From all of my studies, research and obsession about economics and monetary systems here is my opinion:
I believe Ron's view on the matter was to have only one metal of certain weight to be called a "dollar". The reason is because if you make say .01 oz of gold worth $1 and .08 oz silver worth $1, this will create chaos because as we know .01 oz of gold will not always equal the value of .08 oz of silver and the values change. When the weight of silver increased in value compared to gold then citizens use gold and when the opposite occurs in the reverse scenario.
The issue of bimetalics was completely different in the 1800's. After the fall of the 2nd national bank, international bankers did their best to withhold gold from the union, and at the same cause all kinds of chaos by dumping goods on the south and causing the union to respond with tariffs, etc leading to the civil war.
Lincoln's response was the green back, a fiat government currency which solved the unions problem of a.) having no gold and hence no money and b.) breaking free from the international bankers who were trying to control both sides in the war. (on a side note the international bankers were deeply afraid Lincoln's move fearing that this would make America the most powerful and independent country in the world and that America's greenback system must be destroyed at all costs). The bankers responded to this threat by tinkering with the amount of gold available and by making silver and all other non gold metals non legal tender.
Jennings Bryant's move was an attempt to put another metal into the system and to thwart those who had hoarded gold. Interestingly Wilson only became president because WJB agreed to be his VP, but as we know Wilson stabbed him in the back with the creation of the Fed.
Therefore I wouldn't say that Ron and WJB were opposed on this matter, in fact they were very similar. Ron is all for allowing other forms of metal being legal tender, but only choosing one specific weight of a single metal as a "dollar".
A somewhat related tangent here but, going back to the original point about Lincoln and his economic policies. While many on this board will disagree, I thought Lincoln had one of the best economic policies in a time of crisis and overall was an economic genius. One issue I completely disagree with Dr. Paul is on the issue of tariffs. Tariffs were absolutely necessary at both the founding of the nation as well as prior to the civil war. While Alexander Hamilton was not always right (especially on banking), he nailed the concept of trade and his modifications on Smith's Wealth of Nations is impressive. But in my opinion the greatest American economist is Henry Carey (some of you may not have heard of him). I think he is the most balanced economist on trade, tariffs and credit.
One issue for the DP community think about is without tariffs would there have been an independent America? Or would have Brittan conquered us via manufactured goods and debt (as they did India, China, etc.)? Perhaps we are seeing the harmful effects today of a runaway monetary system combined with allowing countries all over the world hit us with tariffs and America not responding? Trade is a war always has been, when Europe slaps a tariff of 20% on American goods via a complex VAT tax scheme you must respond equally. Even Adam Smith advocated this response (as long as it was a sector in which your in economy was competitive). One last thought I leave you with is consider the countries that have the most favorable trade deals with us, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and China. Now what do they all have in common? That would be all four of those nations were strategic positions during the cold war, so you can tie in the Military industrial complex into that equation as well. My apologies for the unrelated tangent but I think we all should reexamine the issue of tariffs.