War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Expanded Edition (45 page)

“Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason. “
⁹³

Making clear that the destruction of a child for any “eugenic ‘indication’” was nothing less than murder, the encyclical went on to quote Exodus: “Thou shalt not kill.”
⁹⁴

Disregarding religious and popular sentiment, the society pressed on. Articles that they promoted continued to warn British readers of the dangers posed by family lines such as America’s Jukes; readers were also reminded of the success California was having with sterilization. But Labor and Catholics would not budge. Nor would their representatives in Parliament.
⁹⁵

Two more papal decrees, issued in March of 1931, denounced both positive and negative eugenics. On July 21, 1931, A. G. Church exercised his right under the House of Commons’ Ten Minute Rule to put the issue to a test. Under the Ten Minute Rule, debate would be massively curtailed. Church was a member of the Eugenics Society’s Committee on Voluntary Sterilization, and in his ten minutes he stressed the strictly “voluntary” nature of his measure. But then he let it slip. He admitted that, indeed, the voluntary proposal offered that day was only the beginning. Ultimately, eugenicists favored compulsory sterilization.
⁹⁶

Sterilization opponents in the House of Commons “crushed” Church, as it was later characterized. In the defeat that followed, Church was voted down 167 to 89. He was not permitted to introduce his legislation. Society leaders were forced to admit that it was Labor’s opposition and the Church’s encyclicals that finally defeated their efforts.
⁹⁷

Still unwilling to give up, within a few weeks the society began inviting more experts to form yet another special commission. Constantly trumpeting the successes in California and other American states, the society convinced Minister of Health Chamberlain to convene a special inquiry to investigate the Social Problem Group and how to stop its proliferation. The man selected to lead the commission was Board of Control Chairman Brock, the same man who had presided over the Gateshead debacle.
⁹⁸

The Brock Commission convened in June of 1932. One of its first acts was to ask the British Embassy in Washington and its consulates through-out the nation to compile state-by-state figures on the numbers of men and women sterilized in America. British consular officials launched a nationwide fact-finding mission to compile America’s legislation precedents and justifications. Numerous state officials, from Virginia to California, assisted consular officials. Reams of interlocutory reports produced by the Brock Commission advocated using American eugenic sterilization as a model, and in 1934 the commission formally recommended that Britain adopt similar policies. Section 86 of the recommendations, entitled “The Problem of the Carrier,” endorsed the idea that the greatest eugenic threat to society was the person who seemed “normal” but was actually a carrier of mental defect. “It is clear that the carrier is the crux of the problem,” the Brock Report concluded, bemoaning that science had not yet found a means of identifying such people with certainty.
⁹⁹

But for opponents, the Brock Report only served to confirm their rejection of sterilization in Britain. The Trades Union Congress condemned the idea, insisting that protracted unemployment might itself be justification for being classed “unfit.” In plain words, Labor argued that such applications of eugenics could lead to “extermination.” The labor congress’s resolution declared: “It is quite within the bounds of human possibility that those who want the modem industrial evils under the capitalist system to continue, may see in sterilization an expedient, degrading though it may be, to exterminate the victims of the capitalist system.”
¹⁰⁰

No action was ever taken on Brock’s recommendations. By this time it was 1934, and the Nazis had implemented their own eugenic sterilization regime. In Germany, the weak, political dissidents, and Jews were being sterilized by the tens of thousands.
¹⁰¹
The similarities were obvious to the British public.

A
merican eugenicists saw mankind as a biological cesspool.

After purifying America from within, and preventing defective strains from reaching U.S. shores, they planned to eliminate undesirables from the rest of the planet. In 1911, the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders Association, in conjunction with the Carnegie Institution, began work upon its
Report of the Committee to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population.
The last of eighteen points was entitled “International Co-operation.” Its intent was unmistakable: the ERO would undertake studies “looking toward the possible application of the sterilization of defectives in foreign countries, together with records of any such operations…. “ The American eugenics movement intended to turn its sights on “the extent and nature of the problem of the socially inadequate in foreign countries.”
¹
This would be accomplished by incessant international congresses, federations and scientific exchanges.

Global eugenics began in 1912 with the First International Congress of Eugenics in London. At that conference, the dominant American contingent presented its report on eliminating all social inadequates worldwide. Their blueprint for world eugenic action was overwhelmingly accepted, so much so that after the congress the Carnegie Institution published the study as a special two-part bulletin.
²

International cooperation soon began to coalesce. That first congress welcomed delegations from many countries, but five in particular sent major consultative committees: the United States, Germany, Belgium, Italy and France. During the congress, these few leaders constituted themselves as a so-called International Eugenics Committee. This new body first met a year later. On August 4, 1913, prominent eugenic leaders from the United States, England, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Norway converged on Paris. This new international eugenics oversight committee would function under various names and in various member configurations as the supreme international eugenics agency, deciding when and where congresses would be held, which national committees and institutions would be recognized, and which eugenic policies would be pursued. The dozen or so men scheduled a second planning session for one year later, August 15, 1914, in Belgium. They also scheduled the Second International Congress of Eugenics, which would be open to delegates from all nations and held two years later, in 1915, in New York.
³

But in August of 1914, Germany invaded Belgium.

A continent-wide war ignited before Europe’s eyes. The Belgian planning session was cancelled, and the Second International Congress of Eugenics was postponed. While Europe fought, and indeed even after the United States entered the war, America continued its domestic eugenic program and held its place as the world leader in eugenic research, theory and activism.
⁴

When the war ended four years later, international eugenics reorganized, with America retaining its leadership. The Second International Congress of Eugenics was rescheduled for September 1921, still in New York, under the auspices of the Washington-based National Research Council, the administrative arm of America’s prestigious, Congressionally-chartered National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences functioned as a way of uniting America’s disparate scientific establishments. As it had for the first congress, the State Department mailed the invitations around the world. Although the National Research Council was the official authorizing body, Davenport wrote his colleagues that it was “up to the New York group to put this Congress through.”
⁵

The “New York group” was led by Laughlin, Mrs. Harriman and Madison Grant, author of
The Passing of the Great Race.
In addition to being among the world’s leading raceologists, Grant was a trustee for the American Museum of Natural History. The museum became the titular sponsor of the second congress. The museum’s premises were used for the congress’s meetings and exhibits, its staff helped with the details, and its president, Henry Osborn, a eugenicist himself, was named president of the international gathering. The museum’s name was prominently displayed on the published proceedings, as though the congress were just another museum function.
⁶
All of this imbued the event with a distinctly evolutionary and anthropological quality. This was exactly the intent of congress organizers. They wanted the event to be seen as a milestone in the natural history of the human species.

The second congress was rich with typical raceological dogma and dominated by American biological precepts. Alexander Graham Bell assumed the honorary presidency. The proceedings were divided into four sections: comparative heredity, the human family, racial differences and “Eugenics and the State.” Delegates from every continent attended to share eugenic principles and to form legislative game plans they could take back home. Osborn’s opening address represented a challenge from America. “In certain parts of Europe,” he set forth, “the worst elements of society have gained the ascendancy and threaten the destruction of the best.” He recognized that “To each of the countries of the world, racial betterment presents a different aspect…. Let each … consider its own problems…. “ But in the final analysis it came down to one mandate: “As science has enlightened government in the prevention and spread of disease, it must also enlighten government in the prevention of the spread and multiplication of worthless members of society…. “
⁷

Osborn also repeated the standard eugenic idea: “The true spirit of American democracy that
all men are born with equal rights and duties
has been confused with the political sophistry that
all men are born with equal character and ability to govern themselves.
… “
⁸

Not only was the rhetoric American, but so was the science. Out of fifty-three scientific papers, all but twelve were produced by American eugenicists on American issues, all conforming to the Carnegie Institution’s sociopolitical strategies. Topics included Indiana’s Tribe of Ishmael, Kentucky’s mountain people and Lucien Howe’s proposals on hereditary blindness.
⁹

Some European eugenicists complained about America’s domination of the global congress. Sweden’s Hermann Lundborg, for example, railed to Davenport in a rambling handwritten missive that America was trying to hijack the worldwide movement. “I have been hoodwinked…. By what right do you in America usurp the words Second International, when the Congress is not international. It is an injustice which not only I, but I believe the majority of my [Swedish] section do not approve Of.”
¹⁰

Such protests did not deter Davenport and his colleagues. Indeed, in a special presentation on the essence of eugenic research, Davenport explained his dedication. “Why do we investigate?” he asked. “Alas! We have now too little precise knowledge in any field of eugenics. We can command respect for our eugenic conclusions only as our findings are based on rigid proof…. “ Davenport reminded the delegates that wealthy American benpfactors had made the critical difference between mere ideas and hard data. “It is largely due to the extraordinary vision of Mrs. E. H. Harriman, the founder of the Eugenics Record Office, that in this country, eugenics is more a subject of research than [mere] propaganda.”
¹¹

Money made the difference for the international convention as well. Mrs. Harriman donated an extra $2,500 to fund the more than 120 exhibits erected throughout the museum. These included a prominent exhibit on sterilization statutes in the United States. The Carnegie Institution extended a special grant of $2,000 to defray travel expenses for several of the key European speakers, and to cover general expenses for the delegates. Other wealthy eugenicists contributed significant sums and were named patrons of the gathering. They included sanitarium owner John Kellogg, working through his Race Betterment Foundation, and YMCA benefactor and prominent political contributor Cleveland H. Dodge.
¹²

In recalling the congress some weeks later for the Indiana Academy of Science, Carnegie researcher Arthur Estabrook quoted Osborn: “That all men are born with equal rights and duties has been confused with the political sophistry that all men are born with equal character and ability to govern themselves…. “
¹³

During the congress Davenport orchestrated the renaming and broadening of the International Eugenics Committee into a Permanent International Commission on Eugenics. This renamed entity would sanction all eugenic organizations in “cooperating” member countries, which now included Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Germany was not included because it refused to sit on the same panel with its World War I enemies Belgium and France. Germany was also struggling under the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which made international eugenic cooperation difficult.
¹⁴

Multinational eugenics gathered momentum during the next two years. In October of 1922, the Permanent International Commission assembled in Brussels. The meeting was once again steered by Davenport and his circle. Representatives from Belgium, Denmark, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Norway began coordinating their efforts. The commission resolved to learn more about eugenic campaigns in India and Japan, and also voted unanimously to invite Germany back into its ranks.
¹⁵