Talk:Border states (American Civil War)

message: 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identity; and WHEREAS, Arizona naturally belongs to the Confederate States of America (who have rightfully and lawfully withdrawn from said league), both geographically and politically, by ties of a common interest and a common cause; and WHEREAS we, the citizens of that part of New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)
thread_title: Arizona Territory secession

message: 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)
thread_title:  Border States 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Md VA? 

message: 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)
thread_title: West Virginia

message: 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)
thread_title: Ghost General

message: 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)
thread_title:  That other image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: White troops

message: 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 Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870); 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.
::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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  What is a "Border State"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "It was time to go"? Delaware "paralyzed" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Final paragraph of Missouri section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title: The article must firmly state that these states were in the Union - at the top

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammatical Confusion 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008170544/http://www.wvculture.org/history/thisdayinwvhistory/0203.html to http://www.wvculture.org/history/thisdayinwvhistory/0203.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111110628/http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html to http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "See also" section