Lecturing can be done well or it can be done badly. It is wrong to assume that certain methods of teaching are inherently poor pedagogy, or, for that matter, to go through the motions of carrying out best practices without considering the ways in which practices (even those supposedly the best) can be executed poorly. One problem from which lecturing suffers among many young teachers is a widespread belief that it not only takes intense research and preparation on the part of the instructor, but also that it pays the least dividends in terms of student learning. This is a product of a constructivist model that assumes that the give and take of learning cannot happen in the didactic environment of the lecture. However, the problem is not lecturing, but bad lecturing. This essay is the author's apology to administrators, colleagues, and peers for 10 years of presenting himself as something that he is not. It is also an apology in the classical sense, namely, a defense of good lecturing in the history classroom. Here, the author stresses that, for many history teachers whose style is to lecture, an interactive lecturing style in the history classroom is the answer to charges about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of their method. He asserts that a lecture style that incorporates problem-centered, comparative, and thesis-driven lessons allows the teacher to present the factual framework essential to analyzing the historical record and demands that students actively engage the material in the process. (Contains 11 notes.)