Talk:Border states (American Civil War)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arizona Territory secession[edit]

WHEREAS, a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their people; and WHEREAS, the Government of the United States has heretofore failed to give us adequate protection against the savages within our midst and has denied us an administration of the laws, and that security for life, liberty, and property which is due from all governments to the people; and WHEREAS, it is an inherent, inalienable right in all people to modify, alter, or abolish their form of government whenever it fails in the legitimate objects of its institution, or when it is subversive thereof; and WHEREAS, in a government of federated, sovereign States, each State has a right to withdraw from the confederacy whenever the treaty by which the league is formed, is broken; and WHEREAS, the Territories belonging to said league in common should be divided when the league is broken, and should be attached to the separating States according to their geographical position and political identity; and WHEREAS, Arizona naturally belongs to the Confederate States of America (who have rightfully and lawfully withdrawn from said league), both geographically and politically, by ties of a common interest and a common cause; and WHEREAS we, the citizens of that part of New Mexico called Arizona, in the present distracted state of political affairs between the North and the South, deem it our duty as citizens of the United States to make known our opinions and intentions; therefore be it...

RESOLVED, That our feelings and interests are with the Southern States , and that although we deplore the division of the Union, yet we cordially indorse the course pursued by the seceded Southern States.

RESOLVED, That geographically and naturally we are bound to the South, and to her we look for protection; and as the Southern States have formed a Confederacy, it is our earnest desire to be attached to that Confederacy as a Territory.

RESOLVED, That we do not desire to be attached as a Territory to any State seceding separately from the Union, but to and under the protection of a Confederacy of the Southern States.

RESOLVED, That the recent enactment of the Federal Congress, removing the mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific States from the Southern to the Central or Northern route, is another powerful reason for us to ask the Southern Confederate States of America for a continuation of the postal service over the Butterfield or El Paso route, at the earliest period.

RESOLVED, That it shall be the duty of the President of this Convention to order an election for a delegate to the Congress of the Confederate States of America, when he is informed that the States composing said Confederacy have ordered an election for members of Congress.

RESOLVED, That we will not recognize the present Black Republican Administration, and that we will resist any officers appointed to this Territory by said Administration with whatever means in our power.

RESOLVED, That the citizens residing in the western portion of this Territory are invited to join us in this movement.

RESOLVED, That the proceedings of this Convention be published in the Mesilla Times, and that a copy thereof be forwarded to the President of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, with the request that the same be laid before Congress.

The preceding was adopted in Secession Convention at La Mesilla, New Mexico Territory, March 16, 1861 for the eastern part of southern New Mexico Territory. It was ratified for the western part at Tuscon, Arizona on March 23, 1861. The Confederate "invasion" of New Mexico was in reality no such thing. They arrived to relieve the city of Mesilla on July 23, 1861 from a Union army encampment on the outskirts of town. Rangerdude 4 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

How many people attended this "convention?" Were they elected officials or just a bunch of confederate sympathizers? Did this resolution have any standing in the law? -Willmcw July 4, 2005 23:43 (UTC)
Why don't you research the convention and find out? I posted it to show the fact that a secession convention was held in New Mexico territory long before any confederate forces arrived there - a fact that contradicts the erronious sources used by JimWae, asserting Mesilla had been "captured" by the confederate army. In fact, when the confederates did arrive in July they came from El Paso, Texas after receiving requests from Mesilla asking for help to remove a Union army encampment outside of town. The Confederate army was given a hero's welcome into Mesilla and shortly thereafter the townspeople and Confederates from Texas formed a line and defeated the Union forces just outside of town. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
What's the source for all of that? It isn't at the page listed as a reference. Thanks, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 05:17 (UTC)

While that's all well and good, this was not a secession convention arising from the existing New Mexico territorial leadership, but instead a regional faction attempting to secede from the existing territory. Red Harvest (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border States[edit]

There is nothing in this article that says anything with any clarity about what makes AZ & NM relevant to the main topic. --JimWae 02:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Md VA?[edit]

MY Opinion: 

   I clearly belive that Maryland/Virginia are southern states! i doubt it

Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. Im from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutly HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconciterate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.

Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line. 

   If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????

It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty usefull to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORSED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are natrually South.

Subject 3: MD. 

   Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.

I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK! 

   Accents and Attitudes are more Southern than not

I've always been told by Northerners that I have a thick Southern accent. It makes me laugh because I've heard NC and GA people talk before (with super thick accents)...but it never fails, NY people or MN people etc make fun of our MD southern accent.

Our attitudes are a mixture of Southern and East coast. We are very Southern kind, but can be East coast harsh at times too. I personally will never be a northern person because our vibes are way different. We are a lot more progressive than typical southern states and may not carry around confederate flags, but we are way too country to be considered north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.26.101 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Final Subject: Overall. 

   Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!

They have many southern charms too. Infact, we have great hospitaliy too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that maryland and virginia are atleast a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if youve been too maryland and virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!

ps. dont post nasty negitive comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz


ps no 2. IF you ask a man at a gas station in Southern, MD.... you'll know that chu in the south. - Footballchik

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryland"


I have a question as to why Kansas was not added as a border state? If there was ever a border state the represented the differences between North and South it was Kansas.

West Virginia[edit]

I would like a few other opinions on this topic, but in my AP United States history class as well as my class textbook, West Virginia is not referred to as a border state. True, the state joined the Union during the Civil War, but from my experience, it has never been considered a border state. I have no objection to its placement in this article, but I believe that a notice should be included that directly tells the reader that West Virginia is not usually considered one of the "border states", even if it became quite like one. Any opposition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trying2help (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia POV tag[edit]

Hello, JimWae. I see that you have tagged my recent version of West Virginia history. I can understand that. I have spent the last few years studying the statehood movement in West Virginia. It is impossible to write a correct history of West Virginia without seeming biased, which is because West Virginia history as found in most encyclopedias and Civil War histories are almost all ill informed. If you look at the rather long article on the Border States, you will see that almost ALL the textual references are mine. Everything I wrote is the factual and referenced. The Wheeling Conventions were NEVER elected by the people of western Virginia. The vote on Secession is found in Curry's "A House Divided", most of what became West Virginia was Secessionist. The guerrilla war in West Virginia has been covered by Kenneth W. Noe in his essay "Exterminating Savages". It is a fact that Wheeling was NEVER in control of West Virginia, the records of the Constitutional Convention make it quite plain. I have probably erred in not including much of the Unionist side of the history, I guess because that POV has been the main thrust of all histories of the state. If you have any suggestions to make let me know, I am not unreasonable. West Virginia history as it stands now is POV and has been for the last 140 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubyavee (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How much issue is made on the Declaration of Independence page & the US Constitution page that those people were not elected? I do not think one could organize any election without at least some kind of provisional gov't --JimWae (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you can object to my saying that Wheeling was not elected if it is true, which it is. Most people don't know that they weren't elected, and during the Am. Rev. people generally supported the Revolution, though I know many didn't. The reverse is true in West Virginia, what you have basically is a junta. If I may quote from J.G. Randall's "The Civil War and Reconstruction", 1966 ed., pgs. 238-39 ";second, it adopted (August 20) another ordinance which decreed that "a new state, to be called the state of Kanawha, be formed and erected," to consist of forty-eight designated counties. This ordinance was in reality the work of an active but limited group of separationists in the counties near Pennsylvania and Maryland. The whole atmosphere at Wheeling, which was within Union lines, was favorable to the work of this group, just as the atmosphere at Richmond was favorable to the secessionists. A few of the leaders, with a map before them, drew the boundaries of the new state. The people of the area concerned had no opportunity, county by county, to determine whether they would adhere to Virginia or join the new commonwealth. Their fate was determined by the whole vote cast some months later withing the boundaries indicated by the convention. It is stated by J.C. McGregor that this plan was adopted to avoid 'certain rejection in at least two-thirds of the counties.' It is significant that half the area of the state-to-be was entirely unrepresented in the June convention which passed the ordinance for the new commonwealth and fixed its boundaries." Mr. Randall was a Lincoln scholar and biographer, hardly a Southern apologist.

My comments on how the governor was selected is from a speech by Daniel Lamb on the floor of the Convention in front of the delegates. I can back up all the things I said with additional notes if you wish. What other objections do you have?Dubyavee (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lincoln was less involved in attempts to hold Virginia in the Union. Delegates from the strongly Unionist western counties, outraged when the state convention voted to secede, returned to their homes resolved to secede from secession. A Unionist convention held at wheeling in effect set up a rival government to the Confederate government of Virginia in Richmond and elected Francis H. Pierpont governor. The convention also called for the creation of a new state out of the western counties of Virginia. Since the Constitution provides that no state shall be divided without its own permission, the Pierpont regime was set us as a kind of puppet government that would consent to this proposed partition. Pierpont fulfilled his function. Ostensibly speaking for the entire state of Virginia, he approved the secession of the western counties, which then applied for admission to the Union as the state of West Virginia. The Pierpont administration left Wheeling and spent the rest of the war under the shelter of federal guns at Alexandria. The whole process of partitioning Virginia was extraordinarily complicated and largely extralegal; and, at a time of great unrest when thieves, bandits, and desperate men roamed the countryside, neither the Pierpont regime nor the new government of West Virginia had the backing of more than a minority of the citizens. Lincoln could do little to shape the course of events. He extended formal recognition of Pierpont's regime as the legitimate government of all of Virginina (though it contolled only a few counties behind the Union lines), and he looked with considerable skepticism on the movement for statehood for West Virginia." Donald, David Herbert, "Lincoln", pgs. 300-01
  • "There was no denying the fact that West Virginia was largely a creation of the Northern Panhandle and the counties along the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which had supplied her officers and funds for her public institutions. These and other conditions, largely a preponderance of sympathy for the South, made it impossible for the new state to extend her authority over the southern counties, particularly those along the Virginia border. The condition continued to the end of the war and for some time thereafter, and counties in that section refused to pay taxes to the new government or to elect officers under its constitution." Ambler, "The History of West Virginia", pgs. 357-58
  • So I have two Lincoln experts and the dean of WV Unionist history, Charles Ambler, agreeing with my edit. I would appreciate it if you would remove the tag within the next few days.Dubyavee (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 out of the first 6 sentences are negative about the formation of the state - that is unbalanced. Among the first things that should be mentioned is that the state was formed from VA, & that the people in that region were opposed to the secession from the Union. If that is covered at all, it is buried in the text - that is why the section is still unbalanced --JimWae (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the grievances of the western part of the state did not begin with secession, but go back decades over issues such as representation, slavery, and state allocation of internal improvements projects. While I haven't read Ambler, C. Stuart McGehee's contribution to "Virginia at War 1861 (edited by William C. Davis and James Robertson) states that, "His [Ambler's] masterpiece, "Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776-1861", placed the statehood movement as the inevitable culmination of a century of sectional discord that resulted in the creation of West Virginia." Much is made of the number of counties included in West Virginia, Curry points out in another work ("Radicalism, Racism, and Party Realignment: The Border States During Reconstruction") that the inclusion of a large number of pro-CSA counties was largely the result of the efforts of those opposed to creating a new state. Surely Curry says something similar in the work referenced in the article. Curry also notes that the core Unionist area of West Virginia was only one-third of the total territory (which is included in the article), but also states that its population of 210,000 comprised 60% of the new state (not mentioned in the article) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since North Shoreman also sides against me I will revise the edit, it may take me a few days to get the notes together. As far as McGehee's comments on Ambler's theory, it was just that, a theory, McGehee did not agree with it. As far as why so many Secession counties were included, the reason doesn't really matter, since they are there. Waitman Willey was not an enemy of statehood, but at the Constitutional Convention he said "The county of Calhoun spurns our invitation, it is said. The county of Nicholas spurns our invitation. That is her own fault sir. She might have been represented here, and if she sees proper to stay at home and allow us to fix it for her, she has no right to complain." He had reason to regret those words, for 10 years later he sat on the sidelines at the 2nd Constitutional Convention while the Constitution he wrote was destroyed and his old enemies were calling the shots on the new one.

Horace Greeley told Wheeling that they were building their house on the sand, and in 1870 it collapsed.

  • As far as the populous North Panhandle area counties go, it must be remembered that they did not have the right of majority rule. One also has to ask if Statehood was so popular there why they could only get about 12,000 voters out for it. And why, by the end of August, 1861, they couldn't field even 4 full regiments of Union soldiers, according to the Wellsburg "Herald". Traditionally the anti-Secession vote has been calculated as 1 anti-Secession vote= 1 pro-Union vote = 1 Statehood vote. But all three of those issues are separate. One could be anti-Secession yet join the Confederate Army. One could be pro-Union, yet anti-Statehood. All of these conditions existed in varying degrees.

I will address the issues you raise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubyavee (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably be adding text to the article sometime in the very near future. It is interesting that you comment on what rights the North Panhandle has -- you seem to be assuming as a given that the state itself had a right of secession. A far as popularity, the point that needs to be made is the utter unpopularity of eastern Virginia in the northwest and the undeniable fact that the roots of state division did not begin in Wheeling in March 1861. Contrary to the Wellsburg Herald's prediction, Allan Nevins notes that within 50 days of the election of Pierpont West Virginia had raised ten regiments. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, Nevins may be talking about regiments named "West Virginia", which included thousands of Pennsylvanians and Ohioans. The Wellsburg numbers weren't a prediction, the Wheeling Intelligencer also printed similar information. The First West Virginia Cavalry consisted of only 32% Virginians. Also, Gen. McClellan in late July said that he had requisitioned equipment for 10,000 Virginia soldiers, and that he had seriously overestimated. One of the earliest Unionist meetings was in Clarksburg. What the history books leave out is that there was also a large Secessionist meeting in Clarksburg a few days later. That's why they went to Wheeling. As far as the rights of Secession go, I don't really care about that. I only care about how people act. If the people of the Northern Panhandle wanted to form a new state, fine, but the junta-like nature of their methods must be recognized. The right or wrong of it I don't care about, the deed is done.Dubyavee (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevins' exact language clarifies that "nine of them composed of Virginians". I am not proposing to eliminate a single idea you have written or quote you have provided. What I am doing is providing balance by explaining the background and by providing equally "interesting" quotes to balance the ones you've provided. I found an interesting quote from a 1910 article by Ambler on JSTOR -- "there are few years during the period from 1830 to 1850 which did not bring forth schemes for the dismemberment of the commonwealth.” I have several quotes from the Wellsburg Herald, as well as other papers and sources, reflecting the wide support withn the core area that the new government had. As far as the Clarksburg meeting being left out of the history books, I find it right on page 26 of "Rebels at the Gate" by W. Hunter Lesser.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if Nevins quotes a source for his information? It just doesn't jibe with McClellan and the other sources. The WV Dept. of Archives states that WV soldiery was about 50/50 Union/Confederate, and WV only had about 45,000 available men. As far as support in the Wellsburg area goes, I certainly believe it. But support for the Restored Government is very different from support for Statehood. Ohio County (Wheeling) could only muster 28% of its voters on this issue. Unlike today, when voters disliked a proposition they boycotted the polls. The Statehood movement was what split the Unionists, many of whom just wanted to preserve VA for the Union, like Judge Jackson. The Willey Amendment split them even further. The issue of slavery is also misunderstood in WV, who had no problems with it. What they didn't like was eastern VA using slaves for tax breaks and unfair representation in the Senate. Most differences between East and West had been addressed in the 1850 Constitution, except

for Senate representation and slave tax breaks, where a westerner was taxed fully on his cows and a slave owner was only taxed 1/3(? I forgot) the value for his slaves. The Hunter book is probably about the only one that mentions the Clarksburg meeting. I believe that's where I first read about it.Dubyavee (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few paragaphs that describe the relevant background up to the Virginia Scession Convention. I will add more info on western reaction after this convention and more details on the Wheeling meetings, including the split among Unionists and the details on the expansion of the number of counties included (using the Curry journal article you listed on your user page). Information concerning Luther v. Borden as a precedent also seems to be in order. Nevins does not provide a source but it jibes with the numbers in Current's "Lincoln Loyalists" -- Current notes that the PA and OH troops included in West Virginia totals are offset by Virginians who enrolled in PA and MD units. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a substantial amount of information that should provide needed balance. The article as it existed emphasized the alleged injustices and illegalities in creating a new state -- I have added info that shows the alleged injustices and illegalities in Virginia'sinitial secession. It seems like a better solution would be to include most of this in the West Virginia in the American Civil War article that totally omits any discussion of these events. If that were done, then this article could be written in a "just the facts" manner -- omitting the numerous quotes discussing improprieties on both sides. I did not intentionally remove anything of substance from the existing article andintended to include all existing quotes. If something is missing, it is inadvertant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tom, I have nothing to add or subtract from the WV section. I thought your previous edit had achieved balance, with maybe a tweak here or there. At that point it closely resembled the Statehood page on the WV Archives website. It seems a bit ponderous now. I have not added a History section to the West Virginia in the Civil War page because most people find it through either West Virginia or History of West Virginia both of which have enough statehood history. I thought it better to reserve topics on WV in the Civil War for wartime activities. I'm preparing a sub-chapter on the guerrilla war and gathering material for it. I thought I would start with the trial of 4 men caught playing cards under a railway bridge. They were tried in Parkersburg in May 1861, the judge, William Jackson, later became Gen. Wm. "Mudwall" Jackson, CSA. Best, Dubyavee (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the general subject of West Virginia in the Civil War does not follow the logic of WP:Summary. The two main articles are American Civil War and History of West Virginia. These should have the least detail, with the next level of detail being, respectively, Border States (Civil War) and West Virginia in the American Civil War (this would also serve as the more detailed article following from Border States (Civil War). Instead, the most detailed information on both the 1850s and the creation of West Virginia statehood are in Border States and the least detailed is in West Virginia in the American Civil War.
I don’t intend to do anything unilaterally to change things in the near future -- I got involved in this largely as an excuse to once and for all clarify in my own mind the actual events and timeline associated with these events. I am going to add a cross reference to this article section on the West Virginia in the American Civil War article.
Is it time to remove the POV tag? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that Wikipedia understands what a "border state" means. Border states are also referred to as the Upper South, to distinguish them from the Middle South and Deep South. Far too many people refer to he Mid-South state of Tennessee as "border" state, even though all 8 adjoining states were slave states (Incidentally, Tennessee has more state lines than any of the other 50 states). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnpd (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing discussion confirms my belief that West Virginia should on no account be considered a "Border State". It was formed as a military conquest (albeit with some popular support), and had no constitutional status as a State, acts of the U. S. Congress notwithstanding, until the conquest of the South was completed in 1865 and the de facto revision of the Constitution, making the federal government a supreme, plenipotentiary authority over the States, was accomplished. Only if Virginia as a whole were to be considered a "Border State" (which has never been a widely-accepted position, if it has been asserted at all) can the territory that became West Virginia be regarded as "border". West Virginia should be removed from this article and its status during the War of 1861 should be left to West Virginia in the American Civil War.Jdcrutch (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to whatever beliefs you want, but 1> WV is counted as a border state by most scholars, 2> it fits the definition, 3> WV considers it became a state in 1863 (as does the US), and 4> to say otherwise would require more than the beliefs of a few people who have posted here. JimWae (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are all entitled to our beliefs, but when we assert authority for our beliefs (such as by tagging an article as biased) we should back our assertions up with facts and logical argument, not more assertions. My interlocutor's argument seems to be, essentially, "We won the war." Military force can determine questions of statehood, but not questions of history.
1) Who are "most scholars", and why are scholars, and not all well-informed users of the term "Border States", the authority? The scholars I'm familiar with, as far as I can remember (if I had time to do authoritative research, I would revise the article), do not include W. Va. as a Border State, though I imagine some scholars--and some of the people who used the term and gave it its meaning when there actually was a border--may have called Virginia a Border State, since it did not secede with the original seven Confederate States, and, at the establishment of the CSA, it lay on the border between that confederacy and the USA.
2) What is "the definition"? None is given in the article, only a list, and my interlocutor offers none. The existence and length of this discussion suggest to me that there is no authoritative definition of "Border State". There appears, rather, to be a debate, in which various definitions have been proposed or presumed. My guess is that a similar debate goes on, or has gone on, in academic circles, which, if true, should be reflected in the article.
3) Conquerors and their adherents can also believe, or contend, whatever serves their interests, and can endow their contentions with the force of law; but they cannot alter the facts. The formation of West Virginia was extra-constitutional (to put it charitably), and was essentially a military action, contrary to the express will of a majority of voters in many of the counties included in the new State (and to the presumed will of the majority of voters in several counties, who were not permitted to vote on the question, because their votes would likely have caused inconvenience or embarrassment). It did not become a settled matter until the conquest of Virginia and the rest of the CSA settled all such matters, and rendered the border in question a nullity. That is to say, while there was a border, there was no State of West Virginia.
4) The dismissal of arguments with which one disagrees as irrelevant "beliefs" scarcely advances understanding or encourages constructive debate. This is not a matter of belief but of history, based on facts and laws that are easily reviewed. Interpretations of those facts and laws may reasonably differ, and it serves no good purpose that I can see for a participant in the discussion to belittle the views of others, at least until he demonstrates their complete lack of substance. The State of West Virginia exists today because the U. S. government says it does, and, ever since 1865, the U. S. government is the supreme authority on all such questions. But, absent military coercion in pursuance of a specific political agenda, the U. S. Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia (as they stood in 1861), and the facts of the case, would have dictated quite a different conclusion as a matter of law.
It therefore seems to me that the article should acknowledge that some authorities regard West Virginia as a Border State, but that its characterization as such is controversial, perhaps quoting the best scholarly arguments or evidence on either side; and everything else on West Virginia in the article should be deleted or moved to West Virginia in the American Civil War. Jdcrutch (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little more checking & several sources even list Virginia as a border state. They then quickly say it declared for the CSA, then that WV seceded from VA. Some sources even discuss Tennessee when discussing border states. I agree there is too much about WV in this article & that it needs to be pared down, but there was an adamant editor who kept adding more and more stuff. What was considered a border state was not constant, though it was more stable once WV became a state. I wonder when the term first appeared. I doubt it would have had much currency before Sumter, but its application could have changed weekly for a while after that


JimWae, the "adamant editor" who kept adding more stuff was Tom (North Shoreman). He is responsible for the ponderous length of the WV section. I stopped editing this page about 2 years ago, if not longer.Dubyavee (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AS I recall now, there were 2 adamant people who each seemed to want a different viewpoint on WV presented in its entirety in this single section --JimWae (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you go to the History of the page and find out who added the most verbiage to the page? I don't think you will find that it was me. Dubyavee (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has drifted quite far from the original topic, and should probably be split.

If I were a scholar, I would call Virginia a Border State, at least up until it seceded following Lincoln's call for troops for the invasion of the Confederate States. It is entirely incorrect, however, to assert that West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Sovereign states, having joined a union or federation, may secede from that organization, at least if they have not expressly disclaimed that right (although the members of the Union of Yugoslavia had ratified a constitution expressly prohibiting secession, and were still permitted, with the help of United States and NATO forces, to secede from that union). Counties are the creatures of the state to which they belong, and have no independent existence. They may rebel, but cannot secede. In the case of Virginia, a large section of its territory was seized by the United States army, and a puppet government established therein by military force, without a popular mandate--indeed, against the will of a probable majority of citizens. Only an apologist for the actions of the United States government could characterize that as "secession".

  • http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=36&subjectID=3, on a site entitled "Mr. Lincoln and Freedom", lists only Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri as Border States, though it quotes one historian as saying, "Against the President himself the Jacobins waxes [sic] similarly ferocious and abusive. They railed at Lincoln's tenderness towards the border states, though this policy had saved for the Union cause Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and nearly one third of Virginia." The page is full of typographical errors, and does not strike me as weighty authority in any case.
  • http://www.civilwarhome.com/borderstates.htm is a reasonable summary, but it cites only "Historical Times Encyclopedia Of The Civil War". It also gives us the naive statement that in Kentucky and Missouri, "Soldiers also policed the polls to protect loyal Unionists during wartime elections." If "protect" means "protect from secession", it's accurate.
  • http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/civilwar/section5.rhtml is also not a source. It is a set of crib notes for students, and cites no sources itself. It makes some insupportable assertions, such as, "The fact that these slave states [Delaware & Maryland] chose to remain in the Union also weakened the South’s claim that it had seceded to save its slavery-based economy. " Leaving aside the dubious assertion about the South's "claim", Delaware was a slaveholding state in little more than name (1,798 slaves in 1860), and Maryland did not choose.

Unlike the others, this page does at least recognize (but, again, without citing authority) the U. S. government's illegal actions in preventing the citizens of at least some Border States (particularly Maryland) from making a free choice between the U. S. and the C. S.:

Controversial Wartime Acts
During the war, Lincoln faced opposition and criticism from a variety of groups in the North. Peace Democrats accused him of starting an unjust war on one side, while Radical Republicans in his own party accused him of being too soft on the Confederacy on the other.
In addition, many criticized Lincoln for using unconstitutional powers to achieve his goals. To prevent an insurrection in Maryland, he arrested several proslavery leaders in the state, suspended the writ of habeas corpus (which requires police to inform suspects of the charges against them), and imprisoned them until the war was over. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney ruled that the suspension was illegal and unconstitutional, but Lincoln ignored him, believing that his actions had been necessary to prevent further rebellion.
Lincoln also illegally ordered a naval blockade of the South (which only Congress could do), illegally increased the size of the army (again, a power reserved only for Congress), and authorized illegal voting methods in the border states. Congress generally supported all of these decisions. Lincoln justified them by claiming that desperate times called for desperate measures and promised to obey the Constitution once the war was over.

The Wikipedia article is inappropriately demure about these crimes: "As a result of the Union Army's heavy presence in the state and the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln, several Maryland state legislators, as well as the mayor and police chief of Baltimore, who supported secession, were arrested and imprisoned by Union authorities." Given that the United States Supreme Court ruled Lincoln's unilateral suspension of habeas corpus illegal and unconstitutional (a decision Mr. Lincoln was pleased to ignore), the article's silence on that issue betrays a bias.--Jdcrutch (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost General[edit]

I can't believe it! In "Kentucky" Chapter we can read that the Kentucky legislature decided to: "invite Union General Robert Anderson to enroll volunteers to expel the Confederate forces...". As I know general Robert Anderson died in 1813! belissarius (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That other image[edit]

What happened to the SVG? I admit the value of the contemporary image, but the colored one was much better at showing where they lay, especially to someone who doesn't know a map of the US off the top of their head. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of WV section[edit]

West Virginia takes nearly half of the article. This needs to be split off & summarized here--JimWae (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it desperately needs editing for readability: "A secession movement began in western Virginia ... The western counties of Virginia rejected secession," describe two opposite things with the same word.
Also, in DELAWARE: "There was quiet sympathy for the Confederacy by some state leaders, but it was tempered by distance; Delaware was bordered by Union territory," makes a poor distinction. All Border States *bordered* Union lands; DE was *only* bordered by Union lands. Sadsaque (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White troops[edit]

In the lead, I have modified the assertion that all Southern states except South Carolina contributed troops to the Union war effort; what is meant is that the Union Army had organized bodies of white troops (regiments) from all these states. Certainly, there were individual soldiers (and sailors) from even South Carolina who fought for the Union. More importantly, black soldiers were organized into regiments in South Carolina, and I believe that they were the first to be so organized. The contributions of the First South Carolina Volunteers (colored) are recounted in the Official Records, series I, starting in volume 14. This point may be trivial for an article about the border states, but it has been too commonly overlooked for the war as a whole. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than making color the criterion, would it perhaps be better to refer to "organized troops"? I recognize that the First South Carolina Volunteers (Colored) and similar units were organized troops, but they were established by the occupying United States Army and, at least arguably, were not contributed by any State. (One could argue that the Maryland units, for example, in the Confederate States Army were not commissioned by the State of Maryland, but were simply organized unofficially by sympathetic communities; and that the South Carolinian "colored" troops were similar unofficial expressions of popular sentiment; but it seems to me that the agency of the U. S. Army in the latter case sets those units apart.) Jdcrutch (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Border State"?[edit]

The assertion, in the "POV Tag" thread, that West Virginia "fits the definition" sent me back to the article, to see just what "the definition" is. I was unable to locate one. The closest the article comes is its first sentence:

In the context of the American Civil War, the term border states refers to the five slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia, which bordered a free state and were aligned with the Union.

This is simply a list (whose proper contents are disputed elsewhere on this page), followed by a couple of assertions that might be taken as criteria, but hardly establish a definition. Rather than assert my own opinion as to what defines a "Border State", I'd like to suggest that some friends with the necessary time, energy, and library access collect instances of the term as used by the people who originated it, and by well-informed people in subsequent generations, and propose some definitions, supporting their proposals by quoting the instances they've collected.

I don't have the time, energy, or ready access to a good library necessary for the project I've proposed, but I can't resist suggesting the following for consideration, if it's found to be consistent with the results of research:

In the context of the American Civil War, the term "Border States" refers to the slaveholding States that lay on the border between North and South, and shared cultural features of, and affinities for, both sections. The term is universally held to include the States of Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. It is considered by some also to include one or more of the following: Delaware, a slaveholding State that did not border on any Northern State; West Virginia, a State created out of the territory of Virginia during the war, whose status as a separate State was bitterly contested during and immediately after the war, and whose territory did not become fixed until after any purported international border had ceased to exist[1]; and Oklahoma, then the Indian Territory, which permitted slavery and aligned itself with the Southern Confederacy during the war, but was not then recognized by either the United States or the Confederate States as a State.

Notes:

  • I would prefer "the American War of 1861", as being both accurate and non-partisan, unlike "Civil War", "War for Southern Independence", "War Between the States", and any other name I've seen proposed, but that's an entirely different discussion.
  • I suggest "slaveholding State", rather than "slave state", since the latter, while almost universally accepted, ought to refer to a state that stands in the relation of a slave to some other state, as East Germany to the USSR, Poland to Tsarist Russia, Manchukuo to Imperial Japan, or Judea to ancient Rome. (Compare client state, free state as in "Irish Free State", slave wheel, slave cylinder, etc.)
  • Although I don't recall ever having seen Virginia referred to as a Border State, it would fit the proposed definition. I speculate that it is seldom considered a Border State because of its importance to the Confederate States, and the location of the Confederate capital in Richmond. I would not be surprised, however, to find that, prior to its secession from the Union, Virginia was commonly considered to be, and referred to as, a Border State. If there is documentary support or a scholarly consensus for it, I would include Virginia in the list, perhaps with limiting text.
  • I would omit the reference to alignment with the Union, since only Delaware was unequivocally aligned with the Union. All the other Border States (leaving aside Oklahoma), no matter which we include on the list, were deeply divided over adherence to the Union or the Confederacy; and Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia were ostensibly represented in both governments.
  • Cultural affinity for both North and South seems to me to be an important criterion for defining a Border State, which should be mentioned at the outset. The category of Border States mattered in the first place because those States' many ties to both sections made for great uncertainty, early in the secession crisis, as to whether or not they would secede from the Union and attach themselves to the Confederacy.

References

  1. ^ Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870)
It appears I forgot to sign this posting when I wrote it, back in June of 2010. I wish somebody had responded to it, and still hope somebody will. I haven't checked the article to see if any of my suggestions have been adopted, but will do so when I have time.Jdcrutch (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Just some points of reference here - by the definition of 'a state that allowed slaves that bordered a state that did not' - Delaware fits the definition, contrary to the assertion made above, as it borders Pennsylvania. New Jersey is almost universally not described as a border state although it also fits that definition. (West) Virginia fits that definition as well, bordering Pennsylvania, but that depends on the status of slavery in West Virginia (beyond my knowledge) and when you consider it as fully emancipated from Virginia. Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri are clearly both border states as well by that definition. Eljamoquio (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware borders on Pennsylvania, which was a free state. Casu Marzu (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It was time to go"? Delaware "paralyzed"[edit]

1. "It was time to go"? Really? According to whom?

2. Delaware was not "paralyzed"--as the article states in the very next section, Delaware overwhelmingly voted against secession (the Delaware House was unanimous). If that's "paralysis" then every Union state was "paralyzed".

So what "accurate statements" are we trying to keep here? (And this article is not your personal property.) 184.36.79.144 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) according to the secessionists, of course, as the cited source explains in depth. 2) yes, dropped the Delaware bit. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina were not "border states" and are not the subject of this article. As it read, the paragraphs gives a couple of false impressions about the post-Sumter seceders: That they "they grew no cotton"--essentially true of the actual border states (with the nitpick that the "Missouri bootheel" was part of the cotton belt), and mostly true of Virginia; not true of Arkansas or North Carolina, which while not on the scale of Mississippi or Alabama were nonetheless cotton producers; and not true at all of West Tennesee, whose economy was Deep South. Second, if "border secessionists" include Virginians, Tennesseans, Arkansans and North Carolinians, then "border secessionists" were hardly unanimous in "paying little attention to the slavery issue"--for example, Isham Harris' message to the Tennessee legislature in January 1861 was as slavery-centric as anything produced in the "Deep South". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.79.144 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that misreads what happened. In March 1861 Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina were all border states--they were part of the USA and and each bordered on the Confederacy. The cotton issue was central to the seven states that had already succeeded, because they fervently believe that cotton was king, and would provide a very rich economic and diplomatic foundation for their new nation. Cotton was not nearly so important or dominant in the states that had not left. "It's time to go" was the argument of the secessionists who had an agreement with the unionists, to the effect that if Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy, their states could not tolerate it. Crofts makes all this clear. Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri were all slave states that bordered on free states. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your source (Croft) says Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina "grew no cotton"? That's clearly not true. Your source says the pro-secessionists in those states (and Virginia) were "paying little attention to the slavery issues"? Please provide some actual quotes from Croft to support this stuff, not just page numbers. 184.36.79.144 (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cotton was much more important in the Deep South, and these states were focused more on the coercion issue in 1861 than on slavery says Crofts.Rjensen (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final paragraph of Missouri section[edit]

The current final paragraph of the Missouri section is highly partisan and unclear. I haven't read the reference as yet (it is somewhat dated, so I don't own a copy), but I find the editor's assertions of what is said in that paragraph as highly dubious. The sentence, "Thereby, Missouri came under the control of the Union government" makes no sense whatsoever since the earlier highly partisan rendering refers to a specific region not the whole state. It's a real stretch to say the whole state came under control of the Union govt. by some action that happened in a few border counties...especially if that action occurred two years into the war.

I deleted the whole paragraph originally as it appeared too awful to salvage. It implies concentration camps for the general population, which didn't happen. It doesn't even state what it is referring to. I suspect that it is speaking of Order No. 11--which covered only 4 of the ~100 counties of the state and excluded the towns therein. And that order was in response to the Lawrence Massacre launched by Missouri guerrillas into Kansas, rather than control of Missouri proper.

If the editor wants to quote something from the Parrish reference to back the more extreme assertions made, have at it. The "free-fire zone" and the part about the camps is so dubious and non-encyclopedic as to warrant immediate removal. That doesn't leave much for the reference, but so be it.

There is plenty that could be added about the Union response to the general guerrilla activities and lawlessness that prevailed from the outset of the war. Part of that was the creation of the Home Guard, then the Missouri State Militia Cavalry, the Enrolled Missouri Militia, and the Provisional Enrolled Militia. But asserting that Federal authorities were wholesale putting secessionist civilians in concentration camps is an extreme opinion. There are examples of putting relations/families of guerrillas under guard (with some tragic consequences.) Red Harvest (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is too much detail and is better suited to the Missouri in the American Civil War article. The section on WV is also way too long--JimWae (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seems like every Missouri article of the period ends up with several references to the James brothers and/or Cole Younger despite them having little impact until AFTER the war. And now the part about "free fire zones", concentration camps, and "secret supply bases" is back. Plus the timeline is now reversed in the paragraph. And here is a surprise new addition: "To support Quantrill Confederate General Sterling Price raided Missouri with 12,000 men in September 1864." That's a new one. Not sure if it is the references or whatnot, but it is synthesizing a whole new version of history. Red Harvest (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the free fire zones are important; the postwar impact is important. Price's raid is important--all of this is standard material--all covered in standard state histories and is fully sourced here. it's a puzzle why Red Harvest is so upset at. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little of this is "standard material" as best I can tell. Standard material discusses the back and forth border raiding that had been going on since the mid-1850's. (The long border conflict with Kansas was at the core of Order No. 11.) Standard material points out that the various militia organizations were supposed to suppress the guerrillas as well as oppose raids. It's not hard to find highly biased sources though...or highly biased interpretations of sources. Are you seriously going to tell me that the Price Raid was all about Quantrill? Where were these concentration camps for civilians of the state? There were definitely civilians held for various causes such as supporting guerrillas and particularly the relatives of some notorious types, but the implied concentration camps for secessionist civilians is going to require some serious documentation. Red Harvest (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of historians use the concentration camp analogy--as did Harry Truman (his grandparents were rounded up and sent to one in Kansas City), but to oblige Red Harvest I dropped it. Price did coordinate his raid with the guerrillas (see Parrish p 11-12 for details) and expected the guerrilla raids would help recruiting or even cause n uprising (Fellman p 62, 108, 175). I added more details and cites. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinating is nothing like doing it for the guerrillas, which is the preposterous claim you made--talk about the tail wagging the dog, the guerrillas were supporting the raid not the other way around. The Quantrill stuff in Kentucky is entirely outside the scope of this section. I'll have to check on the number displaced, but 20,000 sounds like a vast exaggeration considering the population centers were excluded from the order and two years of guerrilla warfare had already displaced many and destroyed many homes. You'll need a strong citation for the number. And unlike what you wrote in your original passage the evacuation order was indiscriminant as to loyalties. The "secret bases" "free fire zone" sentence reads as non-encylopedic/sophomoric, regardless of the reference. Along with that the paragraph is still chronologically fouled up with the first dated event at the end, destroying context. The actual Union actions prior to Order No. 11 to combat Confederate sponsored depredations in the state are not even mentioned, nor is the longstanding border war. The result is that the edits read as thinly veiled Confederate guerrilla apologia based around a single event. Unfortunately, the article still reads better and is more accurate without this section than with it. Red Harvest (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red Harvest has not read the scholarly sources and seems unfamiliar with what happened in Missouri. the "20,000", "free fire" and "no secret bases" are in the sources cited [and other sources like Connelly 2006 p77; Sheehan-Dean - 2007 p 137; Banasik - 2003 p 109; Mark Moyar - 2009 p 23; Glatthaar ("Union authorities hoped to deprive guerrillas of local support and establish free-fire zones in the area" p 27); Lawrence O. Christensen - 1999 ("Ewing, aware that the guerrillas depended on friends and relatives for information, shelter, and supplies" p 10); Diane Mutti Burke - 2010 ("He reasoned that the only way to stop the violence was to root out the guerrillas' supporters and supply lines. ... but mostly because of his concerns about civilians' support for guerrillas" p. 278); William Connelley - 1909 ("the safe hiding-places of the guerrillas to report and deliver supplies." p300. Alas, his insulting language ("preposterous" "sophomoric") degrades the talk page and casts doubt on his ability to function in the team effort that builds Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read enough sources on the subject to know when an editor is strongly pushing their own POV and has many of their "facts" wrong. I'm also aware of the aims (and failures) of what Ewing sought to do. Considering how many times in the last few hours you've had to reverse your own assertions unbacked by the references you initially had, the record speaks for itself. The language and structure you have employed for your edits today have not been even close to neutral. When someone is alerted to the problems in their edits being non-encyclopedic and disjointed/illogical/non-chronolical and instead of removing/fixing them AMPLIFIES them it is indeed sophomoric. And here we are with many of the same problems still remaining. Red Harvest (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red Harvest has "read enough" -- well let him tell some of the sources he's actually relying on. As for "neutral" --that's a Red Herring. the Wiki rule is that they should reflect the Reliable Sources, of which I have cited a dozen or more for this short segment Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is no red herring, your citation of sources so far does not reflect what you have written in the article (synthesis is the wiki term for this I believe.) Some of it has been outright erroneous, some of it is phrasing. You are constructing a narrative with POV wording rather than presenting things in a logical timeline or even attempting to be neutral. Make excuses as you will, insult me as you like, but what you are doing is transparent to this editor. Red Harvest (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red Harvest talks historiography--but that assumes he's knowledgeable about the reliable sources. I challenge that. His mystery sources, he believes, are correct and unbiased. Well that's nice but he refuses to name them, and has admitted he is unfamiliar with such basic books as Parrish History of Missouri 1860-1875. 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, more personal attacks and diversion rather than focusing on fixing the noted problems. No mystery sources here, but since you have so much interest in me rather than the problems I've detailed: I try to stick more to the timelines and more to battles and such rather than the emotional side of it--which is why I object heavily when an editor butchers the timeline to push POV. Rather than general historical accounts, my focus has been early war actions with preferred sources being the Official Records, census records, and first hand accounts from both sides where possible (includes Snead, Mudd, Reynolds, Edwards, other Confederates.) I tend to insert more of the text of the orders, bills and such when I'm actually editing. Doing so tends to eliminate much of the subjective drift that otherwise dominates wiki articles (which too often read like one of Jerry Ponder's imaginative tirades.) I read some of the more highly regarded biographies and battle or campaign accounts as I have time, and reference works like Allardice, McGhee, Warner, Bartels, etc. Nichols' guerrilla warfare books are pretty good because they tend toward a more encyclopedic chronological collection and limited analysis of the many anecdotes. I poke through the various MHR articles where relevant and read county histories surrounding events where possible. All of the authors and primary sources have their own biases...and make outright errors. I don't claim to be unbiased or not to have a POV, but I try to keep it in check when editing. Red Harvest (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red Harvest claims he relies on his original research in the primary sources. Well that's illegal for Wikipedia, of course and is a sure formula for POV. He's slightly better off with all those popular books he reads on Confederates heroes, but modern scholarship seems to have escaped his notice. Sigh. Well at least he has kept his opinions to the talk page and has not made any effort to actually write text for the article. Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not. Quit outright lying and fabricating. It is not original research to reference and quote primary sources, particularly in disputes where the text is relevant, and when wild claims are made and where their use is limited to timelines and specifics. (If you focused less on trying to put your personal interprative spin on secondary references this would be apparent.) I've not been editing the page in the past hours so as not to commit a 3 revert infraction. I have attempted to get you to correct the glaring errors, inflammatory/juvenile wording, extraneous information, and chronological muddle of your own creation. I admit finding it impossible to reconcile your claimed reliance on scholarly sources with the incoherent grade school level construction of the paragraph thus far, and whem I deleted the paragraph I mistakenly assumed it was the clumsy uninformed work of a juvenile with an anonymous IP, rather than that of an experienced editor. As it is, this conversation has not proven constructive, so I will discontinue participation in it with you. Red Harvest (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Border states which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article must firmly state that these states were in the Union - at the top[edit]

These states were not brake-away states and controlled from Washington. There were no different to other union states. They were NOT braking away.2.220.209.143 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Confusion[edit]

The last word in the second sentence -- "it" -- what is it's antecedent? Opposed to what? Not clear!

"In the border states there was widespread concern with military coercion of the Confederacy. Many if not a majority were definitely opposed to it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.51.226 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Border states (American Civil War). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing flagged problem[edit]

The "Further reading" section has been flagged since October 2016 that it may "may contain inappropriate or excessive suggestions that may not follow Wikipedia's guidelines." Upon review, with a goal to facilitate removal of any maintenance tags and templates from this B-class article, the tag was valid.
This is an article collectively about border states (in the American Civil War) and each state is represented has a main article. The "Further reading" and "See also" sections were not meant to be dumping grounds or advertising sections for books or non-specifically relevant links. Of the Twenty-four entries many might possibly be better suited in the appropriate main articles, as not specifically relevant to the subject.
I have removed the majority (all but two), that includes state specific entries and those related to Guerrilla warfare or conflicts. This allows the removal of the tag. A discussion may deem some of the others might be relevant or closely enough related to the article for inclusion. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The role of bibliography is to help readers do further reading --for example students doing class papers in online courses where they lack access to campus major libraries. (Very common this year because of covid19 closures) Readers of the article interested in the problem of the Border States--that is the title--will be served by a basic bibliography that allows them to quickly look at any one of the border states. That way they can compare and ask further questions about topics such as race, slavery, loyalty, disloyalty, guerrillas, and national politics. More in-depth info on each individual state is available in the state articles. Of special help is the listing of links where any reader can immediately read many of these titles. There is no "advertising" going on here and no "dumping." All the items have scholarly credentials. Rjensen (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Otr500 for your response to the tag. I have migrated more "further reading" sources which were state-specific to the appropriate "X in the ACW" article. There's zero reason to have those sources here and NOT there. I tend to agree with Otr500 these sections are somewhat bloated. This section has been appropriately pruned. Nothing has been removed, just migrated. BusterD (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that as a rule, having too many sources in such a section is a vastly superior position than having far too few. This allows anyone with an interest but not much familiarity with sources to jump right in and help. Since Dr. Jensen's specialty is sourcing and familiarity with sourcing, I believe it would be a poor idea to remove sources merely because there are many good ones. BusterD (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, collaboration can make improvements. There is no doubt that appropriate publications and navigational links can be valuable. There is also no doubt that through our system of incremental editing, sections can grow beyond what is actually needed, and sometimes a review is necessary, especially if questioned by a tag. Apparently not a lot of editors work in the area of maintenance of appendices. As for the length of the section (has it grown to provide too much detail) it is a good idea to make a determination as to how relevant a publication or link is to the subject, does it wander off topic, and if so could it be better present somewhere else? I do not generally get involved unless there are more than a dozen, I see clearly one or more does not seem closely related, and/or there is a tag. I also look on the talk page to see if there has been a discussion. If 24 links are all appropriate, and there has been some sort of discussion, then I move on.
Per BusterD those "sources" migrated to the appropriate articles are not removed just place where they are more relevant. Anyone wishing to delve more deeper into certain areas can follow the main links that would be following the thought of "where would a reader want to go next". Added links that are so remotely (or vaguely) connected can cause a reader to wander,
In my opinion the section now more closely follows MOS:SEEALSO, with less links, and the long term tag is gone. In the future I will also attempt to inquire if some annotations can be supplied when direct relevance is not clear. Although not used often maybe splitting large sections into a "Related topics" subsection would provide a better look. I haven't looked into this so it is just a thought. Reviewing and tag removal also moves a B-class article in a direction appropriate for possible "Good article review". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section[edit]

It seems there are links that may not be appropriate for this article like Constitutional Union Party (United States). Others need to be examined. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Border_states_(American_Civil_War)&oldid=1198706123"