tv Discussion on Henry George Labor and the Gilded Age CSPAN August 3, 2016 3:39pm-5:01pm EDT
second gilded age? and what does it mean? it's a pretty depressing thought, but there are reasons i think to be optimistic. another way i like to talk about henry joshlg is in a lot of ways he is the tom ma pickity pickity came out with this book and boom, they sold 500,000 copies. i think they would have been psyched if they sold 50,000. essentially thomas pickity, if you take this one quote ache from the book, you see he's essentially arguing the same point, which is that extreme inequality of wealth can be harmful to growth, because it reducing mobility and can lead to political capture by the super-recollection. so there's a lot to worry about. it isn't just that some people have a lot of stuff. it actually has very large
implications for our society. so let's begin. let's talk about who this guy, henry george was. he was born in 1839 to a middle class, lower middle-class family. what lot of people think because he wrote this book on poverty that he must have grown up in poverty. he actually experienced poverty in his middle years, fairly extreme. so henry george was not a very good student, and he left school about the seventh grade. his father steered him into a trade, where he would learn the craft of typesetting, which was a very important trade and a great opportunity. >> so george flourished, but he was very ambitious, he headed out to california. he hopes to make it big, but he
has this idea that he's destined for something great. really experiencing povrt full on, and often. he would succeed at something, and then fail, but the good things is the printing of trade always guaranteed him something, so he went from the typesetting room to doing a bit of spot write and editing, and eventually became a very successful editor. even though he got married, he consequence taply was sort of doing well, riding on top of the world and then crash, his newspaper would fail, and you know, that would fall through.
in age 25 when he's out there on the make. the one way i like to encapsulate or bring across, the rise and fall, emblematic of the boom and bust economy. and he's trying to figure it out. he's a very quinch essentially -- he believes in he works hard enough, trying hard enough, he's guaranty tee to succeed. so he's always -- so here he is, almost a new year's eve revolution. and must use my utmost effort to keep afloat and go ahead. he's just saying i need to work harder.
the gilded age is a great me afor, a great temperature, and it suggests that on the one hand things look golden. the a golden age, an amazing age, of innovation, booming cities, so far, things look great, but on the other hand think about a gilded bracelet, if you scratch off the gold, what's underneath is a dark piece of, say, iron, not particularly exciting or enamoring. that's the image, that the gilded age has this pizzazz, glory, golden hue to it, bund beneath the surface are some
dangerous things happening. and george will take that duality and capture it in the famous phrase it's an age of progress and poverty, and he says is the great problem of the age. okay. and so let's begin with looking at this idea of progress, how optimistic and upbeat people were about what was going on. light in so cleveland is essentially say free government, free enterprise, everything is great and we're booming along.
about how great things were in that era. i won't bury you in standards, but look at they numbers from the greatest period. with the last third, the gilded age. steel is essentially like a boutique industry in, but by 1900 it's the great representative industry for that era, and really incredible outfuture. so there's wealth creation here from the status as a developing country, like brazil is today, to the world's most dominant economy.
the tlarchtic cable is going across the atlantic europe and -- that is a big national celebration, really in some ways equivalent, to at least in people's mind on the landing on the moon. it seems to primitive to us, but it was a huge breakthrough at the time. so was the transcontinental railroad. it's way the heck out in the middle of nowhere, utah, but it's essentially broadcast 19th century style by telegraph, and a little wire attached to the rail, so when he drives the golden spine, it sends out a signal. people in public areas in new york and in boston, chicago, everywhere, all erupt in cheers when the continent is spanned.
and of course all the overall -- there's the coreless generation so it was a big kind of muscle flexing, and locally right here, the brooklyn bridge. there's a lot of nostalgia, but that's not true. when it opened in 1883, it was the most advanced piece of technology and arguably in the world. it was a very complex machine, and so millions of people turned out for this unveil. the president came, the congress
came. world dignitaries came, and the speeches, as you can imagine, talking about in glorious event. they used the word progress over and over again. so there's a lot to celebrate in this time period. of course there's also, if you went to the ceremonies, you wouldn't have to walk far to find poverty. so there's no question there's poverty in this period, but people who are of optimistic mind that everything is going great and we don't need to change anything had various responses to positive. one was a fairly traditional one. here you see my people on the right. off fine was a famous anti--poverty reformer, but her attitude was -- she refers to charity is the problem.
it's luring what would be hard-working people away from their hard work, and turning them into, as she says, idle beg garrs essentially. she thinks the problem with poverty is there's too much charity. which in truth is actually the charity restriction shun society, trying to -- she says there's too many soup kitchens. there's way too many free grogries. essentially assigning a divine plan. have great creeden. and just -- notice the point here. what a blessen to let the unreformed drunkard die.
the way of the world is for the poor and the drunkard and glutton and others, and thankfully when they die, they don't babies, and what benevolence to let the lawless perish and the prudent survive. what publication does it come from? "the christian advocate" so this is not fringe talk this is mainstream talk by people who are trying to make sense of things. if you believe this, then you absolutely do not have to worry about poverty. it's going to take care of itself. the poor you will always have with you that kind of thing. on the one hand there's optimism and it's also a period of tremendous anxiety. and you don't have to look for it very far. in fact, some people were both optimistic and anxious at the same time. they weren't sure which direction the country was heading in. what are people worried about? not just henry george but many people are worried about what appears to be a rise in poverty. just take a look at this image here.
when i show this image in public sometimes, i don't put any -- the caption to it. i say, what do you see here? and more importantly, what book would you associate this with? and invariably somebody says dickens, and that's exactly what the artist wanted you to think. and this is a really important thing to think about when you think about the late 19th century, about other periods, but the late 19th century, when you think what is the core of the american identity? there's several aspects to it but one of the cores of the american identity in the 19th century was we're not european. it has nothing to do with ethnicity but politics and social arrangements. throughout american history we're constantly worried and in the 20th century we'll be worried about communism. it takes its place. in the 19th century, are we becoming european, are we sliding towards the european style of society where you have kings and queens and landed aristocracy and fixed classes and state-supported churches and
endless war and social turmoil, so this is an image that is really expressing that kind of anxiety. and notice it's not in the socialist "advocate," right? it's in the "harpers weekly" the nation's weekly publication. the best-selling one, so it shows, you know, a wealthy family and a poor family and raises that question about haves and have-nots and what direction are we heading in. in fact, this is in the middle of the previous terrible depression. i already mentioned the depression of the 1890s. and just to give you a sense of what people are saying, this is a quotation from a very well -- probably one of the most important labor leaders in new york city talking to a congressional committee that traveled the country in 1883 trying to figure out what was going on. what is this -- why this incessant clash between labor and capital. why all these strikes and so forth and mcguire sees the moment and said look at this city and its long rows of tenement barracks, it goes on, you can read it yourself. people are living in squalor, he
does it say it here, european squalor. the kind of squalor when we think of dickens and cities like manchester and liverpool, we are heading in that direction and better do something about it or we will no longer have a republic that we would recognize. and walt whitman the great voice of american democracy and certainly a man mostly, completely enthusiastic about america and about the modern world and so forth, in 1879 he gives a speech in which he says, you know, just concentrate on what he says here. if the united states, like the countries of the old world, there he is, right? we don't want to be them, the old world countries. if the united states are also to grow vast crops of poor, desperate, dissatisfied, miserable populations, then our republican experiment notwithstanding all its is your faces successes, and i highlight that because there's that gilded notion, is at heart an unhealthy thing.
whitman gets it in a couple of worlds we seem so be trending european and we seem to be losing our republic. i love that phrase, our republican experiment. that phrase was with us as a country and as a society in a political culture right up to the end of the 19th century, and i don't know at a certain point when we became a global power, experiment succeeded and we don't need to worry about it anymore. it was a phrase that everybody used, that it was fragile and unfolding and we needed to care for the republic and make adjustments like any good experiment. and it was born in the late 18th century and it was good. as soon as the constitution's ink was dry, we were all set, which is not really possible when one looks at the historical record. another source of anxiety. the rise of big business. business bigger than anybody could have conceived of. as henry george says, the founding fathers, they were brilliant people, but they could have never conceived of a large corporation like carnegie steel
or standard oil. there's just no way they could imagine that a single individual could have this much power unelected, undemocratic power in a democracy. and here's one of my favorite, i have many of these great cartoons from puck, but this is called "the bosses of the senate." now, you may be -- let's take a moment to think how fortunate we are to live in a society where big business has not any sway at all in congress. way back in the bad old days the trusts, the big corporations, you can see them depicted as money bags, the steel trust, the copper trust, and they are pretty fierce looking people. notice they're coming in through the entrance for monopolists, right? there's a big doorway to allow them in. but if you look at the far end you can see the people's entrance is nailed shut. the sign across it saying closed, right? who has access? it's the corporations. who has no access? us, the people. and, of course, the size differential is important, too, to show the leaders of the
republic, these senators, are actually little kids who -- many of whom are actually cowering in front of the power and the menace of these great corporations. and this, again, is not in the "nights of labor monthly" this is a mainstream middle-class publication called "puck" magazine, it is, you know, landing on the doorsteps of middle-class and upper class americans, so this is a kind of wide-ranging anxiety about the nature of the problem in the gilded age. here's another one. it's showing the sort of unfair duel that's taking place. and, again, it's another "puck" magazine one. notice all the symbolism, too, big business is depicted as a medieval knight, again, royalty, europe, aristocracy and so forth and it's a gold knight. gilded age, golden era. it's also a locomotive, too, so it's a combination of the new technology. if you look really closely, the
"subsidized press" meaning they own the newspapers. they own the media. the shield he hass "corruption of the legislature." and the little scrawny working man, he's got a little hammer in his hand saying "strike" the only weapon he has. that's why we have so many strikes. but the only way labor can gets attention or relief is to call a strike. most of them end up failing and notice the horse he's riding on is labeled poverty. and notice also the divide. on the left-hand side you've got big business tycoons and if you were alive at the time you would recognize the faces it's vanderbilt and jay gould and the titans of wall street and on the right-hand side are skinny, emaciated peasants. looking like the figures out of a dicken novel. there's a lot of anxiety here and it's not just poor working people making a dollar a day, it's a widespread anxiety about the direction in which the republic is heading. rising increased inequality. that also becomes an important
theme here. and not just that there's a rise in poverty but there's a -- a huge gap between rich and poor. and it seems to be getting worse. and, again, no one's making this up. the data shows that this is absolutely true. the 1% to use a phrase from today own 51% of all wealth. and the lower 44%, so less than half the country, owned only 1.2%, so tremendous skewing of wealth in the united states. and it raised this kind of question about this, you know, sure, it's a free market and such, but does this -- can this -- is this a sustainable trend? and if you look at where we are today, people always ask, how does this compare to today? in 2010 which is the latest data that i have, the 1% owns about 35% of all wealth and that is rising rapidly and it's up from 20% in 1979, so to put it another way, in the century from the late 19th century to the late 20th century wealth disparity actually decreased. think about after world war ii
especially, the new deal, the postwar period, we were never more equal and we were never more wealthy, it's a very important thing to kind of think about in that 30-year period. another aspect, again, on this european theme, sure, we have superrich people and a growing mass of poor people. what are the rich doing? people are not imagining the europeanization of america and the emergence of an american aristocracy, they are actually putting on the airs of european aristocrats. the woman on the right -- on the left is a wife of a very powerful businessman. she's dressed up for a costume ball asthma rhee antoinette, and there are are people that are going to dress up like louie xiv it's unacceptable to mimic european royalty in a kind of admiring way tells you that something has shifted in the gilded age, that the nouveau riche are acting
differently. there's this ideal of republican simplicity. which by the way if you want to see it in new york, you can see the mansion, the one on the right is mrs. vanderbilt and her husband has built her a stupendous, not a mansion really, a palace, on fifth avenue and there are a whole bunch of palaces like it on fifth avenue, so that's how the rich express their wealth, you know, what eventually in this period called conspicuous consumption, but if you go down to gramercy park, that's where the rich lived in the 1830s and '40s. the houses are nice but they are very plain. most unadorned brownstone. republican simplicity. you don't flaunt it. but 50 years later you flaunt it as much as possible and mrs. vanderbilt's ball will cost millions of dollars in our today's money it will be covered by the press and it will touch off a whole competition about who could throw the biggest and
most expensive and most outrageous display of conspicuous consumption. and here's just to let you know, again, if i'd shown you the image on the right, just that interior image, many of you would not have thought of america, you would have thought of versailles, of an opulent room furnished with all the finest things and gold leaf but that's fifth avenue in new york and that's the housewarming party that she threw in march of 1883. another source of anxiety, rising labor capital conflict. it's not imagination. it's actually happening on a scale never seen before in american history. here's the famous hay market incident from may 4th, 1886. it's one of the most famous incidents. there's a lot of others. between 1881 and 1900 there were 3700 strikes. in the years -- in all of american history, up to 1881, i'll bet you there was no more than 3,000 strikes, i mean, so this is just a monumental growth in strikes and some of these are
the biggest strikes in american history. strikes in which 100 people are killed in clashes with police and militia and so forth. strikes in which the entire national railroad system is shut down, so these are big, big strikes and there are also small strikes neighborhood strikes as well and it's got people saying, you know, what society do we associate with this kind of class clashing violence? it's europe. and so it seemed to be another source of evidence that we are losing our republican soul. why is labor day founded here in new york city in 1882? it's founded by workers, p.g. mcgwire, the man i quoted earlier, in 1882, why do they do it? because they feel are slipping, their wages are declining. their power in the workplace is declining. the way their position in society seems to be slipping and
so they call -- they say let's have a day and they pick may 5th -- september 5th, 1882, and they stage a parade and a big picnic, about 5,000 people show up. within five years it's happening all across the country. within ten years it's a national holiday. that tells you a lot, this invention of a holiday that there's something happening in this time period that people are calling attention to a social -- a social problem that needs addressing. all right. so, henry george, how does he figure into all this? well, in the 1870s he's a newspaper editor. and he increasingly is identified as a reformist editor. he's taking on questions of land reform. regulating the railroads, big questions out there in california. the rights of workers and so forth. and he is, like a lot of people, really troubled by this dual quality that so much great stuff is happening with industrial capitalism but also so many problems seem to be associated with it. is there a way we can keep the good stuff and get rid of the other stuff what he terms progress and poverty. can we keep the progress and not have so much poverty and so much
turmoil. and, of course, other people were proposing solutions, right? there were socialists, the big birth of the socialist movement during this time period, and george will make a very conscious decision to position himself as not a socialist. he will say there are capitalists that say let us run our businesses the way we want to and that's an extreme to avoid and he said socialism is an extreme we need to avoid. it's a little more complicated. he defines it in a couple different ways, he talks about revolutionary socialism as opposed to gradual socialism. he likes gradual socialism sort of phased in over 100 years. henry george in his spare time, he only has a seventh grade education but he reads like mad, he reads economics and he reads adam smith and all the important political economists and determines they all got it wrong and he is going to sort this thing out and come up with a diagnosis and a prescription.
and there are a couple -- he's a wonderful writer for a guy with a marginal education and this in some way indicates why he becomes so popular. he has complicated economic sections but a lot is beautifully written and poetic and it's biblical and he cites the bible and other figures. and here's essentially the crux of the problem. it is as though an immense wedge were being forced not underneath society which, of course, would lift everybody but through society. those who are above the point of separation are elevated. the few. but those who are below are crushed down. and he says that's the problem. we have to figure out where this wedge is coming from and how we can redirect it. all right. a couple -- i won't bury you. the book is 535 pages, so it would take us a couple of days to read through it. but i'll give you a couple of other nuggets from it. everywhere it is evident that this tendency to inequality cannot go much further without carrying our civilization into
the downward path which so easy to enter and so hard to abandon. george cites history. he said what happened to rome? rome was prosperous and mighty and full of science and learning and incredible progress. and then rome just slid off the -- you know, off the cliff. what happened? and he says, you know, what happened was people began to monopolize land and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and they hit a certain we would call today a tipping point where there's no going back. the society starts to slide and slides inevitably into the dustbin of history. he said we're on that path. it's not too late yet but we have to be very, very careful. we can't wait. we have to act immediately. just think about the relevance of this quotation to our times in some ways. though knowledge increases and inventions marches on civilization has begun to wane when in proportion to population we must build more and more prisons, more and more insane asylums.
we've got all this good stuff happening, but yet we're building more jails and poorhouses. this is -- something is clearly not right. all right. so, he diagnoses the problem in 535 pages. as saying that what happens is that the wealthy -- people in fortunate positions, lucky people, crafty people, are gaining monopolizing things and creating destructive inequality. the rich will get richer and the poor will become poorer and we'll lose our republican soul. the solution she comes up with which is not as important as his diagnosis. people loved his diagnosis. very vivid. very powerful. very alarming to hear what he had to say about where we were going. they're not so necessarily so enamored, although there are people enamored with it, with his single tax, his notion that we need to establish a single
tax on land and that will solve everything. but the point i make before that is that we have to -- less say fair and small government has been great up to this point, but the founding fathers could never have imagined this. could never have imagined a national railroad system, a steel company the size of carnegie steel or petroleum company the size of standard oil and we need to make some small steps towards curbing certain aspects of the economy. and his idea is the single tax. some people, again, as i say try -- they like what henry george has to say in kind of a general way. they're not necessarily signing on to the single tax but there's a lot of people who like the idea of a single tax and one of the groups we'll talk about in just a moment who liked what he had to say were urban workers. most are landless people and they pay huge amounts of money in rent for the tenements that they live in. the message has resonance on different levels for different people. all right. so, progress and poverty. written by a guy with a seventh grade education who
self-publishes it to start, right? he can't get anybody to buy it. harpers, none of the big publishers will buy it. but he's a printer. so, he says, okay, i'll borrow money from friends and self-publish it and send it back to the publishers and it works. he sends one to appletons which was a huge publisher, now that you set the plates and make it inexpensive, they say let's do it. it will cause a stir. and he moves to new york city, because he knows if you are a san francisco editor the chances of having an impact are much, much smaller. come to new york where things are happening. also new york is sort of the gateway where american ideas go to europe and european ideas come to america so there's this kind of a chance that this will be a global phenomenon and it works out perfectly. he gets to new york city at just the right moment when things are beginning to happen. one of those things is the irish nationalist movement is exploding and he's not irish but
his message has great resonance with irish catholics who are -- one of the largest ethnic groups in america and he finds this is a great way to kind of get noticed and to get speaking gigs and to find his first real audience and also to get -- he becomes well known in great britain as a result of that. all right. so, why does he appeal to workers? let's look at this as one of the many questions. when he writes his book he's thinking i'll just wow everybody. and it turns out his first real core group are american workers and one of the main reasons is that he challenges that fundamental or that traditional understanding of poverty the one we saw josephine shaw lowell kind of touching on. poverty the traditional interpretation was it's inevitable, you really can't do anything about it, and those who are poor just need to endure it, right? just need to grin and bear it and their reward in heaven will be great. that's sort of the old fashioned way of dealing with it. it's easy to say that, it's not easy to hear that when you're the poor person.
and here's what one of the workers who became a big henry george follower and a key figure in his rise to influence and also his eventual run for mayor of new york city. he describes it succinctly, "progress and poverty" reversed all this, teaching that poverty is an artificial condition of man's invention. and i love this last part. working men and women learning all this commenced to wrestle with their chains. that's why there is so much tumult in the 1880s especially here in new york city. now, the period 1885, 1886, 1887 is often called by historians the great upheaval because there's a huge spike in strikes. a lot of labor mobilization and in '86 and '87 a huge campaign of labor parties that form all across the country in protest to big crackdown on labor and labor activism. in new york city in 1886, over the summer of '86 in the wake of strikes and boycotts and sort of
in the national atmosphere after the haymarket bombing in chicago in may of '86, 100 labor activists are arrested, many of them given actually very long prison terms for -- there was -- it was pretty easy to do that actually because they were accused of and tried and convicted of conspiracy. so, if you called a strike or called a boycott against an employer, in the eyes of the law you were guilty of conspiring with your fellow workers to destroy the business of another person, so you could be put away. this is a -- one of the big strikes that takes place, the streetcars in new york city. the streetcars which precede the subway system are privately owned and they're given franchises. they make millions of dollars a year. they bribe the -- i have a great graphic that shows the new york city council had 24 members in 1884 and there's a front page article in "the new york times" to show one of the largest streetcar owners bribed nearly every one of them, 22 of the 24
city councillors took a huge bribe, $25,000 which in 1884 was a lot of money, and their status, thomas clancy, third district, fled the country, you know, and in jail, in jail, out on bail. this incredible list of people. and so the anger at the streetcar companies, they were terrible employer, and there were three big streetcar strikes in the spring of 1886 that played -- a lot of boycotts and a lot of other labor action that result in this big crackdown on labor. a lot of workers arrested. a lot of unions prosecuted and so forth and that sort of sets the stage for the labor response. labor's divided in the gilded age. should we form a labor party like they're doing in europe? or should we try to influence the democratic party? you know, kind of withhold our support for one candidate or another? called the balance of power strategy. and one of the reasons why they resisted labor parties is they always failed miserably.
you know, there were labor parties before this and a labor party candidate for mayor would get, like, 329 votes that's it. 500 votes, a symbolic. it was a waste of time. a waste of money. deeply embarrassing and it also divided the labor movement, people said this is why we shouldn't do this. let's stop trying to form a labor party. all the crackdown and all the turmoil in the summer of '86 leads even the most jaded person to say, let's do it. the united labor party is formed and they, you know, don't just grab any old carpenter or bricklayer to run for mayor. they say we've got to get somebody who has some credibility and henry george is perfect. he has this long record of being an advocate of workers' rights and reform and he's also a card-holding member of the knights of labor and he's a member of the typographer's union and he's got this credibility that goes a long way to get people to nominate him. he's nominated in august of 1886 to run for mayor. the odds are to say the least
are stacked against him. tammany hall is a huge machine. and the republican party is equally formidable, they have money and experience and the workers have none of those things. here's an optimistic view of things, henry george shown as hercules grabbing one of the more common symbols of monopoly along with an octopus showing george grabbing the serpent and the serpent is labeled monopoly and trust and graft and so forth and he's going to do in the serpent and that's new york city hall in the background. to do that he has to defeat two people, abram hewitt who is a congressman with a great deal of credibility and relatively actually relatively speaking he can actually claim to be a friend of the working man. he authored some minor pro-labor legislation. he was at least considered a pretty good employer in his iron works, so he had an ability at
least to claim that he was a pro-labor candidate. learn about, a man named theodore roosevelt, who left new york when his wife and mother died tragically, went out and did his ranching thing and he'd just come back to the city and was looking to get back into politics, and the republican party grabbed him and made him their candidate. now, you remember that image of the knight on the horse with the lance pointed at the working man and it said "subsidized press." the press is 100% on the side as you can imagine -- or at least 100% against henry george. here you see a vivid image from "puck." they are capable of publishing pro-labor cartoons and anti-labor cartoons week after week. it's a very interesting thing. this is not necessarily anti-labor. here you have the devil standing behind a worker and saying don't be fooled. george has got snake oil. he's got these great ideas about -- and his corn cornucopia in the background, money he's
going to give it away. the way the powers that be in the late 19th century is tried to derail george, they couldn't say workers are stupid, right? because they need the workers' vote. they say workers, you're being deluded, don't be fooled by the wolf in sheep's clothing. there's a lot of this kind of imagery. here's an image of the statue of liberty which was unveiled that fall. it's unveiled in late october of '86 and the election of '86 takes place a couple days later so it's a very new symbol. she can stand it and around the statue of liberty are forces of communism, forces of socialism, forces of anarchism and forces of, as you can see in the blowup, there forces of georgism, right? lumping him in there with all this -- what they say -- kind of tarring him with that idea that he's right up there with the anarchists and the violent insurrectionists.
here is another stack tick they used, that george is going to mobilize the tramp vote, the poor, and we'll have social chaos. a tramp is barging into a middle class family's house and taking food. they are going to barge in on you and we'll have anarchy in our society if guys like george are put in power. and here's another cartoon sowing abram hewitt, he's the locomotive and teddy roosevelt sort of hanging on there with his lasso, and they're about to run over henry george. it's not "progress and poverty" it's "how to prevent progress" by henry george. so there's a big media mobilization against him consistently characterizing george as either, you know, an air-headed dreamer or, and more and more, as the election approached, an agent who -- of insurrection, of anarchy and if
he's elected blood will flow in the streets of new york and all across the country. it sounds wild, but this was what mainline candidates like abram hewitt were saying. george has a lot to contend with as do his supporters and they do what has never been done before, they stage an incredible grassroots campaign. hewitt doesn't even campaign. he goes to five dinners of friends, chamber of commerce types and give five little speeches, most of which denounce george as a red-handed communist. george is out every night giving five, seven, eight speeches in front of factories and streetcar stops and so forth, and it's called the tailboard campaign and it's never been done before and it's a grassroots mobilization and they have nothing to lose, because they realize if they get people to vote, they might actually, if not win the election, make a difference and lo and behold
instead of 329 votes or 400 votes, he gets 68,000 votes. we'll never know if george had run straight up against hewitt how it might have turned out but he out-polled the republican theodore roosevelt and there was a big question about whether he lost the election because of tammany hall's ballot box shenanigans. there's a lot of allegations that tammany stole ballots, that they stuffed ballot boxes. the fact is we'll never know. we know that tammany absolutely positively could have done it, that they had done it in the past so they were really good at it, but we just don't know if that, in fact, happened. but it certainly makes a big impression. of all the labor party candidates across the country, george is the one that people are watching. it's the one that, you know, frederick engles and karl marx are watching it and writing letters back and forth, saying
who is henry george, they don't agree with him but he certainly seems to be pushing our agenda in the overthrow of capitalism. here's a cartoon in the wake of george's defeat, but a pretty impressive defeat and he's looking mighty and the quotation is basically saying we nearly won against a splintered opposition, they are going to be united against us and we better have a bigger hammer. there's a real optimism coming out of this election among the george supporters and the labor movement and not only locally but nationally. something is happening here. we could easily see a third party go national in a couple years and run, you know, like in europe a true third party that would be an alternative to the mainstream parties that are in the hands of big business. and here's george on the eve of his -- this is his concession speech. and he basically says the future is ours. this was bunker hill, right? bunker hill, the continentals were driven back but they symbolically won a victory that resounded around the world. they made a -- they won a
victory that made this republic a reality and thank god men of new york, we in this fight have won a victory that makes the true republic of the future certain, certain in our time. it was a time i wanted to name the book, you know, "the true republic of the future" because i think it's a recognition that george is saying, you know, you have to adjust things, right? republics aren't just born in the 1780s and they're done, right? it's an evolution and we need to get back on track to adjust to this modern world of industry and so forth and technology and if we do it, we can have a republic that will endure into the future. you can see that the attitude of the powers that be, the republican and democratic parties, were very, very terrified by this result. and, again, couldn't denounce workers for voting for george in such huge numbers so you see the same kind of patronizing tone here. nice job, very impressive. but you've got to get rid of that friend of yours and, of course, the friend is that classic symbol of anarchy in the
background meaning that henry george, socialism, anarchism and you need to come back to the mainstream. and they make big adjustments in the wake of the george election, they author pro-labor legislation aimed at bringing the working class into the democratic party, a little bit into the republican party but mostly into the democratic party. so, what's the legacy of henry george? at the moment of the election everybody is thinking this is just the first step. this will be a big thing not only for us but also for george. there are many people saying george is going to be president of the united states in a couple years. it just seems that that's the way in which the world is moving. the next year in 1887 the united labor party decides to contest elections and it just falls apart. and george breaks with them. there's a tremendous internal schism. fights with socialists. fights with the workers and so forth. and it's something i detail in one of the latter chapters of the work and try to explain why george seems to have changed his mind about being allied with the
labor movement so closely as he was in 1886 and in the years before that. and a lot of it i think has to do with the red scare tactics. he read -- the writing on the wall was clear that if you want to have any influence in this country after hay market, after the great upheaval, you cannot be associated with socialism, communism and anarchism, and i think he basically gives the labor movement the heisman and says, sorry, but i can't be associated with this anymore and it's tragic because it ends his ascent essentially on that track. certainly is over. he continues to be influential. he continues to write books and, of course, his books are still in print to this day. but that aspect of george leading an insurgent social movement, that is over. but george's influence is remarkable. he sort of fades from the scene, but the number of people, i list this all on the back of the book, literally dozens of people who you know very well, lincoln
stephens and jacob reese and jane adams and just a who's who list of progressive era reformers say in their memoirs in letters to their friends, do you know what really turned my -- what opened my eyes? somebody gave me a copy of "progress and poverty." and it's an incredible number of people who found this book to be a great eye opener and it really set them on their path in the next generation, the generation we call the progressive era. so, that's in some ways some of the biggest aspects of george's legacy and why he's worth knowing. i should also point out that most people don't know this but the game monopoly comes from henry george, not him directly, but one of his followers worked up a game which she called the landlords game to demonstrate how easy it is and how pernicious it is for people to monopolize resources and to squeeze everybody out and put everybody out of business. and to make a long story short, the game kicked around for a while and a guy took the game
and changed the name and the words and he sells it to parker brothers and they make monopoly the most famous board game in the world. and there's a great book that came out that details that story. but very few people know that it actually -- remember in the '70s remember in the '70s there was an anti monopoly game that came out? which is funny because the original game was anti monopoly. what else about henry george? why is he important then? why is he important now? for one henry george explains in vivid, clear, understandable, in many ways to his supporters irrefutable evidence that extreme inequality threatens democracy. we're always -- as americans, there's certain things, terms and ideas we love. what are our great republican ideals, freedom, individualism, justice. equality is the one that makes us the most nervous. we like the idea but don't
necessarily like some of the things that it tends to suggest. he said, look, we need to limit extreme inequality to preserve our democracy. it's an irreversible loss. if we lose our democracy, it's not going to come back. a second key point -- that has tremendous relevance today, in the wake of citizens united and the fact that you need to be a multimillionaire, if not a billionaire to run for president now, or for congress for that matter, is a real significant problem. the second point about the common good. george essentially reminds us and we live in an age of suddenly iend rand is on the bestseller list again and more and more americans are calling themselves libertarians than certainly i can remember as though libertarianism, individualism is the american way. the fact is, it is part of the american way, going way, way back. there's no question that
individualism is central to our political culture and identity, but so, too, is the common good. the idea that we're all in this together, and that we need to adopt laws, enact policies and do things that attend to the common good. you can be selfish about it, right? you can say, as people did in the 1830s, there's nothing in the constitution about education. in the 1830s we began as a country to say, public education is a good thing to do, to provide people with rudimentary education and all. it's also a really smart thing to do because less murderers and social turmoil and so forth. george is reminding people in the gilded age that individualism is not the only ideal, it's always existed in conflict, but always there with individualism is the common good, and we need to remember that. i think that's a really powerful idea that needs to come back into our national conversations
about everything, about health care, about education, about the environment because we get caught up in these other ideas of ideological extremes and forget some of these core principles are right in front of us, and one of them being the common good. thirdly, the idea that the government, dairy say, the government that everybody seems to despise. as soon as you try to take away the government from people, people get really upset. they like driving on roads. they like having stop lights to control traffic. they like having public schools, they like having police officers and so forth keeping public order henry george play ascii role in convincing a large number of americans is the case. that less say fair made total sense. the land of farmers and small shops, it made sense.
it no longer makes sense. p the founding fathers were alive, they'd agree. in fact, he says imagine if we could bring benjamin franklin into the late 1870s? he would be amazed at the technology but aghast at the kind of poverty that was there and he would be in favor of some kind of radical solution. he says strong societies make adjustments. they need to make adjustments. one of them is to, as the people, to empower the government to do certain things, to enact certain policies in the name of the common good, in the name of democracy. in some ways, i think those three things are why george mattered at a fragile moment in the nation's history and why george matters now. so thank you very much.
>> we do have time for questions. this evening is being filmed by c-span. they ask anybody asking questions so this could be part of the program would come down to the microphones at the end of the walkway. anybody that has any questions, please jump right up. i'd love to hear them. >> thank you, that was a really good talk. >> thanks. >> what did henry george have to say, if anything, about immigration? immigration was a big issue. >> the parallels with gilded age are not just about the economy and poverty and corporations. it's an era of tremendous wrangling about immigration. also depriving people of a vote. george is a little complicated when it comes to immigration. his early days as a reformer and a writer in california, he wrote pretty blistering racist things about chinese immigration. that, as anybody would tell you, that was mainstream thinking at
the time, not to let him off the hook, but to say progressive -- michael case en wrote that progressivism stopped with the chinese. you can be progressive and open minded but then draw the line. early on he was harsh about chinese immigration, not immigration in general. he gradually moved away from that, quite explicitly by the time he wrote progress and pover poverty. immigration is a good thing but is a reflection of the problem of monopoly and the problem of inequality. in some ways we need to address that both here and abroad. he was a very toll lent person as far as immigration goes. if he wrote anything critical about immigration, it was that people were being forced to my great as opposed to it being a social problem for the united states.
>> a two-part question. the first is could you explain george's point about taxing land and that essential economic principle. second, francis suk am many ma's book, political order and political decay, he argues the american government is so decentralized, it works against progress of any kind. henry george seemed to think there was a moral principle. the wealthy having a significant edge in the way the constitution was designed. it makes longstanding reform almost impossible. so let's take the first question. i usually preface my conversations with people by saying, and by the way, i'm a historian, not an economist, so i have a little trouble trying to explain george's economic theory, and george himself never really got too much into the
details. he sort of said, look, to him it made perfect sense, didn't need a great explanation, but basically he said, you know, land, especially land, derives its value not because it is valuable because of socially created wealth. if you own a piece of land, we see this around us in new york city, why is one -- i was down at wall street this morning, you know, 45, 55 broad street, empty hole in the ground, i said to a person i was walking with, i wonder how -- i wonder how much that piece of land is worth. dirtwise, it is just as valuable as, you know, some place in the middle of north dakota. but it is socially created wealth. it is probably worth a billion dollars. so george says that wealth is generated by us, not by the person who owns the land who is lucky enough to have acquired it or schemed to get it. it is us, it is our energy, our creativity what we put into the market, what we take out of the market and therefore that value needs to be taxed for the common good. and that was his essential principle.
he said, look, if it is -- if a piece of property is worth $500, you can use it as though it is private property. you owe at the end of the year $500. and if you don't want to pay it, fine, walk away, that farm, that workshop will be sold or doesn't say sell, sort of handed over to another person who is willing to work it and pay that fee. so, again, more -- it is more the broad ideas that he's talking about here than the specifics of that reform that really matter to most people. and then the -- that's the question one. number two, the -- our political system, we have a wonderful political system. but the question got to a really important point, which is we do have a system very different from much of western europe, and so one of the great eternal questions in american history is why don't we, unlike -- why are we so different from other industrialized societies, there is a socialist party, labor party, and they're powerful and they win elections. why not in america?
there is all kinds of examples, explanations given about the political culture and history and so forth, but one of them is it is just impossible to form a third party. and to do these things. because we have this federal system and it is winner-take-all, unlike a parliamentary system, so, you know if you look at history of europe and other countries where a labor party gets going, you know, they usually win three seats in parliament, almost no power but they get that toehold and then seven seats and then nine seats and then suddenly they're a coalition -- part of a coalition. and that just simply doesn't happen in the united states. so our -- as -- and there are virtues to our systems too. states can work as laboratories of experiment, used to say that about wisconsin and the progressive era where new ideas can be tried and then go national. but i think in terms of a real long-standing structural change, it does make it very, very difficult. >> oh, for christ's sake. >> i should be alternating.
>> i'm addressing some of your discussion with some kind of long-term study of henry george, which i do not think you addressed adequately. i think your pictures and your history were lovely, but in fact you did not address the science of political economy, which is probably the best book on political economy anybody has ever written. and its analysis of land, labor and capital and the returns to them of rent, wage, economic rent, wages and interest are really groundbreaking and have not been duplicated. and it is that, i think, that -- because it requires some study that is always elighted and
everybody jumps on single tax and populism and not the basic material that makes henry george important. and i think maybe a reemphasis on that would be desirable. >> all right, well, i think i'll take your point that i didn't talk much about his second book, "the science of political economy" -- actually, the third book, i did talk about it in my book, for a couple of reasons. one is that he has the nightmare that all writers fear, he writes the book, of course long hand, moves to brooklyn and can't find it when he gets there. loses the whole manuscript. so he has to literally take his pen out and rewrite from notes and memory the entire book. so it is one of those things that, like i said, in our day, we would be worried about a file disappearing from our hard drive or something. but the reason i don't talk too much about that particular book is that the focus of my work on henry george is that period where he's up to about 1887, where he's a key figure, the science political economy comes
out in 1886, and begins to make a -- be part of the important george canon. but not the one that creates his momentum, creates his national and international profile. and one thing we see with george is he's -- has a lot to say about a lot of different things. one is he says political economy, what we call economics today, political economy has lost its way, right. it is in the service of power. and it should be in the service of humanity, he has a lot to say in that book and in the writings. which accounts for the fact that he criticized the academy, he secretly hoped to become a professor or have that kind of credibility on some level, and he was never going to get it because he was so critical of them. >> yeah. a lot of the people who henry george influenced seemed to have ultimately very different critiques of capitalism and understandings of inequality. and when you look at the
welfare state in the 20th century, social citizenship for the masses, positive liberty for individuals, but the actual understanding of inequality and the source of it that henry george develops, i'm not sure how much that survived. or at least from what i understand, so i'm curious about whether you -- how his ideas about inequality and its sources maybe influenced reformers in terms of trying to set up specific policies and what maybe his attitudes towards welfare -- the welfare state more generally -- >> he always said he was in favor of a small state, even though he spoke both ways. but i would say a couple of things that george did in not specifically, but that broad ideas that one, we talked about, the state needs to be an instrument of reform. just have to do that. and the other one is emphasizing he's not -- he's the first one and he's the first one to do it on a big stage, is to say, citizenship in a republic is not confined to election day. that's -- we always thought --
we're all equal, right? we're equal because we have each of us has one vote. and george says, that's great. that's an important thing, but the longer we develop as a society, we are coming to realize there is an economic dimension, a material dimension to citizenship. and that without it, your vote is useless. it is worthless. if if you're starving, living in a hand-to-mouth and unable to feed your family, your vote is worthless. so that's a concept that i think influences broadly not specifically but broadly a lot specifically but broadly a lot of reformers in the progressive era and afterward and just think about it, in fact, i have a whole election of fdr quotes that sound like he's quoting progress and poverty. and when fdr comes out in 1941 with the four freedoms, articulating, specifying what our core freedoms in that tumultuous period, one is freedom from want. and that was controversial, people said how socialist can you get.
his point was, he says the same thing. if you do not -- people that don't have basic material needs met are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. he's saying that in the 30s and 40s when we know what dictatorships are all about. it is an instrument of reform and citizenship in a modern republic has a material and economic dimension you can't ignore. >> regarding george's contemporary relevance, there is an argument out there that, in fact, there isn't much we can do in the current year about economic inequality due to globalization of trade, that therefore -- in fact neither party has a practical program that would reduce economic inequality, therefore, we should give up on reducing economic inequality and focus on social inequality and try to build strong public institutions, schools, parks, health care institutions and can share, but not focus so much on economic
inequality because we can't really do anything about it. what do you think george would say about that, and what do you think about that? >> i think that's a really good point. i think that -- i know what george would say, which is that my reform scheme, the single tax, will bring the two things -- you'll get both. and this was -- with george, the last part of his book, he's very utopian. he's saying, the true republic of the future, he's essentially saying -- he says, explicitly, in his writings, we're basically going to have a socialist society, not a revolutionary socialist society where the masses rise up and slit the throats of the landowners and seize everything in the name of the people, but -- he sketches this out. he says in the near future, we will have a society where everybody has full employment, and they won't have to work that hard. there will be beautiful parks, fabulous libraries, forms for learning and it will just be this ideal society. so he thought he could have both. a reduced, not eliminated, but
reduced economic inequality and the kind of social institutions that would benefit everybody. so he was a dreamer in that regard. >> what do you think about that? >> i don't know. i have to say, i think in some ways that's a utopian vision, but i do believe, getting back to the points that i put up there at the end, which is that we do need to keep as a society, as we have many times in the past, as the founding fathers did many times in the past, have to think about the common good and think about what it is that we -- what do we really care about. and do we -- what are the really fundamental problems here and who is really to blame. we're in a demagogic moment where all kinds of people, immigrants and people on welfare and such are being blamed when there are other people that could be pointed to. and it is social policy. we are -- we have -- where do these inequality statistics come
from? where does this problem come from? it is traceable to various moments in our political history starting in the late 1970s. you can see what the tax rate was in 1955 when we enjoyed incredible prosperity and very reduced level of inequality, and you can see what it is in 1980, 1990, and 2000, a direct bearing on where we are. and then also this political culture of demonizing the government, as though it is this horrible institution. i don't like -- paying taxes is painful. but it is the stuff, the price we pay for life on this earth. and in this society. and so i don't know how we change that conversation, seems almost impossible, but i think that kind of conversation is -- i wouldn't want to be too dramatic and say it is the difference between success and failure, but i think it is -- if we're going to pull ourselves, put ourselves back in a more prosperous and generous and
successful track as a republic, then that's really what has to take place. it is not going to happen if we just continue to argue about who is to blame and do nothing essentially or do only the wrong things. >> my question is regards to what was henry george's view of imperialism and empire building? >> good question. let me think on that one for a second. one of the places he started to get attention is when he joined the irish national movement. they're trying to gain their independence but they're a colonized society. so he has harsh things to say about colonialism, imperialism, because he seed it as this naked illegitimate land grab, resource grab by the powerful. sort of the haves and have-nots on a global scale.
but he, you know, historically he talks rather glowingly about the heyday of the roman republic and of imperialism of that order. so i don't know -- there probably is -- there probably are passages in his writings but social problems which is his collection of essays but i don't know. i think he saw a host of other problems, like inequality, like social turmoil and strikes as far more dangerous and immoral than imperialism and again i'm thinking my way through this answer right in front of you. part of it is the time period of the 1870s, 1880s, the united states is acquiring alaska and getting into an imperialist game and not until the spanish american war that we go all in
in that regard, so maybe that accounts for some of the reasons why he may have talked about it in more abstract terms, but not certainly didn't talk about it in u.s. terms. yeah. i'm going to alternate. >> thank you so much. i see parallels between what you have spoken about and our current time and i happen to be wearing a bernie sanders t-shirt. so my question is. >> bernie sanders is certainly in the news. >> what do you think about -- not the media, but the computer, the conversation that we're having and his progress through to the common people? >> you mean in terms of bernie sanders moment that is happening now? >> as a democratic candidate and as the future president of the united states? >> well, you know, it's an
interesting question and i don't know how to answer it. his position is very healthy for -- because he's bringing up and forcing conversations like inequality and people would much rather like to talk about undocumented immigrants and in crazy terms than talking about inequality. i don't know if bernie sanders fits into a long tradition of this populist tradition that does help move the conversation, in particular directions. i don't know if bernie sanders will ever get nominated or elected, but another interesting thing about him is he has the -- he's brave enough to call himself openly a democratic socialist, and it does show, in some ways, the poverty of political imagination, that that's a deal breaker for people, without even understanding what that actually means. americans have long, way before henry george, decided socialism is an unadulterated evil and it's un-american and throughout our history we have embraced many aspects of socialism that we would not want to live
without. so i don't know. following bernie sanders with great interest, let's put it that way. >> near the beginning you made the comme about history not repeating, but perhaps rhyming. i was curious, most of your conclusions were about similarities between this period and the gilded age. could you talk a little bit about perhaps what you see as differences between the gilded age and this period? >> well, let's see. horses. lots of things. i'm just thinking of, you know, what it was like to live in new york in the 1870s and 1880s. they are very different eras. there are some things that are utterly and completely different. technology. the way we communicate. our recreation, our politics and everything is so fundamentally different from what was taking place in the 19th century. in the late 19th century, if you
wanted to communicate, you published something in a newspaper or a magazine. or you gave a public lecture. and that was really it. whereas now, it's so fragmented. i don't even know how to -- to me, i would say born in 1963, so i remember typewriters and rotary phones. i've got one foot firmly planted in that world. yet i have an iphone and i use social media and i use computer technology all the time. so i would say that that is one of the great differences. and what it means, i don't know. but it is one of the great differences. some people look at that and say that's where the great reform is going to take place. this kind of grass roots reform movement that can be done through people's iphones and social media. it's how we're going to get people to the polls. that's how we're going to shake things up to get politics out of the clutches of the hands out big business. i don't know. on the other hand, people say the other way of looking at it is people are just too busy looking at their screens, playing games and cat videos that they're not paying
attention. they're upset, they're angry, but they're not paying attention. so i would say that that's probably the biggest difference. our economy is quite different and our position in the world is quite different. our military is, you know, up until -- students are always fascinated to learn this. i say one of the things in the constitution and the founders were in absolute agreement on, no military, bare bones military. couple thousand people. that's it. because if you had a standing army, a military, that's how tyranny occurs and that's how democracies are done in. that's what history tells us. five ways to go to war as a society in the united states. five steps. first, declare war. second step is say oh, my gosh, we don't have a military. third step, build a military. fourth step, win the war. fifth step, dismantle the military, until the next war comes along. it's only after world war ii, which we dismantled our military and immediately built it back upstarting in 1950 starting with
the cold war. that's another thing, when you look at where our resources go, and how we talk about that. that's another massive difference between then and now. >> in his writings on inequality during the gilded age, did george discuss the end of reconstruction and the disenfranchisement of african-americans. >> yes, he did. george didn't have a lot to say about racial equality, although he spoke in racial equality terms. when he talked about reconstruction, he basically talked about it in only one way. which is you want to see the evidence and why land is so important. giving people freedom, back to this point earlier, citizenship requires material well-being. there's an economic dimension to it. so when enslaved people are granted their freedom and no land, guess what happens. they're going to be put into
complete subordination, complete powerlessness for a long, long time. he spoke of these, a textbook example right under our nose about this very thing. that was the primary thing that he spoke about. >> did henry george in any of his books address the role of warfare or war in the political economy of the united states? >> well, i think -- that's a good question. i need to think on that a little bit. i mean, i think george -- if i recall, he talks about warfare as being, you know, one of the options of an undemocratic government. what do governments do to avoid dealing with social problems? they declare war. and there are probably few other places where he talks about warfare. but i think i just in some ways anticipated that, because in
1879 when he writes his book, progress and poverty, the american military is tiny. and the only place that it's big is out in the west completing the suppression of native americans. and even then it's not very many people relatively speaking. so i think the military did not loom very large in people's minds. in the late 19th century. it will start to. right around 1880 is when we start to expand our navy. and we start getting certainly navy-wise, building it up in that regard was part of the notion of ourselves emerging as a global power. but i think the military -- i would say george would argue, as did most people in that time period, that the resources of power that we have to be worried about are these large business tycoons, these large corporations. because this is not just power. it's unelected, untouchable power. unless we decide in the name of the common good, in the name of democracy that we need to rein some of this power in.
not eliminate it. not seize control of corporations. but find ways to set up some boundaries, some parameters for their behavior. >> all right. thank you very much, folks. [ applause ] coming up this weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3, the life and legacy of alexander hamilton. >> hamilton's argument was that the war had been a common struggle. all the states were fighting together for the liberty of all, for the whole country. so he assumed the debts of the 13 states along with the federal debt. they would all be treated as one debt. they would be paid off at the
same time. >> saturday evening, a little after 7:00 eastern. author and national review senior editor richard brookheismaner on the economic achievements of alexander hamilton. and then at 10:00 on "real america," the 1945 war department film "the last bomb" documents the final months of the b29 super fortress air campaign against japan, including the 1945 atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. and the third and final presidential debate between al gore and republican texas governor george w. bush. >> law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. i believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, that's why i'm for instant background checks at gun shows. >> i think that some common sense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the flood of chief handguns that have sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people. but all of my proposals are
focused on that problem, gun safety. >> also this weekend at 8:00 eastern, "the contenders," key figures who ran for the presidency and lost, but changed political history, saturday night. the 1928 democratic nominee and former new york governor al smith, and sunday, the 1940 republican presidential nominee wendell willkie. >> as i was driving up the streets of hoboken, practically every store window, vacant store window has pictures of my opponent and his associates on the new deal ticket. i don't know of any more appropriate place to put those pictures. >> for a complete american history tv schedule, go to cspan.org. >> on saturday, c-span's issue spotlight looks at police and
race relations. we'll show you president obama at the memorial service for police officers killed in dallas. a speech by senator tim scott about his own interactions with the police. in washington, d.c., police chief cathy lanier describing her agency's community policing. here's a preview. >> in the course of one year, i've been stopped seven times by law enforcement officers. not four. not five. not six. but seven times. in one year as an elected official. was i speeding sometimes? sure. but the vast majority of the time, i was pulled over for nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood, or some other reason just as trivial. >> watch "issue spotlight" on police and race relations saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on
c-span. now, "the contenders." our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost, but who nevertheless changed political history. tonight, we feature former secretary of state william jennings bryan, who was a three-time presidential candidate. this 90-minute program was recorded at bryan's home in lincoln, nebraska. this is "american history tv," only on c-span3. good evening, and welcome to the third installment of c-span's "the contender" series. tonight, we look at the life, legacy, and times of william jennings bryan, the three-time presidential nominee from nebraska. what better way to introduce you to the man than hearing directly from him. here's a portion of the speech that he delivered at the democratic national convention back in 1896. it'smo