Stand and fight!

Updated below.

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Hackett Fischer in his wonderful Washington's Crossing, the battle of Trenton and the battle of Princeton a few days later weren't only great symbolic victories for the Americans.

Both battles, and the less famous second battle for Trenton between them, when the British retook the town, at heavy cost, only to have Washington's army slip away in the night to go on to take Princeton, did have important symbolic value to the Cause.  They gave Washington's men confidence, convinced them that they could stand up to the British, and inspired most of those whose enlistments were up to stay on and fight.  And they rallied the country.  1776 had been a hard year and spirits were flagging.  But after Trenton and Princeton there was a renewed sense of hope, and thousands of men rushed to join the Army and many citizens who were torn between their loyalty to the cause of Independence and their sense of self-preservation---why sacrifice yourself to a hopeless task?---became wholehearted Patriots.

But, says Fischer, the battles and the quasi-guerrilla war that followed, which he calls the Forage War and which raged up and down and back and forth across New Jersey all the rest of the winter, had a military significance that went beyond the questions of how many troops were lost on either side and who held what ground when the day was done.

Fischer makes the case that the Forage War broke the confidence of the British army and from that point on the Revolution was pretty much a done deal.

The British commanders hadn't had any respect for the Americans as soldiers.  It was always a shock to them when the Rebels stood and fought.  They were certain that if they could corner Washington's army and fight it on open ground in a real battle, they could destroy it and the Revolution at once.  They were probably right, but after Trenton and Princeton and the Forage War, it began to dawn on them that Washington was never going to give them that chance.

From here on out, Washington would decide when, where, and how the war would be fought.  From here on out, although it might look otherwise at times, the Americans were on the offensive and the British were fighting a defensive war.

The Americans would always be outnumbered, always outgunned, out-supplied, out-trained, sometimes outmaneuvered, and occasionally outfought---but they could not be beaten and not outshot.  The Americans were deadly in their aim and they knew to pick off officers first.  No matter what sort of whupping you gave them today, they would be back again tomorrow.  Every "victory" would come at a heavy price.

Many of the best British officers decided that they would never win the war.  British politicians, on both sides of the question---there was significant support for the American cause, at least as a fight for the rights owed British citizens if not as a fight for complete Independence, all over England---decided the same thing.  From then on, only King George had his heart in the fight.  For the rest of the war the British army was often fighting to keep from admitting they were losing.

You might have gotten ahead of me here and decided I'm working my way to a point about the war in Iraq.  I don't blame you.  There is one to make.  The lesson of Vietnam was that we had forgotten the lesson we taught the British, and the lesson of Iraq is becoming that we forgot the lesson we learned in Vietnam about the lesson we taught the British.

But I'm actually thinking about the upcoming fight against Smiling Sammy Alito.

John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are at work trying to rally the troops to a filibuster.

The Democrats are going to lose it.  We know that going in.  If they filibuster, the Republicans will break their own rules, throw out the compromise, and get rid of the filibuster.

Lindsay Graham, one of the Republican architects of the "compromise" has already admitted that the Democrats were hornswaggled.  The Democrats who "negotiated" the "compromise" left it to the Republicans to decide when it was ok for the Democrats to fillibuster.  There is no situation short of the President's nominating someone to the federal bench who shows up at his confirmation hearings in a pointy hood and bedsheet that the Republicans will grant is extreme enough to warrant a filibuster.

The first time the Democrats try to fillibuster a Bush nominee will be the last. 

Good.

Because we don't want them to be able to use it to stop President Hillary's judicial nominees.

The fight must cost them.

And if managed well it will cost them more than the filibuster later on.  It will cost them now.

It will be fun to see Bill Frist's head exploding on national television.

It will be fun to see the Republicans set back on their heels by the shock of seeing the Democrats actually stand and fight.

It will be fun to see Bush spending political capital he doesn't have to get his man in and fun to see them try to spin a purely partisan win on the numbers as some kind of larger victory.

It will be fun to see a "popular" President have to prove he is, which he can't.

It will be fun to watch the few remaining Republicans with consciences squirm.

It will be fun to watch the few remaining Republican pragmatists have to decide whether or not the filibuster is worth saving for a time when they will need it.

It will be fun, and inspiring, to see Democrats stand and fight.

A lot of us have a sense that the Democrats in Congress have decided that it's not worth fighting any battles they can't win.  That's the definition of surrender, though, isn't it?  Discretion is the better part of valor is not a rallying cry.

They seem resigned to waiting hopefully for the next election and keeping their fingers crossed while Patrick Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle and the prosecutors in the Abramoff Affair---The Case of the Utterly Corrupt Republicans as it should be called---do any fighting that needs to be done.

They've been resigned to fighting a defensive war.

For a moment last fall, when Harry Reid shut down the Senate, the Republicans were thrown on the defensive, shocked by the sight of Democrats fighting back.

It's time to shock them again.

If the Democrats want to win elections this fall they need to rally the citizenry.  They need to convince us they can fight.

Harry Reid wants to fight, but I think he doubts the troops are behind him.  Call and write your Senators and tell them what you want them to do.

"Stand and fight!"
__________________________________________________

The battle cry's being raised everywhere on the web, but this morning I happened to read it again in this post by Leah and this one by Lambert, both at Corrente; and as always I got to where I needed to get---in this case Dave Johnson's postings of Kerry's and Kennedy's battle cries at Seeing the Forest---by following the links provided by Avedon Carol.

Update:  Another one I owe to Avedon.  The Carpetbagger applauds Kerry for wanting to go down swinging but shakes his head at the way the Media is already covering the issue as a lost cause and futile gesture.  Democrats are never supposed to fight back, remember.  It confuses the whole Party of Wimps storyline.

Comments

[Linkmeister]

"Call and write your Senators and tell them what you want them to do."

Here are the addresses.

And if you say, "My Senators are Republicans." I say, call 'em and tell 'em you don't like Alito, and why do they? He's on record as not thinking much of Congressional power (Google "Alito and Rybar"); is that what you want?

[Lance]

Thanks for the link, Link. I called the both Schumer's and Clinton's local offices. They were swamped. The aide at Schumer's office said that all their calls were anti-Alito.

[sfmike]

It's impossible to get through by phone to the California senators today. So even though it's not all that effective, I did send emails to their offices, even to the pure odiousness that is Senator Dianne Feinstein.

[Jeff Medcalf]

Two comments, one on the historical note and one on the current political note.

Washington's biggest impact, the thing he did that none of his generals except perhaps Lafayette could have done, was keeping the army in the field. Washington did this while continually fighting with Congress to get sufficient funding to pay and equip his troops. As long as we maintained an army in the field — even if it won no battles — European countries could plausibly trade with the colonies and enter into alliances with them without directly sparking a war with England. This is what prompted France (already at war with England) to support our cause, without which the English would not have been beaten (the French troops and even more their fleet raised the costs to the British to an unsustainable level).

The Democrats are all about fighting right now. But fighting pointlessly, expending their strength in losing battles without using those defeats to make gains elsewhere. If the Democrats want to win the House, Senate or Presidency (and they need to win at least one of them in the next four years if we don't want the Republicans to start acting like the Democrats under Johnson, as if the country was their private property), they need to focus on picking issues that resonate with voters. That in turn means getting serious about immigration and national security (both issues where Republicans are vulnerable to a principled, patriotic attack), and finding a way to make liberal social issues appealing. (Hint: universal gay marriage and unrestricted abortion rights may be popular with the activists, and bring in the cash, but they don't win elections.)

Frankly, I see the Democrats being soundly trounced this year, because there's nothing important in their positions. Democrats say Republicans are corrupt, and it's true, but voters still remember the Democrats' final years in power, and don't see much difference. Democrats say Republicans are ruining the economy, but you look around and see the economy booming along and that message isn't going to sell any more than last time around, when the case for that was much better. Worse yet, hounding deficits doesn't cut it either, because nobody cares (even though they should) and those that care don't see the Democrats as being any better.

[Linkmeister]

"Economy booming along?"

From WAPO:

The 1.1 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter marked a considerable loss of momentum from the third quarter's brisk 4.1 percent pace. The fourth-quarter's figure - lower than the 2.8 percent pace economists were forecasting - was the weakest performance since the final quarter of 2002, when the economy expanded at just a 0.2 percent rate.

Whose personal economy is booming? Mine ain't.

[jonst]

Jeff,

Here is what you wrote, among other things:
"The Democrats are all about fighting right now".

Really, enough said. And you got worse, in my opinion, from there. Rarely have a seen so many incorrect statements in so short a space.

[Rana]

I was with you through all of this piece -- which I think is great -- except for this part: "President Hillary"

I don't think it's going to happen -- and if it did, the kind of Democrat she represents is not the kind that stands and fights like we want them to.

(A President Boxer, now, or a President Conyers, or even a President Gore...)

[sfmike]

I guess my email to Senator Feinstein's office worked. She's changed her mind and is going with the filibuster.

[Lance]

Atta boy, Mike! Now if only you could work your magic on the other wobbly-kneed Democrats.

[Linkmeister]

Let's not count chickens too soon. Some of the Democrats may agree to vote "no" on cloture on Monday, but not agree to filibuster. Two different things, as I understand it.

[Redbeard]

Voting 'no' on cloture is not the same as a filibuster, Linkmeister? Explain the difference.

[The Heretik]

The British army never lost the war. The British traitors back in England lost the war for them. Or something.

[Linkmeister]

Redbeard, as I understand it, it takes 60 votes to agree to cloture. If the majority can't reach 60, debate/filibuster can continue. So you could vote no on cloture without participating in the filibuster, which sounds like (and probably is) a good way to cover your backside if you think your constituents won't get it.

From a Findlaw article:

The filibuster is a U. S. Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely. The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.

The filibuster, obviously, plays a crucial role whenever only 50 to 59 Senators support a given bill or nomination. It can ensure that the proposal is not approved, despite the fact that a majority of the Senate (or half the Senate, plus the Vice President, who breaks ties) would approve the measure if a vote were taken.

[Linkmeister]

Alternatively, you could just abstain on the cloture vote, which would mean the majority still couldn't reach 60 if enough Senators did it. Probably an even better way to CYA.

[Joaquin]

Probably the single most important decision that Washington made was to "innoculate" his army against smallpox which basically consisted of giving his soldiers smallpox but in a controlled situation; not in the field. George Washington actually accused the British of Biowarfare. Up to that point, Smallpox was responsible for a 40% casualty rate in the revolutionary army. By the way, the most successful technique for mobilizing soldiers was to promise tennant farmers that they could become "freeholders".

Regarding Mr. Alito, this is part of a process that began a long time ago when George Washington, the richest man in America, helped create the United States. The historian Charles Beard wrote "Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government."

Alito will be doing his job by making sure that the rich control government which now days means that corporations will control government. BTW the New York times denounced Mr. Beard's writing; I rest my case.

[Adorable Girlfriend]

I would pay good money to see Frist's head explode from no more than three rows back. GOOD MONEY!