The Rise of the West 1754-1830

In The Rise of the West, 1754-1830, Francis Philbrick writes a history which illustrates the Western frontier as a region of perpetual optimism and individualism where less rigid forms of social control allowed for easier movement up the socio-economic ladder. The West was also an area where a strong sense of nationalism reigned. At first glance, it may seem as though this book whole-heartedly supports and confirms the hypothesis presented by Frederick Jackson Turner. However, Philbrick is actually very anti-Turnerian in his interpretations of the influence of the West. First of all, Philbrick denies Turner's idea that the development of American political institutions and customs depended largely upon the impact which the frontier had on pioneers. Secondly, Philbrick dismisses Turner's belief that the American ideals of democracy and individualism were regenerated by the continuous settlement of new frontier regions; at the same time, Philbrick denies the Turnerian concept that the pioneers were simplified, or made more primitive, by frontier influence. Finally, Philbrick (a lawyer) states that the important developments in American thought and political institutions were created and regulated under the influence of Congressional law, not the frontier.

Philbrick believes that the frontier had only the most passive influence on the development of American political thought and behavior. Philbrick sees the frontier as using the ideas and traditions that its settlers brought from the East, and he cannot find evidence to support the belief that the frontier developed its own unique characteristics. Philbrick first faults Turner's thesis for ignoring the frontier of the Atlantic coast. Philbrick theorizes that if the frontier truly did influence and create unique institutions, then those ideas developed by the first pioneers arriving during the seventeenth century would have set the basis from which all other American thoughts and institutions would extend. Philbrick argues that this fact would have to be true because the Atlantic coast region proved to be the first great American frontier, and in all actuality, each progression westward was simply an extension of this primary frontier. Philbrick implies that Turner's silence on the topic of the influence of the Atlantic coast region is proof that much of Turner's work was marred by a distinct, romantic, Western prejudice. "It is astoundishing that he [Turner] should have attributed miraculous influences upon American society by successive frontiers beginning with the Old Northwest....yet dismiss for fallacious reasons earlier frontiers through a period longer than all the later ones together, and those the ones on which life was by far the most isolated, hard, and dangerous, demanding complete self-reliance in defense and self-support. Compared with these lonely settlers, little courage and self-sufficiency were required of the hosts that migrated to the Old Northwest."¹ From Philbrick's perspective, the argument is practically a moot point anyway, since Philbrick does not attribute any American frontier with developing the roots of American democracy. Philbrick believes that American democracy has its roots firmly embedded in English soil. "One reason why democracy developed on the frontier was that Englishmen had acquired a devotion to local self-government."² Philbrick believes that any minor differences which developed between Americans and Englishmen developed east of the Alleghenies long before America began her great drive westward. Any ideals of democracy or individualism apparent in the West were not resting on their home soil. The ideas were not created there, they were carried there.

Philbrick totally dismisses Turner's belief that the harsh conditions of the frontier stripped pioneers down to a more primitive man. Philbrick accuses this idea of being totally irrational and absurd. Philbrick attributes this idea to Turner's uncontrollable romantic inclination to glorify the West. Philbrick says that "the idea that individuals whose ancestors had for centuries constituted on of the great civilized countries could lose their civilization, and become a 'primitive' society --regardless of their individual character, education, or experience-- merely by congregating in an isolated territory where they lacked for a few years some of the aids in field and household labor, and some of the social life enjoyed in their earlier homes, was manifest absurdity."³ Philbrick then goes on to say that an even more absurd belief was "that those thus decivilized were so ennobled by thoughts of the wilderness about them....that in each generation they remade and elevated the country's ideals and institutions."⁴ Philbrick accuses Turner of believing in these ideas due to faith not evidence. Philbrick sees Turner as giving little thought "to the basis of his various conceptions."⁵ Like Horsman in the previous paper, Philbrick asserts that thoughts of democracy and individualism were carried onto the frontier, and were not created there. For Philbrick, Turner's inability to see this is caused by his emotions. Turner wanted so strongly to believe that "his" West was the source of all that was good in America that he eventually began to create and compile "evidence" in a flawed attempt to prove his assumptions. "Turner's doctrine of frontier salvation was to him like the individual salvation found in a frontier revival tent. It was faith, not evidence, that underlay his idea that American ideals and institutions were recurrently purified in the simplicity of frontier living."⁶

I feel that Philbrick's main theme of The Rise of the West, 1754-1830 can be summarized by the following sentence. "As for important institutions of social organization or activity, all are created and regulated by law, and every immigrant into the Old Northwest from 1788 onward lived under laws required to be approved by Congress."⁷ Whereas Turner saw the frontier as dictating the development of American legislation, Philbrick sees legislation as dictating the development of the frontier.

In conclusion, Philbrick's and Turner's description of the external features of the frontier is, for the most part, extremely similar. However, their views on the frontier as process are about as far apart as is possible. Both men seem to have a case of tunnel vision. Turner can't credit anything but the wilderness for creating the "American Way," and Philbrick refuses to credit anything other than the concrete legislative process of writing bills and ratifying them into law. Hawthorne called this the "tyranny of the one idea," and if Turner is guilty of it, then Philbrick is also. As one reviewer wrote, "Students of the West are likely to find him [Philbrick] guilty of his own forms of distortion."⁸

I enjoyed this book despite several drawbacks, the first of which was the "Anti-Turnerian overcompensation" mentioned above. The only other drawback I found was the way certain paragraphs and sentences were structured. Philbrick is a lawyer, and at times he seems to present his case in extended "legalise" notation (as may be evidenced by some of my direct quotes). One sentence that requires eight or nine lines of type is really a bit too long, and it subtracts from comprehension. Other than that, I found the book both interesting and provocative. I also liked the fact that the author wasn't afraid to go "head-to-head" with Turner's hypothesis. The author's display of emotion (although sometimes extreme) was also a welcome change from some of the pompous, boring arguments which I have been exposed to in other books. Although I did not agree with everything Philbrick asserted, I respected him for the rational process which he employed while attempting to prove his assertions (unlike the arguments I found in Moore's The Frontier Mind). I would urge any student interested in frontier history and Turnerian theory to carefully read and analyze this book. It raised many questions which I did not encounter in other books, and it also offered valid attempts at answering these questions. While not perfect, I would have to say that The Rise of the West was the most interesting, as well as the most helpful, book I have read while writing these reviews.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jackson, W.T. review of The Rise of the West, by Francis Philbrick. American Historical Review 71 (July 1966): 1429.

Lavender, David. review of The Rise of the West, by Francis Philbrick. Book Week 5 December 1965, p. 24.

Masterson, W.H. review of The Rise of the West, by Francis Philbrick. Journal of American History 53 (June 1966): 118.

Philbrick, Francis S. The Rise of the West, 1754-1830. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.

NOTES

¹Francis S. Philbrick, The Rise of the West, 1754-1830 (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 350-351.

²Ibid., p. 351.

³Ibid., p. 380.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid., p. 381.

⁶Ibid., p. 380.

⁷Ibid., p. 367.

⁸David Lavender, review of The Rise of the West, 1754-1830, by Francis Philbrick. Book Week 5 December 1965, p. 24.