After reading this cook, I can say I am more confused as to the cause of the Civil War - being one of my least favorite wars, I have often skipped oveAfter reading this cook, I can say I am more confused as to the cause of the Civil War - being one of my least favorite wars, I have often skipped over it, but the purpose was always boiled down when those who wanted slaves and those who did not - the Confederates were bad and the Union was good. although the underlying current was slavery, it was not explicitly the reason.
In the beginning (although not covered in the book), the tension over slavery hit the roof for the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Bleeding Kansas. The settlers in Kansas, a slave state, wanted to settle in Nebraska, a free state, but found that as son as they crossed the boarder, the law freed some assets of their 'property'. They appealed to the federal government and Congress split over whether they could legislate federal law, or else every state must adhere to their own ideals. This split was not part based; in fact, there were about six factions in the government at this time.
This is where it is mixed - both generals were very great men with strong moral and authoritative character. They were both compassionate, passionate, and genteel. They bow those shrewd judgment. Grant fought for the Union and Lee fought for Virginia. Neither owned slaves, nor did either have much of an opinion on the matter other than both wishing to see is abolished, although realizing it may take time.
In 1864, before the wars end, the Confederate Congress drafted legislation for gradual emancipation over 20 years; a time period to integrate slaves back into society as free men. Lee wrote Confederate President Davis to encourage him to expedite this endeavor for immediate emancipation. This came after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, although oddly, not all of the Union was opposed to slavery.
When you tease out all the reasons for the war, they are little different than those of the American Revolution, or the British Civil War. ...more
The book is very well written, researched, and informed. Being a business reporter, naturally Duhigg wouldI have a love/hate feeling about this book.
The book is very well written, researched, and informed. Being a business reporter, naturally Duhigg would favor corporate aspects of behavior from an investigative perspective; which lends itself in the flow of the book. The voice of the book is enjoyable, the topic is amiable, and the stories are well told. it makes it a good read.
Habits play a huge role in our lives so it is easy to start to pick out those reoccurring good/poor choices and begin the dirty of work of adjusting them. The personal aspect is less about queues and circumstances, but merely about awareness - as though Duhigg is bringing something to the attention of the reader that they can no longer ignore.
The downside is the conversation places too much emphasis on habit as the foundation for behavior and decision making. It is stilted as a broad stroke of one aspect of Social Psychology, while ignoring intrapersonal hierarchy, childhood development, or mirror neurons and metarepresentative psycholinguistics which all inform behavior and all contribute to habit.
A simple aspect: our motives for doing things are not always properly reflected in habit. The women in the final portion as a problem gambler due to a line of poor choices that became habit, but it was guilt that drove her to that place at the start. Until she deals with the guilt, she will struggle with the problem.
The importance of habit only really equates to large groups in more corporate settings, but the importance as a staple begins to falter on individual levels as there are deeper sources that fuel individual behavior; unspoken definitions.