In the preface to Profiles in Courage, Kennedy discusses his interest in the ‘‘problems of political courage in the face of constituent pressures, and the light shed on those problems by the lives of past statesmen.’’ He describes the three types of pressure faced by senators: pressure to be liked, pressure to be re-elected, and pressure of the constituency and interest groups.

Kennedy provides a brief history of the U.S. Senate and moves on to his discussion of John Quincy Adams. In office, Adams supported measures he thought were best for the country, with little regard for his party’s stances on various issues. Further, he would not back away from legislation— such as Jefferson’s proposed embargo against the British in 1807—that would have negative consequences for his state of Massachusetts. It was this embargo, in fact, that ultimately led to Adams’ status as an outcast in his own party and state.

Faced with certain replacement, Adams resigned his Senate seat. Years later, he would be elected President, a term he would serve as an independent, rather than as a member of the Federalist Party. After his White House years, Adams was asked to run for Congress, which he did under two conditions. First, he would not campaign, and second, he would serve as an independent, free of party and constituent pressures. He won by a landslide, and served in Congress until his death.

The three men discussed in part two demonstrated courage during the years leading up to the Civil War. Kennedy commends the men who, despite constituent demands, protected the nation’s unity.

Daniel Webster had always been an outspoken critic of slavery. In 1850, Henry Clay, a pro-slavery southerner, had a plan for a compromise that would keep the Union intact, but he needed Webster’s support. Webster knew that everyone would be shocked at his support for a plan that negotiated with slave-holding states. Still, his top priority was to hold the Union together, so he agreed.

Webster was well known as an orator, and people came from everywhere to hear his speech favoring Clay’s Compromise of 1850. Webster held everyone’s attention for over three hours, and although many denounced his stance, enough people were persuaded to accept the compromise. This success cost Webster his dream of becoming president; his position on that day would forever keep him from garnering enough support.

Thomas Hart Benton was a U.S. senator from Missouri, a slave-holding state, yet he valued the Union above all. The people of Missouri began to feel that they should take sides with the southern states that wanted to secede, but Benton disagreed and never slowed his efforts to preserve the Union. He also refused to acknowledge slavery as a major issue because he believed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which brought Missouri into the Union) made slavery an issue of the past.

In 1851, Benton lost his place in the Senate, but he later returned to the House of Representatives as St. Louis’ congressman. Realizing that this was his last opportunity to make a difference, he delivered a speech denouncing the Kansas-Nebraska Bill (which permitted slavery in the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska as a concession to the South and which was sponsored by Benton’s own Democratic Party). Despite his political failures, his efforts on behalf of the Union prevented Missouri from joining other southern states seeking secession.

Sam Houston also took an unpopular stand against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Houston’s stance came as an unpleasant surprise to his constituents. He opposed it because it reversed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which Houston believed to be a ‘‘solemn and sacred compact between the North and South.’’

When Sam Houston first became a U.S. senator, he shared the beliefs and concerns of his constituents. As time passed, Houston found himself increasingly at odds with the people he represented. While he came from a slave-holding state, he believed fervently in the preservation of the Union. His criticism of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and his opposition to secession led to the end of his Senate career. When he returned to his state, he found that the governor was encouraging secession. In 1859, Houston ran for governor of Texas and won.

As Texas’ new governor, Houston found himself entrenched in the secession issue. Public sentiment grew in favor of secession, and a Secession Convention was formed. In 1860, a vote was overwhelmingly cast in favor of secession. The convention declared that Texas was part of the Confederacy and that all public officials were required to take a new oath. Houston refused and, soon after, resigned.

Edmund G. Ross was a little-known senator who single-handedly prevented the conviction of President Andrew Johnson after Johnson was impeached. When Ross was elected to the Senate, a battle was raging between Congress and the president. The Radical Republicans (a faction of the Republican Party) planned to get rid of Johnson, but they needed a two-thirds majority to convict him after his impeachment. They never questioned Ross’ intentions, but when it came time to vote, seven Republicans voted against conviction, and Ross was among them. His vote was important because the Radical Republicans had counted on it, so they lacked the number of votes needed for conviction. Ross might have enjoyed a long career in politics, but this single decision brought the end of his career in public office. Twenty years later, his reputation was restored and his act of courage was acknowledged.

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar made quite an impression in 1874 when he addressed the U.S. House of Representatives in a moving speech lamenting the death of Charles Sumner. Lamar was from Mississippi, a state plagued by the Reconstruction efforts of Sumner. Lamar’s speech demonstrated his commitment to bringing peace between the North and the South despite his own background as a passionate southerner. The speech also raised Lamar’s status among his colleagues, although his constituents were divided in their reactions. Lamar was harshly criticized by the people of Mississippi when, as a U.S. senator, he became involved in the close presidential race of 1876. When an Electoral Commission, approved by Lamar, gave the election to Hayes, the South was enraged and accused Lamar of accepting political bribes in exchange for his vote. Still, Lamar stood behind the action of the Electoral Commission.

A third instance brought Lamar in conflict with the people of his state. In 1877, the ‘‘free silver’’ movement sought free coinage of any silver. Under the free coinage system, any citizen would have been able to take silver to the U.S. mint and exchange it for its equivalent in coins. While people saw this as a solution to money problems, Lamar saw it as an economic disaster. He refused to vote in favor of it, then launched a statewide speaking tour to explain his decision. As a result, the people of Mississippi continued to support Lamar’s political career, and he ultimately became a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kennedy discusses three instances of outstanding courage displayed by George Norris of Nebraska. First, Norris managed to secure the resignation of the powerful Speaker of the House, Joe Cannon, a move that released the House from a conservative Republican stronghold. Second, in 1917, he staged a filibuster in an effort to stop President Wilson from arming American merchant ships, which Norris believed would only increase the chances of the United States entering World War I. The filibuster proved unpopular among Norris’ constituents, and he worked hard to regain their trust. The filibuster ultimately failed when Wilson discovered that he did not need congressional approval to arm the ships. Third, Norris campaigned for a presidential candidate, Al Smith, who was unpopular with the people of Nebraska. Hoover won the election by a landslide, a victory that included almost every county in Nebraska. Despite his political failures, Norris expressed satisfaction that he always stood for what he believed, which is what was most important to him.

Robert A. Taft was known for voicing his opinions, but when he made an unprompted speech criticizing the Nuremberg trials and their death sentences, he earned harsh reprimands from his party. Going into the election of 1946, the Republicans expected great success. When Taft (a Republican) delivered his speech, they feared that it would cost them valuable seats in Congress. Taft felt that the injustice done during the trials was too much to ignore, and he voiced his disapproval. Taft did not advocate any of the actions taken by the Nazis during World War II. However, he felt that the trials and their strict punishments were designed after the fact; the war criminals had no way of knowing that they might later be charged and sentenced to death for actions taken in war.

While public sentiment turned against Taft, Republicans waited nervously. By the time the election was held, Republicans won the seats they had expected to win, and there was no long-term damage done by Taft’s speech.

Kennedy concludes the book with a brief discussion of other men of political courage, emphasizing that such courage is not a thing of the past.