by Edwin Black
She continued, “The most serious charge that can be brought against modern ‘benevolence’ is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. Philanthropy is a gesture characteristic of modern business lavishing upon the unfit the profits extorted from thel community at large. Looked at impartially, this compensatory generosity is in its final effect probably more dangerous, more dysgenic, more blighting than the initial practice of profiteering and the social injustice which makes some too rich and others too poor."27
Like most eugenicists, she appealed to the financial instincts of the wealthy and middle class whose taxes and donations funded social assistance. “Insanity,” she wrote, “annually drains from the state treasury no less than $11,985,695.55, and from private sources and endowments another twenty millions. When we learn further that the total number of inmates in public and private institutions in the State of New York-in alms-houses, reformatories, schools for the blind, deaf and mute, in insane asylums, in homes for the feeble-minded and epileptic-amounts practically to less than sixty-five thousand, an insignificant number compared to the total population, our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste. “28
She repeated eugenic notions of generation-to-generation hereditary pauperism as a genetic defect too expensive for society to defray. “The off-spring of one feebleminded man named Jukes,” she reminded, “has cost the public in one way or another $1,300,000 in seventy-five years. Do we want more such families?”29
Sanger’s book, Pivot of Civilization, included an introduction by famous British novelist and eugenicist H. G. Wells, who said, “We want fewer and better children… and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict upon US.”30
Later, Sanger’s magazine reprinted and lauded an editorial from the publication American Medicine, which tried to correct “the popular misapprehension that [birth control advocates] encourage small families. The truth is that they encourage small families where large ones would seem detrimental to society, but they advocate with just as great insistence large families where small ones are an injustice to society. They frown upon the ignorant poor whose numerous children, brought into the world often under the most unfavorable circumstances, are a burden to themselves, a menace to the health of the not infrequently unwilling mother, and an obstacle to social progress. But they frown with equal disapproval on the well-to-do, cultured parents who can offer their children all the advantages of the best care and education and who nevertheless selfishly withhold these benefits from society. More children from the fit, less from the unfit-that is the chief issue in Birth Control.” But on this last point, however, Sanger disagreed with mainstream eugenicists-she encouraged intelligent birth control even for superior families.31
Sanger would return to the theme of more eugenically fit children (and fewer unfit) again and again. She preferred negative, coercive eugenics. “Eugenics seems to me to be valuable in its critical and diagnostic aspects, in emphasizing the danger of irresponsible and uncontrolled fertility of the ‘unfit’ and the feeble-minded establishing a progressive unbalance in human society and lowering the birth-rate among the ‘fit.’ But in its so-called ‘constructive’ aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of [the] healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a ‘cradle competition’ between the fit and the unfit.”32
Sanger’s solutions were mass sterilization and mass segregation of the defective classes, and these themes were repeated often in Pivot of Civilization. “The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”33
Indeed, Sanger listed eight official aims for her new organization, the American Birth Control League. The fourth aim was “sterilization of the insane and feebleminded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases…. “34
For her statistics and definitions regarding the feebleminded, Sanger subscribed to Goddard’s approach. “Just how many feebleminded there are in the United States, no one knows,” wrote Sanger in another book, Woman and the New Race, “because no attempt has ever been made to give public care to all of them, and families are more inclined to conceal than to reveal the mental defects of their members. Estimates vary from 350,000 at the present time to nearly 400,000 as early as 1890, Henry H. Goddard, Ph.D., of the Vineland, N.J., Training School, being authority for the latter statement.”35
Similarly, she accepted the view that most feebleminded children descended from immigrants. For instance, she cited one study that concluded, “An overwhelming proportion of the classified feebleminded children in New York schools came from large families in overcrowded slum conditions, and… only a small percentage were born of native parents.”36
Steeped in eugenic science, Sanger frequently parroted the results of U.S. Army intelligence testing which asserted that as many as 70 percent of Americans were feebleminded. In January of 1932, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle sent Sanger a quote from a British publication asserting that one-tenth of England’s population was feebleminded due to “random output of unrestricted breeding.” In a letter, the Eagle editor asked Sanger, “Is that a fair estimate? What percentage of this country’s population is deficient for the same reasons?” Sanger wrote her response on the letter: “70% below 15 year intellect.” Her secretary then formally typed a response, “Mrs. Sanger believes that 70% of this country’s population has an intellect of less than 15 years.”37 Her magazine, Birth Control Review, featured an article with a similar view. “The Purpose of Eugenics” stated, “Expert army investigators disclosed the startling fact that fully 70 per cent of the constituents of this huge army had a mental capacity below… fourteen years.”38
When lobbying against the growing demographics of the defective, Sanger commonly cited eugenic theory as unimpeachable fact. For example, she followed one fusillade of population reduction rhetoric by assuring, “The opinions which I summarize here are not so much my own, originally, as those of medical authorities who have made deep and careful investigations. “39
Sanger was willing to employ striking language to argue against the inherent misery and defect of large families. In her book, Woman and the New Race, she bluntly declared, “Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality oflarge families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”40
At times, she publicly advocated extermination of so-called human weeds to bolster her own views. For example, her August 15, 1925, Collier’s magazine guest editorial entitled “Is Race Suicide Probable?” argued the case for birth control by quoting eminent botanist and radical eugenicist Luther Burbank, “to whom American civilization is deeply indebted.” Quoting Burbank, Sanger’s opinion piece continued, “America… is like a garden in which the gardener pays no attention to the weeds. Our criminals are our weeds, and weeds breed fast and are intensely hardy. They must be eliminated. Stop permitting crimi
nals and weaklings to reproduce. Allover the country to-day we have enormous insane asylums and similar institutions where we nourish the unfit and criminal instead of exterminating them. Nature eliminates the weeds, but we turn them into parasites and allow them to reproduce.”41
Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists. Chief among them was Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. Stoddard’s book, devoted to the notion of a superior Nordic race, became a eugenic gospel. It warned: “‘Finally perish!’ That is the exact alternative which confronts the white race…. If white civilization goes down, the white race is irretrievably ruined. It will be swamped by the triumphant colored races, who will obliterate the white man by elimination or absorption…. Not to-day, nor yet to-morrow; perhaps not for generations; but surely in the end. If the present drift be not changed, we whites are all ultimately doomed.”42
Stoddard added the eugenic maxim, “We now know that men are not, and never will be, equal. We know that environment and education can develop only what heredity brings.” Stoddard’s solution? “Just as we isolate bacterial invasions, and starve out the bacteria, by limiting the area and amount of their food supply, so we can compel an inferior race to remain in its native habitat… [which will] as with all organisms, eventually limit… its influence.”43
Shortly after Stoddard’s landmark book was published in 1920, Sanger invited him to join the board of directors of her American Birth Control League, a position he retained for years. Likewise, Stoddard retained a key position as a member of the conference committee of the First American Birth Control Conference.44
Another Sanger colleague was Yale economics professor Irving Fisher, a leader of the Eugenics Research Association. It was Fisher who had told the Second National Congress on Race Betterment, “Gentlemen and Ladies, you have not any idea unless you have studied this subject mathematically, how rapidly we could exterminate this contamination if we really got at it, or how rapidly the contamination goes on if we do not get at it.”45 Fisher also served on Sanger’s Committee for the First American Birth Control Conference, and lectured at her birth control events. Some of these events were unofficial gatherings to discuss wider eugenic action. In a typical exchange before one such lecture in March of 1925, Laughlin wrote to Fisher, “I have received a letter from Mrs. Sanger verifying your date for the round-table discussion…. Dr. Davenport and I can meet you… thirty minutes before Mrs. Sanger’s conference opens… so that we three can then confer on the business in hand in reference to our membership on the International Commission of Eugenics.”46
Henry Pratt Fairchild served as one of Sanger’s chief organizers and major correspondents47 Fairchild became renowned for his virulent anti-immigrant and anti-ethnic polemic, The Melting Pot Mistake. Fairchild argued, “Unrestricted immigration… was slowly, insidiously, irresistibly eating away the very heart of the United States. What was being melted in the great Melting Pot, losing all form and symmetry, all beauty and character, all nobility and usefulness, was the American nationality itself.” Like Stoddard, Fairchild compared ethnic minorities to a vile bacterium. “But in the case of a nationality,” warned Fairchild, “the foreign particle does not become a part of the nationality until he has become assimilated to it. Previous to that time, he is an extraneous factor, like undigested, and possibly indigestible, matter in the body of a living organism. That being the case, the only way he can alter the nationality is by injuring it, by impeding its functions.”48 Like Fisher, Fairchild offered key speeches at Sanger’s conferences, such as the 1925 Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference and the 1927 World Population Conference. In 1929, he became vice president and board member of Sanger’s central lobbying group, the National Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control; in 1931 he served on the advisory board of Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, and later he served as vice president of the Birth Control Federation of America.49
Stoddard, Fairchild and Fisher were just three of the many eugenicists working in close association with Sanger and her birth control movement. Therefore, even though Sanger was not a racist or an anti-Semite herself, she openly welcomed the worst elements of both into the birth control movement. This provided legitimacy and greater currency for a eugenics movement that thrived by subverting progressive platforms to achieve its goals of Nordic racial superiority and ethnic banishment for everyone else.
* * *
Because so many American eugenic leaders occupied key positions within the birth control movement,50 and because so much of Sanger’s rhetoric on suppressing defective immigration echoed standard eugenic vitriol on the topic,51 and because the chief aims of both organizations included mass sterilization and sequestration, Sanger came to view eugenics and her movement as two sides of the same coin. She consistently courted leaders of the eugenics movement, seeking their acceptance, and periodically maneuvering for a merger of sorts.
The chief obstacle to this merger was Sanger’s failure to embrace what was known as constructive eugenics. She argued for an aggressive program of negative eugenics, that is, the elimination of the unfit through mass sterilization and sequestration.52 But she did not endorse constructive eugenics, that is, higher birth rates for those families the movement saw as superior.53 Moreover, Sanger believed that until mass sterilization took hold, lower class women should practice intelligent birth control by planning families, employing contraception, and spacing their children. This notion split the eugenic leadership.
Some key eugenicists believed birth control was an admirable first step until more coercive measures could be imposed. However, other leaders felt Sanger’s approach was a lamentable half-measure that sent the wrong message. A telling editorial in Eugenical News declared that the leaders of American eugenics would be willing to grant Sanger’s crusade “hearty support” if only she would drop her opposition to larger families for the fit, and “advocate differential fecundity [reproductive rates] on the basis of natural worth.”54
In other words, Sanger’s insistence on birth control for all women, even women of so-called good families, made her movement unpalatable to the male-dominated eugenics establishment. But on this point she would not yield. In many ways this alienated her from eugenics’ highest echelons. Even still, Sanger continued to drape herself in the flag of mainstream eugenics, keeping as many major eugenic leaders as close as possible, and pressing others to join her.
Typical was her attempt on October 6,1921, to coax eugenicist Henry Osborn, president of the New York’s Museum of Natural History, to join ranks with the First American Birth Control Conference. “We are most anxious to have you become affiliated with this group and to have your permission to add your name to the Conference Committee.” When he did not reply, Sanger sent a duplicate letter five days later. Her answer came on October 21, not from Osborn, but from Davenport. Davenport, who vigorously opposed Sanger’s efforts, replied that Osborn “believes that a certain amount of ‘birth control’ should properly be exercised by the white race, as it is by many of the so-called savage races. I imagine, however, that he is less interested in the statistical reduction in the size of the family than he is in bringing about a qualitative result by which the defective strains should have, on the average, very small families and the efficient strains, of different social levels, should have relatively larger families.” Davenport declined on Osborn’s behalf, adding, “Propaganda for birth control at this time may well do more harm than good and he is unwilling to associate himself with the forthcoming Birth Control Conference… [since] there is grave doubt whether it will work out the advancement of the race.”55
Sanger kept trying. On February 11, 1925, she wrote directly to Davenport, inviting him to become a vice president of the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference. Within forty-eight hours, America’s cardinal eugenicist sharply declined. “As to any official connec
tion on my part with the conference as vice president, or officially recognized participant or supporter, that is, for reasons which I have already expressed to you in early letters, not possible. For one thing, the confusion of eugenics (which in its application to humans is qualitative) with birth control (which as set forth by most of its propagandists, is quantitative) is, or was considerable and the association of the director of the Eugenics Record Office with the Birth Control Conference would only serve to confuse the distinction. I trust, therefore, you will appreciate my reasons for not wishing to appear as a supporter of the Birth Control League or of the conference.”56
Not willing to take no for an answer, Sanger immediately wrote to Laughlin at Cold Spring Harbor, asking him to join a roundtable discussion at the conference. Among the conference topics devoted to eugenics was a daylong session entitled, “Sterilization, Crime, Eugenics, Biological Fertility and Sterility.” Irving Fisher was considering participating, and by mentioning Fisher’s name, Sanger hoped to entice Laughlin. When Laughlin did not reply immediately, Sanger sent him a second letter at the Carnegie Institution in Washington on March 23, and then a third to Cold Spring Harbor on March 24. Fisher finally accepted and then wired as much to Laughlin, who then also accepted for the afternoon portion of the eugenic program.57
Ironically, during one of the conference’s sparsely attended administrative sessions, when Sanger was undoubtedly absent, conservative eugenic theorist Roswell Johnson took the floor to quickly usher through a special “eugenic” resolution advocating larger families for the fit. It was exactly what Sanger opposed.58
