Turner's Frontier Thesis vs. California's Development

Introduction: Turner's Frontier Thesis

Frederick Jackson Turner is perhaps best known for his famous essay, The Significance of the Frontier in American History. In it, Turner defines and defends the thesis that the history of the American West is the history of America itself. This theory directly correlates with the concept of Manifest Destiny, associated with the Monroe era, in which the push westward and the subsequent development of new territories was believed to be man's God-given right.

One of the key components of Turner's work is the theory that this development does not take place along a single line, but rather in a series of "rebirths." Turner writes:

"Thus American development has exhibited not merely advance along a single line, but a return to primitive conditions on a continually advancing frontier line, and a new development for that area. American social development has been continually beginning over again on the frontier. This perennial rebirth, this fluidity of American life, this expansion westward with its new opportunities, its continuous touch with the simplicity of primitive society, furnish the forces dominating the American character."

However, this is not to say that each new rebirth obliterated or rendered null the events that came before it. Rather, each rebirth built upon those that preceded it; prior events served as a guide of sorts for those that followed. As Turner himself notes, "Each tier of new States has found in the older ones material for its constitutions."

Turner's essay spends a great deal of time supporting his thesis by pointing to models of American development that prove his argument. For the most part, his pattern of development holds true in what he calls the "Middle Region" of the country. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, and Ohio all follow Turner's stages rather closely. What is interesting, however, is that Turner calls California "the distinctive frontier of the period." It is difficult to tell from the essay whether Turner meant "distinctive" as in exemplary or as in unique. Tracing the development of California—and of Southern California in particular—reveals that while Turner's stages do occur, they do not occur precisely in the order he outlines. The development of California does not mirror the development of the United States as a whole so much as it complements it. It is one chapter in the story of this country's development; it cannot, as Turner would have it, be used to tell the entire story.

Turner seems to understand in his essay that the frontier was not the same everywhere, yet he still attempts to impose the model of the "Middle Region"—especially the history of Wisconsin—onto the development of America and its frontier as a whole. This paper will show that the development of California does not support Turner's thesis in full. Turner is not wrong, exactly; he is simply limited in scope. As he himself admits, "It would not be possible in the limits of this paper to trace the other frontiers across the continent." Nor is it possible in this paper to trace the entire development of California. What this paper will do, however, is briefly outline California's development and discuss key events in Southern California that diverge from Turner's model to the point where it no longer applies.

Turner's Six Stages of Social Evolution

For Turner, the social evolution that constitutes America's development takes place in six distinct stages. The first pertains to the Indian and the hunter, during which the European is "stripped of the garments of civilization and arrayed in the hunting shirt and moccasin." The second stage is that of the traders, the "pathfinders of civilization." The third stage belongs to ranchers and farmers. The fourth consists of a period of intensive farming in which dense agricultural settlements are established. The fifth and final stage, according to Turner, is that of manufacturing. At this point, what was once the domain of Indians and hunters has evolved into a full-fledged city.

Turner's evolutionary model also assigns an important role to Native Americans as a "consolidating agent" in American history. Their presence established a "common measure of defense" and brought together the "various intercolonial congresses" to address what Turner called the "common danger" they represented. He writes that "the Indian trade pioneered the way for civilization," and in another sequence he traces how "the buffalo trail became the Indian trail, and this became the trader's 'traces': the trails widened into roads, and the roads into turnpikes, and these in turn were transformed into railroads."

The development of California, while certainly reflecting some of the stages Turner describes, does not follow his model in those exact steps or in that exact order. Furthermore, the stages very often overlap. While one area of California was experiencing a boom in agriculture, another was simultaneously experiencing a boom in manufacturing. This layered, non-linear development is fundamentally at odds with Turner's sequential framework.