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.

A dad got a sweet note from a fellow father after camping with his kids.

One of the hardest parts of being a parent is never being sure whether you're doing a good job or totally bombing it. If you're conscientious enough to even wonder if you're a good parent, you probably are, but parenting entails a million little choices and interactions, and there's always a lingering voice in your head saying, "What if you're really screwing this whole thing up?"

Reassurance and encouragement are always appreciated by parents, but not always received, which is why a note from one camping dad to another has people celebrating the kindness of anonymous strangers.

"You are killing it as a dad."

Someone on Yosemite Reddit thread shared a photo of a handwritten note with the caption, "To the man who left this thoughtful note on my windshield at Lower Pines Campground this weekend, I extend my heartfelt gratitude; your acknowledgment of my efforts to be a good father means a great deal to me."



The note reads:

"Bro,

I camped in the spot behind you last night. Let me just say, you are killing it as a dad. First off, I watched your wife guide you in as you backed up your trailer and nailed it on the first try without any yelling. Then your kids unloaded from the truck and were mild-mannered and well behaved. You told stories around the campfire and I had the pleasure of listening to the sounds of giggles and laughter.

From one dad to another, you are killing it. Keep it up.

P.S. Whatever you cooked for dinner smelled delicious!"

How often do we share these thoughts with strangers, even if we have them? And who wouldn't love to get a surprise bit of praise with specific examples of things we did right?

Everyone needs to hear a compliment once in a while.

So many people found the note to be a breath of fresh air and a good reminder to compliment people when we feel the urge:

"That would make any daddy's eyes water."

"It’s always nice, as a guy, to get a compliment."

"I complimented a guy's glasses at work (I'm also a guy, and btw they were really cool glasses, I wasn't just being nice) and now he keeps trying to tell me where he got his glasses and how I should get some. But I'm just having to be polite because I already have glasses and I'm not in the market. I finally had to tell him I'm not going to buy them lmao I just like them on him.

Made me feel like that's the first compliment he's had in years because he can't stop talking about it. Also I mainly liked the glasses because I think he's cute but he really thinks it's just the glasses haha jokes on him that cute bastard."

"I was in the store with my wife and one of our 'adopted nephews' yesterday (we’re close friends with his parents and we’ve known him and his brother since they were newborns and 2yo, respectively). A woman came up to me at checkout while my wife was running out to the car and said 'I’m not sure what your family relationship is here, but I just have to tell you how nice and refreshing it is to hear all the laughter and joy from the 3 of you. You both seem like such a good influence on him and it warms my heart.' It’s such a small thing but as a dude, I can’t remember the last time someone gave me a compliment in public and it made my freaking day."

"10/10 letter. The and not yelling part gave me a good chuckle lol."

"We need so much more of men getting such heartfelt and sincere compliments. Thanks for sharing. ❤️"

"I’ve never considered leaving a note, but when I see a harmonious family with good parenting, it’s healing for me. My childhood was awful."

"Such an awesome compliment! Even though I don't have children myself, I like to remind my friends too that they're doing great & it brings them happy tears."

"This made me cry. I love that you are getting your 'flowers.' My dad sucked, I’m so glad you are one of the good ones."

"This made me cry too. It’s so hard to be a human. Let alone a parent. Getting a good job sticker every now and then really means a lot these days."

"I'm a big bearded guy and I would cry if I got this note. More people like this, please."

The best part of this story is that no one knows who the dad who wrote the note is, not even the dad who shared it. It wasn't written for clout or notoriety, it wasn't to get attention or make himself look good. No name or signature, just an anonymous act of kindness to uplift a stranger whether he needed it or not.

We all need to hear or read kind things said about us, and sometimes it means even more coming from an anonymous stranger who has nothing to gain by sharing. A good reminder to share it when you feel it—you never know how many people you may move and inspire.

This article originally appeared last year.

LGBTQ parishioners and Richard Hays.

Richard Hays, an ordained Methodist minister and the 27-year dean of the Duke Divinity School, passed away on January 4, 2025, from pancreatic cancer. Hays was known for his 1996 book, “The Moral Vision of the New Testament,” which was taught in seminary schools and embraced by conservative evangelical Christians for its repudiation of same-sex marriage. “Homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose,” Hays asserted in his book.

However, in his final months, Hays dramatically shifted his public views about LGBTQ people and their place in the Christian faith. In September 2024, Hays and his son, Chris, released their book “The Widening of God’s Mercy,” which claims God continually extends his mercy to those who are outcasts in the Bible and that LGBTQ people should be accepted in the church.

“The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as ‘fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God,’” the authors wrote, quoting the Book of Ephesians.

Hays’ theological change of heart was controversial in some evangelical circles.


3 Reasons Why Richard Hays believes the church should accept same-sex marriages

In a speech given at CenterPeace Conference 2 months before his death, Hays shared 3 reasons why he believes the church should accept LGBTQ people and that same-sex marriage should be blessed.

1. His experience with LGBTQ Christians

Hays argues that we don’t know what the word of God means until we see it “embodied” by others, and he saw terrific examples of LGBTQ Christians with his students and at a Methodist church in Durham, North Carolina. “I was, of course, encountering students both from my time teaching at Yale and time at Duke students who were of alternative sexualities minority sexualities who were there to learn and to seek to serve in the church they were smart, they were committed, and they were gay and lesbian,” Hays said in his speech.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

2. Reading books

Hays read accounts of life as an LGBTQ Christian by Wesley Hill (“Washed and Waiting”) and “Scripture and Ethics” by Karen R. Keen. “That book led to a series of extended conversations between Karen and me. We would go get coffee and sit and talk for a long time about what both what Karen had written and about her own experience, and it just helped me to move off the place where I had been stuck,” Hays said. He also read theological books that defended traditional Christian marriage and found their positions “unconvincing.”

rainbow book art Photo by Edson Rosas on Unsplash

3. His mother’s death

Hays says that the tipping point was “nearly 5 years ago” when his mother died, and his family wanted to have her funeral at a Methodist church where she was the organist. However, the church was a reconciling congregation accepting of LGBTQ people and flew a rainbow Pride banner out front. Hays’ brother refused to attend a service in the church, so the family decided to move the funeral elsewhere. The family disagreement made Hays wonder why LGBTQ issues, which aren’t central to Christian doctrine, held such a firm grip on believers’ hearts. “I thought, why is this such an issue, you know? This is not about a dispute about the doctrine of the Trinity. It's not about justification by faith,” Hays said. “This is not a matter that stands at the heart of Christian doctrine. Why can't we agree to disagree about something like this? But [his brother] couldn't; he felt it would compromise his principles. So for me, that was the personal tipping point where I said damn, I've got to write something to set the record straight.”

Ultimately, Hays’ dramatic final proclamation was a brave act that will be a big part of his legacy. The man who justified antigay policies in the church later came to believe that LGBTQ people deserve to be accepted and their marriages blessed. Let’s hope his change inspires others to rethink their anti-LGBTQ views and create real change within the church.

woman holding baby Photo by Margaux Bellott on Unsplash

There's a big change at the 98th meridian.

Have you ever wondered why the eastern half of the United States is densely populated while everything west of Omaha, save for a few metro areas, is no man’s land?

Most people would assume that it’s because people first settled in the east and moved west. Or, they may believe it’s because of the vast desert that takes up most of the southwest. Those are some decent reasons, but it’s a much more complicated issue than you'd imagine.

A 20-minute video by RealLifeLore explains how topography and rainfall have created what appears to be a straight line down the middle of the country on the 98th meridian that dictates population density. Eighty percent of Americans live on the east side of the line and just twenty percent to the west.

RealLifeLore is a YouTube channel that focuses on geography and topography created by Joseph Pisenti.

In the video, we see that several large cities border the American frontier—San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Wichita, Omaha, Lincoln, Sioux Falls, and Fargo, as well as Winnipeg up in Canada. To the west of those cities? Not much until you reach western California and the Pacific Northwest.

Why? Watch:

The major reason why the population drastically changes is rainfall. It rains much more on the east side of the line versus the west. The reason for the drastic change in rainfall is that the Rocky Mountains create a colossal wall known as a rain shadow that prevents moisture from passing from the Pacific Ocean. This has created a large swath of dry land that’s not conducive to larger populations.

Though the eastern U.S. is more densely populated, it doesn't mean the west doesn't sometimes feel crowded, especially if you live in Los Angeles County. What side of the line are you on?

This article originally appeared three years ago.

'Total Eclipse of the Heart' music video (left) Robert Eggers' Nosferatu (right)

Bonnie Tyler’s epic power ballad “Total Eclipse of the Heart” is a staple of rock n’ roll, but not many know that its actual origin stems from musical theatre. Vampire-centric musical theatre, no less. The year was 1982. Tyler had only recently acquired her distinctive rasp as a result of nodule removal surgery, and was looking to put the voice to good use by signing with record label Sony and aiming to transition from country rock to rock.

In a 2023 interview with The Guardian, Tyler shared how she had been inspired to work with composer and lyricist Jim Steinman after seeing Meat Loaf perform ‘Bat Out of Hell,’ which Steinman wrote and produced, on the BBC. Her reps looked at her like she was crazy (or “barmy,” as the Welsh singer put it in the interview) but nonetheless, the meeting was eventually arranged.

And Steinman, who was unsurprisingly won over by Tyler's raw and gritty voice after she sang a couple tunes for him, had just the song to bestow upon his new collaborator—a little ditty inspired by the lunar eclipse he had started writing for a prospective musical version of the 1922 vampire film Nosferatu, titled The Dream Engine, years prior, but never finished. It had originally been intended for Meatloaf, who had lost his voice (something he would famously lament for years to come) and was aptly titled Vampires In Love.


media1.giphy.com

"If anyone listens to the lyrics, they're really like vampire lines. It's all about the darkness, the power of darkness and love's place in [the] dark. And so I figured 'Who's ever going to know; it's Vienna!' And then it was just hard to take it out,” Steinman would reveal in an interview with Playbill.

I mean, not much argument here. “Once upon a time, there was light in my life/now there's only love in the dark.” C’mon. Plus, there are apparent vampiric themes in the song’s dazzling melodramatic music video. “We shot the video in a frightening gothic former asylum in Surrey. The guard dogs wouldn’t set foot in the rooms downstairs where they used to give people electric shock treatment,” Tyler shared.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Thanks in no small part to Tyler’s unforgettable vocal performance necessary of a song like that, “Total Eclipse of the Heart” went on to be a No. 1 hit and sit at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 for four weeks in 1983, in addition to earning a Grammy nomination for best pop vocal performance, solidifying its rightful place as an iconic 80s power ballad.

Plus, Total Eclipse of the Heart did eventually end up in a vampire musical in the late ‘90s and 2000s, when Steinman debuted Dance of the Vampires, a stage adaptation of the 1967 Roman Polanski film The Fearless Vampire Killers.

Musical theatre tends to be fairly alienating. Not everybody can get behind the overly pronounced articulation and "nasal" tone placement that is often associated with the genre. But in actuality, it encompasses a wide range of vocal styles. Plus, it’s all about emotional builds and epic storytelling, which lends itself nicely to virtually any genre, but particularly rock. I mean, just look at Queen’s discography. So it seems very appropriate that “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” which incorporates a variety of both elements—theatricality, grit, shamelessness, romance, an oh-so satisfying key change—would go on to be so timeless. In many ways, the best art is an amalgamation of many different sources of inspirations, formed to create something new. This is a great example of that.

Three government agencies are ensuring that veterans have a home to go to.

A new report from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is showing promising news. Due to hard work and investing in housing initiatives, the number of unhoused veterans has decreased by 7.5% since 2023 and 55.6% overall since 2010!

Veteran homelessness has been a growing concern for decades. Since 2009, the three agencies have been monitoring the situation using an annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count to gauge the issue. The PIT Count is a yearly count of the sheltered and unsheltered people who are unhoused within a single night in January. The data collected in 2024 showed that 32,882 veterans experienced homelessness, of which 13,851 were completely unsheltered. These results are lower from 2023’s data, in which 35,574 veterans were unhoused in total and 15,507 were without any shelter period.

An unhoused veteran sitting with a sign asking for changeThe number of unhoused veterans has lowered by 55.6% since 2010.Photo credit: Canva

The VA credits the Biden-Harris Administration’s investment in specific “Housing First” programs aimed toward unhoused veterans along with HUD and USICH initiatives to combat homelessness in general. Some of these initiatives include $800 million worth of grants given to unhoused and at-risk veterans and policy changes within HUD that allowed veterans easier, less expensive access to housing.

“This data shows that with the right investments in housing and health care, and with strong leadership and coordination across government, homelessness is solvable,” said USICH Director Jeff Olivet in a press release.

“Today, thanks to interagency efforts by the entire Biden-Harris Administration and our partners on the ground, we are proud to announce a significant decline in Veteran homelessness this year,” said HUD Deputy Secretary Adrianne Todman.

A veteran sitting down as a woman in a white coat talks to himThe VA, USICH, and HUD are helping more veterans gain access to housing.Photo credit: Canva

While this is certainly great news of progress, homelessness is still an issue in the United States. While there were only 32,882 unhoused veterans recorded in 2024, that is still a large number of human beings that require homes. And that’s just unhoused veterans, not the entire homeless population.

According to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there is still a lot of work to be done. From 2019-2023, the number of people who entered an emergency shelter for the first time increased more than 23 percent. A vast number of factors create unhoused people, from economic hardship to drug addiction to mental illness. There are also incidents and natural disasters that make a person unhoused overnight such as a wild fire or a hurricane.

So what is the solution? Well, to Thomas Byrne, a professor of social work at Boson University, the answer is simple. To quote a phrase he heard from a head of a homeless services agency, “The solution to the problem is in the name of the problem.” In other words, to help the homeless, we have to just provide them homes.

A hand holding house keys in front of a homeThe key to solving homelessness is literally house keys.Photo credit: Canva

It’s a simple solution that has complex political issues and red tape all around it. But it’s a solution. We only have to work on the “how” now. Fortunately, based on what’s being done for the veterans in this country, the “how” appears to be more and more doable as time, effort, and work is put into it.