esis of the frontier as the formative influence on American character came to dominate the historiography of the West, but in the latter half of this century historians began to seriously question his evidence, his findings, and his conclusions. Turner, in his eagerness to reorient his profession, emphasized the frontier at the expense of other factors and could make hyperbolic remarks such as his statement that "when American history comes to be rightly viewed it will be seen that the slavery question is an incident" (quoted in Etulain 38).
Writing in the 1890s, Turner might be excused for thinking the Civil War had settled the problem (although this would mark him as singularly inattentive to his surroundings) but his remark is important because it focuses the problems that later historians had with his work. They came to see that, despite paying "more attention to Native Americans than did most contemporary historians," Turner ignored their full importance and almost completely omitted the experience of other minorities, women, and families (Etulain 40). Yet Turner's thesis is not negligible. It continues to provide, for example, "the most useful plot line for narrating the story of American history" and it redirected attention to a spirit and events that truly were major factors in forming American character. Even in the late eighteenth century CrFvecoeur, a man of the frontier when the frontier was still east of the Mississippi, held that new arrivals in America could not help loving a country in which they were allowed to be part of the "new race of men . . . the western pilgrims, who are carrying along with them that great mass of arts, sciences, vigour, and industry which began long since in the east" (40).
But while CrFvecoeur, one of the first prophets of the melting pot, praised the European immigrants and "that strange mixture of blood which you will find in no other country" as the vital force driving the new n...