teenth century reached unusual agreement on one point. Opponents of increased state action, they alleged, were engaged in a highly dubious enterprise of wedding Darwinism to the virtues of classical economics, thus trading illicitly on the prestige of the new science. In Progress and Poverty (1879), Henry George charged that Malthusianism was now "buttressed" by the new science, and bemoaned "a sort of hopeful fatalism, of which current literature is full." "The final plea for any form of brutality in these days," wrote the Nationalist Edward Bellamy, "is that it tends to the survival of the fittest." "The survival of the fittest is our doctrine," echoed the reformer Henry Demarest Lloyd. "The representatives of science" noted the sociologist Lester Ward more soberly, "stand boldly in the track of current events." Ward acknowledged that appeals to "natural law" antedated the Darwinian doctrines of "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection." But, he added, "it cannot be denied that these doctrines ... have greatly strengthened this habit of thought."' This testimony is important for two reasons. Urging programs that ranged from the Single Tax to socialism, these reformers were in common battle against theories of laissez-faire, individualism, and related success mythologies that had bloomed during America's first stage of industrialism. The charge that defenders of laissez-faire had misappropriated Darwinism was an important part of their struggle since it usually prefaced a "correct" reading of evolution, the "reform Darwinism" that informed many socialist and neo-liberal proposals. Moreover, these same charges were widely quoted in historical accounts of "social Darwinism" which appeared during the 1940's and 1950's, the most important of which is Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944). Darwinism-as embodied in the popular catchwords "struggle for existence," "natural selection," and "survival of the fittest," as well as in a general evolutionism-was, Hofstadter