Question

How could William Jennings Bryan oppose the gold standard and also support bimetallism?
Bryan took each position at a different point in his career, with his support for bimetallism coming later in life.
Bimetallism called for a fixed value for gold, which was the opposite of the gold standard.
Bryan spoke in favor of the gold standard when addressing the wealthy and in favor of bimetallism when speaking to the poor.
Bryan opposed the idea of a fixed value for gold while supporting the concept of a currency based on two metal

Answer 1

The best way to reconcile those positions is this: Bryan opposed the gold standard (monometallism) because it limited the money supply and benefited creditors and eastern financial interests, and he supported bimetallism (free coinage of silver alongside gold) because adding silver would expand the money supply and help debtors and farmers.

Quick corrections and context:
- Bryan did not shift from supporting gold to supporting bimetallism later in life; his famous 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech publicly opposed the gold standard and promoted free silver.
- Bimetallism does not mean “fixing the value of gold alone.” It means fixing a ratio between gold and silver so both metals are legal tender (Bryan and the free-silver movement favored coinage of silver at a 16:1 ratio to gold). That fixed ratio, in practice, was meant to increase the money supply compared with a gold-only standard.
- Bryan’s rhetoric sometimes varied by audience, but his monetary stance was consistent: oppose a gold-only standard and support bringing silver into the currency to produce inflationary relief for debtors.

So the fourth statement — that he opposed a fixed gold-only standard while supporting currency based on two metals — most accurately captures his position, with the nuance that bimetallism fixed a gold–silver ratio rather than “fixing the value of gold” alone.