While Jim Lighthizer resides in a very rural part of Dorchester County these days, quite some distance from the Talbot County Courthouse and the controversial Talbot Boys statue that rests on its lawn, he comes into that debate with significant “street cred.”
For more than two decades, Jim has spent his professional life making Civil War history both prominent and relevant as the president of the American Battlefield Trust. During that time, he and his small staff and board of directors saved 52,000 acres of open space and 130 battlefields in 24 states by raising over $500 million to keep history alive.
Jim’s name might also ring a bell for some Marylanders. Before his involvement in preserving Civil War battlefields, he was a major player in Annapolis politics for most of the 1980s and 90s. First as a Democratic state delegate, then as Anne Arundel County Executive, and finally as the state’s Secretary of Transportation under Governor William Donald Schaefer, Lighthizer gained a real appreciation for preserving history and saving land in those positions.
With that kind of unique background, the Spy couldn’t think of a better subject to interview for our ongoing series entitled “The Talbot Boys Conservation.”
At 75 years old, Lighthizer is enjoying the freedom in retirement to speak one’s mind. With echoes of his friend Donald Schaefer’s famous frank way of speaking, Jim does not hold back in making his argument that the statue should stay right where it is.
In fact, Lighthizer also notes that having the Talbot Boys located just feet away from the Frederick Douglass monument as a contributing factor in not moving the C.S.A. memorial. He makes the case that this unique juxtaposition is just the kind of thing that keeps memory and history alive for generations to come.
We stay down with Jim at the WHCP studios in Cambridge to chat this week.
This video is approximately five minutes in length.
Paul Callahan says
Thank you Mr. Lighthizer for all the work and dedication you have done on preserving our Civil War history with the American Battlefield trust and other endeavors your have accomplished.
Thank you for taking a personal interest and speaking out about our important civil war history we have right here in Talbot county. I can not agree with you more, our Talbot Boys statue is a memorial to our ancestors established by our ancestors. If you allow any group to begin removing such memorials on a whim and without the slightest of additional evidence then where does that end? They would also be giving their permission to future generations to remove memorials that they value today – Douglass?
This memorial has been researched in excruciating details with the claims against it examined carefully. All historical evidence reveals clearly that this is just a memorial to our men who fought and nothing more. It’s concept and theme has been tied directly to the Gettysburg veterans reunion of 1913 where Captain Oswald Tilghman founded the Talbot Boys committee less than a week after returning from that historical event. Our memorials theme, as was the Gettysburg reunion, is of reconciliation and moving upward and onward to build a better future and the flag position chosen to be in a position of respect towards the envisioned Union memorial that was approved to be built.
The recent research of the enlistment dates clearly shows that by the dates of their enlistments they overwhelmingly were motivated by the Constitutional abuses of the Federal government against Maryland and her citizens. Well over half of our Talbot men enlisted in a few short months after Talbot’s Courthouse was surrounded by Federal troops and where they beat and imprisoned Judge Carmichael for his attempts to uphold the US Constitution here in Talbot County. This is what motivated our men. With the same enlistment analysis we also see that Talbot’s enlistments in the Confederacy almost completely stopped after Mr. Lincoln made emancipation of the South’s slaves a war objective in January 1863. Nothing can speak more clearly and definitively about our ancestors motivations.
Henry Herr says
Once again Mr. Callahan, when you make these claims, they are opinions. These are not facts, no matter how you tell it. The fact is, no historians agree with your assertions.
The statue was created during the Jim Crow era. It is impossible to assert the only reason the statue was created was because of the anniversary of Gettysburg. There is no factual evidence to support that claim. Just because those events happened at the same does not necessarily mean they are related. That’s why historians do not agree with your claims. Why were no Black people or veterans invited to the Gettysburg anniversary?
Another assertion you claim is fact is that these Talbot men fought because of the beating of Talbot’d judge. There is no evidence to prove that’s why they fought. Read their diaries, read the papers of the time, read the legislation that was constructed. It is impossible to link two independent events with no sources. You don’t even state that most of those who signed up to fight did so at the start of the war…when a lot of people in the South signed up. When the horrors of the war started to show, everyone stopped signing up to fight. Thats a fact that you leave out.
Why is it so hard for people who claim that people need to know history not consult historians and primary sources?
Why is antiquated noncontexualozed statues more important than citizens of today?
Paul Callahan says
Henry, We have never found a historian that did the research on the Talbot Boys enlistment dates so we have. We have found the military records, and other valid sources for the enlistment dates (such as the diary of William Lyons) for approximately 85% of the 84 original Talbot Boys listed on the monument. Of these well over half (55%) enlisted in a 5 months after the beating of Judge Carmichael in May of 1862. The monthly enlistment rate increased 450% compared to the first 17 months after the firing on Ft Sumpter.
This intensive spike in enlistments after the beating of Judge Carmichael is both statistically and historically significant. The graph of the Talbot Boys enlistments and the database and the sources are listed on the Preserve Talbot History Website, http://www.preservetalbothisotry.org.
Henry Herr says
Paul, to be clear, I’m not debating the numbers. I agree with what you say they are. I am disagreeing on the conclusion. It is only your opinion that the reason for enlistment was due to the judge’s beating. If you have a primary source that states, we joined the fight for the Confederacy because of the judge’s beating, then your assertion would be correct for that enlistment.
However, you don’t have that. A 450% increase also sounds a lot better than 14 people. We aren’t talking about a rush to join immediately following the beating. You are talking about 14 enlistment, whose reasons you do not know. You can claim they joined because of the beating as a theory, and it’s a good theory, but this is not fact.
It’s interesting to me how PTH’s extensive research has yet to uncover how to research and the difference between fact and theory. There is a reason historians don’t agree with your assertions, as I’ve stated, and why historical documents with such theories are published and peer reviewed by historical experts. It confuses me how a group so hyper focused on facts, can’t even distinguish the difference between facts and theories. It truly damages all the hardwork your research has uncovered.
Paul Callahan says
Henry, Lets look at historical facts….
March 1861 – President Lincoln submits a Constitutional Amendment to the States that would forever protect slavery where it then existed.
July 1861 – United States Congress publishes proclamation about the nature and intent of the war and proclaims that it is for re-unification only and will not abolish slavery.
August 1861 – Mr. Lincoln states his paramount objective is to save the Union and not to either save or destroy slavery.
January 1862 – The Maryland legislature published a proclamation to the citizens of Maryland stating that the purpose and intent of the war is re-unification only and that slavery will remain afterwards.
All of the above was published throughout Maryland and our ancestors would have been fully aware of these proclamations..
How is it that you assert that the huge spike in the Talbot Boys enlistments after the beating of Judge Carmichael was just a bunch of white men risking their lives to protect slavery and had nothing to do with the Constitutional abuses they had experienced at the hands of the Federal government?
You are attempting to change Talbot’s history to support a social agenda. I admire your enthusiasm and your actions for your belief’s but we do not change history to give support to a social agenda.
Maryland men fought for Maryland reasons…..
Henry Herr says
Paul, I never asserted that the surge of enlistments was due to slavery only. I only said that it is impossible for you to say, that these Talbot men only fought because of the federal abuses.
Correlation does not equal causation. Maryland men fought for Maryland reasons is true. Every historian agrees, this statue does not accurately reflect history and does not belong on courthouse grounds. Published, Maryland born, historians.
You and Mr. Lighthizer have 0 evidence that moving this statue will erase history. You have 0 primary sources stating that these men did not fight for slavery. You claim that it’s just a coincidence that Jim Crow laws were rampant in the country when this statue was built ignoring that Black people were not even allowed to attend the Gettysburg anniversary. You don’t even acknowledge the attempted lynching, next to the statue. Or the KKK meetings. How can you claim this statue is good for the county today?
PTH and Mr. Lighthizer cannot seem to look at tomorrow. Obsessed with honoring ancestors instead of building a better community today. Once again, PTH claims facts, just as Mr. Lighthizer does, that simply aren’t true. You have no proof.
Henry Herr says
Honestly, flabbergasted that this man’s opinion is worthwhile. He is quoting Robert E. Lee, miscatorizing events, calling the men who fought “boys”, diminishing the thoughts of current citizens, not citing actual history and has 0 evidence moving a statue would erase history. It’s nonsense. Maybe he should learn some history. He’s clearly missing a lot. You think this nation was healed quickly after the Civil War? Maybe for white people. I can’t express how ridiculous I find this. You want to debate the history? Fine. Bring facts, not your opinions. Why ignore the current community?
Anne Stalfort says
Agree with you. Dear God. That monument honors men who put on the Confederate uniform and fought for the cause of slavery. Their personal animosity toward Lincoln is irrelevent. Talbot County has a Confederate Statue on public grounds. “Our statue like others across the country, were not honoring history, or heroes. They were created as political weapons, part of an effort to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.” from In the Shadow of Statues by Mitch Landrieu. The three members of the Council who are keeping The Talbot Boys on the Courthouse grounds, are fighting for a cause that causes pain to many of our citizens. Which one of the council members is going to explain to a child that the statue honoring soldiers who fought to keep this child’s ancestors enslaved, deserves to be put on a pedestal, looked up to, and deserves to stand at the door of our seat of government? That statue stands in the most prominent space in Talbot County. Does that reflect who we were, who we want to be, or who we are? Do these council members ever think about what this statue means to Black people? I notice the statue is never in any of the tourism ads – I wonder why. The statue is an embarrassment and needs to go!
Richard Merrill says
Well done Mr. Lighthizer. I really think you expressed a great, forward looking attitude. I think you are correct when you talk about the most peaceful “post Civil War” ever. Who looking at the statue doesn’t realize that the South lost BADLY and an awful lot of people worked very hard (and died) to make that happen?
Wondering if you might have seen my July 2nd letter about Reconciliation?
Thanks
JT Smith says
tMr. Lighthizer cites the “ unique juxtaposition” of the Douglass statue and the Talbot Boys as a justification for the retention of the latter on the Courthouse lawn. As cited by Talbot native and nationally recognized author Casey Cep in her New Yorker article, Douglass was fervently opposed to reconciliation measures and monuments. He made this position crystal clear in his famous 1871 Decoration Day speech at Arlington Cemetery — cited by Miss Cep. Accordingly, Mr. Lighthizer’s “ unique juxtaposition”: is actually a bitter irony that calls out for remedy of moving the Talbot Boys.
Keith Alan Watts says
An Open Letter To The Talbot County Council
Would You?
* * * *
Would you,
Could you,
Change your mind?
Would you change it if you’re warm?
When kitchen’s heat’s above the norm?
Or if you thought it would not harm,
Your reputation gossamer?
Would you change it when you’re old?
Would you change it if you’re cold?
Would you change it if you’re told
That history is watching?
Would you change it while in bed?
With fitful sleep that wakes the dead?
Or when gardening, in your shed?
Or perhaps when over having guests
Their “Greenie” questions sting like pests.
Would you move It in the night?
Would you move It because of fright?
Would you move It because of might?
Or the weight of authority moral?
Would you move It because of shame?
Sans excuses — you’re’s so lame.
Look around . . . .
No one else to blame.
Would you?
We do not like Green Boyz, yes, ma’am.
We do not like Green Talbot Man.
We want to see It go away,
A trip at last,
Far, far away.
No! No! To false negative tropes,
No! No! To Jim Crow mirrors and smoke.
An honored place in history?
Hmm . . . . Some so say.
But not in a place, so Publicly.
The Move will happen, just wait and see.
Good always trumps evil, Inevitably . . . .
Jim Richardson says
The following statement from the NationalTrust for Historic Preservation:
In recent weeks, protests throughout America and around the world have sprung up in support of racial justice and equity, sparked by the horrific killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and others. The National Trust stands committed to support this fight for justice. We believe that Black Lives Matter, Black History Matters, and that historic preservation has a powerful role to play in telling the full story of our often-difficult history. A critically important part of this work is elevating and preserving the enormous and important contributions that African Americans have made to our nation and carrying that profound legacy forward through places of truth, justice, and reconciliation.
This nationwide call for racial justice and equity has brought renewed attention to the Confederate monuments in many of our communities.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously issued statements about the history and treatment of Confederate monuments, emphasizing that, although some were erected—like other monuments to war dead—for reasons of memorialization, most Confederate monuments were intended to serve as a celebration of Lost Cause mythology and to advance the ideas of white supremacy. Many of them still stand as symbols of those ideologies and sometimes serve as rallying points for bigotry and hate today. To many African Americans, they continue to serve as constant and painful reminders that racism is embedded in American society.
We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for all.
We believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality.
Although Confederate monuments are sometimes designated as historic, and while many were erected more than a century ago, the National Trust supports their removal from our public spaces when they continue to serve the purposes for which many were built—to glorify, promote, and reinforce white supremacy, overtly or implicitly. While some have suggested that removal may result in erasing history, we believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality. And their history needs not end with their removal: we support relocation of these monuments to museums or other places where they may be preserved so that their history as elements of Jim Crow and racial injustice can be recognized and interpreted.
We believe that communities have an obligation to take on this issue forthrightly and inclusively. We recognize that not all monuments are the same, and a number of communities have carefully and methodically determined that some monuments should be removed and others retained but contextualized with educational markers or other monuments designed to counter the false narrative and racist ideology that they represent, providing a deeper understanding of their message and their purpose. We also recognize that some state legislatures have prohibited removal of such monuments, disallowing the rights of local communities wishing to remove these offensive symbols. Until such state laws are changed or overturned, contextualization may be the only option, at least for the present. Our view, however, is that unless these monuments can in fact be used to foster recognition of the reality of our painful past and invite reconciliation for the present and the future, they should be removed from our public spaces.
Michael Davis says
For many years, maybe at least 30, I contributed to the Civil War Battlefield Trust. Had I known it was headed by such an arrogant, ignorant, and closeted racist I would never have contributed a dime. My money went to pay the salary of someone who can’t find anything good to say about Frederick Douglass except that he’s a “historical figure.”
If we accept Mr. Lighthizer’s view of balance, we should put up a monument to Black soldiers and Whites from Talbot that enlisted in the Union Army. Placed next to the Talbot boys, it should be 4 times taller, 4 times longer, 4 times as wide, topped with a Union soldier 4 times as tall as the generic Confederate soldier. And the American flag on that statue should be four times the size of the Confederate flag. That would be a good balance, not the one proposed by Mr. Lighthizer.
The Preserve Talbot History group push two false narratives. One, recently published in the Star Democrat, is that Civil War was about Constitutional Rights. Anyone believing has to completely ignore the whole history leading up to the war. Free states vs. the Slave States, the Dred Scott decision, proclamations by state leaders throughout the South. ALL that has to be ignored.
As an aside, Confederate officers routinely murdered unarmed Black troops. I think that is racism, but the PTH group probably feels that when General Bedford Forrest murdered hundreds of Black troops who surrendered to him, he had to kill them to protest the treatment of the Talbot Boys.
The second false narrative is the statue is not racist. If you write enough words about how wonderful the Talbot Boys were, then everyone should ignore the historically significant racist symbols on the statue. Black people, Brown people, White people who believe in social justice, faith leaders from many denominations should all just suck it up when presented with the Confederate Flag. If we read tens of thousands of words about how wonderful it was that Mussolini made the trains run on time, we should not be offended by WWII fascist symbols. Snakes exhibit more empathy to humans than do the members of the PTH group.
Let’s get rid of the damn thing.
Henry Herr says
I always look forward to your grounded words Mr. Davis. Thank you for this statement.
Jim Richardson says
No where in this interview does Mr. Lighthizer connect the Talbot Boys Confederate statue with the Jim Crow era when it was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy along with hundreds of similar monuments across the South. To me, this is the crux of the whole argument for removing the statue.I am disappointed that Mr. Lighthizer takes such a simplistic view that characterizes those of us who want it removed as people who are uninformed and who want to erase history. Frederick Douglass was extremely afraid that these Southern statues to the Lost Cause would actually erase what really happened, and that’s just what happened. It was a false narrative that our guest speaker conveniently leaves out.
I respectfully refer him to David W. Blight’s excellent biography, Frederick Douglass, Prophet of Freedom.
Also, I request that he look at an excellent article published by his own organization, American Battlefield Trust. Please Google “American Battlefield Trust /Jim Crow.” Without placing this statue within the context of the Jim Crow period, does us all a disservice.
Lynn Mielke says
Mr. Richardson, what is your source authority for your assertion that the Talbot Boys statute was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy? With all due respect, I suggest that you visit the PTH website and the section “The History of the Talbot Boys Monument”. There is a Star Democrat article from 1973, citing articles written at the time the monument was planned and subsequently erected(1913-16)which identifies the private, local committee which raised the funds, oversaw the design, and erected the statue.
Jim Richardson says
The Jim Crow Era
www. battlefield. org
Ron Ketter says
I’m very disappointed in Mr. Lighthizer’s interview. While he may be well versed in the history of civil war battles, he comes off as woefully ignorant of the long history of slavery and race relations in the U.S. Suggesting that those offended by the monument just get over it and look the other way is incredibly short-sighted and in fact callous for someone who proclaims to be an historian. And to suggest that the nation healed quickly after the war ignores the many decades of Jim Crow that followed the end of the civil war. That’s the history that doesn’t get taught enough – and the monuments to the confederacy distract from a fuller understanding of the history of how slavery and Jim Crow affected (and continues to affect) the nation.
Dominic Terrone says
In one sweeping, 5-minute interview in the Talbot Spy, Jim Lighthizer managed to explode and demolish his image as a learned and mature political leader. Certainly a man who successfully worked as President of the American Battlefield Trust to save many Civil War battlefield sites from becoming strip malls and housing developments would reasonably tend to lean toward preservation of history, especially Civil War while maintaining a moral compass.
Yet in this Talbot Spy interview he demonstrated a sorry lack of knowledge about Talbot County in the Civil War. He misunderstands the distortions of history as represented for 106 years on the Talbot County Courthouse grounds, as if it was (and perhaps still remains) Confederate territory. He thinks the statue represents the beliefs and values of Talbot residents at that time. It appears he believes the presence of the Confederate flag has no significance beyond the banner under which the Talbot Boys served. He seems not to grasp the political power and control of wealthy former slave owning families in recognizing the cause of slavery served by their family members and ignoring the services to the county, state and country of 10 times the number of men who served the Union. He seems not to understand the significance of honoring and glorifying the white supremacy of Jim Crow Law.
He seems not to understand the socio-political significance of the Confederate flag in America today. He seems to believe moving the statue will “erase history” without explaining how it would do so. How does moving the statue elsewhere on to private property “erase” history? Does he feel that most every other former Confederate state was wrong to remove their flags and statues? Does he think Talbot County’s Civil War history is properly represented by the statue with no recognition of the hundreds of black and white Union troops? Does he think putting up the Talbot Boys was not a purposeful act of political insolence? Does he not think a public “conversation” can occur if the statue is moved?
Its bad enough that mindful people have been “looking the other way” for a century in Easton, Maryland at a bronze image of a Confederate flag that was placed atop a monument to those who fought in the army that was dedicated to the permanent preservation of slavery. That bronze statue is a glorification of the Confederate army, the Confederacy and the cause which those men served; that is, slavery. I understand Mr. Lighthizer’s efforts to raise money to preserve civil war battlefields required asking Lost Cause advocates for their support. But his tone in this interview sounds more like loose, nonchalant, tavern talk. It is unworthy of a sober historian.
Lynn Mielke says
Right on point Mr. Lighthizer and thank you.
I too am an advocate for contextual history. Leaving the Talbot Boys in place, juxtaposed with the Frederick Douglass statue, is emblematic of the reconciliation that Frederick Douglass spoke about 150 years ago, upon a visit here in Talbot County. He was greeted with, and accepted, as he wrote, “with sweet gratitude”, a bouquet given by the granddaughter of one of the “Talbot Boys” named on the monument: CSA Admiral Franklin Buchanan (she was also the granddaughter of the Lloyds, owners of the Wye plantation where Douglass was enslaved).
If there could be such a reconciliation between those contemporaries of the civil war certainly there should be such now.
Also, many who lived here may not remember, and those who did not live here may not know, that when the construction of the Frederick Douglass statute was being pursued in and around 2004, and after, a selling point was the juxtapositioning of the two statues to tell Talbot County’s civil war era history, with a promise, too, that the removal of the Talbot Boys would not be pursued.
Like Mr. Lighthizer, I too worry about the erasing of history. Our Lt. Governor Boyd Rutherford probably put it best when he said:
To build a better future we must reckon with our past, not hide from it…
Erasing our history just because it makes us uncomfortable harms the work we must do
I realize that those who promote moving the Talbot Boys statute will say they are not erasing history, just relocating it. But they have yet to present a proposal of where, how, and who will pay for, such removal and display. If they were honest they would admit that their motive is to erase the history. The statute on the courthouse square makes some uncomfortable; some outraged. Removal of statutes is not a cure for what makes us uncomfortable or outraged; forgiveness is the cure for the pain of the past.
I see it just as Mr. Lighthizer does: tearing down our local history. This led me to revisit George Orwell’s 1984, where he wrote about a dystopian, totalitarian society (in the 21st century, it’s called “cancel culture”) which the movement to remove statutes eerily presages,
One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statutes, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets – anything that might throw light on the past has been systematically altered.
Let us keep the Talbot Boys statute where it is; a live representation of our County motto: “Tempus Praeteritum et Futurum,” which translates as, “Times, Past and Future.”
Keith Alan Watts says
“Our County motto: ‘Tempus Praeteritum et Futurum,’ which roughly translates as, ‘Times, Past and Future.’”
Seems to be missing something, no?: “The Present.”
All we have, after all, is now . . . .
* * * *
KGB Chairman Charkov : “Why worry about something that isn’t going to happen?”
Valery Legasov : [scoffs] “Why worry about something that isn’t going to happen?”
“Oh, that’s perfect. They should put that on our money.”
~Chernobyl, Vichnaya Pamyat (2019)
Tom Vernon says
I will say I agree with him except on one point. The Talbot Boys were not attempting to destroy the United States. Those who wanted to stay were welcome to do so. They fought to protect their country, the Confederate States of America.
David Montgomery says
Jim Lighthizer’s excellent interview on the removal of Confederate Monuments has certainly stirred up the usual hornets’ nest. Extremists like some of those writing to the Spy have succeeded all over the country, and that is a pity because there is overwhelming evidence they form a small, though like hornets very intimidating, minority. A recent poll reveals that 51% of voters nationwide do NOT want statues removed, and only 30% want them to go. The chart below, from the report published here: https://morningconsult.com/2021/07/14/confederate-statues-flag-military-bases-polling/, contains more interesting findings.

First, support for Confederate monuments dipped after the George Floyd affair, but has now returned to the level it held in 2017. Independents, interestingly, also favor retaining statues by a margin of 48% to 29%. Only Democrats have hardened their opposition, with 54% now wanting statues removed. The center and right have not moved, polarization is a phenomenon of the left becoming more extreme.
David Montgomery
Preserve Talbot History
Dominic Terrone says
Mr. Montgomery presented a survey that asked if statues of “Confederate Leaders” should be taken down. We have a staue of the Confederate flag and flag bearer that merely needs to be moved, not removed. The Confederate flag is America’s primary symbol of white supremacy, racism and the KKK. Those are very different questions about which he and his fringe group are trying to deceive Talbot County citizens in their deluded fervor of Confederate patriotism.
Deirdre LaMotte says
It is very much like his anti abortion stance. It is ridiculously absolute. If these people believe that saving lives overrides basic civil rights, let them put their own on the line. Pass laws making them get antigen-tested for mandatory kidney donation to be matched with the first dying patient on the waiting list. Let the waitlist patient
sue if the kidney is not donating.
Let us see how these, men usually or far righteous, like state control over body parts. I thought we got rid of this in 1865.
Other then that, keep your religious beliefs the hell out of our life.
Dirck Bartlett says
All I can say is thank you. You hit the nail square on the head! Thank you.
Brian Cdoak says
This statue is clearly upsetting people…no one is saying to destroy it. We’re just saying move it to a place that isn’t supposed to be the seat of justice in the modern era. Even if you literally moved it 100 feet away to the sidewalk across the street, it wouldn’t be nearly as objectionable. That fact that it sits on the courthouse lawn means that it, and more importantly what it stands for, are endorsed by the local judicial system. History has a place, and the movement isn’t to destroy the statue, but rather just to put it in a place that’s not incredibly offensive to a large community of people, myself included.