A Mother's Promise

by K. D. Alden

  As I read further about Carrie Buck and her Supreme Court case, I reeled at the ramifications—for the individual, for American society, for World War II Europe, and even in terms of U.S. immigration today.

  Much of the science and philosophy behind the “progressive” eugenics movement is far too unwieldy to weave into the narrative of this particular book, though there are some excellent nonfiction sources to explore that I read voraciously and with a growing outrage at the injustice done to Carrie.

  Actual Colony board meeting minutes do show that the two lawyers and the doctor were in cahoots, and that Carrie Buck’s lawyer utterly betrayed his client’s trust and interests.

  Carrie’s mother and sister were indeed both residents of the Colony, her mother having been admitted in a disheveled, malnourished state, with track marks on her arms and a suspected history of prostitution.

  But as a work of fiction, A Mother’s Promise does differ in certain ways from Carrie Buck’s actual life, though it is inspired by it.

  Here are some of the “dramatic licenses” I took as an author.

  Most institutions never explained what they were doing to the patient when they underwent sterilization. I chose to have Dr. Price tell Ruth Ann.

  Unlike Ruth Ann, Carrie Buck never attempted to escape the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded. She trusted “her people” there to make good decisions on her behalf.

  I made Mrs. Dade’s character more sympathetic than she was in real life, so that the twist at the end of the novel is even more shocking.

  I chose to depict Ruth Ann’s mother as a violent lunatic. She was not so in real life, and they did not have a bad relationship, nor was it Carrie’s fault that her mother was transferred to the Colony. But I wanted to emphasize that not all genetic traits are passed along to offspring, as eugenics philosophy held at the time. I also wanted to highlight just how alone and defenseless Ruth Ann was during her ordeal at the Colony.

  Ruth Ann’s younger sister, Bonnie (based on Carrie’s sister Doris Buck), was in reality sterilized shortly after Carrie. I reversed the order for dramatic purposes in the story. (Doris was told that she’d had an appendectomy for medical reasons. She only found out the truth thirty years later. She and her husband burst into tears upon being told, because they’d unwittingly been trying to conceive children all of their married life.)

  Tragically, the real Annabel (Carrie Buck’s only child, Vivian) died at the age of eight. I just couldn’t do that to Ruth Ann in the novel. I desperately wanted her to have a happier ending, being allowed to adopt her one child and her baby sister.

  Clarence is ficticious, in yet another of my attempts to rewrite Carrie’s story with a more positive ending. But Carrie did marry twice after she left the Colony, the second time after she was widowed.

  There was no actual Mother Jenkins character at the Colony, to my knowledge. It’s not my intention to depict the place as all bad. Socials and dances and outings to see picture shows were offered to the patients/inmates, though they did indeed work for their room and board.

  I’ve altered some facts and timelines for dramatic and plot purposes. I’ve adapted the Colony setting to the needs of the novel and created buildings that did not actually exist. I had the surgeries occur on premises, and not at nearby hospitals.

  I also have not mentioned the notorious “blind room,” which existed to punish wayward inhabitants. But there is a haunting, brilliant and evocative book of poetry by Molly McCully Brown titled Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, which does.

  More information about the eugenics movement and Buck v. Bell:

  Buck v. Bell has largely been buried, since this case in particular, and eugenics in general, are now seen as shameful examples of how American society has, on occasion, gone wrong. And nobody has wanted to sully the reputations of such luminaries as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, and other supporters of the movement such as Theodore Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Carnegie Institution, to name only a few. It’s not my intention to blacken their legacies. These were great men, but they were products of their heritage, privilege and times.

  The worst repercussions of the eugenics movement and Buck v. Bell are even more shocking than the sterilization of approximately 70,000 innocent American citizens. Eugenics led to the Immigration Act of 1924, which was meant to stop Eastern Europeans and Jews from entering the country, as they were considered of “inferior” stock and might “pollute” the gene pool of the United States. This act, endorsed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, made it extraordinarily difficult for Jews to flee to America during World War II.

  Adam Cohen points out in his extraordinary book Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck that Anne Frank and her family might have survived had they been allowed to come to this country.

  Fortunately for my own family, my grandfather was born an American citizen to German Catholics, but my Jewish maternal grandmother would have been exterminated had she remained in Europe. My mother and her siblings would have been sterilized had they stayed there, because they were of “mixed” blood. And I myself would not exist.

  All of this is disturbing enough. But Harry S. Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, was so proud of his research—and his recommendation that approximately 15 million American citizens should be sterilized in order to “protect” the gene pool—that he shared it with Nazi scientists. He was quite proud of the fact that they used his model eugenics law as the basis for their own, which led to the forced sterilizations of over 375,000 more people under the Third Reich. Worse, the Nazis prosecuted at the Nuremburg Trials cited American law (and Buck v. Bell in particular) as part of their defense strategy.

  Curiously enough, Laughlin either hid or was not aware of the fact that he himself had epilepsy, which wasn’t revealed until he had a public seizure while driving in Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

  Eugenics began to fall out of favor in the United States in the late 1930s along with the rise of the Nazis, whose actions became indefensible in the eyes of most. The Carnegie Institution withdrew its funding for Laughlin and his research. But the eugenics laws remained on the books in most states until the 1970s, despite a solid challenge to Buck v. Bell in 1942 in Oklahoma.

  Buck v. Bell is still, shockingly, the law of the land. It was cited in 2001 in a Missouri case by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that “involuntary sterilization is not always unconstitutional.” And from 2006 to 2010, 150 (!) inmates of California prisons were sterilized.

  Three generations of this imbecilic law are enough. When will Buck v. Bell be overturned?

  Discussion Questions

  At the beginning of the novel, did you believe that Ruth Ann Riley was, as she’s been told, feebleminded? If so, when did you realize that perhaps she wasn’t?

  Do you think that having a baby out of wedlock is as shocking today as it was in the early twentieth century? Why did people feel the need to segregate “fallen” young ladies from the rest of society?

  Ruth Ann was the victim of rape, yet nobody seemed to either believe her or care. The authorities still considered her “fallen.” Why? How do you think that affected her? Were you surprised that she still loved her baby so much?

  How did you feel when Ruth Ann tried to recover Annabel from the Dades? Was she really capable of caring for a baby on her own? Was it right of social services to place Ruth Ann’s baby with the Dades, in a “swap” of one child for another? Was it right for the Dades to profit off of Ruth Ann’s labor, since they provided room and board for her?

  How did you view the relationship between Ruth Ann and her mother? Is Sheila mentally ill? Or just impossibly angry at what life has done to her? Do you feel that she’s right to be so nasty to Ruth Ann? Do you think that she still loves Ruth Ann in any way?

  The term eugenics refers to the “science of good breeding.” Do you think it’s possible to bre
ed out less desirable traits in human beings—or breed in more desirable ones? Aside from religion, what are the ethical and moral issues at stake?

  What do you think about the underlying financial concerns that drove some of these “progressive” ideas? Do you think these money issues still affect policy-making and politics today?

  What do you think of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s right to sterilize individuals against their will?

  Do you think that these gentlemen were well-intended? Patriotic? That the end justified the means?

  Despite losing her long court battle, Ruth Ann finds happiness with Clarence, eventually leaves the Colony and is able to adopt Annabel and Bonnie. Did you find the ending of the book satisfying? Why or why not?

  In the actual writ of opinion for Buck v. Bell, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., describes the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the findings of the lower court. The bold-face sections are of particular interest (they are not bold in the original).

  It is beyond unfortunate that the trumped-up “evidence” that Carrie and her infant daughter Vivian were feebleminded was never questioned by her own attorney. If the “evidence” had been invalidated, then Carrie could not have been judged to be the “probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring.” She could not have been found to be “manifestly unfit” to reproduce.

  If anyone had cared to listen to her true story of rape, Carrie also would not herself have been found to be an example of “degenerate” offspring, since her pregnancy was in no way her fault. She never committed a crime, nor was she an imbecile, unable to feed herself. Both she and her daughter, Vivian, received good marks in school. People who knew Carrie in later life noted that she didn’t seem mentally disabled in any way and in fact looked forward to reading the newspaper every day and doing the crossword puzzle.

  Opinion

  HOLMES, J., Opinion of the Court

  This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia affirming a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County by which the defendant in error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her sterile. 143 Va. 310. The case comes here upon the contention that the statute authorizing the judgment is void under the Fourteenth Amendment as denying to the plaintiff in error due process of law and the equal protection of the laws.

  Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard, &c.; that the sterilization may be effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy, without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who, if now discharged, would become a menace, but, if incapable of procreating, might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society, and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, &c. The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.

  The superintendent first presents a petition to the special board of directors of his hospital or colony, stating the facts and the grounds for his opinion, verified by affidavit. Notice of the petition and of the time and place of the hearing in the institution is to be served upon the inmate, and also upon his guardian, and if there is no guardian, the superintendent is to apply to the Circuit Court of the County to appoint one. If the inmate is a minor, notice also is to be given to his parents, if any, with a copy of the petition. The board is to see to it that the inmate may attend the hearings if desired by him or his guardian. The evidence is all to be reduced to writing, and, after the board has made its order for or against the operation, the superintendent, or the inmate, or his guardian, may appeal to the Circuit Court of the County. The Circuit Court may consider the record of the board and the evidence before it and such other admissible evidence as may be offered, and may affirm, revise, or reverse the order of the board and enter such order as it deems just. Finally any party may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which, if it grants the appeal, is to hear the case upon the record of the trial in the Circuit Court, and may enter such order as it thinks the Circuit Court should have entered. There can be no doubt that, so far as procedure is concerned, the rights of the patient are most carefully considered, and, as every step in this case was taken in scrupulous compliance with the statute and after months of observation, there is no doubt that, in that respect, the plaintiff in error has had due process of law.

  The attack is not upon the procedure, but upon the substantive law. It seems to be contended that in no circumstances could such an order be justified. It certainly is contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds. The judgment finds the facts that have been recited, and that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization, and thereupon makes the order.

  In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and, if they exist, they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

  But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course, so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.

  Judgment affirmed.

  MR. JUSTICE BUTLER dissents.

  Further Reading

  Shankar Vedantam, Hidden Brain. “Emma, Carrie, Vivian: How a Family Became a Test Case for Forced Sterilizations,” National Public Radio, April 23, 2018

  Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell, by Paul A. Lombardo

  Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, by Adam Cohen

/>   A Whisper Past: Childless After Eugenic Sterilization in Alberta, by Leilani Muir

  Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, 2nd edition, by Alexandra Minna Stern

  American Eugenics, by Nancy Ordover

  The Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, by Molly McCully Brown

  Acknowledgments

  I’m deeply grateful to:

  V. S. Alexander, for tossing me the ball.

  Evan Marshall and Martha Jewett.

  Paul Lombardo and Adam Cohen, for their remarkable books, invaluable to my research.

  Wanda Ottewell, for pushing me further in the draft stage of the manuscript.

  Leah Hultenschmidt, for taking a chance on me and for deft editing and guidance.

  Sabrina Flemming, for fielding all sorts of odd things and laughing at my terrible jokes.

  Daniela Medina, for creating more than one incredible cover.

  Rita Madrigal, for stellar copyediting. Any mistakes are my own.

  Jodi Rosoff, for spreading the word.

  The entire team at Grand Central Publishing and Forever.

  Readers everywhere who, in the midst of this chaotic world, still find time for books.

  This novel wouldn’t exist without any of you! Thanks is an entirely inadequate word.

  About the Author

  K.D. Alden is the pseudonym for an award-winning, bestselling author of more than twenty-five novels for New York publishers. While she’s created hundreds of characters under multiple names, she herself has only one personality. This is her first historical novel.