Talk:Border states (Civil War)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Arizona Territory secession

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and WHEREAS, Arizona naturally belongs to the Confederate States of America (who have rightfully and lawfully withdrawn from said league), both geographically and politically, by ties of a common interest and a common cause; and WHEREAS we, the citizens of that part of New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

[edit] Border States

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)

[edit] Md VA?

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!

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.

[edit] West Virginia

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)

[edit] West Virginia POV tag

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)

    • "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)

  • 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)
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)
    • 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)

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)
    • 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)
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)
    • 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)

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)

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)

    • 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)
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)