Read an Excerpt
Summary and Analysis of Profiles in Courage
Based on the Book by John F. Kennedy
By Worth Books OPEN ROAD INTEGRATED MEDIA
Copyright © 2017 Open Road Integrated Media, Inc.
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-5040-1947-7
CHAPTER 1
Summary
Introduction by Caroline Kennedy
Caroline Kennedy, John F. Kennedy's daughter, describes how her father's famous statement in his presidential inauguration speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," is an apt description of his own political career and life, and also serves as a calling for Americans to display similar levels of commitment.
She recaps her father's military service in World War II as a PT-boat commander, and how he saved a fellow sailor's life after the Japanese destroyed their boat, swimming three miles using his teeth to grasp his badly wounded comrade's life jacket. He earned several military honors for his heroic efforts, but also suffered a spinal injury that confined him to a hospital for several months in 1954 and 1955.
While in the hospital, he conducted his research for Profiles in Courage, setting out on a quest to discover what makes a great senator. Caroline Kennedy feels that her father displayed the same courageous attributes while serving as president, including speaking out in favor of civil rights, which led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was passed after his assassination in 1963.
The Kennedy family established the Profile in Courage Award in 1989 to honor elected officials who reflect the core ideals of the nation, despite the risk to themselves and their careers.
Foreword by Robert F. Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy, John's brother, discusses how Profiles in Courage perfectly fit his beliefs and personality, standing on principle and not bowing to public pressure.
He recalls how John was often in severe physical pain during his life — from scarlet fever as a child to a spinal injury incurred in World War II, but he never complained about his ailments, a true testament to his conviction and courage.
Robert says Americans need to embrace his brother's greatest characteristics and use their talents to meet the continuing challenges this country faces. His brother used what Robert termed "human wisdom" to keep the Cuban missile crisis from devolving into a devastating nuclear war. He writes that that same wisdom will be needed to avert other crises that will arise. For that reason, the stories of the men his brother captures in this book cannot be forgotten.
Preface
John F. Kennedy writes of how John Quincy Adams's battle with his own Federalist party piqued his interest in how politicians show courage, and his lengthy hospital stay in 1954 following a spinal operation allowed him to do the required research for this book.
I. Courage and Politics
Each of the senators Kennedy profiles in his book have acted with grace while under fire for staying true to unpopular beliefs, even though their careers suffered a major hit due to their actions. By paying tribute to these men, JFK hopes people would remember their courage and demand the same of present and future leaders.
Confidence and respect in the Senate has waned over the years, but that is nothing new. People dating back to the 1800s expressed dissatisfaction with the Senate for moving so slowly and not having a strong moral compass. But that does not mean courageous people no longer exist in the Senate.
Kennedy believes political courage is on display daily in the Senate, but is too often overshadowed by the complexity of the legislation being voted on and the battle to gain the public's undivided attention. The public does not understand the ever-present pressures that make courageous political actions more difficult to achieve.
One of those pressures is the art of compromise, which, when exercised, is not a demonstration of one having loose convictions. Compromise is necessary to keep the government operating, and will inevitably be called into use because few issues that appear before the Senate are black and white.
The threat of re-election often creates further stress: Many elected official consider how the words they use — and the actions they take — will affect their party's support and their ability to be re-elected.
Perhaps the greatest burden on a senator is pleasing their constituents and special-interest groups. The people know their senator was elected to be their voice in the Senate — someone who will cast votes in line with their views and beliefs. Meanwhile, interest groups believe the senator is beholden to them. If a senator doesn't vote the way the group wishes, they can withdraw their financial support in the next election.
Succumbing to these pressures means the senator is no longer voting his or her conscience, making the decision to defy those pressures all the more trying. If a senator is going to risk it all, the stance he or she is willing to take had better be worthwhile.
Part One
The Time and the Place
The US Senate was originally set up to avoid constituent-specific pressures, leaving those to members of the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers actually designed the Senate to resemble Great Britain's House of Lords, and be more like an executive council than a legislative body.
A Cabinet of advisers to the president was in place, sessions had opened to the press, and debates had become commonplace. But by 1803, the Senate had gradually become another lawmaking branch — with less power than it's European counterpart.
With this shift in the Senate's focus, political and local forces began to use their power to try to influence its members. This required senators to be flexible to public opinion. Senator John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, however, refused to follow suit.
II. John Quincy Adams
"The magistrate is the servant not ... of the people, but of his God."
John Quincy Adams found himself at odds with his Federalist colleagues in the Senate in 1807. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, also a Federalist, had joined the rest of the party in speaking out in opposition to President Thomas Jefferson's trade embargo against England. Adams, however, did not agree, and began questioning his loyalty to the Federalists.
Adams, like his father, President John Adams, was not willing to go along completely with the Federalist platform, and though he received unending support from his father and his family, he was ostracized by his colleagues. He even considered his life "a succession of disappointments" because of the backlash he received.
Adams did not recognize that, to be a senator, he had to accept the pressures of political life. One of those was remaining loyal to the Federalists — his father's party. Immediately after becoming a senator in 1803, he began voting against his party on many issues, among them, the ratification of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase treaty, which the Federalists opposed. But Republicans opposed him as well because he was against efforts to tax residents of the Louisiana Territory, ultimately leaving him without a party.
In 1807, Jefferson imposed a trade embargo on Great Britain after British ships confiscated American ships and their crews. When the Chesapeake — an American ship — was fired upon off the coast of Virginia by a British ship, and several crew members killed, Adams urged Federalist colleagues to protest the incident. When they refused, Adams attended a Republican protest meeting.
The Federalists opposed the embargo because it would hurt the American economy, especially in Massachusetts. Although that was Adams's home state, he sided with Republicans who had grown increasingly upset with England. Federalists denounced Adams, and in May 1808, nine months before his term was up, they elected a successor to Adams and passed resolutions in the Senate and House supporting a repeal of the embargo.
Adams resigned his seat and returned to private life. However, he would be elected President in 1825 as a political independent, and was voted into the House soon after his Presidential term ended, vowing to maintain a fully independent course.
Part Two
The Time and the Place
The decade leading up to the Civil War was a tumultuous time in the United States, with the increasing division between the North and the South and the threat of war growing imminent. Three US Senators stood against their parties on three different occasions to keep the Union intact and prevent, at least for the time being, war from breaking out.
The first half of the 1800s saw several new states join the Union. In order to maintain a balance between free states and slave states, laws were passed admitting one of each into the Union at the same time, such as Maine and Missouri in 1820, Arkansas in 1836, Michigan in 1837, Florida in 1845, and Iowa in 1846. However, America's triumph in the Mexican War brought new territories into play by 1850, once again pushing the issue of slavery to the forefront.
Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky authored three great compromises in 1820, 1833, and 1850 that preserved the Union despite growing dissatisfaction in the South. He and colleagues John Calhoun of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts were the key figures in enacting the measures and keeping the country united. Webster, in particular, used his eloquence to sell the nation on the Clay Compromise of 1850, even though many Northerners felt it offered too many concessions to the South.
Fellow senators Thomas Hart Benson of Missouri and Sam Houston of Texas played pivotal roles in maintaining the Union as well, going against their parties and popular sentiment in the process. Benson's efforts ultimately kept Missouri in the Union when the country finally split in 1861, but while Texas joined the Confederacy, Houston put up quite a fight to keep that from happening.
III. Daniel Webster
"... not as a Massachusetts man ... but as an American ..."
Henry Clay needed Daniel Webster's support for the Clay Compromise to keep the Union intact, and so the two met at Webster's house in Washington, DC, on January 21, 1850. Clay knew Webster was adept at expressing the feeling of unity and selling that to fellow senators and the American public. Webster was known as a great public speaker, and he could attract huge crowds to the Senate to hear him speak.
Clay's compromise, which addressed adding land won in the Mexican War into the Union, included five major components: 1.) Admitting California as a free state; 2.) Organizing New Mexico and Utah as territories with no provisions either way on the slavery issue (going against a measure called the Wilmot Proviso that would prohibit slavery in new territories); 3.) Compensating Texas for allowing some of its territory to go to New Mexico; 4.) Abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia; and 5.) Stronger enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, which ensured that runaway slaves were returned to their masters.
Webster was opposed to slavery, but he was even more opposed to breaking up the Union, and so he promised Clay he would support the compromise. Extremists on both sides were threatening to secede, and a convention in the South was called in June 1850 to further fan the flames of discontent.
Despite protests from his constituents and members of his own Whig party, Webster vowed to back the Clay Compromise. He gave a historic speech on March 7, 1850, reinforcing his loyalty to the Union, which proved to be enough to pass the compromise and keep the country united. Even still, secessionists on both sides were angry with Webster over his words, and some even called his speech traitorous.
Webster would leave the Senate and go on speaking tours to defend his position. However, the speech put an end to any hopes he had of gaining the party nomination for the 1852 presidential election — his home state, who rebuked his actions, wouldn't even support him. Webster died later that year, but remained resolute in his pro-Union stance to the end.
IV. Thomas Hart Benton
"I despise the bubble popularity ..."
Thomas Hart Benton was Missouri's first Senator, taking office in 1821. He would serve 30 consecutive years, a record for a Senator at that time. He was a champion of the growing West and became a prominent figure in the Senate.
In 1844, though, Benton went against his Democratic party and his state. He worked to defeat a treaty that would have annexed Texas into the Union because it would have instituted Texas as a slave state, like Missouri, which Benton did not want. Benton was a fighter, and he did not back down from the growing threats within his party, using his popularity with his constituents to earn a narrow re-election victory.
Benton continued to fight his party leaders, but refused to join the opposition Whig party because he looked down upon them; therefore, he continued to chart an independent course. He, in fact, refused to acknowledge slavery as a major issue, even though it was the issue everyone was discussing.
On February 19, 1847, Benton rose up to oppose John Calhoun's resolutions intimating Congress had no right to interfere with slavery in the new territories, saying the resolutions were merely encouraging the push for secession from the Union. Benton would refuse to engage his opponents in debate and when his party split over slavery in 1848, he did not actively support either side.
Calhoun in 1849 began calling Benton "false to the South" and was able to convince the Missouri Legislature to enact his resolutions. Benton, in turn, would denounce Calhoun and his resolutions across Missouri in a series of fiery speeches, stopping only when Calhoun was on the verge of death in 1850.
Benton held fast to his views even though his term was coming to an end, refusing to settle his differences with the opposition. He even spoke out against the Clay Compromise of 1850, saying there were too many concessions in it for those who favored seceding from the Union. On April 17, 1850, a series of attacks by Senator Henry Foote against Benton culminated with Foote pulling out a pistol on the Senate floor and pointing it at Benton, though he never fired.
Benton would vote against splitting California into free and slave territories and that would seal his fate in the Senate, as the Missouri Legislature in January 1851 elected a Whig to replace him. One year later, Benton was elected to the House of Representatives and promptly spoke out against another bill his party favored, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which led to his defeat in an 1854 re-election bid. He ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1855, and for Governor of Missouri in 1856. He later died while writing his memoirs, still satisfied with the unpopular stances he took.
V. Sam Houston
"... I can forget that I am called a traitor."
Sam Houston of Texas took a stand in 1854 against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which was designed to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and permit residents in the Kansas-Nebraska Territory to decide the issue of slavery for themselves. It effectively reopened a discussion once thought closed with the Clay Compromise of 1850. Houston had supported the Missouri Compromise as a member of Congress from Tennessee, and also favored the Clay Compromise, much to the chagrin of his fellow Democrats.
Houston's stance was seen as a last straw for the man who led the fight for Texas' independence from Mexico and was the first president of the Independent Republic of Texas before it was admitted to the Union. Houston was loyal to the Union despite being a lifelong Southerner, one of many contradictions that marked his life.
Houston ran for Governor of Texas in 1857 while still in the Senate, choosing not to run under his Democratic party's banner but instead as an independent, but his pro-Union votes cost him the election. On November 10, 1857, the Texas Legislature ousted Houston from the Senate.
In 1859, Houston ran again, this time for governor, as an independent against the incumbent, who was pushing to secede from the Union, and Houston rode a wave of constituent dissatisfaction with the administration to victory. He promptly announced that he would fight to keep Texas in the Union, but the sentiment to secede was rising and Houston fought in vain against that tide.
The anti-Union movement continued to grow when Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, and a Secession Convention was called against Houston's wishes. Despite him speaking in opposition at the convention, the legislation was approved and placed on the ballot a month later. Voters overwhelmingly approved secession on February 23, 1861. Houston would vacate his seat as governor, saddened by the outcome but not willing to acquiesce to his foes.
Sam Houston earned high praise for leading a group of volunteers to a stunning defeat of the Mexican Army and winning independence from Mexico for Texas. That would turn into contempt years later, as Houston repeatedly stood in favor of preserving the Union despite growing sentiment from Texans to secede. He remained steadfast in his belief that Texas should be loyal to the Union, and that led to his political downfall.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Summary and Analysis of Profiles in Courage by Worth Books. Copyright © 2017 Open Road Integrated Media, Inc.. Excerpted by permission of OPEN ROAD INTEGRATED MEDIA.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
