If he would retain his integrity, he must learn to bear unmoved, and walk steadily

onward in the path of duty, sustained only by the reflection that time may do him justice,
or if not, that after a his individual hopes and aspirations, and even his name among
men, should be of little account to him when weighed in the balance against the welfare
of a people of whose destiny he is a constituted guardian and defender (William
Fessenden qtd pg 267).

To John F. Kennedy, this statement made by Maine senator William Pitt Fessenden,
sums up the duty of an elected official. Each senator mentioned in Profiles In Courage,
shares the common theme of bearing unmoved and walking steadily onward in the
path of duty in hopes of keeping integrity. These senators had everything to lose, and
could only hope one day people would recognize their courage. Interestingly, in writing
Profiles In Courage, Kennedy provided the very sustainment these senators could only
hope for mentioned by Fessenden: justice. Each senator was engulfed in a deep
partisan bias throughout their lives, but years later, Kennedy was able to provide a fair
assessment of their lives and actions. Therefore, by serving with courage and integrity,
history may smile upon even the most hated public officials.

The first of these officials mentioned in the second half of the book is Sam Houston, a
former Texas Senator. Houston was loved in Texas and a war hero from Texass
struggle for independence. He was loved by Southerners, and he loved the South, but
when the Southern Democrats wanted to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and
start up talk of spreading slavery to the West, he refused to support them. In fact, he
adamantly opposed the plan, and spoke loudly against it. Houston knew that reopening

talks of expanding slavery westward would only cause more division in the Union. This
treacherous move forced him out of the Democratic party, but that did not stop him. He
ran for governor of Texas as an independent and won. When the Texas legislature
organized a secession convention, he showed up in opposition, and his presence
inspired one Texas lawmaker to vote against session. However, Houston could not stop
Texas from joining the Confederacy. They seceded, and he gave up his office as
governor.

Time went on, the Civil War was fought, and the North was victorious. The Northern
Republicans gained political control, and sought to punish the southern states. The only
thing that stood in their way was President Andrew Johnson. He wanted to fulfil
Lincolns plan of healing the Union, which would not be possible if the South was
punished too severely. The Senate, controlled by the Radical Republicans, wanted
Johnson gone, so they influenced the admission of states, making sure all new states
admitted would have anti-Johnson representatives. They then planned to get the twothirds majority required for an impeachment conviction. Edmund G. Ross of Nebraska
seemed to fit into this plan. Being a Republican, and against Johnsons policies, why
would Ross oppose getting rid of Johnson? So, impeachment proceedings began, when
Johnson dismissed his Secretary of war without Senate approval. This violated a
controversial, clearly unconstitutional law passed by the Radicals that forced the
president to seek approval from the Senate before dismissing certain officeholders. The
House impeached Johnson, and the Senate needed two-thirds of the vote for a
conviction. Because it was clear that the impeachment was a mere attack on Johnson
himself, Edmund Ross, despite disagreeing with Johnson, voted against the

impeachment, which saved Johnsons presidency. Ross had been expected to vote
against Johnson. He had been pleaded with, bribed, and even threatened, but he
refused to destroy the presidency by allowing presidents to be removed by political
disagreements in the House and Senate. Rosss vote cost him his entire career. He was
hated and verbally abused, but he did what he believed was right.

But Ross was not the only one forced to make courageous decisions in the
Reconstruction Era. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar had to make an incredibly brave
choice in the case of the Hayes-Tilden election. Senator Lamar was a Southerner from
Mississippi, and he and his constituents were tired of the North harshly dealing with the
South. With the Hayes-Tilden presidential election, there was finally some hope for the
south of regaining their equal place in the Union. Then, for a brief moment, it was a
reality. Tilden, the Southern Democrat, had won. Then, it was all vanquished. The New
York Times, cast serious doubt on who really won, and this prompted an Electoral
Commission. The commission took the presidency from Tilden, and gave it to
Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. This sparked outrage and despair in the South, but
Lucius Lamar decided to support the commission's finding in order to further
cooperation and healing between the North and South. Lamar risked a lot, and acted
without regard to his own career, and fortunately for him, he never lost the support of his
people.

Years later, in the early 1900s, Nebraska Senator George Norris made a controversial
move. He opposed Woodrow Wilsons plans to arm U.S. merchant ships. Despite the
frequent German torpedoing of unarmed American ships, the notorious Zimmerman

note, and the public belief that the U.S. was being pushed around, Norris led a filibuster
that successfully stopped the vote on the bill that would arm merchant ships, and in
Norriss eyes, draw America into the war. Norris was scathed by the press and other
politicians. One newspaper, The New York Herald, said of Norris and his followers
They will be fortunate if their names do not go down into history bracketed with that of
Benedict Arnold (219). Norris had irritated so many people in standing up for his
beliefs, that he offered to allow the people of Nebraska a recall election, which they did
not go through with, but any hope Norris had for a Presidential bid was destroyed with
his courageous actions.

The final Senator featured in Profiles In Courage is Robert Taft of Ohio. Taft was a well
respected Republican, known for his conservative views and his belief in the
sacredness of the Constitution. He was viewed as the next Republican candidate for
president, until his conscious forced him to speak his mind. It was 1946, and the Nazi
leaders had been tried in the Nuremberg Trials and charged with ex post facto laws, or
laws that were not in existence at the time a crime was committed. The U.S. constitution
forbids ex post facto laws, but almost everyone saw the architects of the holocaust as
fair exceptions to this rules. Not Robert Taft. He gave a speech in which he condemned
the trials, and indicated the leaders should not have been hanged. Taft had nothing to
gain in giving this speech, and everything to lose, and that is what happened. He lost
any hope of a presidential election. His party turned against him, and no one was willing
to stand by him. Whether or not he was right, he was extremely courageous to speak
out for his beliefs, despite the tremendous consequences that were inevitable.

What all these senators have in common, is the fact that they risked a lot, and most
gained very little, but they followed their consciences rather than be swayed by popular
vote. Kennedy used great, detailed summaries of the struggles of these men including
even quotes from newspapers and other politicians of the time to show just what they
had to deal with. He also noted that these senators were not simply acting disagreeable
for the sake of it. Kennedy specifically said of his book, It is not intended to justify
independence for the sake of independence, obstinacy to all compromise or excessively
proud and stubborn adherence to ones own personal convictions (262). Instead, it was
intended to shed some light on the tremendous courage several men had to fight a
battle alone for what they genuinely believed to be right. Courage is a noble trait that if
possessed, can gain for an individual tremendous respect, even from bitter adversaries.
Kennedy knew this. How else could Kennedy, a political person himself, write about
such a wide spectrum of politicians with fairness and even a sense of admiration? John
F. Kennedy loved and admired the courage of these men, and eloquently expressed his
sentiment with this statement: A man does what he must--in spite of personal
consequences, in spite of obstacles, and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis
of all human morality (266).