You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.71 AVERAGE
3.71 AVERAGE
slow-paced
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
medium-paced
Due to my subpar memory, especially when it comes to reading, I will add a refresher to the bottom of this right up, which I found online, that nicely condenses the stories of the 8 senators to the bare minimum. In today’s political atmosphere of party loyalty and cancellation (which is not solely a liberal phenomenon, for example Liz Cheney being ostracized for her vote towards impeachment), these tales of senators past really made me wish that I had viewed any sliver of courage that could stand to what these men stood up for. While I didn’t agree with every decision they made or why they made them (this is specifically stated as not important to whether or not the act was courageous), I can still recognize the jeopardy that they put their political lives in and sometimes even their physical lives. For me Senator Lucius Lamar acted as the greatest source of inspiration, displaying two different acts of courage in two different political spheres. He gave the eulogy for Charles Sumner and opposed an action that would lesson the reconnection of the North and South by increasing inflation. The thing is that if he were to do neither of these things there would be no repercussions, no one would have thought of him negatively. These actions only could hurt his political aspirations, but he did what he knew was right and would not turn away from his principles as so many politicians do today. I’ll end this with a quote from Daniel Webster, who after reading this book, realized I pass by his statue nearly weekly and can now appreciate the contributions he gave to his country.
"Necessity compels me to speak true rather than pleasing things... I should indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you,what ever be your attitude toward me." -Daniel Webster
John Quincy Adams, from Massachusetts, for breaking away from the Federalist Party.
Daniel Webster, also from Massachusetts, for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850.
Thomas Hart Benton, from Missouri, for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to the extension of slavery in the territories.
Sam Houston, from Texas, for speaking against the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which would have allowed those two states to decide on the slavery question. Houston wanted to uphold the Missouri Compromise. His and Benton's votes against Kansas–Nebraska did just that. This was his most unpopular vote, and he was defeated when running for re-election. Two years later he'd regained enough popularity to be elected Governor of Texas. However, when the state convened in special session and joined the Confederacy, Sam Houston refused to be inaugurated as governor, holding true to his ideal of preserving the Union.
Edmund G. Ross, from Kansas, for voting for acquittal in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. As a result of Ross's vote, along with those of six other Republicans, Democrat Johnson's presidency was saved, and the stature of the office was preserved.
Lucius Lamar, from Mississippi, for eulogizing Charles Sumner on the Senate floor and other efforts to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, and for his principled opposition to the Bland–Allison Act to permit free coinage of silver. Lamar returned to Mississippi and gave rousing speeches that eventually led to public approval of his decisions and cemented a legacy of courageousness.
George Norris, from Nebraska, for opposing Joseph Gurney Cannon's autocratic power as Speaker of the House, for speaking out against arming U.S. merchant ships during the United States' neutral period in World War I, and for supporting the presidential campaign of Democrat Al Smith, the first Catholic to be a major party nominee.
Robert A. Taft, from Ohio, for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials for trying Nazi war criminals under ex post facto laws. Counter-criticism against Taft's statements was vital to his failure to secure the Republican nomination for president in 1948.
"Necessity compels me to speak true rather than pleasing things... I should indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you,what ever be your attitude toward me." -Daniel Webster
John Quincy Adams, from Massachusetts, for breaking away from the Federalist Party.
Daniel Webster, also from Massachusetts, for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850.
Thomas Hart Benton, from Missouri, for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to the extension of slavery in the territories.
Sam Houston, from Texas, for speaking against the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which would have allowed those two states to decide on the slavery question. Houston wanted to uphold the Missouri Compromise. His and Benton's votes against Kansas–Nebraska did just that. This was his most unpopular vote, and he was defeated when running for re-election. Two years later he'd regained enough popularity to be elected Governor of Texas. However, when the state convened in special session and joined the Confederacy, Sam Houston refused to be inaugurated as governor, holding true to his ideal of preserving the Union.
Edmund G. Ross, from Kansas, for voting for acquittal in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. As a result of Ross's vote, along with those of six other Republicans, Democrat Johnson's presidency was saved, and the stature of the office was preserved.
Lucius Lamar, from Mississippi, for eulogizing Charles Sumner on the Senate floor and other efforts to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, and for his principled opposition to the Bland–Allison Act to permit free coinage of silver. Lamar returned to Mississippi and gave rousing speeches that eventually led to public approval of his decisions and cemented a legacy of courageousness.
George Norris, from Nebraska, for opposing Joseph Gurney Cannon's autocratic power as Speaker of the House, for speaking out against arming U.S. merchant ships during the United States' neutral period in World War I, and for supporting the presidential campaign of Democrat Al Smith, the first Catholic to be a major party nominee.
Robert A. Taft, from Ohio, for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials for trying Nazi war criminals under ex post facto laws. Counter-criticism against Taft's statements was vital to his failure to secure the Republican nomination for president in 1948.
funny
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
When it comes to books written by US Presidents, this one is unique. Most of these books are autobiographical or works that focus on justifying some aspect of the President's administration or policy. But this work is about US Senators who served in the period between 1830 and 1950. It is actually a great lesson in American history and civics. Once upon a time this book was taught in schools, I'm not sure if it is any more but, if not, it should be reintroduced.
This book is about six US Senators who made very difficult political decisions, some of which ended their political careers. At the heart of this work is the definition of the term "courage". Most of us know what courage means in wartime; certainly JFK knew about this as he was a decorated PT boat commander in the Pacific in WWII. But in politics, what does courage mean? JFK spent some time discussing this, but it is still nebulous. For example, George Wallace ran a Presidential campaign on the platform that segregation should be preserved. Was this an act of courage on his part? The answer to that has much to do about your beliefs about segregration. And this is the problem with "Profiles in Courage". The Senators in this book risked a lot on their unpopular positions on specific issues, but the question is this; were the issues that these men defended worth defending?
JFK's choice of subjects for this work are interesting in this regard. Daniel Webster, for example, is lauded for his support of the compromise of 1850. The problem is that the Compromise of 1850 preserved the institution of slavery in the United States for 10 years. Another subject in the book was Lucius Lamar, a senator from Mississippi in the 1870s who was an official in the Confederate government during the Civil War. The subjects in this book who lived prior to 1860 were all pro-slavery, at least in key controversies if not their entire careers. Another subject in the book, Senator Norris, is lauded for trying to stop the United States from going to war with Germany in 1917. And Robert A Taft, another subject of the book, is lauded for criticizing the US prosecution of Nazi war criminals after the Second World War. These are odd positions for someone to support under the aegis of courage. Were there Senators who opposed slavery? Would these Senators have been deemed courageous by JFK? Were there Senators who wanted to stop German militarism before 1917, or who wanted to stop the Nazis before 1941? Would these Senators be deemed to be courageous?
JFK points out that one does not have to agree with the position of a man in order to give him credit for courage in supporting that position. This is true. But courage, at least in politics, can't be presented without a context. This is the problem that I have with this book.
Nonetheless, this book is a very good analysis of key controversies in American history prior to its writing in the late 1950s. More Americans should read it, and should discuss the lessons that it presents, whether they agree with JFK's position or not. This book is definitely a credit to the memory of the President who wrote it.
This book is about six US Senators who made very difficult political decisions, some of which ended their political careers. At the heart of this work is the definition of the term "courage". Most of us know what courage means in wartime; certainly JFK knew about this as he was a decorated PT boat commander in the Pacific in WWII. But in politics, what does courage mean? JFK spent some time discussing this, but it is still nebulous. For example, George Wallace ran a Presidential campaign on the platform that segregation should be preserved. Was this an act of courage on his part? The answer to that has much to do about your beliefs about segregration. And this is the problem with "Profiles in Courage". The Senators in this book risked a lot on their unpopular positions on specific issues, but the question is this; were the issues that these men defended worth defending?
JFK's choice of subjects for this work are interesting in this regard. Daniel Webster, for example, is lauded for his support of the compromise of 1850. The problem is that the Compromise of 1850 preserved the institution of slavery in the United States for 10 years. Another subject in the book was Lucius Lamar, a senator from Mississippi in the 1870s who was an official in the Confederate government during the Civil War. The subjects in this book who lived prior to 1860 were all pro-slavery, at least in key controversies if not their entire careers. Another subject in the book, Senator Norris, is lauded for trying to stop the United States from going to war with Germany in 1917. And Robert A Taft, another subject of the book, is lauded for criticizing the US prosecution of Nazi war criminals after the Second World War. These are odd positions for someone to support under the aegis of courage. Were there Senators who opposed slavery? Would these Senators have been deemed courageous by JFK? Were there Senators who wanted to stop German militarism before 1917, or who wanted to stop the Nazis before 1941? Would these Senators be deemed to be courageous?
JFK points out that one does not have to agree with the position of a man in order to give him credit for courage in supporting that position. This is true. But courage, at least in politics, can't be presented without a context. This is the problem that I have with this book.
Nonetheless, this book is a very good analysis of key controversies in American history prior to its writing in the late 1950s. More Americans should read it, and should discuss the lessons that it presents, whether they agree with JFK's position or not. This book is definitely a credit to the memory of the President who wrote it.
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
It was an interesting look at some well-known and some not-so-well-known politicians acting in courage against the political norms of America
This book, that won JFK a Pulitzer, is a collection of profiles about United States Senators who went against popular opinion and did what they thought was right, regardless of the political consequences. The profiles range from the early days of the republic with John Quincy Adams, the pre-civil war era, reconstruction, entry into WWI and the Nazi war crimes trials with Robert Taft. It provides a nice snapshot into the Senate's history and provides a brief look at very important moments in American history. This non-partisan book is an easy-flowing 225 pages. Quite worth the time for anyone interested in what's needed in politics, and other aspects of life as well. The ever-present Ted Sorensen deserves mention as the book (like most of Kennedy's great speeches) is as much his as it was Kennedy's.
A quote from the closing pages provides a timeless response to those who shun or disparage politics...
"For, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'holds office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, get it good or bad, that we demand and deserve."
A quote from the closing pages provides a timeless response to those who shun or disparage politics...
"For, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'holds office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, get it good or bad, that we demand and deserve."
I think that I was assigned to read this book about thirty years ago--oh well, better late than never.