Mowry And Hutmacher

Mowry’s work was referenced in the second source, “Urban Liberalism and the Age of Reform” by author Joseph Huthmacher, as a way to differ from the recurrent perspective of the middle-class, placing them as the heroes of the Progressive movement. Huthmacher replaces the middle-class with the urban working class, a mix of immigrants and impoverished folk. Huthmacher’s paper provides a fine and well-written account in favor of the marginalized, regardless it comes up short of Mowry’s case, which stayed on point and gave an even handed stance, without displaying an emphasis on the audience behind the actual lawmakers and those who had a more substantive and notable voice. Huthmacher states that the real achievement of the reforms stemmed from
the support from city dwellers. (QUOTE AND CITATION) While the support did aid the passing of these laws, bills, and amendments, nearly all of these acts of legislation were still chosen by and for the benefit of middle class.
Populists tried unsuccessfully to garner any rewards from their support for change, failing to capitalize on becoming “America’s first modern reform upsurge” (CITATION). The difference in the populist movement compared to the progressive movement is well documented with both Mowry and Huthmacher, providing a solid understanding for readers to conceive about the success of the latter. To Huthmacher’s credit he discussed more factions concerned with the fight for progressive reforms than both, Mowry and Firor Scott did, while also speaking to a greater extent on the middle and working class than Mowry does. Righting the wrongs of society and introducing new democratic techniques into the government, are what Huthmacher states the main impacts of the middle-class’ involvement was about. This contradicts with most of Mowry’s article and provides a sense of Huthmacher just glancing over the objectives of the middle-class in his piece, not fully going in-depth to disprove the historians’ preference of the
middle-class. Inability to actually prove the middle-class idea wrong against his own case for the laboring class is the element of the work that causes the most difficulty in naming his argument as the strongest, he proves his argument as capable, but does not refute the other perspectives enough to tip the scale in his favor. Laborers of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the subjects of “Urban Liberalism and the Age of Reform” at this time were most commonly immigrants from Europe, who were geographically found in the cities in New England area, Boston and New York City providing a melting pot for these immigrants to mix and find opportunities to work.
Immigrants typically did not get too involved with political policies, unless they proved to be beneficial to them and let them keep the individualism and system of laissez faire. From 1900 to 1920, many drives for reforms originated and were focused in the cities, leading to an increase in urban worker participation in voting, thus gaining the large demographic of the laborers. Typically, progressive measures were more supported in melting pot areas, this is evidenced with the Massachusetts constitution referendum in 1918. The working class activity was built around the motivation of their daily lives, continuously fighting through the issues debated in Washington D.C. Middle-class reformers never experienced those struggles and had no reason to truly fight for change. The poor like the class above them sought improvement for their situation as a top priority; “workers did not seem to care about the size of their employer as long as they provide job security, adequate wages and working conditions… and lower prices” (REPHRASE CITATION) The impoverish knew that they did could not change society by themselves, their best hope came in the constructive
collaborations between them and the middle-class. It was a bend not break agreement, the middle-class typically won over the lower class, resulting in misrepresentation for the poor. The downtrodden did not view the political acts as an immediate victory or improvement of society, but it was a start for them to have their voice heard. With that sentiment Huthmacher provides a strong take on the reasoning for why the working class were more motivated or had a more pressing need to cause change, yet does not bestow a manner of difference making besides voting for reforms, which would not see the light of day without the approval of the middle-class, resulting in a missed moment to prove the working-class as the key factors in the Progressive movement.