economy recently, so it's not surprising that some of these issues are coming forward when they are right now. i think the difference is, of course, that bryan's efforts to broaden the money supply were mainly aimed at trying to rescue a class of americans who were struggling deeply with their financial well-being and their situation. and so i don't see that quite playing out today in the same way when the gold standard is being brought up. >> two history professors today. will thomas teaches history here, he's also the author of "the iron way: railroads, the civil war, and the making of modern america." harold is joining us, youngstown, ohio. good evening. >> caller: good evening. it seems rather ironic that many

of the parallels from william jennings bryan's day and our day, it's just amazing. again, we're arguing soft money versus hard money. and we do see class warfare. the class warfare argument. except this time, the argument is coming from the rich against the poor as opposed to the poor against the rich. and i think the irony in my mind is just amazing. >> who would like to take that point? >> well, i think it is interesting to look back at that time, because for bryan, making the argument not only about the money supply and the silver issue, but also about the income tax and about the monopoly power that he saw all around and the corruption in politics and the trust, all of those things together, he was accused by the

republicans of practicing a form of demagoguery or of class warfare, of opening the door to class warfare, even mentioning these things and bringing them up. so bryan was trying to lead, from what he saw, he was trying to lead americans to see that the class in power was not necessarily looking out for their own interests. that was his main argument. he had to frame it in a way that it didn't become class warfare. americans didn't want class warfare. they had seen a series of strikes in the last 20 years that looked an awfully lot like class warfare or something that they feared from europe. communist organization and conflict. so that fear of class warfare is very vital to the period of the 1890s when bryan's campaigning. it turns out that the strike of 1877, for example, with the

michigan and the federal government bringing out gatlin guns and mowing down american workers who are striking, that didn't sit well with american people. and so bryan was walking this thin line, trying to raise the issue, but not be accused of class warfare. >> william jennings bryan was born in se jerusalem, illinois. he moved here to nebraska where he practiced law, ran for congress, served two terms and became our democratic presidential nominee in 1986. he moved to this home in 1902 with his wife, mary, and bob pushendorf is down below. how did they use the home back in 1902 when they first moved here? >> it's an interesting combination of uses. the second floor right up above where you're sitting was the family bedrooms and sleeping chambers. the first floor was meant

primarily for entertaining. you can see the widened spaces, the open space where is they would entertain their friends. and the lower level is more of a family area. including the dining room. and of course the office in which we had seen earlier. >> as you researched the uses of this home and the visitors of the home, who would have been here? >> there were a number of prominent guests, woodrow wilson being one of them. but a number of social acquaintances, as well as political figures, would have been visitors to the house. >> and we talked earlier about the name of the home of fairview because it really did give you a sense of the nebraska landscape. now, of course, it's the home of the medical center. >> that's correct. the bryans said that the house was one of the most beautiful vistas of farm country that he had ever seen. they acquired the land east of lincoln and chose this site for their new home in 1901. >> what is his legacy, will

thomas, here in lincoln, nebraska? >> well, i think he's one of the most famous sons. i think his name is widely recognized by both nebraskans and nationwide. i think they are proud that we have generated people of his stature, even though he did not win the presidency. it was an important aspect in nebraska's political life to have such a character. >> his home, of course, being a historic landmark. his legacy, will thomas? >> well, i think he does bring the democratic party into nebraska's history. of course, there were democrats here before william jennings bryan's campaigns, but he elevates the democratic party in its stature in nebraska. obviously he's a major figure in nebraska history.

but the local legacy, of course, is this home and the hospital. which bears his name. >> john is joining us from san francisco as we look at the life and political career of william jennings bryan. go ahead, please. >> caller: bryan publicly defenddefend ed can ku klux klan. did he also publicly endorse the lynchings in the south? >> he did not defend the klan. i'm not defending him. the debate in the 1924 democratic convention in new york city was about whether to denounce the klan by name or not. he believed that democrats should win over the klan rather than denounce them. he certainly had supporters who were in the klan, but it's unfair to say he was a supporter of the klan. he was not. he was a racist against

african-americans. we consider him that now. but he did not support violence against them. he denounced lynchings. but he was a white supremacist. but i just want to clarify, his racial views are not so simple as to say he was a klansman or in favor of lynching people without a trial. he wanted -- he supported the views of most white southerners at the time as well because they thought european americans were superior to other people, and so in that sense, he was certainly not a modern figure. >> i think he's certainly a democratic political figure in the sense -- from that period, in the sense that he broadly believes in white supremacy, and he's appealing to votes in the democratic south really on those terms as well. >> what would we think of the

democratic party today, which counts so much of african-americans as a core constituency? >> he would have been surprised. you know, for him, he was a democrat with a small d as well as a large d. but for him, the majority people of the country were white and he was mostly welfare. he didn't know many black people. there was a group of what we call silver republicans, african-americans in omaha who supported him. he had african-americans to fairview at different occasions to visit. but politically, he wanted to stay as far from that issue as he could. in the 1908 campaign, the great black intellectual and activist wanted to support bryan and did support bryan against william howard taft, but bryan would not meet with him, did not want to acknowledge his support because he was afraid he would lose

parts of the white south if he did. >> our next caller is from memphis, tennessee. chuck is on the phone. good evening, glad to hear from you. >> caller: good evening. this series has been fascinating and your guests are very interesting. this topic is great. i would be interested -- i had heard at one time that l. frank bond's novel "the wizard of oz" was an algorithm where he was depicted as the cowardly lion. i would be interested in your thoughts on that. >> have either of you heard that? >> that's one of the great myths of american history. i used to give lectures about this. it's a wonderful way to teach students about the election of 1986. different figures in the first oz book corresponding to figures in that campaign.

if you look into l. frank balm's biography, it doesn't play out. he dressed windows in department stores, and for him, the artifice of the design of his department store windows was one way he saw american society developing. and for him, the wizard of oz was a figure of sort of commercial artifice, so baum would have been surprised by the algor call meanings, although it's an entertaining way to look at it, but it's probably not true. >> let me put another parallel on the table. in 1999 we sat down with karl rove, in which he sat down with the mckinley campaign and he tried to take some of the lessons of that campaign for george bush in 2000. >> it established the republican party in presidential elections, at least, and most congressional

elections as the majority party. there was really no majority party in the guilded age from 1868 to 1896. so what karl rove wanted to do was produce a new republican majority based on what he would have seen as the most forward looking elements to the business community and also a pretty hetero heterogenous group. similarly, mckinley tried to appeal to european immigrants at the time, which is a very large expanding group in the population. he was able to win over german voters, for example, german-american vote who are had for the most part been democrats before, but most of them became republicans for various reasons. and so rove saw not just

mckinley, but mark hannah, the e -- producing this new republican majority. it didn't happen. and george w. bush was not as successful a president as william mckinley. >> we are coming to you from lincoln, nebraska where william jennings bryan served two terms in the house of representatives, went on to run for the presidency on three separate occasions, beginning in 1896 at the age of 36. frank is joining us, salem, illinois. go ahead, please. the hometown, the birthplace of william jennings bryan. >> caller: yes. we have his -- his birthplace is open to the public -- if you call it that. my question is how much influence did w.j. have in getting his brother nominated in 1924 to be the vice presidential

candidate? >> yes, that's the side life people don't really know about. in 1924, the then governor of nebraska -- what's his first name again? it's terrible. i'm forgetting his first name. charles bryan. younger brother of william jennings bryan. was the vice presidential candidate for the democrats, coming out of that tumultuous convention of 1924. was more because of his name than because william jennings bryan, his older brother, pushed him. at that time, william jennings bryan was a very divisive figure in the party, partly because of the klan debate, partly for other reasons. but the bryan name was still sort of -- the democrats hoped would enable him to win a lot of rural votes, especially in the midwest, which they're afraid -- progressive rule votes. they were afraid were going to go to the independent campaign

for president. so charles bryan in 1924 was -- his nomination's vice president by the democrats was an attempt by the democrats to keep some of the progressive farm vote on their side, and for the most part, it did not succeed. >> terry is joining us from easton, pennsylvania, as we look more from the study of william jennings bryan. go ahead, terry. >> caller: gentlemen, very interesting talk. you've stated that william jennings bryan was a fundamentalist and a progressive. and i tates like and nebraska, which had large fundamentalist populations, also during his day very progressive. today, they are extremely conservative. what happened? to cause this change? >> will thomas, what did happen? >> well, that's a great question.

i think the progressivism that bryan espoused had a great deal to do with the economic conditions of his day. and the prosperity that came forward in american life changed that in the 20th century in ways that bryan couldn't have predicted. in terms of today's conservativism, bryan also foreshadows some of that in his commitment to faith in public life. but his faith, as michael has already pointed out, was based around a social gospel movement, an applied christianity. helping those in the cities, helping those in need. and that branch of christian thought and experience did not grow in the same way as the fundamentalist movement. >> did you want to follow up?

>> just one quick question before we go to austin. both liberalism and conservativism changed their views and posture towards active christianity and public life. liberals generally, especially white liberals, got sort of s r soured and became more identified with pluristic, more secular kind of religious landscape, whereas conservatives who were not particularly evangelical, became much more identified with the christian right in the 1870s. abortion were the same, too. abortion and gay marriage were not issues for bryan. >> "the iron way, railroads, the civil war, and the making of modern america", the work of will thomas.

chris, you have been patient. thank you so much for waiting from austin, texas. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. bryan was -- social issues that meant conservativism. there was a similar movement in europe, the advent of christian democracy going on as well. it seems there's no really outlet for -- that a position like that was in today's two major parties. i was wondering, i think that there's actually a big constituency for that, if there was an outlet for it. i was wanting to get your take on what you think the possibilities of a bryan type position would have today in american politics. >> thanks for the call and the question. >> well, you know, every politician today, whatever their

position, in a sense has to be -- at least has to appear to be a religious person, whether they go to church or not so. in that sense, everybody who has a chance to become president is a religious person. and so far, at least, a christian. but i think, though, that it's most people on the liberal side of politics mistrust people who talk too much about their religion in politics. and most people on the conservative side want that religious talk to be focused primarily, i think, on issues of the body, you might say, issues of personal piety, of personal responsibility, of abortion, of same-sex marriage, of this kind of thing, stem cells and so forth. so the kind of social christianity that, as you say, many christian democrats in

europe stood for and certainly bryan stood for. i don't see that really as a real possibility at least in the future. one figure who is important to realize is we have an actual holiday named after him, martin luther king jr. martin luther king jr. was very left wing in economics but an evangelical minister at the same time. so we in some ways, there's a lot of differences between bryan and king, race among others. but it's interesting, we have a national holiday named after somebody who did try to put after what you might call conservative -- not quite fundamentalist, but very conservative sense of biblical truth and very left wing belief about economic issues. >> and on a separate note, the connection between william jennings bryan and arbor day, what is it? >> well, this goes to nebraska again. his mentor in democratic

politics in nebraska was a man who was a leading figure, never elected in it was a way to bring morton -- as a way to bring more business, really, to this part of the plains. >> larry is joining us from everett, washington. good evening. >> caller: my question was about the australian ballot or the secret ballot or the lack of one in 1896 and 1900 and 1908. did bryan ever talk about the need for a secret ballot, and would he -- if he won at that time, would it affect the outcome? what efforts did they make sure they put in the right ballot for mckinley and things like that? is that true, and did bryan ever talk about it? >> thanks for the call. who would like to take that? >> i'll take it. bryan did talk about the secret ballot, and it was a subject of

some discussion in 1894 and 1896. it wasn't a major issue but it came up in context like the potential corruption of companies that would bring in voters to vote for elections or require voters to vote in a certain way, that is, their employees. these accusations were made especially in nebraska with regard to the burlington railroad. that it had, in fact, released all men from its western jobsites and brought them into omaha or lincoln and told them which way to vote. and so that kind of activity led politicians like brian and others to object and to call for the kind of secret ballot that would allow individuals to vote for who they wanted without the pressure of corporate interests in the election. >> our next caller comes to us from reno, nevada. go ahead, please. randy, you're on the air. nancy -- oh, go ahead.

go ahead. okay. caller, are you can us? let's go to nancy next. >> caller: i'm nancy sawyers, from dayton, tennessee, home of the scopes trial. i'm not old enough to remember it. i'm just 70 something. but i know several people that were there, and it was a carnival like and the drugstore was there for many years. and the table where it all started, and as i understand, it started as let's do something exciting or unusual.

let's do this. and so that's how it got started as these older people have told me. and dayton has grown into a booming little town. and it has a play on the anniversary depicting the trial. and it is a very interesting play for people to come from all over the united states to see. i just wanted to say that we were kind of dumb to the monkey town for a long time, but now we're known as the home to the scopes trial. i did not know william jennings bryan, but i did meet clarence dale at a tea held for him by the women of dayton. and we're glad that it happened

there. as i was told, it was kind of started for chattanooga, and chattanooga really didn't want it, so they decided to bring it to dayton. and it has brought much economy to the city of dayton. >> well, nancy, thank you for calling, and thank you for sharing your firsthand account to that famous trial. thoughts from either of you? >> yeah, you know, actually, you talk about tourism, there's a very good museum in the basement of the courthouse in dayton, tennessee, about the trial and about the reception of it around the world. and you can also visit the courtroom itself, and i've sat in the judge's chair. the famous cross-examination, darrow cross-examining bryan was actually not held in the courtroom itself. it was held on the lawn outside.

if you think about it, almost 3,000 people were probably in attendance, listening to and watching this cross-examination. this is a kind of trial -- we don't have that kind of trial today, but it was, as she said, a carnival. and it did help the economy of dayton a good deal. it was an economy which needed help at the time. >> let's talk about the legacy of william jennings bryan, especially when it came to women's rights and prohibition and the federal income tax and the popular election of u.s. senators. will thomas. >> well, i think bryan's legacy and michael beautifully handles this in his book, the legacy itself is damaged by the end of the scopes trial. in particular, h.l. minkins' obituary which depicts bryan as a bumbling backcountry kind of misguided figure in 1924 and 1925 in that period. so his legacy is tarnished, really, at the end of his career by this. michael's book, i think,

recovers bryan's legacy beautifully. all of the reforms that he championed, women's rights, in particular, the right to vote, the suffrage, which was an active issue in the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s. and bryan was at the forefront of it. other issues as well that you just mentioned were ones that he was deeply involved in from the beginning. >> i think -- i emphasize this in the book, i think one of the legacies of bryan which is important which is in many ways, you don't get bryan, you don't get roosevelt. he was the main figure in remaking the democratic party in a party we think about today for those that don't like the big-government party. for those that do like it, the more liberal party. he does in 1908 forge for the first time a strong relationship between organized labor, then the american federation of labor and the democratic party, a

relationship that for the most part has remained for the last century between that movement and that party. you know, he wasn't obviously the only figure who did this, but i think he was the key figure in the depression of the 1890s in helping to make the democratic party into the kind of party we think of it as today, that is wanting the government to be stronger to serve the interests of working people, of people who are down on their luck. so in some ways, that is a very important legacy which he doesn't often get credit for. >> this is a what-if question. briefly, had he been elected president, what kind of a president would he have been? >> i don't think a very good one, actually. i think his skill was as an orator, to rally people and to support those ideas, but he probably wouldn't have been a very good administrator. he wasn't a very good secretary of state. as president, he would have been a divisive figure, and it would

have been difficult for him to work with the opposition party and congress. >> mark is joining us, dallas. go ahead, please. >> caller: yes. in 1900, who -- did a senator joseph blackburn run against william jennings bryan for the nomination, and did he tie with him? can you tell me about that? >> blackburn got a few votes. but 1900, most democrats rallied around bryan. it was not really a close contest. it was pretty much decided by the time they got to the convention, which was unusual at that time because usually conventions back in that day were pretty contemptuous affairs. it really was decided at the convention. in 1900, by the time they got to kansas city where the convention was held, it was pretty clear that the nomination would go to bryan again. >> two other famous speeches at democratic conventions. in 1984, mario cuomo delivers the keynote. that propels him to the national

stage. and in 2004, state senator barack obama delivers the keynote address, and many say that propelled him to the presidency. are there parallels to william jennings bryan? >> well, obama, in essence, is a parallel, certainly. though as will said, he was better known in 1896 than i think two americans than obama was in 2004, which might seem surprising because of all the media we have. but bryan was giving speeches all around the country before 1896 to prosilvercrats. there had been other great convention speeches. hubert humphrey gave a famous speech for civil rights in 1948, democratic convention, in which sort of put the u.s. -- put the democratic party on record as being for civil rights, which it had never been before. we had no other parallel in american political history where someone gives a great speech and then at the same convention gets the nomination. >> what about today? are there parallels to oth