The Public Debate and Legislative Battle Over Compulsory Eugenic Sterilization in Louisiana, 1924-1932

Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2017 A Vast Injustice: The Public eD bate and Legislative Battle veo r Compulsory Eugenic Sterilization in Louisiana, 1924 -- 1932 Adelaide Hair Barr Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Barr, Adelaide Hair, "A Vast Injustice: The ubP lic Debate and Legislative Battle vo er Compulsory Eugenic Sterilization in Louisiana, 1924 -- 1932" (2017). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 4490. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/4490 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. “A VAST INJUSTICE” THE PUBLIC DEBATE AND LEGISLATIVE BATTLE OVER COMPULSORY EUGENIC STERILIZATION IN LOUISIANA, 1924-1932 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of History by Adelaide Hair Barr B.A. Louisiana State University, 2004 M.A. Southeastern Louisiana University, 2010 August 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would have not been able to complete this project without the guidance, assistance, and support from so many. First, I would like to thank my major professor and director of this dissertation, Gaines M. Foster. His constructive critiques of my work made it better than I could have ever imagined. I will always be grateful for the generous amounts of his precious time that he sacrificed for me. In addition to Dr. Foster, the other members of my committee also provided me with invaluable assistance. Alecia P. Long, Aaron Sheehan-Dean, and Robert Hogan offered suggestions and support that not only improve this work, but also made me a better scholar and writer. If it were not for the many libraries that housed the important documents necessary for my dissertation, this project would have ended before it began. I appreciate the assistance and access to collections, books, and other materials that the staffs of LSU’s Hill Memorial Library, LSU’s Middleton Library, Tulane University’s Louisiana Research Collection, and the archives at the Archdiocese of New Orleans. The American Philosophical Society also sent me, free of charge, a copy of sermon. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Although I typically worked alone, their constant love and support gave me the confidence to push on when I grew weary. The encouragement from my brother Charles Hair and his wife Brianna, my sister Sallyanne Mulhearn and her husband Ken, my brother Bryan Hair, and my sister-in-law Kathleen Conrad and her husband Justin is something that I will always be grateful for and will never forget. My nieces and nephews also provided me with the necessary levity to endure the rigors of academia. Audrey Hair, Brock Mulhearn, Elise Mulhearn, Graham Mulhearn, “Charlie” Hair, and “Jay” Conrad are simply the best nieces and nephews that a proud aunt could ever ask for. My late ii mother-in-law, Maureen Barr, passed away shortly before the completion of my dissertation. I would be remiss not to recognize her. She had a gentle, loving spirit and I was fortunate to have had her in my life. To say that I would not be able to complete this work, let alone attempt graduate school without the unconditional love and support from my mother, Nelwyn Hair, would be an understatement. I have never known a time that she or my late father, Charles W. Hair III, did not believe in me, and I credit her unwavering faith with instilling in me the confidence that I needed to complete this project and earn my degree. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my dear husband, Andrew Barr. He was a constant source of encouragement throughout this project and always knew exactly what to say to pick me up during a moment of self-doubt. I am eternally grateful for his kindness and love. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………ii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………….v CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...1 CHAPTER 2. THE NATIONAL DEBATE……………………………………………………..25 CHAPTER 3. LOUISIANANS………………………………………………………………….59 CHAPTER 4. 1924 – 1926……………………………………………………………………....87 CHAPTER 5. 1928 –1932……………………………………………………………………...145 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………184 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………196 VITA……………………………………………………………………………………………205 iv ABSTRACT From 1924 to 1932, Louisiana lawmakers considered five bills that would have granted superintendents of state institutions and some private hospitals the authority to forcibly sterilize their patients. Based on similar legislation passed in thirty-six other states, the bills cited eugenics as evidence that stripping these patients of their ability to reproduce would prevent the conditions such as feeblemindedness from passing on to the next generation. Although none of the bills passed both houses of the Louisiana legislature, a couple of them came dangerously close to becoming law. The debate among legislators, professionals, and social reformers provides a greater understanding of how Louisianans considered the controversial procedure. Proponents claimed that the procedure would end crime and poverty and save the state money. Opponents argued that eugenics was junk science and sterilization was a dangerous scheme. National figures contributed to the debate over compulsory eugenic sterilization in Louisiana, and the arguments offered resembled those in the national debate. Scholars have credited the opposition of Louisiana’s influential Roman Catholic Church as the reason why the state never adopted compulsory eugenic sterilization. A careful study of the public debate surrounding the bills and the breakdown of the legislative votes, however, suggests the failure resulted from more complex factors than a simple religious objection. The legislative vote indicates that the Catholic Churches’ objections did not always convince state senators from majority Catholic districts. Many of these lawmakers voted for the bills. Although, the Catholic opposition to the procedure did help to defeat the bill, other factors played a role. A prominent feature within the public debate is a discussion over individual rights versus the ability of the state to violate those rights in order to protect the public good. These v finding not only challenge the accepted interpretation surrounding compulsory eugenic sterilization in Louisiana, but they suggest that simple explanations, such as religious divisions, do not necessarily explain legislative votes. vi CHAPTER 1 Introduction “I believe that we should not too much regret the death of the physically and mentally defective and that we should protect the race from the continuation of gross defects in the germ plasma.” This brief, yet disturbing statement was part of a creed adopted by the Eugenics Research Association in 1930. Published in the New Orleans Times Picayune, this statement perfectly sums up the attitudes held by those in Louisiana who campaigned for the state to adopt the compulsory eugenic sterilization. From 1924 to 1932, the Louisiana legislature considered five bills that would have given the state the authority to forcibly sterilize patients in some of the state’s mental hospitals. Louisiana was not alone in considering the controversial measure. Most states debated similar legislation throughout the first three decades of the twentieth century that would have allowed for the forcible sterilization of criminals, those with psychological disorders, and the intellectually disabled. Spurred on by the work of organizations like the Eugenics Records Office and the American Eugenics Society, proponents of compulsory sterilization throughout the nation argued that conditions like feeblemindedness were hereditable. Sterilizing the carriers would eliminate the condition in future generations. Indiana passed the nation’s first compulsory sterilization law in 1907. Several other states followed suit. However, state supreme courts struck down many of these early sterilization laws. Undeterred, proponents continued to fight for and obtain the passage of laws that stripped institutionalized patients of their ability to reproduce.1 Thirty states enacted compulsory eugenic sterilization legislation. Nationwide, over 60,000 men and women were forcibly sterilized throughout the first half of the twentieth century. In the south, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia passed sterilization laws and actively sterilized some of their citizens. However, Louisiana was not the lone southern state to reject the procedure. Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas never enacted a compulsory sterilization law. Therefore, Louisiana was not unique in its rejection, even among southern states. As one of several states to prevent its citizens from undergoing the procedure, Louisiana’s debate over compulsory eugenic sterilization not only contributes to the history of the state it also helps to shed light on the bases of support and opposition for the procedure beyond the state’s borders.2 Although scholars have examined various other aspects of compulsory

Load more