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…

Array
ArrayPhoto credit: Ryan Schultz/Creative Commons

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

“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.

  • NY superintendent flies to Guatemala to give diploma to graduate detained by ICE
    An airplane and a graduate. Photo credit: Canva
    ,

    NY superintendent flies to Guatemala to give diploma to graduate detained by ICE

    The student, who self-deported, was supposed to graduate in May.

    Roosevelt Schools Superintendent Dr. Shawn Wightman set out on an unusual journey to give his student, Alvaro Castro Velasquez, the graduation he earned.

    The senior was looking forward to walking across the stage with his friends at Roosevelt High School this May. But just weeks before graduation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him during a random encounter. Soon after, ICE transferred Castro Velasquez to a facility in Texas. When school officials found out, it sparked a response that brought the immigration crackdown right to their doorstep.

    immigration, ICE, graduation, deported, NY Superintendent
    Students in their caps and gowns. Photo credit: Canva

    “He wasn’t a hardened criminal or anything like that. Didn’t have any type of record. That was the moment everybody realized that this is a real thing,” Wightman told ABC 7 New York.

    Wightman didn’t give up on the senior. The superintendent boarded a flight to Texas with his regalia and Castro Velasquez’s diploma in hand. It was then that he realized the task wouldn’t be so simple. He was denied a meeting with the student who had reportedly come to the United States alone when he was 16. The flight, paid for out of his own pocket, turned out to be an expensive dead end.

    immigration, ICE, graduation, deported, NY Superintendent
    A man on a plane. Photo credit: Canva

    “It’s very difficult as a superintendent, a father, to think about if something like that were to have happened to any of my kids,” Wightman told ABC 7 New York.

    But where a seed of determination is planted, setbacks can sometimes act as water, leading to a bloom. After Wightman’s unsuccessful attempt to deliver the teen his diploma, Castro Velasquez opted for self-deportation to Guatemala. Navigating the immigration system alone as a teen is likely overwhelming, which may have contributed to the senior’s decision to leave.

    Wightman, however, became more determined than ever to ensure the teen received the diploma he earned. The educator took two flights and drove five and a half hours through the foothills of Guatemala to reach his former student. The pair reunited after Wightman’s long journey to the Central American country.

    The unwavering superintendent didn’t just arrive with a diploma in hand. He brought his own graduation robe and hood, along with the student’s cap and gown. In doing so, Wightman brought the graduation ceremony to Castro Velasquez.

    immigration, ICE, graduation, deported, NY Superintendent
    An airplane. Photo credit: Canva

    “This is amazing for me. He helped me. And he supported me, for all this time,” Castro Velasquez told ABC 7 New York. “I’m not feeling I’m alone. I know I have him and my family.”

    The TV station shared the video on Instagram, and people can’t get over the lengths the superintendent went to to mark the special occasion for his student.

    One person said, “Thank you sir, for demonstrating humanity.”

    Another wrote, “On his own dime. He should sleep peacefully at night knowing he did something extraordinarily kind!!”

    Someone else shared, “My heart is so moved by the sheer humanity and compassion of this man. He is a true educator! I pray that this young man will be inspired to keep fighting for his dreams. I pray that he be protected so that one day he can pay it forward.”

    For those wondering why he went to such lengths at his own expense, Wightman’s answer is simple: “You don’t abandon people who you care about.”

  • Why those epic ’80s wooden playgrounds suddenly disappeared
    Phil Edwards explains the history of wooden playgrounds.Photo credit: @phildedwardsinc/Instagram (used with permission)
    ,

    Why those epic ’80s wooden playgrounds suddenly disappeared

    Why did we trade those wooden beauties for brightly colored plastic?

    If you grew up in the ’80s or ’90s, you’re likely all too familiar with those all-wooden, castle-like playgrounds complete with drawbridges, child-sized tunnels, rope mazes, PVC pipe “walkie-talkies,” cool hideaway spaces, airport towers, and tire walls.

    They were the perfect place to let your imagination run wild, whether you pretended to be knights, wizards, Vikings, or simply played freeze tag without ever touching the ground.

    Nowadays, those castles are like a modern-day fairy tale: no longer made, rarely seen, and mostly remembered as relics of a bygone era. What happened?

    History of wooden playgrounds

    As a fun Instagram video by content creator Phil Edwards explains, part of what made wooden playgrounds special was that children had a major role in how they were created.

    According to Edwards, Robert “Bob” Leathers, founder of Leathers and Associates, and his partner, Tom Rockwell, consulted children during the design process. Those playgrounds were then built by volunteer community members, such as parents, in a matter of days.

    Personal memories

    Interestingly, quite a few viewers shared personal memories of helping design their wooden playgrounds as children.

    “My parents helped built the one for my elementary school…it was pure magic.”

    “I participated as a child, and I clearly remember standing up as a kindergartener and saying, what if a slide came out of a dragon’s mouth. Years later, playing in the Orange CT playground, I realized the slide came out of a dragon’s mouth, rendered in wood. I almost didn’t believe my earlier memory. Could that wild idea from the mouth of a kindergartner have become a major feature of an actual playground?? What an amazing program. ❤️”

    Castle Parks?
    by u/Comfortable_Weight82 in grandrapids

    “I remember being at planning meeting at the Waverly community house. I remember my dad building. I remember sanding wood. And I have so many memories of playing on this playground for hours a day while my mom taught dance…It was the greatest sense of community.”

    “​​Our very small southern NJ town had one of these – Pine Cone Zone. I still remember the planning team coming to our school. We all submitted our ideas and designs. They also had a naming contest. People could donate money and their names would be engraved on the fence posts. Still remember spending the day at the rec fields while our parents built it. Was such a big deal for our little community ❤️”

    Why they stopped making wooden playgrounds

    Unfortunately, a study in the early 2000s found that the type of wood used in these structures contained arsenic, and that children who played on them had significantly higher levels of the toxin on their skin. The findings raised concerns about the structures’ overall safety, and major playground manufacturers eventually stopped using this type of wood in favor of other materials.

    And while this didn’t seem to influence their decline, several folks recalled the wooden playgrounds as having merciless splinters.

    “The splinters were ruthless,” quipped one commenter. 

    Still, there weren’t any documented cases of “anything going wrong from these playgrounds,” Edwards noted. That’s why they weren’t forcibly torn down, and why you might still find some of the 1,600 that were built scattered across the country.

    While their reign has ended, wooden playgrounds leave behind a wonderful legacy. As Edwards put it, they were built “by parents who wanted to share their love with their children” and make something “amazing.” Imagine what could be possible if there were more opportunities for that kind of thing.

  • 101-year-old woman answers kids’ questions about the old days in this delightful clip
    An elderly woman walks on the beach. Another older woman holds a child.Photo credit: Canva

    In a compilation that has resurfaced and gone viral (yet again) on social media, a 101-year-old woman named Alice is seen meeting a gaggle of young children, all eager to see the world through the lens of her long life.

    The group is called HiHo Kids, and they’re part of an online content platform that features children learning and playing. Their Facebook page emphasizes the importance of embracing youth: “Every kid – including the one inside each of us – needs imagination and curiosity about the world. HiHo promotes empathy through play.”

    No question is too big, too silly, or too small for Alice. The young tikes are, as children tend to be, truly earnest, and Alice seems happy to share what her life has been like for more than a century. In a montage, various children sit across from her. One asks, “What are we here to talk about?” Alice answers with honesty and humor: “Well, I think it might be how old I am.”

    This is, of course, followed by the question, “How old are you?” Alice replies, “I’m in my 101st year.”

    After a brief discussion about where Alice grew up, a boy named Micah asks about life back in the old days. Alice answers, “We didn’t have radio. No television. We didn’t have telephones when I was a little girl. There were not any trucks. They had wagons, and horses pulled them.”

    What was the world like?

    One young girl asked whether the world was in such turmoil. “Back then, did you see any wars?” Alice maintained her honest approach. “I did, and I was in a war. I was in the Second World War. We worked on decoding and encoding machines. Very secret work. The officers had guns, and they said if you told any of the secrets, they would shoot you dead.”

    Micah looks a bit nervous, so Alice reassures him. “But nobody got shot.” He seems relieved. “Good,” he says, smiling and nodding.

    To lighten things up a bit, a young girl asks, “What did you do for fun?” Alice fondly recalls, “I had dolls and blocks. But I really liked ‘boys’ things.’ Marbles and tops. And I thought boys were much luckier than girls. We had to wear skirts and stockings, even in the coldest weather.”

    Clara questions this: “Girls couldn’t wear pants?” Alice affirms, “That’s right.” Clara concludes that it’s simply not fair.

    Favorite insect

    Though Alice is now retired, she lights up when talking about her past work as a biology professor. “If you look at my shirt, you’ll see some of the things I taught about.” She points to a few insect brooches on her pale blue button-down, including a spider. When asked about her favorite insect, Alice doesn’t hesitate: “Ants. I did research on ants.”

    Clara could talk about ants all day. She explains that although they’re tiny, they’re incredibly strong. “They can carry something big, like a banana. Even three of them can, even though they’re this tiny.” Alice is impressed by her knowledge. “You’re very good—and you’re only six years old!”

    Micah asks what Alice likes to do for fun. “Well, right now I’m watching the Olympics. I write books, and I do puzzles. I enjoy email. I write to a lot of my friends. I even play Scrabble. Also, I try to get exercise every day.”

    She tells the kids she’s grateful to still have a working mind and body. “Some old people aren’t very well anymore. Some of them can’t remember things. Some of them have to have somebody help them. But I can do everything myself.” Micah exclaims, “That’s good! That means you’re really old, but you’re really good at it.”

    The rest of the conversation is quite moving. Alice is asked what the hardest part of getting older is. “You miss people. And especially when you live over 100 years. Most of the people I ever knew, and in my family, are dead.”

    Not afraid of dying

    This leads to a beautiful question: “Are you afraid of dying?” Alice is most certainly not. “No, I’m not afraid of dying. I feel very healthy and happy. My doctor said, ‘Maybe you’ll just die in your sleep.’ So I’m not afraid, because I have a good life.”

    Finally, quite possibly the most important question of the session: “What is the secret to living a long life?” Alice answers, “Being happy, working hard, getting exercise, doing things for yourself, not expecting other people to do everything for you. Those things help you live a long time.”

    The comments under the Facebook reel, where this was also posted, are full of praise.

    One commenter wrote, “As a geriatric nurse, Alice’s brain is freaking amazing for 101. Shoot, it’s amazing for most of my 70-80 year olds. Amazing.”

    Another agreed with Alice’s life: “She was a freaking decoder! These kids don’t even know the titan they’re sitting across from them. This is so cool!”

    And of course, people loved Alice’s interactions with the sweet children. “You can tell she loves to teach,” a commenter wrote. “She’s absolutely magical with the children. What a gift to introduce these kids to Alice.”

  • Why didn’t people smile in old-timey photographs? Smiling meant something different back then.
    Photos of a man and woman from the 1800sPhoto credit: Public Domain

    If you’ve ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you’ve likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there’s a hint of a smile at all, it’s oh-so-slight. But more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn’t people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

    Most often, people’s serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that’s true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

    Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It’s surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as “smiley” aren’t toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

    But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn’t smile in early photographs.

    mona lisa, leonardo da vinci, classic paintings, famous smiles, art
    Mona LisaPhoto credit: Public domain

    The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

    The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn’t smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn’t how it was done.

    A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

    old photos, black and white photos, 1800s photos, no-smile photos, no smiles in photo
    Algerian immigrant to the United States. Photographed on Ellis Island. Photo credit: Augustus F. Sherman via William Williams/Wikimedia Commons

    Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

    Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

    “Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette.”

    drunks, classic painting, owls, malle babbe, paintings
    "Malle Babbe" by Frans HalsPhoto credit: Frans Hals via Public domain

    In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

    Smiling simply didn’t work well in old portraits

    Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn’t lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn’t work well in portraits of old.

    As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn’t have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

    Another reason why people didn’t smile in old photos is that dental hygiene wasn’t the same as it is today, and people may have been self-conscious about their teeth. “People had lousy teeth, if they had teeth at all, which militated against opening your mouth in social settings,” Angus Trumble, the director of the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, Australia, and author of A Brief History of the Smile, said, according to Time.

    old photos, black and white photos, 1800s photos, no-smile photos, no smiles in photo
    Even wedding party photos didn’t appear to be joyful occasions. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

    Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

    So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

    Photos could have captured people’s natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn’t widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kinds of emotions on people’s faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person’s face.

    Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • ‘You better than that’: Door camera shows woman stopping package thief with tough love
    A Black woman (left) and packages on a stoop (right).Photo credit: Canva
    ,

    ‘You better than that’: Door camera shows woman stopping package thief with tough love

    She turned a tense moment into an unforgettable display of empathy.

    In a moment when most people might respond with anger and discipline, one Philadelphia woman chose instead to lead with compassion.

    On March 6, Bernadette Williams noticed a stranger across the street near a neighbor’s porch. As seen on Williams’ doorbell camera, a woman with a partial face covering appeared to reach for a delivered package. It was the kind of scene that immediately raises alarm, and Williams responded without hesitation.

    ‘What are you doing? Put that back! Put that back!’

    The woman quickly dropped the package. For a brief moment, the situation hung in the balance. It could have turned into a confrontation, a threat, or a call to the police. But then Williams made a choice that shifted the entire tone of the encounter.

    “I said, ‘She’s in trouble. How can I make a bad situation better?’ You have to be a part of the solution,” she later told WPVI

    Rather than continuing to call out the woman, Williams began speaking to her in a completely different way. As her voice softened, her message changed from warning to encouragement.

    “You better than that. Get some help. I love you. God loves you,” she told the woman.

    Then came the offer that has stayed with so many people who have heard the story. Reaching into her pocket, Williams told the stranger, “I’ll give you some money. Here’s $7, here’s $7.” It was all she had, and she gave it up willingly. 

    package thief, kindness, Philadelphia
    Close-up of hands offering money. Photo credit: Canva

    The exchange was brief, but its impact was clear

    As WPVI reported, the woman apologized and thanked her before leaving. Williams said she could see something had shifted in her expression.

    “Her eyes of ‘I’m sorry.’ That was in her heart, and that’s what I read. I hope that she will be fine, and I have faith that she will be fine.”

    For Williams, the decision was not about ignoring wrongdoing, but about recognizing what might be underneath it. Instead of seeing a thief, she saw someone who might be struggling.

    “She started realizing ‘I am somebody,’” Williams said. “She started realizing that ‘There is somebody out here that cares.’”

    package thief, kindness, Philadelphia
    A close-up of eyes. Photo credit: Canva

    That perspective comes from years of living in the same neighborhood and feeling connected to the people in it. Williams believes that communities are shaped by how people choose to respond to one another, especially in difficult moments.

    “We are a part of this community, and we can make our community better,” she told WPVI.

    The big takeaway

    There’s a common assumption that accountability must come with harshness. This story shows that it doesn’t always have to. The would-be thief is held accountable while maintaining everyone’s dignity, making a different choice in the future far more likely.

    While it’s impossible to know what happens next for the woman in the video, what remains is the example Williams set by actively choosing humanity when most would not.

  • Ethan Hawke beautifully explains why AI art can’t replace imperfect human creativity
    Ethan Hawke gets philosophical about art and creativity.Photo credit: Elena Ternovaja/Wikimedia Commons

    As AI plays an increasing role in our world, questions about its appropriate use abound. There’s no doubt that technology has the potential to improve our lives dramatically. But the way we choose to use it can also impact us in ways we may not fully appreciate.

    For instance, how might AI impact our relationship with human creativity? Ethan Hawke was asked about the idea that “AI is the future of art,” and how he would argue that human creativity matters. People are loving his thoughts.

    Ethan Hawke on AI art versus reality

    “Nature is reality,” he said. “And when you get away from reality, you get lost. Human creativity is nature manifest in us. It is happening in us.”

    Then he gave an example of why AI art will never be able to replicate a piece of art created by a human.

    “AI could make an amazing portrait of the Sundance Film Festival, and it’ll be incredible,” he said. “Or my 14-year-old could color her impression of it. And the thing about my 14-year-old’s is it’s not perfect. It’s hers. It’s unique to a moment in time and a place. And it’s inimitable because it’s coming from her, and she is beautiful. And it’s not the painting; it’s the energy behind the painting.”

    “What makes a poem great is not this collection of words,” he continued. “It’s the energy behind the poem. Dance can be…you see people who can barely dance, and you can cry at the joy happening with the music. Because they’re alive right now and they won’t be forever. And when we start making things being about perfection, you’re just belittling the experience of life. You’re just totally ceding your humanity.”

    Hawke concluded, “It makes me sad, but it also makes me excited, because I don’t want to do that. I’m not going to do that.”

    So many people resonated with his response in the comments:

    “This is so beautiful and so true ~ everything he says is so profound and I’m here for this thinking…. we’ve become a weird world of social media perfection.”

    “I love how he got 🥲 talking about the imperfections created by hand from his daughter. What a beautiful way of describing creativity.”

    “Can he just write a philosophy book already? We all know we’d read it.”

    @ethanhawke always saying what the world needs to hear. Thank you sir! Thank you for defending the magic of NATURE and defending the MAGIC of humanity. More of this ENERGY and CONSCIOUSNESS ❤️❤️❤️.”

    “This feels less like an anti-AI take and more like a pro-human one.”

    AI isn’t going anywhere, time to choose the role it plays in society

    That last comment hits the nail on the head. Whether you love it, hate it, or aren’t sure how to feel about it, AI is here. The conversations we have about it, and how we consciously choose to engage with it, matter. There’s a lot to consider on that front, ethically, educationally, environmentally, and more.

    But one thing those considerations are forcing us to do is to examine the value of human creativity. Not the dollar amounts we can assign to it, but the inherent value of the energy behind an artist’s unique expression. Generative AI will never be able to replace human creativity, no matter how “perfectly” it may replicate it. The real beauty of art is the singularity of the human spirit and the unique energy an artist brings to it.

    As Hawke said, we can choose not to cede our humanity in the age of AI—and we can be excited about that choice because the beauty of human creativity is absolutely worth celebrating.

Culture

Why those epic ’80s wooden playgrounds suddenly disappeared

Finance

Frugal people share 20 smart financial decisions that saved them $10,000 or more

Life Hacks

College grads get real about how drastically job hunting has changed and what’s helping them survive

A safe, stable home can change lives for the better. Here’s how Habitat for Humanity wants to make that possible for everyone.