Society for History Education

Frederick Jackson Turner Reconsidered

Author(s): Allan G. Bogue
Source: The History Teacher, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Feb., 1994), pp. 195-221
Published by: Society for History Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/494720
Accessed: 12/03/2010 12:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=history.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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.

Society for History Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
History Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

Allan G. Bogue
Universityof Wisconsin,Madison

DURING THE EARLY 1880s, history's leading spokesmanat the University of Wisconsin, William F. Allen, began to believe that a bright,
enthusiastic,and attractiveyoung studentnamedFredTurnerhad scholarly promise. Academic historianshave been evaluatingthe career of a
man named Turnerever since. In the judgment of peers it was a great
success. Shortly after his returnfrom graduatework at Johns Hopkins
during 1888-89, the deathof his reveredteacherplaced him in control of
the historyprogramat the Universityof Wisconsin. He became the major
builderof a respectedhistorydepartment,a powerfulcampuspoliticianat
Madison, a highly influentialmemberand shaperof his profession and a
renowned scholar.'
Turnerinspiredan ever-growingcircle of supportiveformergraduate
studentsand, in retirement,confessed to CarlBecker, "Iwas interestedin
history, and in the companionshipof men like yourself."2Despite his
preferencefor working with advancedstudents,however, at the time of
his death in 1932 some sixty percentof the leading history programsin
the countrywere offering an undergraduatecourse similarto the History
of the West thathe first listed in the Wisconsin catalogueof 1895-96, and
his publishedlists of referencesfor the course guided legions of instructors. In addition, he was widely sought as a visiting professor and as a
commencementspeakerand highly respectedin relateddisciplines. DurThe HistoryTeacher

Volume 27 Number2

February1994

Allan G. Bogue

196

ing the 1940s the Council of the AmericanHistoricalAssociation identified Turner and Francis Parkmanas the two most eminent deceased
historiansof the United States.3In this essay we review the reactionsof
several generationsof Americanhistoriansto Turnerand his ideas and
consider what this story tells us about these ideas, the historianTurner
andhis career,historiansas critics,andthe processesof change withinthe
history discipline.
For some twenty years after beginning graduatestudies Turnerdemonstratedremarkableintellectualand scholarlyproductivity.Duringthis
period he melded ideas from many sources into a message-the frontier
thesis-that was so persuasivelyarguedand so attunedto its times that it
became one of the greatinterpretationsof Americandevelopment,institutionsand character.This message was linked to a substantialagendaof
researchwhich Turnerurgedupon studentsand peers. In this stage of his
career he also made a significanteditorialcontributionand published a
numberof substantialarticlesas well as seeking a morepopularaudience
for his ideas. The periodculminatedin 1906 in the publicationof TheRise
of the New West,1819-1829, in the presentationof his first majorpaper
on the subjectof sectionalismin 1907, and his presidentialaddressto the
AmericanHistoricalAssociation in 1910.4
Turner'smind did not atrophyafterhe moved to Harvardin 1910. He
was active in the AmericanHistoricalAssociation, was a trustedadvisor
of the Carnegie Institution,placed his historian'sknowledge at the service of the countryduringWorldWarI, faithfullycounseledthe students
of Harvardand Radcliffe, publishedvariouseditions of his List of References, fostered the western collections of the HarvardLibrary,and collaborated with colleagues in producing the Guide to the Study and
Teachingof AmericanHistory.He publishedsomethingnearlyevery year,
but the majorprojectannouncedwhile still at Wisconsin-a study of the
nation and its sections 1830-1850-remained unfinished when the end
came in Pasadenain 1932. It was to be publishedposthumouslyas was
the Pulitzer Prize volume of collected essays, The Significance of Sections in AmericanHistory.
The Essential Turner
The frontierthesis, as Turnerpresentedit in his paper,"The Significance of the Frontierin AmericanHistory,"beforethe AmericanHistorical
Association in 1893 reflected the surging nationalismof the time, the
accomplishmentsof a great region whose residents felt themselves too
little respectedfor their achievements,the pride of a university seeking
educationalhegemony withinthatregion,andthe drive of a scholareager

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

197

to stake his claim to a greatareaof historyand to advancehimself within

his discipline.5Here Turnermelded a number of basic concepts: there
was the free land hypothesis,the idea of continuingsectionaldifferentiation within the physiographicprovincesof the countryduringand subsequent to the frontierera, and the suggestion of closure of opportunity,
conveyed initiallyby the declarationthatthe disappearanceof a continuous
frontierline from the census populationmaps marked"the closing of a
great historic movement,"an idea reiteratedin the final sentence of the
essay that declared "the first period in American history" had ended.
(pp.1, 38). These themes Turnerset within a frameworkof social theory
that included the idea of social recapitulationbeginning with imported
institutionalgerms, developing through a series of stages that brought
areasfrom a state of wildernessor savageryto that of advancedcivilization, the conceptof society as an organismexperiencingcontinuedgrowth
and differentiationin its institutions,and displayed an arrayof regional
economic and charactertypes engenderedby frontierconditions.
On first readingthe essay of 1893 may appearto be a simple statement,
keyed in its first paragraphto the observationof the Superintendentof the
Census that a continuous American frontier line could no longer be
mapped and a terse explanationof that finding's relevance: "The existence of an area of free land, its continuousrecession, and the advance of
American settlement westward explain American development."(p.l)
Thence Turnercarriesthe readerthrougha discussion of the meaning of
the term, "frontier,"the chronologyand physiographicdetails of frontier
advance,the varioussocial andinstitutionalprocesses involved, and their
results, or in his words, "noteworthyeffects" (p.22)-composite nationality, the promotionof individualism,and of most significance, democracy, and finally, "intellectualtraitsof profoundimportance"(p.37).
But we must rememberthatTurnerqualifiedhis message. The ringing
declarationconcerningfree land is precededby the statementthat "Up to
our own day Americanhistory has been in a large degree the history of
the colonization of the Great West"(p.1;author's italics). Later we are
told that the paper's "aim is simply to call attentionto the frontieras a
fertile field for investigation,and to suggest some of the problemswhich
arise in connection with it." (p.3) And Turnerdid note that there were
social continuitiesbetween the older andthe newer regions. "Butwith all
these similarities"he observed,"thereareessentialdifferences,due to the
place element and the time element."(p.10) But he did not limit expansive assertionsolely to his first paragraph.In calling for interdisciplinary
research in the comparativestudy of frontiers,he assured his audience
that they would be studying not merely American frontiers but the
"recordof social evolution."(p. 1)

Allan G. Bogue

198

There were in Turner's text epigrammatic statements, speculative

comments,andpregnantasides thatstandas subtheses."Economicpower
secures political power,"(32) he wrote, in explanationof the democratizing tendenciesof the settlerson the cheapwesternlands."Movement,"he
noted elsewhere, "has been [Americanlife's] dominantfact, and unless
this training has no effect upon a people, the American energy will
continuallydemanda wider field for its exercise" (37)-suggesting that
closed space might in the futurehave its effect upon foreign policy. The
frontier,he wrote, had been "a gate of escape from the bondage of the
past," (p. 38) or, as he would write elsewhere, a safety valve that might
mitigatethe effects of economic depressonsor laborunrest.
During his later career the nature and significance of sectionalism
became Turner's dominant interest. In 1914 he succinctly compared
"two of the most fundamentalfactors in Americanhistory. The frontier
is a moving section, or rather a form of society, determined by the
reactionsbetween the wilderness and the edge of expandingsettlement;
the section is the outcome of the deeper-seatedgeographicalconditions
interacting with the stock which settled the region. Sections are more
important than states in shaping the underlying forces of American
history."6In arguing the importanceof the section in national decision
making, Turner,with the assistance of his students,developed a form of
electoral and roll call mappinganalysis thatwas widely used by political
historians.

Turner on Turner
Did TurnerreconsiderTurner?He approvedfour differentprintingsof
the frontieressay; the Chicago presentationwas followed by one at the
annual meeting of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, both versions reachingprintin 1894. Othersfollowed in 1899 and 1920.7In the
Proceedings of the Historical Society, Turner quoted Achille Loria's
passage, "Americahas the key to the historicalenigma which Europehas
soughtfor centuriesin vain,"andcontinued,"Heis right."Forthe readers
of the Annual Report of the AmericanHistoricalAssociation, however,
he affirmed,"thereis much truthin this."8This was to be the readingof
1920 as well. Most of Turner's amendmentsto the frontieressay appearedin the reprintingof 1899, designed for the use of schoolteachers,
and he did not carrythem into his collected frontieressays of 1920. But
they did reveal an appreciationof the relation of western aridity to
settlement that Turner is sometimes believed to have lacked. Other
changes in the 1899 version reflectedhis growing interestin the shaping
power of physiography.9

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

199

Addressingthe membersof the fledgling GeographicSociety of Chicago in 1896, Turnernotedthe dangersin "attempt[ing]to find in a single
historicalmovementthe key to a nation's" development,as in the conflict
of Puritanand Cavalieror the slavery struggle.After more qualification,
he proposed,however, that "Americanhistoryfinds its masterkey in the
geographicalfact of an expanding people occupying a vast and varied
area of the New World." In his presidentialaddress to the American
Historical Association in 1910 and later papershe insertedlaundrylists
of majorforces in Americanhistory. But he was loath to admit that the
frontierand the section were not somehow special. He began his lectures
in History 17 at Harvardin 1913-14 by announcingflatly that "thereis no
key to American History"and then continued, "But the most important
thing in our nation's history, and that which most nearly approachesthe
long sought key, is the westwardmovement."And in writingto Merle E.
Curti in 1928 he found it unnecessaryto qualify his earlier view of the
frontier as the "'thin red line' that recorded the dynamic element in
Americanhistory up to recenttimes."10
Duringthe early 1920s, Turneracknowledgedthathe haddone little to
describe the role of cities in the westwardmovement and acknowledged
the importanceof the subject.His researchnotes reveal other amplifications of his knowledge. He adjusted his commitment to John Wesley
Powell's scheme of physiographicprovincesin line with currentthought
and incorporateda good deal of twentieth-centuryevidence into his later
presentationson sectionalism. Rethinking,qualification,and change in
Turner'sthoughttherecertainlywas, but the strongcontinuitiesare more
obvious.
First Generation Critics
There was some early criticism of Turner'spositions. Some scholars
did not share the enthusiasmwith which he emphasized the relation of
physiographyto American historical development. When Turnerorganized a session on the relationsof geographyandhistoryat the meeting of
the AHA in 1907, George L. Burr argued that "imput[ing]action or
causation, influence or control, to things which are inert...involves a
fallacy." Others disputed Turner's contentions at the meeting of the
American Sociological Association in the same year that sectionalism
would continue to be a majorforce in the Americanpolity. Even before
1910 some historians apparentlybelieved that political parties shaped
nationalpolitical outcomes more thandid sectionalism.11
When The Frontier in American History appeared in 1920, Charles A.

Beard questionedbasic aspects of the 1893 paperin a review in the New

200

AllanG. Bogue

Republic. To Turner'sfree land and westwardexpansion as determining

factors in American development, Beard wished to add slavery, labor,
and capitalism.He did not believe thatAmericanizationproceededmore
rapidly on the frontierthan elsewhere. Among other criticisms, Beard
suggested that the social and political conflicts that Turnersketched as
outgrowthsof the westwardmovement were actually "economic group
conflicts" and that Turner had omitted those between capitalists and
organizedlabor.'2
ClarenceW. Alvord reviewedthe book supportivelyin the Mississippi
Valley Historical Review althoughsuggesting that Turner'suse of stage
theory was not applicableto some frontiers.In the AmericanHistorical
Review, Allen Johnson acknowledged the popularityof Turner'sideas
but regrettedthathe "nowheredefin[eddemocracy]in set terms...a word
that appearson almost every page."In a treatiseof 1926 dealing with the
use of historicalevidence, Johnsonimplicitly criticizedTurnerby arguing that recent examinations of sectionalism illustratedthe danger of
using "rulingtheories"andcriticizedthe electoralmappingmethodsused
in such studies.13
In response to Beard, Turnertold his distresseddaughterthat he was
"anex-Columbiaprofessor,radicalin tendency,"who wished to project
the currentimportanceof "thestruggleof capitaland labor"backwardto
an era in which that aspect of American life was less salient.14Turner
justified his emphasison the West because historiansto his day had been
largely concerned with it merely as an object of nationalexpansion. He
explained to ArthurMeier Schlesinger that some "careless"readershad
misunderstoodhis use of the word frontier-the frontiercensus line had
disappearedby 1890 but not frontierprocesses. He respondedto those
who emphasizedroots of democracyotherthanthe frontierby explaining
that he was concerned with American democracy. "My work, whether
good or bad,"he confided to Merle Curtiin 1928, "canonly be correctly
judged by noting whatAmericanhistoriansandteachersof history... were
doing when I began."'5
Still Turnerhad good reason duringthe nineteen twenties to feel that
his work was widely respected.In 1918 Max Farranddescribeda "new
history"which took "otherthanpolitical and militaryevents into consideration"and creditedTurnerwith exerting "the greatestinfluence upon
recent study...throughhis classes and in his writings."In his biography
of Woodrow Wilson publishedtwo years later, William E. Dodd noted
Turner's influence upon the young southernerand affirmed that the
Wisconsinite had "influencedthe writing of [American] history more
than any other man of his generation."In the discussions of American
historiographythattheypublishedduringthe 1920s, ArthurM. Schlesinger

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

201

and Harry E. Barnes credited him with giving "a new direction...to
American historical research."Turnerhad, wrote Barnes, "introduced
more vitality and realism into the study of American history than any
other Americanhistorianof this or any earliergeneration."16
During the late 1920s former studentsof Turnerat the University of
Colorado organized a conference there on the history of the Trans-Mississippi West and the resultantinterchangeof correspondencepleased
Turner.However, he may also have noticed in the publishedpapersthat
Carl O. Sauer attacked his approach to the frontier, advocating the
perspective of cultural morphology instead and that a young Texan
namedWebb was apparentlysomethingof a bunchquitter.'7In 1931 the
Presidentof the Mississippi Valley HistoricalAssociation was a former
Turner student, Louise Phelps Kellogg, and the program of that year
included a "survey...of the frontierthesis." FrederickPaxson, John D.
Hicks, and Solon J. Buck led the discussion, the latterassertingthat the
thesis hadbeen "setforth... so cogently thatas yet no one [had]been able
to add very much to it, or to detractfrom it." Essentially the panelists
called for researchthat would furtherelaborateTurner'sideas. Convention participantssent a congratulatorytelegramto Turner.'8
The Critics: Second Stage
Even before Turner's deatha new generationof critics of his ideas was
emerging and their critiquewas ultimatelyto be enshrinedin the "problems" series thatdichotomizedAmericanhistoryas eitherthis or that for
innumerable American college students from the 1940s through the
1970s. Among the dissenters, Benjamin F. Wright Jr. challenged the
assertionthatthe West madeoriginalcontributionsto the developmentof
democraticgovernmentin the United States. Wrightalso noted Turner's
tendencyto thinkprimarilyin termsof the MiddleWest, his propensityto
write as though the frontierhypothesis had been fully proven, and his
disregardof other majorsources of Americandemocracy.19
Reviewing The Significance of Sections in American History Louis
Hacker found "amazingerrors,"and stigmatized the great body of research stimulated by Turner's work as "quite worthless." Turner had
ignored the growth of "monopolisticcapitalism"and impendingimperialism. The free lands engenderednot a "unique 'American spirit,"'but
rather the agriculturalbase needed for the internationaltransfers that
helped build a "native industrialenterprise."The frontierhad also prevented class lines from becoming "fixed."20George W. Pierson concluded that Turner'sdefinitions of key terms were inadequate,that his
argumentwas often contradictory,that he ignored alternativesources of

202

Allan G. Bogue

frontier traits, and that he failed to marshal convincing evidence in

supportof his major contentions. Turner'sdeterministictheory of free
land devalued humanagency.21In his presidentialaddressto the American Historical Association in 1946, CarltonJ.H. Hayes maintainedthat
the time had come "when our historiansmight profitablybroadentheir
conceptionof the frontier"andworkfromthe assumptionthatAmericans
were "a frontierof Europeanor Westernculture."22
James C. Malin pointed out thatTurnerwas not a systematicthinker,
that his commitmentto a stage theory of social and economic development was mistaken, that his approachignored many basic aspects of
Americandevelopmentandwas in effect a kindof "closedspace"thinking.
However he also believed Turner to be a creative genius and was
unimpressedby many of the argumentsof other critics. Innovators,he
noted,oftenfoundit difficultto findappropriate
wordingandhe maintained
that apparentcontradictionsin Turner'sargumentrepresented"accurate
historical reportingof contradictorybehaviorof men." Malin dismissed
much of the criticism of "Turner'suse of...terms and definitions" as
"merehairsplittingverbalism."23
Duringthe 1930s economic historiansrejectedthe suggestionthat the
frontierhad provideda safety valve for Americanlabor.FredA. Shannon
climaxed the attackin the mid 1940s by conductinga "postmortem"on
the "safetyvalve"concept,firing a salvo of census statisticsandconcluding, "There never was a free land or even a Western safety valve for
industrial labor."24

As the critique of Turnerproceeded dual tracks developed. It was

possible on the one handto evaluatehis work as descriptionandexplanation while on the otherhand scholarssought to tracethe evolution of his
thinking or to place it within the history of ideas. The latter approach
could jeopardize Turner'sreputationas a creative thinker.For example,
FulmerMood showed thatboth the concept of the frontierand thatof the
section had long histories prior to their use by Turner.Scholars speculated that Turnermight have derived his ideas from Hegel, Woodrow
Wilson or otherwriters.In 1884, the humorist,Bill Nye discoursedupon
the "rusty,neglected, and humiliatedempty tin can[s]" strewnacross the
West, concluding "Thereain't no frontierany more"andJamesC. Malin
used the passage in arguingthatthe closing of the frontierwas very much
in the air duringthe 1880s.25At the end of the 1940s, Lee Benson argued
persuasivelythatTurnerhad borrowedthe idea of the majorsignificance
of free land and other aspects of his argumentfrom Achille Loria, the
Italianpolitical economists and also noted much discussion of the imminent exhaustion of the supply of public lands in the periodical press
duringthe early 1890s.26

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

203

Voices in Defense
Even before Turner's death students and followers had begun to
defend his reputation.Carl L. Becker and Merle Curtipreparedevaluations of Turnerandhis workduringthe late 1920s, both papersappearing
in publications designed to illustratethe contributionsand methods of
Americansocial scientists. Becker concludedthathis mentor'stranscendent impactupon studentslay in his "lively and irrepressibleintellectual
curiosity;a refreshingfreedomfrom personalpreoccupationsand didactic motives; [and]a quite unusualability to look out upon the wide world
in a humanefriendly way, in a fresh and strictlyindependentway, with a
vision unobscuredby academic inhibitions."He suggested that Turner
could not be typed; he was "justhimself, a fresh and original mind that
goes its own way careless of the proprieties,inquiringinto everybody's
business...forever the inquirer,the questioner, the explorer."27Turner
believed, wrote Curti, that "the chief purpose of history is to aid in
understandingthe process by which interactingforces have made society."He emphasizedTurner'scommitmentto interdisciplinaryresearchutilizing literatureand art, as well as the social, naturaland physical
sciences. He mentioned Turner's commitment to the use of multiple
hypotheses and describedhis use of physiographicanalysis and mapping
techniques.But Turner,arguedCurti,did not believe that"historicallaws
are to be postulated,"even his concepts of frontier and section were
merely "keys to...understandingof the process by which man and his
environmentin America have reactedon each other."Curtialso emphaBoth Becker andCurti
sized the numberof Turner'ssuccessful students.28
were reactingin partto the chargethatTurnerhad not been as productive
a historianas he might have been. Theirswas a brilliantrearguardaction
in defense of their mentor. Nor did they lie, but they did not produce
rigorouscritiquesof Turner'swritings.
Other former studentsenlarged the defensive perimeter.Avery Craven admitted that there might seem to be elements of contradictionin
Turner's writings. But said Craven, Turner'sAmerica was a society of
contradictions,and the fact thatTurnerfound groundsin the evidence of
a "drifttoward 'democracyand nationalism"'did not mean that he was
unaware of countervailinginfluences. Craven cited Turner'spresidential address to the American Historical Association as evidence that he
was preparedto change his approachin dealing with an industrialized
America. Critics had not been exposed to the man himself. Craven
agreed that the basic frontierideas were not new, but it was Turnerwho
had understood when the time was ripe for their introductioninto the
history discipline.29

AllanG. Bogue

204

In 1943 EdwardE. Dale reminiscedof a modest, friendly,but immeasurablyinspiringTurner.AlthoughProfessorChanninghad told him that
"Turner[was] a dear fellow, but...he has never writtenany big books,"
Dale believed that Turner"could say more in one brief essay than most
historiansdid in an entire volume."He termedthe criticismsof Turner's
ideas by recent critics "unjustifiableand unduly severe." He noted that
most of them were "youngermen, generally from the East, who knew
Turnervery slightly if at all, and whose knowledge of the changingWest
[was] purely academic." They had misrepresentedTurner's ideas. He
concluded:
For so long as young hearts shall beat a little faster at the recital of the
exploits and adventuresof the trappers,argonauts,and cowboys...or so
long as men and women thrill to the story of the pioneers driving their
covered wagons out into the sunset...just so long will it be remembered
that Turnerfirst taughtus the significance of these things.30

Although otherTurnerstudentswere also his articulatedefenders,a few

expressed reservations.Thomas P. Abernethy,for example, found Andrew Jackson much less the frontier democrat than his mentor had
pictured.But even scholarswho had neverexperiencedTurner'sseminar
magic defended him. "No one of intelligence can really believe," wrote
Robert E. Riegel, "thatthe conqueringof three thousandmiles of wilderness did not leave some stamp on American history and on the
Americancharacter."31

Fermentof the 1950sand 1960s

The critics of the 1930s and 1940s used the words autopsy and post
mortemin describingtheir activities. But criticism continuedduringthe
1950s and 1960s, a time duringwhich neo-Turnerianismwas bom-if by
that term we mean the belief that with some emendation the Turner
message was still valid. First for the critics. Among them Earl Pomeroy
drew upon his exhaustiveknowledge of the developmentof the territorial
system to argue that one learned far more about the development of
western America from studying its institutional continuities than the
changes attributableto frontier conditions. Some years later Robert
Berkhofer Jr. maintained that the behavioral changes identifiable as
adjustmentto frontierconditions were typically short run in natureand
relatively minor in influence when comparedto the significance of the
capitalisticvaluesthatthe colonizingEuropeanshadbroughtto America.32
During this period also variousinvestigatorsreportedefforts to examine

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

205

substantiveaspects of the westwardmovement.The claim clubs were a

prime exhibit in the Turerian description of western democracy but
detailed examination of claim club and county land records in Iowa
showed an institution that mingled the objectives of speculators and
settlers and allowed the coercive exploitation of late comers. Another
researcherreportedsimilarfindings in a westernmining region.33
Otherscholars,less critics thattestersof hypotheses,developed elaborate research designs to test the proposition that western challenges
contributedto a unique Americandemocracy.Studying state making in
the Ohio valley, John Barnhartechoed Turner in contending that the
uniquely Americanaspects of Americandemocracywere mainly due to
Merle Curtiobtainedfoundationsupportto
the influence of the frontier.34
examine both whether it was "possible really to be objective in writing
history"and "whetherthe most importanteffect of the frontierhas been
the promotionof Americandemocracy."After gatheringand analyzinga
great body of conventionaland quantitativedata bearingupon the early
developmentof Trempealeaucounty, Wisconsin, Curtiand his assistants
concluded that the making of this community had been "a story of
progresstowarddemocracy."35
Curti's Trempealeaustudy in partreflected a growing interestamong
some Americanhistoriansin behaviorismand the use of theory or methods borrowedfrom social science disciplines. Other frontierstudies of
the 1950s or 1960s also illustratedthis trend. Stanley Elkins and Eric
McKitrick suggested that the frontier would have been importantin
Americandevelopmentif it had done no more thanpromotedemocracy,
and they sought to test that relationship. They developed a research
model, "involv[ing] the establishment of new communities. Its
variables...a period of problem-solvingand a homogeneous population
whose key factor [was] the lack of a structureof leadership."Such a
combination, they hypothesized, might prevail upon the frontier and
produce an efflorescence of democratic activity and they verified this
proposition by analysis of frontier society on several American frontiers.36Others also placed the frontierexperience within the context of
contemporarysocial theory. David Potter,Ray A. Billington, RobertR.
Dykstra,andBogue producedstudiesindicatingthatmoder social theory
when appliedto frontiercircumstancesmight indeed explain some of the
results that Turnerhad claimed, but also Dykstra and Bogue suggested
results compromisingsome aspects of frontierdemocracy.37
Others sought to place Turner'sideas within the general framework
of American thought-putting Turnerin his place so to speak. Cushing
Strout defined him as a precursorof the pragmatic revolt. David W.
Noble identified Turneras a Jeremiahempowered to give Americans

AllanG. Bogue

206

the tragic message that industrialismhad endangeredthe national covenant. At the end of the 1960s Richard Hofstadterfound in Turner a
flawed Americanprogressive.Turner,he wrote, was impressedby "the
achievement of America, [but] he had little countervailingresponse to
the shame of it-to such aspects of Westerndevelopmentas riotous land
speculation, vigilantism, the ruthless despoiling of the continent, the
arroganceof American expansionism, the pathetic tale of the Indians,
anti-Mexicanand anti-Chinesenativism."Such aspects of the westward
movement did not "arousehis indignation,"or inspirehim to use history
"as an instrumentof intellectualor social criticism."Turner'smind was
bland.38

Workingfromthe perspectiveof AmericanStudies,HenryNash Smith

maintainedin his book VirginLand: TheAmericanWestas Symboland
Myth, "Whateverthe merits of the Turnerthesis, the doctrine that the
United States is a continentalnationratherthana memberwith Europeof
an Atlantic communityhas had a formativeinfluence on the American
mind and deserves historical treatment in its own right." To Smith,
Turner was the heir and most influential spokesman of the agrarian
tradition.Perhapsthe greatestsignificanceof this fascinatingbook lay in
its testimonythatmyths, symbols, images, and stereotypesof a particular
time, could become embedded in Americanculture and be transmitted
onward to subsequentgenerations,irrespectiveof their later utility. A
numberof scholars-Richard Slotkin andRobertV. Hine amongthemcarried the analysis of myth and the westward movement still further.
Others also drew upon American Studies, notably William Goetzman,
who stressed the significance of romanticismin fixing the attentionof
Americanson theirwesternpossessions.39
In the mid 1950s William ApplemanWilliams was to see in Turner's
proclamationof "closed space"a prophecyof open door diplomacy and
more active relationships with foreign nations and markets. Scholars
looked again at the safety-valve argument and now decided that in
generalterms there might indeed be reasonsfor acceptingit. And meanwhile a greatflow of publicationcontinuedto deal with the development
of western America, much of it predicatedon the understandingthat the
subjects under study were of regional and even national significance,
irrespectiveof their relationto Turner'sideas.40
The Biographers
Meanwhile biographerswere contributingto our understandingof
Turner.FulmerMood had begun to plan a life of Turneras early as the
1930s but afterpublishinguseful contributionshe foundhis healthfailing

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

207

by the early 1960s. WilburR. Jacobs was one of the first scholarsto use
the great collection of Turnerpapers at the HuntingtonLibrary when
officially opened for researchin January1960 andhas publishedmuch of
interest on Turner.In the editorial narrativein The Historical Worldof
FrederickJacksonTurner,he arguedthatTurnerwas an "originalthinker"
but not "as self-pollenizing as we have been led to believe." Despite the
importance of Turner's theories, Jacobs believed that more valuable
"perhapswere his contributionsto historicalmethodology,his insistence
on the need for a more precise, more scientific, and less restricted
approachto research than that practiced by earlier historians."Jacobs
found that Turnerwas by nature a man of "good sense and balanced
"of modest good humor,"a kind, supportive,
judgment,""unprejudiced,"
andpatrioticman.41But in Jacob'sworkone findsreservationsunexpressed
in the defense of Turnerby his students.He arguedthatTurner'sinvocation of the concept of multiplehypothesesmisrepresentedthe ideas of its
proponentThomas C. Chamberlin.And he attributedTurner's lack of
productivityto the difficultiesinherentin using Turner'sresearchmaterials and in his scholarly objectives ratherthan instructionalobligations
and that even more important was a "cast of mind" which made
"writing...agony to him."42
In 1949 Ray A. Billington publisheda textbookfollowing the pattern,
he wrote,thatTurnermighthave used if he hadwrittena text.43Billington
was also presentat the opening of the TurnerPapersand soon decided to
write a life of Turner.It appearedin 1973 and was justly acclaimed.
Frederick Jackson Turner:Historian, Scholar, Teacher documents the
developmentof Turner'sbasic ideas and also portraysthe many sides of
his professionalandprivatelives includingstrugglesto balancehis check
book, his misleading relationswith publishersand his efforts to give up
smoking. But over all, Billington found a charming,caring man, whose
probingmind bubbledwith ideas and questions.
In general, arguedBillington, the critics missed their mark."The true
Turnercould be found only in the professional articles and papers that
were his majorinterest."Othersfailed to understandthat Turner'smajor
concern was with American democracy ratherthan with democracy in
general. And those who depended solely on the publishedTurnercould
not know of the updatingin Turner'sthought."To summarizehis views
on the frontier process" asserted Billington, "is to recognize that they
would be acceptedby most historianstoday."44
Whereas FulmerMood believed that "theapplication"of the concept
of sectionalism led "to an immense harvest in creative scholarship,"45
Billington argued that Turnerwas overly enthusiastic about its importance. The map analysisthatTurnerhelpedto develop and publicize was,

Allan G. Bogue

208

he argued,inadequateto the taskto which he set it. He believed thatin his

lateryears Turnermisreadthe nation'sfuturein prophesyingthe progressive development of sectional mechanisms. But one great idea, one
infers, is surely enough. Billington has told us that he was "Turner's
slave" before he finished his first tour of researchin the Turnerpapers.46
Some suspect thatcounsel for the defense became partof thatrole, but in
the biography and other publications relating to Turner, Billington's
contributionto scholarshipwas massive. He was the archapostle of neoTurnerianism.
Despite the critics and the continued objections of scholars of the
"continuities"persuasionand detailedexposition of the shortcomingsof
the approachin some case studies,therewas enough supportiveresearch
and theorizing generatedduring the 1950s and 1960s to justify widespreadfeeling that Turner'sideas still warrantedcareful study and that
coursesdealingwiththe westwardmovementwerejustified.Withjudicious
concession and elaborationTurner's intellectual province was defensible. A survey of the early 1960s reveals that fifty-one percent of
contacted institutionsstill offered a course in western history although
interest was declining in schools to the east of the Mississippi.47The
textbooksof the thirtiesandforties were revised anda new crop appeared
from the mid nineteen sixties to the mid-seventiesreflectingthe years of
criticism since Turner'sdeath, some carryingthe story onwardinto the
twentieth century. Perhaps, however, institutionalinertia played some
role in the persistenceof the history of the AmericanWest. Thirty-year
tenures,enrollmentssustainedby the fictional and touristWests, and the
great expansion of history departmentsbetween 1945 and the early
1970s, allowing curricularrevision by additionratherthan replacement
of courses, may all have sustainedcourses in the historyof the West.
The 1980s and Beyond
About forty percentof the institutionsreportingin the AHA Directory
of American History Departmentsfor 1991-92 listed individuals with
researchinterestsin westernhistory. Departmentsalso reportedspecialists in Native American or Indianhistory or in agriculturalor environmentalhistory,areasonce generallyregardedas subareaswithin western
history. The western tilt of interest in western history was by now far
more pronouncedthan at the time of Turner'sdeath. But institutional
expressions of interest in western history as in the Western History
Association and its publications and those of other midwestern and
westernhistoricalsocieties were strong.And the flow of monographsand
articles in western history generally was massive, some runningin old

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

209

channelsbut much in streamsand irrigationditches relativelyignoredby

earlier generations of western historians-women's history, urban history, environmental history, ethno-history, the workers of mine and
forests, a more inclusive andthickly texturedsocial history,as well as the
West as myth,symbol,andliteraryandartisticartifact-to give outstanding
illustrations.4

Historians continued to fashion historiographicniches for Turner.

Commemoratingthe centennialof the NorthwestOrdinance,Andrew R.
L. Cayton and Peter S. Onuf assertedthatalthoughthe Turnerthesis was
not "likely to inspire furtherinteresting or importantcontributionsto
historicalwriting,"the continuingargumentaboutit had shed "new light
on the emergence of regionalconsciousness."They describedtheirwork
as "a deconstruction"of Turner's narrativethat "reveal[ed] what the
frontierthesis conceals." They proposed"to show how a vigorous enterprising middle class achieved a dominant, hegemonic position in the
Midwest. Middle-class midwesternerswere the original authors of the
'thesis' thatTurnerset forth in 1893."Turner'sgenius, they wrote,
storyin thepastthatcapturedthe
lay...in his abilityto fashiona particular
wereverymuchlike him...he
of
a
who
imagination greatmanypeople
fordebatingthemeaningof thepastthat...lastedfor
provideda framework
a century.If his storyno longermakesas muchsense now-if it sometimes seems ethnocentric,racist,sexist, dichotomous,orjust plain superfi-

cial-it is only becauseourworldis differentfromhis. We needourown

story.49

The arthistorianswho preparedthe interpretiveessays accompanying

the National Museum of American Art's exhibition, "The West as
America"practiceda more controversialdeconstructionwhen they tried
to reveal the rationalizationsandjustificationsfor Americanexpansionism found in the artistic depiction of the westward movement. As for
Turnerhimself, William Truettner,the editor of the collection, placed
him in the niche assignedto him ostensiblyby RichardSlotkin-that of a
scholar whose work obscuredthe underlyingentrepreneurialand metropolitan thrustsof expansion.50
Not all critics are ready politely to consign a deconstructedTurnerto
his historic era. Some would mobilize a posse, escort him to the borders
of the discipline and say begone. In the most recent history of the
American West neitherFrederickJacksonTurnernor the word frontier
appearin the index.51In fact, this text, YourMisfortuneand None of My
Own by Richard White, is an exceptionally fine piece of work and
substantively the best introduction to the "new" western historians
available. The "new" views and agenda were spelled out more specifi-

210

Allan G. Bogue

cally, however, in Trails: Toward a New WesternHistory, edited by

Patricia N. Limerick, Clyde A. Milner II and Charles Rankin, a book
bringing together the views of various western historians on the past,
present,andperhapsfutureof westernhistory.Trails,we assume, should
tell us if Turnerstock is still listed on the historians' exchange and not
merely representedby yellowing pages, dusty and deterioratinglike the
certificates of long deceased western mining companies, once symbolic
of thriving enterpriseand profits but now ignored and worthless.52The
index of Trails lists thirty five page references to "FrederickJackson
Turner," thirty one entries under "Turerian history," twenty eight
under the heading "myth in Turerian history"and one under "Turner
bashing"-a category that the indexer might perhapshave expanded if
allowed to make qualitativejudgments.By way of comparison,thereare
forty page references to discussion of the "New Western History."
ApparentlyTurner,his students, and their works have not been totally
forgotten.
The editors of Trailstell us thatTurnerhad bequeathedto the profession what "manyhistoriansregardas an interpretivestraitjacket."Donald
Worster,echoes RichardHoftstader'sjudgmentthatTurnerfailed "to see
the shamefulside of the westwardmovement";he wanted,wroteWorster
"to leave out" "those unsmiling aspects" of western history. His work
was merely a recitationof the "agrarianmyth."It obscuredthe fact that
the West was the site of the painfulcreationof a "multiracial,cosmopolitan" society and "in the forefrontof America's endless economic revolution." But now "truthis breakingin." For "the old 'frontierschool"'
wrote Worster, the West was a "simple democratic place." But the
"frank"new western historiansare revealing that "the West has in fact
been a scene of intense struggles over power and hierarchy,not only
between the races but also between classes, genders, and other groups
within white society." Old western historians,have "offer[ed]cover for
the powers that be" and have "fail[ed] to see themselves as critical
intellectuals."Turner'shistory was a "celebrationof 'my people,"' by a
historianplaying"thesubservientrole of cheerleaderor defender."Though
indebtedto the workof theirpredecessorsthe new westernhistorians"are
ready to performa very differentrole in society."53
Although less denunciatory,other contributorsto Trails were also
critical of Turner'slegacy. Peggy Pascoe arguedthat "shiftingthe frontier out of the limelightis the first step towarddevelopinga New Western
History."She noted correctly that Turnerfailed to place women in his
West and hoped thatnone today would define the frontieras the meeting
place of savagery and civilization as had he. She suggested that the
frontier should now be viewed "as a culturalcross roads ratherthan a

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

211

geographicfreeway"and thatfocusing on women at the westerncultural

crossroadswould be a most fruitfulapproach.54
Patricia N. Limerick conceded a certain amount of "newness" to
Turner.In his later writings he had referredto the federal government's
"vastpaternalenterprisesof reclamationin the desert,"and the revealed
"dangersof modem Americanindustrialtendencies"in the Rocky Mountain West. In his presidential address before the American Historical
Association he arguedthat it was "importantto study the presentand the
recent past, not only for themselves, but also as the source of new
hypotheses, new lines of inquiry,new criteriaof the perspectivesof the
remoterpast."The critics of the 1930s and 1940s thoroughlydiscredited
the Old Western History based on Turner's work, Limerick believed.
UnfortunatelyRay A. Billington and other misguided scholarscreateda
"RestoredOld WesternHistory"postponingthe possibility of developing
"moreinclusive models for the teachingand writingof westernhistory."
"Theold frontiermodel relentlesslytrivializedthe West," writes Limerick, and "workedagainst a recognition of the American West as...a
region of significance with a serious history."Thinkingthemselves "rigorously neutral,withoutideology or bias,"the geritolizedold westerners
"placedtheir sympathieswith English-speakingmale pioneers and then
called that point of view objectivity."Both Turnerand they, Limerick
suggests, ignoredmajorcharacteristicsof the westernexperiencebeyond
the Middle West-aridity, the continuing presence and resistance of
Indianpeoples, the Hispanicpopulationelement, Asian immigrationand
other Pacific Rim phenomena, unique problems relating to the public
domain, undemocraticaspects of governmentand twentieth-centurydevelopments. Old Western Historianstold a tale of "progress"and "improvement,"failing to "face up to the possibility that some roads of
western development led directly to failure and to injury."Limerick
concluded "themost fundamentalmission of the New WesternHistoryis
to widen the range and increasethe vitality of the searchfor meaning in
the western past....that mission has been accomplished."55
Primarily seeking to define environmentalhistory, Richard White
associates Turnerwith the best of the "the Old Western History," and
notes that the environment "was central to [his] explanations of the
history of the West." But Turner'sfrontierseparatednatureand culture
and his subjects were always intent on establishinga new society in the
West. "Frontierblinders"constrictedthe view of the Old WesternHistorians. For the new breed, however, the approachis relationalratherthan
essential. For Turnerthere had to be a "westerntype" of resident;but,
arguesWhite, the diversityof peoples in the West gave the lie to any such
type. New Western Historians he explains "look initially at three

212

Allan G. Bogue

things...the contesting groups...their perceptionsof the land and their

ambitions for it...[and] the structuresof power that shape the contest."
The West of the new western historians is defined by "historically
derived relationships,...not preordainedqualitiesof the land itself or the
qualities of any single set of occupants."56
Othercontributorsto Trailsdemonstratedvaryingdegrees of galvanization. In generalthey are less dismissive of Turner,althoughall see the
futureof western history as somethingvery differentthan its past form.
For Michael P. Malone, Turner provided "the conceptual lodestone
of.. .frontier/westernhistoriography,"but he was a historianof the frontier rather than the West. Malone argues for a "new [multifaceted]
regional paradigm"in which "the enduring impact of both Turner's
frontier and Webb's aridity must be taken into account." But he also
argues, "westernregionalhistoryis stigmatizedbecause westernhistorians rely on the frontier thesis advanced by Turner and modified
by...Webb." The Turnerparadigmhe believes to be "timeworn[and]
also the fundamentalcause of the mischievous treatmentof frontierand
West-as if the terms were synonymous."57
To William G. Robbins "the old verities"of Turner's"grandthesis"
seem "quaintand mythical."His was "anargumentthatfit the prevailing
mentalite of the patriarchal,Anglo-Saxon-dominatedworld of the early
twentiethcentury"and made the Americanfrontier"a powerfulenvironmental determinant...little influencedby outside forces...in shapinghuman inhabitantsto accordwith its own requirements."It was a model that
was stridently positivist and exceptionalist in emphasis. Brian Dippie
notes the significantachievementsof historianswho have pointedout the
omissions of Turerian historyand the impressivebibliographythatthey
have produced."It has been a hardfall" he writes "fromthe heady days
when Turnerheld a chair at Harvardand frontieringdefined national
history to the reproachesof [Earl]Pomeroyand [Roger]Nichols."58
Since some of the new issues or approachesseem to trace back well
beyond the 1980s, the breakbetween the new and the old westernhistory
is more difficult to identify than in the case of some new histories. But
like the othernew historiesthathave succeededeach othersince the new
economic and new political historiansraised their bannersin the 1950s,
the new western history has been a revitalizationmovement. As in the
case of the other new histories, the discipline will absorb the positive
contributionsand identify and reject the bizarreand the fraudulent.But
the movement has contributedimmeasurablyand beneficially to both
agitatingand advertisingthe field.
Even as new western historians criticized the Turerian heritage,
William Crononin 1987 found much thatwas still vital and useful in the

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

213

Turnerianlegacy, if needing some restatementand elaboration. That

restatement he saw as part of the Turerian challenge-the need to
explain different regional outcomes, to enhance our understandingof
developing systems of social relations,to learnhow differingdefinitions
of regional environmenthave emerged,how differing visions of optimal
use of those environmentshave interacted,and in broadest sum, how
"nature and humanity transform each other." He concluded that we
continue to follow Turner's example in "ignoring the walls between
disciplines, in his faith thathistory must in large measurebe the story of
ordinarypeople, in his emphasis on the importanceof regional environments to our understandingthe course of American history." Turner,
Cronon concluded, fashioned a "rhetoricalframework" which gave
"Americanhistory its centraland most persistentstory."In 1991 Cronon
was willing to "safely declarethe frontierthesis dead, or at least so badly
flawed that any new formulationmust be built on an entirelyredesigned
foundation."Nevertheless, he wrote, "Whetherone speaks of studying
comparativefrontiers,or colonization,or invasion, or even the legacy of
conquest, one proposes to study process ratherthan region, and the best
of Turner'sapproachwill still be very much alive."59
In the same publicationin which Cronontakes this position, Michael
C. Steiner argued strongly in behalf of Turner's sectional thesis as an
importantmeans of understandingAmerican development both in the
frontierand post frontiereras. The sectional thesis actually "anticipated
many trends that are revitalizing the field" of western history, writes
Steiner-"an emphasis upon the West as a distinct 'place undergoing
conquest';a concernfor common people 'who stayedbehind' and inhabited the land; and an interestin a distinctive western 'sense of identity'
and an emerging 'culturalvoice."' "Atthe very least,"Steinercontinues,
"we should acknowledge Turner'simportanceas 'a remote ancestor' to
contemporaryregional studies."Also within this decade, political scientist RichardF. Bensel has maintainedthatsectionalismhas indeedbeen a
major force in determining the nature of moder American political
development.In otherworks we now read of hinterlandor peripherybut
scholars still emphasizeregionaldifferences.And as other scholars seek
to develop the historyof Americanmythor, like Donald K. Pickens, limn
out the contoursof Americanrepublicanthought,or describe the evolution of politico-historylike DorothyRoss, they too confrontTurner.60
And Again-Reconsideration
So-several generationsof historians have reconsideredTurnerand
to what end? Cohortby cohort the critics have agreed that Turnernever

214

Allan G. Bogue

musteredsufficient evidence to prove definitively that the frontierprocess had the overall effect that he claimed for it. His model of proof was
sadly underspecified. And sometimes he wrote as though the thesis or
elements of it had long since been graven in stone. He was imprecise in
definition, using words loosely; his frontierwas sometimes boundary,
sometimes region, sometimes historical era, and sometimes process.
There were elements of contradictionin his argumentthat he did not
take the trouble to resolve-in print at least. Fascinating corollaries
stood in his work undeveloped. Elements in the argumentof his sectional thesis were unsatisfactory.Turnerprofessed to be interested in
explaining American development in broadest terms but he really focussed on two or three majorfactors in thatdevelopment.He repeatedly
endorsed the technique of multiple hypotheses but he himself did not
use it. He believed that interactionbetween humans and their environment shaped humanbehavior and thoughtbut physiographicinfluences
dominated his treatmentof environment;and his conception of space
made up of wilderness, zone of frontierprocesses, andcivilization was a
highly restrictedview of the interactionof man, woman, and the natural
world-all the more circumscribed because he viewed frontier processes primarilyfrom the standpointof one particularcongeries of male
participants.Much of the context of social and scientific theoryin which
he originally presented his ideas was in disrepute by the time of his
death.Althoughhe rightlypridedhimself on the introductionof economic
and social dimensions into American history, his social dimension
lacked the texture that the best western social history of today reveals.
Turner urged investigation of literature,art, and the history of ideas;
little of this appears in his own work. Although he used the word
culture, or synonyms-he failed to exploit its analytical implications.
Generationby generationthe critics have identified missing elements in
Turner's approach-substantive evidence, comparativeanalysis, other
causal forces, the presence and activity of particularsocial and ethnic
groups and-more recently-indignation. But as we have seen the
Turerian influence did not vanish after World War II. Acknowledged
or not, his shade still hovered in many a class room of the 1970s and
1980s.
In the beginning the Turnerlegacy was at least fourfold-there were
the basic ideas of frontier,section, and closed space, a course that served
as the model for many other such curricularofferings, a researchagenda
designed to explore andtest the theses andto fill a greatvoid in historical
knowledge,anda body of dedicatedstudentsandfollowerswho cherished
and soughtto enlargetheirinheritance.Rememberingthis, what meaning
does the story of Turnerand his critics hold for us?

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

215

the sentencefrom Turner'sarticleon

Many have quotedor paraphrased
the significanceof historyof 1891 and restatedwith some qualificationin
1910, "Eachage writesthe historyof the past anew with referenceto the
conditionsuppermostin its own time."61
By thatdictumTurnertodayshould
be
but
his
resilience
suggeststhatwe sometimesreadthe
perhaps forgotten
rule too restrictively.Succeedinggenerationswill quite properlyask new
questionsof the past.Thatdoes not meanthatall of the old questionswere
wrongor areno longerrelevant.In fact,Turnerwas dealingwith issues that
have continuedto be of greatinterest.For example:Are we as Americans
differentin characterand institutionsfrom citizens of othernationsand in
what respects?What determinesa nation's relationswith other polities?
How
How do communitiesgrowandwithwhateffectupontheparticipants?
do individualsinteractwith theirnaturalenvironment?Whatfactorsshape
economic, social, andpoliticaldevelopment?How shoulda nationmanage
its heritageof naturalresources?Why andhow do peoplemigrate?Whatare
the processes,benefits,andcosts of culturalmingling?In the Americancase
thesearenotmerelytheoreticalqueries-they involvea greathumanmigration
andmassiveimpactuponthe naturalresourcesof a continent.Turnerspoke
to these fundamentalquestionsin such a way thatothershave been able to
use his ideas as startingpoints,way stations,or rejectedlaunchingpads, in
theirown effortsto readthe meaningof the Americanpast.If we dropour
sightsto the policy level in the UnitedStates,we canquotePatriciaLimerick
who wrote, "Inthe secondhalf of the twentiethcentury,every majorissue
As the isfrom 'frontier'historyreappearedin the courtsor in Congress."62
sues have remainedso has continuedthe relevanceof studyingtheirbackground.
There were personaland institutionalfactorsinvolved in the resilience
of Turner'sideas and reputation.His reputationin part survived during
the first generationof criticism subsequentto his death because of the
spirited defense that former students provided-a defense couched in
intellectualtermsbutcertainlyfueled in partby the affectionthatmany of
those scholarsheld for him. Thataffirmationwas remarkablyprolongeda reminiscentstatementby a studentwas made as recently as 1987. And
in turnsome of the student'sof Turner'sstudentstook up the cause. The
task of Turner'sdefenderswas made easier because the one-time tutorin
oratoryhad used the wiles of the rhetoricianin presentinghis argument.It
was aided as well, we suspect, by the imprecisions of definition, the
pregnantasides, and the statementsof qualificationthatTurnerscattered
throughhis work. There is a plasticity in Turner'spresentationthat has
allowed scholars to use it as the basis for fresh starts. Much of the
supportiveliteratureof the years, 1945-1975 was based on redefinitionof
Turner'spositions. Criticsconfronteda moving target.

216

Allan G. Bogue

Turnerlaid out a greatresearchagendaand he, his studentsand others

developed it. Though incomplete in our eyes, that programof research
still serves as basic underpinningto much of the economic, political, and
diplomatic history of western America today. His two monographsstill
demand respect. And try to imagine a currenthistory of public land
disposal and naturalresource use without the contributionsof Turner's
students and their descendants-or the diplomatic history of American
expansionismwithoutthe work of FrederickMerk, of a southwestwithout Herbert Bolton and his students, of an immigrationbibliography
without the work of Marcus Lee Hansen, or of pre-civil war political
history without the studies of sectionalism written by his students or
followers. As in the case of his basic ideas, Turnerneitherconceived nor
promotedthis agendaby himself but in his time he was its most winning
advocate.
In so far as Turner'sagenda of researchremains unfinished it is of
course outdated.But in reading his approachto those major questions
that I have mentioned there are hints, implicit and explicit, of ways in
which we might from our differentvantage points contributeto greater
understanding.His approachwas interdisciplinary,remindingus of the
rewards of such broadening.And there is much opportunityfor those
who wish to place Turnerwithin the varied contexts of Americanintellectual developmentand ideology.
Turnerwas not the firstAmericanhistorianto studythe AmericanWest
nor did he work unaided. Turnerand his studentsdid not completely
dominatethe writingand teachingof westernhistoryin eitherhis day or
thereafter.Of the sixty-two deceased academics mentionedin John R.
Wunder'sbio-bibliographical
sourcebookas makingoutstandingcontributions to westernhistory,sixteenobtainedtheirdegreesfromeitherWisconsin or Harvarduniversities.But of this numberonly five completedtheir
Of course numerousproductivehistorians
doctoralwork underTurner.63
knew Turneras a teacherin some otherrespectbut manyscholarswho had
neversat in Turner'sseminaralso helpedspreadthe coursein the historyof
theWest andcontributedtheirwritingsto the historicalliteratureof the field.
It was they who wrotethe earlytexts in the field.
Turnerintroducedthe first formal universitycourse in the history of
the American West. The presence of that course in many curriculais
perhaps the most obvious reminderof Turner in academia today. To
generationsof Americanstudentsit providedan exercise in self identification, since it was often the only history course available that linked
local or regional beginnings to the broaderflow of Americanhistory. In
many departmentsit still performsthis function.But is the course in the
history of the American West now adapted to modern needs? Will

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

217

subinfeudation-as in native American history, environmentalhistory,

agriculturalhistory-continue until little is left? Will western historians
abandonthe objective or pretence of studying frontierprocesses comparativelyand shrinktheirfield to make a regional stand-perhaps a last
stand-behind some midcontinentalbarrier?Will a new holistic formula
emerge? Shall we continue to quibble about the difference between the
perspectives of process and region? Must we all use the same format?
These are our problems.We cannot fairly blame Turnerfor all that may
have gone wrong in western history or praise him for everything that
went right.
Perhaps the Turner critique tells us something about the historical
profession and the natureof historicalcriticism within it. The historical
analysis of one of our most reveredscholarsquite clearly was set within a
research design that was flawed in many respects, fell far short of
portrayingwestern reality, exuded national and regional pride and reflected institutionalpromotion.But the argumentsof the critics-often of
considerable validity-have also been flawed by logic chopping, the
presence of unstatedpremises, misunderstanding,regional chauvinism,
self promotionand a lack of systematicrigorno less frustratingthan that
in Turner'sown work.Turnerstressedhistoricalmethodas he understood
it, and, as the years have passed, we as a profession have increasingly
ignored methodology. Perhaps we should give more serious consideration to it than is the currentcustom.
And so we come to the end of one more reconsiderationof Frederick
Jackson Turner. Brian Dippie, as we have seen, has used the phrase,
"long hard fall" in describingTurner'sWest. But Turner'smountainis
still there-it appearsconsiderablydifferentthanit did duringthe 1890s
or 1920s and so it should, but an academic West lives-in New Haven
and Albuquerque,in Bloomington and Madison, in Boulder and Los
Angeles, and in many otherpoints of the compass. We can be sure that it
will be a differentWest in the future-at what cost and to what end is up
to us.

Notes
1.
The fullest account of Turner'semergence is providedby Ray A. Billington,
FrederickJackson Turner:Historian, Scholar, Teacher (New York, 1973), pp. 34-131.
See also WilburR. Jacobs (ed.), The Historical Worldof FrederickJackson Turnerwith
Selectionsfrom his Correspondence(New Haven, 1968).

218

Allan G. Bogue

2.
Frederick Jackson Turner to Carl L. Becker, November 23, 1925. Unless
otherwise noted quoted correspondencecan be found in the FrederickJackson Turner
Papers,HuntingtonLibrary,althoughmanylettersarereprintedin Jacobs,HistoricalWorld
and Billington (ed.), "Dear Lady:" The Lettersof FrederickJackson Turnerand Alice
Forbes PerkinsHooper, 1910-1932 (San Marino, 1970) and The Genesis of the Frontier
Thesis: A Studyin Historical Creativity(San Marino, 1971).
Merle E. Curti, "FrederickJacksonTurner"presentedto the Commission of
3.
History of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History (Mexico City) and
republishedin 0. LawrenceBurnetteJr. (ed), WisconsinWitnessto FrederickJackson
Turner:A Collectionof Essays on the Historianand the Thesis(Madison, 1961), pp. 175204 commemoratesthis event.
4.
The Early Writingsof FrederickJackson TurnerWitha List of All His Works
Compiledby EverettE. Edwardsand an Introductionby FulmerMood (Madison, 1938)
lists Turner'spublicationsyear by year. For interestingunpublishedwritingssee Wilbur
R. Jacobs (ed), FrederickJackson Turner'sLegacy: UnpublishedWritingsin American
History (San Marino, 1965).
In this section-essentially a review summary-I have insertedpage citations
5.
in the text. All of these, unless otherwise noted are keyed to FrederickJacksonTurner,
The Frontier in AmericanHistory (New York, 1920) in which "The Significance of the
Frontierin AmericanHistory"occupies pp. 1-38.
6.
Turner,TheSignificanceof Sectionsin AmericanHistory(New York, 1932), p.
183.
A comparativelisting of the variousversionsof the fourprintingsof the frontier
7.
essay underTurner'sdirectionis given in Early Writings,pp. 275-92.
8.
Ibid., p. 284.
9.
Ibid., pp. 277, 280-83, 284.
10. Turner,"Address,GeographicSociety of Chicago"(1896) TurnerPapers,File
Drawer14, Box A; EdwardE. Dale, "Memoriesof FrederickJacksonTurner,"Mississippi
ValleyHistorical Review, 30 (December 1943), p. 355. Turnerto Merle Curti,August 8,
1928.
11. Turner,"GeographicalInterpretationsof AmericanHistory,"Journalof Geography, 4 (January1905), p. 37; Turner,"Reportof the Conference on the Relation of
Geography and History," American Historical Association, Annual Report, 1907
(Washington,1908), p. 47. Burrhad developedhis views in a paperbefore New England
teachers earlier in the year with an elegance that Turner's cryptic summary hardly
suggests. See, George L. Burr,"ThePlace of Geographyin the Teachingof History,"New
England History Teachers' Association Twenty-SecondMeeting (Boston, 1908), pp. 113.
12. CharlesA. Beard, "The Frontierin AmericanHistory,"New Republic,February 16, 1921, pp. 349-50.
13. C.W.A. (ClarenceW. Alvord)Review:TheFrontierin AmericanHistory,Mississippi ValleyHistorical Review, 11 (March1921), pp. 403-407; Allen Johnson,Review:
The Frontierin AmericanHistory,AmericanHistorical Review,26 (April, 1921), p. 542
and TheHistorianand HistoricalEvidence(New York, 1926) pp. 160-62; see Dale op.cit.
347. JohnC. Almack,"TheShibbolethof the Frontier,"HistoricalOutlook16 (May 1925),
pp. 197-202 was, however, highly criticalof the frontierthesis.
14. Turnerto Dorothy K. (Turner)Main, February18, 1921. See also Beard to
Turner,May 14, 1921 and Beardto Merle E. Curti,August 9, 1928. The latterletteris in
the TurnerPapers through the courtesy of Curti and in it Beard credited Turnerwith
"restoringthe considerationof economic facts to historicalwritingin America,"andbeing

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

219

a leader in putting history on a scientific plane and a scholar of "fine talents and
unwearyingindustry."
15. Turnerto ArthurM. Schlesinger,May 5, 1925;Turnerto Curti,August 8, 1928.
16. Max Farrand,The Developmentof the UnitedStates (Boston, 1918), vii; William E. Dodd, Woodrow Wilson and His Work(New York, 1920), p. 28; ArthurM.
Schlesinger, New Viewpointsin AmericanHistory (New York, 1922), pp. 45-46, 70-71;
HarryE. Barnes, The New Historyand the Social Studies (New York, 1925), pp. 66-67.
17. James F. Willardand Colin B. Goodykoontz,The Trans-MississippiWest:Papers Read at a ConferenceHeld at the Universityof Colorado, June 18-June 21, 1929
(Boulder, 1930).
18. John W. Oliver, Reportof Annual Meeting, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 18 (September 1931), pp. 218-220.
19. BenjaminF. Wright,Jr.,"PoliticalInstitutionsandthe Frontier"in Dixon Ryan
Fox (ed.) Sources of Culturein the Middle West (New York, 1934), pp. 15-38, 28-29.
Wright's earlier, "AmericanDemocracy and the Frontier,"Yale Review 22 (December
1930), pp. 349-65 shocked Turner.
20. Louis M. Hacker,"Review:TheSignificanceof Sectionsin AmericanHistory,"
Nation 137 (July 26, 1933), pp. 108-110.
21. George W. Pierson,"TheFrontierandAmericanInstitutions:A Criticismof the
TurnerTheory,"New EnglandQuarterly,15 (June 1942), pp. 224-255, 248, 255. Among
his otherpublicationsrelatingto Turner,Pierson's"AmericanHistoriansand the Frontier
Hypothesis in 1941 (I),(II)," WisconsinMagazine of History 26 (September,December
1942), pp. 36-60, 170-185 is of particularinterest.
22. CarltonJ. H. Hayes, "The American Frontier-Frontier of What?"American
Historical Review, 51 (January,1946), pp. 199-216, 200, 204, 216,
23. James C. Malin, Essays on Historiography,(Lawrence, 1948), pp. 31-32, 12.
24. Fred A. Shannon,"A Post Mortemon the Labor-Safety-ValveTheory,"Agricultural History 19 (January1945), pp. 31-37, 37.
25. Of FulmerMood's manyarticlessee particularly,"TheDevelopmentof Frederick
JacksonTurneras a HistoricalThinker,"Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts: Transactions,1937-1942, 34 (Boston, 1943), pp. 283-352. RudolphF. Freund,
"Turner'sTheoryof Social Evolution,"AgriculturalHistory, 19 (April, 1945), pp. 78-87.
Billington, Genesis of the FrontierThesis, 183-193;Malin,Essays on Historiography,pp.
32-34.
26. Originally publishedin AgriculturalHistory, Lee Benson's articles are placed
in broader context in Turner and Beard: American Historical WritingReconsidered
(Glencoe, 1960).
27. Carl L. Becker, "FrederickJackson Turner,"in Howard W. Odum et al.,
American Masters of Social Science: An Approach to the Study of the Social Sciences
througha Neglected Field of Biography(New York, 1927), pp. 295, 316.
28. Merle E. Curti, "The Section and the Frontier in American History: The
Methodological Concepts of FrederickJackson Turner,"in StuartA. Rice, Methods in
Social Science: A Case Book (Chicago, 1931), pp. 354.
29. Avery Craven,"FrederickJacksonTurner,"in William T. Hutchinson,ed., The
MarcusW.JerneganEssays in AmericanHistoriography,pp. 252-270, 259, 261-262, 269.
30. EdwardE. Dale, Op. Cit., pp. 347, 355, 357.
31. For example, Joseph Schafer, "The Authorof the FrontierHypothesis,'"'Wisconsin Magazine of History, 15 (September 1931), pp. 86-103 and "Was the West a
Safety Valve for Labor?Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 24 (December 1937), pp.
299-314. Like Schafer, a numberof other former students,including Curti and Craven

220

Allan G. Bogue

made more thanone contributionto the Turnerliterature.But see Thomas P. Abernethy,

From Frontierto Plantationin Tennessee:A Studyin FrontierDemocracy(ChapelHill,
1932). RobertE. Riegel, AmericaMoves West(2d edtn, New York, 1947), p. 624.
32. Earl Pomeroy, "Towarda Reorientationof Western History: Continuityand
Environment,"Mississippi Valley Historical Review 41, (March 1955), pp. 579-600;
RobertF. Berkhofer,"Space,Time, Cultureandthe New Frontier,"AgriculturalHistory
38 (January1964), pp. 21-30.
33. Allan G. Bogue, "TheIowa Claim Clubs: Symbol and Substance,"Mississippi
ValleyHistorical Review,45 (September,1958), pp. 231-253; HarwoodHinton,Frontier
Speculation: A Study of the Walker Mining Districts,"Pacific Historical Review, 29
(August, 1960), pp. 245-255.
34. John D. Barnhart,Valleyof Democracy:The Frontierversus the Plantationin
the Ohio Valley, 1775-1818 (Bloomington,IN, 1953).
35. Merle E. Curti, The Making of an American Community:A Case Study of
Democracy in a Frontier County(Stanford,1959), pp. 1,448.
36. Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick,"A Meaning for Turner'sFrontier:PartI:
Democracy in the Old Northwest;Part II: The Southwest Frontierand New England,"
Political Science Quarterly69 (September,December, 1954) pp. 321-353, 565-602, 330.
37. Bogue, "SocialTheoryandthe Pioneer,"AgriculturalHistory,34 (January1960),
pp. 21-34; David Potter,People of Plenty: EconomicAbundanceand AmericanCharacter (Chicago, 1954); Ray A. Billington,America's FrontierHeritage (New York, 1966):
RobertR. Dykstra,The Cattle Towns(New York, 1968).
38. Cushing Strout,The Pragmatic Revolt in AmericanHistory: Carl Becker and
Charles Beard (New Haven, 1958); David W. Noble, HistoriansAgainst History: The
Frontier Thesis and the National Covenantin AmericanHistorical WritingSince 1830
(Minneapolis, 1965);DavidW. Noble, The End of AmericanHistory: Democracy, Capitalism, and the Metaphorof Two Worldsin Anglo-AmericanHistorical Writing,18801980 (Minneapolis,1985);RichardHofstadter,TheProgressiveHistorians:Turner,Beard,
Parrington.(New York, 1969), pp. 104, 106.
39. HenryNash Smith, VirginLand:TheAmericanWestas Symboland Myth(New
York, 1949), p. 4. RichardSlotkin, RegenerationThroughViolence: The Mythologyof
the American Frontier, 1600-1800 (Middletown, 1973); RobertV. Hine, The American
West:An InterpretiveHistory (Boston, 1973); William H. Goetzmann,Whenthe Eagle
Screamed:TheRomanticHorizonin AmericanDiplomacy,1800-1860 (New York, 1966).
40. William A. Williams, '"TheFrontierThesis: An American Foreign Policy,"
Pacific Historical Review 24 (November 1956), pp. 379-95. Ellen Von Nardroff,"The
AmericanFrontieras Safety Valve: The Life, Death,Reincarnation,andJustificationof a
Theory,"AgriculturalHistory,36 (July 1962), pp. 123-142. HenryM. Littlefield,"Hasthe
Safety Valve Come Back to Life?"AgriculturalHistory,28 (January1964), pp. 47-49.
41. Jacobs, Historical World,ix, pp. 10, 20, 23, 51, 67, 193, 252.
42. Jacobs, 'Turner's Methodology: Multiple Working Hypotheses or Ruling
Theory?"Journalof AmericanHistory,54 (March1968), pp. 853-63;HistoricalWorld,pp.
174-175. The "agony"phraseis quotedfrom a reminiscenceof Ulrich B. Phillips.
43. Ray A. Billington (with the collaborationof JamesB. Hedges), WestwardExpansion: A History of the AmericanFrontier(New York, 1949). Some of this commentaryfollows my review essay in Pacific NorthwestQuarterly64 (October1973), pp. 175177.
44. Billington,FrederickJacksonTurner:Historian,Scholar,Teacher,pp. 200,459.
45. FulmerMood, 'The Origin, Evolution, and Applicationof the Sectional Concept, 1750-1900."in MerrillJensen(ed.) Regionalismin America(Madison, 1951), p. 96.

FrederickJacksonTurnerReconsidered

221

46. Billington, Historian,Scholar, Teacher,viii. Two years afterthe publicationof

Billington'sbiography,JamesD. Bennettpublisheda shortbiographyof Turner,Frederick
Jackson Turner in the Twayne's United States Authors Series. Based on published
materialsand providinga convenient summaryof Turner'sscholarlycareer and professional reactions to it, the book does not markedlychange the judgments of Jacobs or
Billington.
47. W. N. Davis Jr. "Will the West Survive as a Field in American History? A
Survey Report,"Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 50 (March, 1954), pp. 672-685.
For a discussionof the Historyof the West coursein generalandthe changingcharacterof
the texts see, Allan G. Bogue, 'The Significance of the History of the AmericanWest"
WesternHistorical Quarterly,25 (February1992), pp. 45-68.
48. MichaelP. Malone,Historiansand theAmericanWest(Lincoln,1983) andRoger
L. Nichols,AmericanFrontierand WesternIssues:A HistoriographicalReview(New York,
1986).
49. Andrew R. L. Cayton and Peter S. Onuf, The Midwest and the Nation: Rethinkingthe History of an AmericanRegion (Bloomington, 1990), pp. xvi-xvii, 126.
50. William H. Truettner,ed., The Westas America:ReinterpretingImages of the
Frontier, 1820-1920 (Washington,1991).
51. RichardWhite, "It's YourMisfortuneand None of My Own," A History of the
American West(Norman, 1991).
52. PatricialN. Limerick,Clyde A. MilnerII, CharlesE. Rankin,Trails: Towarda
New WesternHistory (Lawrence, 1991).
53. Limerick, et. al. Trails, xi; Donald Worster, "Beyond the AgrarianMyth,"
Ibid., pp. 10, 16, 18-19, 21-24.
54. Peggy Pascoe, Ibid., pp. 44, 46.
55. Limerick,Ibid., pp. 62, 63, 69-70, 67, 86, 88.
56. RichardWhite, Ibid., pp. 27, 31, 37, 39.
57. Michael P. Malone, Ibid., pp. 98, 102, 140.
58. William G. Robbins,Ibid., pp. 184-186; BrianDippie, Ibid., p. 135.
59. William Cronon,"Revisitingthe VanishingFrontier:The Legacy of Frederick
JacksonTurner,"WesternHistorical Quarterly18, (April 1987), pp. 175-176; "Turner's
First Stand;The Significance of Significance in AmericanHistory,"in RichardEtulain
(ed.) WritingWesternHistory:Essays on MajorWesternHistorians(Albuquerque,1991),
p. 94. For a more recent statement,see William Cronon,George Miles, and Jay Gitlin,
"Becoming West: Toward a New Meaning for Western History," Under an Open Sky:
RethinkingAmerica's WesternPast (New York, 1992), pp. 3-27.
60. Michael C. Steiner,"FrederickJacksonTurnerand WesternRegionalism,"in
Etulain(ed.), WritingWesternHistory, p. 124. For Turner'splacementwithin American
republicanismsee, Donald K. Pickens, 'The TurnerThesis and Republicanism;A HistoriographicalCommentary,"Pacific Historical Review 61 (November, 1892), pp. 319340; Dorothy Ross, The Origins of AmericanSocial Science (Cambridge,1991).
61. Turner,Early Writings,p. 52.
62. Patricia N. Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The UnbrokenPast of the
American West(New York, 1987), p. 31.
63. John R. Wunder (ed.), Historians of the American Frontier: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook(New York, 1988).