Admittedly, my knee-jerk reaction here was to ask, "Is ANY legal principle more sacred than the evil of engineering genocide is obvious? But even THAT amount of respect feels tenuous when we learn later that " While the substance of those arguments might be outside the scope of the book, it'd at least be reassuring to see the author affirm the central importance of them in determining how history should view his subject.
Robert Taft would have been a mean, bitter reptile of a man and a shoddy legal scholar to boot if he'd been so vocal in a stance born of insufficient facts or mental acuity, BUT it turns out he was probably more right than wrong on this one, he might write. Instead, he focuses on the flak Taft receives from public figures clearly more interested in capitalizing on some good old fashioned moral theater than engaging with his arguments, accidentally lending just a pinch of martyr narrative to a historical episode that I'd argue is really only meaningful as a disinterested question of policy.
Taking a step back: I think it's important to distinguish between instances like Taft's above from most of the policy questions covered by the book. Some, like the Nuremberg Trials question, have an element of morality, but ultimately boil down to making a present-tense interpretation of existing facts; it's far from black and white, but the key thing is that all the facts are AVAILABLE to everyone, and they're not changing.
These can be hard problems, but they're in an easier class than many of the ones the senators in this book were tasked with addressing. To me, "courage" is valuable precisely because it's a tool that still operates in the murky, wild territory where more rigorous forms of ethics fail. When you're tasked with the mathematically impossible task of weighing a present evil with a theoretically-knowable magnitude - say, slavery - against a possible outcome that's certainly evil but unknowable in its magnitude - say, a war to preserve the union - there's simply nothing else to fall back on, right?
Kennedy never confronts head-on the question of whether courage is intrinsically "good" or merely "admirable", but if pressed, I get the sense from this book that he'd admit that it comes down to something like a twist on the Churchill quote: "Courage in one's own convictions is the worst form of decision making for uncertain ethical calculations about the future, except for all those other factors that have been tried from time to time" Aug 15, Ian Hamilton rated it it was ok.
I'm deeply ambivalent about this book and confused by its legacy as a classic. I don't claim to be as versed as Kennedy on the antebellum period, but frankly his choices in individuals i. Without singling out certain subjects because I didn't enjoy this nearly enough to give it a comprehensive review , I fail to see the ways in which some of these man displayed courage and why they should be lauded.
This book reiterates that politi I'm deeply ambivalent about this book and confused by its legacy as a classic. This book reiterates that politics is no more than a silly game regardless of the era. I disagree with Kennedy's frequent assertions that these men put the interests of the majority first.
Dull read Shelves: biography. I believe I read Kennedy's series of biographies twice: once as a child during his presidency and again after viewing the eight short films based on the book shown in Maine South's American Government class by Mr. Ellenberger one of those Grinnell graduates on the faculty who influenced my choice of college later. Naturally, I didn't understand it well the first time through, but had become a little know-it-all about American history by the second reading which occurred during the summer at gr I believe I read Kennedy's series of biographies twice: once as a child during his presidency and again after viewing the eight short films based on the book shown in Maine South's American Government class by Mr.
Naturally, I didn't understand it well the first time through, but had become a little know-it-all about American history by the second reading which occurred during the summer at grandmother's cottage in southwestern Michigan.
Apr 09, Jacob rated it really liked it Shelves: nonfiction. The audio book version is neat! It begins in a less-than-captivating manner, as its introductory chapter reads like a textbook, and the pages of this particular illustrated edition have the unfortunate bonus of also looking like one. The middle chapters with the individual profiles are more gripping, as they dive into particular moments when the featured men made difficult decisions.
But on the merits of the research, text, and prose itself, I gave the book four stars. But otherwise, distractions in editing were not substantial.
A fairly easy read, I would recommend it to fellow presidential history fans, and budding politicians. Yet I would not recommend it as necessary material for a lover of JFK. Dec 08, David Corleto-Bales rated it it was amazing Shelves: books-inweeks. A short, moving history of several individuals in the U. Senate who defied conventional wisdom and stood out on limb, holding opinions that differed from their party or the general belief of the time due to their integrity.
Some are well known, like Adams and Webster, but Ross is obscure. He was a Republican senator from Kansas who voted against A short, moving history of several individuals in the U. He was a Republican senator from Kansas who voted against conviction of President Andrew Johnson in his trumped up impeachment trial in despite offers of bribes and threats of violence.
I don't think that just opposing something because you believe that it's the "right" thing is necessarily good. Senator Lieberman opposes the public option, which will alienate him from his colleagues but the result is overwhelmingly bad; these were figures who took stands for constitutional law or compromise in order to avoid disunion, bloodshed or what they considered to be incorrect interpretation of the laws.
So, stand fast Attorney General Holder! Prosecute the terrorists in New York City like the Constitution demands! I almost sent him a copy of "Profiles in Courage" before the vote, but decided I had better read it first. I read part of it when I was a kid. Jun 15, R. Byers rated it it was ok. Mar 21, Vassilis Katsampas rated it really liked it. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This is a great book about history of politics. Courage is presented as a principle through the stories of several politicians.
JFK firmly believes that politicians have the obligation to be courageous, and to stand for their values and principels through their courage, as the examples of this book did. I liked reading this books, because JFK presents these stories without judging if these politicians were right or wrong.
And it is not about what position was the right one, or the wrong one. It This is a great book about history of politics. It is about who was able to show courage, and why we have downgraded our political life to courage-less representatives.
As a history buff, I had learned most of this material before, but not all of it, and certainly none of it from a writer with the passion of JFK. Jun 09, Catherine Harpold rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites , the-kennedys. I feel like this is one of those books that everyone should read. It really shows the importance of having a strong sense of integrity.
You never know what you might accomplish by standing firm to your values and ideals. It was interesting to read this during our current political climate. I have a new sense of hope that there are public servants out there who can be bold and stand for the changes we need. If you ever come across this book in a store, library, or your grandmother's shelf like I did , then please PLEASE, if you do nothing else, sit down, take a half hour of your time, and read the first and last chapters of this book.
Those chapters aren't the specific "profiles in courage" for which this book was named--and don't get me wrong, those are great--but they are on a whole different par of excellence. Man could Kennedy turn a phrase. For example taken from the last chapter : "Must men If you ever come across this book in a store, library, or your grandmother's shelf like I did , then please PLEASE, if you do nothing else, sit down, take a half hour of your time, and read the first and last chapters of this book.
For example taken from the last chapter : "Must men conscientiously risk their careers only for principles which hindsight declares to be correct, in order for posterity to honor them for their valor? I think not. Surely in the United States of America, where brother once fought against brother, we did not judge a man's bravery under fire by examining the banner under which he fought?
Indeed it is frequently the compromisers or conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents. Fans of history, politics, or non-fiction in general should all pick this up.
It's a fascinating look at a fascinating man, writing about fascinating men. Can you believe he wrote this while in a hospital recovering from a war wound he got while fighting in World War II? He officially just become one of my role models, both as a writer and as a person. May 22, Kecia rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: All Americans. I was in Dallas that fateful November day in ' I was six weeks old and my mother was with me at the Safeway.
When she heard the news she abandoned her shopping cart and went straight home. I grew up in the shadow of the events of that day Why was this not required reading at my high school or even at Texas State? History comes alive in these pages. Character is revealed. It speaks to what it means to be an American o I was in Dallas that fateful November day in ' It speaks to what it means to be an American of what it means to take a stand. Being a native of Texas I assumed that the chapter on Sam Houston would be my favorite.
Instead, Edmund Ross and Robert Taft were my favorites. I think I liked them because they spoke to issues so much in the minds of Americans in Ed Ross spoke to the balance of power. Bob Taft to how to treat the "worst of the worst" and still uphold our values. I understand now how this book influenced President Obama's thinking. I was surprised to learn, and I should not have been sursprised, that Ted Sorenson was the writer.
Good choice Mr. President, good choice. Dec 12, Karen rated it liked it. Profiles in Courage , which Kennedy dedicated to his wife Jacqueline Kennedy, received the Pulitzer Prize for biography in Kennedy explains that the book is about his admiration of the courage shown by elected leaders in the face of adverse factions like their electorates, popular opinion, and political action committees that pull these elected men in different directions.
We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient — they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his own soul. He quickly broke with his party, however, when he was the sole Federalist to vote in favor of the Louisiana Purchase. Adams continued voting against his party, but it was not until that the final split between Adams and the Federalists occurred.
That year, Thomas Jefferson called upon Congress to enact an embargo against Great Britain to shut off international trade to retaliate against British aggression towards American merchant ships. The embargo would have had a disastrous effect upon the economy of Massachusetts.
Adams agreed with Jefferson and helped steer the embargo bill to its enactment into law. This was in direct opposition to the Federalists, who had been following a philosophy of appeasement towards the British. A storm of protest ensued and Adams resigned from his seat in Daniel Webster was a Massachusetts Senator Whig and one of the most distinguished members in Senate history.
His trial by fire began in when he agreed to help Henry Clay of Kentucky push through a compromise bill that would keep the Union together. The speech enraged his constituents and ended his career as a Senator, since Webster knew that his speech would make him unelectable in Massachusetts thereafter. On July 22, , Webster resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state.
Thomas Hart Benton, Senator from Missouri, was included in the book primarily for his actions in against John C. Calhoun's resolutions to keep Congress from interfering with the introduction of slavery in new territories. Although Missouri was a slave-owning state, and Benton himself owned slaves, he was deeply opposed to the introduction of slavery into new territories.
Benton was concerned that the issue was being exploited by Southern and Northern partisans and would be a barrier to Western expansion. Calhoun was successful in getting legislators from slave-owning states, including the rest of the Missouri delegation, to back his resolutions.
However, Benton was constantly called out of order by Millard Fillmore, the presiding officer. On April 17, , when Fillmore called Benton out of order again, debate became so heated that Benton was almost shot by Henry Foote of Mississippi. Benton was voted out of office in , returned to Congress in as a Representative, but lost his seat in and spent the remaining years of his life fruitlessly seeking a return to public office. This bill repealed the Missouri Compromise of and would have allowed the residents of territories from Iowa to the Rocky Mountains to decide the slavery issue themselves.
A Southerner by birth and one of the first two Senators from Texas, Houston felt that the act would further divide the Union. He tangled with the powerful John C. Two were from the Northeast, two from the South, and four from the Midwest. Three were Republicans. They stood for a broad range of political causes. For the past thirty years, the Kennedy family has conferred an annual John F.
Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on a prominent politician or group. Calhoun, Taft, and Webster were all on the list. Courage is a quality that can be deployed toward many different ends. Kennedy defined courage in a U. But what cause? Something else was at the top of the list of moral absolutes for him: maximizing the national power, wealth, and influence of the United States. In the early nineteenth century, it was crucial to expand the territory under American control.
Then it became necessary to postpone the Civil War, through compromises like the one Webster supported, until the North became populous and economically powerful enough to defeat the South. After , reconciliation between the former Confederacy and the Union was essential. We can compromise our political positions, but not ourselves Compromise does not mean cowardice.
Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents. Skip past main navigation. Profile in Courage Essay Contest.
Profiles in Courage Excerpts. Identifier Accession. Rights Access Status. Relation Is Part Of Desc. Subject Geog. Type Category. Format Medium. Format Media Type. Creator Maker. Language ISO Type ARC. Title Folder. Rights Copyright Status.
0コメント