Frontier Hypothesis In Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Myth

When we had begun the study of the frontier, we had opened with Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier hypothesis learning that the American Spirit of exploration was dead because there was no land left to settle or discover. As the study of the frontier comes to a close, we know significantly more about the West that can contridict Turner’s hypothesis when it concerns the frontier, we also know that Turner isn’t the only historian that has a frontier hypothesis, another is Patricia Nelson Limerick. Though both of the hypotheses were published in different time periods, when someone analyzes the two, both are found alike and different. When comparing the hypotheses, both mention the conquest as a recurring theme of the West, and both argue the Western frontier is important to American history. In Turner’s theory, he mentions it’s part of the American spirit to conquer a land, while Limerick mentioned that the West was

They are also different because Turner focused on the Anglo-Saxon progress while Limerick focused on everyone including the minorities, and Turner said the land created the people but Limerick said the land was passive and the people created themselves. Turner argued the frontier history was good because it was the key to understanding the national character and is what truly makes its people “American”. The farther West a man travelled, he became less European and more American. The West also served as an outlet for a second chance of success and as a new start. However, what Limerick argues is very different, the West was a failure in which its citizens can learn lessons so it doesn’t repeat. There is a moral injustice for invading a land that belonged to the natives and the environment, and the reality of the West was not a victory, but it was a conflict, unintended consequences, and