Background edit
Political climate; rise of free silver edit
In the two decades following the American Civil War, there was a considerable flow of population from the East to the Great Plains. Many who settled, or at least invested there saw quick prosperity; land prices seemed likely to rise indefinitely, and the expansion across the prairies brought expectation of further wealth—one Nebraska publication joked that a common annoyance for a farmer was for him to go into town for a few hours and return to find that a city, complete with streetcars, had engulfed his land. Farmers commonly purchased tools, land for expansion, and even luxuries (often bought by catalog from mail-order firms) by taking out mortgages on their property. Many farmers had speculated in real estate, hoping to get in on the boom. By the mid-1880s, farming had expanded so much so as to create an oversupply of crops, and prices of agricultural commodities sank, followed by the price of farmland. Unable to repay loans, many overextended farmers, or those living on marginal land, abandoned their property. In 1886, a year of severe drought, one man leaving his land in Blanco County, Texas wrote on the floor of what had been his farmhouse, "250 miles to the nearest post office; 100 miles to wood; 20 miles to water; 6 inches to hell. God bless our home!"[1]
The issue of free silver proved popular throughout the South and West. Free silver, or bimetallism, would require the government to accept all the silver presented to the historic price of silver, which was about double the then-current price. The government would accept unlimited amounts of silver at a rate set by act of Congress, until the practice was abolished as obsolete in 1873. This was done as the market price for silver was then much higher than the government rate, so none was being presented. When silver prices dropped in the 1870s, producers sought to sell their bullion to the government, but as authority to accept it had been withdrawn by the Coinage Act of 1873, it would accept none. A free silver policy would bring much more money into circulation, which would cause inflation; farmers and others believed it would be easier to repay debt and the larger quantity of money in circulation would bring prosperity. Congress attempted to make some concession to silver supporters by passing the Bland-Allison Act in 1878 and the Sherman Silver Purchase Act in 1890, requiring massive government purchases of silver. In the Northeast and Midwest, silver was less popular; advocates of the gold standard did not believe the claimed benefits which would follow free silver, and warned that such a policy and its inflation would cause the US difficulties in international trade.[2][3]
The Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in 1890, and were deprived of the presidency two years later, as Cleveland defeated Harrison to return to office.[4] Almost as soon as he took office, the economy crashed in the Panic of 1893. One factor in the panic was fear that the government did not have enough gold to redeem, as it was pledged to do, all the silver and paper currency it had issued.[5] Late that year, Cleveland forced legislation through Congress to repeal the 1890 act. Nevertheless, the redemptions continued, as did the hard times which ruined or killed many Americans. In the depression, a free silver policy became increasingly popular among those in hard-hit areas. Cleveland adamantly refused to support any silver purchases; he was opposed by many in his own party. He became even less popular in his own party when in 1894 he sent federal troops to Illinois to intervene in the Pullman strike, outraging that state's Democratic governor, John Peter Altgeld. . In the 1894 midterm elections, the Democrats were badly defeated, with even some southern states electing Republican or Populist congressmen. In the aftermath of the election, anti-Cleveland forces, most of whom were strongly for silver, decided to launch a campaign to take over the Democratic Party from Cleveland, and nominate a silver presidential candidate on a silver platform at the 1896 Democratic National Convention.[6][7]
Pre-convention maneuvering edit
The convention was set for July 7, 1896 in Chicago by action of the gold-dominated Democratic National Committee in January 1896. A number of dates were considered in June and July. One possible date, June 30, was ruled out as it conflicted with an encampment of the United Confederate Veterans. Silver Democrats wanted a long convention season, which they believed would aid them in their efforts to take control of the party from Cleveland's forces. Once the date was settled, attention turned to which city should host the convention. Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and New York were the cities which had bid for the convention. Although Chicago won only four votes on the first ballot, it gradually gained strength and was eventually chosen on the 29th ballot. The DNC accordingly issued notices to its state organizations to select two delegates for each electoral vote each state was entitled to, with Arizona Territory and New Mexico Territory to select six delegates each, and the District of Columbia two. Silver men would have preferred St. Louis to Chicago (on the final ballot, the vote was 26 for Chicago, 24 for St. Louis, 1 for Cincinnati) but were content that the convention would be meeting in the West.[8][9]