Tuesday, 15 April 2014

How the West was Lost: Ranchers and Empire in the American West

20 Cowboys Break Fed Blockade in Nevada, Retrieve Cattle

The recent victory of the Bundy family over invading federal agents – with a posse of armed cowboys riding herd on the agents -- has been characterised as How the West Was Was Won
Author of this Guest Post Ryan McMaken is  not so sure.

The militarised siege of a cattle ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada has drawn national attention as dozens of federal agents, armed with machine guns, sniper rifles, helicopters, and more, have descended on the ranch to seize cattle, people, and generally show everyone who’s boss.

The conservative press has framed the story in a variety of ways, casting the story both as matter of outright federal seizure of private land, and as an absurd environmental crusade to save a tortoise from extinction.

The reality looks to be a little murkier, however, as is often the case when dealing with land ownership in the American West. Back in September, the Las Vegas Sun reported on the Bundy family and noted that troubles began 20 years ago when the family’s patriarch unilaterally determined that he would no longer pay the Bureau of Land Management use fees that have long been required to graze on federal lands. The exact legal and historical details of the Bundy family’s case will emerge slowly over time, but even if the family is completely in the wrong legally (which it probably is), it’s safe to say that taxpayer dollars might be better spent on things other than a shock and awe campaign waged against a tiny ranch in the middle of a Nevada desert. Nonetheless, this is just the latest dispute in a long history of ranchers jockeying with the Federal government over land use permits and land use regulations.[1]

While those who are unfamiliar with land use in the West may see this as some sort of new dastardly deed on the part of the federal government, it is in fact the case that leasing federal land for grazing (among many other things) has been the status quo in the West for more than a century, and the federal government has owned at least 40 percent or more of the land in many Western states ever since it was annexed to the United States in the nineteenth century. In fact, the nation’s 13 Western states are home to 93 percent of federal land, with two-thirds of all land in Utah, and 81 percent of all land in Nevada owned by the feds.

The image of the American West as a place of private property and blissful independence from government control has long been a myth, and the fact is that life in the West has involved the federal government much more so than life in the East much of the time. This is because the land and other natural resources in the West are controlled by a vast socialist bureaucracy governing water, land, and minerals going back to the late nineteenth century. Certainly, within the larger framework of federal control, heavily asserted by a central government bloated by the Civil War, there were many communities that did live extremely independently and in ways that might be considered anarchistic. However, since the 1890s, the overall economy of the American West is best viewed as one that has been dominated by federal land ownership, regulation, subsidies, and bureaucracy.

The Rise of the Federal Bureaucracy in the West

[Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 Homesteading Act offered free land to mean and women willing to farm it. It was “a notable example of the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch in a previously ownerless area,” the high point of Lockean property rights in the US, and a law which helped  American become an economic superpower.  But then in 1892 it was annulled, and it all started going downhill.] In his New History of the American West, Richard White writes:

Beginning in the 1890s, the central government ceased to be a nursemaid to the future states and a prodigal distributor of resources to the country’s citizens and corporations. Washington instead became a manager of Western land, resources, and, inevitably, people.[2]

Behind this was the philosophy that the central government could best ensure that the resources of the Western U.S. were distributed and managed “efficiently.” In the minds of nineteenth-century intellectuals, government intervention would be necessary to create the conditions necessary for the existence of “efficient” capitalism. As it had done with the railroads, the federal government would step in to ensure competition and efficiency in the new marketplaces of the frontier.

By 1903, Theodore Roosevelt’s Public Land Commission solidified the concept of public ownership throughout the West, thus ending the idea that all lands in the West should be distributed via the Homestead Acts.

The rise of the Bureau of Reclamation (which managed water) and the Bureau of Land Management ensured that both water and land would be controlled either directly or indirectly by federal government agencies indefinitely. Whatever the philosophical origins, the situation quickly degenerated into the all-too-familiar situation seen anywhere that the state dominates and controls the distribution of resources. Federal agencies became the target of lobbying efforts by interest groups large and small, with regulatory capture resulting. Leases for land for oil drilling, mining, and grazing quickly became important for doing business in the region, and naturally, maintaining influence within federal agencies under such conditions was a key to success.

Support for federal control in the region remained widespread among Westerners themselves. As a region that was poorer and less able to attract capital than the East, many Westerners quickly made peace with this system of federal ownership, not least of all because the Federal government, through subsidies, public works programs, and military spending, had become an economic driver in the West.

But competition for control of federal lands among various segments of the population continued all the same. Writes White:

Corporations tended to be more fickle allies of the federal bureaucracies, but on the whole, they, too, proved sympathetic to federal management; certainly they were more sympathetic than small businessmen. Large and small resource users in the West, all pursuing their own calculus of self-interest, split over particular proposals. ... Small stock grazers and small lumbermen tended to oppose the new federal presence which tended to thwart their ambition for expansion. Larger stock raisers and big timber companies, however, realized that federal supervision could serve their interests by helping restrain the overproduction that plagued their industries, by restricting the expansion of potential competitors, and by allowing them to turn their greater financial resources into privileged access to the federal domain.[3]

In other words, private firms that dominated the Western economies liked the federal bureaucracy because it helped powerful firms keep prices high, and bar entry for competitors.

In later decades, the federal agencies would also be influenced by new environmental and conservationist groups, but for all the talk of preserving the desert tortoise in the Bundy Ranch case, it should not surprise anyone if we find later that major oil and gas firms are actually behind the drive to finally end desert access for small ranchers.

Many in the West today now find themselves victims of the same federal government that their ancestors once cheered as it drove out the original inhabitants, laid down roads, granted land and built dams. The federal government is a fickle master, however, and the fact that it never relinquished control of so many lands that it had seized makes it an undeniable force for all who wish to do business here.

Photo of Ryan    McMakenRyan W. McMaken is a Colorado writer and economist, editor of Mises Daily and The Free Market, and author of  Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.
This post first appeared at the Mises Daily. It has been edited.

[1] The incorrectly-named Sagebrush Rebellion, for example, was not a rebellion at all, but simply a dispute between ranchers and environmentalists who sought to influence federal land-use regulations. It appears that the Bundy Ranch case merely continues these controversies.
[2] Richard White, It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West (University of Oklahoma Press, 1993), p. 399.
[3] Ibid., p. 392.

1 comment:

  1. Ryan,

    I think you are mistaken about the history of the Bundy rights in the land. The Bundy family acquired grazing rights to this land in the 1870s, those rights were in perpetuity, much like mining rights to a tract of land. Sometime in the 1970s the BLM either outright confiscated the land with some vague promises or they entered into an agreement to acquire the Bundy’s grazing rights – that part of the story is not clear. Either way the BLM failed to live up to its part of the bargain.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.