upworthy
Popular

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.

@callmebelly/TikTok

An excellent reminder to show kindness and patience.

Listening to a baby cry during a flight might be aggravating, but it’s nothing compared to the moans, groans, and eyerolls that the baby's parents must endure from other passengers when it happens. No matter what tips and tricks are used to try to soothe a little one’s temperament while 30,000 miles in the air, crying is almost inevitable. So, while having to ease their own child’s anxiety, moms and dads also must suffer being the pariah of the trip. What a nightmare.

Recently, one mom was apparently trying so hard to avoid upsetting her fellow flight members that she went above and beyond to essentially apologize ahead of time if her baby began to cry on its first flight. It was a gesture that, while thoughtful, had folks really feeling for how stressed that poor mom must be.

In a clip posted to his TikTok, one of the passengers—Elliot—explained that the mom handed out small care packages to those nearby.

“She’s already so busy and took the time to make these bags for everyone,” Elliot said, before panning the camera to reveal a Ziplock bag full of candy, along with a note that made him “want to cry.”

The note read: “It’s my first flight. I made a deal to be on my best behaviour—but I can’t make any guarantees. I might cry if I get scared or if my ears start to hurt. Here are some treats to make your flight enjoyable. Thank you for being patient with us. Have a great flight.”

Like Elliot, those who watched the video felt some ambivalence at the well intentioned act. Many felt remorse that she would feel the need to appease people in this way.

“This is so sweet but also … kind of breaks my heart that we live in a world in which parents feel the need to do that.”

“Because jerk people have shamed parents into believing that they need to apologize for their kids' absolutely normal behavior. What a gem of a mom.”

“You know that sweet mom worried about this trip so much.”

“That poor mom probably spent nights awake … nervous about that flight, thinking of ways to keep strangers happy.”

"That's a mom trying so hard."

Many rallied behind the mom, arguing that making others feel more comfortable with her child being on board was in no way her responsibility.

“No mom should be apologizing. Adults can control their emotions … babies not …. Hugging this mom from a distance.”

“Dear new parents: no you don’t have to do this. Your babies have the right to exist. We all know babies cry. We know you try your best.”

Luckily, there are just as many stories of fellow passengers being completely compassionate towards parents with small children—from simply choosing to throw on their headphones during a tantrum (instead of throwing one themselves) to going out of their way to comfort a baby (and taking the load of a parent in the process). These little acts of kindness make more of an impact than we probably realize. Perhaps if we incorporated more of this “it takes a village” mindset, flying could be a little bit more pleasant for everyone involved.

A teenager has a real problem with his teacher.

As Dale Carnegie once wrote in “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” “A person’s name is to that person, the sweetest, most important sound in any language.” Understandably, people grow very attached to their names to the point that some studies suggest that names play a significant role in our destinies. In fact, people born with the last name Carpenter are more likely to become carpenters when they grow up.

So, it's no wonder people are sensitive about how others pronounce their names. When someone says your name wrong, it can feel very invalidating and make it look like they don't care. That’s probably why many people enjoyed a teenager's tale of getting sweet revenge on an arrogant teacher who refused to say his name correctly.

“My parents named me a shortened version of a posh-sounding name. For the sake of the story, let's say they called me Alex, which is short for Alexander. When this woman called my name, she would always use Alexander. I brought up to her that it was not my name multiple times and asked her to please call me Alex, as that's what my parents called me,” a Redditor shared on the Petty Revenge forum.

“She would always get angry and tell me, ‘Don’t be stupid, no one is named Alex. Your name is Alexander. Alex is just what you want to be called.’ No matter how much I insisted, she refused. At one point, she gave me a detention for asking her to call me my correct name,” he continued.

names, teacher, studentA teacher being stern with her student.via Canva/Photos

The name dispute got so heated that “Alex” was eventually sent to detention for arguing with his teacher. “When I told my parents I was supposed to have a detention for asking my teacher to call me the right name, they were unhappy. So they gave me a trump card to use against her: my birth certificate,” “Alex” wrote.

The next day, the teacher called him Alexander during roll call, but this time, he had the perfect ammunition to fight back: a legal document. “The next day, when she called my name, I once again told her that it wasn't my name. She threatened me with another detention, so I pulled out the birth certificate, put it down on her desk, and said, ‘My birth certificate says my name is Alex, so that's what you will call me. Thanks,’" "Alex" recalled. “The look on her face was priceless, and she started calling me my actual name for the rest of the time I was in her class.”


A person in the comments shared a similar story; this time, it was with the name Joey. “I know someone who on their birth certificate is Joey. The exact same thing happened to him. The teacher kept calling him Joseph, but he refused to answer. After a week, she called his mom and said something along the lines of: tell your son when someone calls him by his proper name, he needs to respond and not be disrespectful to his teacher. The mom questioned what name she was calling him, and she told her. Well, that mother went up one side of her and down the other. Why would I call him Joseph if we would call him Joey? We named him Joey, and that’s what is on his birth certificate. This was back in the ‘80s.”

It’s strange that the teacher went out of her way to call the kid the name she preferred over his wishes. Even if his real name was Alexander, what’s wrong with referring to someone by their chosen name? Brandishing his birth certificate as “Alex” may have felt like sweet revenge for the teenager, but it also shows the teacher and the class an important lesson on why it's important to listen to others.

Science

Innovative farm in Virginia can grow 4 million pounds of strawberries on less than one acre

This method uses 97 percent less land and up to 90 percent less water than conventional farming.

A new way to grow strawberries with less land, less water, and more berries.

Strawberry farm harvests aren't something most of us calculate on a regular basis (or ever at all), but the numbers from a strawberry farm in Richmond, Virginia, are staggering enough to make it worth an old-school word problem. If the average American eats 8 pounds of strawberries a year, and an average strawberry farm yields approximately 20,000 pounds of berries per acre, how many people could a 200-acre strawberry field feed?

I won't make you do the math. The answer is 500,000 people. But what if a crop that size, providing enough strawberries for half a million people, could be grown on just one acre instead of 200? It's possible. You just have to go—or rather grow—up, up, up.

Indoor vertical farm company Plenty Unlimited knows a lot about growing up. In fact, it's their entire business model. Instead of the sprawling fields that traditional farming methods require, vertical farms have a much smaller land footprint, utilizing proprietary towers for growing. Plenty has used vertical farming methods to grow greens such as lettuce, kale, spinach and more for years, but now it boasts a vertical berry farm that can yield a whopping 4 million pounds of strawberries on a little less than an acre.

Growing indoors means not being at the mercy of weather or climate inpredictability (barring a storm taking out your building), which is wise in the era of climate change. Unlike a traditional greenhouse which still uses the sun for light, Plenty's indoor vertical farms make use of the latest technology and research on light, pinpointing the wavelengths plants need from the sun to thrive and recreating them with LED lights. Plenty farms also don't use soil, as what plants really need is water and nutrients, which can be provided without soil (and with a lot less water than soil requires). Being able to carefully control water and nutrients means you can more easily control the size, taste and uniformity of the berries you’re growing.

If that sounds like a lot of control, it is. And that idea might freak people out. But when a highly controlled environment means not having to use pesticides and using up to 90% less water than traditional farming, it starts to sound like a solid, sustainable farming innovation.

Plenty even uses AI in its strawberry farm, according to its website:

“Every element of the Plenty Richmond Farm–including temperature, light and humidity–is precisely controlled through proprietary software to create the perfect environment for the strawberry plants to thrive. The farm uses AI to analyze more than 10 million data points each day across its 12 grow rooms, adapting each grow room’s environment to the evolving needs of the plants – creating the perfect environment for Driscoll’s proprietary plants to thrive and optimizing the strawberries’ flavor, texture and size.”

Plenty even has its own patent-pending method of pollinating the strawberry flowers that doesn’t require bees. Even just the fact that this enormous crop of strawberries will be coming from Virginia is notable, since the vast majority of strawberries in the U.S. are grown in California.

strawberry fieldTraditional strawberry farming takes up a lot of land.Photo credit: Canva

Plenty's Richmond farm is currently growing strawberries exclusively for Driscoll’s.

“Partnering with Plenty for the launch of the Richmond Farm allows us to bring our premium strawberries closer to consumers in the Northeast, the largest berry consumption region in the U.S.,” Driscoll’s CEO Soren Bjorn said in a press release. “By combining our 100 years of farming expertise and proprietary varieties along with Plenty’s cutting-edge technology, we can deliver the same consistent flavor and quality our customers love — now grown locally. This new innovative farm is a powerful step forward in continuing to drive category growth in new ways for our customers and consumers.”

Is Plenty’s model the farm of the future? Perhaps it’s one option, at least. The more we grapple with the impact of climate change and outdated, unsustainable farming practices, the more innovative ideas we’ll need to feed the masses. If they can get 4 million pounds of strawberries out of an acre of land, what else is possible?

Education

'Supercommuter' mom takes a flight to work every day because it's cheaper than living there

She says a 40 minute flight is well worth it financially and emotionally.

Crazy that she ends up with MORE free time.

Would you commute to work on a plane every day to save money? For Racheal Kaur, a mom who lives in Malaysia, it was a no-brainer. In a recent interview with CNA Insider, Kaur shared how she takes a 40-minute flight from Penang to Kuala Lumpur every single day of the work week, and claimed that being a “supercommuter” isn’t only more cost effective, but also provides more work-life balance.

To get to work by 9am, Kaur gets up and out of the house well before dawn, leaving her house by 5am, and boarding on a plane by 5:55am and arrives in the city with a little over an hour to spare. She then flies for around 40 minutes (enjoying what she calls her “me time”) then repeats the process to get home. Every day, Monday through Friday.

While unconventional, Kaur told CNA Insider that this schedule actually has time to spend with her kids, aged 12 and 11, at night, and even “help with any last-minute homework,” which she feels is “everything” as her kids grow older.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

From a cost perspective, Kaur apparently pays $223 a month for her current mortgage in Penang, whereas living in Kuala Lumpur would cost around $340 per month. And while Kaur pays out of pocket for her flight, she does receive a discount, and pays the equivalent of $11 USD a day. Overall things even out, and she’s even able to save money.

While this strategy can occasionally get tricker during busier times of the year, since commercial passengers take priority, Kaur assures that considering everything, it’s all “well worth it.”

Previously, Upworthy had highlighted another supercommuter—a student at Berkeley who flew from Los Angeles to the infamously expensive city of San Francisco for class three days a week, using various frequent flyer miles/points from credit card sign up bonuses he had accumulated over the years.

And while this strategy certainly works for some, it might not work for everyone. Steve Kass, a writer for Fast Company and fellow supercommuter, suggest to ask yourself the following questions before committing to the frequent flier lifestyle:

  • Can you handle less downtime?
  • Will it disrupt your sleep schedule?
  • Are you healthy enough to handle the physically demanding task of traveling?
  • Obvious, but important one: is this financially feasible long-term?
  • Do you love your job? If it’s rewarding, the sacrifice feels worth it, Kass says.
  • Can you see yourself doing this long term? If not, is there a deadline you can create for yourself?

And even if this ends up not being a viable option for you, stories like these are good reminders that you really can can forge a lifestyle that meets all your needs, especially if you conjure up a little creative thinking.

DoorDash drivers spill about teens' weird delivery instructions

Sometimes you want a little midnight snacky-snack and nothing in the house sounds good, so you DoorDash something tasty before bed. This is something that has become fairly normal in American society since the food delivery option has become available. But when people order a late night treat, they're typically waiting in close proximity to the front door so they can quickly grab their food.

But it seems that's not always the case for everyone that anxiously awaits their food delivery. Claudia Mercer recently learned that her 12-year-old son has been sneaking food through his bedroom window via DoorDash. The mom comes to this realization after reviewing her security footage only to see a car pull into her driveway and a man carrying a bag cut through her grass to get to her child hanging out of his bedroom window.

Mercer uploaded the video to social media where it has more than 700k views, and while her son's late night antics are certainly giggle worthy, the comment section was full of food delivery stories. DoorDashers flocked to the video to spill all the tea on their strange delivery requests.

If you've never ordered from DoorDash, you may not be aware that there's a section for instructions before you complete the order. The instructions box is supposed to be used to tell drivers to leave the food on the table instead of the welcome mat, or to place it inside the cooler next to the front door. But it turns out some people get a bit creative with their instructions when they're attempting to sneak food in their homes, offices or other venues where they don't want others to know.

These DoorDash drivers take their job as seriously as therapists take their HIPAA requirement. They are listening to the instructions given and not judging anything requested because whatever comes through that app is between you and your dasher. No need for the other folks around to know you're eating a second dinner, that's your business, DoorDash is just following directions.

Sneaking Gerry Dee GIF by CBCGiphy

One delivery person shares, "Delivered pizzas to a basket hanging from a second story window once. Cash and tip was in it so I sent them up."

Another DoorDasher writes, "Yep as a Dasher, I have delivered like that before. I had a kid that asked me to deliver it through his window because he didn’t want to eat with[sic] his mom was making for dinner."

Someone else laughs, "As a doordasher. I saw a kid jumped out of a window to come get his food, the directions read “turn off lights and do not get out of the car. Call when you get close” we listen and we don’t judge."

Delivery Dashing GIF by DoorDashGiphy

Seems like kids are sneaky little people as there seems to be a bit of a pattern here as one person admits, "I had a kid tell me how to avoid the camera and wait until his mom left. I felt like a private detective ninja."

Asking someone to fake being a relative is a next level request, "Once I had a kid make me pretend to be his aunt and drop off his food at school."

"I had to door dash for a family. wife told me to hide her milkshake. bc she didn't want to share it with her family. lol," one person shares.

Hungry Amazon Prime GIF by primevideoinGiphy

"I delivered to some teens a few weeks ago. They asked me to deliver to a window behind the bushes so their parents wouldn’t see," a driver adds.

Clearly the DoorDash drivers are only concerned about you getting your food no matter where they need to sneakily drop it off. Hide it under a bush, cool. Put it in the basket hanging from a rope from the second story, no problem. Drop it off behind the school close to the gate, absolutely. They are here to make sure you don't go hungry or have to eat your mom's broccoli casserole and they're doing it without judging. But if you have your dasher going through Indiana Jones level adventures to drop off food, maybe leave them an extra tip for their dedication to your order.