Northwest, and that modern historians call the Old Northwest.rnThe first I have mentioned already: space. Not only does spacernconfer an incalculable psychic freedom for all except agoraphobics,rnthere is simply no substitute for living where the governmentrn—any government—can’t find you. The second is thatrnthe Western states, from the Mississippi River to the PacificrnOcean, were territories first—not political colonies, though Irnam aware that the history of the trans-Appalachia region inrnsome ways matches and foreshadows the Western territorialrncondition, as it certainly does that of the Western frontier. Thernthird is that these territories, because of their vast distance fromrnWashington, D.C., and because the revolution in communicationsrnhad not yet occurred, enjoyed true territorial governmentrn—meaning, except in cases of emergency involving hidianrnattack and foreign governments jousting for empire,rnself-rule. Although the federal government fixed the terms ofrnsettlement, assumed the combined role of real-estate agent andrnland-promoter, and created the greatest incentives (such as waterrndevelopment and generous mining laws) for settlers to gornWest, the territorial governments operated for the most part independentlyrnof Congress, while, within the territories, therncounties—and, within the counties, the towns—enjoyed similarrnfreedom. In territorial times, the most common agent of externalrninterference, as well as of unrestrained and undemocraticrnpower, was not Washington but the great and rapaciousrncorporations chartered by Washington to “develop” the West,rnship its resources East, and enrich themselves in the process.rnThe space remains. What the West needs to regain is thernspirit and even the fact of territoriality, modified to fit presentrnrealities: at the very least a true federalism, similar to what existedrnunder the Articles of Confederation, or even more so. Inrna time when such a sober and respectable critic as George Kennanrnhas suggested that the nation be redesigned as an associationrnof regional states, the idea may be more realistic than atrnfirst it appears. The chief problem entailed by the return to territoriality,rnor regionalism, in any form is the disposition of thernfederally owned lands in the West, which the Sagebrush Rebellionrnin the late 1970’s and eariy 8()’s claimed for the Westernrnstates. This demand is perpetuated in the 90’s by Westernrnstates’ rights groups, and also by a variety of so-called wise use,rnor multiple use, organizations throughout the West. The questionrnof public lands ownership is more than a vexed issue; it is arndistressing one. On the one hand, it is hard to see how thernWestern states can be expected to achieve even the circumscribedrnfederalism currently enjoyed by Maine or New YorkrnState so long as the federal government continues to own fromrn49 percent (Wyoming) to 89 percent (Nevada) of their physicalrnextent. On the other hand, there exists the possibility (I wouldrnsay the probability) that the state governments, once in fullrnownership of the former federal lands, would proceed to sellrnthem off to the highest bidders—that is to say, to those withrnthe greatest financial assets, meaning corporations and wealthyrnindividuals from the East and West Coasts, as well as thoserntransplanted to the great “Western” cities. The result would bernthat the West had escaped the iron hand of Big Governmentrnonly to fall once again under the steely claw of Big Business: BigrnGovernment’s ally, in fact its alter ego. Thus the West wouldrnhave reverted to the colonial status (economically speaking) itrnexperienced in the 19th century, with this difference: the colonizersrnwould not only own and operate, they would inhabit therncolonies whose economy they controlled! For all their meddlesomernofficiousness and petty tyranny, the small army of federalrnbureaucrats posted in the West from the Progressive era to thernpresent time has effected no direct change in the social and culturalrncomplexion of the region. Like the rest of us, the occupiersrn—some of ihem quislings—like to fish and camp, keep arnfew head of horses for elk hunting, and prefer a real bar to onernthat sells cappuccino in cups-and-saucers. Aliens though theyrnare, they have proven themselves to be culturally assimilable.rnAnd their numbers are statistically negligible.rnWhat the national environmental organizations have yet torngrasp, as some of the local ones have already done, is that BillrnClinton and Bruce Babbitt expect to sell them out, too, afterrnthey have destroyed their enemies, the ranchers, miners, andrnloggers. Babbitt and Clinton are not interested in the so-calledrnenvironment, but in stealing Western water, owned by thernstates, to deliver to the big Western cities whose non-Westernrninhabitants have the votes to carry the Western states for thernDemocratic Party. A few weeks before Babbitt, addressing arndinner meeting of Trout Unlimited, gladdened Ed Abbey’srnghost by assuring his audience that his chief ambition in life isrnto take out a really big Western dam, he was in Sierra Vista inrnhis home state of Arizona, promising the blueheads that hernsupports extending the Central Arizona Project’s canal fromrnTucson to their booming but thirsty retirement community inrnthe desert, 80 miles to the southeast near the Mexican border.rnAs for Clinton, the central scandal of his administration risesrnfrom his operations as a land developer and speculator himself.rn(Does the Sierra Club really sympathize with his and his wife’srnscheme to build a recreational resort on the pristine banks of arnfree-flowing river down in Arkansas?) Still, a revival of thernSagebrush Rebellion, at a heightened and more radical level ofrnpolitical activity, is probably necessary to the survival of thernfrontier West. In addition to being indispensable as an enginernof political reform leading to regional semiautonomy, it wouldrngo far to reinvigorate a territorial tradition of popular volatilityrnand suspicion of government in the West. The most heavilyarmedrncitizenry in the nation, angry and mobilized, already hasrnthe capability of making the federal government afraid of thernpeople, rather than the reverse—as is presently the case even inrnthe Mountain states, whose inhabitants perceive Washington,rnD.C., as the Enemy, with not just the strength but the will torndestroy them economically. Already in Idaho, Oregon, WashingtonrnState, and Montana, private militias are forming andrntraining, often with the sanction of county commissions, to opposernwhat they see as possible future attempts by an internationalrngovernment, aided and abetted by the United States government,rnto suppress American constitutional freedoms.rnThough Abbey insisted that the West was won not byrnmountain men, Indian fighters, and prospectors but byrnBig Business and Bigger Government, he was only partly correct.rnFirst it was won by trappers, fighters, and nugget-panners;rnthen it was stolen by the federal government and the corporations,rnwhich desired it for bombing ranges, nuclear testing sites,rnuseless or destructive dams, giant mines and power plants, gamblingrnoases, vast tracts of lumber to sell to the Japanese, andrnconcentration camps for rich but equally stupid old people.rn”Money,” Abbey said, “means power, not merely wealth. Moneyrngives us power over others—to command their labor, theirrnminds, even their souls. Even their behavior, conduct, attitudes.rnNo wonder money possesses such glittering attractionrnfor those who crave power. In a nation where all people werernself-reliant—a nation of artisans, craftsmen, hunters, trappers.rn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn