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.

dance, motherhood, mommy daughter dance, mother daughter relationship, parenting, wholesome
Umi4ika/Youtube

Svetlana Putintseva with her daughter Masha.

In 2005 at only 18 years old, Russian rhythmic gymnast Svetlana Putintseva became a world champion, after which she retired and eventually became a mom. Then, in 2011, Putintseva came out of retirement for one special Gala performance.

Little did anyone know that her then two-year-old daughter named Masha would be the key to making that performance so special.


As the story goes, the young child refused to leave her side that night. But rather than stopping the performance, Putintseva did what so many incredible moms do: she masterfully held space for two different identities.

As we see in the video below, Putintseva simply brought Masha onto the dance floor and incorporated her into the routine—holding and comforting her at times, performing impressive moves while she ran around at others…letting it all become a lively, endearing interaction rather than a rote routine. It became something really touching:

Watch:

Now, a bit of fact-checking as this video has once again started going viral. Despite what many captions say, Putintseva‘s daughter was likely always a planned part of the performance (the tiny leotard is a bit of a giveaway). But that doesn’t really take away from the message behind it: motherhood weaves another soul into one's identity, forever. And one of the biggest lessons it teaches is how to hold someone else steady, all while becoming ourselves.

Every day, moms are engaging in a similar type of “dance”: navigating through the world while guiding and nurturing their little ones. It probably doesn't always feel quite as graceful as what Putintseva put out, and, yet, it is just as beautiful.

dance, motherhood, mommy daughter dance, mother daughter relationship, parenting, wholesome A mother hugging her daughter.Photo credit: Canva

Maybe so many thought it was an improvised moment because improvising is a very real parent superpower. That’s certainly the takeaway we get from some of these lovely comments:

“You cannot control life but you can learn to dance with it. 🤍”

"This is beyond beautiful. 🥲"

“If this isn't a metaphor for motherhood. We improvise so much.”

“A mother’s unconditional love 🥹❤️ She just made my whole month.”

“I do this sometimes while deejaying. My daughter comes up so I hit the slicer and let her chop it up. A few chops and she is happy and goes about her business. 🥰”

“I can see my daughter doing this to me soon whenever I get up on stage on perform. She already stares long and hard at me whenever I am onnstage singing. She doesn't take her eyes off me. Sure she would be running up to stand with me when she starts walking 😂😂 i look forward to it tho”

“Sobbing 😭😭😭😭 As a dancer who hasn’t performed since having a kid, this inspires me in so many ways 🥹🥹 So beautiful and it’s clear that she admires her mom so much 🥰”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Though not much is written on Putintseva following this performance, one blog post says that Masha has followed in her footsteps by getting into rhythmic gymnastics. Maybe it all started with this one performance. ❤️

sonder, feelings, life, humanity, human connection, psychology, beauty, mortality, universe

You might experience sonder when you look out a plane window or pass by an apartment building.

In the 1998 film The Truman Show, Jim Carrey's character gradually discovers that his entire life is a lie. The world around him is a television set, and everyone he knows—his friends, family, even his wife—are paid actors. He is the main character, and the entire universe of the show revolves around him.

Though most of us have never genuinely wondered whether we're living in an elaborate production like Truman (well, some have), it can sometimes feel that way. After all, in our own minds, we are the main characters of our own lives. Everyone else becomes a supporting character. When they're "off-screen," we can't say for certain what they're doing, and we tend to think about them only in terms of how their actions might affect us.


That's why the beautiful feeling known as "sonder" can be so profound. It's the strange sensation you get when staring out the window of an airplane, looking at the cars moving along the highway below, and realizing that each dot of light represents a vehicle with a human being inside it—maybe even an entire family. They're all on their way somewhere, perhaps to meet other people who are also living full, rich, complex lives you will never know about. Then, in the blink of an eye, they're gone forever, in a sense.

You might feel this when walking by an apartment building and gazing at the shadows moving behind lit windows, or at an airport, where you wonder where people are going and what their stories might be.

sonder, feelings, life, humanity, human connection, psychology, beauty, mortality, universe There are entire, rich, complex lives happening in those lit windows. Photo by Shalev Cohen on Unsplash

Sonder, explains content creator, software engineer, and writer Felecia Freely, is the sudden "realization that each random passerby is the main character of their own story, living a life just as vivid and complex as your own, while you are just an extra in the background."

Freely explains it beautifully in a now-viral Instagram reel:

"Imagine how big and all-encompassing your experience of your life is. And then imagine that every single person in traffic with you also has that. So does every person in the grocery store. And every person in the world."

It's a breathtaking realization. Of course, we all know this to be true in our minds, but sonder is when that understanding hits you in your body and becomes more than knowledge—it becomes a profound feeling.

Freely's video has received hundreds of thousands of views. Many commenters were surprised to learn there was an actual word for this hyper-specific feeling:

"OMFG THERES A WORD FOR THIS?! i've always wondered."

"I get it in traffic a lot. Just like, where are they all going"

"I get this feeling at the airport"

"Sonder happens when I go for drives down lonely roads in the middle of nowhere where I've never been & see a little house w/ cars & lites on. I wonder what they're like & what's goin on in their lives"

The term was coined around 2012 by writer John Koenig for his project, The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.

He writes that it comes from the French word sonder, which means "to plumb the depths." The term began as a neologism, an invented word meant to describe a universal feeling and fill a gap in the English language. But it has since caught on in wider usage and even appears in Merriam-Webster.

Some people describe sonder as a melancholy or even overwhelming feeling—of course, it does have a pretty sorrowful origin. Others, however, have learned to embrace it when it comes.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Mitchell M. Handelsman writes for Psychology Today that he does not view sonder as a negative emotion. Quite the contrary:

"Sonder becomes even more important as I teach students who are different from me. Most of my students are different on at least some of almost every conceivable dimension—age (this difference grows every year!), gender, ambitions, test performance, grades, place of birth, religion, height, writing ability, intellectual prowess, political beliefs, academic experiences, hair color, sexual preference, family background, etc. Appreciating students' lives as rich, complex, and important may set the stage for greater understanding, relating, and learning."

Appreciating and leaning into feelings of sonder can help us grow our empathy for one another.

One commenter summed it up beautifully: "This used to terrify me but it now soothes me deeply and helps round out my compassion and wonder at the world."

Another said: "Honestly everyone says that this is a depressing reality, but I kinda feel comfort in it. The fact that every person you see all has their own lives means that there is always something good happening in the world, no matter how miserable it seems sometimes."

feel good story, music, rock music, lost and found, musicians
Photo credit: Marcus Pollard on Facebook

Marcus Pollard is reviving a 77-year-old warehouse worker's lost rock music.

In the 1960s, Norman Roth and his band, The Glass Cage, were Canadian indie rockers who played small local shows and built enough of a following to land gigs in bigger cities. When Roth was 18, the band recorded a live performance that was never officially released and was eventually lost after they broke up shortly afterward. Now, thanks to a four-dollar thrift store purchase, the band's music is reaching a wider audience—58 years later.

In 2016, veteran rock music promoter Marcus Pollard bought an unlabeled vinyl record at a thrift store on a whim, despite the album being physically damaged. He fell in love with the six songs recorded on it and spent the next two years trying to track down any band members connected to the record.


"I searched in vain for two years trying to get any clue as to who was on the record, but to no avail," Pollard wrote on Facebook. "Then, in a last ditch effort I posted a clip on the Canadian Artists Records Appreciation FB page and... I got a hit!"

Pollard eventually received a reply that read, "Hey, that's my record!" from Roth, now 77 and working as a warehouse manager. Roth was floored that his band's long-lost recording had resurfaced, and he was able to listen to songs he hadn't heard in more than 50 years.

- YouTube youtube.com

After reuniting Roth with his lost music, Pollard went a step further. After consulting with the other band members, he set out to bring The Glass Cage's music back to life after remaining dormant for generations. Pollard spent the next eight years using his industry connections and expertise to officially release the album. Working with a team of professionals, he refurbished the damaged record, digitally remastered the songs, designed elaborate packaging, and developed a booklet detailing the band's impact on the Vancouver indie rock scene of the 1960s before they broke up.

The finished vinyl album, titled Where Did the Sunshine Go?, is scheduled for release on February 24, 2026.

"I feel like everyone has done something in their life that was dismissed," Pollard told CTV News. "And I wanted them to feel like what they created was actually important."

While Roth and his former bandmates are excited about the album's release, they aren't trying to relive their youth or chase the rock star dreams they once had. They're just happy that others will now have access to their music and are enjoying the ride.

"I'm not looking for accolades or super stardom—that's long gone," Roth told CTV News. "It's just saying to the world, 'I was here.' And I hope they enjoy it."

If you'd like to hear Roth's music, you can stream tracks by The Glass Cage on Bandcamp and purchase the vinyl when it's released.

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.

Learning

Gen Z job seekers are bringing their parents to interviews. A career coach explains the new trend.

77 percent of Gen Z job applicants surveyed admit to bringing a parent to the interview.

Gen Z; Gen Z jobs; job seeking; job hunting; unemployment; Gen Z bringing parents; parents at interviews

A woman being interviewed for a job.

The stress of job hunting crosses generational lines, but Gen Z is doing things a bit differently. Most of Gen Z is either just entering adulthood or has been there for some time. They are the first generation not to grow up with many analog developmental milestones, such as answering a house phone or asking strangers for help reading a map. These are all things that help develop social skills that can be used in other settings.

A recent survey from Resumetemplates.com reveals a shocking trend. According to the resume-building website, of the 1,000 job seekers aged 18-23 surveyed, "77% say they have brought a parent to a job interview when they were job searching. About 13% say they always did, and 24% say they often did."


The idea of bringing a parent to an interview may seem laughably outrageous to older generations, but there are a few things to consider before the giggling sets in. Young adults have long relied on their parents for guidance as they enter the adult world, and this is true of every generation. Parents are often called on for help with locating first apartments, learning how to turn on utilities, figuring out health insurance plans, and more.

Gen Z; Gen Z jobs; job seeking; job hunting; unemployment; Gen Z bringing parents; parents at interviews A business meeting in a modern office setting.Photo credit: Canva

Expecting parents or a trusted adult to help with new life milestones isn't unheard of, but having a parent attend a job interview seems to baffle experts.

Julia Toothacre, chief career strategist at Resumetemplates.com, tells CBS Miami, "I can't imagine that most employers are happy about it. I think that it really shows a lack of maturity in the kids, in the Gen Zers that are doing this." Toothacre added that while some smaller organizations may not see an issue with it, she does not believe it is the norm.

In response to the survey, Bryan Golod, an award-winning job search coach, sees the results differently. Rather than piling on or dunking on a generation still trying to figure out adulthood, he offers a logical explanation for the phenomenon.

In a LinkedIn post, Golod shares:

"The internet is roasting this generation for lacking independence. But here's what everyone's missing: This isn't a Gen Z problem. It's a symptom of a broken system that never taught anyone how interviews actually work. Most professionals (regardless of age) have no idea how to interview effectively. I've worked with 50-year-olds who couldn't land a single offer after 30 interviews. I've coached VPs of HR who could help others but couldn't help themselves. Interview skills aren't taught in school, at work, or by parents. They're learned through trial, error, and usually a lot of rejection. The real issue isn't Gen Z bringing parents to interviews."

The job search coach explains that employers often no longer train managers on how to conduct interviews or what to look for when interviewing candidates. He also notes that many job seekers expect their experience and competence to speak for themselves, but that does not always translate well in an interview setting. Golod encourages people to ask themselves if they know how to predictably turn interviews into job offers before mocking Gen Z adults.

Gen Z; Gen Z jobs; job seeking; job hunting; unemployment; Gen Z bringing parents; parents at interviews A successful meeting with a warm handshake.Photo credit: Canva

"Most don't. And that's not their fault… Nobody taught them. Interview skills are learnable. The professionals landing multiple offers with significant salary increases? They learned the rules of the game," Golod explains.

He adds that what truly matters in interviews is "not your credentials. Not your resume. Not even your qualifications. It's your ability to connect on a personal level and create a memorable experience. People bring you in based on data. They hire you based on emotion."

Maybe some Gen Zers are doing it wrong by traditional standards, but just like riding a bike, unless someone takes the time to teach you, you will never truly learn. Otherwise, you are left with scraped knees and bruises while you try to teach yourself.