“I shall object to bringing this question down to a level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest of principle.”

Bryan attempts to portray himself as a reliable speaker to the audience. He is not here because he is out to support his agenda, but for a greater purpose. Individual politics should not matter when there are questions of principles to be resolved.

“In this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom.”

Bryan’s use of “brother against brother” and “father against son” mimics the language surrounding the Civil War, which ended only 31 years before the speech. While noting the conflict within the Democratic Party on the issue of bimetallism, he also implies that those who support gold will lose their political standing and be replaced by supporters of free silver. In addition, by saying it is a “cause of freedom,” he attempts to stir patriotic feelings in the audience.

“When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer.”

The statement sets out one of Bryan’s key arguments for the support of bimetallism. In his definition, the term “businessman” includes the urban man who supports the gold standard and all people who work and have a stake in the economy, including farmers, ranchers, and mineworkers. These workers deserve as many rights as the urban owners of capital.