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.

True


Life can be bleak, so we’re going to be celebrating the small joys while we can—whether that’s a sweet snack that boosts your mood (courtesy of our friends at All In), or a dad joke so epic you'll hurt your eyes from rolling them so hard. These momentary mood boosters are everywhere you look—you just have to be able to find them underneath all the noise. And that’s where we come in.

Consider this weekly web series your cheat sheet to the best of the Internet—not just random memes to make you laugh, but examples of people truly finding something extraordinary in the mundane. Each Friday we'll be delivering five pieces of media that allow you to stop for a second, take a breath, and feel just a little bit brighter among the daily stress—and this week, in honor of Father's Day, it's dad-themed.

Ready to smile? Here we go.

1.The "soulmated so hard" trend

@breezeb3a

I’ll never recover from losing you 💓

♬ The Winner Is... Version - DeVotchKa

This is a TikTok trend that’s both wholesome and, at times, actually jaw-dropping. The premise is this: Pets can be our soulmates, and sometimes we “soulmate” so hard that our pets leave a lifelong impression on us. This trend has people showing how big of an impression their pets have made on them, even after they’ve crossed the rainbow bridge. In one video, user Brianna Kay shares an ultrasound of her baby with what looks like the outline of her dog kissing the baby on the forehead. In another video, an owner asks her soulmate cat to send her a sign from beyond the grave that she is at peace. The response (here) will shock you.

2. Dudes getting flowers

Why is it that men (traditionally speaking) are the ones who give flowers, and not usually the ones who get them? We don’t have a good answer for that, but it’s clearly time to flip the script. This week, our friends from All In are hitting the streets of New York and delivering bouquets to men, and they are absolutely loving it. Let’s make this a regular thing.

3. A new grandpa gets good news  

@ellelauricella In my feels today remembering my dad’s reaction to meeting my baby ❤️ We named his middle name after my father and kept it a surprise my whole pregnancy. This was one of the happiest moments of my whole life. #postpartum #dad #dadsoftiktok #dadanddaughter #grandson #firstgrandbaby #birthvlog #hospitalbirth #momsoftiktok #fyp #firsttimemom ♬ Stuff We Did (from 'Up') - Piano Version - your movie soundtrack

Just in time for Father's Day! There’s almost no better way to honor your dad than naming a new baby after him, which is exactly what happens in this video. It’s almost impossible not to cry (happy tears!) seeing this new grandpa learn the good news from his daughter, who’s already weepy from postpartum hormones. (We’re not crying, you’re crying.)

4. Dad's loving dogs

@aubree.avery I had to make a PowerPoint to convice my parents to let me get her & now she is four years old and my parents beg me everyday to let them keep her. #dogmom #doodle #doodlesoftiktok #dogs ♬ Kiss me Sixpence None The Richer - whitelinesprettybabyy

Speaking of adorable dads: It seems like there’s this universal experience where when someone brings a pet into a household, the dad of the household will refuse to bond with it (at least at first). TikTok has latched on to this truth and is now flipping the script, showcasing dads who initially refused to accept the family pet and are now treating it like their precious firstborn. Search “dads and the dog they didn’t want” on TikTok and you’ll find some hilarious examples (like this dad, testing every couch inside a furniture store to make sure he’s able to adequately rub the dog’s belly from his seat on the sofa).

5. A dog who just cannot handle a prank 

@haleyandthepets spoiler bro got mad instantly #foryou #foryoupage #dogs #fyp #dunkindadawg #viral ♬ snoopy von - joro.mixes

We can never share enough dog content, right? (That was a rhetorical question, because the answer is of course not.) Dogs are adorable. They’re hilarious. And they have some very strong feelings. In this video, one easygoing dog gets his “nose stolen” as a prank, and every time he finds out, he shows his owner that he is absolutely not having it. Give that baby her nose back!

For even more “extra”-ordinary moments, come find us on social media (@upworthy) or on upworthy.com!

For scrumptious snacks that add an extra boost of joy to your day, be sure to check out All In.

Photo credit: Public domain

Maria Von Trapp was not in love with Georg when they got married, but that changed.

The Sound of Music has been beloved for generations, partially for the music (and Julie Andrews' angelic voice), partially for the historical storyline, and partially for the love story between Maria and Georg Von Trapp. The idea of a nun-in-training softening the heart of a curmudgeonly widower, falling in love with him, and ultimately becoming a big, happy family is just an irresistible love story.

But it turns out the real love story behind their union is even more fascinating.

maria von trapp, georg von trapp, the sound of music, love story, historyMaria Von Trapp (left) was played by Julie Andrews and her husband Georg was played by Christopher Plummer in "The Sound of Music."Photo credit: Public domain

The National Archives has collected information about what's fact and what's fiction in The Sound of Music, which is based on a real family in Austria named Von Trapp. The film was generally based on the first section of Maria Von Trapp's 1949 autobiography, The Story of the Trapp Family Singers, with some of the details being true and others fictionalized for a movie audience.

For instance, Maria was actually hired on as a tutor for just one of Georg's children, not as a governess for all of them. The children, whose names, ages and sexes were changed, were already musically inclined before Maria arrived. Georg was not the cold, grumpy dad he was portrayed as in the beginning of the film, but rather a warm and involved parent who enjoyed making music with his kids. Maria and Georg were married 11 years before leaving Austria, not right before the Nazi takeover. The Von Trapps left by train, not in a secret excursion over the mountains.

But perhaps the most intriguing detail? Maria was not in love with Georg at all when they got married.

gif, the sound of music, von trapp family, movie, true eventsSound Of Music Flag GIF by The Rodgers & Hammerstein OrganizationGiphy

It doesn't initially make for a great Hollywood romance, but the Von Trapp love story began with marriage for other reasons and evolved into a genuine love story. Maria wrote that she fell in love with Georg's children at first sight, but she wasn't sure about leaving her religious calling when Georg asked her to marry him. The nuns urged her to do God's will and marry him, but for Maria it was all about the children, not him. When Georg proposed, he asked her to stay with him and become a second mother to his children. "God must have made him word it that way," Maria wrote, "because if he had only asked me to marry him I might not have said yes."

"I really and truly was not in love," she wrote. "I liked him but didn't love him. However, I loved the children, so in a way I really married the children."

However, she shared that her feelings for Georg changed over time. "…[B]y and by I learned to love him more than I have ever loved before or after."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The idea of marrying someone you don't love is antithetical to every romantic notion our society celebrates, yet the evolution of Maria's love for Georg has been a common occurrence across many cultures throughout history. Romantic love was not always the primary impetus for marriage. It was more often an economic proposition and communal arrangement that united families and peoples, formed the basis of alliances, and enabled individuals to rise through social ranks. Some cultures still practice arranged marriage, which limited research has found has outcomes identical to love-first marriage in reports of passionate love, companionate love, satisfaction, and commitment. The idea of marrying someone you don't already love is anathema to modern Western sensibilities, but the reality is that people have married over the centuries for many reasons, only one of which is falling in love.

Maria's marriage to Georg actually was about falling in love, but not with him. She loved his children and wanted to be with them. It definitely helped that she liked the guy, but she wasn't swept off her feet by him, there were no moonlit confessions of love a la "Something Good," and their happily ever after love story didn't come until much later.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Ultimately, Maria and Georg's love story was one for the ages, just not one that fits the Hollywood film trope. And it's a compelling reminder that our unwritten rules and social norms determining what love and marriage should look like aren't set in stone. Do marriages for reasons other than love always evolve into genuine love? No. Do marriages based on falling in love first always last? Also no. Should a marriage that starts with "like" and develops into to a genuine, deep love over years be considered "true love" in the way we usually think of it? Who can say? Lots to ponder over in this love story.

But Maria's description of learning "to love him more than I have ever loved before or after" is a pretty high bar, so clearly it worked for them. The Von Trapps were married for 20 years and had three more children together before Georg died of lung cancer in 1947. Maria would live another four decades and never remarried. She died in 1987 at age 82 and is buried next to Georg on the family's property in Vermont.

Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy.

Leo Tolstoy was a Russian novelist known for epic works such as War and Peace and Anna Karenina. His life experiences—from witnessing war to spiritual quests—profoundly influenced his writings and gave him profound insights into the human soul. His understanding of emotions, motivations and moral dilemmas has made his work stand the test of time, and it still resonates with people today.

Julian de Medeiros, a TikToker who shares his thoughts on philosophy, recently shared how Tolstoy knew if someone was highly intelligent—and his observation says something extraordinary about humanity.

intelligence, thinking, thought process, humanity, humansAn intelligent man's thought process.Canva Photos

“The more intelligent a person is, the more he discovers kindness in others,” Tolstoy once wrote. “For nothing enriches the world more than kindness. It makes mysterious things clear, difficult things easy, and dull things cheerful.”

@julianphilosophy

Intelligent people are kind #intelligent #intelligence #kindness #smart #tolstoy #men #women


De Medeiros boiled down Tolstoy’s thoughts into a simple statement: “Intelligent people are unafraid to be kind.” He then took things a step further by noting that Tolstoy believed in the power of emotional intelligence. "To have emotional intelligence is to see the good in other people, that is what Tolstoy meant, that to be intelligent is to be kind," he added.

It seems that, according to de Medeiros, Tolstoy understood that intelligent people are kind and perceptive of the kindness in others. The intelligent person is conscious of the kindness within themselves and in the world around them.

In a 2024 opinion piece for Inc., author and speaker Jeff Hayden cites organizational psychologist Adam Grant, who says, "Generosity isn't just a sign of virtue. It's also a mark of intelligence. Data: people with high IQs have more unselfish values, give more to charity, and negotiate better deals for others. They prioritize the long-term collective good over short-term self-interest. It's smarter to be a giver than a taker."

Hayden adds on to this statement, saying, "...You can also be smart enough to be generous, thoughtful, and kind. You can be smart enough to build people up instead of tearing them down. You can be smart enough to give before you receive (or better yet, with no expectation of reciprocation.) You can be smart enough to shift the credit from yourself to others."

kindness, intelligence, humanity, human condition, be kindKids showing kindness through sharing. Canva Photos

In other words, these findings certainly line up with what Tolstoy's take on the correlation between kindness and intelligence.

Through Tolstoy's musings, de Medeiros (and Hayden and Grant) makes a point that is often overlooked when people talk about intelligence: truly smart people are as in touch with their hearts as they are with their minds.

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

Pop Culture

Brit shares the one-word 'dead giveaway' that American actors can't do an English accent

“There is one word that is a dead giveaway that an English character in a movie or a TV show is being played by an American."

via Warner Bros Discovery

Peter Dinklage on "Game of Thrones"?

When it comes to actors doing accents across the pond, some Americans are known for their great British accents, such as Natalie Portman ("The Other Boleyn Girl"), Robert Downey, Jr. ("Sherlock Holmes"), and Meryl Streep ("The Iron Lady"). Some have taken a lot of heat for their cartoonish or just plain weird-sounding British accents, Dick Van Dyke ("Mary Poppins"), Kevin Costner ("Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves") and Keanu Reeves ("Bram Stoker's Dracula").

Some actors, such as Tom Hardy (“The Drop”) and Hugh Laurie (“House”), have American accents so good that people have no idea they are British. Benedict Townsend, a London-based comedian and host of the “Scroll Deep” podcast, says there is one word that American actors playing characters with a British accent never get right. And no, it’s not the word “Schedule,” which British people pronounce the entire first 3 letters, and Americans boil down to 2. And it’s not “aluminum,” which British and American people seem to pronounce every stinking letter differently.


@benedicttown The one word American actors aways get wrong when doing an English accent
♬ original sound - Benedict Townsend

What word do American actors always get wrong when they do British accents?

“There is one word that is a dead giveaway that an English character in a movie or a TV show is being played by an American. One word that always trips them up. And once you notice it, you can't stop noticing it,” Townsend says. “You would see this lot in ‘Game of Thrones’ and the word that would always trip them up was ‘daughter.’”

Townsend adds that when British people say “daughter,” they pronounce it like the word “door” or “door-tah.” Meanwhile, Americans, even when they are putting on a British accent, say it like “dah-ter.”

“So top tip if you are an actor trying to do an English accent, daughter like a door. Like you're opening a door,” Townsend says.


What word do British actors always get wrong when doing American accents?

Some American commenters returned the favor by sharing the word that British actors never get right when using American accents: “Anything.”

"I can always tell a Brit playing an American by the word anything. An American would say en-ee-thing. Brits say it ena-thing,” Dreaming_of_Gaea wrote. "The dead giveaway for English people playing Americans: ‘Anything.’ Brits always say ‘EH-nuh-thin,’” marliemagill added. "I can always tell an actor is English playing an American when they say ‘anything.’ English people always say it like ‘enny-thin,’” mkmason wrote.


What is the cot-caught merger?

One commenter noted that the problem goes back to the cot-caught merger, when Americans in the western US and Canadians began to merge different sounds into one. People on the East Coast and in Britain pronounce them as different sounds.

“Depending on where you live, you might be thinking one of two things right now: Of course, ‘cot’ and ‘caught’ sound exactly the same! or "There’s no way that ‘cot’ and ‘caught’ sound the same!” Laura McGrath writes at DoYouReadMe. “As a result, although the different spellings remain, the vowel sounds in the words cot/caught, nod/gnawed, stock/stalk are identical for some English speakers and not for others.” For example, a person from New Jersey would pronounce cot and catch it as "caht" and "cawt," while someone from Los Angeles may pronounce them as "caht" and "caht."

To get a better idea of the big difference in how "caught" and "cot" are pronounced in the U.S., you can take a look at the educational video below, produced for a college course on linguistics.


- YouTubeyoutu.be

American actors owe Townsend a debt of gratitude for pointing out the one thing that even the best can’t seem to get right. For some actors, it could mean the difference between a great performance and one that has people scratching their heads. He should also give the commenters a tip of the cap for sharing the big word that British people have trouble with when doing an American accent. Now, if we could just get through to Ewan McGregor and tell him that even though he is fantastic in so many films, his American accent still needs a lot of work.

This article originally appeared last year.

Marc Martel sings with the audience in Santiago, Chile, in May of 2022.

Freddie Mercury was known for many things—his dramatic showmanship, his larger-than-life personality, and his untimely death during the peak of the AIDS epidemic—but he is most remembered for his clear, powerful voice, ranging from rich bass notes to impressive soprano coloratura.

It's hard to do Freddie's voice justice, but Marc Martel has managed to wow millions with his impersonations of the Queen lead singer. If you close your eyes and listen, there are seconds when you might swear you were hearing Freddie himself singing again.

freddie mercury, queenFreddie Mercury knew how to work an audience.Giphy

Martel's cover of "Bohemian Rhapsody" has been viewed 56 million times on YouTube. And another of his videos showcases Martel's ability to captivate an audience with his—or Freddie's—voice.

At a concert in Santiago, Chile, in 2022, Martel began playing the piano intro to "Love of My Life," one of Queen's simplest and most sentimental ballads. As soon as he opened his mouth to sing, the audience did the same—10,000 people all singing along in unison—and it's just beautiful.

Watch:

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Queen fans not only loved the sing-a-long but they were also blown away by how close Martel came to channeling Freddie Mercury with his vocals:

"I'm 63. Heard Queen from the start. This man is unbelievable. Why Queen didn't grab him is unbelievable, beyond belief."

"For those of us who love the Mercury timbre, Martel is a blessing."

"The part "you've hurt me" sounds exactly like Freddie. I also love the fact that people are singing too, it gives me Queen concerts vibes :)"

"When the crowd started singing, it genuinely gave me goosebumps. It was like he was singing with a choir. Some great voices in the audience! Well mixed too. Incredible as always!"

"Never mind the vocal inflections, he plays piano outstandingly. Freddie’s voice was so unique and original, it’s unbelievable how close Marc is."

And if you want to see Martel's "Bohemian Rhapsody" video with 56 million views, here it is. Enjoy:

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Amazingly enough, Martel never took singing lessons, instead learning from imitating his favorite vocalists. He also didn't grow up listening to Queen—he came to appreciate their music later in life.

Martel told Altwire in 2023 how he feels about constantly being compared to the late, great icon, Freddie Mercury:

"It’s obviously an honor, and I’ve been getting that comparison for a while, over 12 years now, on a regular basis, no matter what music I’m singing. Even when I try not to sound like Freddie, people will come up to me and there was a point where I was counting how many people would say that to me after a show, like 'Hey! Has anyone ever told you that you sound like Freddie Mercury?' It was at least 5 every time, without fail.

"It is an honor, there are far worse singers out there to be compared to. I’ve come to terms with it. I’ve accepted it, and it’s something I’m never going to escape, so why bother? If I tried to escape it, or kind of morph my voice into something unnatural. It’s the way I sound and thankfully it’s someone who people genuinely love to hear."

Martel is taking his voice on the road again in 2025, touring the United States through the summer and heading to Europe in fall. If we can't have Freddie Mercury live, singing along with Martel to Queen's classics may just be the next best thing.

You can find more of Marc Martel's Freddie Mercury magic on YouTube.

This article originally appeared two years ago.

The Minnesota state photograph "Grace" by Eric Enstrom depicts traveling salesman Charles Wilden in Bovey, Minnesota.

One of the most popular pieces of 20th-century American art is a painting of an old devout man praying over a bowl of gruel and a loaf of bread in front of a Bible. The piece is called “Grace,” and it can be found in homes, churches, and even restaurants.

I clearly remember a copy hanging on the wall at my corner burger joint, Mack’s Burgers, in Torrance, California, in the ’80s. Sadly, it’s been torn down and is now a Jack in the Box. However ubiquitous the photo may be, a new video by pop culture YouTube user Austin McConnell shows that “Grace” isn’t really what it seems.

“Grace” was originally a photograph taken in 1918, during World War I, by Eric Enstrom, a Swedish American from Bovey, Minnesota. Enstrom was preparing some photographs to take with him to a convention when Charles Wilden, a salesman selling boot scrapers, came to his door, and he know he had to take his photo.

“There was something about the old gentleman’s face that immediately impressed me. I saw that he had a kind face… there weren’t any harsh lines in it,” Enstrom said. “I wanted to take a picture that would show people that even though they had to do without many things because of the war they still had much to be thankful for,” he added.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

“There was something about the old gentleman’s face that immediately impressed me. I saw that he had a kind face… there weren’t any harsh lines in it,” Enstrom said. “I wanted to take a picture that would show people that even though they had to do without many things because of the war they still had much to be thankful for,” he added.

Enstrom posed Wilden in front of a loaf of bread, a bowl—which may have been empty—and a large book that many assume to be the Bible. But, as McConnell notes, the book is far too large to be the good book, as most people assume. The Grand Forks Herald claims that a receipt for payment from Enstrom to Wilden reveals that the book is a dictionary.

The photograph went on to be a huge hit at the convention, and Enstrom began selling copies about town. After many requested copies of the photo in color, Enstrom’s daughter, Rhoda Nyberg, began hand-painting them in oils and added a streak of light on the left side of the painting. This is the version that people have come to love.



"The intent of the photo is fairly obvious,” McConnell says in the video. “Enstrom wanted an image that conveyed to people that even though they had to do without many provisions because of the ongoing war, there was still much to be thankful for. A picture that seemed to say 'this man doesn't have much of earthly goods, but he has more than most people because he has a thankful heart.'"

Enstrom convinced Wilden to sign over his rights for $5, which gave him the sole copyright. He then licensed the image to the Lutheran-affiliated Augsburg publishing house, which distributed the image across the country. According to McConnell “thousands and thousands” of copies of the photo were sold. The image entered the public domain in 1995.



Although not much is known about Wilden, it is believed that he lived a hard life. "He was living in a very primitive sod hut near Grand Rapids, eking out a very precarious living," retired history professor Don Boese told the Grand Forks Herald. It’s also likely that he wasn’t the devout man we imagine in the photo. "The stories about him centered more around drinking and not accomplishing very much,” Boese said.

So the painting was actually a photo. The Bible, a dictionary, and the subject was more likely to be the town drunk than a saint. But, in the end, does it matter? McConnell believes that its meaning rests in the eye of the beholder.

"If you found out today that everything you thought you knew about this iconic image was actually wrong, would you take it off your wall?” McConnell asks at the end of the video. “Or would you accept that the value in a piece of art isn't merely derived from the knowledge of how it was made? Or who made it?”

Come to think of it, the fact that the man in the painting is an alcoholic may make the painting even more profound. For a person who is down on their luck and may have turned their back on religion, having a moment to be grateful for the small things in life is a wonderful sentiment. It goes to show that anyone can turn their life around. When someone down on their luck is given a second chance, it's one of the most powerful examples of grace.

This article originally appeared three years ago.