"No subject," said Henry Clay, "which has presented itself to the

present, or perhaps any preceding, Congress, is of greater magnitude

than that of the public lands." When we consider the far-reaching

effects of the government's land policy upon political, economic, and

social aspects of American life, we are disposed to agree with him. But

this legislation was framed under frontier influences, and under the

lead of Western statesmen like Benton and Jackson. Said Senator Scott of

Indiana in 1841: "I consider the preemption law merely declaratory of

the custom or common law of the settlers."

It is safe to say that the legislation with regard to land, tariff, and

internal improvements--the American system of the nationalizing Whig

party--was conditioned on frontier ideas and needs. But it was not

merely in legislative action that the frontier worked against the

sectionalism of the coast. The economic and social characteristics of

the frontier worked against sectionalism. The men of the frontier had

closer resemblances to the Middle region than to either of the other

sections. Pennsylvania had been the seed-plot of frontier emigration,

and, although she passed on her settlers along the Great Valley into the

west of Virginia and the Carolinas, yet the industrial society of these

Southern frontiersmen was always more like that of the Middle region

than like that of the tide-water portion of the South, which later came

to spread its industrial type throughout the South.

The Middle region, entered by New York harbor, was an open door to all

Europe. The tide-water part of the South represented typical Englishmen,

modified by a warm climate and servile labor, and living in baronial

fashion on great plantations; New England stood for a special English

movement--Puritanism. The Middle region was less English than the other

sections. It had a wide mixture of nationalities, a varied society, the

mixed town and county system of local government, a varied economic

life, many religious sects. In short, it was a region mediating between

New England and the South, and the East and the West. It represented

that composite nationality which the contemporary United States

exhibits, that juxtaposition of non-English groups, occupying a valley

or a little settlement, and presenting reflections of the map of Europe

in their variety. It was democratic and nonsectional, if not national;

"easy, tolerant, and contented;" rooted strongly in material prosperity.

It was typical of the modern United States. It was least sectional, not

only because it lay between North and South, but also because with no

barriers to shut out its frontiers from its settled region, and with a

system of connecting waterways, the Middle region mediated between East

and West as well as between North and South. Thus it became the

typically American region. Even the New Englander, who was shut out from

the frontier by the Middle region, tarrying in New York or Pennsylvania

on his westward march, lost the acuteness of his sectionalism on the

way.[28:1]

The spread of cotton culture into the interior of the South finally

broke down the contrast between the "tide-water" region and the rest of

the State, and based Southern interests on slavery. Before this process

revealed its results the western portion of the South, which was akin to

Pennsylvania in stock, society, and industry, showed tendencies to fall

away from the faith of the fathers into internal improvement legislation

and nationalism. In the Virginia convention of 1829-30, called to revise

the constitution, Mr. Leigh, of Chesterfield, one of the tide-water

counties, declared:

One of the main causes of discontent which led to this

convention, that which had the strongest influence in

overcoming our veneration for the work of our fathers, which

taught us to contemn the sentiments of Henry and Mason and

Pendleton, which weaned us from our reverence for the

constituted authorities of the State, was an overweening

passion for internal improvement. I say this with perfect

knowledge, for it has been avowed to me by gentlemen from the

West over and over again. And let me tell the gentleman from

Albemarle (Mr. Gordon) that it has been another principal

object of those who set this ball of revolution in motion, to

overturn the doctrine of State rights, of which Virginia has

been the very pillar, and to remove the barrier she has

interposed to the interference of the Federal Government in

that same work of internal improvement, by so reorganizing the

legislature that Virginia, too, may be hitched to the Federal

car.

It was this nationalizing tendency of the West that transformed the

democracy of Jefferson into the national republicanism of Monroe and the

democracy of Andrew Jackson. The West of the War of 1812, the West of

Clay, and Benton and Harrison, and Andrew Jackson, shut off by the

Middle States and the mountains from the coast sections, had a

solidarity of its own with national tendencies.[29:1] On the tide of the

Father of Waters, North and South met and mingled into a nation.

Interstate migration went steadily on--a process of cross-fertilization

of ideas and institutions. The fierce struggle of the sections over

slavery on the western frontier does not diminish the truth of this

statement; it proves the truth of it. Slavery was a sectional trait that

would not down, but in the West it could not remain sectional. It was

the greatest of frontiersmen who declared: "I believe this Government

can not endure permanently half slave and half free. It will become all

of one thing or all of the other." Nothing works for nationalism like

intercourse within the nation. Mobility of population is death to

localism, and the western frontier worked irresistibly in unsettling

population. The effect reached back from the frontier and affected

profoundly the Atlantic coast and even the Old World.

But the most important effect of the frontier has been in the promotion

of democracy here and in Europe. As has been indicated, the frontier is

productive of individualism. Complex society is precipitated by the

wilderness into a kind of primitive organization based on the family.

The tendency is anti-social. It produces antipathy to control, and

particularly to any direct control. The tax-gatherer is viewed as a

representative of oppression. Prof. Osgood, in an able article,[30:1]

has pointed out that the frontier conditions prevalent in the colonies

are important factors in the explanation of the American Revolution,

where individual liberty was sometimes confused with absence of all

effective government. The same conditions aid in explaining the

difficulty of instituting a strong government in the period of the

confederacy. The frontier individualism has from the beginning promoted

democracy.

The frontier States that came into the Union in the first quarter of a

century of its existence came in with democratic suffrage provisions,

and had reactive effects of the highest importance upon the older States

whose peoples were being attracted there. An extension of the franchise

became essential. It was _western_ New York that forced an extension of

suffrage in the constitutional convention of that State in 1821; and it

was _western_ Virginia that compelled the tide-water region to put a

more liberal suffrage provision in the constitution framed in 1830, and

to give to the frontier region a more nearly proportionate

representation with the tide-water aristocracy. The rise of democracy as

an effective force in the nation came in with western preponderance

under Jackson and William Henry Harrison, and it meant the triumph of

the frontier--with all of its good and with all of its evil

elements.[31:1] An interesting illustration of the tone of frontier

democracy in 1830 comes from the same debates in the Virginia convention

already referred to. A representative from western Virginia declared:

But, sir, it is not the increase of population in the West

which this gentleman ought to fear. It is the energy which the

mountain breeze and western habits impart to those emigrants.

They are regenerated, politically I mean, sir. They soon

become _working politicians_; and the difference, sir, between

a _talking_ and a _working_ politician is immense. The Old

Dominion has long been celebrated for producing great orators;

the ablest metaphysicians in policy; men that can split hairs

in all abstruse questions of political economy. But at home,

or when they return from Congress, they have negroes to fan

them asleep. But a Pennsylvania, a New York, an Ohio, or a

western Virginia statesman, though far inferior in logic,

metaphysics, and rhetoric to an old Virginia statesman, has

this advantage, that when he returns home he takes off his

coat and takes hold of the plow. This gives him bone and

muscle, sir, and preserves his republican principles pure and

uncontaminated.

So long as free land exists, the opportunity for a competency exists,

and economic power secures political power. But the democracy born of

free land, strong in selfishness and individualism, intolerant of

administrative experience and education, and pressing individual liberty

beyond its proper bounds, has its dangers as well as its benefits.

Individualism in America has allowed a laxity in regard to governmental

affairs which has rendered possible the spoils system and all the

manifest evils that follow from the lack of a highly developed civic

spirit. In this connection may be noted also the influence of frontier

conditions in permitting lax business honor, inflated paper currency and

wild-cat banking. The colonial and revolutionary frontier was the region

whence emanated many of the worst forms of an evil currency.[32:1] The

West in the War of 1812 repeated the phenomenon on the frontier of that

day, while the speculation and wild-cat banking of the period of the

crisis of 1837 occurred on the new frontier belt of the next tier of

States. Thus each one of the periods of lax financial integrity

coincides with periods when a new set of frontier communities had

arisen, and coincides in area with these successive frontiers, for the

most part. The recent Populist agitation is a case in point. Many a

State that now declines any connection with the tenets of the Populists,

itself adhered to such ideas in an earlier stage of the development of

the State. A primitive society can hardly be expected to show the

intelligent appreciation of the complexity of business interests in a

developed society. The continual recurrence of these areas of

paper-money agitation is another evidence that the frontier can be

isolated and studied as a factor in American history of the highest

importance.[32:2]

The East has always feared the result of an unregulated advance of the

frontier, and has tried to check and guide it. The English authorities

would have checked settlement at the headwaters of the Atlantic

tributaries and allowed the "savages to enjoy their deserts in quiet

lest the peltry trade should decrease." This called out Burke's splendid

protest:

If you stopped your grants, what would be the consequence? The

people would occupy without grants. They have already so

occupied in many places. You can not station garrisons in

every part of these deserts. If you drive the people from one

place, they will carry on their annual tillage and remove with

their flocks and herds to another. Many of the people in the

back settlements are already little attached to particular

situations. Already they have topped the Appalachian

Mountains. From thence they behold before them an immense

plain, one vast, rich, level meadow; a square of five hundred

miles. Over this they would wander without a possibility of

restraint; they would change their manners with their habits

of life; would soon forget a government by which they were

disowned; would become hordes of English Tartars; and, pouring

down upon your unfortified frontiers a fierce and irresistible

cavalry, become masters of your governors and your

counselers, your collectors and comptrollers, and of all the

slaves that adhered to them. Such would, and in no long time

must, be the effect of attempting to forbid as a crime and to

suppress as an evil the command and blessing of Providence,

"Increase and multiply." Such would be the happy result of an

endeavor to keep as a lair of wild beasts that earth which

God, by an express charter, has given to the children of men.

But the English Government was not alone in its desire to limit the

advance of the frontier and guide its destinies. Tidewater

Virginia[34:1] and South Carolina[34:2] gerrymandered those colonies to

insure the dominance of the coast in their legislatures. Washington

desired to settle a State at a time in the Northwest; Jefferson would

reserve from settlement the territory of his Louisiana Purchase north of

the thirty-second parallel, in order to offer it to the Indians in

exchange for their settlements east of the Mississippi. "When we shall

be full on this side," he writes, "we may lay off a range of States on

the western bank from the head to the mouth, and so range after range,

advancing compactly as we multiply." Madison went so far as to argue to

the French minister that the United States had no interest in seeing

population extend itself on the right bank of the Mississippi, but

should rather fear it. When the Oregon question was under debate, in

1824, Smyth, of Virginia, would draw an unchangeable line for the limits

of the United States at the outer limit of two tiers of States beyond

the Mississippi, complaining that the seaboard States were being drained

of the flower of their population by the bringing of too much land into

market. Even Thomas Benton, the man of widest views of the destiny of

the West, at this stage of his career declared that along the ridge of

the Rocky mountains "the western limits of the Republic should be drawn,

and the statue of the fabled god Terminus should be raised upon its

highest peak, never to be thrown down."[35:1] But the attempts to limit

the boundaries, to restrict land sales and settlement, and to deprive

the West of its share of political power were all in vain. Steadily the

frontier of settlement advanced and carried with it individualism,

democracy, and nationalism, and powerfully affected the East and the Old

World.

The most effective efforts of the East to regulate the frontier came

through its educational and religious activity, exerted by interstate

migration and by organized societies. Speaking in 1835, Dr. Lyman

Beecher declared: "It is equally plain that the religious and political

destiny of our nation is to be decided in the West," and he pointed out

that the population of the West "is assembled from all the States of the

Union and from all the nations of Europe, and is rushing in like the

waters of the flood, demanding for its moral preservation the immediate

and universal action of those institutions which discipline the mind and

arm the conscience and the heart. And so various are the opinions and

habits, and so recent and imperfect is the acquaintance, and so sparse

are the settlements of the West, that no homogeneous public sentiment

can be formed to legislate immediately into being the requisite

institutions. And yet they are all needed immediately in their utmost

perfection and power. A nation is being 'born in a day.' . . . But what

will become of the West if her prosperity rushes up to such a majesty of

power, while those great institutions linger which are necessary to form

the mind and the conscience and the heart of that vast world. It must

not be permitted. . . . Let no man at the East quiet himself and dream

of liberty, whatever may become of the West. . . . Her destiny is our

destiny."[36:1]

With the appeal to the conscience of New England, he adds appeals to her

fears lest other religious sects anticipate her own. The New England

preacher and school-teacher left their mark on the West. The dread of

Western emancipation from New England's political and economic control

was paralleled by her fears lest the West cut loose from her religion.

Commenting in 1850 on reports that settlement was rapidly extending

northward in Wisconsin, the editor of the _Home Missionary_ writes: "We

scarcely know whether to rejoice or mourn over this extension of our

settlements. While we sympathize in whatever tends to increase the

physical resources and prosperity of our country, we can not forget that

with all these dispersions into remote and still remoter corners of the

land the supply of the means of grace is becoming relatively less and

less." Acting in accordance with such ideas, home missions were

established and Western colleges were erected. As seaboard cities like

Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore strove for the mastery of Western

trade, so the various denominations strove for the possession of the

West. Thus an intellectual stream from New England sources fertilized

the West. Other sections sent their missionaries; but the real struggle

was between sects. The contest for power and the expansive tendency

furnished to the various sects by the existence of a moving frontier

must have had important results on the character of religious

organization in the United States. The multiplication of rival churches

in the little frontier towns had deep and lasting social effects. The

religious aspects of the frontier make a chapter in our history which

needs study.

From the conditions of frontier life came intellectual traits of

profound importance. The works of travelers along each frontier from

colonial days onward describe certain common traits, and these traits

have, while softening down, still persisted as survivals in the place of

their origin, even when a higher social organization succeeded. The

result is that to the frontier the American intellect owes its striking

characteristics. That coarseness and strength combined with acuteness

and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to

find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the

artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous

energy;[37:1] that dominant individualism, working for good and for

evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with

freedom--these are traits of the frontier, or traits called out

elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier. Since the days when

the fleet of Columbus sailed into the waters of the New World, America

has been another name for opportunity, and the people of the United

States have taken their tone from the incessant expansion which has not

only been open but has even been forced upon them. He would be a rash

prophet who should assert that the expansive character of American life

has now entirely ceased. Movement has been its dominant fact, and,

unless this training has no effect upon a people, the American energy

will continually demand a wider field for its exercise. But never again

will such gifts of free land offer themselves. For a moment, at the

frontier, the bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is triumphant.

There is not _tabula rasa_. The stubborn American environment is there

with its imperious summons to accept its conditions; the inherited ways

of doing things are also there; and yet, in spite of environment, and in

spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish a new field of

opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and

freshness, and confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its

restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have

accompanied the frontier. What the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks,

breaking the bond of custom, offering new experiences, calling out new

institutions and activities, that, and more, the ever retreating

frontier has been to the United States directly, and to the nations of

Europe more remotely. And now, four centuries from the discovery of

America, at the end of a hundred years of life under the Constitution,

the frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first period of

American history.

FOOTNOTES:

[1:1] A paper read at the meeting of the American Historical Association

in Chicago, July 12, 1893. It first appeared in the Proceedings of the

State Historical Society of Wisconsin, December 14, 1893, with the

following note: "The foundation of this paper is my article entitled

'Problems in American History,' which appeared in _The Aegis_, a

publication of the students of the University of Wisconsin, November 4,

1892. . . . It is gratifying to find that Professor Woodrow

Wilson--whose volume on 'Division and Reunion' in the Epochs of American

History Series, has an appreciative estimate of the importance of the

West as a factor in American history--accepts some of the views set

forth in the papers above mentioned, and enhances their value by his

lucid and suggestive treatment of them in his article in _The Forum_,

December, 1893, reviewing Goldwin Smith's 'History of the United

States.'" The present text is that of the _Report of the American

Historical Association_ for 1893, 199-227. It was printed with additions

in the _Fifth Year Book of the National Herbart Society_, and in various

other publications.

[2:1] "Abridgment of Debates of Congress," v, p. 706.

[5:1] Bancroft (1860 ed.), iii, pp. 344, 345, citing Logan MSS.;

[Mitchell] "Contest in America," etc. (1752), p. 237.

[5:2] Kercheval, "History of the Valley"; Bernheim, "German Settlements

in the Carolinas"; Winsor, "Narrative and Critical History of America,"

v, p. 304; Colonial Records of North Carolina, iv, p. xx; Weston,

"Documents Connected with the History of South Carolina," p. 82; Ellis

and Evans, "History of Lancaster County, Pa.," chs. iii, xxvi.

[5:3] Parkman, "Pontiac," ii; Griffis, "Sir William Johnson," p. 6;

Simms's "Frontiersmen of New York."

[5:4] Monette, "Mississippi Valley," i, p. 311.

[5:5] Wis. Hist. Cols., xi, p. 50; Hinsdale, "Old Northwest," p. 121;

Burke, "Oration on Conciliation," Works (1872 ed.), i, p. 473.

[5:6] Roosevelt, "Winning of the West," and citations there given;

Cutler's "Life of Cutler."

[6:1] Scribner's Statistical Atlas, xxxviii, pl. 13; McMaster, "Hist. of

People of U. S.," i, pp. 4, 60, 61; Imlay and Filson, "Western Territory

of America" (London, 1793); Rochefoucault-Liancourt, "Travels Through

the United States of North America" (London, 1799); Michaux's "Journal,"

in _Proceedings American Philosophical Society_, xxvi, No. 129; Forman,

"Narrative of a Journey Down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1780-'90"

(Cincinnati, 1888); Bartram, "Travels Through North Carolina," etc.

(London, 1792); Pope, "Tour Through the Southern and Western

Territories," etc. (Richmond, 1792); Weld, "Travels Through the States

of North America" (London, 1799); Baily, "Journal of a Tour in the

Unsettled States of North America, 1796-'97" (London, 1856);

Pennsylvania Magazine of History, July, 1886; Winsor, "Narrative and

Critical History of America," vii, pp. 491, 492, citations.

[6:2] Scribner's Statistical Atlas, xxxix.

[6:3] Turner, "Character and Influence of the Indian Trade in Wisconsin"

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series ix), pp. 61 ff.

[7:1] Monette, "History of the Mississippi Valley," ii; Flint, "Travels

and Residence in Mississippi," Flint, "Geography and History of the

Western States," "Abridgment of Debates of Congress," vii, pp. 397, 398,

404; Holmes, "Account of the U. S."; Kingdom, "America and the British

Colonies" (London, 1820); Grund, "Americans," ii, chs. i, iii, vi

(although writing in 1836, he treats of conditions that grew out of

western advance from the era of 1820 to that time); Peck, "Guide for

Emigrants" (Boston, 1831); Darby, "Emigrants' Guide to Western and

Southwestern States and Territories"; Dana, "Geographical Sketches in

the Western Country"; Kinzie, "Waubun"; Keating, "Narrative of Long's

Expedition"; Schoolcraft, "Discovery of the Sources of the Mississippi

River," "Travels in the Central Portions of the Mississippi Valley," and

"Lead Mines of the Missouri"; Andreas, "History of Illinois," i, 86-99;

Hurlbut, "Chicago Antiquities"; McKenney, "Tour to the Lakes"; Thomas,

"Travels Through the Western Country," etc. (Auburn, N. Y., 1819).

[7:2] Darby, "Emigrants' Guide," pp. 272 ff; Benton, "Abridgment of

Debates," vii, p. 397.

[7:3] De Bow's _Review_, iv, p. 254; xvii, p. 428.

[7:4] Grund, "Americans," ii, p. 8.

The Frontier in American History · 第 2 / 29 段