Preface and Part One

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

In the preface to Profiles in Courage, Kennedy expresses his fascination with the challenges of political bravery when faced with constituent demands, and how the experiences of historical leaders illuminate these challenges. He identifies three types of pressures that senators encounter: the desire to be popular, the need to secure re-election, and the demands from constituents and special interest groups.

Kennedy offers a concise history of the U.S. Senate before delving into the story of John Quincy Adams. While in office, Adams championed policies he believed were in the nation's best interest, often disregarding his party's positions on various matters. Moreover, he refused to shy away from supporting legislation—such as Jefferson's proposed 1807 embargo against Britain—that would adversely impact his home state of Massachusetts. This very embargo eventually resulted in Adams being ostracized by both his party and his state.

Facing inevitable replacement, Adams chose to resign from his Senate position. Years later, he was elected President, serving as an independent rather than a member of the Federalist Party. After his presidency, Adams was invited to run for Congress, agreeing to do so under two conditions: he would not campaign, and he would maintain independence from party and constituent pressures. He won decisively and remained in Congress until his death.

Part 2 Summary

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

In part two, the three men highlighted exhibited bravery during the years leading up to the Civil War. Kennedy praises these individuals who, despite the demands of their constituents, prioritized maintaining the nation's unity.

Daniel Webster had long been vocal against slavery. In 1850, Henry Clay, a pro-slavery southerner, proposed a compromise to keep the Union together and needed Webster's backing. Webster understood that his support for negotiating with slave-holding states would shock many. Nonetheless, preserving the Union was his utmost priority, so he agreed to support the plan.

Webster was renowned as an orator, drawing crowds from far and wide to listen to his speech in favor of Clay's Compromise of 1850. He captivated his audience for over three hours, and although many criticized his stance, he convinced enough people to accept the compromise. This decision, however, cost Webster his ambition of becoming president, as his position that day would forever prevent him from gaining sufficient support.

Thomas Hart Benton, a U.S. senator from Missouri—a slave-holding state—placed the Union above all else. While the people of Missouri began considering aligning with the southern states that wished to secede, Benton disagreed and tirelessly worked to preserve the Union. He refused to recognize slavery as a major issue, believing that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which admitted Missouri into the Union, had resolved it.

In 1851, Benton lost his Senate seat but later returned to the House of Representatives as a congressman for St. Louis. Recognizing this as his last chance to make a difference, he delivered a speech against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which allowed slavery in the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska as a concession to the South, and was backed by Benton's own Democratic Party. Despite his political setbacks, his dedication to the Union helped prevent Missouri from joining other southern states in secession.

Sam Houston also took a controversial stance against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. His position was an unwelcome surprise to his constituents. He opposed it because it overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which Houston considered a "solemn and sacred compact between the North and South."

Initially, when Sam Houston became a U.S. senator, he aligned with the beliefs and concerns of his constituents. Over time, however, Houston increasingly found himself at odds with the people he represented. Although he hailed from a slave-holding...

(This entire section contains 500 words.)

Unlock this Study Guide Now

Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

state, he was deeply committed to preserving the Union. His criticism of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and opposition to secession eventually ended his Senate career. Upon returning to his state, he discovered the governor was promoting secession. In 1859, Houston ran for governor of Texas and won.

As the newly appointed governor of Texas, Houston became deeply involved in the secession debate. Public opinion increasingly supported secession, leading to the establishment of a Secession Convention. In 1860, a decisive vote was cast in favor of secession. The convention proclaimed that Texas had joined the Confederacy and mandated that all public officials swear a new oath. Houston declined to do so and subsequently resigned from his position.

Part 3 Summary

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

Edmund G. Ross was a relatively obscure senator who played a crucial role in preventing the conviction of President Andrew Johnson following his impeachment. When Ross took office in the Senate, a fierce conflict was underway between Congress and the president. The Radical Republicans, a faction within the Republican Party, aimed to remove Johnson from office, requiring a two-thirds majority for conviction after impeachment. Ross's intentions were never questioned, but when it was time to cast votes, seven Republicans, including Ross, voted against conviction. His vote was pivotal as the Radical Republicans had counted on it, leaving them short of the necessary votes for a conviction. This decision marked the end of Ross's political career, although it took two decades for his reputation to be restored and his courageous act to be recognized.

In 1874, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar made a significant impact when he delivered a heartfelt speech in the U.S. House of Representatives mourning the death of Charles Sumner. Hailing from Mississippi, a state deeply affected by Sumner's Reconstruction efforts, Lamar's speech showcased his dedication to fostering peace between the North and the South, despite his strong Southern roots. This speech elevated Lamar's stature among his peers, although it sparked mixed reactions from his constituents. Lamar faced severe criticism from Mississippians when, as a U.S. senator, he became involved in the tightly contested presidential election of 1876. An Electoral Commission, which Lamar endorsed, awarded the presidency to Hayes, infuriating the South and leading to accusations that Lamar had accepted political bribes for his vote. Nonetheless, Lamar remained steadfast in supporting the commission's decision.

A third controversy brought Lamar into conflict with his state's populace. In 1877, the "free silver" movement advocated for the unrestricted minting of silver coins. Under this system, any citizen could exchange silver for its equivalent in coins at the U.S. mint. While many viewed this as a solution to financial issues, Lamar considered it economically disastrous. He refused to support it and embarked on a statewide speaking tour to explain his stance. As a result, the people of Mississippi continued to back Lamar's political career, eventually leading to his appointment as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Part 4 Summary

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

Kennedy highlights three significant acts of bravery by George Norris of Nebraska. First, Norris succeeded in obtaining the resignation of the influential House Speaker, Joe Cannon, which freed the House from a conservative Republican grip. Second, in 1917, Norris initiated a filibuster to prevent President Wilson from arming American merchant ships, as he believed this would heighten the chances of the United States joining World War I. Although this move was unpopular with his constituents, Norris worked diligently to win back their support. The filibuster ultimately failed when Wilson realized he could arm the ships without needing congressional approval. Third, Norris supported presidential candidate Al Smith, who was not favored by the people of Nebraska. Hoover won the election decisively, capturing nearly every county in Nebraska. Despite these political setbacks, Norris felt content knowing he stood by his principles, which he valued above all else.

Robert A. Taft was known for speaking his mind, and when he gave an unexpected speech criticizing the Nuremberg trials and their death sentences, he faced severe criticism from his party. Leading up to the 1946 election, Republicans anticipated major victories. However, Taft's speech worried them, as they feared it might jeopardize crucial congressional seats. Taft believed the injustices of the trials were too significant to overlook and voiced his opposition. He did not support any Nazi actions during World War II, but he argued that the trials and their severe penalties were retroactively applied, leaving war criminals unaware that they might later be charged and sentenced to death for wartime actions.

As public opinion turned against Taft, Republicans anxiously awaited the election results. Ultimately, Republicans secured the seats they had anticipated, and Taft's speech did not cause any lasting harm.

Kennedy concludes the book by briefly discussing other individuals who exhibited political bravery, emphasizing that such courage is not confined to the past.

Next

Themes

Loading...