The Steinz family, of which I am a descendant, came to the United States from Hamburg Germany in the very early 1800’s. They settled mainly in the area of western North Carolina, specifically the area in and around Marshall, NC, fairly close to the state of Tennessee.

My great grandfather Jake Stines, (the name changed from Steinz to Stines over time because people started spelling it like it sounded), was born in 1830 in the town of Marshall, NC. He met and married Julia Wallen. Julia was actually born on the boat coming from Germany to the U.S.

They had four sons, Loy the oldest, Jake, the second son and my grandfather Wres, and his twin brother Wras. They were born in 1907. From what I understand they were called Wres and Wras because their mom couldn’t think of anything else to call them.

I have spoken to my aunt and uncle who are the only older living relatives that are still alive from either side of my grandparents’ family. My uncle who is 87 assures me that the whole family from my great grandfather to my grandfather and all of his brothers were staunch southern Democrats who were very religious, and it would have been looked at as being sinful to vote any other way than that.

The only exception to that might have been my great uncle Loy Stines who was not the type to support the government or its laws, especially the ones pertaining to the transportation of alcohol. He was a notorious moonshine maker/ runner, constantly running from revenuers out of North Carolina. That is how half of our family ended up in Tennessee.

Even though they were Democrats at that time, I believe they would be very far right-leaning Republicans today.

Roosevelt’s 1936 election speech, his resolve and anger against his opponents are very clear. In his speech he describes them as “the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism and war profiteering.” His statement about the these forces that were aligning against him prove his anger when he said, “They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred.” That statement was very blunt and I wonder how such a statement like that would be taken in today’s political arena. It is no secret that today’s Democrat and Republican parties have no love for one another, but I don’t believe the president would use such strong words in a reelection speech today.

Roosevelt was in a very strong political position which gave him some latitude on how aggressive he could be while giving his speech and how he planned to keep up the fight on the country’s economic recovery along with his continued implementation of more new deals.

Roosevelt clearly had much animosity for his opponents who viewed him as working against the working class Americans. The main thing that I took from this speech was the fact that Roosevelt felt so strongly about what he was saying that he would lose all political correctness and put his personal feelings and emotions in the rail against those who opposed him.

In my opinion Bourne’s Trans-National America, which discusses his view regarding the way immigrants cling to their native countries’ cultures, is fairly accurate. There are Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans who have lived in the United States their whole lives and have never spoken one word of English. If one went to any of the major “Chinatowns” in the U.S. he would find the culture to be almost as it would be in China. This however doesn’t make the Chinese un-American. It is the diversity and willingness of the U.S. to assimilate different cultures which make the U.S. the country it is. This was the case during Bourne’s time just as it is now.
This assimilation of cultures, present during Bourne’s time until the present day, doesn’t come without its problems. Back then, it was the Irish, Italians and other Europen and Asian immigrants who came here to make better lives for themselves. They didn’t come here because they wanted to make the United States a different country. They came for opportunity and to be Americans.
Now the country is dealing with the same issues with the influx of immigrants from Central America and Southeast Asia.
It’s a natural phenomena for people to gravitate towards their own culture. The American acceptance of these cultures within cultures are what makes the United States a great nation.

Fredrick Winslow Taylor begins by quoting Theodore Roosevelt who said, “The conversation of our national resources is only preliminary to the larger question of national efficiency.” Taylor conceded that natural resources were indeed important and should be valued; but the resources would be best used if more effort were put into training men with the result of making production and manufacturing of these resources more efficient.

Taylor argued that the country needed to be more efficient in almost all of the everyday tasks.

I agree with his sentiment of training men to do the work instead of what he called trying to find the “extraordinary man.” With the proper training and tools, most people can be taught to do extraordinay things.

I also agree with Taylor’s sentiment on management being a true science. Most managers can give orders. However, it takes a true leader/manager to extract the most out of a person’s abilities by knowing the worker’s strengths and weaknesses. The use of these strengths and weaknesses along with clear rules and principles – whether in a factory office or a factory production area – can create a more efficient environment.

Turner likened the expansion to the West to expansion into the New World.  The first Europeans saw the Atlantic coast as their chance at something better.  Similarly, the men and women of the Atlantic coast could move west with their families and try to make a better life for themselves.

When Europeans moved to the New World, they left the relative comfort and ways of life as they knew them while turning to face the hardships that awaited them here.  Likewise, settlers heading west faced this same unknown.

The individuals heading west were also vastly different from European expansionists.  The two were from different walks of life with different cultures – miners, farmers, even slaves.  Settlers to a new land would have to use everything at their disposal to survive.

I really liked the the way Turner described the “intellectual traits” of the frontiersmen.  I think what he was trying to say still rings true to this day.  The frontiersmen had to have both intelligence and common sense.  Being able to able to think on their feet and being able to adapt to new situations were imperative for their survival.

Carnegie saw wealth as something that a person had to work for, and as a constant battle to maintain. Carnegie came from a poor family and worked hard to achieve his wealth. it could also be said that he felt that he was given an opportunity when he was young and felt it was his duty to give others the means to be successful as well. giving a good portion of his wealth to philanthropic agencies was his way of giving back.

Sumner’s belief that  society held two classes of either rich or poor and that society at the time was unable to see the other classes of people , just like today it seems that the only ones that are seen are the haves or the have nots.

I do believe like Carnegie that  if you are successful it is because of your own hard work, and maintaining your way of life is a constant struggle, I do not believe that it is societies place to support the ones who refuse to support themselves. it is a persons moral compass that should guide them on how to help the less fortunate.  if you are able,  you should help with providing opportunities   to the less fortunate to help themselves.