Spring til indhold
Ved din brug af Twitters tjenester accepterer du vores brug af cookies. Vi og vores partnere opererer globalt og bruger cookies til blandt andet statistik, personlig tilpasning og annoncer.
  • Forside Forside Forside, aktuel side.
  • Om

Gemte søgninger

  • Fjern
  • I denne samtale
    Verificeret kontoBeskyttede tweets @
Foreslåede brugere
  • Verificeret kontoBeskyttede tweets @
  • Verificeret kontoBeskyttede tweets @
  • Sprog: Dansk
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Deutsch
    • English
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Har du en konto? Log ind
    Har du en konto?
    · Glemt din adgangskode?

    Ny på Twitter?
    Tilmeld dig
Rystefns profil
Rystefn
Rystefn
Rystefn
@Rystefn

Tweets

Rystefn

@Rystefn

My pronouns are "The God-Damned Rystefn!" But you won't use them, so I don't care. Call me whatever you want.

Somewhere else
Tilmeldt december 2011

Tweets

  • © 2019 Twitter
  • Om
  • Hjælpecenter
  • Vilkår
  • Privatlivspolitik
  • Cookies
  • Annonce-info
Afvis
Forrige
Næste

Gå til en persons profil

Gemte søgninger

  • Fjern
  • I denne samtale
    Verificeret kontoBeskyttede tweets @
Foreslåede brugere
  • Verificeret kontoBeskyttede tweets @
  • Verificeret kontoBeskyttede tweets @

Promover dette Tweet

Bloker

  • Tweet med en lokalitet

    Du kan føje lokalitetsoplysninger til dine Tweets, såsom din by eller præcise placering, fra webben og via tredjepartsapplikationer. Du kan altid slette lokalitetshistorikken for dine Tweets. Lær mere

    Dine lister

    Opret en ny liste


    Under 100 tegn, valgfri

    Privatliv

    Kopier link til tweet

    Indlejring af dette tweet

    Embed this Video

    Føj dette Tweet til dit websted ved at kopiere koden nedenfor. Lær mere

    Føj denne video til dit websted ved at kopiere koden nedenfor. Lær mere

    Hmm, der var et problem med forbindelsen til serveren.

    Ved at indlejre Twitter-indhold på dit websted eller i din app accepterer du Twitters udvikleraftale og udviklerpolitik.

    Forhåndsvisning

    Derfor ser du denne annonce

    Log ind på Twitter

    · Glemt din adgangskode?
    Har du ingen konto? Tilmeld dig »

    Tilmeld dig Twitter

    Ikke på Twitter? Tilmeld dig, find de emner du holder af, og bliv opdateret så snart noget sker.

    Tilmeld dig
    Har du en konto? Log ind »

    To-vejs (sende og modtage) tjenestenumre:

    Land Kode For kunder af
    USA 40404 (nogen)
    Canada 21212 (nogen)
    Storbritannien 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brasilien 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Irland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    Indien 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesien 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italien 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » Se sms-tjenestenumre for andre lande

    Bekræftelse

     

    Velkommen hjem!

    Denne tidslinje er der, hvor du vil bruge mest af din tid og konstant få opdateringer om det, der interesserer dig.

    Fungerer Tweets ikke for dig?

    Hold over profilbilledet og klik på Følger-knappen for at stoppe med at følge enhver konto.

    Sig en masse med en smule

    Når du ser et Tweet, du elsker, kan du trykke på hjertet — det viser personen, der skrev det, din påskønnelse.

    Spred budskabet

    Den hurtigste måde, hvorpå du kan dele en andens Tweet med dine følgere, er et Retweet. Tryk på ikonet for at sende det straks.

    Deltag i samtalen

    Tilføj dine tanker om ethvert Tweet med et svar. Find et emne, du er passioneret omkring, og hop direkte ind i samtalen.

    Få det seneste at vide

    Få øjeblikkelig indsigt i det, folk snakker om lige nu.

    Få mere af det, du elsker

    Følg flere konti for at få øjeblikkelige opdateringer om de emner, du er interesseret i.

    Opdag, hvad der sker.

    Se de nyeste samtaler om ethvert emne her og nu.

    Gå aldrig glip af et Øjeblik

    Følg de bedste historier, mens de sker.

    1. Adam Serwer 🍝‏Verificeret konto @AdamSerwer 26. apr.

      Robert E. Lee was a traitor, a brute and a slaver who wouldn't even trade black union soldiers taken prisoner for the lives of his own men because he saw black people as property to be owned.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …

      916 svar 15.581 retweets 41.139 likes
      Vis denne tråd
    2. Jim Handley‏ @JimHandley21 26. apr.
      Svarer @AdamSerwer

      You're talking about a different time. In that era States wanted a small federal Government and States to run themselves. Though slavery was an issue, this war has more to do with States Rights than anything else. Grant's own wife had slave servants, during the war.

      75 svar 2 retweets 21 likes
    3. Esther Inglis-Arkell‏ @EstherHyphen 26. apr.
      Svarer @JimHandley21 @AdamSerwer

      Nope. The southern states were all about Federal overreach when it came to violating other states' sovereignty by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or the Dred Scott decision. It was never about states' rights. What you're saying is a lie.

      6 svar 16 retweets 547 likes
    4. Margaret Burley  🐘‏ @BurleyMargaret 26. apr.
      Svarer @EstherHyphen @JimHandley21 @AdamSerwer

      I was taught that it was about “States rights“ in college 30 years ago. And I live in MA! I knew better at the time, but I couldn’t believe the professor was saying that. So some people are just mistaken because that’s what they were taught. And they never looked into it further.

      10 svar 6 retweets 133 likes
    5. The Airplane Nerd‏ @TheAirplaneNerd 26. apr.
      Svarer @BurleyMargaret @EstherHyphen og

      It drives me up the wall when people say the war was about states’ rights and neglect to mention *which* states rights in particular were so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight a war over them. (It was slavery.)

      4 svar 15 retweets 258 likes
    6. Maria German‏ @marianp1968 26. apr.
      Svarer @TheAirplaneNerd @BurleyMargaret og

      I don't get it either. We're not talking about speculation here. It's not oral or anecdotal history. They literally wrote it down - in official documents. And more than once.

      1 svar 3 retweets 143 likes
    7. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 26. apr.
      Svarer @marianp1968 @TheAirplaneNerd og

      Yes, the overwhelming reason for the secession was the impending spectre of abolition, but the union absolutely was NOT fighting about slavery, so saying the war was about slavery is an outright lie. The war was about denying the ability to secede.

      7 svar 0 retweets 15 likes
    8. Maria German‏ @marianp1968 26. apr.
      Svarer @Rystefn @TheAirplaneNerd og

      OK. I wouldn't call it a lie, though. The reason they went to war was because they were not allowed to secede from the Union. Which still leaves slavery as the cause for wanting to secede in the first place.

      3 svar 1 retweet 79 likes
      Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 26. apr.
      Svarer @marianp1968 @TheAirplaneNerd og

      But slavery was exactly zero percent of the reason the Union was fighting. So saying the war was about slavery is either a deliberate lie, or foundational ignorance.

      15.00 - 26. apr. 2019
      • 8 Likes
      • Bobby Gouty Carlos Alfonso Ross Allen Geiger🙏🏻 Roly Latin 🏳️‍🌈 Proud Democrat 🌊 kyle Miller Geoff Hogan Michael Rennie German Cowboy
      11 svar 0 retweets 8 likes
        1. Ny samtale
        2. The Airplane Nerd‏ @TheAirplaneNerd 26. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          I don’t want to speak for these guys, but they might disagree with that statement.pic.twitter.com/N5YfU94Wj3

          2 svar 1 retweet 62 likes
        3. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 27. apr.
          Svarer @TheAirplaneNerd @marianp1968 og

          I never claimed it wasn't a reason any soldier signed up or pulled the trigger. I said it wasn't the reason the Union was fighting. As in the federal government. Not the grunts. The government. Which was fighting to maintain control and power.

          1 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Stella Rober‏ @xsf19705 27. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @TheAirplaneNerd og

          Over a region of the country that wanted to maintain and expand slavery! To say it’s not the crux of the conflict when one side has higher ambitions is silly. Would the south seceded if it could have expanded that peculiar institution further west?

          2 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 27. apr.
          Svarer @xsf19705 @TheAirplaneNerd og

          The federal government was not fighting to prevent them from maintaining and expanding slavery. It was not fighting about any ambitions regarding slavery. The slavery issue was tangential to the Union purpose in fighting for control, at best.

          1 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Stella Rober‏ @xsf19705 27. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @TheAirplaneNerd og

          But the slave issue was not tangential but central to the south. Ss were issues of white supremacy. Southern elites wrote as much. It was their reason for breaking away from the union. The fact that the north didn’t oppose slavery doesn’t mean it was not the bases for the war.

          1 svar 0 retweets 1 like
        7. Stella Rober‏ @xsf19705 27. apr.
          Svarer @xsf19705 @Rystefn og

          *As

          0 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        8. Afslutning af samtale
        1. Ny samtale
        2. Esther Inglis-Arkell‏ @EstherHyphen 26. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          "But slavery was exactly zero percent of the reason the Union was fighting." If you're going to be a pedant, be a consistent pedant. This is not true. A percentage of popular, military, and political support was for abolition. That percentage changed with time over the war.

          1 svar 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 27. apr.
          Svarer @EstherHyphen @marianp1968 og

          At no point was it the actual causal reason for the war, though. The Union was fighting about slavery in the same way we're fighting in the middle east about WMDs now. That might be how they drummed up some of their support, but that's not what it was really about.

          1 svar 0 retweets 1 like
        4. Esther Inglis-Arkell‏ @EstherHyphen 27. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          What you're saying, in both this comment and the previous one, is not true. I don't know how else to say it. If you won't accept it, that's your problem and your embarrassment.

          1 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 27. apr.
          Svarer @EstherHyphen @marianp1968 og

          I know the simple narrative of South=slaver=bad, North=freedom=good makes it easier for you, but no matter how hard you tell yourself it's accurate, you will continue to be wrong. But yes, I am embarrassed by the popularity of your wrongness.

          1 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Esther Inglis-Arkell‏ @EstherHyphen 27. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          That's not what I said. The simple narrative is yours, the one that ignores both the wider implications of a slave-based economy and the altruistic reasons that many people had for war in favor of easy cynicism. Being cynical is not the same as being informed. Sorry. Muting.

          0 svar 0 retweets 2 likes
        7. Afslutning af samtale
        1. Ny samtale
        2. Eleanor Harvey‏ @Temporal_Fugue 27. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          read the actual articles of secession for any of the 9 confederate states. They ALL mention owning slaves as the "state's right" they are protecting. So yes, it is about slavery.

          2 svar 0 retweets 9 likes
        3. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 27. apr.
          Svarer @Temporal_Fugue @marianp1968 og

          And yet, once again, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery. It was fighting to preserve their claimed right to rule over the states that were attempting to leave. The secession was about slavery. The war was not.

          1 svar 0 retweets 1 like
        4. Persistent Woman Saw Endgame‏ @PixMichelle 22 tfor 22 timer siden
          Svarer @Rystefn @Temporal_Fugue og

          Ok, hold up....you’re claiming the war wasn’t about slavery, right? But... You said in a previous post that the war was about secession. You say here that the secession was about slavery. By your own reasoning, that means the war was about slavery.🤔 https://twitter.com/rystefn/status/1121848313383243776?s=21 …pic.twitter.com/3RgOm3cU4D

          0 svar 0 retweets 7 likes
        5. Afslutning af samtale
        1. Ny samtale
        2. Jon Ogilvie‏ @NCJohnnyO 16 tfor 16 timer siden
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          Not zero percent. If we get to invoke racist grand-daddy who was just protecting his farm down south, we get to invoke all the abolitionists and their reasons for showing up on the battlefield. The North also had abolished 60 years prior, and slavery was THE defining topic.

          1 svar 1 retweet 0 likes
        3. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 14 tfor 14 timer siden
          Svarer @NCJohnnyO @marianp1968 og

          I know you desperately want to present the narrative where anyone pointing out the truth is defending their ancestors' racism, but if you think your ancestors were any less racist, you're laughably wrong. Also, there were slave states in the north, so you're wrong there, too.

          0 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Afslutning af samtale
        1. Ny samtale
        2. Saint Malcolm‏ @OliverWest100 27. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          Actually Union was fighting against expansion of slavery but not abolition until Emancipation proc. Basically South over reached because they could not accept Lincoln as an abolitionism-curious guy so decided to pack their shit and leave. But they left in order to protect slavery

          1 svar 1 retweet 3 likes
        3. Rystefn‏ @Rystefn 27. apr.
          Svarer @OliverWest100 @marianp1968 og

          If the Feds had simply shrugged and let the Confederates secede, slavery would have expanded exactly zero. The Union wasn't fighting about that. The Union was fighting about enforcing rule upon the people trying to leave.

          1 svar 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Saint Malcolm‏ @OliverWest100 22 tfor 22 timer siden
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          Ignorant. Confederates seceded because they wanted to take ball and go home when could not get Union to expand slavery. Yes won't have been expansion in Union states once they left but Confederates only left because felt Union non-expansion policy was slippery slope to abolition.

          0 svar 0 retweets 1 like
        5. Afslutning af samtale
        1. Chris Grey‏ @3rdwavemedia 26. apr.
          Svarer @Rystefn @marianp1968 og

          Slavery was not why the Union was fighting, but it was why the Confederacy was fighting and why they wanted to secede in the first place. Having said that, atrocities of war on the Union side far exceeded anything the South did. That story is often lost in these discussions.

          0 svar 0 retweets 2 likes
          Tak. Twitter bruger dette til at forbedre din tidslinje. Fortryd
          Fortryd

      Indlæsning ser ud til at tage noget tid.

      Twitter kan være overbelastet eller have en midlertidig forstyrrelse. Prøv igen, eller se flere oplysninger på Twitter Status.

        Promoveret Tweet

        false

        • © 2019 Twitter
        • Om
        • Hjælpecenter
        • Vilkår
        • Privatlivspolitik
        • Cookies
        • Annonce-info