In the reading Jacksonian Democracy composed by Daniel Feller goes in depth about the different analyses bought for by a multiple of famous historians. The historians bring in the idea of big corporations vs. independent workers. Could be interpreted as producers, who are artisans or farmers, versus non-producers, which are like bankers. Feller breaks up the different viewpoints of Jacksonian Democracy into three distinct sections for each. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in "The Jacksonians as Liberals", Bray Hammond in "The Jacksonians as Capitalist", and Edward Pessen in "The Jacksonians as False Democrats" discuss their perceived out looks on that era of American History. Each historian has their own distinct differences in view when compared to one another, but each have their interpretation of the Jacksonian Democracy.
In Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. excerpt "The Jacksonians as Liberals," he argues how Jackson had an idea of supporting more of the independent workers/laborers. Schlesinger Jr. is arguing that the majority of the people in the party were artisans, laborers, and farmers who all suffer from the hands of big corporations and that the Jacksonian thought that the Business class needed to be de-powered a bit. He believed the Jacksonians flocked to Jacksons support because they say the big corporations as evil, or a danger to them.Schlesinger Jr. considered Jacksonians more of a moderated side of Jeffersonians by saying:
". . . [T]he Jacksonians . . . moderated that side of Jeffersonianism which talked of agricultural virtue, independent proprietors, 'natural' property, abolition of industrialism, and expanded immensely that side which talked of economic equality, the laboring classes, human rights and control of industrialism. . ." (p. 154)
Schlesinger argues that Jackson saw industrialism as an unstoppable movement but also beneficial and wanted control industry and want the ones who put in time to their work to have more "laid" back rules. Jacksonians could be considered "liberals" based on the fact that liberals want to support the hard workers rather than big corporations. Schlesinger noticed how Jackson wanted to make sure that the working class was financially secure, and make sure the corporations where really well regulated. Schlesinger's interpretation seemed to be that JAckson wanted everyone to be able to have equal opportunities when it comes to selling a product, or products, and still be able to survive.
Bray Hammond in "The Jacksonians as Capitalist" argues that the Jacksonians are not the lower and poorer class that are in need protection, but a large group of the tough businessmen. He brings up the fact that it began when the effects of the Jefferson laissez Faire, an attitude to let things take own course without interfering, created a "greedy, intolerant, imperialistic, and lawless" (p. 158) democracy. After Industrial Revolution hit, people thought they had a better chance of trading and becoming wealthy. Hammond explains that agrarians made up the Jacksonian movement by stating:
"The Jacksonian revolution was a consequence of the Industrial Revolution and of a farm-born people's realization that now anyone could get rich and through his own efforts, if he had a fair chance." (p. 158).
Hammond asserts that these agrarians "[...]envied the social and economic advantages of the established urban capitalists"(p. 158), and instead wished to change the system to benefit themselves. Hammond argues that this was not a battle of lower class vs. upper class, but was a fight between the ones who got rich from older policies vs. the ones who want to get rich by creating and changing those policies. He also states how the Jacksonian party was made up of capitalist, not liberal. These liberals saw that the old way was benefiting the current wealthy ,urban merchants and the Jacksonians wanted to get back at them and get rich themselves.
Edward Pessen in "The Jacksonians as False Democrats," mentions how they are not really true "democrats" or at least those who follow Jackson's way of governing America. Pessen is generally on the same thought process as Hammond, in the sense that the "producers" had a harder time earning money than the "non-producers". Pessen stated that:
" Nor were more modest forms of upward social movement very much more prevalent during the era than was the leap from rags to riches. Instead of rising and falling at a mercurial rate, fortunes usually remained in the accumulators, whether in the long run or short."(p.162).
Pessin, though, mostly describes how the Jacksonian era brought more separation between the wealthy versus the middle/ lower classes. Pesson took more of a cynical view of the current state of politics during the Jacksonian era. Pesson believed the the incredibly wealthy still could controlled every part of political life and took opposite stances on each other in order to persuade people to vote for them or someone they supported. Once in office they would "[...] reward themselves and their most loyal and influential followers[...]"(p.163). Pesson is trying to say that the elected officials tend to say what the people want to hear, but in reality they just want the position for the power, the fame, and the wealth that comes along being the "people's choice". Most elected officials are usually wealthy already and have the money to be successful but they choose to run and spend their money on campaigns that they can never fulfill due to they only worry about other wealthy buisness men.
The Jacksonian era seems to be a the center of a hot debate on what actually happened. Feller had the right idea of adding different sides of the argument of the Jacksonian Era debate. From Schlesinger's interpretation that the Jacksonians were fighting a was against the greedy capitalist companies for the underprivileged working class. To Hammond, who believes that the common worker and farmers banded together to create a party that would better help them to make money and catapult the old rich merchants out while to replace them with hard working businessman. Even in Pesson's view, that at that particular time in history the class lines were as strong as ever. With the wealthy businessmen just playing games and using trickery in order to acquire the common man's vote by any means necessary in order to solely get elected in. While it's nice to think that the President would be a warrior for the middle or lower class, but it can be hard to be hold up one's end of the bargain when the people who are supposed to be representing these farmers and laborers end up being the exact opposite of the people that had voted for them.. While each had their own interpretation of what happened, all three historians knew how to hold and back up their analysis of the Jacksonian era.
