Amidst all the talk of compromise of late, I thought I'd talk a little bit about another politician who celebrated compromise: John Kennedy. I'm working (slowly) on an essay about Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. Together with Kelley Deetz. That book focuses on politicians who had the courage to stand up to constituents and do what their conscience told them was correct. Yet, what surprised me when I started re-reading the book was how much the standing up to constituents was also about compromising the rights of African Americans. One of the longest chapters is about Daniel Webster's advocacy during the debate over the Compromise of 1850 of measures to reassure the South's property rights in humans and to put off talk of secession. The traditional explanation is that Webster and the Compromise of 1850 delayed disunion long enough for anti-slavery sentiment and pro-Union sentiment to become powerful enough that the United States could successfully oppose secession. Kennedy's point — drawing on work of mid-twentieth century historians like Allan Nevins (which is not surprising because Nevins wrote the foreword to Profiles in Courage) — was that Webster lost his chance to be president by taking an unpopular (and somewhat proslavery) stance, but that his courage was vindicated by the Union's ultimate success. There is a lot to be said for this argument. And Kennedy might have added that preservation of the Union until 1861 meant that slavery ended much sooner that it would otherwise — for surely no one thinks that slavery would have ended in 1865 without the Civil War. The worst political calculation ever — right up there with Pearl Harbor — was the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861.