Talk:Border ruffian

Merge with Bushwhacker

This article seems redundant of the longer article entitled Bushwhacker. If nobody objects within the next couple of weeks, I am going to merge and make this a redirect. Let me know if anyone has thoughts. Kgwo1972 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so -- "Border Ruffian" really primarily refers to the pre-Civil-War bleeding Kansas times, while Bushwacker doesn't seem to... AnonMoos 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. I have amended the articles to make the distinction clear. Kgwo1972 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a neutral term?

"Border Ruffian" sounds pejorative and inconsistent with Wikipedia neutrality. Does anyone know what these people called themselves? This term was used by the Abolitionists. If the Pro-slavery people adopted the name, that should be noted. If not, we need their name for themselves. Stuart Strahl (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is yes. I have done much research into the Kansas territorial era. Those settlers who came from the nation's North called themselves northerners or free-staters. A few, but not all, called themselves abolitionists. Those from the South called themselves southerners. I found no case where any of them called themselves border ruffians or proslavers. They were called this by the northerners and these terms were considered insults by the southern settlers. Those writing about Kansas history continued using these biased terms until about the end of the 20th century. I prefer to call a group of people what they called themselves. It's okay to say the northern settlers used these terms, but it has never been okay for historians to continue calling anyone by terms they dislike. Bill Pollard (talk)
• The best solution for this article is to pretty much start over. This article should explain why these terms were used and by whom they were used. To write historical articles where these terms are loosely thrown around is very misleading. Bill Pollard (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous source material

Five cites in the article are sourced to one article appearing on a web site that does not attribute authorship to the article cited. The most controversial claim is that Border Ruffians objected to free blacks living nearby. Ascribing racist attitudes that sound more like complaints of whites in 1960s Boston to Border Ruffians in the 1850s should have better sourcing.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h84.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:C000:540:38EE:A386:DB99:81D2 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent

1. The article states that Missourians were voting illegally, yet doesn't offer an explanation or outline as to what the stipulations for voting were.

2. It also seems incredibly biased in favor of the northern narrative. Cities like Lawrence and Manhatten were "settled" by a New England society that came soley for the purpose of voting. This of course spoke to their own self-interest i.e. By making it a free state it would allow them to expand their power by building mills in Kansas and potentially voting in their own people. The southerners were attempting to do the exact same thing, yet the article seems to take a moral stance on the issue of slavery which was very legal back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)