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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's more.

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

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

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

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

DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES OF SECEDING STATES, 1861

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

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

GEORGIA

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

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

Okay then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Georgia, for clarifying your position.

MISSISSIPPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTH CAROLINA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TEXAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again, they weren't done.

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

Still not done...

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

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

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

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

They seriously could not have been any clearer about it.

Planet

Our favorite giveaway is back. Enter to win a free, fun date! 🌊 💗

It's super easy, no purchase or donation necessary, and you help our oceans! That's what we call a win-win-win. Enter here.

Our favorite giveaway is back. Enter to win a free, fun date! 🌊 💗
True

Our love for the ocean runs deep. Does yours? Enter here!

This Valentine’s Day, we're bringing back our favorite giveaway with Ocean Wise. You have the chance to win the ultimate ocean-friendly date. Our recommendation? Celebrate love for all your people this Valentine's Day! Treat your mom friends to a relaxing spa trip, take your best friend to an incredible concert, or enjoy a beach adventure with your sibling! Whether you're savoring a romantic seafood dinner or enjoying a movie night in, your next date could be on us!

Here’s how to enter:


  • Go to upworthy.com/oceandate and complete the quick form for a chance to win - it’s as easy as that.
  • P.S. If you follow @oceanwise or donate after entering, you’ll get extra entries!

Here are the incredible dates:

1. Give mom some relaxation

She’s up before the sun and still going at bedtime. She’s the calendar keeper, the lunch packer, the one who remembers everything so no one else has to. Moms are always creating magic for us. This Valentine’s Day, we’re all in for her. Win an eco-friendly spa day near you, plus a stash of All In snack bars—because she deserves a treat that’s as real as she is. Good for her, kinder to the ocean. That’s the kind of love we can all get behind.


Special thanks to our friends at All In who are all in on helping moms!

2. Jump in the ocean, together

Grab your favorite person and get some much-needed ocean time. Did you know research on “blue spaces” suggests that being near water is linked with better mental health and well-being, including feeling calmer and less stressed? We’ll treat you to a beach adventure like a surfing or sailing class, plus ocean-friendly bags from GOT Bag and blankets from Sand Cloud so your day by the water feels good for you and a little gentler on the ocean too.

Special thanks to our friends at GOT Bag. They make saving the ocean look stylish and fun!

3. Couch potato time

Love nights in as much as you love a date night out? We’ve got you. Have friends over for a movie night or make it a cozy night in with your favorite person. You’ll get a Disney+ and Hulu subscription so you can watch Nat Geo ocean content, plus a curated list of ocean-friendly documentaries and a movie-night basket of snacks. Easy, comfy, and you’ll probably come out of it loving the ocean even more.

4. Dance all day!

Soak up the sun and catch a full weekend of live music at BeachLife Festival in Redondo Beach, May 1–3, 2026, featuring Duran Duran, The Offspring, James Taylor and His All-Star Band, The Chainsmokers, My Morning Jacket, Slightly Stoopid, and Sheryl Crow. The perfect date to bring your favorite person on!

We also love that BeachLife puts real energy into protecting the coastline it’s built on by spotlighting ocean and beach-focused nonprofit partners and hosting community events like beach cleanups.

Date includes two (2) three-day GA tickets. Does not include accommodation, travel, or flights.

5. Chef it up (at home)

Stay in and cook something delicious with someone you love. We’ll hook you up with sustainable seafood ingredients and some additional goodies for a dinner for two, so you can eat well and feel good knowing your meal supports healthier oceans and more responsible fishing.

Giveaway ends 2/15/26 at 11:59pm PT. Winners will be selected at random and contacted via email from the Upworthy. No purchase necessary. Open to residents of the U.S. and specific Canadian provinces that have reached age of majority in their state/province/territory of residence at the time. Please see terms and conditions for specific instructions. Giveaway not affiliated with Instagram. More details at upworthy.com/oceandate

quiet, finger over lips, don't talk, keep it to yourself, silence

A woman with her finger over her mouth.

It can be hard to stay quiet when you feel like you just have to speak your mind. But sometimes it's not a great idea to share your opinions on current events with your dad or tell your boss where they're wrong in a meeting. And having a bit of self-control during a fight with your spouse is a good way to avoid apologizing the next morning.

Further, when we fight the urge to talk when it's not necessary, we become better listeners and give others a moment in the spotlight to share their views. Building that small mental muscle to respond to events rather than react can make all the difference in social situations.


argument, coworkers, angry coworkers, hostile work enviornment, disagreement A woman is getting angry at her coworker.via Canva/Photos

What is the WAIT method?

One way people have honed the skill of holding back when they feel the burning urge to speak up is the WAIT method, an acronym for the question you should ask yourself in that moment: "Why Am I Talking?" Pausing to consider the question before you open your mouth can shift your focus from "being heard" to "adding value" to any conversation.

The Center for The Empowerment Dynamic has some questions we should consider after taking a WAIT moment:

  • What is my intention behind what I am about to say?
  • What question can I ask to better understand what the other person is saying?
  • Is my need to talk an attempt to divert the attention to me?
  • How might I become comfortable with silence rather than succumb to my urge to talk?

tape over muth, sielnce, be quiet, mouth shut, saying nothing A man with tape over his mouth.via Canva/Photos

The WAIT method is a good way to avoid talking too much. In work meetings, people who overtalk risk losing everyone's attention and diluting their point to the extent that others aren't quite sure what they were trying to say. Even worse, they can come across as attention hogs or know-it-alls. Often, the people who get to the heart of the matter succinctly are the ones who are noticed and respected.

Just because you're commanding the attention of the room doesn't mean you're doing yourself any favors or helping other people in the conversation.

The WAIT method is also a great way to give yourself a breather and let things sit for a moment during a heated, emotional discussion. It gives you a chance to cool down and rethink your goals for the conversation. It can also help you avoid saying something you regret.

fight, spuse disagreement, communications skills, upset husband, argument A husband is angry with his wife. via Canva/Photos

How much should I talk in a meeting?

So if it's a work situation, like a team meeting, you don't want to be completely silent. How often should you speak up?

Cary Pfeffer, a speaking coach and media trainer, shared an example of the appropriate amount of time to talk in a meeting with six people:

"I would suggest a good measure would be three contributions over an hour-long meeting from each non-leader participant. If anyone is talking five/six/seven times you are over-participating! Allow someone else to weigh in, even if that means an occasional awkward silence. Anything less seems like your voice is just not being represented, and anything over three contributions is too much."

Ultimately, the WAIT method is about taking a second to make sure you're not just talking to hear yourself speak. It helps ensure that you have a clear goal for participating in the conversation and that you're adding value for others. Knowing when and why to say something is the best way to make a positive contribution and avoid shooting yourself in the foot.

Education

Real people share 17 red flags that expose someone trying to appear wiser than they actually are

"Actually referring to oneself as 'smart' in general is often a good indicator too."

low intelligence, low iq, iq lower, signs of low intelligence, not smart, not very smart

A man looks confused.

People who struggle with intellectual functioning, often described as having a low IQ, may also be considered to have low intelligence. Determining low intelligence is not always easy or obvious, so people on Reddit shared their thoughts on the signs that can indicate it.

One observant Redditor shared their insight, writing that a sign of low intelligence is "actually referring to oneself as 'smart' in general is often a good indicator too." The comment is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, first described in 1999 by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, which found that people with lower IQs tend to overestimate their intelligence, while those with higher IQs often underestimate it.


"Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," the psychologists wrote, according to Psychology Today.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

17 signs of low intelligence, according to Redditors

"When presented with an statement that generalizes something, they will use an anecdote as a counterexample and think that it completely refutes the statement. Example: travelling in an airplane is generally safer than in a car. 'Actually that's not true, I know someone who died in an airplane crash.'" - Traditional_Rub_9828

"Refusal to learn, grow and change your views from evidence provided." - Userdataunavailable

"Confusing 'being loud' with 'being right.' The loudest person in the room is rarely the smartest." - Kernel_Slasher

"Actually referring to oneself as 'smart' in a general is often a good indicator too." - loku_gem

"Believing anything they see on social media." - Fabulous_Ady

"Lack of curiosity. Thinking they know it all." - Disastrous-Sky-8484

- YouTube www.youtube.com

"Further than a lack of curiosity is never asking questions. It was something I heard about gorilla researchers who taught them sign language that in the years of gorilla sign language communications they never had a gorilla ask a question of a human. That simple process of recognizing you don't know/have something you want, understanding someone else likely does know what you want, and asking them actually takes a lot of brain power. Some parrots and exceptionally smart dogs can hit that threshold... And some very cognitively limited humans do not." - MildGenevaSuggestion

"They get annoyed by people who act curious, too. About anything. 'Why do you care?' 'Who cares?' Idk man, it's just interesting. Why shouldn't I care?" - Belle_Juive

"Not realizing that everything has nuances." - SecretHuckleberry720

"Refusing to consider they might be wrong." - Marry_Ennaria

"Not being able to understand or engage with hypotheticals. It is a meme online but that is actually a sign of low intelligence. Individuals with IQs under 90 often struggle with conditional hypotheticals—such as 'How would you feel if you hadn't eaten dinner?'—responding with factual rebuttals like 'But I did eat dinner.'" - Emergency-Resist-730

@baxate_carter

Even more low IQ traits from a year ago

"Severe impairment in metacognition - that is, a persistent inability to recognize one's own errors in thinking, monitor one's own reasoning, or adjust beliefs/behavior even when presented with clear contradictory evidence." - DiamondCalvesFan

"Ironically, Always having an answer. There is a lot of power in saying 'I don't know'." - Loose-Cicada5473, mattacular2001

"People who mock others instead of trying to understand them. Curiosity is usually a sign of intelligence." - cutiepie_00me

"Repeating the same mistakes and blaming everyone else." - Luckypiniece

"Bragging that you haven't read a book since high school." - tiger0204

"One move chess player. This is like an analogy to how some people think and act and vote. A good chess player is thinking 3 or more moves ahead. a bad one is playing one move ahead only. When people say things like 'Why should I pay school taxes if I don't have any kids!?' they are playing one move without thinking ahead. Better schools means a more educated populace means less crimes and more economic opportunity for your area, thus it benefits everyone whether they have kids or not." - ChickenMarsala4500

arthur c. brooks, harvard, psychology, happiness research, bucket list

Harvard researcher Arthur C. Brooks studies what leads to human happiness.

We live in a society that prizes ambition, celebrating goal-setting, and hustle culture as praiseworthy vehicles on the road to success. We also live in a society that associates successfully getting whatever our hearts desire with happiness. The formula we internalize from an early age is that desire + ambition + goal-setting + doing what it takes = a successful, happy life.

But as Harvard University happiness researcher Arthur C. Brooks has found, in his studies as well as his own experience, that happiness doesn't follow that formula. "It took me too long to figure this one out," Brooks told podcast host Tim Ferris, explaining why he uses a "reverse bucket list" to live a happier life.


bucket list, wants, desires, goals, detachment Many people make bucket lists of things they want in life. Giphy

Brooks shared that on his birthday, he would always make a list of his desires, ambitions, and things he wanted to accomplish—a bucket list. But when he was 50, he found his bucket list from when he was 40 and had an epiphany: "I looked at that list from when I was 40, and I'd checked everything off that list. And I was less happy at 50 than I was at 40."

As a social scientist, he recognized that he was doing something wrong and analyzed it.

"This is a neurophysiological problem and a psychological problem all rolled into one handy package," he said. "I was making the mistake of thinking that my satisfaction would come from having more. And the truth of the matter is that lasting and stable satisfaction, which doesn't wear off in a minute, comes when you understand that your satisfaction is your haves divided by your wants…You can increase your satisfaction temporarily and inefficiently by having more, or permanently and securely by wanting less."

Brooks concluded that he needed a "reverse bucket list" that would help him "consciously detach" from his worldly wants and desires by simply writing them down and crossing them off.

"I know that these things are going to occur to me as natural goals," Brooks said, citing human evolutionary psychology. "But I do not want to be owned by them. I want to manage them." He discussed moving those desires from the instinctual limbic system to the conscious pre-frontal cortex by examining each one and saying, "Maybe I get it, maybe I don't," but crossing them off as attachments. "And I'm free…it works," he said.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

"When I write them down, I acknowledge that I have the desire," he explained on X. "When I cross them out, I acknowledge that I will not be attached to this goal."

The idea that attachment itself causes unhappiness is a concept found in many spiritual traditions, but it is most closely associated with Buddhism. Mike Brooks, PhD, explains that humans need healthy attachments, such as an attachment to staying alive and attachments to loved ones, to avoid suffering. But many things to which we are attached are not necessarily healthy, either by degree (over-attachment) or by nature (being attached to things that are impermanent).

"We should strive for flexibility in our attachments because the objects of our attachment are inherently in flux," Brooks writes in Psychology Today. "In this way, we suffer unnecessarily when we don't accept their impermanent nature."

What Arthur C. Brooks suggests that we strive to detach ourselves from our wants and desires because the simplest way to solve the 'haves/wants = happiness' formula is to reduce the denominator. The reverse bucket list, in which you cross off desires before you fulfill them, can help free you from attachment and lead to a happier overall existence.

This article originally appeared last year.

parenting, toddlers, bittersweet , nostalgia, kids, viral tiktok, parenting content, raising kids
via @nickgorman0/TikTok, used with permission

A lighthearted moment turns bittersweet with a painful realization.

Parenting is full of bittersweet moments. Every milestone toward independence—walking, talking, the first day of school—marks the end of something precious and fleeting, a time when parents are their children's entire world. So while these firsts are, of course, joyful, it's completely natural for parents to feel a sense of grief.

One such moment happened recently for Nick Gorman while he was filming his daughter playing in a puddle for the first time.


The now-viral clip, posted to TikTok, seems lighthearted enough. Gorman encourages his little one to splash in the water, and when she does, he gushes, "You know what this means? You're officially a kid. You're no longer a baby."

The phrase clearly hit harder than Gorman thought it would, because in the caption he wrote, "Well that realization hurt."

@nick.gorman8 Didn’t realize what I’d said until I watched the video later on…woof! #kiddos #toddlersoftiktok #aww #kidsoftiktok #dad ♬ These Memories - Hollow Coves

It's a realization that's pretty darn universal, as indicated by the thousands of other parents who chimed in on the TikTok video with their own similarly wistful stories:

"Today I heard my daughter getting into the Pop-Tarts while I was doing the dishes and dried my hands waiting for the inevitable 'daddy will you open this?' And then minutes went by, and silence. Curious, I poked my head around the corner and saw her eating them happily. She saw me and announced that she did it herself. I was so proud. But I still move the box up another shelf because I am not ready to stop helping her."

"My daughter used to call ketchup 'dip dip.' One day I asked if she wanted dip dip and she said 'it's ketchup mom.' My heart broke."

"My daughter used to hide from me when I'd get home from work. Came home expecting some elaborate hiding spot but she was just watching tv."

"One day I realized my babies quit calling me dada, and started saying daddy, and that was hard, but when I realized they had switched from daddy to dad that one had me in tears."

Experts seem to agree that when it comes to navigating these closing chapters, parents should permit themselves to feel whatever conflicting emotions arise and remember that it's a natural part of the process.

It's also important to remember that good things are still on the horizon. Every season brings its own special gifts and cherished memories. Even when kids finally leave the house to start their own adult lives, arguably the most bittersweet transition of all, parents are given the chance to explore other aspects of their identity that may have gone dormant during the more active days of parenthood.

Even Gorman seems to have recognized that his realization isn't entirely painful. In an interview with Newsweek, he shared, "While it's sad she's growing up, and we're already seeing our time with her pass, it's exciting at the same time to see her grow and experience new things—which is why I wanted to become a parent in the first place."

Nobody becomes a parent expecting things to become simpler. But most would argue that the trade-off is beyond worth it. And stories like these can remind parents that they're not alone in whatever feelings they're experiencing.

Health

Researchers tested 6 brands of bottled water against tap water, and there was a clear winner

New technology allowed them to analyze the water in ways they never could before.

water, workout, sweat, towell, woman at gym, bottled water, thirst

A woman drinking bottled water after a workout.

Ever since bottled water became popular in the 1990s, there has been a vigorous debate over whether it's healthier to drink bottled water or tap water. Bottled-water aficionados often claim it's purer than tap water because it's traditionally marketed as being "from the source" or having come from an untouched stream. That has to be cleaner than water that reaches your home after traveling from God-knows-where through city pipes, right?

What many people don't realize is that bottled water isn't regulated as stringently as tap water. Tap water is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requires more frequent testing and stricter disinfection standards. Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a food product.


Tap water found to have fewer microplastics than bottled water

A recent study from The Ohio State University (OSU) delivered another big victory for Team Tap, finding that after testing six brands of bottled water against tap water from four water treatment plants, bottled water contained more than three times as many microplastics as tap water. The big problem is that plastic bottles can shed tiny plastic particles, smaller than a speck of dust, into the water when temperatures change, the cap is removed, or the bottle tumbles around in a purse or the back seat of a car.

tap water, kitchen water, boy drinking, thirsty boy, kitchen sink A boy drinking from the kitchen sink.via Canva/Photos

The tests revealed that the amount of microplastics in bottled water ranged from 2.6 to 11.5 million particles per liter, while tap water ranged from 1.6 to 2.6 million particles per liter. In the best-case scenario, tap water contains similar levels of microplastics, but in the worst-case scenario, bottled water contains more than seven times as many.

The researchers were surprised by their findings because nanoplastics are so small that they've been hard to quantify in the past.

"This lack of knowledge primarily reflects limitations in the methods to isolate and analyze the nanoplastics," said Megan Jamison Hart, a PhD candidate at OSU and the study's lead researcher. "In this study, we developed and validated a novel method for isolating MNPs [micro- and nanoplastics], allowing for the determination of their concentrations using scanning electron microscopy and identification using optical photothermal infrared spectroscopy (OPTIR)."

Are microplastics harmful to humans?

Much more research on microplastics is needed to determine their potential harm to humans. Studies have linked microplastics to impaired immune function, increased inflammation, and cellular damage in animals. Researchers believe that larger nanoplastics pass through the digestive tract and are eventually excreted. Smaller nanoplastics, however, may move into human tissues and even enter the brain.

"While we don't really fully understand the human health risks associated with nanoplastic exposure, it's still better to try and mitigate that risk because evidence indicates that they do cause problems, even if we're not fully aware of what those are yet," said Hart.

water bottle, plastic, thirsday woman, woman workout, workout clothes, A woman drinking out of a plastic water bottle. via Canva/Photos

Given that scientists have yet to determine the harm that micro- and nanoplastics can cause in our bodies, they believe it's best to avoid them as much as possible.

"We can make educated choices to try and reduce our daily exposure to these harmful chemicals," said Hart. "For the average person who is thirsty and wants a drink, the best way to do that would be drinking it straight out of the tap rather than grabbing pre-bottled water."

Hart told StudyFinds that the best thing to do is ditch bottled water and instead drink filtered tap water from a reusable metal bottle.

"This has definitely changed my own drinking habits," she said. "I was primarily a tap water drinker before, knowing that disposable bottles were bad for the environment, but this is something I am even more adamant about now, and I swapped my reusable plastic bottle for a reusable metal one."