upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
Culture

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Still think the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? The Confederate states would disagree.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery or states' rights? People love to debate this question, and many seem to believe it's a matter of opinion.


But the truth is there's no debate to be had. We don't have to conjecture. We know that the Confederate states' primary motive was maintaining the right to enslave black people because they said so themselves.

We have the primary documents that explain, in detail, why Confederates wanted to break off from the U.S., and they are eye-opening to say the least. Even those who already understand slavery to be the primary cause of the Civil War may be shocked to see how blatantly and proudly the Southern states announced their intention to defend white supremacy and their right to own black people.

MARCH 21, 1861 SPEECH BY VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY, ALEXANDER STEPHENS

First let's take a look at a speech given by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, just a few weeks before the Civil War officially began. After describing some details of the Confederacy's Constitution, Vice President Stephens stated that slavery was the "immediate cause" of the South's "revolution."

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."

I mean, he said it right there. Slavery of black people was the "immediate cause" of secession and the impending war.

But he didn't stop there. No, he laid out the entire racist foundation of the new government in no uncertain terms.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away . . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Hmmm, so the South literally founded the Confederate government on the idea that slavery wasn't just acceptable, but that black people were actually supposed to be enslaved. This was stated plainly and proudly.

Need a moment? Yeah, me too. Take a deep breath, because we're just getting going here.

RELATED: This West Point colonel will tell you what the Civil War was really about.

Moving on, Stephens called the Northern abolitionists "fanatics," saying, "They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. . . ."

There's more.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

Stephens then went on to explain how God designed humanity so that one race would be subordinate to another, and that going against slavery is going against "the ordinance of the Creator."

It seriously could not be more clear: The Confederates were proud white supremacists who wanted to build a country around that ideal.

Lest anyone argue that this was just one speech or just one man's opinion, or that maybe Stephens didn't speak for the whole Confederacy (despite being Vice President of it), let's look at what the Confederate states themselves said.

DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES OF SECEDING STATES, 1861

In addition to the Ordinances of Secession announcing the departure of each of the Confederate states from the U.S., a handful of Southern states issued a Declaration of the Causes of Seceding States, explaining in detail why they felt they needed to leave the Union.

You can read the document in its entirety here, but let's take a look at some highlights. (The first thing to note is that some iteration of the word "slave" appears 83 times in these declarations. So, yeah.)

GEORGIA

Right out of the gate, Georgia let everyone know that slavery is at the forefront of its concerns. The second sentence of their declaration reads:

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Okay then.

As we read through Georgia's lengthy history lesson of how the states got to this point, it's worth noting that they rarely referred to the "Northern" and "Southern" states. Instead, they referred to "non-slaveholding states" and "slave-holding states." That alone ought to be a clue as to their motivations.

But if that's not enough, here's where Georgia stated that the Republican Party's anti-slavery stance justified its decision to leave the Union.

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."

Finally, they summed up how racial equality and the prohibition of slavery, being the primary concern of the non-slaveholding states, was something they simply would not abide.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."

Thank you, Georgia, for clarifying your position.

MISSISSIPPI

Again, right out the gate, Mississippi told everyone that slavery is their main reason for seceding. Here's how their declaration begins, no sentences skipped:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."

Once they made that clear, they explained how they simply couldn't live without slavery because black people were made to tend their crops.

"Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

Mississippi just stated that their only choices were to give up slavery or secede. And if that still seems unclear somehow, here are some of the "facts" they included for why they couldn't stay in the Union:

"It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

"It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."

"It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

"It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists."

How can anyone say that the war wasn't about slavery at this point?

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina's declaration started off sounding like it was all about "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," as they used that all-caps phrase repeatedly in recounting the history of why the colonies broke off from England. But when they got into their specific grievances with the Union, guess what they complained about. Yup, slavery.

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

They went on and on about non-slaveholding states trying to control their "property" and "institutions." We could guess what they meant by that, but we don't have to because they told us.

"Those States have assume [sic] the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

They even got specific about states that passed anti-slavery laws, which they claimed went against the Constitution.

"The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

Again, South Carolina was clear that the North's hostility toward slavery was what drove them to break away, thereby leading to war.

TEXAS

Ah, Texas. If you thought the deep south was the only place that gleefully celebrated the enslavement of black people, take a look at the Lone Star State's declaration. It's a doozy.

RELATED: A school assignment asked for 3 benefits of slavery. This kid gave the only good answer.

First, here's how Texas described being accepted into the Confederacy:

"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

So, not only is white people enslaving black people fine and dandy—it's a subjugation that should go on forever and ever. Got it.

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Sorry, I need to pause for a second. "Their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery"? And "the debasing doctrine of equality of all men"? The state of Texas said here that equality was not just unnatural but against God's law. We all know that racism was the standard of the day, but I don't think most of us were taught how deeply held these white supremacist beliefs were in the South's own words.

And again, they weren't done.

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Still not done...

"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

"Mutually beneficial to both bond and free." Oh yes, those lucky slaves, living just as the Almighty intended.

If you wonder why people see the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, this is why. If you wonder why honoring the leaders of the Confederacy with monuments and holidays is horrifically problematic, this is why.

We have it straight from the Confederates' mouths. The Civil War was fought because the South wanted the right to keep slavery and the North wanted to abolish it. People can say it was about states' rights, but it's disingenuous to omit the primary moral, political, and economic right the South was fighting to maintain—the legal and systematic subjugation and enslavement of black people.

They seriously could not have been any clearer about it.

black lab, dog walker, dog walker near me, dog walker ap, neighbors, good news, pets, feel good news

black lab (left. Handwritten letter (right)

If you've lived your whole life with a dog, a home has to feel pretty empty without one. Your heart has to feel like there's something missing as well. When Jack McCrossan, originally from Scotland, moved to Bristol, England with his three friends, they were bummed out to learn that their landlord didn't allow dogs.

So when they saw a beautiful black Sheprador (a German Sheppard Lab mix) in their neighbor's window, they knew that had to become buddies with her. They wrote the dog's owner, Sarah Tolman, a letter asking to arrange a play date with the dog. "If you ever need someone to walk him/her, we will gladly do so," they wrote.


"If you ever get bored (we know you never will, but we can dream), we are more than happy to look after him/her. If you want to come over and bring him/her to brighten our day, you are more than welcome. If you want to walk past our balcony windows so we can see him/her, please do," the letter continued.

"We hope this doesn't come too strong, but our landlord won't allow pets, and we've all grown up with animals. The adult life is a struggle without one," they wrote. "Yours sincerely, The boys from number 23," the letter concluded.

Soon after, the boys in 23 received a response from the dog herself, Stevie Ticks, accepting the offer. However, it may have been written by her human, Sarah Tolman. In the letter, Stevie shares a bit about herself, saying she's two years and four months old, was adopted in Cyprus, and that she's "very friendly and full of beans." (The boys shouldn't worry about a gassy hound, in England, "full of beans" means lively.)

"I love meeting new people and it would be great if we can be friends. I must warn you that the price of my friendship is 5 x ball throws a day and belly scratches whenever I demand them," the letter continued. A few days later, the boys got to meet Stevie.

"Meeting Stevie was great!" McCrossan told Buzzfeed. "She was definitely as energetic as described. We got to take her for a walk and she wouldn't stop running!"

Tolman thought the boys' letter was a fantastic gesture in an era where, quote often, neighbors are strangers. "In a day and age where people don't really know or speak to their neighbors, it was really nice for them to break down that barrier," she said. After the story went viral, she saw it as an opportunity for people to share their love of dogs with the world. "My mother and I are amazed at all the love we've received from around the world these past few days," Tolman wrote as Stevie. "If you have a doggo in your life, share that love with those around you."

A lot has changed since this story first warmed hearts around the globe. The boys have since moved away, but as of September 2024, Stevie is around 8 years old and still living her best life. Recently, she even made it to the doggie wall of fame at her local coffee shop.

In the years since this story first went viral, pet-sharing and neighbor dog borrowing have actually become more common, especially in cities where landlords restrict pets. Several platforms (like BorrowMyDoggy) and community groups now exist to pair dog owners with trusted neighbors who want occasional playtime, walks, or dog-sitting without having to own a pet. It’s a small but growing trend that reflects how deeply animal companionship is needed—even for people who can’t adopt a dog full-time. In many apartment buildings, these kinds of informal arrangements help reduce loneliness, build community, and give non-owners the emotional benefits of living with pets.

Just goes to show the power of a dog's love…even if that dog isn't your own.

This article originally appeared six years ago.

wine, fine wine, restaurant, fine dining, funny, humor, kindness, restaurants, server, waiters
Canva Photos, Hawksmoor Manchester

An unwitting server accidentally gave away a nearly $6000 bottle of wine

No one likes when it happens, but everyone makes a mistake at one time or another. Some are small, and others are...not so small, especially when they happen at work. There’s nothing worse than that sinking feeling that comes when you realize you have to fess up to your manager. Next comes the uncertainty over whether you’ll keep your job or not. And if your mistake happens to be one that costs your company money, let alone a significant amount of it? The stress is unimaginable.

In 2019, a server at the Hawksmoor Manchester steakhouse and cocktail bar in England went through that very experience. She accidentally served a customer a £4500 ($5,750) bottle of Chateau le Pin Pomerol 2001 instead of the £260 ($33) Bordeaux they ordered.


wince, ouch, oof, cringe, gif denzel washington cringe GIF Giphy

Yikes. I think we all felt that collective wince just now.

The server didn't realize the mistake right away. It wasn't until later that a manager clocked the switch, leaving the poor waiter absolutely mortified. After all, it's (hopefully!) not every day that a server makes a $5,700 mistake. The few that do rarely end up keeping their jobs.

wine, red wine, wine glass, vintage wine, fine wine, fine dining, funny restaurant stories You have to wonder if normal people can even tell if they're drinking a $6,000 bottle of wineCanva Photos.

However, the server’s manager decided to handle the situation with grace and humor, posting a lighthearted message on X (formerly Twitter).

"To the customer who accidentally got given a bottle of Chateau le Pin Pomerol 2001, which is £4500 on our menu, last night - hope you enjoyed your evening! To the member of staff who accidentally gave it away, chin up! One-off mistakes happen and we love you anyway," they wrote.

The manager even went a step further and excused the mistake by saying the bottles “look pretty similar.”

The post went mega viral, racking up nearly 53,000 Likes on Twitter/X. Commenters praised management and ownership for letting the server off the hook for an honest mistake.

"As someone who works in hospitality, bless you for being understanding and not flying off the handle at the poor lad/lass."

"Now that’s a good employer! Mistakes do happen, sadly some employees aren’t as forgiving and only see the value of what was lost. I’m certain your understanding and forgiving manner towards the member of your staff will win you more customers!"

"This is such a great way to deal with a member of staff who has made a genuine mistake - great to read about it, well done to the management team & a lot of leaders could learn a thing or two from this story. Thanks for sharing the story."

Working in any kind of customer service, especially food service, is brutally difficult and under-appreciated. These kinds of employees absolutely deserve some grace, so it's heartwarming to see them finally get some.

Other users teased that if this was the kind of service they could expect from the restaurant, they'd be making a reservation ASAP.

"How can I book a table?" someone joked.

Hawksmoor founder Will Beckett later clarified the story to BBC News saying that the server had been working with a manager from another location because it was a busy night. The manager accidentally grabbed the wrong bottle and the customer apparently didn’t notice the mistake. (Sure they didn't.)

wine, red whine, fine dining, restuarant, cheers Love Wine Cheers GIF by Zonte's Footstep Giphy

Beckett said the server is “brilliant,” but he’s still going to “tease her for this when she stops being so mortified.”

Some users questioned the very nature of a nearly $6,000 bottle of wine. To be fair, reviews of the vintage call it "perfection," "luxury," and a "thrilling experience." Still, it can be hard for people to wrap their minds around such extravagance.

"Is no-one else disgusted by the fact that a restaurant charges £4,500 for a bottle of wine in the first place? No wine is worth that much; it's pure & excessive extravagance for the sake of it & I find it vile," a user commented.

Beckett followed up in another post adding that, while the wine was expensive, the restaurant has raised over £1 million ($1.3 million) for the Wood Street Mission children's charity.

This article originally appeared six years ago.

predators, forensics, crime, women, awareness
via Екатерина Шумских/Pexels, Vladimir Konoplev/Pexels and Teona Swift/Pexels

Three women walking down city streets.

A forensics student named Alexandria recently shared vital information on TikTok that all women should know. She detailed the specific signs male predators are looking for when they choose a victim.

Her video is based on a 2013 study entitled “Psychopathy and Victim Selection: The Use of Gait as a Cue to Vulnerability.” For the study, researchers interviewed violent criminals in prison and asked them the type of women they’d be most likely to victimize.


The study found that the criminals all agreed that how the woman walked was a deciding factor.

“What the selected women all had in common was the way that they walked and how they generally held themselves in public,” Alexandria says in the video she later deleted but has been shared broadly across the platform.

@_alf_90_

How to walk for your safety! #women #safety #tips #walking #kidnapping #murder #attacks #fyp

“The selected women all had a similar ‘awkwardness’ to the way that they walked and carried themselves,” she continued. “The first part of the woman had a gait that was a little bit too small for their body, which resulted in smaller steps, slower speed and their arms more typically to their sides, or crossed, as well as their heads being down and not really taking in their general surroundings, which indicated three different things to these potential attackers.”

The woman’s body language signaled to attackers that she was fearful and anxious and because her head was down, she'd be easier to surprise. Alex then described the second type of woman the criminals said they’d target.

“On the other hand, the other part of the women that were selected had a gait that seemed a bit too big for their body and their arms tended to flail to the sides and seemed just overly awkward,” Alexandria continued.

The woman with the bigger gait signaled to potential attackers that she may be clumsy and won’t put up a good fight. “Because their arms were out and flailing to the side, it left the lower body open to, again, come around and grab them,” she said.

women, walking, predators, crime, body language Women walking down a street.Image via Canva Photos.

The video was helpful because Alexandria also discussed the types of women the attackers wouldn’t pursue. Alex says these women “walked with a gait that tended to be more natural to their body.” She adds they moved at the same pace as those in the immediate area, with their shoulders back and chins up and asserting a general sense of confidence.

“Essentially, the women that were not selected gave off an energy that said, ‘Don’t mess with me. I will put up a good fight.’ And that’s why they weren’t selected,” Alex said. “I know that it sounds silly, but something as simple as the way you walk or the way that you carry yourself in public could determine the likelihood that you become a target of a predator.”

According to the Center for Violence Prevention and Self Defense Training, detecting vulnerability is the biggest factor in who predators choose to victimize. Confusion, isolation, appearing insecure, unaware, unassertive, or distracted all play a part in who predators target, but being aware of these factors can increase safety considerably. They also note that access plays a part in being targeted, stating that, "Attackers tend to target people positioned near entrances, exits, or secluded areas where they can quickly grab and escape without arousing suspicion."

woman, crime, predator, safety, awareness Woman aware of her surroundings in a parking garage. Image via Canva Photos.

Alexandria concluded her video by sharing an acronym that can help prevent women from being victimized while in public: STAAR.

S(tride): Walk with a natural stride to your body with steps that are not too far apart or short.

T(all): Stand tall. Keep your shoulders back and your chin up. Assert a natural confidence and dominance to those around you.

A(rms): Swing your arms naturally by your sides, avoiding keeping them too close to your body or flailing out of your natural range of motion.

A(wareness): Stay aware of your surroundings. Take notice if something feels or looks off.

R(elax): Stay cool, calm, and collected and don’t indicate to a potential attacker that you feel or see something is wrong.


This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.

swimming pool, pool safety, toddler swimming, drowning, rescue, hero

A 3-year-old saved his friend from a backyard swimming pool.

Swimming pools can provide endless hours of fun in the sun, but they can also be extremely dangerous for young children who haven't learned to swim. According to the World Health Organization, around 300,000 people die from drowning each year, and about a quarter of those drowning victims are children under age 5.

In 2020, at a residence in Itaperuna, a city north of Rio de Janeiro, a harrowing scene unfolded in a backyard swimming pool. According to the Daily Mail, Henrique, a 3-year-old child of a worker on the property, snuck away from his parents' supervision and wandered over to the pool. Security camera footage shows the young boy and fellow 3-year-old, Arthur de Oliveira, sitting next to the pool when Henrique reaches for an inflatable floaty and falls into the water.


A frantic Arthur looks around for help, but there is no one to be found. For 10 seconds, Henqriue struggles to keep his head above water, until Arthur bravely extends his hand and pulls the boy up. If Arthur didn't have the strength, he could have fallen in the pool and both boys could have drowned.

Luckily, Arthur's strength held up and he pulled the boy to safety."This video serves as an alert for those who have a pool at home and children," wrote Arthur's mom, Poliana Console de Oliveira on her Facebook page. "Thank God the ending is happy, because God sent the land under my care, my son, my little Arthur, a true hero! Real life hero, my pride."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

"Arthur saved his friend's life," she added. Arthur hopes to be a police officer one day, so after the local police department learned of his bravery, it sent him a new basketball and a whole lot of candy. The boy was also given a certificate and a trophy that said, "From a hero to a hero."

While Arthur's heroism is worthy of recognition, it's also important to know how to avoid these kinds of near-tragedies. Safekids.org recommends these tips for watching kids when there's a body of water around:

  1. Watch kids when they are in or around water. Keep young children and weak swimmers within arm’s reach of an adult. Make sure more experienced swimmers are with a partner every time.
  2. Choose a Water Watcher. When there are several adults present, choose one to be responsible for watching children in or near the water for a certain period of time, such as 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, select another adult to be the Water Watcher.
  3. Avoid distractions when your child is in or around water. Drowning is often silent and can occur in less than five minutes, so it is important to give your child all of your attention. Put away phones, books and magazines.

And for pool safety specifically, Safekids.org makes these recommendations:

  1. Install fences around home pools. A pool fence should surround all sides of the pool and be at least four feet tall with self-closing and self-latching gates.
  2. Be aware of pool drains. Teach your child not to or swim near pool drains or suction outlets. Visit Pool Safely to learn more about available resources to keep kids safe around pool drains.
  3. Empty kids’ pools immediately after use. Store them upside down and out of children’s reach.

This article originally appeared five years ago.

target, girl's clothes, meghan mayer, modesty, age-appropriate clothes
via Target and Mike Mozart/Flickr

A controversial dress being sold at Target.

Everywhere you go, there seems to be a constant war between children’s clothing retailers who want to push the boundaries of modesty and parents who push back, saying they are sexualizing children. On top of that, when young girls believe they are supposed to wear clothes that are tight-fitting and revealing, it's very damaging to their self-esteem and body image. So what is a parent to do?

“I think it’s one thing that the girls’ clothes are very fitted and small, and it’s another that they’re in such direct contrast to what you find on the boys’ side, and those two things send a pretty strong message about what they’re supposed to look like, dressed to be slim and to be fit,” Sharon Choksi, a mom of two and founder of the clothing line, Girls Will Be, told CNN.


The topic came up again recently when Meghan Mayer, a mother of 2 and a 7th-grade school teacher, posted a video on TikTok about a dress she saw at Target that received over 1.6 million views. Meghan was reacting to a smock-style patterned dress with balloon sleeves that appeared modest at first glance. But after closer examination, it has holes on the waist on both sides, revealing the girl’s midriff and possibly more.


“My oldest daughter and I are at Target, and there’s some cute spring stuff,” Mayer started the video. "I am a little bit more conservative when it comes to my kids’ clothing, so maybe I’m overreacting, but let me know what you think of these dresses.”

She added that the dress may be okay for a 12-year-old but was inappropriate for a 6- or 7-year-old. Mayer asked her followers what they thought of the dress. “Like I said, I know I’m a little bit more conservative. I don’t usually even let my girls wear bikinis, but maybe I’m overreacting, I don’t know. Thoughts?”

For reference, she then showed the sizes of the dresses to show they were for kids, and then revealed the holes in the sides. “Look at these little slits on the sides of these dresses, right at the hips on all these dresses,” she said.

Most people commenting on the video thought the dress was a bit much for such a young girl to wear and that it was inappropriate for someone that age to expose themselves.

target, target aisle, big box retail, target pov, shopping Walking down the aisle in a target.via Mike Mozart/Flickr

"You're not overreacting. You're parenting properly," Paper Bound Greetings wrote. "No, no. There is no reason for those holes to be there. They should have pockets! Not holes!" Anna wrote. "I think retailers are trying to mature our kids too fast. I agree with mom!" HollyMoore730 commented.

But some people thought that that dress was acceptable and Mayer was overreacting.

"Unpopular opinion, I think they’re cute," Dr. Robinson wrote. "When I was a kid in the ‘70s I wore halter tops and tube tops; they were not seen as big deals. I don’t think this is scandalous," Kimberly Falkowsi added. "Overreacting. Both my girls have the blue and white, you can’t even tell much. It’s not that big of a hole. The dresses are so cute," LolitaKHalessi commented.

"Fun fact… you don’t have to buy it, Bethany wrote. "Idk I think it’s cute and that everyone just making it weird when it really isn’t," Wisdomdeals added. "Nothing wrong with the dress. It’s sold out in my area. Luckily if you don’t like it or think it’s inappropriate, you don’t buy it for your child," Maddison commented.


target, retail store, target front, target doors, target location The front of a Target.via Mike Mozart/Flickr

Some commenters told Mayer that she should buy the dress and have her daughter wear a shirt beneath it so it doesn’t show skin. However, Mayer believes that it would support Target in making questionable kids' clothing.

"No, I'm not going to buy it and have them wear a tank top with it, because then that's showing Target that it's OK," she told Today.com. "And over time, the cutout will get bigger and bigger."

This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated.