If Not Silver, What?

In Short

This book serves as a passionate, detailed argument for bimetallism, written at the height of the 1896 presidential campaign. It challenges the prevailing gold-standard orthodoxy by analyzing global trade, historical production ratios, and the economic plight of farmers. By moving beyond partisan rhetoric, the work seeks to prove that demonetizing silver artificially inflated the value of gold, effectively increasing the weight of all debts and stifling industrial progress. It has lasted as a primary record of the populist economic thought that defined a pivotal, turbulent era in American financial history.

The Story

The narrative begins with a personal disclaimer: the author, a manufacturer and landowner, presents himself not as a politician, but as a traveler and student of economic reality. He establishes the core premise immediately: the demonetization of silver has created a "dishonest" monetary standard. This standard, he argues, favors the idle creditor over the active producer. By tethering the economy to gold alone, governments have forced a persistent, crushing appreciation in the value of money, ensuring that debt holders profit at the expense of the farmer and the laborer.

As the argument progresses, the author systematically dismantles the common objections to silver. He refutes the idea that silver is too bulky by pointing to paper certificates, and he aggressively challenges the notion that government cannot create value. Drawing on historical examples, he demonstrates that when a government authorizes a new use for a resource—such as the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad—it creates genuine value. He moves from theoretical debates into the "great depreciation" of commodities. He uses official government data to show that the prices of rye, oats, and wool have plummeted since 1873. Crucially, he argues that this drop is not a sign of increased efficiency, but a direct result of a monetary system that has made gold increasingly scarce and expensive.

The arc of the argument then expands to the global stage. The author explores how European nations, particularly France, historically managed a bimetallic system to act as a "parachute" against wild fluctuations in metal value. He highlights the irony of the monometallist position: financiers once feared a flood of gold would render it worthless, yet they now treat gold as an immutable, divine standard. He brings in the expertise of international figures, including British politicians, who have begun to admit that their own gold-based system is failing to provide a stable, permanent record of obligation.

Finally, the book looks toward the future, specifically the development of the Orient. The author warns that as China and India modernize, their demand for precious metals will absorb the global supply, leaving the West to face an even more severe scarcity. He concludes with a dire warning: if the world continues to restrict itself to gold, humanity will be forced to choose between massive, impossible increases in metal production or a systemic collapse of civilizational progress. The book ends not with a partisan cheer, but with a sober challenge to the reader to recognize that the current financial arrangement is a structural failure that punishes enterprise and rewards stagnation.

How It Unfolds

The manufacturer’s perspective The author introduces his credentials as a businessman and traveler, framing the money question as a moral issue of justice for the laboring producer. He argues that he has a duty to share his findings on the catastrophic effects of monometallism.

Demolishing the myths The book tackles the common arguments against silver, dismissing them as "claptrap." He uses historical examples of government action to prove that value can be intentionally created and managed.

The evidence of decline By contrasting 1873 prices with contemporary ones, the author presents a statistical case for the farmer's loss. He argues that the agricultural sector has been robbed by a system that makes debts harder to pay over time.

The gold conspiracy The author details how gold was once the "discredited" metal and silver the standard. He reveals how the demonetization of gold by several nations caused panic, and how current financial elites now ignore this history to maintain the gold standard.

The global stakes The book concludes by examining the rising economic power of the East. The author posits that the global demand for metals will soon outstrip supply, leading to a permanent "crisis" unless the world returns to a bimetallic system.

The People

The author, John W. Bookwalter, serves as the primary guide. He is a man of practical experience—a farmer, manufacturer, and world traveler—who believes that the "laboring producers" are the backbone of the nation. He is motivated by a desire to reveal the economic hypocrisy of the ruling class.

Arrayed against him are the "monometallists" and the "money-mongers." These are not specific individuals, but a class of creditors and financial elites who benefit from the appreciation of gold. He characterizes them as hypocritical, often relying on "miserable" reports like the Aldrich Report to hide the truth about wages and unemployment.

He also cites prominent figures like the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, who, despite being a British statesman, provides the author with the intellectual ammunition needed to prove that the gold standard is failing even in its own heartland. Finally, he references the "Irish tenants," who appear as victims of the same global financial machinery, trapped in long-term debt contracts that grow more expensive every year as the value of the gold standard rises.

In Its Own Voice

"But of all conceivable systems of currency, that system is assuredly the worst which gives you a standard steadily, continuously, indefinitely appreciating, and which, by that very fact, throws a burden upon every man of enterprise."

The author quotes A. J. Balfour to support his central thesis that a rising standard of value is fundamentally destructive to economic growth.

"If you think government cannot add value to a metal, consider this conundrum: What would be the present value of gold if all nations should demonetize it?"

In this passage, the author challenges the reader to consider the artificial nature of gold's value, which he argues is entirely dependent on state policy.

What It's Really About

At its core, the book is a study of the relationship between debt and money. It argues that money is not merely a neutral tool of exchange, but a political instrument that can be used to shift wealth from those who produce to those who merely hold debt. The central question is one of justice: can a society remain free when its monetary system is rigged to reward the "owner of fixed debts" at the expense of the farmer and the laborer? The book treats the gold standard as a form of structural, invisible theft, and it asks whether global civilization can survive the "inclined plane" of constant deflationary pressure.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of economic thought, or those curious about the roots of American populism, will find this book essential. It captures the frantic, high-stakes energy of late-19th-century political debates, where the price of wheat and the status of silver were matters of national survival.

The reading experience is intense and argumentative, characterized by the author's relentless use of statistics, historical anecdotes, and biting wit. Be prepared for the period-specific language and the heavy focus on the intricacies of 1890s monetary policy, which can be dense for the uninitiated. However, the author’s voice remains remarkably clear and direct, avoiding the obfuscation common in modern financial texts. What stays with you is the raw, indignant sense of a man witnessing what he perceives as a profound injustice being enacted in real-time. Even if you do not agree with the author’s prescriptions, the work provides a rare window into the worldview of an era that believed money was the ultimate lever of social and economic control. It is a testament to the fact that debates over "honest money" are, and have always been, debates about who gets to hold power.