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.

Diane Tirado/Facebook

Left: Teacher Diane Tirado. Right: The note she left for students after being fired.

If you're of the mind that kids today are being coddled and not properly prepared for the real world, well, you might want to buckle up for this one. The story out of a public school in Florida has parents and teachers alike up in arms.

A Florida teacher was fired for giving her students zeros for missing assignments. Diane Tirado has been a teacher for years. Most recently, she was an eighth-grade history teacher at Westgate K-8 School in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Diane recently gave her students two weeks to complete an Explorer notebook project, but several students simply didn't hand it in. Since there was zero work done, Diane gave them zeros.

She got fired for it.

schools, teachers, education, grades, students, parentsMichael Scott from The Office saying "What?"Giphy

The elementary school has a rule called the “no zero policy."

The lowest possible grade that teachers can give students is a 50, even if they don't turn anything in. That means that an extremely poor completed assignment is worth the same number of points as no assignment at all.

Hardly seems fair, right? Westgate is far from the only school that has such a policy, however.

whiteboard, education, classroom, teacher, middle school, 8th grade A message written on the whiteboard for her students after Diane Tirado was firedDiane Tirado/Facebook

It's a rule that Diane, unsurprisingly, does not agree with. After she was fired for disobeying, she left her students a charming goodbye message on the whiteboard.

"Bye kids. Mrs. Tirado loves you and wishes you the best in life. I have been fired for refusing to give you a 50 percent for not handing anything in. Love, Mrs. Tirado"

The scale, as outlined by the school, reads as follows:

A = 90 to 100
B = 80 to 89
C = 70-79
D = 60-69
F = 50-59

Diane later shared the story on Facebook, hoping to spread awareness about the school's policy.

“A grade in Mrs. Tirado's class is earned," she said.

“I'm so upset because we have a nation of kids that are expecting to get paid and live their life just for showing up and it's not real."

Diane's post has gone viral, and most commenters agree with her position – it's not fair to hand out grades for work that doesn't exist.

No zero policies are common in many schools, and teachers notoriouslyhate them. But it's at least worth considering why they exist. Some educators say it's because when a student earns a zero, it's very difficult for them to ever recover their grade in that class. In other words, it may be too harsh. Others argue that, if you don't want a zero, don't turn in nothing! Getting an earned-zero is a great way to learn to at least try.

A follow up statement from the school stated: "Ms. Tirado was released from her duties as an instructor because her performance was deemed sub-standard and her interactions with students, staff, and parents lacked professionalism and created a toxic culture on the school’s campus. ... During her brief time of employment at West Gate, the school fielded numerous student and parent complaints as well as concerns from colleagues. Based on new information shared with school administrators, an investigation of possible physical abuse is underway."

However, school representatives did not deny the existence of the no zero policy, and Tirado claims the school engaged in a smear campaign after she became a "whistleblower" on their policies. She's currently considering legal action against the district.

Still, the debate over the grading policy rages on.

“The reason I took on this fight was because it was ridiculous. Teaching should not be this hard," Diane said.

This article originally appeared 6 years ago.

A musical mashup that no one expects but people can't get enough of.

We've seen a lot of musical mashups and genre-bending performances over the years, and just when it seems we may have seen it all, someone comes up with something fresh and surprising. We saw it with Irish brothers step dancing to Beyonce's country hit. We saw it with an Indian-Scottish wedding march. We've seen it with a South African musician's beats combined with cat's meows, yowls, and growls.

And now we're seeing it with musical theater and acoustic folk music. Musician C. Scott asked what would happen if Phantom of the Opera were sung by a folk singer, and then proceeded to show us in the most down home, sitting-on-the-porch-at-sunset way. And, in the most delightfully weird way, it works.

Check out his version of "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" from Phantom of the Opera:

People were blown away by how much they loved it, with some even preferring it to the original.

"SIR. SIR. I was NOT expecting to be absolutely gobsmacked on a Thursday evening. This is incredible. ❤️"

" Inject it into my veins. I wanna buy this."

"I need all my Broadway shows like this! ❤️"

"Whyyyy does this work???? Loll"

"I like this better actually?"

One person called it "Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry," and another called it "Portland of the Opera," both of which truly sum it up.

After C. Scott shared another Phantom song ("All I Ask of You"), actors who had actually performed in the musical weighed in with their thoughts.

"Oooo as one of the men who has gotten to play this role, I LOVE THIS and would absolutely love to see this version!!!"

"As a former Phantom on the national tour, I approve of this message."

"I played Christine in Phantom for a decade and this is greatest thing I’ve ever heard! Wow! Thank you for this glorious reinvention!"

"As a cast member of the Broadway production, I gotta say… THIS IS 🔥🔥🔥🔥"

Clearly, C. Scott hit a nerve with the musical theater kids and the folk music lovers, but he didn't stop there. He moved on from Phantom and sang "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Miserables, fully solidifying the unique genre.

It's not just that he put an Appalachian spin on Broadway; it's that his guitar playing and singing are genuinely enjoyable to listen to. Hearing these songs sung in a different way also highlight the lyrics in a whole new light, prompting us to think about them more deeply, or at least hear them from a different angle

Along with requests for certain songs—"Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" has been a repeated refrain—people have started pushing C. Scott for an album of musical-theaters-standards-turned-folk songs.

"Honestly. You could do a folk rendition of broadway classics and moderns. I’d buy that album. For sure."

"The genre I did not know I needed! Not to seem greedy but can we please have a whole album?"

"Better see an album come out for this."

"My wife would buy every one of your albums."

Ask and ye shall receive. C. Scott shared a message with his followers announcing his plans.

"From the bottom of my heart, thank you so, so much for all the support I've been getting for these covers that I've been doing, these Broadway covers," he said. "It's really kind of surprised me how interested y'all are in them, and it's really, really exciting. You seem to enjoy listening to them as much as I enjoy making them, so thank you so much for that."

He shared that he'd been talking to his recording studio buddy to help him put together an EP. He said they have some musicians who will be coming on to make a three or four-song EP. (If you love this and want to help with the costs of production, you can find his Venmo here.) So, be on the lookout for that.

You can follow C. Scott on Instagram and TikTok, listen to his music on Spotify, and check out his official website here.

Pets

Four guys asked their new neighbor if they could walk her dog. Then the dog wrote back.

"If you ever get bored, we are more than happy to look after him/her."

via Stevieticks / Instagram

A black dog and a note form "the boys from number 23."

If you've lived your whole life with a dog, a home has to feel pretty empty without one. Your heart has to feel like there's something missing as well. When Jack McCrossan, originally from Scotland, moved to Bristol, England with his three friends, they were bummed out to learn that their landlord didn't allow dogs.

So when they saw a beautiful black Sheprador (a German Sheppard Lab mix) in their neighbor's window, they knew that had to become buddies with her. They wrote the dog's owner, Sarah Tolman, a letter asking to arrange a play date with the dog. "If you ever need someone to walk him/her, we will gladly do so," they wrote.

"If you ever get bored (we know you never will, but we can dream), we are more than happy to look after him/her. If you want to come over and bring him/her to brighten our day, you are more than welcome. If you want to walk past our balcony windows so we can see him/her, please do," the letter continued.


"We hope this doesn't come too strong, but our landlord won't allow pets, and we've all grown up with animals. The adult life is a struggle without one," they wrote. "Yours sincerely, The boys from number 23," the letter concluded.

Soon after, the boys in 23 received a response from the dog herself, Stevie Ticks, accepting the offer. However, it may have been written by her human, Sarah Tolman. In the letter, Stevie shares a bit about herself, saying she's two years and four months old, was adopted in Cyprus, and that she's "very friendly and full of beans." (The boys shouldn't worry about a gassy hound, in England, "full of beans" means lively.)


"I love meeting new people and it would be great if we can be friends. I must warn you that the price of my friendship is 5 x ball throws a day and belly scratches whenever I demand them," the letter continued. A few days later, the boys got to meet Stevie. "Meeting Stevie was great!" McCrossan told Buzzfeed. "She was definitely as energetic as described. We got to take her for a walk and she wouldn't stop running!"

black labrador, dogs, dog-walkers, kind nieghbors, stevieticks, bristol, ukA black labrador (representative image).via Canva/Photos

Tolman thought the boys' letter was a fantastic gesture in an era where, quote often, neighbors are strangers. "In a day and age where people don't really know or speak to their neighbors, it was really nice for them to break down that barrier," she said. After the story went viral, she saw it as an opportunity for people to share their love of dogs with the world. "My mother and I are amazed at all the love we've received from around the world these past few days," Tolman wrote as Stevie. "If you have a doggo in your life, share that love with those around you."

A lot has changed in the past 6 years since this story warmed hearts around the globe. The boys have since moved away, but as of September 2024, Stevie is around 8 years old and still doing well. Her keeper and Sarah's partner, Chris Bowley, shared an update on Instagram. "[The boys] sadly moved out of Bristol. However, we have always tried to keep the ethos going of Stevie having as many friends and meetups as possible," Bowley wrote.


This article originally appeared six years ago.

It's not just nostalgia. Our childhood cartoons were better.

Nobody needs convincing that the cartoons of yesteryear just hit different. They are miles away from the noisy, uber colorful, fast-paced (read: overstimulating) shows that a kid might watch today. And, it turns out, that they might just be superior for getting kids to actually relax.

This was a discovery made by one mom (Lauren, aka @mamasandmesses) when she introduced her toddler to old school shows like Bear and the Big Blue House, Arthur, Dragon Tales, and more. Her grand experiment led to some pretty fascinating results.

For one thing, she noted while her child enjoyed watching these programs, there was no adverse reaction when she turned them off. “He didn’t fight me or get upset, he just went back to playing!”

But perhaps even more importantly, she noticed that his sleep improved. That’s right, parents with tough-to-put-to-bed kiddos, listen up.

Lauren attributed this to the fact that, generally speaking, 90s shows had much lower stimulation, but also more heavily focused helpful lessons and creative exploration. Sure, there are still shows that do that, like Bluey, but nowadays having a slower pace, softer color palette, and more subdued soundtrack is certainly no longer the standard.

In fact, experts have long warned against the drug-like “dopamine rush” of contemporary cartoons, which might offer endless amounts of quick entertainment, but don’t allow for kids to actually process what they’re watching, and continuously leave them wanting more. Almost like the creators of these shows are more interested in getting views and earning money than by actually serving a need? Nah, that’s crazy.

@itsdeaann She got EMBARRASSED, Watch until the end to see💀
♬ original sound - Dean Withers

Adding to the problem is that, now, anything with a screen can suddenly turn into a TV. This heightened accessibility means that a once seemingly innocent, totally mundane pastime can turn into a problem. But luckily, parents can control what their children are seeing their TVs, tablets, phones, and whatever else. Since many 90s classics are available to stream, these less-stimulating yet more-engaging shows are always on hand, and Lauren was kind enough to share a master list:

📺 Bear in the Big Blue House – Disney+

📺 Out of the Box – Disney+

📺 Little Bear – Paramount+

📺 Franklin – Prime or YouTube

📺 Arthur – PBS Kids or Hulu

📺 Rolie Polie Olie – Prime

📺 Clifford – Prime

📺 Magic School Bus – Netflix

📺 Berenstain Bears – Prime

📺 Dragon Tales – Prime

📺 Wishbone – YouTube

📺 Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood – PBS Kids, Hulu, or Prime

As a bonus: something kinda from our childhood (the book, anyway) but a newer show

📺 If You Give A Mouse a Cookie – Prime

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Besides the fact that these shows might overall be better for our kids, there’s also something special about rewatching these beloved shows from our childhood, and seeing the positive effects that they continue to bestow. It’s one of those times where we can say, “They didn’t make them like they used to!” and it truly carries some weight. So, you know, bragging rights.

High-octane kid’s shows probably aren’t going anywhere, but it’s nice to know that we have options when it’s time to really wind down and soothe little nervous systems.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, there are a few seasons of Arthur calling my name…

sabfortony/TikTok

Sabrina (@sabfortony) eats the last meal her husband Tony cooked for her before he passed away.

Losing someone you love never gets easier, and the grief process comes in waves. One way TikToker Sabrina (@sabfortony) got to honor her husband Tony's memory was by eating the last meal he cooked for her the day he died.

Sabrina shared the emotional video with her followers on TikTok. "I’ll forever miss Tony’s cooking," she captioned the video, adding, "Let's eat my late husband's last meal together."

@sabfortony

i’ll forever miss tony’s cooking #lastmeal #moving #griefjourney #healingjourney #lifeafterloss #partnerloss

It begins with Sabrina holding a small quart-sized plastic container up to the camera, and she begins to describe its significance. "I have something very special here. The day that Tony passed away, I really wanted curry–and I wanted Japanese curry, so I asked Tony to make me some and he did," she says. "I ended up freezing it because I wanted to preserve it forever. But because I'm moving out of state, I need to eat this. I know some of you might think that is crazy cuz it's been over two years. Tony was the primary cook of our family, and so anytime I was craving something he would make it for me. That was one of the many ways that he showed love for me."

She then heats up the bowl of curry so that it is "scalding hot," noting that it has "turned to mush" before she tastes it. "Thank you Tony for my last meal in this home," she says. "And my apologies that I am raw-dogging this–I don't have any rice."

TikTok · Sabrina 🫶🏼

tiktok couple, love story, widow, last meal, emotional TikTok · Sabrina 🫶🏼www.tiktok.com

160.8K likes, 1635 comments. “I never want to forget what we had, ❤️ so I choose to tell our story. My heart breaks for the ones who’ve faced a similar tragedy.”

As she tastes it, she is delighted. "Mmm! Still good," she says. "This has carrots, onions, potatoes, beef, and he put mushrooms in it. Beef is still very tender!" As she gets to the last bite, she says, "Thank you, Tony!"

Sabrina's emotional video got an overwhelming response in the comments.

"🥺🥺🥺 last meal in the home you shared together 🥺," one wrote, and Sabrina replied, "😭 he knew i needed it 💗."

Another wrote, "Just thinking how his hands cut the ingredients and his heart cooked it with love made me sob. What a beautiful moment." Sabrina responded, "so much love 😭😭 it’s so special."

Another viewer commented, "He’s sending you off to the next chapter with love 🥹❤️," and Sabrina replied, "so true 😭 i’m so thankful for that."

Other viewers shared their personal stories of how food connected them with lost loved ones. "I kept my mom’s kimchi for as long as I could. I ate it the night I got my heartbroken and felt so comforted. Food is such a strong connection to those we know we can’t hold anymore," one shared. Sabrina replied, "food really is such a beautiful way to connect with people 😭 i’m glad your moms kimchi was a source of comfort 💗 she is with you always."

Another viewer shared, "When my grandmother knew she was sick, before she told anybody, she baked, cooked, froze, and canned until the pantry and freezer were full. After she died my grandfather ate her meals for a year." Sabrina responded, "what a beautiful soul 💗 caring for the people she loves."