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.

Science

Her groundbreaking theory on the origin of life was rejected 15 times. Then biology proved her right.

Lynn Margulis had the audacity to challenge Darwin. And we're lucky she did.

lynn margulis, lynn margulis symbiosis, biology, scientific breakthroughs, darwin, darwinism, women in science
Facts That Will Blow Your Mind/Facebook

A photo of Lynn Margulis.

Throughout her prolific and distinguished career, biologist Lynn Margulis made several groundbreaking contributions to science that we take for granted as common knowledge today. For example, she championed James E. Lovelock’s “Gaia concept,” which posited that the Earth self-regulates to maintain conditions for life.

But by far, her most notable theory was symbiogenesis. While it was first written off as “strange” and “aesthetically pleasing” but “not compelling,” it would ultimately prevail, and completely rewrite how we viewed the origin of life itself.


In the late 1960s, Margulis wrote a paper titled "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells," that was quite avant-garde. In it, she proposed a theory: that life evolved through organisms merging together to become inseparable.

In essence, cooperation is the driver of life, not competition and domination. This directly went against Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” principle that was considered gospel in scientific circles. Margulis’ paper was rejected by fifteen journals before getting accepted into the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Time would be on Margulis’ side, however. By the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, research proved that the two major building blocks of plants and animals, chloroplasts and mitochondria were at one time independent bacteria. This solidified the fact that on a biological level, connection trumps autonomy for longevity. And now that fact is written in textbooks, with no real story of the adversity it overcame to get there.

While it is customary for most new scientific theories to be met with criticism, especially those that completely shift the current narrative, many have noted that sexism played a key part in Margulis’ initial lack of acceptance. On more than one occasion, she herself had hinted that women were seen as mothers and wives first, and scientists second. She recalled that while married to fellow scientist Carl Sagan that “Carl would finish his sentence, unperturbed” while she was expected to “handle all the duties of a 1950s housewife, from washing dishes to paying the household bills.”

And yet, Margulis would have other ideas that were controversial that had nothing to do with her gender. Most famously, she did not believe that AIDS was caused by HIV, and instead believed it was cause by a syphilis-causing type of bacteria, despite there already being decades of research proving otherwise. That view was seen as an endorsement of AIDS denialism, which undermined prevention and treatment effort. Then later in life, Margulis became a vocal proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories suggesting government involvement the in Twin Towers attacks.

And yet, perhaps this is one of those “you gotta take the good with the bad” situations. Margulis’ inherent contrarian nature gave us both these unfounded, even harmful stances, in addition to entirely new paradigms that altered our understanding of life itself.

And if nothing else, it illuminated the need for science to include multiple points of view in order to unlock the truth. It seems life is, after all, about coming together.

washing sheets, bedding, how often should you wash your sheets, making the bed, wash sheets, how often should you wash bed sheets
Photo credit: Canva
The rest of your bedding doesn't need to be washed as often.

There's nothing better than hopping into bed with clean sheets. But let's be honest: washing your sheets can be a pain. From stripping the bed to putting sheets back on post-washing, it's a chore. But you may want to re-think how often you should be washing your bed sheets.

According to a survey of 1,000 Americans conducted by Mattress Advisor, the average time between sheet changings or washings in the U.S. is 24 days—or every 3 1/2 weeks, approximately. The same survey revealed that 35 days is the average interval at which unwashed sheets are "gross."


If that sounds about right to you, prepare to be shocked. According to experts, you should be washing your sheets *a lot* sooner than that for hygiene reasons.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

How often should you wash your sheets?

Hint: It's a lot more frequent than 24 days.

While there is no definitive number of days or weeks, most experts recommend swapping out used sheets for clean ones every week or two.

Dermatologist Alok Vij, MD told Cleveland Clinic that people should wash their sheets at least every two weeks, but probably more often if you have pets, live in a hot climate, sweat a lot, are recovering from illness, have allergies or asthma, or if you sleep naked.

We shed dead skin all the time, and friction helps those dead skin cells slough off, so imagine what's happening every time you roll over and your skin rubs on the sheets. It's normal to sweat in your sleep, too, so that's also getting on your sheets. And then there's dander and dust mites and dirt that we carry around on us just from living in the world, all combining to make for pretty dirty sheets in a fairly short period of time, even if they look "clean."

Maybe if you shower before bed and always wear clean pajamas you could get by with a two-week sheet swap cycle, but weekly sheet cleaning seems to be the general consensus among the experts. The New York Times consulted five books about laundry and cleaning habits, and once a week was what they all recommend.

Sorry, once-a-monthers. You may want to step up your sheet game a bit.

sheets, bed sheets, clean sheets, how often should you wash your sheets, how often should you wash your bed sheets Experts agree that this is how often you should wash your bed sheets.Photo credit: Canva

What about the rest of your bedding? Blankets and comforters and whatnot?

Olivia Parks, Owner + Lead Organizer at Nola Organizers, told Upworthy that duvet covers should be cleaned every week or so.

"Even though the cover protects the insert, the insert still collects body odor, sweat, body oils from lotions or other body products, crumbs if you eat in your bed, dog hair or cat hair, and more," she explained.

Somewhere between the Gen X and Millennial eras, young folks stopped being about the top sheet life, just using their duvet with no top sheet. If that's you, wash that baby once a week. If you do use a top sheet, you can go a couple weeks longer on the duvet cover.

For blankets and comforters and duvet inserts, Sleep.com says every 3 months. And for decorative blankets and quilts that you don't really use, once a year washing will suffice.

What about pillows? Pillowcases should go in with the weekly sheet washing, but pillows themselves should be washed every 3 to 6 months. Washing pillows can be a pain, and if you don't do it right, you can end up with a lumpy pillow, but it's a good idea because between your sweat, saliva and skin cells, pillows can start harboring bacteria.

@suzieqssss

Baking soda absorbs moisture and or odor and breaks down any residue that builds up! If you have allergies you should be doing this more often! #cleaning #lifehack #tiktokshopcybermonday #tiktokshopblackfriday #mattressvacuumcleaner

Finally, how about the mattress itself? Home influencers on TikTok can often be seen stripping their beds, sprinkling their mattress with baking soda, brushing it into the mattress fibers and then vacuuming it all out. Architectural Digest says the longer you leave baking soda on the mattress, the better—at least a few hours, but preferably overnight. Some people add a few drops of essential oil to the baking soda for some extra yummy smell.

If that all sounds like way too much work, maybe just start with the sheets. Pick a day of the week and make it your sheet washing day. You might find that climbing into a clean, fresh set of sheets more often is a nice way to feel pampered without a whole lot of effort.

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

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity

How do you get someone to open their minds to another perspective?

The diversity of humanity means people won't always see eye to eye, and psychology tells us that people tend to double down when their views are challenged. When people are so deeply entrenched in their own perspectives they're refusing to entertain other viewpoints, what do we do?

Frequently, what we do falls into the "understandable but ineffective" category. When we disagree with someone because their opinion is based on falsehoods or inaccurate information, we may try to pound them with facts and statistics. Unfortunately, research shows that generally doesn't work. We might try to find different ways to explain our stance using logic and reasoning, but that rarely makes a dent, either. So often, we're left wondering how on Earth this person arrived at their perspective, especially if they reject facts and logic.


According to Stanford researchers, turning that wondering into an actual question might be the key.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Questions are more effective than facts when it comes to disagreements.Photo credit: Canva

The power of "Tell me more."

Two studies examined how expressing interest in someone's view and asking them to elaborate on why they hold their opinion affected both parties engaged in a debate. They found that asking questions like, "Could you tell me more about that?” and ‘‘Why do you think that?" made the other person "view their debate counterpart more positively, behave more open-mindedly, and form more favorable inferences about other proponents of the counterpart’s views." Additionally, adding an expression of interest, such as, ‘‘But I was interested in what you’re saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?” not only made the counterpart more open to other viewpoints, but the questioner themselves developed more favorable attitudes toward the opposing viewpoint.

In other words, genuinely striving to understand another person's perspective by being curious and asking them to say more about how they came to their conclusions may help bridge seemingly insurmountable divides.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Asking people to elaborate leads to more open-mindedness.Photo credit: Canva

Stanford isn't alone in these findings. A series of studies at the University of Haifa also found that high-quality listening helped lower people's prejudices, and that when people perceive a listener to be responsive, they tend to be more open-minded. Additionally, the perception that their attitude is the correct and valid one is reduced.

Why curiosity works

In some sense, these results may seem counterintuitive. We may assume that asking someone to elaborate on what they believe and why they believe it might just further entrench them in their views and opinions. But that's not what the research shows.

Dartmouth cognitive scientist Thalia Wheatley studies the role of curiosity in relationships and has found that being curious can help create consensus where there wasn't any before.

“[Curiosity] really creates common ground across brains, just by virtue of having the intellectual humility to say, ‘OK, I thought it was like this, but what do you think?’ And being willing to change your mind,” she said, according to the John Templeton Foundation.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Curiosity can help people get closer to consensus. Photo credit: Canva

Of course, there may be certain opinions and perspectives that are too abhorrent or inhumane to entertain with curious questions, so it's not like "tell me more" is always the solution to an intractable divide. But even those with whom we vehemently disagree or those whose views we find offensive may respond to curiosity with more open-mindedness and willingness to change their view than if we simply argue with them. And isn't that the whole point?

Sometimes what's effective doesn't always line up with our emotional reactions to a disagreement, so engaging with curiosity might take some practice. It may also require us to rethink what formats for public discourse are the most impactful. Is ranting in a TikTok video or a tweet conducive to this shift in how we engage others? Is one-on-one or small group, in-person discussion a better forum for curious engagement? These are important things to consider if our goal is not to merely state our case and make our voice heard but to actually help open people's minds and remain open-minded in our own lives as well.

pigs, pets, homework, school, teachers, kids, dog ate my homework, excuses, funny, humor
By Andrew Watson/Wikimedia Commons & Canva

An Arizona girl claimed "My pig ate my homework!" Luckily, she had proof.

Believe it or not, "the dog ate my homework" excuse is over 100 years old. The first known anecdote involving a dog eating important documents came about around 1905. A professor was later recorded in 1929 writing, "It is a long time since I have had the excuse about the dog tearing up the arithmetic homework," suggesting the phrase had been around for some time.

In the century since, teachers the world over have heard every variation of excuse about why a student can't turn in their homework. But, in 2026, we may have fortuitously stumbled on a new one most teachers have never dreamed of.


Jacey Tinsley, a mom from Arizona, recently posted a story to social media that has to be seen to be believed. In the now viral post, she explains that her daughter Taylee was unable to turn in her homework for multiple subjects... because their pet pig ate it.

Yes, the Tinsleys have racked up quite a following on social media documenting life with their three mini-pigs, so it is certainly in the realm of possibility that one of the pigs could have gotten into Taylee's homework.

But would the teachers buy it?

Luckily, Tinsley was able to catch the whole thing on video via indoor Ring cam. In the footage, their pig Polly is caught red-handed snatching the backpack off of the counter, dragging it to the floor, and rifling through it—destroying several papers in the process. Tinsley took the initiative to email her daughter's teachers and school administrators with the indisputable photographic evidence.

Jacey Tinsley took full accountability for her daughter's missing work. "If/when you see any work that's partially eaten/chewed, that is 100% on us, not Taylee," she confessed.

Then, she hoped for the best.

The school staffers had no choice but to accept Jacey's ludicrous tale, and they got quite a kick out of it, too.

Taylee's principal was first to reply: "Okay, I have to admit this is a first for me!! I'm trying not to laugh hysterically..."

The science teacher chimed in next: "This is a first time in my teacher career to hear this and I find it hilarious."

The math teacher was a person of few words: "Oh my goodness, that is so funny."

Over two million people viewed the reel on Instagram and TikTok combined. Commenters were delighted by the ridiculous footage and had plenty of their own hard-to-believe stories of lost homework:

"I turned in homework once that was half eaten by my rabbits but all the answers weren't eaten so I got an A"

"That happened with my piggy she ate three page, so I sent a picture of our piggy Then the damn teacher wanted me to bring her to show and tell her"

"Had a classmate who brought in his homework that was literally eaten by his dog. My teacher thought it was so funny that he displayed the chewed up paper on his wall"

"My baby sister ate my homework once. I wish I was joking"

"My dog ate my homework which was a book I picked to read and it was about lying and saying that your dog ate your homework. I told my teacher and got yelled at so my Dad had to come in with the torn up book to prove I wasnt lying"

If there's anything to learn from the massive response to Tinsley's post, it's that, sometimes, the dog really does eat your homework. And if not the dog, then the rabbit, cat, or even pig.

Pigs can make terrific pets in the right home. They are surprisingly intelligent, playful, affectionate, and can be trained to do many of the tricks and tasks dogs can do.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Pigs can, however, be quite destructive. Because they're so smart, any hint of boredom can drive them into a frenzy of activity; a favorite activity of many pigs is rooting. Rooting is when they use their powerful snout to push and dig at the ground—or whatever items happen to be around (like a backpack that smells like yesterday's lunch). It's an instinctual behavior that calms them and helps them find snacks.

Taylee got lucky this time that the whole incident was caught on camera. "The pig ate my homework," doesn't seem like the kind of excuse that's going to fly more than once without proof.

ups driver, ups, hero, house fire, elderly woman, orange county, california, local news, good news, ktla

A delivery driver with a determined expression; a house on fire.

Fate often tests our courage at the most unexpected times. For UPS driver Willy Esquivel, that moment came on January 15 while he was completing a delivery in Orange County, California.

According to KTLA, Esquivel was on his routine route in Santa Ana when he noticed neighbors attempting to smother a blaze coming from the condo of Ann Edwards, a 101-year-old woman who lives alone.


Esquivel wasted no time entering the smoke-filled building to rescue Edwards, who seemed "very disoriented" and reluctant to leave. Nevertheless, Esquivel "picked her up and carried her safely outside," according to KTLA and a statement from the Orange County Fire Authority (OFCA).

A video posted on the OFCA's X account showed just how thick the smoke was pouring from Edwards' condo as firefighters arrived. The OFCA also acknowledged the resourceful neighbors who aided in the rescue.

"At the same time, the neighbors used fire extinguishers to knock down the kitchen fire," the OCFA wrote on X. "One of them, a roofer by trade, grabbed his ladder, climbed to the roof, and used a garden hose to spray water into the kitchen vent."

Thankfully, while Edwards was taken to the hospital, she was expected to make a full recovery. Her son, Rick, told KTLA that he was grateful to Esquivel for "sticking with her and getting her out of there."

As for Esquivel, rather than seeing himself as a hero, he told KTLA that he was "just a UPS driver who was in the right place at the right time."

"I just did what I thought was right," he added. "At the end of the day, she's someone's mother, someone's grandmother, great-grandmother."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Moments like this rarely announce themselves ahead of time. They unfold in the middle of ordinary days, on familiar streets, while people are simply doing their jobs or moving through their routines. Delivery drivers like Esquivel travel through neighborhoods every day, often unnoticed, yet uniquely positioned to sense when something is wrong. On this day, being present and paying attention made all the difference.

Just as striking as Esquivel's bravery was the way neighbors instinctively sprang into action. Without hesitation, they grabbed fire extinguishers, ladders, and garden hoses, each contributing whatever they had in the moment. Together, their quick thinking and collaboration helped prevent an even greater tragedy.

"A remarkable outcome made possible by quick action, teamwork, and people looking out for one another in a moment of need," the OCFA wrote on X.

It's easy to assume someone else will step in. That it's not your fight. That it's not your responsibility. Heroism requires the opposite mindset. And at a time when the world can feel increasingly short on that quality, this story is a refreshing reminder that yes, there are still good people out there willing to help, even when it means helping complete strangers while on the job.