A Nation of Leaders

The following is an essay I wrote for my Civil War class.
Isaac McPheeters
Professor Jennifer Webber
History 412, Final Essay
December 8, 2007

A Nation of Leaders: North and South

We have talked quite a bit about political and military leadership this semester. How critical was this in bringing the nation to war, in determining the outcome of the war, and in shaping Reconstruction?
The traditional view of history is often one of a “top–down” perspective, saying “Lee fought Meade here in July” even though the men never actually engaged in combat themselves. Many historians counter this with a “bottom–up” perspective which focuses more on the men who actually did the fighting. These historians are right to not disregard the soldiers who fought in the mud and filth (and you could argue won or lost the war). However, there is genuine merit in looking at history from a top–down perspective, especially when considering the men who were in high–ranking positions of leadership. There is a very good reason that often times history (particularly military and political history) is presented from this top–down view, a view that shows us the perspectives of the leaders of these men. The fact of the matter is that you don’t get the Lincoln administration without Lincoln, nor do you get the Army of North Virginia without Lee. History is not just a random series of events driving people. Leaders rise up with their ideas and shape the world for good or bad sometimes on a small scale, sometimes on a large. This was the case with the civil war in both the North and the South. Before, during, and after the war, leaders with their skills in communication, decision–making, and their sense of responsibility are what became the major factor of the war.

In the antebellum era, various figures of political and social clout were influencing the age with their ideas and actions. John C. Calhoun was one of the most influential politicians during this time, and much of this was because of his power with communicating his views. A senator from South Carolina, he was a strong proponent of white supremacy and of the slave trade saying in 1848 “With us, the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class…” These words are largely definitive of the Herrenvolk Democracy that abided in the South, and Calhoun’s words were taken to heart by many Southerners.

Calhoun was extremely influential on the people of his day with his decisions and influence. Often times, his skills in communication went along with his decisions in the Senate. When David Wilmot made his proposal of the Wilmot Proviso which would restrict the territories like New Mexico from having slavery, Calhoun took his stand. He pointed out that slaves were property and that the federal Congress had no right to deny citizens to take their property with them into other states.

Like Calhoun, Senator Henry Clay also had huge impacts on the country. A chief of the Whig party, and known as the “Great Pacificator”, he would go on to provide many compromises between the radicals of both North and South so as to preserve peace and union in the country. He provided the Compromise of 1850, solving the disputes of the territories of New Mexico and Texas as well as the issue of slavery in the District of Columbia. This compromise extended the life of the antebellum period by another ten years. This alone was significant in stalling the war a little further. Had not put forth this compromise, then a civil war might very well have taken place but in a time without Lincoln as President.

Looking at examples of Henry Clay and John. C. Calhoun, there arise various equivalent skills between them. Both men showed how decisions that they made influenced not only their respective offices, but also public opinion.

During the war, many leaders were very influential on both fronts in areas of morale, army discipline, and of course victories. They had different methods and various strengths, yet nonetheless the strengths of a leader had to show in nearly all of them in order for them to be effective.
In the South, it could easily be argued that without General Robert E. Lee, the Southern cause would have been lost much earlier. His military genius gave the Confederacy victories which kept the morale high and kept the Union forces at bay. A result, his men had incredible faith in his ability to win battles. After the battle of Gettysburg, he had to retreat across the Potomac after suffering losses of over 28,000 casualties. Still, the morale of the men was very good because of the faith they had in Lee. This faith in his leadership was not without just cause.

Lee was a man of initiative who could make decisions and win battles. In the battle of Chancellorsville, he split his army not once, but twice. He knew it was an extremely risky venture, but it was a decision he deemed necessary, and he gained one of the greatest victories in military history which is still studied today.

Lee had a great sense of responsibility. This was best exhibited after Picket’s Charge at the battle of Gettysburg. The charge had failed, and Lee rode out to the returning men to console them and confess that the fault was his. He knew that there were other factors involved in the defeat, but as commanding general, he took the blame upon himself and acknowledged that he was not infallible.
Lee also encouraged good communication between his officers and himself. Lee was known as being very gentle, though firm and could appropriately reprimand his commanders without humiliating them. He also had the ability to build good relations with Jefferson Davis (something that was lacking between Davis and General Johnston) as well as his fellow generals. The victory at Chancellorsville was very much due to the coordinated strategy of Lee’s plan and General (Stonewall) Jackson’s excellent implementation.

Not all of the generals in the civil war were as successful as leaders in these areas, however. General George McClellan, though not the worse general in the war by any means had an enormous impact on the initial phases of the war, much of it negative .

In early 1860, to call the federal army an army was generous to say the least. Militias in the North were lacking in discipline, and soldiers were ill prepared for the grueling task of bringing the confederacy to its knees. McClellan was very good at organizing the army and outfitting it with the right materials and supplies. He made sure that the soldiers learned how to march and drilled accordingly. He also instilled in his men a great love for their general, and he was known for caring deeply for his “boys”. He served a valuable purpose in the first part of the war by setting up the army for his successors like Meade and Grant by giving them a disciplined, well–trained fighting force.
Unfortunately, McClellan’s skills on the field of battle were lacking in areas relating to critical decision–making as well as initiative. In the area of leadership decisions, his character flaws handicapped him. His fear of losing battles led him to a strategy of winning by avoiding defeat. He would frequently break off engagements declaring that the enemy far outnumbered him and that he needed more supplies and more men before engaging. This fear of failure had huge ramifications at various times of the war. Many times, he would simply not lead his men into battle. He wasted time during the Summer of 1862 and refused to fight, neglecting the days when the roads were good. During his campaign to capture Richmond, he was overly cautious and overestimated the enemy time and time again. Not only that, but he underestimated his own men, reporting he needed reinforcements and could not send more than 80,000 men into battle, while three weeks earlier, he had declared to his wife he had over 100,000 active soldiers. A rare opportunity was lost when one of his men found a copy of Lee’s plans; the general had an opportunity to break the Confederate lines, but his fear still restrained him, and he did not take the chance to move quickly.

Not only did he make poor decisions, but he also refused to accept responsibility for them. He was constantly blaming others for failure, saying he had done all that he could. He once sent a telegram to Washington requesting 50,000 more men. Three days later, he said he required 100,000. One telegram to the government in Washington said “If I save this Army now I tell you plainly that I owe no thanks to you or any other persons in Washington—you have done your best to sacrifice this army.” When he did not get all that he asked, the result was that anyone who disagreed with him was called a traitor including General Winfield Scott who, before, was McClellan’s mentor. Later when McClellan did not get his way, he wrote to his wife “I do not know whether he [Scott] is a dotard or a traitor!”

This attitude resulted in a breakdown in communication and any chance of well working relations with Lincoln or Congress. He did not give the president or other commanders inside information to his plans, considering them too inept as to understand, thus disintegrating the connection with both his superiors and his subordinates. His fear of failure, a rejection of responsibility for his failures, and his breakdown of communication cost him his command.

It was not only military leadership that made a difference in this war however. Abraham Lincoln carried the bulk of the political issues during the. He not only had to re–unite the country, but he also had to unite the newly formed Republican party. The party consisted of Whigs, Democrats, Know–Nothings, Free–Soilers, and abolitionists, and this was the party that was going to re–unite the country. In many ways, this helped Lincoln because he was able to stress unity to his party as well as to his country. Everyone had various standpoints on a number of policies concerning how to win the war, when to win the war, and what to do with the union. To maintain a platform that would not divide up the North, Lincoln decided, “My policy is to have no policy.”

Lincoln would think on his decisions as a leader, and act on them. On the subject of emancipation, Lincoln was extremely skilled in making effective policies that would hold up and not get voted down by conservatives (or even radical abolitionists). His initial stance was one of containing the slave trade. In his first Inaugural Address, he stated that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed. This satisfied moderates and many northern democrats, though it was not enough to hold the Union together. Eventually, as the war progressed and it became evident that the slaves were the backbone of the Southern economy, Lincoln moved closer to sine qua non as far as emancipation was concerned, that reunion and emancipation were essential for the survival to the country. The fact that he pushed emancipation as a war effort allowed him to take measures that congress was not yet ready to take, thus furthering the cause of the blacks. His decisions required precision and excellent timing.

As many great leaders, Lincoln was no stranger to the importance of great communication with people as well as good relations with members of different parties. He was able to articulate his ideas and vision for the country in a way that gave people a cause for which to fight. The Gettysburg address was one such event. He spoke of a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…” The war was about union, but also freedom. This gave the North a vision, unified the people and steeled their resolve. The Federals had just won a great victory against Lee’s army, and Northerners’ outlook on the war changed. This even had an effect on people overseas like John Stuart Mill who then felt that a victory for the Confederacy “would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of its friends all over the civilized world.”

Lincoln was also very aware of his responsibilities as commander in chief of the Northern armies. Late at night, he would be up studying war manuals and other articles of war, educating himself on matters so as to be able to critique his commanding generals. He initially held a view that the President should not be so involved with military tactics, that such issues were best left to men of expertise such as secretaries of war and navy. However, his episode with McClellan forced him to become more involved as commander and take a more active role. He was willing to face the nation in times of defeat and bear the burden accompanying that pressure, and he faced the nation in victory with speeches like the Gettysburg address.

When the war had officially ended, the issue of reconstruction arose. Days before Lincoln was shot, he spoke of binding up the nation’s wounds. His death prevented this leader from continuing to influence the country in this matter, and a new leader took his place who had a profound impact on what happened from that point on.

Andrew Johnson, a democrat from North Carolina and the only Southern senator to remain with the union, rose through the ranks until he became vice–president under Lincoln and then to become President of the United States. His administration is often considered a failure, but he is nevertheless one of the most influential presidents in American history.

Some might say it was a lack of decisions that hindered his leadership, but a failure to act is indeed a decision. He nearly abandoned Lincoln’s commitment to the freedmen by allowing states like Virginia to rejoin the union without the states declaring suffrage for blacks. When Southern states enacted the black codes, (laws that closely mirrored an oppression of slavery), Johnson looked the other way. Not only that, but he felt that the Freedman’s bureau was unconstitutional and vetoed the bill extending its life. Eventually, Congress became so opposed to him that they would override vetoes made by him, and he came within one vote of impeachment.

Needless to say, he had very poor skills with relating to various parties. As a leader of the country, Johnson was very divisive. While his predecessor was also a divisive leader by mere fact that he had views on slavery, Lincoln did all that he could to unite the country as well as work with a diversified congress. Johnson on the other hand, in an attempt to ally with the democrats, alienated himself from the republicans to the point of calling radical abolitionists traitors.

He had a sense of responsibility, but he handled it very poorly. In a move that was unheard of in that day and age, he went through the countryside trying to appeal to people. He felt himself something of a savior for the nation and compared himself to Jesus Christ, saying he would spill his blood for the country if necessary.

Johnson’s administration is very much one of missed opportunities. He could have pushed civil rights much further for the freedmen, but his character of hatred to the black population prevented that. His poor decisions and hostile attitude towards the Republican party made him impotent towards the end of his presidency with the inability to veto any laws.

We can see a great deal by examining the issue of leaders before, during, and after the civil war. Individual leaders made important decisions, and their individual styles and methods of leadership varied a great deal, but one can see similarities in ways that they made decisions, worked at relating to people in their circle, and bore the responsibility thrust upon them. With such a complicated war that allowed for many factors to influence its outcome, we could play the “what–if” game all day considering if a single one of these leaders had acted differently. Regardless, there is hardly any group of factors more influential on the outcomes of wars as that of the leaders that shape the country, direct the war, and endeavor to rebuild.

Do we think about death?

The question used to be, "Do you fear death?" Now it seems to be "Do you think about it?"
I was talking to a couple kids on campus recently. One was in the line for the crunchy chicken wrap. Some of you know how long that line is. I was standing next to a real nice guy, and we started talking about the death of Heath Ledger, the actor from The Patriot and the upcoming film, Dark Knight. I asked him if he ever thought about what would happen if he died, where he would go. He said he didn't think about it that much. I was sort of shocked, and yet not so much. Another girl I was sharing Christ with last Christmas (she was a foreign student and had never seen a candy cane before) said that she didn't worry about it. She said “I'm not planning to die anytime soon.”

I am amazed at how we take death so casually. Or perhaps, we don't take it. I heard a man once say that there are three types of people in terms of death. There are those that fear it, those that don't fear it, and those that should fear it but don't. I think something important to keep in mind when speaking to my generation (particularly those in luxurious America) is to impress upon us that death is something very real and that when in civilization, you can close your eyes and not ask that question, but as you are put closer to death whether through age or circumstances, it becomes harder to ignore.

Golden Compass - A classic look of secular humanism

I will not bore you all with yet another review of The Golden Compass. Good, sensible, in-depth reviews can be found elsewhere.

Yet I will write a couple thoughts about it. I read it and found it very insightful. Mr. Pullman's worldview is much more coherent than that of the secular humanistic writings of say J. K. Rowling (though not necessarily more accurate). I do not feel particularly threatened by his work, but it is always interesting to read the writings of those who are so blatantly non-Christian (especially those who take great joy in being so).

His books glorify humans as that from which all goodness apparently comes. The Authority or God figure only spurs on evil deeds, and Dust, apparently the source of original sin, is something which the heroine decides to pursue. Yet for all the hype about the book, I have found in my experience that the most blatant sign of an author's worldview is how they portray morality (or as Lewis called it, natural law). Books from a humanistic worldview whether it be cosmic or secular, often show goodness to be coming from inside human nature (particularly the rebellious part). One of the best examples of this was how Harry Potter's greatest asset was love, not the love of a divine, perfect creator, but the love from within human hearts which Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

When I finish with books like these, people as if I recommend it. I feel I can't recommend books to people that are written by men who preach blatantly corrupt doctrines. A good Christian friend of mine were talking about Pullman's works (which he loves), and he said that they are good books because they ask good questions. But I can name many religions and ideologies that ask good questions and come up with horrible, wicked answers. Yet, whenever we end up reading anything written by man, we should be wise and discerning and like Jesus said in John 7:24 "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Inheritance: An analysis

In the wake of The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, much interest has been turned to other fantasy books, and the genre is once again being taken seriously. If there are three kings of Fantasy, it would doubtless be Tolkien's Middle Earth, Rowling's Harry Potter, and Lewis's Narnian Chronicles. However, right below the trio here is another book that has gotten recent acclaim: Chris Paolini's Inheritance Epic (though currently, only the first two books, Eragon and Eldest, have been released).

This is less of a review of the books, and more of an analysis on the message that they convey, particularly those of book 2. Real briefly though, are the books well written? Yes, they're not bad. It's evident the author is young, and it shows. The plot isn't bad, though the first one reeks of Star Wars. You've all heard this before. However, I want to talk about the worldview the books express. Like the Harry Potter books, they are a classic example of a secular humanistic worldview, but rarely do books get this blatant and (dare I say it) preachy.

The first book deals with Eragon meeting Saphira, the last dragon, and learning of his destiny to challenge the evil king, Galbatorix. This book, I will leave mostly alone. It has talk of magic though it's fairly mechanical and has no great spiritual overtones. Nevertheless, we first see an example of the spiritual world. Orik and Arya, the dwarf warrior and elven princess in the story, are arguing over the validity of the Dwarven gods. Orik says that sacrifices must be made to them to appease them and becomes indignant when Arya questions it, saying that the gold would better be spent on the poor and regarding the Dwarven gods as hogwash. Book 1 ends the spirituality discussion on that note.
Book 2 gets much more interesting. Here, Eragon begins training and learns that Galbatorix has two more dragon eggs. The first hint of the the worldview comes when Eragon's master, Oreius, questions Eragon on his motivation for fighting. He tells Eragon that the evil king Galbatorix's citizens live mostly productive lives. A war would cause more damage than if Eragon let him live on ruling the kingdom. At first Eragon is confused thinking to himself “Galbatorix was evil…He knew that he was in the right, but how could he prove it?” (Paolini, 351). He later comes back to Oreius and tells him his motives. Basically, Eragon fights because Galbatorix is immortal and won't die, telling Oreius that he kills more in a hundred years than “we could in single generation” and he would kill or enslave elves and dwarves and that “rescueing the two eggs from Galbatoris is the only way to save the dragons.” He tells him the fight is worth it “though thousands may die” (Paolini, 373-374).
Translation? Morals have nothing to do with it. Why should they? There are no morals without a governing power ordaining them. The mentality here is that it's overall the better choice for society. Eragon is more of a social worker and less of a moralist hero.

I mentioned a bit earlier that book 2 is preachy at times. Perhaps that was harsh, but I have an excerpt below. The conversation takes place between Eragon the apprentice and his master Oreius.
“Who do you worship?”
“Nothing”
“Where do you think the world came from then if it wasn't created by the gods?”
“Which gods Eragon?”
“Your gods, the dwarf gods, our gods…someone must have created it.”
“I cannot prove that gods do not exist. Nor can I prove that the world and everything in it was not created by an entity or entities in the distant past. If gods exist, have they been good custodians of Alegaesia? Death sickness, poverty, tyranny, and countless other miseries stalk the land. If this is the handiwork of divine beings, then they are to be rebelled against and overthrown, not given obeisance, obedience, and reference.”
“The dwarves believe–”
“Exactly! The dwarves believe. When it comes to certain matters, they rely upon faith rather than reason. They have even been known to ignore proven facts that contradict their dogma.” (Oreius goes on to give an example of science winning against religious dogma. He continues)
“We give credence only to that which we can prove exists.”
“It seems a cold world without something…more.”
“On the contrary, said oromis, it is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our own actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment. I won't tell you what to believe Eragon, it is far better to be taught to think criticaly and then be allowed to make your own decisions than to have someone else's notions thrust upon you. You have asked for our religion, and I have answerd you true. Make of it what you will” (Paolini, 542-543).

It's all there: atheism, a contempt for religion, an assertion that “faith” and “reason” are not congruous, and perhaps greatest of all, a disdain for any God that is ruling a fallen sinful world. This last one is of especial interest to me: “they are to be rebelled against and overthrown”. Not much analysis needed here. It sounds almost like a quote from Phillip Pullman, the author of the His Dark Materials Trilogy, but that review will come later. Maybe Paolini is not actually advocating this view. Maybe it is just this one character's view. However, the fact that he's an elf (who seem to be the wisest in the story) and the fact that he is Eragon's teacher and correcting him of many false beliefs tells me that this more of the author's message to the audience. Then again, maybe this is just my analysis. Make of it what you will.

I feel this is less of a review and more of a show of what Paolini has to offer in terms of his worldview. I found the books an interesting read, but I was disturbed by the messages within. Eragon is a model humanist. He fights for the general welfare, not for morality, and his teacher shows him how the gods he believes in are frauds, or for that matter, any god whatsoever should be rebelled against. I could make a comparison here to a certain figure in history I'm thinking of, but I will rather compare it to Tolkien's mythology where Melkor rebels against the all-powerful Illuvitar, feeling that his creation can be better. I feel that Oreius would have joined Melkor.

So what does this mean? The Inheritance books are some genuinely fun fantasy. I don't think that they are as original or engaging as Rowling's Potter books, though they have a slightly more advanced reading level. I tip my hat off to Chris Paolini for writing a novel at age fifteen which is quite a feet and more than I've ever done. However, I can hardly recommend his books on the basis of the secular views that predominate the books. Does that mean that parents shouldn't let their children read them? That's for the parents to decide. However, most certainly parents should make their children aware of the meaning the books contain

Even geeks get tired of being geeks

I was talking to my uncle the other day about computer stuff. This is a guy who's been around IT for years, and he made an interesting comment to me. He told me that while he used to really like Windows, he doesn't want his next system he buys to be Windows at all. Although I didn't say it, I was thinking to myself “What? Mr. Cyber-Geek?” That was how I always perceived this guy I've known for as long as I can remember. However, this man is tired of Windows being a system that causes more grief than relief, and he's ready to move on to something else.

For a long time, the attitude towards Apple was that the Macintosh computer was sort of fruity, like the blueberry iMac. Sort of like the mom in Foxtrot. She wants it easy; the kid wants a power machine where he can code to his delight. That was how many of my friends viewed mac users. They're wimps who want an “easy user experience” while they're more geeky and can enjoy the cool technical user interface of a PC (or just be able to say “dude”).

Now, there's a change, and people don't care so much about looking geeky. They're concerned about actually being productive, and when they have to spend hours getting rid of spyware and various trial versions, they realize they're wasting time and money.

Now, my friend wasn't so concerned about image, but he does demonstrate a growing number of users who are tired of all the nonsense they have to put up with on a Windoze machine. Hopefully, Apple knows that they're successful not necessarily because they're so good, but because the competition has been mediocre at best. Despite the fact that PCs have long had the reputation for “Well that's what coders and geeks use”, everyone, even geeks get tired of being geeky and working on a system that doesn't allow ease of use.

Cal Thomas on Patriotism

Cal Thomas is one of my favorite columnists, and he recently said something that I think is very important to keep in mind with today's political climate.

Washington, Indiana — It's a long way from Washington, D.C., to Washington, Ind., where my father was born a century ago next January and where I am attending a Thomas family reunion. On the drive from Indianapolis, one passes towns that could fill a Norman Rockwell album. My favorite is named Freedom because, though the town has only a single flashing caution light, it displays many flags. If I don't slow down, I will miss both.

Driving past miles of cornfields, listening to local radio stations that still play music, not syndicated political talk, and carry commercials for farm equipment and feed, I ponder what it means to be patriotic and to love America.

Last week, senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians. He is right. Neither is patriotism a trademark of the Republican Party. 

As with religion, some people on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans. My liberal friends love America as much as I do. They might disagree on some, or all, of my political and religious beliefs, but that does not make them less in love with America, much less un-American. 

Many political and religious liberals have family members who have served or are serving their country in war and in peace. These have spilled their blood and given their lives to guarantee our freedom to disagree and to still live together. 

Here in this Washington, I am told stories of how our family stuck together, neighbor helping neighbor, during the Great Depression; of a grandfather who was out of work at the B and O Railroad for two years; of employees with more seniority than he who took a day off so he could work and earn some money; of one of his sons (my uncle) who had a paper route and would bring home eggs donated by subscribers. 

Few here judged their neighbor's worth based on his or her political or religious beliefs. They helped each other. This was the real America. When the “boys“ went off to war, they had total support from family, friends, neighbors and all they left behind and for whose benefit they fought. When those who survived came home, some voted for Democrats and some for Republicans, but no one questioned their patriotism because of their electoral or religious choices. 

Last year, I visited Normandy, France for the first time. At the American cemetery, there is not an “R“ (for Republican) or “D“ (for Democrat) on the grave markers of those who died on D-Day.

The 2008 presidential candidates and their supporters should be asked not to question the patriotism of their opponents. Surely most of us prefer debate and discussion of the issues that confront us to a litmus test about whose blood runs more red, white and blue. 

Leaders of many nations, including America, have used patriotism to persuade citizens of policies that are not always in their country's best interests. Hitler's deputy, Herman Goering, cynically observed: “Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.“ 

And still we love America for opportunities that do not exist in such proportion in any other nation. A person who criticizes a particular policy does not necessarily love his country less than one who supports that policy. G.K. Chesterton said, “'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'“ 

After 231 years, we still try to make wrong into right and cheer the right and the nation that makes change possible when we succeed. That's patriotism.

Cal Thomas. “Patriotism." Jewish World Review: 7/6/07 .

Journal World Home School Series

The Lawrence Journal World has been doing a 5-part series on home schoolers lead by Terry Rombeck and Mindie Paget. The articles are mostly fair and are well written, and I am grateful to Terry and Mindie for trying to portray a fair view of home schoolers. They interviewed some very good people like Charlotte Ostermann and the Barfields, but besides the articles in the paper, there are a number of resources online that are very good. Here are a few of my favorites.

Fox Family Interview. A family I know was interviewed by Channel 6, and they gave a glimpse of what it is like to be home schooled. They did a great job, and Olivia and Emalee were very articulate.
Dave and Cathy Barfield wrote an article for the website that gives the parents' view to home schooling. It is very well-written, and I highly encourage you to read it.

Jeff Barclay wrote an article as well. He does a wonderful job and provides a unique perspective as the superintendent of a private school.
Also, you might listen to the “Behind the Story” interview that someone did with Terry and Mindie where he asked them what their thoughts are about home schoolers after finishing the series.
For more info on home schooling check out the National Home Education Research Institute and Old Schoolhouse Magazine.