Authors: Edwin Black
The ERO dismissed the well-known traumatic causes of epilepsy or insanity, such as a fall or severe blow to the head, in favor of hereditary factors. In one typical insanity case originally blamed on a fall, the bulletin explained, “This defect may be purely traumatic but, on the other hand, he has an epileptic brother and a feeble-minded niece so there was probably an innate weakness and the fall is invoked as a convenient ‘cause.”‘
51
Strikingly, the ERO’s definition of epilepsy itself was so sweeping that it covered not only people plagued by seizures, but also those suffering from migraine headaches and even brief fainting spells possibly due to exhaustion, heat stroke or other causes. “Epilepsy is employed in this paper,” Davenport wrote, “in a wide sense to include not only cases of well-marked convulsions, but also cases in which there has been only momentary loss of consciousness. “
52
The prospect of epileptics in the population would haunt Laughlin for decades as he feverishly launched every effort to identify them. Once he identified them, Laughlin wanted to neutralize their ability to reproduce. The ERO’s epilepsy bulletin concluded: “The most effective mode of preventing the increase of epileptics that society would probably countenance is the segregation during the reproductive period of all epileptics.”
53
America’s geography was diverse. Since the western regions of the United States were still being settled, the ERO understood that many family trees in those regions would be incomplete. Indeed, many people moved out West precisely because they wanted to begin a new life detached from their former existence. Public records in western locales often lacked information about extended family and ancestry. Overcoming the challenge of documenting the population of a vast continent with only broken bits of family data, the ERO promised that “the office is now prepared to index any material, no matter how fragmentary or how extensive, concerning the transmission of biological traits in man; and it seeks to become the depository of such material.” To that end, the ERO contacted “the heads of all institutions in the United States concerned with abnormal individuals.”
54
Extending beyond the reach of his field workers, Laughlin promised the eugenics movement that the ERO would register information on all Americans no matter where they lived to “[prevent] the production of defective persons.” While defectives were to be eliminated, the superior families were to be increased. The eugenics movement would seek out and list “men of genius” and “special talents,” and then advocate that those families receive special entitlements, such as financial rewards and other benefits for increased reproduction.
55
Eventually, the superior race would be more numerous and would control American society. At some point, they alone would comprise American society.
The eugenic visions offered by Davenport and Laughlin pleased the movement’s wealthy sponsors. On January 19, 1911, Andrew Carnegie doubled the Carnegie Institution’s endowment with an additional ten million dollars for all its diverse programs, including eugenics. Mrs. Harriman increased her enthusiastic grants. John D. Rockefeller’s fortune also contributed to the funding. A Rockefeller philanthropic official became “much interested in eugenics and seems willing to help Dr. Davenport’s work,” reported one eugenic leader to Mrs. Harriman in a handwritten letter. “His preference is to give a small sum at first … raising the amount as the work advances.” Initial Rockefeller contributions amounted to just $21,650 in cash and were earmarked to defray field worker expenses. But the highly structured Rockefeller philanthropic entities donated more than just cash; they provided personnel and organizational support, as well as the visible name of Rockefeller.
56
Clearly, eugenics and its goal of purifying America’s population was already more than just a complex of unsupported racist theorems and pronouncements. Eugenics was nothing less than an alliance between biological racism and mighty American power, position and wealth against the most vulnerable, the most marginal and the least empowered in the nation. The eugenic crusaders had successfully mobilized America’s strong against America’s weak. More eugenic solutions were in store.
* * *
On May 2 and May 3, 1911, in Palmer, Massachusetts, the research committees of the ABA’s eugenic section adopted a resolution creating a special new committee. “Resolved: that the chair appoint a committee commissioned to study and report on the best practical means for cutting off the defective germ-plasm of the American population.” Laughlin was the special committee’s secretary. He and his colleagues would recruit an advisory panel from among the country’s most esteemed authorities in the social and political sciences, medicine and jurisprudence. The advisory panel eventually included surgeon Alexis Carrel, M.D., of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, who would months later win the Nobel Prize for Medicine; O.P. Austin, chief of the Bureau of Statistics in Washington, D.C.; physiologist W.B. Cannon and immigration expert Robert DeCourcy Ward, both from Harvard; psychiatrist Stewart Paton from Princeton; public affairs professor Irving Fisher from Yale; political economist James Field from the University of Chicago; renowned attorney Louis Marshall; and numerous other eminent men oflearning.
57
Commencing July 15, 1911, Laughlin and the main ABA committee members met at Manhattan’s prestigious City Club on West Forty-fourth Street. During a number of subsequent conferences, they carefully debated the “problem of cutting off the supply of defectives,” and systematically plotted a bold campaign of “purging the blood of the American people of the handicapping and deteriorating influences of these anti-social classes.” Ten groups were eventually identified as “socially unfit” and targeted for “elimination.” First, the feebleminded; second, the pauper class; third, the inebriate class or alcoholics; fourth, criminals of all descriptions including petty criminals and those jailed for nonpayment of fines; fifth, epileptics; sixth, the insane; seventh, the constitutionally weak class; eighth, those pre-disposed to specific diseases; ninth, the deformed; tenth, those with defective sense organs, that is, the deaf, blind and mute. In this last category, there was no indication of how severe the defect need be to qualify; no distinction was made between blurry vision or bad hearing and outright blindness or deafness.
58
Not content to eliminate those deemed unfit by virtue of some malady, transgression, disadvantage or adverse circumstance, the ABA committee targeted their extended families as well. Even if those relatives seemed perfectly normal and were not institutionalized, the breeders considered them equally unfit because they supposedly carried the defective germ-plasm that might crop up in a future generation. The committee carefully weighed the relative value of “sterilizing all persons with defective germ-plasm,” or just “sterilizing only degenerates.” The group agreed that “defective and potential parents of defectives not in institutions” were also unacceptable.
59
Normal persons of the wrong ancestry were particularly unwanted. “There are many others of equally unworthy personality and hereditary qualities,” wrote Laughlin, “who have … never been committed to institutions.” He added, “There are many parents who, in many cases, may themselves be normal, but who produce defective offspring. This great mass of humanity is not only a social menace to the present generation, but it harbors the potential parenthood of the social misfits of our future generations.” Davenport had consistently emphasized that “a person who by all physical and mental examinations is normal may lack in half his germ cells the determiner for complete development. In some respects, such a person is more undesirable in the community than the idiot, (who will probably not reproduce), or the low-grade imbecile who will be recognized as such.”
60
How many people did the eugenics movement target for countermeasures? Prioritizing those in custodial care-from poor houses to hospitals to prisons-the unfit totaled close to a million. An additional three million people were “equally defective, but not under the state’s care.” Finally, the group focused on the so-called “borderline,” some seven million people, who “are of such inferior blood, and are so interwoven in kinship with those still more defective, that they are totally unfitted to become parents of useful citizens.” Laughlin insisted, “If they mate with a higher level, they contaminate it; if they mate with the still lower levels, they bolster them up a little only to aid them to continue their unworthy kind.” The estimated first wave alone totaled nearly eleven million Americans, or more than 10 percent of the existing population.
61
Eleven million would be only the beginning. Laughlin readily admitted that his first aim was at “ten percent of the total population, but even this is arbitrary.” Eugenics would then turn its attention to the extended families deemed perfectly normal but still socially unfit.
62
Those numbers would add many million more.
Indeed, the eugenicists would push further, attempting a constantly upward genetic spiral in their insatiable quest for the super race. The movement intended to constantly identify the lowest levels of even the acceptable population and then terminate those families as well. “It will always be desirable,” wrote Laughlin on behalf of the committee, “in the interests of still further advancement to cut off the lowest levels, and encourage high fecundity among the more gifted.”
63
The committee was always keenly aware that their efforts could be deemed unconstitutional. Legal fine points were argued to ensure that any eugenical countermeasure not “be considered as a second punishment … or as a cruel or unusual punishment.” The eugenic committee hoped to circumvent the courts and due process, arguing that “sterilization of degenerates, or especially of criminals, [could] be legitimately effected through the exercise of police functions.” In an ideal world, a eugenics board or commission would unilaterally decide which families would be the targets of eugenic procedures. The police would simply enforce their decisions.
64
Human rights attorney Louis Marshall, the committee’s main legal advisor, opined that eugenic sterilization might be legal if ordered by the original sentencing judge for criminals. But to venture beyond criminals, he wrote, targeting the weak, the diseased and their relatives, would probably be unconstitutional. “I understand that the operation of vasectomy is painless,” wrote Marshall, “…other than to render it impossible for him to have progeny…. The danger, however, is that it might be inflicted upon one who is not a habitual criminal, who might have been the victim of circumstances and who could be reformed. To deprive such an individual of all hope of progeny would approach closely to the line of cruel and unusual punishment. There are many cases where juvenile offenders have been rendered habitual criminals who subsequently became exemplary citizens … the very fact that they exist would require the exercise of extreme caution in determining whether such a punishment is constitutional.”
65
Marshall added with vagueness, “Unless justified by a conviction for crime, it [eugenical sterilization] would be a wanton and unauthorized act and an unwarranted deprivation of the liberty of the citizen. In order to justify it, the person upon whom the operation is to be performed has, therefore, the right to insist upon his right to due process of law. That right is withheld if the vasectomy is directed … by a board or commission, which acts upon its own initiative…. I fear that the public is not as yet prepared to deal with this problem.”
66
But Laughlin and his fellow breeders envisioned eugenical measures beyond mere sterilization. To multiply the genetically desired bloodlines, they suggested polygamy and systematic mating. Additional draconian remedies that were proposed to cut off defective germ-plasm included restrictive marriage laws, compulsory birth control and forced segregation for life-or at least until the reproductive years had passed. Davenport believed mass segregation or incarceration of the feebleminded during their entire reproductive years, if “carried out thoroughly” would wipe out most defectives within fifteen to thirty years. All the extra property acquired to incarcerate the inmates could be sold off for cash. As part of any long-term incarceration program, the patient could be released if he or she willingly submitted to sterilization “just prior to release.” This was viewed as a central means of bypassing the need for a court order or even a commission decision. These sterilizations could then be called “voluntary.”
67
One option went further than any other. It was too early to implement. However, point eight of the American Breeders Association plan called for euthanasia.
68
Despite the diversity of proposals, the group understood that of the various debated remedies, the American public was only ready for one: sterilization. The committee’s tactic would be to convince America at large that “eugenics is a long-time investment” appealing to “far-sighted patriots.” The agenda to terminate defective bloodlines was advocated and its underlying science was trumpeted as genuine, even as the committee confessed in their own summary report, “our knowledge is, as yet, so limited.” Laughlin and his colleagues pursued their mission even as the original Galtonian eugenicists in London publicly declared they were “fully conscious of the slenderness of their data.” American eugenicists pressed on even as Pearson of the Eugenics Laboratory openly quoted criticism by a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, “The educated man and the scientist is as prone as any other to become the victim … of his prejudices…. He will in defence thereof make shipwreck of both the facts of science and the methods of science … by perpetrating every form of fallacy, inaccuracy and distortion.”
69
America’s eugenicists continued even as their elite leaders acknowledged, “public sentiment demanding action was absent.”
70