Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)—Preceding undated comment added at 04:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 but with less capital from industrial tycoons. Both were violent. Both were out to win the state. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources state that the votes were from people from outside of the state stuffing the ballot boxes. If you have independent reliable sources saying this was somehow legal, please present them here for discussion.
Yes, those who favor slavery may argue that it was all a matter of who settled the state (while also arguing that people who lived in another state had the right to vote there...somehow). Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. The sources we have in this article do not have much to say in favor of the pro-slavery side. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
198.14.245.202 -- Those who did not want slavery in Kansas "won" in the sense of attracting more settlers eligible to vote to the territory who were of their opinion, while those who wanted slavery in the territory were willing to indulge in quite a bit of fraud, violence, and legal skullduggery to get around this. When names copied from a Cincinnati city directory (i.e. phone-book equivalent before telephones) were listed as having cast pro-slavery votes in the Oxford and McGee precinct voting results, that's fraud by any definition... AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021

The problem with this article is not that it says that one side cheated or the other. (Both sides were trying to kill each other, which isn't legal in any state!) The problem with this article is it uses Northern pejorative terms to talk about a group of Southerners. "Ruffian" is a pejorative. If the Kansas Southerners adopted the name for themselves, it would be acceptable, but no one has claimed they did--let alone sourced their claim. We can have a page for the "No-Nothing Party," because that's what they called themselves, but it's inappropriate to have a page titled the "Moron Party," because that wasn't their name. "Border Ruffians" wasn't their name. Either this page needs to be retitled, or, if there is no known name for this group, then any usable content should be merged into the Bleeding Kansas, and this page replaced with a redirect. Stuart Strahl (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was the "Know-Nothing party" (not "No-Nothing"), and when they were listed on ballots, it was usually as the "American Party". Second, many groups throughout history have been labelled by their opponents: The Quakers called themselves "Friends", and both "Whig" and "Tory" as the names of British political parties/factions were originally derogatory and insulting terms. It's Wikipedia polcicy to use the currently most-accepted name (see WP:COMMONNAME), not to try to right historical wrongs. Third, pages about verifiably notable entities are rarely deleted just because of disputes about the title. Anyway, that would just transfer a dispute about using the word "ruffian" in the title of this article to a dispute about using the word "ruffian" in the section header of the other article, which hardly seems like a worthwhile goal. And lastly, people on both sides in the "Bleeding Kansas" struggle comitted crimes -- but after the very early stages in the conflict, the free-state side had a majority of bona-fide settlers who were qualified to vote, while many of the slave-state supporters were willing to descend to almost any moral depths to try to overcome the fact that only a minority of qualified voters supported slavery... AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers mentioning border ruffians

A search in newspapers.com (to which I have access through the Wikipedia Library) for the term "border ruffians" (in quotes) for the period 1850-1861 reveals:

  • 160 uses by Missouri newspapers - the first 20 had no capitals on either word, at which point I stopped counting. Counting backwards from the other end, there were 9 Border Ruffian, 1 Border ruffian, and 9 border ruffian.
  • 452 by newspapers in England. Limiting it to 1861, there were 6 Border Ruffians, 2 Border ruffian, and 19 border ruffian.
  • 1,217 uses by Kansas newspapers. In 1855, 36 border ruffians, 1 border Ruffians, 1 Border ruffians, and 13 Border Ruffians
  • 11,995 in United States

The Gazette of Montreal of June 11, 1857, published "Song of the border ruffian" (all caps), 32 verses, which begins:

"Free society! We sicken at the name." —Alabama newspaper
America the land of Liberty?
I tell you what!—I'll put a chunk of lead
Inside your brain if you say that to me....

Not only niggers, but them darn mean whites
To servitude, who stoops [sic] themselves to lower,
Mind! or I'll drive a peephole through your lights.

Whole poem: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/83540941/song-of-the-border-ruffian/ deisenbe (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was easy to find the "Alabama newspaper": it was the Tuskegee Republican, Oct 9 1856. deisenbe (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Border Ruffian → Border ruffian – Not a proper name, usage at the time. See usage in newspapers just above.deisenbe (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

necessity of including capitalization in the introduction

Hello,

I'm new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm not really sure how things go here, but the mention of the capitalization rules for border ruffian seems entirely unnecessary. Why should it be there? Wouldn't it be better fit in the origin section?

Cahmad25 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)cahmad25[reply]

I removed this text from the article:
In Kansapedia, published by the Kansas Historical Society, and in the Missouri Encyclopedia, published by the State Historical Society of Missouri, "border ruffians" is never capitalized.
deisenbe (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Border_ruffian