"I read the book with interest, but when Jackson was a candidate in 1828 for the Presidency, I opposed him and voted for Adams. I favored a protective tariff"

Ezra Cornell’s reflection reveals not only his personal political evolution but also encapsulates the turbulent ideological landscape of the early nineteenth-century United States. His mention of reading “the book with interest” refers to his consideration and respect for new ideas, even those with which he might not fully agree. A willingness to engage with differing viewpoints underscores a spirit of earnest inquiry that was critical for navigating an era marked by national growth and profound disagreement over the country’s future direction.

Cornell’s decisive opposition to Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828 is deeply significant. Jackson, embodying the ideals of the “common man,” campaigned against what he perceived as the elitism of leaders like John Quincy Adams. By stating that he “opposed him and voted for Adams,” Cornell aligns himself with the National Republican Party and, by extension, with those who prioritized experienced statesmanship, a strong federal government, and rational policymaking over Jacksonian populism. This divergence highlights the rift between advocates of expansionist, more populist democracy and those defending established economic and moral order.

Cornell’s support for a protective tariff further defines his economic philosophy and values. The protective tariff was a crucial and controversial topic of the time; it sought to shield burgeoning American industries from foreign competition by imposing duties on imported goods. By favoring such tariffs, Cornell positions himself as a supporter of industrialization and internal economic development, views shared by Adams and the National Republicans. This belief system was often at odds with Jacksonian Democrats, who had a stronger base among Southern and Western agrarians opposed to tariffs that might damage their trade interests.

Ultimately, Cornell’s choices and beliefs reflect broader national debates over federal power, economic policy, and the direction of democratic practice. His willingness to both learn from different perspectives and to firmly take a stand speaks to the character of political participation in an era when the nation’s identity was still being shaped.