By Jack Linden
The situation in Nevada has become an embarrassment for the right wing of the Republican Party. Some Republicans came out three weeks ago in favor of a rancher, Cliven Bundy, and his fight against what he claimed was a takeover of his property.
The Bureau of Land Management impounded 900 head of cattle in early April, following more than 20 years of battling Bundy, a 67-year-old patriarch of a large Mormon family, because Bundy refused to pay grazing fees on federal land where he fed his cattle.
Is that fair? Why defend Bundy? Those who are still defending the freeloading rancher need to distance themselves from him. But, it is obvious that some continue to support him for only one reason – because the rancher was against the federal government. They simply did not think.
The rancher said he does not recognize the federal government at all, and only state and local government a bit, saying that the people, not the feds, own the land. These ideas are totally strange to me and to anyone who knows U.S. history. In a nutshell, the federal government had owned all the land except the original 13 colonies.
Acquisition of the land west of the colonies came about in several way, with a big chunk coming under the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War. That treaty pushed the United States westward to the Mississippi River.Then, President Thomas Jefferson acquired the land west of the Mississippi to the watershed line of the Rocky Mountains.
Yes, all of the land west of the original 13 colonies, with the exception of Texas, was once owned by the federal government. And that government set up the criteria by which territories were created and how states would become part of the Union. The most important criteria in the creation of new states was the swearing of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.
Basically, the BLM is not doing a land grab in this case or any other. There would be no Nevada were it not for the federal government. What we now know as Nevada would still be in Mexico were it not acquired by the feds. And, whoever owns the land has the right to charge a fee for the use of that land.
Would those who have jumped on the rancher’s bandwagon be so lenient about their own land? The mob that ascended on the rancher’s land was not the officers of BLM, but rather those who came to protect a violator of law. Bundy not only was a scofflaw by not paying the fee, he was in unfair competition to other ranchers who were paying.
If the right wing and Republicans demand the obeying of laws, why have they not condemned this man for not doing so? After all, the fees were authorized by Congress and the courts have found the rancher in violation of the law and liable for the fees that were accrued.
The issue now is how will the laws be enforced? One of the spokespersons for the “protectors” said if the federal officials fire on them, the women and children will be hit first, as they will be the wall for the “protectors.” Has the federal government used military force to enforce its laws? Yes. Go back to the Washington administration to see the first use of force – in the “Whisky Rebellion” when President Washington symbolically led the troops.
All of these current “protectors” need to study a bit of U.S. history. They will find Bundy is wrong.
jdlinden@satx.rr.com
