The Turner Thesis: A Historian's Controversy
Author(s): J. A. Burkhart
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Sep., 1947), pp. 70-83
Published by: Wisconsin Historical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4631887 .
Accessed: 13/04/2012 00:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wisconsin Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Wisconsin Magazine of History.
http://www.jstor.org
The TurnerThesis: A Historian's
Controversy
By J. A. BURKHART
heard
HistoricalAssociation
of the American
1893MEMBERS
FrederickJacksonTurnerread a paper entitled "The Significance of the Frontierin AmericanHistory." The paper had
perhapsmore profoundinfluencethan any other essay or volume
ever writtenin Americanhistoriography.Yet more amazingthan
the influenceof this paperwas Turner'sability,living in the period
about which he was writing, to discernthe effect of his era on
Americanhistory. As part of the drift, Turnerwas able to chart
the courseof the passingcurrentsof Americanlife.
According to the Turner thesis, the American frontier has
presenteda series of recurringsocial revolutionsin differentand
changing geographicalareas as the tide of empire moved forwardto win a continentfrom a raw and hostile wilderness.'With
constantre-exposureto relentlesssurroundings,reestablishingand
readjustingan old way of life, and creatinga processof "starting again from scratch"and workingto a more advancedsociety,
there resultedthat indefinablesomething which has been called
Americanization.Its fundamentalsign was expansion; its chief
conditionwas constantreadjustment;its final result was AmeriIN
canization.'
PROFESSOR
J. A. BURKHARTis a member of the history faculty of
Stephens College, Columbia, Missouri. In this paper he brings together
the historians' "pros and cons" of the Turner frontier thesis. He concludes the controversy over Turner with the solution that is advanced
by Professor John Hicks in his "The 'Ecology' of Middle-Western
Historians," in the Wisconsin Magazine of History, 24:348 (June, 1941).
Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York, 1921), 2.
A number of excellent analyses and evaluations of the Turner thesis have been made.
Among the most significant are the following: Avery 0. Craven, "Frederick Jackson
Turner," in The Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography (Chicago,
1937), 252-70; Joseph Schafer, "Turner's Frontier Philosophy," Wisconsin Magazine
of History, 16:451-69 (June, 1933); and Frederic L. Paxson, "A Generation of the
(March, 1933).
Frontier Hypothesis," Pacific Valley Historical Review, 2:34-51
2
70
THE
TURNER
THESIS
71
Because the place where the most rapid change from the complex
to the primitive occurred was on the outer fringe of the westward advance, Turner called this area "the frontier." Of great
importance was that it lay "at the hither edge of free land."
Turner observed its influence on the frontiersman:
The wildernessmastersthe colonist. It finds him a Europeanin dress,
industries, tools, modes of travel and thought.... Little by little he
transforms the wilderness. But the outcome is not the old Europe....
The fact is that here is a new productthat is American.... Thus the advance of the frontierhas meant a steadymovementaway from Europe,
a steadygrowthof independenceon Americanlines. And to studythis advance,the men who grewup in theseconditions,and the political,economic
and socialeffectsof it, is to studythe reallyAmericanpartof our history.3
However, the word frontier is a study in sematics itself. Turner
used it to denote many stages of the process. His writings describe
various stages and gradations of its development. Turner has
written of an Indian, hunter, trapper, and explorer stage; a
squatter phase; an Indian removal step; and finally the advance
of the Anglo-American settlement, the small farmer and settler,
followed by capital and large scale enterprise.4
The result of this frontier process was a social devolution and
evolution caused by the reversion of an advanced society to a
simple and primitive culture and back again to a complex way
of life. The slow climb back to complexity was not unlike that
which mankind had experienced in the long march of civilization.
The frontier process, however, was in a condensed state and proceeded at a much more rapid rate.
Just as significant as the social evolution were the effects which
this experience had on men, society, and institutions. The social
and the cultural luggage carried by the settler in his journey westward were not thrown overboard, but new institutions and attitudes
flavored by the frontier were invariably produced. Thus every
frontier created many changes in the character of men and
institutions.
Turner, after discussing the frontier process, stated that the
frontier promoted the formation of a composite nationality. As
8
The Frontier in American History, 4-5.
4 Ibid., 11-22.
72
J.
A. BURKHART
[September
the population moved westward, dependence upon Europe wa3
ended and independence was begun. The European was Americanized. Pride in one's country and confidence in its future were
encouraged. Frontier problems became national problems when
men on the frontier called upon the government to do things for
them. Local questions often became matters of national concern
because of political exigencies or population mobility. "The
economic and social characteristicsof the frontier worked against
sectionalism" and "the mobility of population [was] death to
localism." 5
Perhaps the most dramatic and pertinent element in the frontier was its democratizing influence. Turner assumed that democracy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries meant an increase
in individualism, an expansion of voting rights, and a greater
participation of the common man in the affairs of the state. Many
times the word was used very loosely. At times Turner discussed
democracy in reference to a frontier society in which the individual had relative social and economic equality; at other times
he used the word to describe the broadening of the franchise
and the increased participation of the individual in self-government or representative government.6
Working hand in glove with the democratizing influence, was
the frontier stimulation of equality. The simplicity of society and
the economic opportunity promoted by the presence of unoccupied
land and unexploited natural resources generated an equality
centered around competitive individualism. Equality, individualism, and democracy were all essential ingredients in the melting
pot of the frontier. Sometimes this equality meant little more
than the equal right to become unequal, together with the right
to protest, complain, exploit, and grumble. In any event, the
leveling influence, the eroding effect, and the worshipping of
achievement all contributed to making the " Horatio Alger hero"
a national model. Turner with his characteristic insight noted
these conditions:
It was not only a society in which the love of equality was prominent:
it was also a competitive society. To its socialist critics it seemed not
5Ibid., 30.
Ibid., 3 0-3 1.
1947)
THE
TURNER
73
THESIS
so much a democracyas a societywhose memberswere "expectantcapitalists."... It was based upon the idea of the fair chance for all men,
not on the conceptionof leveling by arbitrarymethods and especially
by law.7
Finally, according to Turner, the frontier tended to change
the character, qualities, and attitudes of the men and of the
societies which they created. Western society had distinctive
flavors. It had a psychosis conditioned and patterned by the forces
which gave it birth:
The West, at the bottom,is a form of society,ratherthan an area. It is
the term applied to the region whose social conditionsresult from the
applicationof older institutionsand ideas to the transforminginfluences
of free land. By this applicationa new environmentis suddenlyentered,
freedomof opportunityis opened,the cake of customis broken,and new
activities,new lines of growth, new institutionsand ideals, are brought
into existence.8
In like manner the West tended to develop specific qualities
and characteristics in the men themselves. Some of the more
prominent traits were:
That coarsenessand strengthcombinedwith acutenessand inquisitiveness;
that practical,inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients;that
masterfulgrasp of materialthings, lacking in the artisticbut powerful
to effectgreatends;that restless,nervousenergy,that dominantindividualism, working for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancyand
exuberancewhich comes with freedom-these are traits of the frontier,
or traitscalled out elsewherebecauseof the existenceof the frontier.9
The Turner thesis, expanded, interpreted, and circulated by his
many followers, was accepted almost without reservation or
criticism for more than a generation. Part of this was due, of
course, to the merit of Turner's writing, and part of it was due
to the tremendous personality of Turner himself. Even today
any critical discussion of Turner in many quarters finds the air
filled with pride and prejudice. However, in 1926 John Almack
launched an indictment of many of the ideas which had been
given respectability through their association with the frontier
thesis.10 While Almack's article was overcrowded with details,
it did clear the air and open the door for re-evaluation of much
8
Turner, The United States, 1830-1850
Frontier in American History, 205.
(New York, 1935),
20.
9 lbid., 37.
10 John C. Almack, " The Shibboleth of the Frontier," Historical Outlook, 16:197-202
(May, 1925).
74
J.
A. BURKHART
[September
that had previouslybeen written. A great deal of the evidenceadvanced in this article discountingthe influence and importance
of the frontierseems on second sight to be simply window dressing. For example, in the statisticalcomparisonbetween the accomplishmentsof frontier and non-frontierareas in regard to
general culture, education, land values, physical well being,
national leaders,and so on, one wondersif Almack was not discussing foregoneconclusions.11
Yet the article contained much honest and sound argument.
Almack rendersa real service in pointing out that the frontier
was not the spearheadbehindmany governmentalreforms. Such
importantinnovationsas equal suffrage,free tax supportedschools,
direct legislation,civil service reform, primarynominations,and
the recall owed their acceptancemore to labor forces than to the
frontier process.2 Continuing this line of attack, Almack observedthat imitationand not inventionwas the rule when many
of the frontier states drew up their constitutions.13To be fair,
however,he should have pointed out that the frontiersmandid
not have time to devote to such seemingly unimportantmatters
as government. Making a living was a full-time job on the
frontier,and any techniquewhich would save time found wide
acceptance.
Almack's attempt to compare present-dayfrontier areas with
urban sectionshardly raises itself to the dignity of an argument.
Taking Paxson'sdefinitionthat the frontier area consists of between two and six personsper squaremile, Almack observesthat
today we have many sectionswhich would qualify as the frontier
under such a definition. Further,such sections are among the
most retardedin the nation. Speakingof the southernmountain
region he states: "They are museumsin which have been preserved the log cabins, wooden plows, the sickle, the shuck
mattresses,homemadesoap, the language of 1650, the muzzle14
loading rifle, and 'resentmentagainstgovernmentrestrictions.'"
While such illustrationsare colorful,Almack mistakesruralism
1 Ibid., 199.
21bid.
13
14
Ibid.
Ibid.
1947]
THE
TURNER
75
THESIS
for the frontierand neglects the most vital element, the significance of the frontieras a process.
In summary,Almack, while leveling a sixteen-inchgun at the
frontier,generally hits his target with the explosive power of a
pea shooter. His main contributionswere: (1) opening up the
field for further investigation;(2) calling attention to the telling truth that American history was not shaped by any one
factor but many; (3) pointing out that the Americanfrontier
was not unique. Othercountries,notablyRussia,have had frontiers.
Following Almack'sroundof fire, there seemed to be an open
season on the Turner thesis. During the thirtiesa good deal of
criticismappearedin various books and periodicals. A constant
source of attack was against the uncriticalassumptionthat the
words"frontier" and "democracy"were synonymous.Even some
of the orthodox Turner students turned their guns against such
obvious fallacies. As Avery Craven pointed out, freedom and
equality on the frontier were sometimes little more than fine
soundingwords. Freedomwas often only a physical freedom;it
rarely meant freedom to think and to act differentlyfrom the
group. Freedomwas at times only the liberty to do the things
which everyoneelse did."5
Similarly,equality often meant nothing more than dragging
the higher down to the level of the lower, a leveling force which
poundedmen into a commonpattern. Conformityand uniformity
were demandedby the group for its own protection. Individualism on the frontier, according to Carl Becker, was "that of
achievementnot of eccentricity;of conformitynot of revolt."116
In addition,the frontierencouragedwaste and the exploitation
of natural resources,moral and political irresponsibility,and
occasionallya great deal of social injustice. Craven concludes
that many times democracyon the frontier meant little more
than a simple fluid society and economicopportunity.However,
he quicklypoints out that alwaysthe flavorwas democratic,even
though the practicewas not.17
15 Craven, Democracy in American Life (Chicago, 1941),
'I Quoted by Craven, ibid., 47.
17 Ibid., 46.
50.
76
J.
A.
BURKHART
[September
In fairnessto Turner,however,it should be made crystalclear
that many of the ideas implicit in a liberal twentieth century
conceptof democracywere not appliedby Turnerto the frontier.
One should not try to read 1946 into 1800 or even 1893. The
philosophy of democracyheld by Turner's g,enerationwas in
many respects quite close to the political and social situations
promptedby the frontier.
Shifting the question from whether the institutions on the
Americanfrontierwere democraticto whetherthe frontiercreated
Americandemocracy,provides a fertile field for critical investigation. A strong criticismof the thesis is made on the grounds
that it credits no other force, other than the frontier, for the
promotion of American democraticinstitutions."8Turner himself contributedto this impressionby such statements as the
" forest philosophyis the philosophyof Americandemocracy."19
In anotherplace Turnerwrote: "Americandemocracywas born
of no theorist'sdream,it was not carriedin the 'Susan Constant'
to Virginia, nor in the 'Mayflower' to Plymouth. It came out
of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time
20
it toucheda new frontier."
Such an interpretation,if followed blindly,ignoresthe elimination of feudalismin England,the developmentof representative
governmentin Parliament,and does not considerthe liberalizing
and democratizingforce of the ProtestantRevolt.21 It does not
accountfor the seignorialsystem in Canadawhich outlastedand
was at times more restrictivethan the contemporaryfeudalism
of France. The frontierthesis does not explain why the government and society of the Dutch colonies were less liberal and
democraticthan those of their English neighbors.22In short, attributing the growth and development of American democracy
to the frontieralone neglects to evaluateproperlythe importance
" American Democracy and the Frontier," Yale Review,
18 Benjamin Wrlight, Jr.,
n.s., 20:349-65 (December, 1930).
"IFrontier in American History, 207.
20 Ibid., 293.
21 Wright, "American Democracy ...,"
351.
22 Ibid., 355.
19473
THE
TURNER
THESIS
77
of our institutionaldevelopmentas an outgrowthof the evolution of Western civilization.23
Part and parcel of the Turner thesis was the idea that the
frontierservedas a safety valve for the restless,the discontented,
and the unemployed. This concept was taken at its face value
and was not questioned for years. However, in 1935, Carter
Goodrich and Sol Davison, writing on "The Wage-Earnerin
the Westward Movement,"disputed the presence of any substantial number of wage-earnersin the Westward movement.24
A similar conclusionwas reachedby ProfessorKane, who held
that the industrialworker could not accumulatethe minimum
capital necessaryto exercisethe privilege of taking up farmlands
in the West. Holding the opposite view from that which is
generally accepted,MurrayKane argued that if any migration
among the industrialworkersdid occur,the movementtook place
not duringperiodsof depressionand panic,but duringthe upward
sweep of the economic curve.25ProfessorShannon adds weight
to the revisionistapproachby observing that no one has ever
disproven the fact that after 1865 there were always at least
1,000,000 personsunemployedin this country.26
Dr. Joseph Schaferansweredthe critics on the validity of the
safety valve theory by contendingthat as long as the land was
not fully settled labor could not be cheap and by pointing out
that even the critics (Davison and Goodrich) admittedthat the
frontier tended to hold up the level of industrialwages. Also
by using the manuscriptcensus, Dr. Schafercites statisticaldata
proving that about one-third of the Middle Western farmers
around 1880 had earned their farms as laborersor craftsmen.
ProbablyDr. Schafer'sstrongestpoint, however, was in calling
attention to the psychologicaleffect of the safety valve which
operated alike upon laborers,employers,and the general pubIbid., 365.
Political Science Quarterly, 50:184 (June, 1935).
25 Murray Kane, "Some Considerations on the Safety Valve Doctrine," Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, 23:169-88 (September, 1936).
2" Fred A. Shannon, "The Homestead Act and the Labor Surplus," American Historical
Review, 16:650 (July, 1936).
23
24
J. A. BURKHART
78
(September
lic.27 Irrespectiveof whether the frontier was an actual safety
valve, the people thought that it was. Myth is many times more
importantthan fact, and perhapsthe AmericanWest after the
Civil War was a case at point.
In 1936 ProfessorShannonwrote an article in which he disputed the common assumption,implied from the Turner thesis,
that the year 1890 markedthe end of the free land in the West.
By June 30, 1890, accordingto Mr. Shannon'sfigures, 372,659
homesteadentrieshad been completed,granting48,225,736 acres
of land to homesteaders-an area which was less than the size of
the State of Nebraskaand equal to only 3?V2percentof the land
west of the MississippiRiver. Furthermore,four times as many
acreshave been given away since 1890 than were distributedbefore that date. As a matter of fact, since 1910 more land has
been taken up than was given away in all of the previousfortyeight years of the operationof the HomesteadAct.28 Bolstering
his argumentthat the West was not filled by 1890, Mr. Shannon
cites Delaware,a state with three countiesat low tide and two at
high tide, as having in 1890 three times as many farms as Idaho
and Montanacombined,three times as many as Wyoming, seven
times as manyas Arizona,and eight timesas many as Nevada.29
Even consideringthe extent of land under cultivation,the East
led the West. Ohio alone in 1890 had twice as many acres
in farmsas the entire West.30
In the same article ProfessorShannon turned the searchlight
on another long acceptedtenet of the Turner thesis-the availability of free land on the frontier. In discussingthe operation
of the HomesteadAct, Mr. Shannonpoints out that the law did
not provide any method of aiding the needy to reach the land,
nor did it offerthem creditor guidanceduringthe "starvingtime "
of early occupancy.31 The high cost of transportation,the expensivepracticeof "shoppingaround" beforesettling on the final
destination,the savings-consumingperiod before the farm was
Joseph Schafer,
Was the West
a Safety-Valve?"
Misis7ippi
via 2~
2Q-l
(neremherloi7)28Shannon, "Homestead Act...,"
29
Ibid.
638.
639.
1'Ibid., 645.
'Ibid.,
Valey Historica Re-
1947)
THE
TURNER
79
THESIS
on a self-sustainingbasis all contributedto the inferencethat the
land was not really free, since it was not available. Professor
BenjaminWright also cast suspicionon the presenceof free land
in the West by intimatingthat the unoccupiedland may not have
been free land.32
Of courseit might well be arguedthat the land on the frontier
was never completely free since a person had to pay, in money
or effort, for the cost of transportation.Furthermore,there was
always expense involved in opening the land for cultivation;the
land had to be cleared,fenced, and broken. Perhapsone had to
scalp or be scalped by the Indians to retain possessionof his
holdings. Finally a long period of time might elapse before any
appreciativereturnfrom the land was realized.
In a technicalsense the above conclusionsmay be true. Relatively speakingthe land was free when comparedwith real estate
values in Europeand contributedmateriallyto the reductionof
the price of land everywhere.
Louis M. Hacker took a ratherdifferentand somewhatdoubtful approval in his criticism of the thesis. Mr. Hacker's chief
grievanceswere Turner'scontention that America'sfrontier experiencewas uniqueand Turner'sfailure to view all of American
historyin termsof the growthof Americancapitalism,the rise of
imperialism,and the developmentof class antagonisms.33
It may be that Turneroverestimatedthe uniquenessof America's frontierexperience,but it still appearsas though the frontier
process and the final results of this experienceare unexampled.
The American farmer even today has a differentoutlook than
the Europeanpeasant, and the American millionaire certainly
has a differentperspectivethan the Europeanaristocracy.Rugged
individualismand laissez-faireare still powerful forces in this
country. Hacker seems to neglect entirely the importanceof the
processby which we reachedcomplexity.Even though the frontier
which helped to mould our national characterand our point of
view is no longer in existence,the viewpointand the psychology
32
3
Wright, " American Democracy . . . ," 356.
Louis M. Hacker, " Sections-or Classes," Nation, 37:108-10
(July 26, 1933).
80
J. A. BURKHART
[September
still remain.34There is still much in Americatoday which retains
the frontier flavor. Indeed, sectionalismtoday has a greater influence over most Americans than does the appeal of class
solidarity. Few Americanswould care to have themselves considered as anything other than middle class. Psychologicallyat
least, we are in general a classlesssociety.
Turner'scontention that the frontier producedspecific traits
and qualitiesin men has also been attacked. Pierson,in a stimulating article, asks the following questionsand implies negative
answers: (1) Is Turner'slist of American traits complete, or
should it be modified by addition or deletion? (2) Were the
Americantraits due solely to the influenceof the frontier? (3)
Did not the frontierproducenegativequalitiesnot mentionedby
Turnerin his writings? (4) Are the traitswhich we call American really American,or are they merelyhuman traitsfound in all
partsof the world? (5) Were all social and racialgroupsequally
affectedby the frontier?3
This matter of traits and qualities which go to make up the
Western mind is very controversial.Most of the writerson the
West, however,would assumethat it is a matterof degree rather
than fundamentaldifferencesthat make the Western individual
unique.
To economize,the chief criticismsof the Turnerthesis revolve
around the following points: (1) the safety valve concept is
fallacious;the West never served as a haven or refuge for distressedlabornordidthe West guaranteethe existenceof democracy;
(2) Turnerwrote about the West, particularlythe MiddleWest,
neglecting such forces as labor, slavery,urbanism,and the influence of Europe; (3) Turnerfailed to evaluatethe importanceof
the class struggle in America and its effect upon American
history; (4) Western institutionsand frontier democracywere
not unique; they followed and duplicatedthe same patterns as
those in Europe and in the settled parts of the East. Even inThese ideas are contained in Avery Craven's article, "Frederick Jackson Turner," 258.
mG. W. Pierson, " The Frontier and Frontiersmen in Turner's Essays; A Scrutiny of
the Foundations of the Middle Western Tradition," Pentsylvania Magazine of History,
64:478 (October, 1940).
34
1947}
THE
TURNER
THESIS
81
dividual traits in the West were not unique, but simply human
traits found throughoutthe world and formed by other forces
than frontierconditions;(5) the frontierthesis is a sectionaland
one-sidedinterpretationof Americanhistory.
In defense of Turnerone must quickly point out that not all
of his criticshave fully understoodthe fundamentalcharacteristics
of the frontier. Many of them have ignored the frontierprocess
entirely and have concentratedtheir attack on relatively minor
details. Other critics have ignored the contradictorynature and
the almost certainimpossibilityof generalizations.For every asset
of the frontierone can point out a negativecounteraction.One can
say that the frontierwas lawless and immoral,and yet a church
was often the first building to be erectedin a community. The
frontiermay be criticizedas being unletteredand unlearned,yet
few areashad more faith in the value of education. There was
much idealismand even more materialism.The West worshipped
success and efficiency,yet waste, exploitation,and failures were
numerous;the saloon and temperancesocietieslived side by side;
liberalism,reaction,laissez-faire,government aid, buoyancy,and
discontentare hard to reconcile,yet all of these had their expression on the frontier; democratsbecame the worst kind of
aristocratswhen they acquiredwealth; the frontiersmanhated
privilege, but he was not adverseto "skimming a little cream"
when the occasionarose.36
That Turnerseemedto recognizethe contradictionsof the West
and did not repudiatethem is evident in his writingson nationalism and sectionalism.Hence it would be an easy matter to take
statementson eithersubjectout of contextand pose generalizations
which could be easily challenged. Accordingto Craven,Turner
recognized the contributionsmade to American democracyby
Europeat the very momentwhen he was insistingthat democracy
was not carried in the "Susan Constant" to Virginia. Turner
also recognizedthe individualismwhich existed side by side with
community cooperation;the hostility toward government inter36John L. Harr, The Ante-Bellum Southwest, 1815-1861
1941), 6.
(University of Chicago,
82
J. A. BURKHART
[September
ference coincidingwith the drought-stricken
farmer'sdemandfor
governmentaid.37
Nonetheless, some of the aspects of Turner's writing stand
correctedand other phases requirefurtherstudy and exploration.
It is quite likely that the West was not in actualitya safety valve
for the oppressedindustriallaborerafter the Civil War. Moreover, it appearsthat Turnergeneralizedtoo much for the whole
West on the basis of his knowledge of the Old Northwest. He
probably emphasizedtoo strongly the peculiaristiccharacterof
the Americanexperience,and he may have overshadowedthe influenceof other forces with his constantinsistenceon the significance of the frontierin Americanlife and history. Undoubtedly
this is true in respect to democracy.Turner did not credit sufficiently Europeaninfluencesin accountingfor the growth and
developmentof Americandemocraticinstitutions. Finally, it appears that Turnerwas a bit too enthusiasticfor the frontieras a
characterand personality"Mix-master."
A point generally obscured,however, must be kept in mind.
Turnermerely advanceda hypothesis,a set of new ideas which
might suggest a new approachto the study of Americanhistory.
Much of that which passes as the "Turnerthesis" was taken up
by his followers and offeredto the unthinkingas absolutestatements of universal truths. Many of his statementswere taken
from their proper settings and circulatedamong the uncriticalas
gospel doctrine. Thus such ideas as the following found wide
acceptanceunder the attractivetitle of the "Turnerthesis": (1)
the Americanfrontierwas unique; (2) all factorson the frontier
encouragedand commandednationalismand democracy;(3) every
frontiersmanwas inventive, individualistic,idealistic,progressive,
and enthusiastic.Turner recognizedthese discrepanciesand once
remarkedthat some of his students "apprehendedonly certain
aspects" of his work and had not seen "them in relation" to
the rest of his writing.38
Finally, historicalwriting should be reconsideredby each genM Quoted in Craven's "Frederick Jackson Turner," 257-58.
55Quoted in ibid., 256.
1947}
THE
TURNER
THESIS
83
eration. Each generationshould judge for itself on the basis of
availableinformationthe correctevaluationof historicalhappenings and historical interpretation.Without doubt Turner as a
historianwould have been one of the first to offer amendments
to his writingsin view of contraryfindings. It should also be rememberedthat Turnerwas suggestinga new approach,not dictating results; that he was presentinga case, not handing down a
decision. Turner was simply calling attention to a field which
had been long neglected; he was not attemptingto restrict the
field from furtherwriting and investigation.Turnerwas a trail
blazer, and as such he possessedthe merits and shortcomings
of all pioneers.
Perhapsthe most intelligent solution to the controversyover
Turner is that advancedby ProfessorJohn Hicks. Accordingto
Mr. Hicks, the truth lies somewherein betweenthe position that
the frontierexplains Americanhistory and the revisionist'sstand
that the frontier was only one factor in the development of
America. Certainlyduring the seventeenth,eighteenth,and part
of the nineteenthcenturythe ideaswhich Turnerwrote and spoke
about were in general true, " ..people did go West, there was
a frontier,and it made a difference."
3 However, close on the
heels of the frontiercame a rising period of industrialismwhich
also made a difference.But the historianof the future,recognizing the rightfulsphereof the two forceswill not attemptto " industrializethe frontier,or frontierizethe industrialperiod."40
39John D. Hicks, " The 'Ecology' of Middle Western Historians," Wisconsin Magazine
of History, 24:348 (June, 1941).
1?Ibid.