positions of the last Almoravid legitimatists, the Banu Ganiya, who, conscious of their weakness in the Western Mediterranean context, started to get closer to the growing powers represented by Italian maritime republics. Genoa and Pisans obtained in this period their first commercial concessions in the city and the rest of the islands.

The Banu Ganiya, taking advantage of the great loss suffered by Abu Yuqub Yusuf in the Siege of Santarém, attacked Ifriqiya, where the Almohad dominion had not been consolidated yet, in the same year. However, this attack was repelled and the Almohad authorities encouraged anti-Almoravid revolts in the Islands. The city was captured by the Almohads in 1203.

On December 31, 1229, after three months of siege, the city was reconquered by James I of Aragon and was renamed Ciutat de Mallorca (Mallorca City). In addition to being kept as capital of the Kingdom of Majorca, it was given a municipality that comprised the whole island. The governing arm was the University of the City and Kingdom of Majorca. After the death of James I of Aragon, Palma became joint capital of the Kingdom of Majorca, together with Perpignan. His son, James II of Majorca, championed the construction of statues and monuments in the city: Bellver Castle, the churches of St. Francesc and St. Domingo, reformed the Palace of Almudaina and began the construction of the Cathedral of Majorca.

In 1391, anti-Jewish riots broke out. The Jewish community of Inca was completely wiped out, as were those of SÃ³ller, Sineu, and Alcudia. In spite of the governor's prohibition on leaving the island, many Jews fled to North Africa. The remaining Jews were forced to convert under threat of death.[3]

Abraham Cresques was a 14th-century Jewish cartographer of the Majorcan cartographic school from Palma; Cresques is credited with the authorship of the famous Catalan Atlas.

The river that cut through the city gave rise to two distinct areas within the city; the "Upper town" and "Lower town", depending upon which side of the river one was situated.

The city's advantageous geographical location allowed it extensive commerce with Catalonia, Valencia, Provence, the Maghreb, the Italian republics and the dominions of the Great Turk, which heralded a golden age for the city.

At the beginning of the 16th century, the Rebellion of the Brotherhoods (a peasant uprising against Charles V's administration) and the frequent attack of Turkish and Berber pirates caused a reduction of commercial activities and a huge inversion in defensive structures. As a consequence, the city entered a period of decadence that would last till the end of the 17th century.

The 17th century is characterised by the division of the city in two sides or gangs, named Canamunts and Canavalls (from Majorcan Catalan "the ones from the upper/lower side"), with severe social and economical repercussions. During this period the port became a haven for pirates. During the last quarter of the century, the Inquisition continued its persecution of the city's Jews, locally called xuetes.

The fall of Barcelona in 1714 meant the end of the War of the Spanish Succession and the defeat and destruction of the Crown of Aragon, and this was reflected on the Nueva Planta decrees, issued by Philip V of Spain in 1715. These occupation decrees changed the government of the island and separated it from the municipality's government of Palma, which became the official city name. By the end of the 19th century, the name Palma de Mallorca was generalised in written Spanish, although it is still colloquially named Ciutat ("city") in Catalan. In the 18th century Charles III of Spain removed interdiction of commerce with Spanish colonies in America and the port and commercial activity of the city grew once again.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Palma became a refuge for many who had exiled themselves from the Napoleonic occupation of Catalonia and Valencia; during this period freedom flourished, until the absolutist restoration. With the establishment of contemporary Spanish state administrative organization, Palma became the capital of the new province of Balearic Islands in the 1833 territorial division of Spain. The French occupation of Algeria in the 19th century ended the fear of Maghrebi attacks in Majorca, which favoured the expansion of new maritime routes, and consequently, the economic growth of the city.

Since the advent of mass tourism in the 1950s, the city has been transformed into a tourist destination and has attracted many workers from mainland Spain. This has contributed to a huge change in the city's traditions, its language and its acquisitive power.

The boom in tourism has caused Palma to grow significantly. In 1960, Majorca received 500,000 visitors, in 1997 it received more than 6,739,700. In 2001 more than 19,200,000 people passed through Son Sant Joan airport near Palma, with an additional 1.5 million coming by sea.

In the 21st century, urban redevelopment, by the so-called Pla Mirall (English "Mirror Plan"), had attracted groups of immigrant workers from outside the European Union, especially from Africa and South America.

More than half of the population works in tourism, approximately 80%, therefore being the main economic portal of Palma. Tourism has affected the rapid economic growth of Palma, making the island of Majorca wealthier compared to other regions in Spain.

The second economic portal of Palma is agriculture. Main exports of Palma's agriculture are, almonds, oranges, lemons and olives. The island is also gifted with a wide variety of natural resources, such as mines of copper, lead and marble.[4]

The city also has several surrounding neighborhood communities including Establiments, Nord, Son Espanyol, Ces Cases Noves, and Sa Creu Vermella.[5]

Palma is a major city and seaport located in the southwest of Majorca, a western mediterranean island belonging to the Balearic Islands archipelago. The land area of the city is about 21.355 square kilometres (8.245 sq mi) with an altitude of 13 metres (43 feet) above sea level.

The city center of Palma is located north of the homonymous bay (Badia de Palma in the local Catalan language). The area that extends eastwards is mostly a flat fertile plain known as Es Pla. To the north and west, the city borders the Serra de Tramuntana, the island's major mountain range and a Unesco World Heritage site.

Palma has a Mediterranean climate, the climate classification named after the sea surrounding the city. There is a significant marine influence to warm winters, but summers are warmed by the surrounding continental landmasses.

The Plaça d'Espanya is the transport hub of Palma. The Estació Intermodal caters for buses and trains (the latter controlled by TIB). The two old buildings are home to the tourist information centre and several cafés sit either side of the two large escalators which lead into the Estació, which sits underneath a large and popular park. On the lawns are several glass boxes, which let in light and ventilation to the station below ground. There are also train-themed playing structures, each one shaped like a train carriage and named after towns along the line of the Ferrocarril de Sóller, a railway dating back to 1911 which has its Palma Station right next to the park. Just down the street from here a new bus station is under construction. At the centre of the plaza is a statue of James I, Conquistador of Majorca.[9]

Palma is famous for La Seu, its vast cathedral originally built on a previous mosque. Although construction began in 1229, it did not finish until 1601. Local architect Antoni Gaudí was drafted in to restore the building 1901. The Parc de la Mar (Park of the Sea) lies just south, overlooked by the great building which sits above it on the city's stone foundations. Between the two are the town walls.

The Old City (in the south-east area of Palma behind the cathedral) is a maze of streets clearly hinting at an Arab past.[citation needed] With the exception of a few streets and squares which allow traffic and are populated with tourists most of the time, the walkways of this city quarter are fairly narrow, quiet streets, surrounded by a diverse range of interesting buildings, the architecture of which is comparable to cities such as Florence. The majority are private houses, some of which are open to the public as discreet museums or galleries. The Old City is also home to the Ajuntament (or Town Hall), the Convent of the Cathedral and the Banys Ã€rabs.

The Banys Ã€rabs, or Arab Baths, one of the few remnants of Palma's Moorish past, are accessed via the quiet Ca'n Serra street near the Convent of the Cathedral, and include the lush gardens of Ca'n Fontirroig, home to Sardinian warblers, house sparrows, cacti, palm trees and a wide range of flowers and ferns. The small two-roomed brick building that once housed the baths is of Byzantine origin, dating back to the 11th century and possibly once part of the home of a Muslim nobleman. The bathroom has a cupola with five oculi which let in dazzling light. The twelve columns holding up the small room were pillaged from an earlier Roman construction. The floor over the hypocaust has been worn away by people standing in the centre, mainly to photograph the entrance and the garden beyond it. The whole room is in a rather dilapidated condition. The other room is a brick cube with a small model of the baths as they once were in the corner. Unfortunately one of the columns in this model has fallen over.

Notable people who were born in the city include the following individuals.

Football is the most popular sport on the island, led by the Segunda División team Real Mallorca, who play at the Iberostar Stadium. Segunda División B team CD Atlético Baleares also play in Palma as do Real Mallorca B.

Because of its maritime location all sea sports have also a big presence in Palma. Maybe the most important sporting event in the city is the Ciutat de Palma Prizes.

Road cycling is very popular in Majorca. An international race for professional cyclists, the Vuelta a Mallorca, is held in February, the first day of which consists of a circuit race around the streets of Palma. The city is also home to the Palma Arena, a multi-platinum venue featuring a velodrome. The arena also hosted the Battle of Surfaces tennis event.

In June 2016, the city of Palma Majorca participated in the ‘ First World Company Sports Games’ which included five days of culture, sport and inclusivity within the community of Mallorca as a whole. It was operated through the World Federation Company Sport and was promoted for both local people and tourists to come together in the city. It became a large business venture by offering packages including accommodations close to the events and additional tourism information for future events.[10]

Palma de Mallorca is twinned with:


what is the new living translation version of the bible

The New Living Translation (NLT) is a translation of the Bible into modern English. Originally starting out as an effort to revise The Living Bible, the project evolved into a new English translation from Hebrew and Greek texts. Some stylistic influences of The Living Bible remained in the first edition (1996), but these are less evident in the second and third editions (2004, 2007). As of March 2014, the Christian Booksellers Association ranks the NLT as the second most popular English version of the Bible based on unit sales.[3]

New Living Translation

The New Living Translation used translators from a variety of denominations. The method combined an attempt to translate the original texts simply and literally with a dynamic equivalence synergy approach used to convey the thoughts behind the text where a literal translation may have been difficult to understand or even misleading to modern readers. A part of the reason behind adapting the language for accessibility is the premise that more people will hear the Bible read aloud in a church service than are likely to read it or study it on their own.[4]

It has been suggested that this "thought-for-thought" methodology, while making the translation easier to understand, is less accurate than a literal (formal equivalence) method, and thus the New Living Translation may not be suitable for those wishing to undertake detailed study of the Bible.[5]

The Old Testament translation was based on the Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and was further compared to other sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Greek manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate. The New Testament translation was based on the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament (the UBS 4th revised edition and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition).

Work on this revision began in 1989 with ninety translators and published in July 1996; 25 years after the publication of The Living Bible. Advanced reader copies of the book of Romans were originally printed as the New Living Version, but eventually renamed the New Living Translation to avoid confusion between this new work and The Living Bible. NLV is still used to identify the New Living Translation in ONIX for Books. Soon after that, a new revision was begun and The Second Edition of the NLT (also called the NLTse) was released in 2004.[6] A revision in 2007 comprised mostly minor textual or footnote changes.[7] Other revisions were released in 2013 and 2015 with minor changes throughout.

In 2016, Tyndale House Publishers, Conference of Catholic Bishops of India Commission for Bible, ATC Publishers Bengaluru, and twelve Biblical scholars collaborated to prepare a New Living Translation Catholic Edition.[8]

The New Living Translation is (according to its publisher) intended to be easily accessible to readers of modern English. As part of this effort:[4]

with a note that the Greek text reads "Two hundred denarii would not be enough" and an explanation that a denarius was equivalent to a laborer’s full day’s wage.

In July 2008, the NLT gained the No.Â 1 spot in unit sales, unseating the NIV for the first time in over two decades.[9] According to the Christian Booksellers Association (as of March 2014), the NLT is the second most popular Bible translation based on unit sales, and the fourth most popular based on sales numbers.[3]

A Roman Catholic edition of the NLT with the Deuterocanon has been published by ATC Publications in Bangalore, India. The NLT Catholic Edition (NLTCE) has been granted an imprimatur by Oswald Cardinal Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay and President of the Council of Catholic Bishops of India.[10] The imprimatur does not extend to use of the NLTCE in the liturgy, but it has been officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church for private study.[11]

The NLT is available in numerous editions as well as numerous study Bible editions, including: The Life Application Study Bible, The Discover God Study Bible, The NLT Study Bible, and the NLT Illustrated Study Bible. The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series uses the second edition NLT text as its base. In June 2017, the Africa Study Bible was offered to African English readers being edited by Africa International University dean, John Jusu.[12]


the significance of the cross of gold speech was that

The Cross of Gold speech was delivered by William Jennings Bryan, a former United States Representative from Nebraska, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on July 9, 1896. In the address, Bryan supported bimetallism or "free silver", which he believed would bring the nation prosperity. He decried the gold standard, concluding the speech, "you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold".[1] Bryan's address helped catapult him to the Democratic Party's presidential nomination; it is considered one of the greatest political speeches in American history.

Cross of Gold speech

For twenty years, Americans had been bitterly divided over the nation's monetary standard. The gold standard, which the United States had effectively been on since 1873, limited the money supply but eased trade with other nations, such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold. Many Americans, however, believed that bimetallism (making both gold and silver legal tender) was necessary for the nation's economic health. The financial Panic of 1893 intensified the debates, and when Democratic President Grover Cleveland continued to support the gold standard against the will of much of his party, activists became determined to take over the Democratic Party organization and nominate a silver-supporting candidate in 1896.

Bryan had been a dark horse candidate with little support in the convention. His speech, delivered at the close of the debate on the party platform, electrified the convention and is generally credited with getting him the nomination for president. However, he lost the general election to William McKinley and the United States formally adopted the gold standard in 1900.

In January 1791, at the request of Congress, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton issued a report on the currency. At the time, there was no mint in the United States; foreign coins were used. Hamilton proposed a monetary system based on bimetallism, in which the new currency would be equal to a given amount of gold, or a larger amount of silver; at the time a given weight of gold was worth about 15 times as much as the same amount of silver. Although Hamilton understood that adjustment might be needed from time to time as precious metal prices fluctuated, he believed that if the nation's unit of value were defined only by one of the two precious metals used for coins, the other would descend to the status of mere merchandise, unusable as a store of value. He also proposed the establishment of a mint, at which citizens could present gold or silver, and receive it back, struck into money.[2] On April 2, 1792, Congress passed the Mint Act of 1792. This legislation defined a unit of value for the new nation, to be known as a dollar. The new unit of currency was defined to be equal to 24.75 grains (1.604 g) of gold, or alternatively, 371.25 grains (24.057 g) of silver, establishing a ratio of value between gold and silver of 15:1. The legislation also established the Mint of the United States.[3]

In the early 19th century, the economic disruption caused by the Napoleonic Wars caused United States gold coins to be worth more as bullion than as money, and they vanished from circulation. Governmental response to this shortage was hampered by the fact that officials did not clearly understand what had happened.[4] In 1830, Treasury Secretary Samuel D. Ingham proposed adjusting the ratio between gold and silver in US currency to 15.8:1, which had for some time been the ratio in Europe.[5] It was not until 1834 that Congress acted, changing the gold/silver ratio to 16.002:1. This was close enough to the market value to make it uneconomic to export either US gold or silver coins.[4] When silver prices rose relative to gold as a reaction to the California Gold Rush, silver coinage was worth more than face value, and rapidly flowed overseas for melting. Despite vocal opposition led by Tennessee Representative (and future president) Andrew Johnson, the precious metal content of smaller silver coins was reduced in 1853.[6] Silver was now undervalued at the Mint; accordingly little was presented for striking into money.[7]

The Coinage Act of 1873 eliminated the standard silver dollar. It also repealed the statutory provisions allowing silver bullion to be presented to the Mint and returned in the form of circulating money. In passing the Coinage Act, Congress eliminated bimetallism.[8] During the economic chaos of the Panic of 1873, the price of silver dropped significantly, but the Mint would accept none for striking into legal tender. Silver producers complained, and many Americans came to believe that only through bimetallism could the nation achieve and maintain prosperity. They called for the return to pre-1873 laws, which would require the Mint to take all the silver offered it and return it, struck into silver dollars.[7] This would inflate the money supply, and, adherents argued, increase the nation's prosperity. Critics contended that the inflation which would follow the introduction of such a policy would harm workers, whose wages would not rise as fast as prices would, and the operation of Gresham's law would drive gold from circulation, effectively placing the United States on a silver standard.[9]

To advocates of what became known as free silver, the 1873 act became known as the "Crime of '73". Pro-silver forces, with congressional leaders such as Missouri Representative Richard P. Bland, sought the passage of bills to allow depositors of silver bullion to receive it back in the form of coin. Such bills, sponsored by Bland, passed the House of Representatives in 1876 and 1877, but both times failed in the Senate. A third attempt in early 1878 again passed the House, and eventually both houses after being amended in the Senate. The bill, as modified by amendments sponsored by Iowa Senator William B. Allison, did not reverse the 1873 provisions, but required the Treasury to purchase a minimum of $2 million of silver bullion per month; the profit, or seignorage from monetizing the silver was to be used to purchase more silver bullion. The silver would be struck into dollar coins, to be circulated or else stored and used as backing for silver certificates. The Bland–Allison Act was vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes, but was enacted by Congress over his veto on February 28, 1878.[10]

Implementation of the Bland–Allison Act did not end calls for free silver. The 1880s saw a steep decline in the prices of grain and other agricultural commodities. Silver advocates argued that this dropoff, which caused the price of grain to fall below its cost of production, was caused by the failure of the government to adequately increase the money supply, which had remained steady on a per capita basis. Advocates of the gold standard attributed the decline to advances in production and transportation. The late 19th century saw divergent views in economics as the laissez-faire orthodoxy was questioned by younger economists, and both sides found ample support for their views from theorists.[11]

In 1890, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act greatly increased government purchases of silver. The government pledged to stand behind the silver dollars and treasury notes issued under the act by redeeming them in gold. Pursuant to this promise, government gold reserves dwindled over the following three years.[12] Although the economic Panic of 1893 had a number of causes, President Grover Cleveland believed the inflation caused by Sherman's act to be a major factor, and called a special session of Congress to repeal it. Congress did so, but the debates showed bitter divides in both major parties between silver and gold factions. Cleveland tried to replenish the Treasury through issuance of bonds which could only be purchased with gold, with little effect but to increase the public debt, as the gold continued to be withdrawn in redemption for paper and silver currency. Many in the public saw the bonds as benefiting bankers, not the nation. The bankers' feeling was that they did not want loans repaid in an inflated currency—the gold standard was deflationary, and as creditors, they preferred to be paid in such a currency, whereas debtors preferred to repay in inflated currency.[13]

The effects of the recession which began in 1893, and which continued through 1896, ruined many Americans. Contemporary estimates were an unemployment rate as high as 25%. The task of relieving the jobless fell to churches and other charities, as well as to labor unions.[14] Farmers went bankrupt; their farms were sold to pay their debts. Some of the impoverished died of disease or starvation; others killed themselves.[15]

Among those who spoke against the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act was Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan. Known as an orator even then, Bryan had not always favored free silver out of conviction, stating in 1892 that he was for it because the people of Nebraska were for it.[16] By 1893, his views on silver had evolved, and on the floor of the House of Representatives, he delivered a riveting three-hour address against repeal of the Silver Purchase Act.[17] In his conclusion, Bryan reached back in history:

When a crisis like the present arose and the national bank of his day sought to control the politics of the nation, God raised up an Andrew Jackson, who had the courage to grapple with that great enemy, and by overthrowing it, he made himself the idol of the people and reinstated the Democratic party in public confidence. What will the decision be today? The Democratic party has won the greatest success in its history. Standing upon this victory-crowned summit, will it turn its face to the rising or the setting sun? Will it choose blessings or cursings—life or death—which? Which?[18]

Despite the repeal of the act, economic conditions failed to improve. The year 1894 saw considerable labor unrest. President Cleveland sent federal troops to Illinois to end the Pullman strike—workers at the Pullman Palace Car Company, which made railroad cars, had struck after wages were cut. Railway employees had refused to handle Pullman cars in sympathy with the strikers; this action threatened to paralyze the nation's rail lines. The President's move was opposed by the Democratic Governor of Illinois, John Altgeld. Angered by Cleveland's actions in the labor dispute, and by his uncompromising stand against silver, Altgeld began to organize Democrats against Cleveland's renomination in 1896. Although Altgeld and his adherents urged voters to distinguish between Cleveland and his party, the Democrats lost 113 seats in the House in the 1894 midterm elections, the greatest loss by a majority party in congressional history. The Republicans gained control of the House, as well as the Senate, which until 1913 was elected by the state legislatures rather than by the popular vote.[19] Among those defeated for Senate was Bryan in Nebraska.[20]

Bryan had long planned to run for president. Although he would only be 36 years old in 1896—one year above the constitutional minimum—he believed the silver question could carry him not only to the nomination, but to the presidency.[21] He traveled widely, speaking to audiences across the nation. His speeches impressed many; even some of his opponents later conceded that Bryan was the most compelling speaker they had ever heard. Bryan's speeches evolved over time; in December 1894, in a speech in Congress, he first used a phrase from which would come the conclusion to his most famous address: as originally stated, it was "I will not help to crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."[22][23]

A myth has arisen that Bryan was an unknown prior to 1896. This was not the case; Bryan was well known as an orator on the tariff and silver questions. Albert Shaw, editor of The Review of Reviews, stated that after Bryan's nomination, many easterners professed not to have heard of him but: "If, indeed, they had not heard of Mr. Bryan before, they had failed to follow closely the course of American politics in the past eight years. As a Democratic member of the Ways and Means Committee through two Congresses, Mr. Bryan was by all odds the ablest and strongest orator on the Democratic side of the House. His subsequent canvass [campaign] for the United States senatorship in Nebraska was noteworthy and conspicuous on many accounts."[24]

In the aftermath of the 1894 election, the silver forces, led by Altgeld and others, began an attempt to take over the machinery of the Democratic Party. Historian Stanley Jones, in his study of the 1896 election, suggests that western Democrats would have opposed Cleveland even if the party had held its congressional majority in 1894; with the disastrous defeat, they believed the party would be wiped out in the West if it did not support silver.[25] Bryan biographer Paulo E. Coletta wrote, "during this year [July 1894â€“June 1895] of calamities, disintegration and revolution, each crisis aided Bryan because it caused division within his party and permitted him to contest for its mastery as it slipped from Cleveland's fingers."[26]

In early 1896, with the economy still poor, there was widespread discontent with the two existing major political parties. Some people, for the most part Democrats, joined the far-left Populist Party. Many Republicans in the western states, dismayed by the strong allegiance of eastern Republicans to the gold standard, considered forming their own party. When the Republicans in June 1896 nominated former Ohio Governor William McKinley for president and passed at his request a platform strongly supporting "sound money" (the gold standard unless modified by international agreement), a number of "Silver Republicans" walked out of the convention.[27] The leader of those who left was Colorado Senator Henry M. Teller; he was immediately spoken of as a possible candidate for the Democratic nomination.[28]

Bryan believed that he could, if nominated, unite the disaffected behind a strong silver campaign.[27] However, part of his strategy was to remain inconspicuous until the last possible moment at the convention. He sent letters to national convention delegates, urging them to support silver, and enclosing copies of his photograph, writings, and speeches. Jones points out that though Bryan's speaking engagements were not deemed political by the standards of 1896, by modern measurements he was far more active in campaigning for the nomination than most of the better-known candidates.[29]

Historian James A. Barnes, in his historical journal article pointing out myths that have arisen about Bryan's candidacy and campaign, stated that Bryan's efforts bore fruit even before the convention:

By April, 1896, many individuals were quietly working for Bryan's nomination. Circulars were being distributed in Illinois, and admirers in Nebraska, North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and other states were urging his selection among their friends. It was not in any concerted or open action, however, that Bryan had his strength; it was in the friendly predisposition of the mass of the delegates that he had hopes.[30]

The 1896 Democratic National Convention followed events unique in post-Civil War American history. One after another, state conventions to elect delegates to the national convention in Chicago repudiated an incumbent elected president of their party, who had not declared whether he would be a candidate for renomination. According to Barnes:

The people of the South and the West had for years been convinced of the enormity of the "crime of 1873", and they had long since come to regard silver as the sword that would cut the Gordian knot of privilege. Consciousness of grievances of years and not of months was reflected in the decisive action of the state Democratic conventions in the spring and early summer of 1896.[31]

Many state conventions elected delegates pledged to support bimetallism in the party platform. Gold Democrats were successful in a few states in the Northeast, but had little luck elsewhere. Speakers in some states cursed Cleveland; the South Carolina convention denounced him. Cleveland issued a statement urging Democratic voters to support gold—the next convention to be held, in Illinois, unanimously supported silver; the keynote speaker prayed for divine forgiveness for Cleveland's 1892 nomination. Gold and silver factions in some states, such as Bryan's Nebraska, sent rival delegations to the convention.[32]

The 1896 Democratic convention opened at the Chicago Coliseum on July 7, 1896. Much activity took place in advance of the formal opening as the silver and (vastly outnumbered) gold forces prepared their strategies.[33] Silver forces were supported by the Democratic National Bimetallic Committee, the umbrella group formed in 1895 to support silver Democrats in their insurgency against Cleveland. Gold Democrats looked to the President for leadership, but Cleveland, trusting few in his party, did not involve himself further in the gold efforts, but spent the week of the convention fishing off the New Jersey coast.[34]

The Bimetallic Committee carefully planned to take control of every aspect of the convention, eliminating any threat that the minority gold faction could take power. It made no secret of these preparations. This takeover was considered far more important than was the choice of presidential candidate, and the committee decided to take no position on who should win the race for the nomination, reasoning that the victor, no matter who he was, would be a silver man.[35] Well aware of the overwhelming forces against them, many gold delegates were inclined to concede the platform battle.[36]

Bryan arrived quietly and took rooms at a modest hotel; the Nebraskan later calculated that he spent less than $100 while in Chicago.[37] He arrived convinced that he would win the nomination. He had already begun work on a speech.[38] On the evening of July 5, Bryan was visited by a delegation of Coloradans, seeking his support for Senator Teller. They went away apologetically, not having known Bryan sought the nomination.[39]

Despite the desire of silver delegates to nominate a candidate who shared their beliefs, and although several states instructed their delegates to vote for a specific candidate, there was no overwhelming favorite for the nomination going into the convention. With a two-thirds vote of the delegates needed to nominate, almost every silver delegate would have to vote for the same candidate to assure success, though any organized support from gold delegates would greatly damage a silver candidate's chances.[40]

The only gold man who put together any sort of campaign for the Democratic nomination was Treasury Secretary John G. Carlisle, but he withdrew in April, stating that he was more concerned about the platform of the party than who would lead it. However, as late as June, the gold forces, which still controlled the Democratic National Committee (DNC), continued to believe that the nominee could be pro-gold. Cleveland friend and former Postmaster General Donald M. Dickinson wrote to the President in June 1896 hoping that the delegates would recognize "common sense" and be frightened at the thought of nominating a radical.[41]

One of the leaders of the silver movement was Illinois Governor Altgeld; a native of Germany, he was constitutionally barred from the presidency by his foreign birth.[42] Going into the convention, the two leading candidates for the nomination were former Congressman Bland, who had originated the Bland-Allison Act, and former Iowa Governor Horace Boies, with Bland considered the frontrunner. These were the only two candidates to put together organizations to try to secure delegate votes, though both efforts were cash-starved. Both men had electoral problems: Bland at age 61 was seen by some as a man whose time had passed; Boies was a former Republican who had once decried bimetallism. There were a large number of potential candidates seen as having less support; these included Vice President Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Senator Joseph C. Blackburn of Kentucky, Senator Teller, and Bryan.[43]

Although Bryan had decided on a strategy to gain the nomination—to give a speech which would make him the logical candidate in the eyes of delegates—he faced obstacles along the way. For one thing, he began the 1896 convention without any official status—the Democratic National Committee, which made the initial determination of which delegations would be seated, had chosen the pro-gold Nebraskans to represent their state.[44] Bryan had been waiting outside the committee room when his rivals were seated by a 27–23 vote; contemporary accounts state he was "somewhat surprised" at the result.[45] The DNC's action could be reversed, but not until the convention's credentials committee reported.[46] However, Barnes deemed the actions by the committee immaterial to the outcome due to the silver strength in the convention:

Anyone who doubts the power the silverites were ready to unleash in a disciplined and irresistible attack needs only to read the results of the election of temporary chairman. The gold men, though they possessed the machinery of the party, had neither the power nor the strength to challenge their opponents. They could only beg them to spare the party the humiliation of broken traditions and the overthrowing of established control. Nevertheless, Senator John W. Daniel of Virginia was by an overwhelming vote elected temporary chairman, and a Committee on Credentials was appointed that seated Bryan and his contesting Nebraska delegation.[47]

Good luck favored Bryan—he was considered for various convention roles by the silverites, but each time was not selected. The temporary chairmanship, for example, would have permitted him to deliver the keynote address. However, Bryan, lacking a seat at the start of the convention, could not be elected temporary chairman. Bryan considered this no loss at all; the focus of the convention was on the party platform and the debate which would precede its adoption. The platform would symbolize the repudiation of Cleveland and his policies after the insurgents' long struggle, and Bryan was determined to close the debate on the platform. Bryan, once seated, was Nebraska's representative to the Committee on Resolutions (generally called the "platform committee"), which allocated 80 minutes to each side in the debate and selected Bryan as one of the speakers. South Carolina Senator Benjamin Tillman was to be the other pro-silver speaker, and originally wished to close the debate. However, the senator wanted 50 minutes to speak, too long for a closing address, and at Bryan's request agreed to open the debate instead. Accordingly, Bryan became the final speaker on the platform.[49][50]

Delegates, as they waited for the committees to complete their work, spent much of the first two days listening to various orators. Of these, only Senator Blackburn, a silver supporter, sparked much reaction, and that only momentary. Delegates called for better-known speakers, such as Altgeld or Bryan, but were granted neither then; the Illinois governor declined, and the Nebraskan, once seated, spent much of his time away from the convention floor at the platform committee meeting at the Palmer House.[51]

The debate on the platform opened at the start of the third day of the convention, July 9, 1896. The session was supposed to begin at 10:00 a.m., but as delegates, slowed by the long commute from the hotels to the Coliseum and fatigue from the first two days, did not arrive on time, proceedings did not begin until 10:45. Nevertheless, large crowds gathered outside the public entrances; the galleries were quickly packed. Once the convention came to order, Arkansas Senator James K. Jones, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, read the proposed platform to cheers by many delegates; the reading of the pro-gold minority report attracted less applause.[50]

"Pitchfork Ben" Tillman lived up to his nickname with an incendiary address which began with a reference to his home state's role in beginning the Civil War.[52] Although Tillman endorsed silver, his address was so laced with sectionalism that most silver delegates remained silent for fear of being seen as supporting him.[53] Tillman's speech, scheduled to be the only one in support of silver except Bryan's, was so badly received that Senator Jones, who had not planned to speak, gave a brief address asserting that silver was a national issue.[54]

Senator David B. Hill of New York, a gold supporter, was next. As Hill moved to the podium, a reporter friend passed Bryan a note urging him to make a patriotic speech without hint of sectionalism; Bryan responded, "You will not be disappointed."[55] Hill gave a calm speech defending the gold position, and swayed few delegates.[54] He was followed by two other gold men, Senator William Vilas of Wisconsin and former Massachusetts Governor William E. Russell. Vilas gave a lengthy defense of the Cleveland administration's policies, so long that Russell, fearing that Vilas' speech would cut into his time, asked that the time given to the gold proponents be extended by ten minutes. Bryan consented, on condition that his own time was extended by the same amount; this was agreed to. "And I needed it for the speech I was to make." Bryan later wrote, "This was another unexpected bit of good fortune. I had never had such an opportunity before in my life and never expect to have again."[56]

Vilas quickly lost his audience, which did not want to hear Cleveland defended. Russell's address was inaudible to most of the Coliseum; he was ill and died just over a week later. As the gold men spoke, Bryan ate a sandwich to settle his stomach; he was often nervous before major speeches. Another reporter approached him and asked him who he thought would win the nomination. "Strictly confidential, not to be quoted for publication: I will be."[56]

As Russell concluded, to strong applause from gold delegates,[57] there was a buzz of anticipation as Bryan ascended to the podium. There was loud cheering as Bryan stood there, waiting for his audience to calm.[58] Bryan's lecture tours had left him a well-known spokesman for silver. As yet, no one at the convention had effectively spoken for that cause, which was paramount to the delegates.[59] According to political scientist Richard F. Bensel in his study of the 1896 Democratic convention, "Although the silver men knew they would win this fight, they nonetheless needed someone to tell them—and the gold men—why they must enshrine silver at the heart of the platform."[60] Bensel noted, "The pump was more than primed, it was ready to explode."[61] Bryan would say little that he had not said before—the text is similar to that of a speech he had given the previous week at Crete, Nebraska[62]—but he would give the convention its voice.[63]

Bryan began softly,

I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity.[64]

Bryan's opening claimed no personal prestige for himself—but nevertheless placed him as the spokesman for silver.[64] According to Bensel, the self-deprecation helped disarm the delegates. As Bryan was not deemed a major contender for the nomination, even delegates committed to a candidate could cheer him without seeming to betray their allegiance.[65] Bryan then recounted the history of the silver movement; the audience, which had loudly demonstrated its approval of his opening statements, quieted.[64] Throughout the speech, Bryan had the delegates in the palm of his hand; they cheered on cue. The Nebraskan later described the audience as like a trained choir.[59] As he concluded his historical recitation, he reminded the silver delegates that they had come to crown their victory, "not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by the plain people of this country".[66]

Bryan continued with language evoking the Civil War, telling his audience that "in this contest brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son."[67] By then, as he spoke in a sincere tone, his voice sounded clearly and loudly through the hall.[68] He denied, however that the contest was personal; he bore no ill-will towards those who supported the gold standard. However, he stated, facing towards the gold delegates, "when you come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course."[69] The gold men, during the address, paid close attention and showed their appreciation for Bryan's oratory.[57] Bryan then defended the right of silver supporters to make their argument against opposition from gold men, who were associated with financial interests, especially in the East. Although his statements nominally responded to a point made by Russell, Bryan had thought of the argument the previous evening, and had not used it in earlier speeches. He always regarded it as the best point he made during the speech, and only the ending caused more reaction from his listeners:

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 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 of this broader class of business men.[66][70]

Through this passage, Bryan maintained the contrast between the common man and the city-dwelling elite. It was clear to listeners as he worked his way through the comparisons that he would refer to the farmer, and when he did, the hall exploded with sound. His sympathetic comparison contrasted the hardworking farmer with the city businessman, whom Bryan cast as a gambler. The galleries were filled with white as spectators waved handkerchiefs, and it was several minutes before he could continue.[71] The police in the convention hall, not sharing the enthusiasm for silver, were described by the press (some of whose members were caught up in the frenzy) as standing as if they thought the audience was about to turn on them.[72] When Bryan resumed, his comparison of miner with miser again electrified the audience; the uproar prevented him from continuing for several minutes. One farmer in the gallery had been about to leave rather than listen to Bryan, whom he deemed a Populist; he had been persuaded to stay. At Bryan's words, he threw his hat into the air, slapped the empty seat in front of him with his coat, and shouted, "My God! My God! My God!"[70][71][73]

Bryan, having established the right of silver supporters to petition, explained why that petition was not to be denied:

It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them![74]

With this call to action, Bryan abandoned any hint at compromise, and adopted the techniques of the radical, polarizing orator, finding no common ground between silver and gold forces. He then defended the remainder of the platform, though only speaking in general terms. He mocked McKinley, said by some to resemble Napoleon, noting that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.[75] The lengthy passage as he discussed the platform and the Republicans helped calm the audience, ensuring he would be heard as he reached his peroration. But Bryan first wished to tie the silver question to a greater cause:[46][76]

Upon which side will the Democratic Party fight; upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses"? That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.[77]

He faced in the direction of the gold-dominated state delegations:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them. You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn 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.[76]

This statement attracted great cheering, and Bryan turned to rhetorically demolish the compromise position on bimetallismâ€”that it should only be accomplished through international agreement:

It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost.[1][78]

Now, Bryan was ready to conclude the speech, and according to his biographer, Michael Kazin, step "into the headlines of American history".[1]

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."[1]

As Bryan spoke his final sentence, recalling the Crucifixion of Jesus, he placed his hands to his temples, fingers extended; with the final words, he extended his arms to his sides straight out to his body and held that pose for about five seconds as if offering himself as sacrifice for the cause, as the audience watched in dead silence. He then lowered them, descended from the podium, and began to head back to his seat as the stillness held.[1]

Bryan later described the silence as "really painful" and momentarily thought he had failed.[79] As he moved towards his seat, the Coliseum burst into pandemonium. Delegates threw hats, coats, and handkerchiefs into the air.[79] Others took up the standards with the state names on them with each delegation, and planted them by Nebraska's.[63] Two alert police officers had joined Bryan as he left the podium, anticipating the crush. The policemen were swept away by the flood of delegates, who raised Bryan to their shoulders and carried him around the floor. The Washington Post newspaper recorded, "bedlam broke loose, delirium reigned supreme."[80]

It took about 25 minutes to restore order, and according to Bensel, "somewhere in the mass demonstration that was convulsing the convention hall, the transfer of sentiment from silver as a policy to Bryan as a presidential candidate took place".[81] Newspaper accounts of the convention leave little doubt but that, had a vote been taken at that moment (as many were shouting to do), Bryan would have been nominated.[81] Bryan was urged by Senator Jones to allow it, but refused, stating that if his boom would not last overnight, it would never last until November.[79] He soon retired from the convention, returning to his hotel to await the outcome.[82] The convention passed the platform in Bryan's absence and recessed.[83]

The balloting began the following morning, July 10, with a two-thirds vote necessary to nominate. Bryan, who remained at his hotel, sent word to the Nebraska delegation to make no deals on his behalf. He stood second out of fourteen candidates in the first ballot, behind Bland.[84][85] On the second ballot, Bryan still stood second, but had gained as other candidates had fallen away. The third ballot saw Bland still in the lead, but Bryan took the lead on the fourth ballot. According to Jones, it was clear that Bland could not win, and that Bryan could not be stopped. On the fifth ballot, the Illinois delegation, led by Governor Altgeld, switched its votes from Bland to Bryan. Other delegations, seeing that Bryan would be nominated, also switched, securing the victory. Nevertheless, he won the nomination without the votes of the gold delegates, most of whom either left the convention or refused to vote.[86]

Most contemporary press accounts attributed Bryan's nomination to his eloquence, though in the case of Republican and other gold-favoring newspapers, they considered it his demagoguery.[87] The pro-silver Cleveland Plain Dealer called Bryan's speech "an eloquent, stirring, and manly appeal".[87] The Chicago Tribune reported that Bryan had lit the spark "which touched off the trail of gun-powder".[88] The St. Louis Post-Dispatch opined that with the speech, Bryan "just about immortalized himself".[87]

According to the New York World, "Lunacy having dictated the platform, it was perhaps natural that hysteria should evolve the candidate."[89] The New York Times disparaged Bryan as "the gifted blatherskite from Nebraska".[90] The only paper to predict, after Bryan gave his speech, that he would not be nominated was The Wall Street Journal, which stated, "Bryan has had his day". The Akron Journal and Republican, no friend to Bryan, opined that "never probably has a national convention been swayed or influenced by a single speech as was the national Democratic convention".[90]

The Pullman Company offered Bryan a private car for his trip home; he declined, not wishing to accept corporate favors. As he traveled by rail to Lincoln, he saw farmers and others standing by the tracks, hoping for a glimpse of the new Democratic nominee.[91] He received many letters from supporters, expressing their faith in him in stark terms. One Indiana voter wrote, "God has sent you amongst our people to save the poor from starvation, and we no  [sic] you will save us."[92] A farmer in Iowa, in a letter to Bryan, stated, "You are the first big man that i  [sic] ever wrote to."[92]

When McKinley heard that Bryan was likely to be the nominee, he called the report "rot" and hung up the phone.[93] The Republican nominee was slow to realize the surge of support for Bryan after the nomination, stating his view that the silver sentiment would be gone in a month. When McKinley and his advisers, such as industrialist and future senator Mark Hanna, realized that the views were more than transitory, they began intensive fundraising from corporations and the wealthy. The money went for speakers, pamphlets, and other means of conveying their "sound money" campaign to the voter. With far less money than McKinley, Bryan embarked on a nationwide campaign tour by train on a then-unprecedented scale. McKinley on the other hand, opted for a front porch campaign. Both men spoke to hundreds of thousands of people from their chosen venues.[94]

Bryan's nomination divided the party. The dissidents nominated their own ticket; the split in the vote would contribute to Bryan's defeat.[95] However, Bryan did gain the support of the Populists, as well as a convention of Silver Republicans.[96] Bryan spoke on silver throughout the campaign; he rarely addressed other issues.[97] Bryan won the South and most of the West, but McKinley's victories in the more populous Northeast and Midwest carried him to the presidency.[98] The Democratic candidate failed to gain a majority of the labor vote; McKinley won in working-class areas as well as wealthy precincts.[97] Although McKinley outpolled him by 600,000 votes, Bryan received more votes than any previous presidential candidate.[98]

After McKinley's inauguration, increases in gold availability from new discoveries and improved refining methods led to a considerable increase in the money supply. Even so, in 1900, Congress passed the Gold Standard Act, formally placing the United States on that standard. Although Bryan ran again on a silver platform in the 1900 presidential election, the issue failed to produce the same resonance with the voters. McKinley won more easily than in 1896, making inroads in the silver West.[99]

Bryan's speech is considered one of the most powerful political addresses in American history.[100] Stanley Jones, however, suggested that even if Bryan had never made it, he would still have been nominated. Jones deemed the Democrats likely to nominate a candidate who would appeal to the Populist Party, and Bryan had been elected to Congress with Populist support.[101] According to rhetorical historian William Harpine in his study of the rhetoric of the 1896 campaign, "Bryan's speech cast a net for the true believers, but only for the true believers."[67] Harpine suggested that, "by appealing in such an uncompromising way to the agrarian elements and to the West, Bryan neglected the national audience who would vote in the November election".[102] Bryan's emphasis on agrarian issues, both in his speech and in his candidacy, may have helped cement voting patterns which kept the Democrats largely out of power until the 1930s.[103][104]

Writer Edgar Lee Masters called the speech, "the beginning of a changed America."[91] Bryan's words gave rise to later economic and political philosophies, including Huey Long's 1930s Share Our Wealth program, with its trigger phrase, "Every Man a King" inspired by Bryan's speech.[105] Author and political commentator William Safire, in his political dictionary, traced the term "trickle-down economics" (common in the Reagan era) to Bryan's statement that some believe that government should legislate for the wealthy, and allow prosperity to "leak through" on those below.[106] Historian R. Hal Williams suggested that the opposite philosophy, of legislation for the masses leading to prosperity for all, advocated by Bryan in his speech, informed the domestic policies of later Democratic presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt with his New Deal.[107]

Bensel ties the delegates' response to Bryan's address to their uncertainty in their own beliefs:

In a very real sense, adoption of the silver plank in the platform was akin to a millennial expectation that the "laws of economics" would henceforth be suspended and that the silver men could simply "will" that silver and gold would, in fact, trade on financial markets at a ratio of sixteen to one. The silver men were thus in the hunt for a charismatic leader who would underpin what they already desperately wanted to believe. They manufactured that leader in the convention, a fabrication in which Bryan was only too happy to assist.[108]


when did the half crown go out of circulation

The half crown was a denomination of British money, equivalent to two shillings and sixpence, or one-eighth of a pound. The half crown was first issued in 1549, in the reign of Edward VI. No half crowns were issued in the reign of Mary, but from the reign of Elizabeth I half crowns were issued in every reign except Edward VIII, until the coins were discontinued in 1967.

Half crown (British coin)

The half crown was demonetised (ahead of other pre-decimal coins) on 1 January 1970, the year before the United Kingdom adopted decimal currency on Decimal Day. During the English Interregnum of 1649â€“1660, a republican half crown was issued, bearing the arms of the Commonwealth of England, despite monarchist associations of the coin's name. When Oliver Cromwell was made Lord Protector of England, half crowns were issued bearing his semi-royal portrait. The half crown did not display its value on the reverse until 1893.

From George III, 1816, they had a diameter of 32 mm and a weight of 14.1 g (½ oz.), dimensions which remained the same for the half crown until decimalisation in 1971.[1]

The mintage figures below are taken from the annual UK publication COIN YEARBOOK.[2] Proof mintages are indicated in italics.

The reverse of the 1905, Edward VII, half crown.

The obverse of the 1953, Elizabeth II, half crown.

The reverse of the 1953, Elizabeth II, half crown.