Turner’s Frontier Thesis

Turner's frontier thesis is a seminal piece of American history for a variety of reasons. Turner
begins by disputing the germ theory, which asserts that American institutions and practices were
imported from Europe, emphasizing institutional continuity while undervaluing the American
experience. Second, Turner's perspective brings the Eastern Establishment's obsession with
colonialism and the Atlantic coast into doubt. The historian recasts American history, arguing
that "the right viewpoint on our country's history is not the Atlantic coast, but the Great West."
Turner educates his contemporaries about American history by demonstrating how
Americanization culminated in developing a distinct nation comprised of diverse peoples and
cultural traditions. Since this cycle of reverting to primitivism, experiencing a rebirth, being
granted new possibilities, and steadily developing and expanding continues, the frontier defines
American history.

Turner begins his essay by noting the abolition of the western frontier line, which characterized
American history until the 1880s. Turner maintains that American expansion has always
followed a cyclical pattern along the frontier line, owing to rebuilding to continue westward.
Until the 1880s, the western frontier was central to everything in American history, including
slavery. Turner says that despite this, historians and economics have paid insufficient attention to
the barrier. The frontier line that separated civilization from the wilderness were credited with
the continent's "most quick and successful Americanization"; it changes the European from over
the Atlantic into something new. Turner's emphasis on the frontier's influence on creating the
American character had a significant impact on thousands of academic histories.

Turner asserted that frontier conditions, notably the availability of free land for settlement, had a
tremendous effect on the American character, nurturing characteristics such as self-reliance,
individuality, invention, restless energy, movement, materialism, and optimism. Turner's
identification as an American exemplifies the Anglo-American mindset. Turner defines the
American as having a strong sense of self-importance and individualism and coarseness and
strength, restlessness, neurotic energy, and boundless desire. In part, Turner writes from an
Anglo-American perspective because he was affiliated with their social level, wrote mostly to his
peers, and the only research that mattered to him came from peers. Turner concluded from this
seminal study of the time that various Anglo-Americans' greedy and individualistic dispositions
drove them westward, where they gained the land and resources necessary for democracy to
prosper. Those pioneers who lacked these crucial attributes were unable to influence policy and
were hence not regarded as true Americans, as they could not contribute to the development and
maintenance of democracy.

Turner paid no attention to the plight of Native Americans. Turner viewed the Indians as a
natural part of the landscape. If Indian culture affected the pioneers, it was unavoidable.
Additionally, the war between Indians and whites was unintentional. The frontier served as a
"crossroads of civilization and savagery," but it was "wilderness barbarism," not only Indian
violence. These sentences appear to be diametrically opposed at first glance. "The wilderness
subjugates the colonist in terms of dress, industry, tools, ways of movement, and attitude,
thereby identifying him as a European." He uses it to get from the train station to the birch boat.
It disrobes him and replaces him with a hunting sliirt and moccasins. It encircles him with an
Indian wall and confines him in a wood cabin of Cherokee and Iroquois wood. He soon advances
to planting Indian maize and plowing with a sharp stick while simultaneously scalping in the
traditional Indian fashion.

Turner was emphatic that America's westward expansion had a greater influence on shaping
American democracy and national character than slavery or any other single cause. He believed
that undeveloped land, its continued decline, and the westward expansion of American
settlement explained American development. Slavery, Turner maintained, was just an incident
during the Civil War that had little bearing on the formation of the American character. Slavery,
he asserted, would always be considered in the West as a sectarian feature.

Turner's premises, in my opinion, are fatally flawed. Turner has a preexisting concept of the
boundary, from which he draws broad generalizations. "The wildness overpowers the colonist,"
Jackson writes, and he becomes someone who "has taken to producing Indian corn and plowing
with a sharp stick; he cries the war cry and takes the scalp in the classic Indian style." This idea
is absurd since it is so racist and stereotyped, and Jackson provides no evidence that anything
quite similar actually occurred. Further instances of Jackson's wit and absurdity would require
considerable space and effort to discuss, but they are neither noteworthy nor intriguing.
However, I can see how his failure to conduct studies on any individual, region, or town to back
up his profusion of assertions casts doubt on his idea; most of his evidence comes from others
making sweeping generalizations, as he did.

Turner contends that the proper perspective on our country's history should be taken from the
Great West, not the Atlantic coast. His emphasis on the frontier's role in forming the American
character influenced thousands of scholarly histories. Turner writes from an Anglo-American
perspective, as he primarily addressed his writings to his contemporaries. The boundary was a
"crossroads of civilization and savagery," but "wilderness barbarism" prevailed, not just Indian
violence. Those pioneers without these critical characteristics were unable to influence policy
and hence were not considered true Americans, as they were unable to contribute to the
establishment and sustenance of democracy. Turner's underlying assumptions are faulty. Jackson
gives no proof that anything resembling this occurred in reality. He already has a preconceived
notion of the limit, from which he derives broad generalizations. His failure to research any
particular person, location, or municipality puts doubt on his hypothesis.