Incorrect History: Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." (Paleocon bilge!)

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 15, 2005 | Max Boot

[quidnunc]

I first became aware of Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History when the New York Times Book Review took note of its rise on the paperback bestseller list and described it as a "neocon retelling of this nation's back story." A neocon retelling? What would that be, exactly? Curious to find out, I cracked open The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

It gets off to a slow start with a recitation of civics-text nuggets. Bet you didn't know that the Constitution "established three distinct branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — and provided 'checks and balances' by which each branch could resist the encroachments of another"!

Soon enough, however, the guide starts to slip from conventional history into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn't like or even to secede. "There is, obviously, no provision in the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification," the author concedes, but Woods nevertheless is convinced that this right exists. His source? Mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun.

Woods is only getting warmed up. Next he comes to the origins of the "Civil War" which, it seems, was pretty much the fault of Northern abolitionists whose writings "seethed with loathing for the entire South" and "only served to discredit anti-slavery activity in the South." You might be wondering about those quotation marks around Civil War. Woods doesn't think that's a proper description of the conflict. He likes "War Between the States," the preferred term of Southern sympathizers. "Other, more ideologically charged (but nevertheless much more accurate) names for the conflict," he adds, helpfully, "include the War for Southern Independence and even the War of Northern Aggression." According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime." He approvingly quotes H.L. Mencken's comment that Union soldiers "actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." Well, not quite all their people. But the plight of African-Americans does not concern Woods any more than it did Mencken. Later on, he expresses disgust with federal desegregation policy in the 1950s and 1960s.

-snip-

[Capriole]

Here we go again. Sorry, boys, I'm too tired from the recent battles over Sherman to dance this time; I'm going to sit down here with a tall glass of something cool and fan myself gently while y'all scuffle around out on the dance floor.

[natewill]

According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation). It was really about the desire of Northern plutocrats to protect themselves from the threat of commerce being diverted to "the South's low-tariff or free trade regime."

But the War wasn't about slavery. Read any account of the Civil War. Read Lincoln's personal letters and his speeches. Read John Jakes, who does loads of research while writing his books. This concept is not far-fetched, and is easily accessible to someone who is open-minded enough to consult the depths of American history. As my 11th grade History teacher remarked, "if you want to find out why countries do the things they do, just follow the money". Most wars are fought largely for financial reasons, and the Civil War was no exception.

Flame all you want, but I've had on-going discussions about this very topic with several hard-headed friends that thought the Civil War was about slavery, and unfailingly, they always come to see that the war had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was just a strawman argument for the North.

[Just A Nobody]

Regarding "nullification" check out New Hampshire laws. They "nullified" the 16th amendment, therefore have no income tax. As of Jan. 1st they were scheduled to "nullify" the Patriot Act as well as a couple other things that I can not remember anymore.

[rdb3]

Echo chamber material. Funny, really.

[Arkinsaw]

into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn't like or even to secede.

Half right, nullification is completely counter-intuitive and has no basis in reality. Secession on the other hand is an inherent right of any people. Especially since we ourselves did it once from Britain, and once from the "eternal" government of the Articles of Confederation. We have also traditionally supported the right of self-determination and consent of the governed around the world as a matter of principle. One must be consistent.

[x]

Unfortunately, Boot is right. Woods's book reads like a classic comics' version of history, at least as far as the Civil War is concerned. Basically Woods piles together quotes that support his point of view without establishing their validity as evidence or examining or presenting data that conflicts his views. He tells people what they want to hear, and they buy the book. There's very little scholarship or education involved.

[GeronL]

There is a whole lot of inaccurate stuff in the textbooks

[Sonny M]

This concept is not far-fetched, and is easily accessible to someone who is open-minded enough to consult the depths of American history.

I'm open minded, and I have this book.

This is not a very good book and the chapters on the civil war, are not the best work.

If you were to recommend a book that could explain the civil war, and lots of other parts of american history, this would not be it.

I feel like I got ripped off.

And I do know the civil war wasn't started over slavery.

[rdb3]

He tells people what they want to hear, and they buy the book.

---

As I said, echo-chamber material.

[dsc]

"Slavery was just a strawman argument for the North."

Actually, that strawman argument only gained popularity and force long after the war, among those who sought to revise history in such a way as to paint the north as completely in the right and the South as completely in the wrong.

It is a fallacious argument that serves only to support a kindergarten "angels vs. devils" view of the conflict.

Sure, there were abolitionists in the north, but there was a lot of racism, too. If the war had been to free the slaves, Lincoln couldn't have gotten an army together. People would have told him to pack sand.

[Oztrich Boy]

Secession on the other hand is an inherent right of any people.

As the North seemingly conceded during the War by admitting the breakaway state of West Virginia into the Union.

[barkeep]

Not defending the totality of Woods' book, but he pegged this. Lincoln was about preservation of the Union. He stated openly, that if necessary, he would tolerate a continuation of slavery IF that were the option that would have maintained the Union without war. Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move to create problems for the South once he finally had a General willing to use the North's economic and manpower advantage. Still celebrated in Texas as Juneteenth, June 19th was whwn the low speed of land mail got the document here.

[Malesherbes]

We seem to be divided into two kinds of conservatives these days: paleo and neo. I don't regard either as bilge.The bilge is on the left.

[familyop]

Some of the Civil War documents are fascinating.

The Civil War involved quite a few issues. One that many people haven't learned about is that some of the southern landowners wanted to do what the British tried to do before the Monroe Doctrine: colonize and claim parts of Central and South America for plantations.

Another is that agitators with Susan B. Anthony in the North actually incited riots with their speeches promoting the secession of the South.

[Destro]

So why are Southerners so loyal to the Union then? So would say Southerners are uber patriots - yet they are patriotic to a Federal govt that used force to keep them in the Union and they are loyal to a Federal Union their ancestors would not have recognized.

This is a general question, I as an outsider ponders. In Europe for example the defeated Scots or Irish were never loyal to their conquerers.

[Destro]

PS: I have my own pet theory but would like anyone's input. Any scholarship exists to read about the South's transformation? For example - the fourth of July was not celebrated in some parts of the south (Vicksburg for example) for generations. So I bet if I go to Vicksburg on the 4th I would see a big celebration and American flags everywhere.

Is this an admission that modern Southeneres view Lincoln's position as the correct one and their ancestors were wrong?

[Jimmyclyde]

War of Northern aggression ping

[jjmcgo]

Wst Virginia didn't "break away." It was split off by a Union Army invasion. Lincoln left the defense of Washington undermanned while dispatching 35,000 Union troops from PA and OH to western Virginia under McClellan. Philippi, Camp Garnett, Rich Mountain, Corrick's Ford, and Beverly were some of the battles that put Western Virginia in Union hands until statehood was granted in 1863. Adding a Free State in Congress was key to Lincoln's plan.

[HHFi]

I had a history professor in college, way back when they attempted to be accurate rather than to proselytize, who explained that "Civil War" was inaccurate if for no other reason than a "civil war" meant that a segment of the population was trying to overthrow and replace the government, and in this case, the rebels were attempting to leave and establish a separate nation while Lincoln remained president of the old one. Hence, it was not a "civil war" but a "war of secession." Try to tell that to anyone today, and they accuse you of secretly wanting to re-institute slavery when all you want to do is keep the English language clear.

[HenryLeeII]

According to Woods, the war wasn't really about slavery (no mention of the Emancipation Proclamation).

Let's see...South Carolina seceded in December of 1860, and Virginia, the most populous and largest state in the Union, seceded in April of 1861. Now, when was that ol' Emancipation enacted? Oh yeah, New Year's Day, 1863. Its obvious that this document was the cause of events that happened two years earlier since it was going to free all the slaves in the South! Oh, wait, what was that? It only freed slaves in territory already under Union control? Oh...

Before WhiskeyPapa was finally banned from this forum, I made him admit that there was no Constitutional prohibition nor any federal law that forbade secession, and he was a most obstinate opponent. Secession was not illegal, and in fact the act was obviously known to those who had lived through the American Revolution and drafted the United States Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment.

Whatever the Civil War was about, to make slavery the only cause is the same type of revision that the critic in the original New York Times Book Review was complaining about.

[x]

Actually, that strawman argument only gained popularity and force long after the war, among those who sought to revise history in such a way as to paint the north as completely in the right and the South as completely in the wrong.

It is a fallacious argument that serves only to support a kindergarten "angels vs. devils" view of the conflict.

You've only got to go back to the speeches and editorials of the 1850s to see how divided the country was between those who believed that slavery was good or necessary and ought to be extended to the Western territories, and those who believed that it was wrong and its extension dangerous to liberty. Now that may not have been a question of "we're good and they're evil," and it wasn't a question of loving or caring about African-Americans and wanting to live with them as equals, but it was a clear conflict of interest. And beyond that material conflict was the question of what liberty would mean in America and whether it was compatible with slavery.

In later years, some people have been so concerned not to stigmatize Confederates as "evil" that they leave out the real conflicts over slavery and make it sound as though everyone was in agreement about it, which was not the case. The desire to establish equivalency also results in a kindergarten view of history. You don't have to give those who opposed slavery or its expansion any kind of moral crown, but you ought to recognize the stand they took and the fact that there were others who were very much opposed to them and in favor of slavery and its expansion. History could have been very different if they had prevailed.

[Oztrich Boy]

It only freed slaves in territory already under Union control? Oh...

As a matter of declarative intent

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; ...

freed all slaves in the entire CSA.

However your point is taken. the EP could not have been what the war was about, because if there was no war, it would have had no effect at all.

[dsc]

"You've only got to go back to the speeches and editorials of the 1850s...some people have been so concerned not to stigmatize Confederates as "evil" that they leave out the real conflicts over slavery and make it sound as though everyone was in agreement about it, which was not the case."

It is not my intention to do that, nor do I think that everyone was in agreement. Events in bloody Kansas alone show that everyone was definitely not in agreement.

However, the speeches and editorials of the 1850s were...speeches and editorials. And just as speeches and editorials today reflect the opinions of varying numbers of people, so it must have been in the 1850s.

It would be an error to think that leftist media slugs speak for the whole country today, and I think it is an error to think that the speeches and editorials to which you refer accurately reflect the concerns and depth of feeling of the entire north back then.

It is interesting to look at how little actual financial support the radical John Brown ("Ossawatomie" Brown, after an apparent atrocity he is alleged to have committed in Kansas in the name of abolition) got from northerners. Part of the reason for the lack of support for him was the belief that slavery would soon wither away from other causes. I think this opinion was much more widespread than is generally believed today.

"but you ought to recognize the stand they took and the fact that there were others who were very much opposed to them and in favor of slavery and its expansion."

I never said that such individuals did not exist. I do say, though, that fervent abolitionists were a very small minority, and that few people would have enlisted in the Union Army specifically and only for the purpose of ending slavery.

It was only by misrepresenting the South as having "risen in rebellion" against the U.S. and the flag that Lincoln was able to raise his armies. Even so, he had to turn to the draft, and, as I'm sure you know, this led to rioting.

Rioting against the draft is hardly conduct indicative of a desire to lay one's life down to free the slaves.

"History could have been very different if they had prevailed."

Sure, if...

But slavery was becoming economically untenable. If there had been no War of Northern Aggression, something would have been worked out, just as in the several other countries that ended slavery without bloody conflicts.

[Arkinsaw]

So why are Southerners so loyal to the Union then? So would say Southerners are uber patriots - yet they are patriotic to a Federal govt that used force to keep them in the Union and they are loyal to a Federal Union their ancestors would not have recognized.

This is a general question, I as an outsider ponders. In Europe for example the defeated Scots or Irish were never loyal to their conquerers.

My personal opinion is that there were a number of factors. First, we had leadership even though defeated. Robert E. Lee set a conciliatory tone and rejected a continuation of the struggle. He was the heart and soul and was the ultimate role model. For instance, Nathan Bedford Forrest, perhaps the most fierce of the warriors dismissed his men with an appeal for them to be good citizens.

We also had the benefit of leadership in the north. Ulysses S. Grant wisely chose to be magnanimous in victory. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, being in charge of the surrender of the ANV treated his foes with honor and elan. The overall tone had been set by Lincoln in regard to letting the South "up easy".

The military leaders in the North treated the vanquished with some semblance of honor and, having fought them, recognized that the Southern troops were essentially honorable foes. This was a counterweight to the unwise radicals in Congress.

Andrew Johnson, despite his many flaws, carried on with some of Lincoln's concepts in regard to reuniting the country. Southerners felt that they had a man in the White House who would, at least, treat them in a reasonable manner.

In addition, Southerners had immediate survival issues. Having been exhausted from war they had to immediately turn to pure matters of survival and a resumption of conflict was just not in the cards in the short term as long as things were not overwhelmingly oppressive.

Southerners also had an outlet to the West. With the South gone up the pipe, those unwilling to settle down in a wrecked land under a conqueror could seek freedom in the West. The West served as a safety valve, draining off many of the radical, the disatisfied, and the violent. Those who remained felt as if they could, if needed, flee to a fairer clime.

These things kept the lid on until Southerners could start to regain some control over their own states and political futures. The north eventually tired of the effort to supress the South politically.

In the north, the former soldiers, the Grand Army of the Republic, began to take political power in a big way. Most of these leaders respected their former foes in many ways and Southerners generally did not feel that they were going to be raked over the coals by these people.

This situation remained pretty stable for a long time. When the Spanish-American War arrived, the younger generation of Southerners had lived in the shadow of their elder's Civil War experience and they were chewing on the bit to prove their own generation's bravery and get some glory of their own. The Spanish-American War provided that outlet.

The North needed Southern troops. Southern troops wanted to go fight. The old Confederates wanted a last shot at glory.

This performance on the part of Southerners, whether intended or not, impressed on the north that Southerners were an integral part of the country. They were frankly impressed with Southerner's willingness, and grateful that it wasn't just northern sons who had to go and die.

This was reflected in an outburst of returning old battle flags, reunions, and a political lovefest by folks such as President William McKinley who favored things like the Federal government taking responsibility for the care of war graves of Confederate dead. Something unthinkable previously.

We were very lucky in many respects. It could have easily have turned out differently.

[jjmcgo]

Amen. You are correct, sir.

[Arkinsaw]

Is this an admission that modern Southeneres view Lincoln's position as the correct one and their ancestors were wrong?

It's my opinion, that there was essentially an unspoken agreement made. That Southerners were glad that the institution of slavery was finally lifted from them and that remaining in the Union was the second best choice and not really that bad.

For the northerners part, they silently agreed that the Southerners had fought bravely and honorably and would not be stripped of their dignity (until recently anyhow).

So the answer is yes, Southerners felt relief at the end of slavery and essentially agreed with the result but maintained their disagreement with the form that it came about.

I don't know of any modern Southern partisan that believes that slavery was a good thing that deserved to continue one minute more than it did. I've been around a lot of them and have never seen that concept.

It's very interesting psychology to me that the Southern partisans I have been around seem to want racial peace very badly. I've seen it many times. I went to a reenactment in Little Rock and was coming from my car to watch. A black couple, who appeared from their dress to be on their way to a business meeting stopped one of the Confederate reenactors in the parking lot and asked directions. The man fell all over himself trying to help, saying yes sir and no ma'am. I've seen this many times. I myself stopped in at a convenience store in Pine Bluff on my way to a reenactment in a Confederate uniform. I was the only caucasian in the place and the only comments I got were friendly ones in regard to the concept of wearing a wool suit in July.

We had a burial for the remains of a Confederate soldier found in the woods down here. A couple of elderly black gentlemen came to the ceremony and hovered near the back. They had removed their hats and participated with the rest of the crowd. At the end of the ceremonies they were the celebrities of the day and ended up shaking a few hundred hands. I thought some of the reenactors were going to cry at their gesture in coming to pay their respects.

Its often said that Southern partisans are devoted to the concepts of states rights and constitutional issues simply as a cover for another agenda or as a coat of paint over the "real" issues of the war. I can say that this is most definitely not the case, at least in the modern era, as every Southern partisan I have seen is truly dedicated to these concepts of government to their marrow.

Just for me, I have no problem at all in admitting that my ancestors were just flat out 100% wrong regarding slavery (though a great many probably had developed no conscious concept that they were and simply adopted the convention of the time).

I do agree with them in regard to the structure of the Union and that it was formed as a Federal republic made up of equals that just did not have any powers beyond those specifically delineated. I agree with them that when armed men march towards your homes you go out and meet them. I agree with them that consent of the governed can be withdrawn, because what is consent if it cannot be withdrawn? One can believe all these things and still be glad that slavery is dead, dead, dead. You can believe all these things and want them for your neighbor also, regardless of his skin or eye or hair color. It's also rather easy to believe those concepts and still be glad that we retained the benefits inherent in a continental union.

Anyway, I'm not that bad of a guy, I see nothing wrong with my beliefs in this regard. I have no plans to disavow my great-great grandfather no matter how many people tell me I am evil because I don't. I love the South and all in it. Its a shared culture, oftentimes painful, many times joyous. It would not be the South without black culture, it would be Minnesota. Those two elderly gentlemen who came to that Confederate burial ceremony understood that. I understand that when I listen to Delta Blues, eat my fried okra, see a peanut field, or listen to rock and roll. Southern culture is not a white thing.

As for Lincoln and Union troops? I have malice toward none and have a profound respect for what they went through and what they achieved. But I'm not disavowing my ancestors because someone is offended by a misinterpretation of what I stand for, nor am I changing my belief in the concept of a Federal republic made up of equal sovereignties. I don't plan on changing to an inconsistent policy or application of self-determination and consent of the governed. If that brings me into conflict with someone, I regret it, but won't avoid it.

[Destro]

All what you said is what my readings point too - As a naturalized citizen I consider the study of American history to be a patriotic duty. As someone who may make a go of history as a living it is a fascinating study that few have worked on - how teh south was reintegrated into the Union.

As a historian I can't help but ponder that the regions where calls to make the stars and stripes flag burning a crime was in the South by men who fought that same flag.

I know in Scotland the only way the Scots and Anglos joined was through a joining of royal houses and the is what stopped the border wars.

[HenryLeeII]

Dangnabbit. I'm kicking myself right now. In a rush to get out of the office and home to the family I dashed off my last response which included my sloppy mistake of saying that the E.C. freed the slaves in Union territory, when of course you are right in that it "freed" the slaves in territories that it did not at that time control. Thank you for your reply, and as I said, I'm applying the Size 10 Corrective Measure as I type...

[GOPcapitalist]

His source? Mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun.

Nice little ad hominem there, Max! Even though Woods' book does not defend or espouse Calhoun's views on slavery let's just throw it in there anyway to tar him and discredit his constitutional theories! Of course it should come as no surprise that the remainder of Boot's rant is a composite of ad hominems against the book's theories or author itself. All in all, a very poorly written review...even for the Weekly Standard.

[Archon of the East]

A little late on this post but I just watched the author on CSPAN Book review, a rerun from Jan 27th. By the way he is no fan of this administration and I wonder if the criticism by some are due to this. Anyway your mention of John Calhoun brings a couple things to mind.

First let me say that I am no lifelong scholar of political writings just someone who has recently taken a strong interest. I just received "John Calhoun's Selected Writings and Speeches". I have only finished the first chapter "A Disquisition on Government". How does anybody not read this as a premier work of American political philosophy? Can we not overcome a persons weaknesses ( his later position on slavery)and still acknowledge his great works? Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me using his slavery position to discredit does a great injustice to this brilliant work, IMHO.

Which brings me to my second point. Having read the "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" The major debate seem's to be with regard to the Civil War. OK fine, from all discussions I have heard this is a contentious subject anyway. Are their no other redeeming qualities to this book? I personally found it to be just what the author described it as a general, not thorough, rebuttal to some misconceptions of American history. I in no way took it as the final ultimate authority or perspective but as a book written that gives some perspectives and facts that would never be discussed in our politically correct public school systems.

Am I wrong on this?

[GOPcapitalist]

First let me say that I am no lifelong scholar of political writings just someone who has recently taken a strong interest. I just received "John Calhoun's Selected Writings and Speeches". I have only finished the first chapter "A Disquisition on Government". How does anybody not read this as a premier work of American political philosophy? Can we not overcome a persons weaknesses ( his later position on slavery)and still acknowledge his great works? Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me using his slavery position to discredit does a great injustice to this brilliant work, IMHO.

At one time there were many leading minds in the conservative movement who held exactly that position. There still are to some extent. Bradford and Russell Kirk for example recognized the genius of Calhoun and espoused the strict constructionist view.

Harry Jaffa - the guy who more or less owns the Claremont Institute that's been leading the charge to discredit Woods' book - has been campaigning against Calhoun for over 50 years. He's never done any true or serious critique of Calhoun's theories (and IMO Jaffa is very much a mental lightweight who is more of a dogmatic thug than intellectual) but he always cites them as some sort of "where the south went wrong" type argument and invariably demands that they be expunged from any influence on American political philosophy. His most common tactic is to ignore virtually everything Calhoun ever said on constitutional theory and shout "slavery! slavery! slavery!" as loud and as often as he can in the context of Calhoun's name.

The idea is to fraudulently reduce everything Calhoun ever said or did to "slavery," which in turn is an easy idea to dismiss as junk. The product the Jaffaites often produce is very bizarre - as in claiming that when Calhoun was writing a treatise against protective tariffs that said virtually nothing about slavery that it really was all about slavery and nothing more since slave labor produced the cotton that got traded internationally. You may recognize this type of argument in which the entirity of economic production and all surrounding is reduced to something objectionable in its labor component from somewhere else. That somewhere else is Karl Marx. It's almost ot the point that you can take anything the Calhoun bashers like Jaffa say on him (or on Woods' book, which they associate with him), go through it and cross out the word "slave" and replace it with "proletariat," and end up with a Marxist tract. The sad thing is that the Jaffaites either do not realize this, or if they do, they don't care about it or its implications, meaning they are not truly the conservatives they claim to be.

[Joe Miner]

They "nullified" the 16th amendment, therefore have no income tax.

Move to New Hampshire and try to not pay your federal taxes and let us know what happens.

[razorback-bert]

I wonder if anyone besides me know who said this:


Civil war, such as you have just passed through, naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings, and so far as in our power to do so to cultivate friendly feelings toward those with whom we have so long contested and heretofore so widely but honestly differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out, and when you return home a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect even of your enemies.

[Arkinsaw]

That would be the same man who said....

I came here as a friend and whenever I can serve any of you I will do so. We have one Union, one flag, one country; therefore, let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment.

[Just A Nobody]

"Move to New Hampshire and try to not pay your federal taxes and let us know what happens."

Actually, I went to New Hampshire last fall with the intention of moving there. I had a contract on a place & everything. First thing anyone said was "we do not have federal income tax." I looked up NH legislature & found it to be true. They are also the only state that does not have a seat belt law. They had also passed legislation to nullify the Patriot Act in NH, effective 1-05.

[lentulusgracchus]

First thing anyone said was "we do not have federal income tax." I looked up NH legislature & found it to be true.

Surely you are joking....?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

"Still celebrated in Texas as Juneteenth, June 19th was when the low speed of land mail got the document here"

My first black friend was from Mississippi and I asked him "What are you doing for Juneteenth?".

He said " What is Juneteenth?".
I told him it was the Emancipation Proclamation.
I said "Didn't they tell you all in Mississippi?".

[barkeep]

Sounds great. Stop filing 1040s and on down the line let us know, maybe we can get you a commissary fund going while you do time. Meantime, next time you fly, tell the airport security you can keep your Bic lighter since New Hampshire doesn't recognise the Patriot Act. Might need that commissary fund sooner than you think.

[metesky]

General Nathan Bedford Forrest.