In the journal article “ Andrew Jackson versus the Historians”, author Charles G. Sellers explained the various interpretations of Jackson, from the viewpoint of Whig historians and Progressive Historians. These interpretations were based on the policies of Jackson. The Whig historians viewed the former president in a negative way. They considered him arrogant, ignorant, and not fit for being president. Sellers pointed out that it was not just because of “Jackson’s personality…nor was it the general policies he pursued as president” In fact, many of them approved of some of Jackson’s policies. It was due to the fact that many of these historians came from wealthy northern families or those in the middle class. Their families had control over politics before the Jacksonian period. When Jackson became president …show more content…
According to Thomas P. Abernethy, Jackson was “a frontier nabob who took sides against the democratic movement in his own state…an opportunist for whom democracy was good talk with which to win the favor of the people and thereby accomplish ulterior objectives.” Different views of Jackson continued the debate about who he really was as a leader. It was not until historian Arthur Schlesinger, took a different look at the study of Jackson. He believed that Jackson’s presidency was designed to suppress the power of capitalists, and try to help those of the lower classes. Other historians continued to disagree with Schlesinger, while others supported his idea or enhanced it, saying Jackson was almost similar to a Marxist. In the end, it is my belief that Jackson has to be looked at from a non-biased perspective. As Sellers pointed out, interpretations that Whigs and Progressives have about him are not wrong. There is just a need for more information on the topic. As Sellers pointed out at the end, the Jackson era is filled with controversy and the multiple viewpoints from historians “suggests that we are poor in the data by which our hypotheses must be