Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were considered Border States.
WVA didn't exist when the war broke out. They were not considered Northern but were Loyal. You are correct that it took some time before Freedom was legalized there.
Funny but I learned exactly that in the public schools.
Grant's slave owning "history" has been widely discussed on other threads and there is no evidence he ever purchased a slave. His wife's estate does not change that.
Border states simply refers to geography. For purposes of this discussion the relevant point, is was the state in the Union or in the Confederacy. For that matter, any territory under union control that allowed slavery during and after the war makes the same point. To say The "North" didn't allow slavery during or after the war, only the "Border states" did suggests you believe that there were three political entities at the time. The North, the South and the Border. Of course, you'll probably fall back on the it was okay to reward loyal border states with the right to own slaves. As ridiculous as that position would be, it would also ignore the fact that the emancipation proclemation left slavery legal in large portions of the south that were under union control in 1863.
As far as Grant owning slaves. The slave that grant freed in 1859 can be named, so we know he owned them. But for you to suggests that Grant's wife in 1860 America could own and manage a number of slaves without that ownership in anyway being imputed to grant is as absurd as Kerry saying, "I don't own SUV's my family does."