Young begins with the ridiculous assertion that the Confederate flag is recognized as a "symbol of hate" in Europe and Ireland. On the contrary, East Germans and many Eastern Europeans in the Baltic Republics flew the Confederate Battle flag as a symbol of defiance to tyranny and a desire for independence from Soviet rule. Perhaps it escaped Mr. Neely's notice that Northern Ireland has been seeking independence from the U.K. for some time now. If the Irish were using the Confederate flag as a "symbol of hate," to whom exactly is this "hate" directed?

The Confederate Battle flag is also known as The Cross of St. Andrew. St. Andrew is the patron saint of Scotland and Russia. Does Mr. Young mean to suggest that the flag of the U.K. and the Russian naval flag are flags of "hate?" I don't think he is. An argument could be made that English ships flying the Union Jack were the first to bring slavery to North America, but I don't think that's what Young had in mind.

As I've noted already, the Confederate flag (St. Andrew's Cross with stars on the saltir) is recognized around the world as a symbol of independence. I suspect that the government of the United Kingdom has no problem with the Cross of St. Andrew since it's incorporated in their empire's flag. The Union flag of the UK is comprised of three flags superimposed on one another, the Cross of St. George (England), the Cross of St. Patrick (Ireland) and the Cross of St. Andrew (Scotland). The Brits may view the Irish acts of violence and terrorism as "hate" but not the flag in question.

In Canada, the Confederate flag flies all around French Quebec where many Canadians have long desired independence from the rest of Canada. There are photos of South African Zulus flying the Confederate flag as a symbol of their desire for independence. Numerous African national flags and Caribbean flags incorporate the Cross of St. Andrew. You see, folks, only in the United States do we have a significant number of misinformed dupes and malicious demagogues who describe the Confederate flag as "a symbol of hate." Why is that? That's a subject for another column.

Young recaps the history of the Georgia state flag, more or less accurately, until he inserts BIG LIE #2 and BIG LIE #3. Young briefly covers the charge and retreat on the state flag by Gov. Zell Miller and then he stumbles into the follies of one-term Gov. Roy Barnes.

Barnes decided to make the change after he visited the governor of South Carolina in late 2000. That governor had removed the Confederate battle flag from the top of the South Carolina Capitol. Barnes saw with his own eyes the terrible impact the Confederate battle flag fight was having on that state.

Young goes on to tell us that people were "strongly debating each other." I shudder at the thought. Beyond the terrible fate of "strong debate," what other terrible consequence did Barnes see for South Carolina?

Boycotts? Don't make me laugh. Tourism revenues are up all over South Carolina. The NAACP boycott of their state is widely viewed as a joke. Boycotts are a bogie man that Georgia "New South" Chamber types trot out for the purpose of scaring Georgians. Surrender your honor now or you might lose a few bucks! That wouldn't be inspiring to me, even if it were true.

I should also point out that the NAACP reneged on their implied bargain. Their boycott demanded the Confederate flag be removed from the Capitol building. It was. The flag was moved to a memorial site on the Capitol Grounds. Give them an inch and they want a mile. Next, the NAACP continued to demand that the flag be removed from the Capitol grounds altogether. Move it down the street, and they'll just demand it be removed from Columbia, then the state...and on and on.

Since their tourism revenues are up (as a result of the boycott?), I imagine South Carolina officials are hoping it will continue. They'll probably recommend to all their Chamber members that they send contributions to the NAACP so they can keep the boycott going indefinitely.

Now I'll address BIG LIE #3 on Denmark Groover. It has been repeated countless times since 2001 and it remains just as false today as it was then. Let's review.

Denmark Groover made some ambiguous statements in 2001 that many writers have claimed is postive proof of racial malice in the 1956 flag change. However, these 2001 remarks are insignificant when compared to numerous remarks Groover has made in public and in sworn affidavits under oath in which Groover clearly and emphatically states that the flag change was NOT about racial malice or defiance of federally ordered desegregation. Below are a sampling of those remarks and their sources.

First, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) carried a story on Jan.25, 2001 which quoted Groover at length. Groover said that in 1956, the new flag was passed by the Senate 43-1. By the time the bill reached the floor of the House, opposition had developed, primarily from the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The UDC preferred to retain the pre-1956 flag because of its resemblance to the 1st National flag of the Confederacy. As traditionalists, the UDC didn't want the battle flag involved in any official modern government or to be perceived in any way as a symbol in any modern politics. Groover is then quoted as saying about the 1956 flag change, “I presented the matter to the House, and because of the opposition, I probably used some rhetoric indicating that the new flag was to symbolize our defiance of the action of the federal judiciary on matters of race.” Emphasis on the word “probably” is mine.

These remarks above pale in comparison to the volume of remarks Groover made over his long career from 1956 to 1994. Groover was quoted extensively thoughout his career on this flag issue. Numerous quotes from the AJC and The Macon Telegraph from 1956, 1972, 1987 and 1993 were unequivocal.

On March 9, 1993, Groover took to the floor of the Georgia House to challenge then Gov. Miller’s proposal to change the 1956 flag. He admitted the obvious that segregation was a heated topic in 1956 and added,

“But those who now say that the legislature was obsessed with the matter of segregation to the exclusion of all other matters know not of what they speak…”