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.

  • A hundred years ago, everyone wore hats. In 1960, they suddenly stopped. Here’s why.
    When did everyone stop wearing hats?Photo credit: via Warmbru Curiosity/YouTube
    , , , ,

    A hundred years ago, everyone wore hats. In 1960, they suddenly stopped. Here’s why.

    Old footage from the ’50s shows men, women, and children wearing hats everywhere they go.

    It was everywhere. Men, women, and even children did it every time they left the house. If you see old newsreel footage of men in the office or on commuter trains from the advent of the motion picture camera to the early ‘60s, nearly everyone is wearing a hat. Hats were just as common for women in that era. For a woman to go out without a hat in the first half of the 20th century was akin to going out without clothes.

    The funny thing is that everyone’s headgear is so similar in the old-timey footage that it makes previous generations look like big-time conformists. Then, in the early ‘60s, everything changed, and men and women started to go out in public with their hair exposed. Why did such a big aspect of fashion seem to change overnight?

    Warmbru Curiosity investigated the question recently in a popular YouTube video. Warmbru’s channel is a lighthearted look at some of the more unusual people and events from our history and how they have influenced the world in which we live.

     

    Why did people stop wearing hats?

    Warmbru says fashion changed dramatically after World War II, when people in developed countries began to care less about expressing their social status. “This was especially true among the younger generation the rise of youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized rebellion against traditional norms, including formal dress codes,” the YouTuber says.

    Mad Men, Don Draper, Jon Hamm, hats, mens fashion, men's hats, 1950s
    Don Draper from AMC’s Image via

    Another big reason for the change in fashion was technology. Cars became the preferred mode of transportation for many after World War II and indoor environments became more hospitable. “People spent far less time exposed to the elements as people increasingly moved to urban areas and started using cars,” Warmbru says. “The practicality of wearing hats diminishes. Hats can be cumbersome in cars and on public transport, improvements in heating and air conditioning reduce the need for hats to provide warmth.”

    Warmbru adds that President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, rarely wore a hat and his decision to go bareheaded became associated with modernity. Further, in 1963, the mop-topped Beatles proudly flaunted their hatless heads as they shook them while singing, “Wooooo.” Hat-wearing among women began to decline around the same time as the restrictive and complex headgear clashed with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.

    Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, hats, men, men's fashion, 1960's, 1950's

    John F. Kennedy with his family Image via Wikicommons

    The decline in hat purchases meant that manufacturers closed and the headgear became harder to come by. This reduced availability further contributed to the decline in hat-wearing. As fewer people wore hats, there became a greater demand for high-quality hair products and services. “Why spend a fortune at the hairdressers or the barbers just to cover the end result with a hat?” Warmbru asks.

    Ultimately, there were many reasons why people stopped wearing hats. It appears that it was a combination of technology, influential people such as Kennedy and The Beatles, and the overwhelming mood of change that swept most of the Western world in the 1960s. But if one thing is true about fashion, it goes in cycles. So, it seems that hats may be ready for their big comeback.

     

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

  • She was fired for taking 10 minutes to reply to emails. Then she made sure they’d regret it.
    A frustrated employee is typing on her computerPhoto credit: Canva

    She had been on the job for four months when she was pulled without warning into a meeting with her manager, HR, and legal. Effective immediately, she was fired. The reason given: she took ten minutes to respond to emails.

    “That was a bullsh*t reason,” she wrote in a post to Reddit’s r/MaliciousCompliance that has since racked up more than 19,000 upvotes. “To be honest, I was furious.”

    The job itself had never been easy. She’d been hired as a speaker coordinator for a company that planned large conferences, and from the start, as she described it to Bored Panda, there was no onboarding, no training, and no clear point of contact. “I was simply given the log-in info for a couple of different websites and told to get to work.” She was the only person in the role. All the institutional knowledge about speakers, schedules, and upcoming events lived entirely with her.

    Audience listening to a speaker at a conference. Photo credit: Canva

    Her manager spoke limited English, which made communication difficult in ways that weren’t anyone’s fault but created real problems. When she once asked her manager for a call to clarify something, the response came back: “No cranne. Self skills is a must. I am bird without head.” It took her several days to piece together that her manager was trying to say she was overwhelmed and needed her employee to be more self-sufficient.

    She adapted, figured things out, and by her own account, kept the speakers happy. Then came the meeting, the firing, and the reason that didn’t add up. Ten minutes to reply to an email. No written warning. No verbal warning. Nothing.

    During the exit interview, HR asked her to hand over her files and walk them through where things stood with an upcoming event scheduled in 17 days. She reached into her bag and pulled out her copy of the NDA she’d signed when she started.

    As she told it on Reddit, she pointed to a specific clause: as a former employer, they were now prohibited from receiving confidential information about the position under the terms of the very agreement they’d had her sign. “As per my NDA, I am not to discuss intimate details or share documents relating to this position with any employer, past or future. Since this firing was effective immediately, you are now a former employer and I am bound by my NDA.”

    A non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Photo credit: Canva

    HR pushed back. She held firm. Legal was brought in. Legal read the clause and confirmed she was correct.

    The event, by her account, was a disaster. More than half the speakers pulled out once communication broke down. Her former manager nearly lost her job over it. The employee, for her part, closed her Reddit post with the mocking subject line that had gotten her fired in the first place: “All because I ~tAKe ToO lONg tO ResPoND tO EMaILS~”

    The story resonated because it captures something many workers recognize: the particular frustration of being let go without cause, without warning, and without recourse, and the rare satisfaction of finding that the company had, in this case, handed her exactly the recourse she needed. Save your contracts. Read the fine print. Sometimes the NDA works both ways.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • They evicted her after 40 years to claim her hand-painted murals. Her parting gift was perfect.
    A woman paints a mural indoors Photo credit: Canva
    ,

    They evicted her after 40 years to claim her hand-painted murals. Her parting gift was perfect.

    The landlord’s family evicted her to claim her artwork, but a neighbor with a paint sprayer had a different idea.

    For nearly four decades, a retired art teacher had been turning her rental house into something extraordinary. Every wall inside held hand-painted murals, Disney movies and fairy tales rendered floor to ceiling, the kind of place that people in the neighborhood knew by reputation. Outside, she’d added a cottage facade. Inside, it was unlike anything else on the street.

    She had no lease. The original landlord had given her a verbal agreement that the art on the walls wouldn’t be a problem, and she’d been there since the mid-1980s with an informal understanding that the house might one day be hers.

    Then the original landlord died. His son inherited the property, came to inspect it with his daughter, and they fell in love with what they saw. According to a post shared to Reddit’s r/pettyrevenge by a neighbor, u/ZZZ-Top, the family decided the art house should go to the daughter. Without a lease, the tenant had limited options. The murals she’d painted, the very thing that made the property desirable, were used as justification to push her out.

    “She was devastated,” the neighbor wrote.

    But she landed on her feet. Friends helped her find a property in another state at the last minute, one with a full art studio on the ground floor. The question of what to leave behind was where things got interesting.

    She had originally planned to leave the murals intact. Then her neighbor, a friend who had been wanting to practice using a powered paint sprayer, made her an offer: he would restore the house to what he called “Rebecca standards” for free. As he explained in the post, “Rebecca standards” is neighborhood shorthand for the look of a flipped house: everything painted in the same flat white and depressing grey, every surface generic, every trace of personality gone. The landlord’s family had evicted her specifically to get the murals. Rebecca standards would make that impossible.

    A woman paints a mural on a wall. Photo credit: Canva

    She agreed.

    Her furniture went into storage. Her neighbor let her stay in his guest house in exchange for one new mural on his living room wall. Then the work began. As the Someecards account of the story details, the painter friend sanded every wall in the house until the murals became nothing but blotchy color ghosts. Then came the Kilz primer, sprayed wall to wall. Then the grey. Wood paneling, trim, switch covers, outlet covers, counters, cabinets. All of it the same flat, lifeless shade. “The house looked dead inside when I went in to check it out,” the neighbor wrote. “It was weird not seeing all the murals.”

    Outside, a landscaping friend cleared the cottage facade and the plants, replacing everything with gravel, sand, and a single boulder.

    A few days after she left, the neighbor noticed the house was still empty. He asked around. Some U-Haul trucks had shown up earlier in the week, he was told, but none of them had been unloaded. Nobody had moved in.

    The post drew over 38,000 upvotes and hundreds of comments from people who understood exactly what had happened. “They could have easily asked her for a commission to do the same murals in their own home,” one commenter wrote, “but chose to kick her out instead.” Another kept it simpler: “Kick me out? My art goes with me. Enjoy the blank walls.”

    For anyone renting without a written lease, the story carries a quieter lesson. Verbal agreements offer almost no protection when ownership changes hands. The woman lost her home of 40 years because of a handshake arrangement with someone who was no longer alive to honor it. She found a better situation in the end, one with a proper studio and walls she actually owns. But the path there didn’t have to be that hard.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • A Wisconsin senior painted 44 portraits of classmates she’d drifted from. Their reactions when they received them say everything.
    A young woman smiles at a portraitPhoto credit: Canva
    ,

    A Wisconsin senior painted 44 portraits of classmates she’d drifted from. Their reactions when they received them say everything.

    Before graduation, she quietly painted a portrait of every classmate she’d ever known and given them away.

    Molly Schafer had a secret she’d been keeping all year.

    Every day at Waunakee High School in Wisconsin, she’d walk past classmates in the halls, people she’d known since elementary school, and they had no idea what she was doing in the corner of the school library after the final bell, or in the studio she’d set up at home. She was painting their portraits. All of them.

    “It was almost kind of like evil shenanigans that were going on,” she told the NW Indiana Times. “You have no idea what I’m doing. You have no clue what I’m making.”

    basketball, gym, sports
    A high school basketball game. Photo credit: Canva

    Schafer had been outgoing in elementary and middle school, but social anxiety reshaped her high school years. She drifted from her peers, found a circle of older students, and watched that circle graduate and leave while she stayed behind. “I’ve never really known anyone in my senior class,” she told hngnews.com. “And I’ve just been so alone.” One moment captured the feeling precisely: she was photographing a basketball game for Warrior Media, the school’s sports streaming channel, when she slipped and fell. Every student in the gym turned to look. Nobody asked if she was okay.

    But the photography gave her something she hadn’t expected. A catalog. Thousands of shots of her classmates mid-game, mid-leap, mid-effort, faces alive with concentration and competition. When it came time for her AP Art final, she knew what she wanted to do with them.

    Starting in the fall of 2024, she began painting. She’d work at school, then go home and paint for another four or five hours in the studio she’d built in her garage. She originally planned 50 portraits, reduced it to 45, and finished with 44, each one based on her own sports photography, each one a classmate she’d known once and wanted to know again. By graduation, she’d spent approximately 600 hours across all of them, as reported by CBS News in a Steve Hartman “On the Road” segment that aired in June 2025.

    The paintings were portraits in the truest sense. Not posed, not generic, but specific people caught in specific moments, rendered with the kind of attention that takes months to accumulate. Each one was a gift.

    “I wanted to be seen,” she told Fox47. “I wanted to reconnect with these people who I haven’t talked to in years, and I wanted to show them that even though they’ve been such a small part of my life, they’ve stuck with me.”

    The reactions, when she handed them out, ranged from stunned to emotional. “It’s one of the coolest things I’ve ever seen someone do, especially for someone you aren’t that close with,” one classmate told CBS News. Another admitted: “We did have that friendship, and I didn’t put forth the work to keep it.” A third said: “All of us probably feel a little regret for not paying more attention.” Senior Brady Barman, one of the recipients, said that it simply felt good “to feel appreciated by someone else.”

    Schafer’s art teacher, Beth Crook De Valdez, watched the whole project unfold. “Watching her go through that process and seeing her internal reflection about this project she came up with really fills your heart,” she said.

    After the CBS segment aired, commission requests started arriving. More than 100 of them from people who had seen what she could do and wanted her to do it for them.

    Schafer’s own takeaway was characteristically direct. “You can’t go through life thinking that you don’t have friends because they don’t like you, because that’s not the case,” she said. “People aren’t thinking that hard about you. It’s all in your head. You just have to try.”

    She spent 600 hours proving it.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • Video of two brothers Irish step dancing to Beyoncé’s country hit ‘Texas Hold ‘Em’ is pure delight
    The Gardiner Brothers stepping in time to Beyoncé's "Texas Hold 'Em."Photo credit: Gardiner Brothers/TikTok (with permission)

    In early February 2024, Beyoncé rocked the music world by releasing a surprise new album of country tunes. The album, Renaissance: Act II, includes a song called “Texas Hold ‘Em,” which shot up the country charts—with a few bumps along the way—and landed Queen Bey at the No.1 spot.

    As the first Black female artist to have a song hit No. 1 on Billboard’s country music charts, Beyoncé once again proved her popularity, versatility, and ability to break barriers without missing a beat. In one fell swoop, she got people who had zero interest in country music to give it a second look, forced country music fans to broaden their own ideas about what country music looks like, prompted conversations about bending and blending musical genres and styles, and gave the Internet a crash course on the Black roots of country music.

    And she inspired the Gardiner Brothers to add yet another element to the mix—Irish step dance.

    In a TikTok that’s been viewed over 42 million times, the Gardiner Brothers don cowboy hats while they step in time to “Texas Hold ‘Em,” much to the delight of viewers everywhere.

    Watch:

    Michael and Matthew Gardiner are professional Irish-American step dancers and choreographers who have gained international fame with their award-winning performances. They’ve also built a following of millions on social media with videos like this one, where they dance to popular songs, usually in an outdoor environment.

    The melding of Irish dance with country music sung by a Black American female artist may seem unlikely, but it could be viewed merely as country music coming back to its roots. As mentioned, country music has roots in Black culture and tradition. One major staple of the country music genre, the banjo, was created by enslaved Africans and their descendants during the colonial era, according to The Smithsonian. The genre also has deep roots in the ballad tradition of the Irish, English and Scottish settlers in the Appalachian region of the U.S. Despite modern country music’s struggle to break free from “music for white people” stereotypes, it’s much more diverse than many realize or care to admit, and Queen Bey is simply following tradition.

    banjo, country music, country, roots, genre
    Man playing banjo. Canva Photos

    People are loving the blending of genres and culture that the TikTok exemplifies.

    “Never thought I’d see Irish step dancing while Beyoncé sings country,” wrote on commenter. “My life is complete. ♥️”

    “So happy Beyoncé dropped this song and exposed my timeline to diversified talent ,” wrote another.

    “Beyoncé brought the world together with this song ,” offered another person.

    “Ayeeee Irish Dancing has entered the BeyHive chatroom… WELCOME!! ” exclaimed another.

    “I don’t think I can explain how many of my interests are intersecting here,” wrote one commenter, reflecting what several others shared as well.

    The Beyoncé/Gardiner Brothers combo and the reactions to it are a good reminder that none of us fit into one box of interest or identity. We’re all an eclectic mix of tastes and styles, so we can almost always find a way to connect with others over something we enjoy. What better way to be reminded of that fact than through an unexpected mashup that blends the magic of music with the delight of dance? Truly, the arts are a powerful uniting force we should utilize more often.

    And for an extra bit of fun, the Gardiner Brothers also shared their bloopers from filming the video. Turns out stepping in the rain isn’t as easy as they make it look.

     

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

  • 17 Gen X candies kids of the ’80s are still pining for
    Gen X misses the candy they grew up with in the 1980s.Photo credit: Reddit/Longjumping-Shoe7805/welding_guy_from_LI/ajslinger

    Gen X (people born between 1965 and 1980) grew up eating some pretty incredible foods. From classic casseroles and meatloaf to old-school sandwich combos, food in the ’80s was filled with delicious staples.

    Gen X also had a major sweet tooth. In the ’80s, they were munching on unique candy from drugstores and corner shops. Many Gen Xers argue that candy in the ’80s was the best, including comedian Karen Morgan—whose bit about ’80s candy being “mean to children” resonated with Gen Xers on Reddit.

    “We had candy like Atomic Fireballs. You couldn’t eat that! It was who could leave it in your mouth the longest before you spit it out,” she quips.

    More Gen Xers shared their favorite candies from the ’80s that they miss most. Although some are still around, most don’t taste the same—and many have been discontinued.

    From sour varieties and chewy classics to chocolate bars and pure sugar treats, these are some of the best nostalgic candies Gen X hasn’t forgotten.

    Willy Wonka’s DinaSour Eggs

    “Soo many great memories seeing this box! I wish they would bring them back!!” — blue_eyed_girlie

    “I liked getting to the sour center.” — robgrab

    “Duuude remember these and loved them! There was an urban legend in my neighborhood that there was some of these that had a candy shaped dinasour inside…. Never got one! ( never made it to the cherry tree in pitfall either!) lol.” — right_bank_cafe

    Mr. Bones

    “I loved that candy!! I had so many coffins all over my room!” — FlawedWoman

    “OMG I completely forgot about this candy! We ate it to quick to make a skeleton 😂😂.” — PaleontologistSad316

    Fun Dip

    “My little brother always liked the powder better so if we both got a pack of fun dip I’d give him the powder and he’d give me the candy stick. 😆” — Happy_Leg-2063

    “The Lik-a-Stix from the Fun Dip. I just threw the powder away.” — non3ck

    “I wish they still had the lime.” — bubblehead772

    Johnny Apple Treats

    “Johnny Appletreats were my favorite😋” — Longjumping-Shoe7805

    “I’ve been looking everywhere for apple treats. They are like f*cking CRACK.” — truthteller5

    Alexander The Grape

    “Alexander!!!!!!! So good.” — cwvandalfan

    “I ate all of these but probably Alexander The Grape most of all.” — Grand_Snow_2637

    Cherry Clan

    “I really loved the cherry clan!!!!” — McKitNassty

    “Cherry Clan were the best. 🍒” — Krystalmyth

    Marathon

    “This is THE answer. I sure miss them.” — Beanholiostyle

    “I both loved these and forgot about them. Now I have a craving for one.” —Ok_Experience_8194

    “Marathon Bar (stealer of fillings).” — JCo1968

    Tangy Taffy

    “Best part was freezing them, then you could bang them on a table and they would shatter then you had little pieces of them to eat.” — Chewcudda42

    “Tangy Taffy. So much better than Laffy Taffy IMO.” — User Unknown

    Reggie!

    “Ooh, those were so good…like an oversized chocolate turtle, but more savory.” — throw123454321purple

    “They were awesome. Pretty much was just a round Baby Ruth but sooooo good.” — jmf0828

    @hellosweetscandy

    Replying to @Delia’s Nail Studio LLC Lets take a look at some candy that was popular in the 1980s! #hellosweetscandy #candyshop #candystore #candy #nostalgia #nostalgic #retro #1980s #wny #smallbusiness

    ♬ 80’s nostalgic synth pop(1140622) – Studio Bach

    Willy Wonka’s Oompas

    “Oompa’s by Willy Wonka. Ginormous half chocolate half peanut butter M&M’s…….” — Ledophile

    “Peanut Butter Oompas… they were similar to peanut butter M&Ms, but tasted better.” — Interesting-Night740

    BarNone

    “Bar None. Like a cross between a Twix and KitKat.” — Katriina_B

    Milk Shake

    “There used to be a candy bar called Milkshake. They at I remember it would have been slightly between an Uno Bar and a Three Musketeers. It has a taste of a chocolate malted milkshake. They were delicious but did not last long that I remember.” — Salt_Ingenuity_720

    PB Max

    “I swear when I talk to my kids about the PB max, I feel like one of those old cartoons where you’re saying ‘back in my day’ 😂 by far the best peanut butter candy bar ever.” — New-Car-3759

    “These are discontinued but they were so good! Well my young mind used to think they were good lol.” — Pink_Pixie00

    Atomic FireBall

    “Atomic Fireballs, I used to love those things!” — AzureGriffon

    “When I quit smoking, I used these to get through it. Then I had an Atomic Fireball addiction. Thankfully, that was a much easier habit to break.” — ThresherGDI

    Whatchamacallit

    “Whatchamacallits are my favorite candy bar, hands down. They are definitely different size wise and also the taste, but they are still pretty good. Rarely do things stay the same, but it’s especially bad when it’s your favorite candy.” — yellow_forsythia

    “When Whatchamacallit first came out, it was a bar of crispy rice covered in chocolate. I LOVED it. Then they decided to ‘improve’ it by adding caramel. I didn’t like it as much anymore, but still bought it because it was still a good candy bar.” — Alman54

    “🎶Whatchoo say? Whatchamacallit! 🎶 Can still remember the song from the commercial.” — demonOS_

    Skor

    “I had a Skor bar the other day and it just hit SO right.” — Luvsseattle

    “Skor. I remember when those things came out that they positioned them as upscale candy bars. My great-grandmother loved them because they made her feel fancy.” — jimb575

    Oh Henry!

    “This was one of my favs in 5th grade going to the candy store after school.” — banana_fana_1234

    “Oh, made my mouth water I miss those😧.” — Wuddlecat

  • Romeo is ‘cringe’: English teacher shares what Gen Z thinks about ‘Romeo & Juliet’
    A high school teacher shares the unhinged things her students have said about 'Romeo & Juliet.'Photo credit: @miss.dugan1/Instagram

    Shakespeare is a staple of any high school English curriculum. Yet, getting young folks to actually understand, let alone appreciate, the Good Bard’s work has always been a bit of a challenge. Unless you’re teaching it to a room full of theatre kids, that is.

    Recently, a high school teacher named Molly Dugan shared some of her current students’ reactions to one of Shakespeare’s most notable works, Romeo & Juliet. Spoiler alert: they weren’t fans. Nonetheless, their remarks were comedy gold.

    High schoolers react to Romeo & Juliet

    Some of the comments reflected the same counterpoints many younger generations have had about well-received works of yesteryear (looking at you, ’90s rom-coms).

    For instance, one student said, “Romeo is hella cringe, get him off my screen.”

    Meanwhile, two other students accused him of being a “hella stalker” with “bad rizz” who just “wants the huzz,” a.k.a. a girl, a woman, or, to really make it feel dated, a “boo.”

    Folks in the comments didn’t really disagree with these points. 

    “‘Bro’s a hella stalker’ oddly accurate take😂,” one viewer wrote. 

    Another echoed, “Bro actually was a hella stalker and arguably was hella cringe.”

    Another teacher even shared, “Directed it last year. Best response: ‘where are their parents?!’”

    Distinct brand of savage high school sarcasm on full display

    “Oh, so you actually hate us,” one student said, apparently after Dugan asked the class to get their notebooks out.

    Another delivered a rather low blow, saying, “We don’t need subtitles. We’re not old.”

    But then some genuinely baffling questions left many wondering if this generation is, in fact, “cooked”:

    “Was there time back then? Like, did it exist when Romeo and Juliet were alive?”

    “Is Shakespeare a real person? Because I thought he was one of those Greek gods. So I’ve been confused.” 

    Woof. That’s…something.

    Apparently, a few other teachers have had very similar experiences

    “One year I got ‘What’s Shakespeare’s last name?’” one commented. 

    Another shared, “At the beginning of teaching the Anne Frank unit, I asked my 8th graders what they knew about her…’Isn’t she a rap star?’ 😳”

    Who knows—perhaps the kiddos would have appreciated this Gen Z–ified version of Romeo & Juliet

    Shakespeare’s work has always been a bit of a hurdle for students

    His plays were written more than 400 years ago, after all, and can sometimes feel as though they’re in an entirely different language. On top of that, Shakespeare wrote in verse, using rhythm and poetic devices that were meant to be heard onstage rather than quietly analyzed in a classroom. When those lines are lifted from the stage and dropped into a worksheet or textbook, it can take a lot more effort for students to connect with what’s actually happening in the story.

    Cultural references can also add another layer of confusion. Jokes, social norms, and expectations around love, family, and marriage were very different in Elizabethan England than they are today. Without that context, characters’ actions can seem strange, exaggerated, or downright problematic to modern readers.

    That’s part of what makes teaching Shakespeare such a unique challenge. Teachers often have to act as translators, guiding students through unfamiliar vocabulary and historical context while also trying to reveal the very human stories beneath it all.

    Once you get past the old-fashioned phrasing, the themes are surprisingly relatable

    Romeo & Juliet is about power dynamics, rivalry, and impulsive decisions that spiral out of control (and love, I guess). Those ideas are still easy to recognize, even if the characters express them in dramatically poetic language. It’s what gives Shakespeare such staying power and explains why he continues to show up in classrooms century after century, much to the bemoaning of high schoolers.

  • A new hopeful payphone project invites ‘Boomers’ and ‘Zoomers’ to connect one conversation at a time
    A social experiment connects Boomers and Zoomers through payphones.Photo credit: Matter Neuroscience/Instagram

    Imagine you’re young and strolling through a university campus, wishing you could randomly chat with someone much older. Perhaps you’re looking for a bit of wisdom. Or maybe you simply wish to talk to a Baby Boomer, like a parent or grandparent. If you’re on the Boston University campus near Pavement Coffeehouse, this wish could become a reality.

    The folks at Matter Neuroscience have created another social experiment in which they set up what look like payphones in two locations. One, outside a building on the BU campus, says “Call a Boomer.” The other is in the game room of a senior housing complex in Reno, Nevada. That one has a sign suggesting someone “Call a Zoomer.” The hope? That two generations can connect, have a lovely conversation, and spark a little dopamine in their day.

    Loneliness matters

    On the Matter Neuroscience Instagram page, they share the statistic that younger and older adults often suffer from loneliness: “Younger adults and older adults tend to experience the highest levels of loneliness of any age group, so the goal of this project is to inspire generational connection through meaningful conversations, despite differences in age, lifestyle, or politics.”

    They report that statistically, “over a third of people over 65 report being lonely. And over half of the students in college report being lonely.” They go on to note that loneliness can be more detrimental to one’s health than lack of exercise or even smoking cigarettes.

    Loneliness demographics in America. Photo credit: Matter Neuroscience

    A new idea

    Upworthy spoke with Calla Kessler, a social strategist at Matter Neuroscience, who explained the process:

    “The boomer/zoomer payphones are the second iteration of our Party Line experiment, which originally included in San Francisco and Abilene, Texas, encouraging Democrats and Republicans to find common ground and walk away with a positive interaction.”

    Kessler is referring to a project that Upworthy covered a little over a month ago. In that project, the team set up two makeshift “payphones” in Texas and California. The idea was for people on the left and right sides of the political aisle to connect without all the extraneous noise.

    Ben Goldhirsh, one of the co-founders of Matter Neuroscience (alongside neuroscientist Axel Bouchon), reported that after reviewing hours of footage, people were looking to connect on a human level 100% of the time. No arguments—just two people laughing while sharing a brief moment of their lives with a total stranger.

    Kessler said the success of the project inspired them to think about other demographics that would benefit from connection:

    “We landed on two groups that research shows experience some of the highest levels of loneliness: younger adults and older adults. The purpose of these projects is to share the science of happiness and help people live emotionally and molecularly balanced lives.”

    She reiterated how dangerous chronic loneliness can be:

    “Loneliness has been linked to health risks comparable to smoking, excessive drinking, and lack of exercise. Positive social interactions can influence our biology in the opposite direction, lowering cortisol while increasing feel-good neurotransmitters like dopamine, cannabinoids, and oxytocin.”

    How it works

    For those wondering how the payphones work, they were bought on Facebook Marketplace. They were then deconstructed so modems with SIM cards could be placed inside, making it possible to make toll-free calls.

    While they’re waiting for the results (the phones were just recently installed), people in the comment section were already excited. At the mere mention of the idea, thousands chimed in to add their two cents. One wrote, “This is so great! Can we make pen pals cool again?”

    Another noted that although they don’t fall into either generation, they’d love to take part as well: “I’m not old. I’m not young. But if that phone were in my vicinity, I would be calling someone every day.”

Culture

They evicted her after 40 years to claim her hand-painted murals. Her parting gift was perfect.

Culture

A Wisconsin senior painted 44 portraits of classmates she’d drifted from. Their reactions when they received them say everything.

Pop Culture

Video of two brothers Irish step dancing to Beyoncé’s country hit ‘Texas Hold ‘Em’ is pure delight

Life Hacks

22 ‘oddly specific’ life hacks that could save you time, money, energy, or sanity