The thesis reviews the historiography of American Populism in the late 19th century, through an evaluation of Richard Hofstadter’s thesis presented in The Age of Reform and The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Though Hofstadter related the Populist movement to proto-fascism, racism, paranoia, and jingoism, many historians before and after the publication of The Age of Reform have objected and presented a more positive view of Populism. By examining the lives and careers of three of Hofstadter’s primary examples of Populists—Mary Lease, Ignatius Donnelly, and Thomas E. Watson—the author proves that Hofstadter’s own evidence does not support his thesis. Though Hofstadter is certainly correct about some aspects of the Populist movement, including their tendency to engage in conspiracy, his claim that Populism is heavily characterized by racism is not borne out by the facts. The Populists studied are each unique individuals, with their own eccentricities and deviances from the larger Populist movement, and each must be considered within the context of their own lives and their own time. In the case of Tom Watson, for instance, Hofstadter’s quotes date to a point in Watson’s life where his beliefs could no longer be considered representative of the Populist movement. Major parts of Hofstadter’s evidence—including Mary Lease’s The Problem of Civilization Solved—were not influential or widely read within the Populist movement. The paper attempts to sort out what parts of Hofstadter’s evidence are valid, what parts are divorced from their proper context, and which parts are contrary to his actual thesis, through the format of three biographical chapters.