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.

Animals & Wildlife

Woman says we are 'severely underreacting' to octopuses, then proves she's not wrong

"However impressed or fascinated you are by octopuses, it's honestly probably not enough."

octopus, octopuses, wildlife, ocean life, marine life

Octopuses are just wildly interesting creatures.

What creatures have eight legs, nine brains, and dozens of fun and fascinating facts about them? Octopuses, of course. (Wait, is octopuses or octopi? Octopodes, perhaps?)

However interesting we think our suction-cupped, cephalopodic friends are, we're probably selling them short. That's the contention of Sarah, a comedic content creator on TikTok who's been sharing everything she's learned about octopuses, because they're far more bizarre than we might think.


"However impressed or fascinated you are by octopuses, it's honestly probably not enough," she says. "We are severely underreacting to octopuses collectively."

Once you see her video, it's clear she's not wrong.

@sarahmakesmelaugh

Octopuses are fascinating and I DO want to hold a tiny guy if possible just putting that out in to the universe 😬🐙#creatorsearchinsights #octopus #weirdanimals #animalfacts #didyouknow

With a hilariously understated sense of humor, Sarah shares facts like the idea that octopuses don't have tentacles, as many of us have been led to believe, but arms instead. Tentacles have suckers only at the end, while an octopus's arms have them from top to bottom.

"They decorate their front yards with shells and other shiny things they find in the ocean," Sarah says, adding, "I wonder if they judge other octopuses for how they decorate their front yard. Like, is there an octopus HOA?"

Sarah points out that The Beatles' song "Octopus's Garden" was inspired by this delightful fact.

Many of us know that octopuses are smart, but we may not know that they have a brain in each arm in addition to the brain in their heads, which is shaped like a donut. They can solve mazes and complete tricky tasks. And if their beak can fit through a hole, so can their whole body.

"So a fully grown giant Pacific octopus, which can literally be 30 feet long, can fit through a hole the size of a lemon," says Sarah. "And I don't care for that, particularly. I would never say that to an octopus's face because, evidently, they can recognize us, which I find unsettling. Note to self: Do not be mean to an octopus."

Because each arm has its own brain, it can operate independently, complete with its own sensory system.

Octopus, octopus arms, ocean life, marine life, octopus brains Each of those arms has its own brain?Photo credit: Canva

"I feel like they're smarter than us," Sarah says. "Are we confident they're not smarter than us? For instance, they will prank their prey. You know the joke where like old men will tap you on one shoulder, but surprise, they're at the other shoulder? Octopus do that. If they're hunting a shrimp, they'll tap it on the faraway shoulder so the shrimp runs directly into them. Like, 'gotcha!' I don't want octopus to do gotcha."

On a positive note, Sarah shows some examples of exquisitely colorful octopuses, though some of the most "fancy and beautiful" ones are also highly venomous.

That may have been the end of Sarah's video, but she wasn't finished. There's a part two that features blanket octopuses, the female superheroes of the sea. And that's not even the wildest part:

@sarahmakesmelaugh

Replying to @LalainID did yall know about the blanket octopus and didn’t tell me? Except those of you who did thank you 😂 #octopus #animalfacts #science #learnontiktok #learnwithme


A male blanket octopus is basically an inch tall and the female can grow to over six feet. The males can fit inside the pupil of the female's eye. What?! Basically, their only job is to produce sperm, which just raises way too many questions.

Sarah also talks about the mimic octopus, which she calls "the Jafar of the ocean" because it's basically a sorcerer (and one of them genuinely looks like Jafar from Aladdin).

That wasn't all. Even after the second video, she still wasn't done. Part three was every bit as fascinating, terrifying, wonderful, and chuckle-worthy as the first two (and also slightly NSFW in the most PG way possible):

@sarahmakesmelaugh

More Octopus species, this could go on forever y’all 😂 #octopus #weirdanimals #learnwithme #funfacts #creatorsearchinsights

The blob octopus? Who even knew? The eighth-arm situation is too much. Sarah was 100% right. We are, collectively, not reacting to octopuses nearly as strongly as we should be.

You can follow Sarah (@SarahMakesMeLaugh) on TikTok.

Learning

Sleuths debunk 5 supposedly healthy things that are actually terrible ideas

"Detoxes / cleanses are great for clearing out your wallet."

healthy food; healthy options; unhealthy food; fasting; juicing; supplements

Sleuths debunk 5 supposedly healthy things that are actually terrible. 5 things to do instead.

A lot of people reach for convenient items advertised as healthy when they're short on time. The rise of health and fitness influencers has also contributed to the proliferation of confusing information about what is considered healthy, and what actually is. It's no wonder people sometimes make unhealthy choices, believing they're doing right by their body.

Some people took it upon themselves to parse out the gimmicks from the multi-million dollar health and fitness industry. Their revelations may surprise you. If you've fallen for the hype of an item or product that turned out to be a dud, it's not your fault. Some things are heavily marketed as healthy, while others are things we've grown up believing were healthy. In a world that can feel oversaturated with information, it can be difficult to have time to research everything.


Suddenly, everyone's drinking green juice or swearing by a new protein bar. Since the bars promise to taste like raw cookie dough without the risk of salmonella, you throw a few boxes in your grocery cart, hoping for the best. After all, it claims to provide all of the vitamins for the day, and you don't have time to cook.

healthy food; healthy options; unhealthy food; fasting; juicing; supplements Homemade granola bars with chocolate chips – perfect for a delicious snack!Photo credit: Canva

Instead of wondering, here are some things people think are healthy, but actually aren't, and what you can replace them with instead:

1. Cereal, granola, and protein bars

Cereal bars are quick to grab when you're running late. The same goes for granola and protein bars. Some people even use them as a meal replacement, but they're not as healthy as people like to believe. If you flip over the package, you'll be met with a high sugar content and very little actual protein in many cases. One person in the Ask Reddit thread is aghast, "We all need to be taught how to read nutrition labels. I was and am still absolutely shocked by the amount of sugar and sodium that are in most packaged foods, throw serving size in there, and it's totally bananas."

Try this instead:

If the goal is to make a healthier morning selection while still packing in a little extra protein, eating whole fruits with a side of peanut butter will fill you up. Whole vegetables, cheese cubes, or mixed nuts are also easy to grab but are full of needed vitamins and healthy fats, minus the high sugar content. Good RX reminds people, "Eggs aren’t just a morning treat. Make a batch of hard-boiled eggs to have on hand as a high-protein snack. One hard-boiled egg contains over 6 g of protein."

healthy food; healthy options; unhealthy food; fasting; juicing; supplements Refresh with a healthy green juice boost.Photo credit: Canva

2. Detoxes

There's a detox for everything. One person shares in a Reddit thread about things people think are healthy, but aren't, because detoxes don't work in the area you're expecting. They write, "Detoxes / cleanses are great for clearing out your wallet." According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), some detoxes contain laxatives that may cause acute diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration and malabsorption. The organization also explains that, "Some juices used in 'detoxes' and 'cleanses' that haven’t been pasteurized or treated in other ways to kill harmful bacteria can make people sick." Others may result in kidney stones for some users due to the high amount of oxalate found in leafy green foods, often used for green detox juices.

Try this instead:

Instead of taking your chances on a detoxing cleanse, Alix Leestma, RDN, CSOWM, senior dietitian at MultiCare Center for Weight Loss & Wellness, tells MultiCare Vitals that staying properly hydrated and eating a balanced diet will allow your body to detox properly. People's liver and kidneys are designed to detox your body naturally. “When dehydrated, our blood is more concentrated," Leestma says, "But when adequately hydrated, you’ll have the same amount of toxins in the blood but in smaller concentrations, which is easier on the kidneys to filter through.”

healthy food; healthy options; unhealthy food; fasting; juicing; supplements Making fresh orange juice in the kitchen. 🍊Photo credit: Canva

3. Juicing/fasting

Juicing is a way people are fasting while still feeling like they're getting in their nutrients. One person voiced concerns that juicing alone wasn't effective in maintaining the nutrients of the fruit, so it's best to eat the whole fruit. Northwestern University recently did a study exploring the effects of juicing. The results were surprising.

"The juice-only group showed the most significant increase in bacteria associated with inflammation and gut permeability, while the plant-based whole food group saw more favorable microbial changes. The juice plus food group had some bacterial shifts but less severe than the juice-only group. These findings suggest that juicing without fiber may disrupt the microbiome, potentially leading to long-term health consequences," Northwestern writes. Senior author Dr. Melinda Ring, director of the Osher Center for Integrative Health at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a Northwestern Medicine physician, says, “Most people think of juicing as a healthy cleanse, but this study offers a reality check."

Try this instead:

“If you love juicing, consider blending instead to keep the fiber intact, or pair juices with whole foods to balance the impact on your microbiome,” Ring explains. You can also eat the fruit whole to ensure you're getting the fiber needed if blending it doesn't sound as appetizing as juicing.

healthy food; healthy options; unhealthy food; fasting; juicing; supplements Be careful with supplements.Photo credit: Canva

4. High doses of supplements

There's a supplement for everything, and some people take as many as they can in an effort to fill in the gaps of their diet. But excess supplements can cause issues, one person reveals: "I got a kidney stone this way. Wasn't fun." According to Healthline, water-soluble vitamins are more benign, even when taken in higher doses, because the excess is excreted in the urine. Fat-soluble vitamins found in some supplements can cause dangerous toxicity levels that cause irreversible damage.

Katie Mohan, a 57-year-old woman, was close to needing a liver transplant after beginning a regimen of a turmeric supplement. A report of an increase in liver damage due to supplement use on NBC prompted her to seek medical care. She was hospitalized for six days. Dr. Dina Halegoua-De Marzio, a hepatologist at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia, tells NBC, “Natural does not mean safe. When you cook with turmeric, that could be really safe. But some of the supplements now are 2,000 mg-plus, which is a very high dose of turmeric." According to the World Health Organization, a daily dose should be no more than 0-3mg per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight. Which means, even a man weighing 200 pounds should only take less than 300mg of turmeric a day.

Try this instead:

Get the appropriate nutrients through a balanced diet and stick to one multivitamin daily, instead of several different supplements. Adding more nutrient-dense foods can also aid in boosting the vitamins you're hoping to make up for with supplements, according to the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center.

debate, political debate, disagreement, agreement, consensus,

People debating at a city council meeting.

One of the most challenging things to do as a communicator is to convince someone you disagree with to listen to you. You’re fighting against a host of psychological phenomena that prevent people from changing their minds or listening to those with whom they disagree. Persuasion is incredibly difficult because we’ve evolved to cling to our views no matter what.

One of the most pronounced psychological blockages is the backfire effect, which states that when people are confronted with information that challenges their opinion, even if it is indisputable, they will hold onto their views even more strongly than before.


So, what are we to do in a world where there is so much misinformation and zombie lies flying around? Dr. Alison Wood Brooks, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies conversation and emotion, shares the key to having a constructive dialogue with people we disagree with is: Don’t invalidate them.

stressed couple, couple's therapy, therapist, upset woman, upset man, Couple arguing during therapy.via Canva/Photos

The moment we invalidate someone by saying, “I disagree,” we’ve killed our chance at persuading them. Dr. Books believes that changing people’s beliefs is important, but it only happens over time. So, it's pointless to disagree at the onset of the conversation. “The only way that we change our beliefs is usually across many conversations and we're around someone we like talking to and respect and have admiration for. And then over time, we sort of bend to the gentle pressure of their differing viewpoint,” she told Bartlett.

Dr. Brooks shared her strategy in a recent appearance on the Diary of a CEO podcast with Steven Bartlett.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Three steps to disagreeing with someone without invalidating them

1. You don’t need to be certain

“Even if you're right, like it's not about being right or wrong in that moment. The goal here is to keep the conversation in an emotional place where it can continue. So, you can continue to engage. And that's what these researchers find in this receptiveness recipe,” Dr. Books said. The receptiveness recipe is a research project by Harvard and the University of British Columbia that created a formula for the most effective way to disagree with someone.

2. Hedge your claims

“I think often people think of these types of things as weakness because it's like our instinct is to try to win and be right. And instead, what I'm saying is no, hedge your claims. Show that you're uncertain about stuff. Validate their feelings. Divide yourself into disagreeing parts because you're not certain about anything, in order to keep the conversation going, so that you have any shred of hope of persuading them over the longer term.”

If they say the sky is purple:

“That’s interesting. I'd love to hear more.”

“As a painter, who knows a bit about color, that is so intriguing.”

The key is to make it an emotionally safe dialogue and show you’re interested in what they have to say. In turn, they'll be more receptive to your thoughts.

argument, debate, coworkers, art, questions, why Two coworkers debate each other.via Canva/Photos

3. Hold back your disagreement

“I wrote this chapter in my book called 'Do Not Disagree.' It's an intentionally provocative chapter because people think, ‘What do you mean, never disagree with anybody?’ But I mean, don't make the first thing you say 'I disagree,'" Bartlett adds.

“That's right. It can come later,” Dr. Books added. “It can come later, but first has to come like ‘Oh, it's so intriguing that you said that. I'm so fascinated, and it makes sense that you might feel that way. I wonder if…’ and then you can go on instead of ‘I disagree.’”

Ultimately, the key is understanding that changing someone’s mind takes time and is nearly impossible if we shut down the conversation by invalidating them. By delaying the instant gratification of saying, “You’re wrong! I got you, here are the facts,” you can create a space where they are more open to listening to what you have to say. You've validated their beliefs, so they'll be more likely to consider yours.

90s, Gen X, QVC, Hello Dolly, vintage dolls, porcelain dolls
Photo Credit: QVC, @80svintagevisions, Instagram

Two porcelain dolls being sold on QVC in 1991.

One of the most wonderful attributes of a QVC host is their ability to sell the heck out of anything. In 1991, this was the job of one such woman tasked with selling two porcelain dolls from the “Hello Dolly” collection by Albert E. Price. (A few online sleuths pegged her as Judy Crowell, though Upworthy spoke with her and she didn't recall.)

Whoever she was, this was quite a feat as these weren’t just any dolls. They were wide-eyed, cleft-chinned little siblings named Jaime and Jason. And they were certainly unique. Described as 16 inches and porcelain, the “brother/sister team” were selling for $50 each. (On screen, there’s a note that they retailed at $82 apiece.)


A clip of the set being hawked on QVC is making the rounds on social media, and it has many people genuinely intrigued. In the @Totally80sroom clip, we see two almost puppet-looking dolls, a boy and a girl, each clad in overalls with golden blonde hair. Jason is wearing a red hat, while Jaime has white bows in her hair. But it’s their expressions that truly stand out: both might be described by some as “frightened-looking” thanks to their intense, unique stares.

The camera zooms in on Jaime, who seems as if she’s side-eyeing the host with a tiny tear in one eye. The host asks, “Do they remind you of your two little ones? Or do they remind you of you and your brother when you were this age? Up to no good! Being put on restriction!”

She then laughs and tells a delightful story from her childhood. “Who was it… Jeff said to me, ‘Restriction? Who gets put on restriction? You get grounded!’” She lets out a hearty laugh. “Well, I was put on restriction! In first grade. And I remember my restriction was I couldn’t leave my own front yard. So I used to go up to the border. My border, where the grass—our grass—met the neighbor’s grass, and stand right on the edge. And say, ‘Nope! I can’t come over! I’m on restriction.’ So by the time the spanking was over, and all the sadness is gone from your eyes, then it became kind of a game.”

She pauses as if she's just remembering that she has a job to do. “And that’s probably what will happen to these two too. Fifty dollars for Jaime. And fifty dollars for Jason. It is your choice of porcelain dolls from Hello Dolly.”

dolls, clowns, porcelain, QVC, vintage dolls A white porcelain doll with a tear stain. Photo by Monique Layzell on Unsplash

The comments are fabulous. One points out the obvious. “They’re cute until you wake up in the middle of the night because of a noise and they’re sitting there staring at you!” Another has a similar thought. “They’ve looked like they’ve seen some stuff they weren’t supposed to.”

This person focuses on the excellent professionalism of the QVC host: “This hostess deserves an Academy Award for filling time talking about those horrendous dolls.”

These wouldn’t be the first dolls to raise some eyebrows. If TV and movies were an indication of the toys that kids had back in the '80s and '90s, it would seem we were all surrounded by clowns and Chucky dolls. While yes, we did have a few such things, they became more of a symbol of fear in media than in real life.

In a piece for Collider, feature writer Jenna Rae Isley discusses the 1982 Spielberg-written classic Poltergeist, in which a child’s toy clown becomes a nightmare for the audience. “In reality, a clown doll is just a clown doll. But in our imaginations and in Poltergeist, a clown doll is a sinister, watchful force, lurking ominously in the corner of our rooms, keeping us perpetually on edge until it ultimately makes its move.”

The very scary clown scene from the film Poltergeist. www.youtube.com, Moyer Movies

But according to research conducted by Scientific American staff, there are actual reasons that people across many cultures are afraid of clowns. After sending out a questionnaire with various clown-based scenarios, more people answered that they had coulrophobia due to ‘negative portrayals of clowns in popular culture’ rather than actual ‘frightening experiences with clowns.’” In other words, movie makers and artists determined them to be scary…and so they became scary. (Though according to the same research, some are truly afraid of the unsettling makeup, even that of Ronald McDonald.)

It’s worth noting that most people, at least according to this survey, are afraid of clowns because they’re masked. “In fact, the strongest factor we identified was hidden emotional signals, suggesting that for many people, a fear of clowns stems from not being able to see their facial expressions due to their make-up. We cannot see their ‘true’ faces and therefore cannot understand their emotional intent.”

To that point, Jaime and Jason do not seem to be hiding their true intent. They just seem scared…perhaps because they saw a clown.

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.