Many of New Jersey's historians attribute Abraham Lincoln's loss in the 1860 presidential election in the state, and by inference his loss again in 1864, to calling it a "border state." While no acceptable definition surfaced, other than distinguishing New Jersey from "border slave states" (i.e., Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware), these historians relied on core reasons, such as geographic location and economic, social, familial, educational and recreational relationships with the South, to support their designation and to further explain it as pro-South and pro-slavery. These historians failed to examine the state's historic growth and development as two separate colonies and later as a united one, its small colony/small state reliance on local control, its subordination to two dynamic cities, its self-defensiveness in protecting civilian and property rights as well as sovereignty, and the impact or challenges of the federal government's actions during the Civil War. My thesis calls into question the core reasons these historians previously offered and provides a new interpretation of the 1860 and 1864 elections....

My state-based study further reflects [Daniel] Sutherland's proposal that a "new direction for Civil War history" is necessary and that it should be directed "toward local history and a reconstruction of the stories of individual communities and their inhabitants." Sutherland believes that "[o]nly by concentrating on a limited geopgraphic area can one hope to come to grips with the diversity and reality of war." "Localism" thus becomes a useful lens for interpreting two elections and re-examining New Jersey's wartime relationships with the federal government. It also encouranges further discussion of "what kind of nation" the United States would become after 1865....

My thesis' strategy is to refute the designation and presumption of a pro-South and pro-slavery position for New Jersey, and to elevate the state's mentalité as a primary and ignored factor in interpreting its conduct before and during the Civil War. It is divided into five chapters. The first challenges the "border state" designation and core reasons advanced by historians, including it being pro-South, previously offered by historians. Because some believe that the state was also pro-slavery, I discuss slavery, its territorial expansion, and Negrophobia at mid-century in terms of refutation. Chapter II focuses on a New Jersey mentalité, a mindset which underscored and guided the reactions of New Jerseyeans to the federal government and its conduct of the war and especially contributed to the results of two presidential elections. A review of two hundred years of history and state development advances understanding of this mentalité. Chapter III examines three major actions by the federal government which influenced New Jersey's reactions: the suspension of habeas corpus and arrest of New Jerseyeans, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the direct challenge to state sovereignty over the Camden & Amboy Railroad. The 1863 "Peace Resolutions" is discussed as a reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery and racism are again discussed specifically focused on emancipation. Chapter IV examines the state's refusal to allow out-of-state voting by New Jerseyeans in the military, McClellan as a "favorite son," the 1864 overall election, and voting patterns in the state. My conclusion brings research and evaluation together. Overall, my thesis' intent is to refute the historic designation of New Jersey as a "border state" in reference to the elections of 1860 and 1864 and to advance a new interpretation for the state's votes.