Chapter One Introduction Part I: Historiography This is the first monographic study of an American eugenic institution. It is unique in several respects. First, this is an in-depth look at eugenics between the years 1921 and 1940, a period during which eugenics in America underwent considerable growth and c:hange. T offer here a new inttit-pt-etati~t3 nf that: chat-[ye wh i~h~hai l~j-qes t.hE cancei7Eu5 iFi tftE 1~k~r~it~i-eto date. Second, this study examines American eugenics in the context of the international eugenics movement. I show, for the first time, how American eugenics was influenced by eugenics in France. Norway, and Sweden. I also take a close laok at the relationship between American and Nazi eugenics during the thirties. Third, this dissertation contains the first prosopographical study of American eugenic leaders. This is the first systematic analysis of the leadership of American eugenics. All previous studies of eugenics in America deal with the leadership in a haphazard fashion, which has clouded our understanding of the influence of eugenics on American culture. The historical interest and importance of the eugenics movement is less well appreciated than it should be. The eugenics mavement had a significant impact on American society. Eugenics was an integral part of the Progressive movement, and the study of eugenics is inseparable from the study of genetics, public health, criminal justice, and the welfare state in general. Furthermore, it has had a lasting and pro-found impact 01-1American social attitudes and legislation. The eugenics movement played an important role in the passage of the 1924 immigration restriction act which established the "national origins" principle in U.S. immigration pol icy. This principle was not abandoned until 1965 with the passage of the Celler Act. Thus from 1924 to 1965 American immigration policy was self-consciously based on ethnicity and national origins. The policy was disastrous from the very beginning, pitting ethnic Americans against one another and causing serious foreign relations pr~blerns.~ Eugenicists also had a significant impact on the American judicial system. They helped convince legislators that crime was the product of bad heredity. This undermined a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence - the idea that everyone should be equal under the law. As Charles Davenport protested, "nothing could be more stupid, cruel, ab7d un j ust . The l?.a.tu!x....... 9.. t.!x....... ~.e.r..s~o..n.sh0 u 1 d be 9i 130 less consideratian in determining treatment than the nature of the deed done. "2 The view that s~ntencingshould be regulated by the nature of the criminal rather than the nature of the crime led to the widespread acceptance of the ii-tdeterrninate sent~nce.~ The eugenicists in America were also successful in carrying the cause of eugenic sterilization to the Supreme Court and successfully defending the Constitutionality of eugenic sterilization. In 1927, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes? declared that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." It was Holmes opinion that sterilization of biological degenerates was in the best interest of the patient and ~ociety.~The eugenics movemerit made deep inroads in educating Americans to accept sterilization as a solution to social problems. Less clearly understood has been the impact of the euqenics movement on social welfare legislation and the administration of such programs established during the New Deal. From 1937 to 1939 the American Eugenics Society either organized or participated in some twenty-two conferences on such diverse subjects as housing? recreation, i: Charles B. Davenport ta John R. Fiockefeller Jr., (1 February 1912) Charles B. Davenport Papers, hrnerican Philosophical Society. ' GI IVF~Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, Sqpr-erne Court Reporter 4? (St. Paul 1428) pp. 584-555. health care, education, medicine, and other public welfare projects. For example, in 1938 eugenic leaders called a conference on eugenics in relation to housing shortly after the passage of the Wagner-Steagall Act which set aside federal funds for the construction of public h~using.~It is clear that eugenic leaders believed public housing projects could contribute to the dysgenic trend in births which they believed was prevalent in the United States at the time. During the debate in Congress Senator Byrd and other opponents of the bill attached an amendment which was derisively referred to as the "race suicide amendment" since it limited the size of public housing units to an average of four rooms per unit. It was hoped that this limitation would prevent the Federal Government from subsidizing large families among the dysgenic elements.& It is clear that the leaders of the eugenics movement were able to convey their perspective to legislators and administrators of federal projects. It is still not clear Passed in Ccrngress 3 February 1938. The conference was held 1 April 1938. See the debate on this point during the Conference on The Eugenic Aspect of Housing of the American Eugenics Society at the Town Hall Club in New York City, Friday 1 April 1938. 4ES Papers. Specific reference to the "race suicide amendment" can be found in the presentation by Edith Elmer Wood, "The Scope and Methods af Modern Housing," p. 4. See also, the remarks by Warren Thompson, "Housing and Population." I comment further on this in the conclusion to this dissertation. to what extent eugenics leaders were able to influence either the legislation or the administration of public welfare projects passed during the New Deal. But there is certainly enough evidence now available to warrant a close examination of this issue. Allan Chase has presented clear evidence that eugenic concerns influenced the operation of federally funded family planning programs in the early seventies. A5 Judge Gerhard Gesell noted in Waters v. Walker, "there is uncontroverted evidence in the record" that "poor people have been improperly coerced into accepting a sterilization operation" under federally subsidized programs. Judge Gesell went on to observe, "the dividing line between family planning and eugenics is murky."7 Despite the profound impact that eugenics has had on American society, important aspects of its history remain to be explored. In the past decade, several scholars have taken up the subject. Yet, no American history text deals with eugenics in anything more than a cursory fashion. I have surveyed general undergraduate history texts, texts that focus on the twentieth century, and many general monographs specifically dealing with the Progressive era. These texts, as well as monographs on the hist~i-yof medicine, psychology, social hygiene, and other areas generally ignore eugenics. That a movement as broadly based and widely influential should have been largely disregarded by historians for so long is certainly worth some thought. With regard to textbooks the reason may be that textbooks sometimes lag a generation or more behind the leading edge of ~cholarship,~it may take time before discussion of eugenics works its way into general college textbooks. It is certainly to be hoped that the present interest in eugenics will attract the interest of textbook writers. With regard to the monographic literature the answer is less clear. For the period from 1940 to 1970 there is very little work treating eugenics as an important and serious topic. Certainly, the leaders of the eugenics movement in the United States did not seek attention in this period. The post-war eugenic leadership felt that "the time was not right for aggressive eugenic propaganda 01- any aggressive campaign for increased membership." Instead, the period called for "thinking out the problems of eugenics with the help of a well-informed audience."? For examples of problems with text books see James D. Anderson, "Secondary School History Textbooks and the Treatment of Black Hi story 9 " in Lhe S.tate 9-f A.fr.0- t?r?.e..r..ica!? .....H..% xx.:...P.asL.7 EI..rr~..sseen.tt.t2aan.F!.F!.F!.... E.uuttu.rr.e ( Ba t0 n Ro UQ~ 1986) pp. 253-274; Diane Paul, "Genetics Textbooks and the Genetics of Intel 1 igence," unpubl ished manuscript , 170 date 1984. r Fr~d~i-l~kOsborn, "4 History of the American Eugenics Society," Social Biology 21 #2 (1974) pp. 121. Researchers interested in the Holocaust ignored eugenics because there were more pressing historical issues that needed clarification. Holocaust research focused on the extermination process itself and on the magnitude and complexity of the death camp system. More recently. Holocaust historians have taken a serious interest in the role of academic disciplines in the Holocaust. They have also turned their attention to the euthanasia program and eugenics movement as aspects ~f the Holocaust.li1 Historians of science did not turn their attention to eugenics until after the publication of Kenneth Ludmerer's history of American eugenics in 1972. Since the history of genetics was still in its infancy in the early seventies, it is not difficult to understand why eugenics was ignored. It is more difficult to understand why social historians have not paid more attention to eugenics. Recently, however, there has been a virtual explosion of interest in eugenics in the United States and Europe. Researchers have taken up the subject in virtual 1 y every country in which eugenics has had an impact. Sessions on eugenics are regularly scheduled at the meetings of scholarly societies throughout the world. The history of !a For an example of the earlier literature see Raul i 1 her g 9 Ths De.st~uc.t.1..oonnn ..-o.f Euroees? ..... J.cwr~.( Ch i c ago 196?). For an example of the more recent literature focusing on euthanasia and eugenics see Robert Jay L i f t n The ...-Naz..i...-- Doc .3..or...: .....