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's Six Stages of Social Evolution

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.

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.

California's Colonial and Spanish Origins

According to historian Don E. Fehrenbacher, "The permanent occupation of California did not begin until the eve of the American Revolution" (p. 10). The first stage in California's development was not that of the Indian and the hunter, as Turner's model would predict, but rather that of the Spanish explorers. The first European to reach the region was Cortés, followed by explorers such as Coronado and Sir Francis Drake. This is the first point at which California's development diverges from Turner's model.

According to Turner, American expansion moves in one direction: from east to west. California, however, like many other Pacific coast states, was explored and inhabited through a movement from west to east. Sir Francis Drake, for example, landed on the California coast and made his way into the interior. Moreover, the expansion and development of California involved not only American actors but also the British, Spanish, Mexicans, French, and Chinese—a reality that further undermines the applicability of Turner's thesis, which focused primarily on the expansion of Western European peoples, particularly those of Germanic stock, moving eastward to west.

While Spain had long harbored designs on California, "the Spanish occupation of California became a reality in 1769" (Fehrenbacher, p. 13). The next stage in California's development was thus that of the mission and the small colonial settlement. "For some 60 years, the Catholic mission remained the dominant institution in Californian life" (Fehrenbacher, p. 15). This mission system had no real equivalent in Turner's Midwestern model.

There is, however, one significant point in California history that does match Turner's thesis: the treatment that native peoples suffered at the hands of their conquerors. Whether Spanish, French, or Anglo-American, native peoples were treated primarily as obstacles to expansion and development. In California, native peoples were strongly encouraged—sometimes by force—to "voluntarily" convert to Catholicism, after which they were expected to renounce their traditional way of life and adopt that dictated by the missionaries. In practice, this meant that native converts provided the manual labor that built the missions. Their exploitation mirrored that documented across the continent. Turner himself writes, "In this advance, the frontier is the outer edge of the wave—the meeting point between savagery and civilization." The understanding implicit in this framing is that Native Americans were the "savages" and European Americans represented "civilization."

By the mid-1800s, the drive for American expansion into California was in full swing. Russia, Britain, and the United States all laid claim to parts of the territory. In the 1840s, Britain held the strongest position "because of its sea power and firm foothold in Oregon, and because British investors held huge financial claims against the Mexican government. Rumors that California would be used to pay off the debt provoked considerable alarm and anger in the U.S." (Fehrenbacher, p. 22). American interest at this time "centered upon the economic and strategic importance of San Francisco Bay" (Fehrenbacher, p. 22). It was ultimately the Mexicans' fear that what had recently happened in Texas—where a rebellion in late 1835 and early 1836 by settlers against the Mexican government led to the establishment of the independent Republic of Texas—would be repeated in California that encouraged them to negotiate with the United States.

Conclusion: Reassessing Turner's Model

Turner was not wrong in the presentation of his model. He does accurately trace the development of states like Wisconsin. Where he errs, however, is in assuming that the patterns of development that occurred in individual states can all be painted with the same brush. There were specific factors that caused people to migrate to each state, factors that caused them to stay, and factors that caused them to leave. To claim, as Turner does, that "American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West" does a disservice to history. Such a view is limited in scope and imposes a perspective on events that does not always fit.