Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

6.6: Eugenics in the United States

  • Page ID
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) - Winning family of a Fitter Family contest stand outside of the Eugenics Building [1] (where contestants register) at the Kansas Free Fair, in Topeka, KS.

    Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population[2][3] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[4]

    Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[5] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[6][7][8] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[9]

    During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements (as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe) rather than scientific genetics.


    Early Proponents

    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) - Eugenics supporters hold signs criticizing various “genetically inferior” groups. Wall Street, New York, c. 1915.

    The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[10] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”.[11] Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix.[12] W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”[12][13]

    The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[7] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[10] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[10][14] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[15]The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

    Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) - U.S. eugenics poster advocating for the removal of genetic “defectives” such as the insane, “feeble-minded” and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding of “high-grade” individuals, c. 1926

    Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.[7] By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.[16] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[17]

    By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation. The American Breeder’s Association was the first eugenic body in the U.S., established in 1906 under the direction of biologist Charles B. Davenport. The ABA was formed specifically to “investigate and report on heredity in the human race, and emphasize the value of superior blood and the menace to society of inferior blood.” Membership included Alexander Graham Bell, Stanford president David Starr Jordan and Luther Burbank.[18][19] The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality was one of the first organizations to begin investigating infant mortality rates in terms of eugenics.[20] They promoted government intervention in attempts to promote the health of future citizens.[21]

    Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organization that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms.[22]

    One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[23][24] Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. She advocated sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control.[23]Unlike other eugenicists, she rejected euthanasia.[25] For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child.[26][27]

    In the Deep South, women’s associations played an important role in rallying support for eugenic legal reform. Eugenicists recognized the political and social influence of southern club women in their communities, and used them to help implement eugenics across the region.[28] Between 1915 and 1920, federated women’s clubs in every state of the Deep South had a critical role in establishing public eugenic institutions that were segregated by sex.[29] For example, the Legislative Committee of the Florida State Federation of Women’s Clubs successfully lobbied to institute a eugenic institution for the mentally retarded that was segregated by sex.[30] Their aim was to separate mentally retarded men and women to prevent them from breeding more “feebleminded” individuals.

    Public acceptance in the U.S. was the reason eugenic legislation was passed. Almost 19 million people attended the Panama–Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco, open for 10 months from February 20 to December 4, 1915.[31][32] The PPIE was a fair devoted to extolling the virtues of a rapidly progressing nation, featuring new developments in science, agriculture, manufacturing and technology. A subject that received a large amount of time and space was that of the developments concerning health and disease, particularly the areas of tropical medicine and race betterment (tropical medicine being the combined study of bacteriology, parasitology and entomology while racial betterment being the promotion of eugenic studies). Having these areas so closely intertwined, it seemed that they were both categorized in the main theme of the fair, the advancement of civilization. Thus in the public eye, the seemingly contradictory areas of study were both represented under progressive banners of improvement and were made to seem like plausible courses of action to better American society.[33]

    Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded”[34] from marrying.

    The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania’s state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[35] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[36] The state of California was at the vanguard of the American eugenics movement, performing about 20,000 sterilizations or one third of the 60,000 nationwide from 1909 up until the 1960s.[37]

    While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina’s eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs.[38] An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina.[39] The North Carolina Eugenics Board almost always approved proposals brought before them by local welfare boards.[39] Of all states, only North Carolina gave social workers the power to designate people for sterilization.[38] “Here, at last, was a method of preventing unwanted pregnancies by an acceptable, practical, and inexpensive method,” wrote Wallace Kuralt in the March 1967 journal of the N.C. Board of Public Welfare. “The poor readily adopted the new techniques for birth control.”[39]


    Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\) - Anthropometry demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics conference.

    The Immigration Restriction League was the first American entity associated officially with eugenics. Founded in 1894 by three recent Harvard University graduates, the League sought to bar what it considered inferior races from entering America and diluting what it saw as the superior American racial stock (upper class Northerners of Anglo-Saxon heritage). They felt that social and sexual involvement with these less-evolved and less-civilized races would pose a biological threat to the American population. The League lobbied for a literacy test for immigrants, based on the belief that literacy rates were low among “inferior races”. Literacy test bills were vetoed by Presidents in 1897, 1913 and 1915; eventually, President Wilson’s second veto was overruled by Congress in 1917. Membership in the League included: A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.[40]

    The League allied themselves with the American Breeder’s Association to gain influence and further its goals and in 1909 established a Committee on Eugenics chaired by David Starr Jordan with members Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Vernon Kellogg, Luther Burbank, William Ernest Castle, Adolf Meyer, H. J. Webber and Friedrich Woods. The ABA’s immigration legislation committee, formed in 1911 and headed by League’s founder Prescott F. Hall, formalized the committee’s already strong relationship with the Immigration Restriction League. They also founded the Eugenics Record Office, which was headed by Harry H. Laughlin.[41] In their mission statement, they wrote:

    Society must protect itself; as it claims the right to deprive the murderer of his life so it may also annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is where appropriate legislation will aid in eugenics and creating a healthier, saner society in the future.”[41]

    Money from the Harriman railroad fortune was also given to local charities, in order to find immigrants from specific ethnic groups and deport, confine, or forcibly sterilize them.[7]

    With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of “inferior stock” from eastern and southern Europe.[42] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of “old stock” white Americans as members of the “Nordic race” (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[43] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[44]

    Stephen Jay Gould asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted.[45][46] It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[43][47]

    Unfit VS. Fit Individuals

    Both class and race factored into eugenic definitions of “fit” and “unfit.” By using intelligence testing, American eugenicists asserted that social mobility was indicative of one’s genetic fitness.[48] This reaffirmed the existing class and racial hierarchies and explained why the upper-to-middle class was predominantly white. Middle-to-upper class status was a marker of “superior strains.”[30] In contrast, eugenicists believed poverty to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority, which meant that that those deemed “unfit” were predominantly of the lower classes.[30]

    Because class status designated some more fit than others, eugenicists treated upper and lower class women differently. Positive eugenicists, who promoted procreation among the fittest in society, encouraged middle class women to bear more children. Between 1900 and 1960, Eugenicists appealed to middle class white women to become more “family minded,” and to help better the race.[49] To this end, eugenicists often denied middle and upper class women sterilization and birth control.[50]

    Since poverty was associated with prostitution and “mental idiocy,” women of the lower classes were the first to be deemed “unfit” and “promiscuous.”[30] These women, who were predominantly immigrants or women of color, were discouraged from bearing children, and were encouraged to use birth control.

    Compulsory Sterilization

    In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[51][52]Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[53] the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[54]

    Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[55] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[56]Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[30] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[30] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[57][58]

    Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[30] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less “desirable” members of society.[30] Eugenicists therefore predominantly targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to “protect” white racial health, and weed out the “defectives” of society.[30]

    A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of “mental defectives”, 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[59]

    In the 1970s, several activists and women’s rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.[60] Although the sterilizations were not explicitly motivated by eugenics, the sterilizations were similar to the eugenics movement because they were done without the patients’ consent.

    For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization.[61] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that “federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women.”[30]

    Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[62] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized.[62] The General Accounting Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not followed the necessary regulations, and that the “informed consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).”[63]

    Euthanasia Programs

    One of the methods that was commonly suggested to get rid of “inferior” populations was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report mentioned euthanasia as one of its recommended “solutions” to the problem of cleansing society of unfit genetic attributes. The most commonly suggested method was to set up local gas chambers. However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions. For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30-40% annual death rates. Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.[64]

    In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic “mercy killings” in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize “imbeciles” and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.[65]

    Overall, however, euthanasia was marginalized in the U.S., motivating people to turn to forced segregation and sterilization programs as a means for keeping the “unfit” from reproducing.[66]

    Better Baby Contests

    Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\) - Contestants get ready for the Better Baby Contest at the 1931 Indiana State Fair.

    Mary deGormo, a former classroom teacher was the first person to combine ideas about health and intelligence standards with competitions at state fairs, in the form of “better baby” contests. She developed the first such contest, the “Scientific Baby Contest” for the Louisiana State Fair in Shreveport, in 1908. She saw these contests as a contribution to the “social efficiency” movement, which was advocating for the standardization of all aspects of American life as a means of increasing efficiency.[20] deGarmo was assisted by the pediatrician Dr. Jacob Bodenheimer, who helped her develop grading sheets for contestants, which combined physical measurements with standardized measurements of intelligence.[67] Scoring was based on a deduction system, in that every child started at 1000 points and then was docked points for having measurements that were below a designated average. The child with the most points (and the least defections) was ideal.[68]

    The topic of standardization through scientific judgment was a topic that was very serious in the eyes of the scientific community, but has often been downplayed as just a popular fad or trend. Nevertheless, a lot of time, effort, and money were put into these contests and their scientific backing, which would influence cultural ideas as well as local and state government practices.[69]

    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People promoted eugenics by hosting “Better Baby” contests and the proceeds would go to its anti-lynching campaign.[12]

    Fitter Family for Future

    First appearing in 1920 at the Kansas Free Fair, Fitter Family competitions, continued all the way until WWII. Mary T. Watts and Dr. Florence Brown Sherbon,[70][71] both initiators of the Better Baby Contests in Iowa, took the idea of positive eugenics for babies and combined it with a determinist concept of biology to come up with fitter family competitions.[72]

    There were several different categories that families were judged in: Size of the family, overall attractiveness, and health of the family, all of which helped to determine the likelihood of having healthy children. These competitions were simply a continuation of the Better Baby contests that promoted certain physical and mental qualities.[73] At the time, it was believed that certain behavioral qualities were inherited from your parents. This led to the addition of several judging categories including: generosity, self-sacrificing, and quality of familial bonds. Additionally, there were negative features that were judged: selfishness, jealousy, suspiciousness, high temperedness, and cruelty. Feeblemindedness, alcoholism, and paralysis were few among other traits that were included as physical traits to be judged when looking at family lineage.[74]

    Doctors and specialists from the community would offer their time to judge these competitions, which were originally sponsored by the Red Cross.[74] The winners of these competitions were given a Bronze Medal as well as champion cups called “Capper Medals.” The cups were named after then Governor and Senator, Arthur Capper and he would present them to “Grade A individuals”.[75]

    The perks of entering into the contests were that the competitions provided a way for families to get a free health check up by a doctor as well as some of the pride and prestige that came from winning the competitions.[74]

    By 1925 the Eugenics Records Office was distributing standardized forms for judging eugenically fit families, which were used in contests in several U.S. states.[76]

    Influence on Nazi Germany

    Wir stehen nicht allein: “We do not stand alone”. Nazi propaganda poster from 1936, supporting Nazi Germany’s 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (their compulsory sterilization law). The couple is in front of a map of Germany, surrounded by the flags of nations, including the United States, which had enacted (to the left) or were considering (bottom and to the right) similar legislation.

    After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[66] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s.[8]

    The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[77] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[7][78]

    Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague:

    “You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.”[79]

    Eugenics researcher Harry H. Laughlin often bragged that his Model Eugenic Sterilization laws had been implemented in the 1935 Nuremberg racial hygiene laws.[80] In 1936, Laughlin was invited to an award ceremony at Heidelberg University in Germany (scheduled on the anniversary of Hitler’s 1934 purge of Jews from the Heidelberg faculty), to receive an honorary doctorate for his work on the “science of racial cleansing”. Due to financial limitations, Laughlin was unable to attend the ceremony and had to pick it up from the Rockefeller Institute. Afterwards, he proudly shared the award with his colleagues, remarking that he felt that it symbolized the “common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics.”[81]

    After 1945, however, historians began to attempt to portray the US eugenics movement as distinct and distant from Nazi eugenics.[82] Jon Entine wrote that eugenics simply means “good genes” and using it as synonym for genocide is an “all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States.” According to Entine, eugenics developed out of the Progressive Era and not “Hitler’s twisted Final Solution.”[83]

    See Also

    Portal icon United States portal
    • International Federation of Eugenics Organizations
    • Franz Boas
    • Human experimentation in the United States
    • Racism in the United States
    • American Eugenics Society
    • North Carolina Eugenics Board
    • Racial Integrity Act of 1924
    • Kallikak Family
    • Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
    • Stump v. Sparkman (1978)
    • Poe v. Lynchburg Training School and Hospital (1981)
    • Nazi human experimentation
    • Tuskegee syphilis experiment
    • Eugenics in California


    1. Jump up ^ “A social register of fitter families and better babies” The Milwaukee Sentinel . 26 May 1929.
    2. Jump up ^ “Eugenics”. Unified Medical Language System (Psychological Index Terms). National Library of Medicine. 26 September 2010.
    3. Jump up ^ Galton, Francis (July 1904). “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims”. The American Journal of Sociology X (1): 82, 1st paragraph. Bibcode:1904Natur..70…82. doi:10.1038/070082a0. Archived from the original on 2007-11-17. Retrieved 2010-12-27. Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.
    4. Jump up ^ Susan Currell (2006). Popular eugenics: national efficiency and American mass culture in the 1930s. Ohio University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-0-8214-1691-4. Retrieved July 18, 2011.
    5. Jump up ^ Lombardo, 2011: p. 1.
    6. Jump up ^ Kühl, Stefan (2002-02-14). The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-19-534878-1.
    7. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Black, 2003: p. 1.
    8. ^ Jump up to: a b Murphy & Lappé, 1994: p. 18.
    9. Jump up ^ [Kühl, Stefan (2002-02-14). The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-19-534878-1. ]
    10. ^ Jump up to: a b c Selden, 2005: p. 202.
    11. Jump up ^ Ordover, 2003: p. xii.
    12. ^ Jump up to: a b c Marilyn M. Singleton (Winter 2014). “The ‘Science’ of Eugenics: America’s Moral Detour” (PDF). Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 19 (4). Retrieved January 23,2015.
    13. Jump up ^ Dorr G, Logan A. “Quality, not mere quantity counts: black eugenics and the NAACP baby contests.” In: Lombardo P, ed. A Century of Eugenics in America. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press; 2011: 68–92.
    14. Jump up ^ Bender, 2009: p. 192.
    15. Jump up ^ Kevles, 1986: pp. 133–135.
    16. Jump up ^ Selden, 2005: p. 204.
    17. Jump up ^ Hamilton Cravens, The Triumph of Evolution: American Scientists and the Heredity-Environment Controversy, 1900–1941 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978): 179.
    18. Jump up ^ Stern, 2005: pp. 82–91.
    19. Jump up ^ Elof Axel Carlson (2001). The Unfit: A history of a bad idea. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-87969-587-3. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
    20. ^ Jump up to: a b Selden, 2005: p. 206.
    21. Jump up ^ Cameron, M. E. “Book Reviews.” The American Journal of Nursing 13.1 (1912): 75–77. JSTOR. 10 April 2010. [1]
    22. Jump up ^ Ziegler, Mary (2008). “Eugenic Feminism: Mental Hygiene, The Women’s Movement, And The Campaign For Eugenic Legal Reform, 1900–1935”. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 31(1): 211–236.
    23. ^ Jump up to: a b “The Sanger-Hitler Equation”, Margaret Sanger Papers Project Newsletter, #32, Winter 2002/3. New York University Department of History
    24. Jump up ^ Carole Ruth McCann. Birth Control Politics in the United States, 1916–1945. Cornell University Press. p. 100.
    25. Jump up ^ Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization. Brentano’s. pp. 100–101. Nor do we believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.
    26. Jump up ^ Sanger, Margaret (1919). Birth Control and Racial Betterment (PDF). Birth Control Review. p. 11. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.
    27. Jump up ^ Sanger, Margaret (1920). Woman and the New Race. Brentano. p. 100.
    28. Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (1995). Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 74.
    29. Jump up ^ Larson, p. 75.
    30. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Kluchin, Rebecca M. (2009). Fit to Be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America 1950–1980. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. pp. 17–20.
    31. Jump up ^ “1915 San Francisco Panama-Pacific International Exposition: In color!”. National Museum American History. February 11, 2011. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
    32. Jump up ^ “The Panama Pacific Exposition”. Retrieved July 14,2011.
    33. Jump up ^ Stern, 2005: pp. 27–31.
    34. Jump up ^ “Public Health”. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association (American Medical Association): 1138. June 6, 1896. doi:10.1001/jama.1896.02430750040011.
    35. Jump up ^ The Indiana Supreme Court overturned the law in 1921 in Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at [2]
    36. Jump up ^ On the legal history of eugenic sterilization in the U.S., see Paul Lombardo, “Eugenic Sterilization Laws”, essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at
    37. Jump up ^ Stern, 2005: pp. 84, 144.
    38. ^ Jump up to: a b Severson, Kim (9 December 2011). “Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution”. New York Times. Retrieved 10 December 2011.
    39. ^ Jump up to: a b c Helms, Ann Doss and Tomlinson, Tommy (26 September 2011). “Wallace Kuralt’s era of sterilization: Mecklenburg’s impoverished had few, if any, rights in the 1950s and 1960s as he oversaw one of the most aggressive efforts to sterilize certain populations”. Charlotte Observer. Retrieved 10 December2011.
    40. Jump up ^ McWhorter, 2009: p. 204.
    41. ^ Jump up to: a b McWhorter, 2009: p. 205.
    42. Jump up ^ Watson, James D.; Berry, Andrew (2003). DNA: The Secret of Life. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 29–31. ISBN 0-375-41546-7.
    43. ^ Jump up to: a b Lombardo, Paul; “Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration,”, Eugenics Archive
    44. Jump up ^ Lombardo, Paul; “Eugenic Laws Against Race-Mixing”, Eugenics Archive
    45. Jump up ^ Contagious Diseases Among Immigrants: Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty Sixth Congress, Third Session. February 9, 1921. By setting up a eugenical standard for admission demanding a high natural excellence of all immigrants regardless of nationality and past opportunities, we can enhance and improve the national stamina and ability of future Americans. At present, not inferior nationalities but inferior individual family stocks are tending to deteriorate our national characteristics. Our failure to sort immigrants on the basis of natural worth is a very serious national menace.
    46. Jump up ^ Statement of Mr. Harry H. Laughlin, Secretary of the Eugenics Research Association, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N. Y.; Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Washington D.C., April 16, 1920.
    47. Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen J. (1981) The mismeasure of man. Norton:[page needed]
    48. Jump up ^ Dorr, Gregory (2008). Segregation’s Science. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. p. 10.
    49. Jump up ^ Kline, Wendy (2005). Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics From the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom. University of California Press. p. 4.
    50. Jump up ^ Critchlow, Donald T. (1999). Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 15.
    51. Jump up ^ Lombardo, 2011: p. ix.
    52. Jump up ^ Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:”Reflections on 100 Years of Eugenics in Indiana, at
    53. Jump up ^ Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at
    54. Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 194–195 Citing Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927)
    55. Jump up ^ Dorr, Gregory Michael. “Encyclopedia Virginia: Buck v Bell”. Retrieved May 3, 2011.
    56. Jump up ^ Lombardo, Paul; “Eugenic Sterilization Laws”, Eugenics Archive
    57. Jump up ^ J. Mitchell Miller (2009-08-06). 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-4129-6019-9. Retrieved July 15, 2011.
    58. Jump up ^ Tukufu Zuberi (2001). Thicker than blood: how racial statistics lie. University of Minnesota Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-8166-3909-0. Retrieved July 15, 2011.
    59. Jump up ^ McWhorter, 2009: p. 377.
    60. Jump up ^ Gordon, Linda (2003). The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. p. 345. ISBN 0-252-07459-9.
    61. Jump up ^ Ward, Martha C. (1986). Poor Women, Powerful Men: America’s Great Experiment in Family Planning. Boulder: Westview Press. p. 95.
    62. ^ Jump up to: a b Lawrence, Jane (2000). “he Indian Health Service and the Sterilization of Native American Women”. The American Indian Quarterly. 3 24 (3): 400–419. doi:10.1353/aiq.2000.0008.
    63. Jump up ^ Bruce E. Johansen (September 1998). “Sterilization of Native American Women”. Native Americas.
    64. Jump up ^ Black, 2003: p. 2.
    65. Jump up ^ Pernick, 2009: p. 161.
    66. ^ Jump up to: a b Black, 2003: p. 3.
    67. Jump up ^ Selden 2005: p. 207.
    68. Jump up ^ Crnic, Meghan. “Better babies: social engineering for ‘a better nation, a better world’.” ScienceDirect 33.1 (2008): Web. [3]
    69. Jump up ^ Pernick, 2002
    70. Jump up ^ “A social register of fitter families and better babies” The Milwaukee Sentinel . 26 May 1929
    71. Jump up ^ “Fitter family contests” eugenics
    72. Jump up ^ “Fitter Family Contests.” Eugenics Archive. Web. 2 March 2010. [4].
    73. Jump up ^ Boudreau 2005:[page needed]
    74. ^ Jump up to: a b c Selden, 2005:[page needed]
    75. Jump up ^ Selden, 2005: p. 211.
    76. Jump up ^ Bender, 2009: p. 207.
    77. Jump up ^ Kühl, Stefan (10 February 1994). “Rockefeller+Foundation”+eugenics The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. Oxford University Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-19-508260-5. Retrieved 13 April 2015. Lay summary (18 January 2015). The Foundation continued to support German eugenicists even after the National Socialists had gained control of German science.
    78. Jump up ^ Black, 2003: p. 5.
    79. Jump up ^ Black, 2003: p. 4.
    80. Jump up ^ Jackson, John P. & Weidman, Nadine M. (2005). Race, Racism, and Science: Social Impact and Interaction. Rutgers University Press. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-8135-3736-8.
    81. Jump up ^ Lombardo, 2008: pp. 211–213.
    82. Jump up ^ Kühl 2001: p. xiv.
    83. Jump up ^ Let’s (Cautiously) Celebrate the “New Eugenics”, Huffington Post, (Oct. 30, 2014).


    • Bender, Daniel E. (2009). American abyss: savagery and civilization in the age of industry. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-4598-9.
    • Black, Edwin (November 9, 2003). “Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection”. San Francisco Chronicle.
    • Boudreau, Erica Bicchieri (2005). “‘Yea, I have a Goodly Heritage’: Health Versus Heredity in the Fitter Family Contests, 1920–1928”. Journal of Family History 30 (4): 366–87. doi:10.1177/0363199005276359. PMID 16304739.
    • Engs, Ruth C. (2005). The eugenics movement: an encyclopedia. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-32791-9.
    • Kevles, Daniel J. (1986). In the Name of Eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-520-05763-0.
    • Kühl, Stefan (2001). The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19-514978-4.
    • Lombardo, Paul A. (2008). Three generations, no imbeciles: eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9010-9.
    • Lombardo, Paul A. (2011). A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-22269-5.
    • McWhorter, Ladelle (2009). Racism and sexual oppression in Anglo-America: a genealogy. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-22063-9.
    • Murphy, Timothy F. & Lappé, Marc, eds. (1994). Justice and the human genome project. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-08363-9.
    • Ordover, Nancy (2003). American eugenics: race, queer anatomy, and the science of nationalism. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-3559-7.
    • Pernick, Martin S. (1999). The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513539-8.
    • Pernick, Martin S. (2002). “Taking Better Baby Contests Seriously”. American Journal of Public Health 92 (5): 707–708. doi:10.2105/ajph.92.5.707. PMC 1447148. PMID 11988430.
    • Selden, Steven (2005). “Transforming Better Babies into Fitter Families: Archival Resources and the History of the American Eugenics Movement, 1908–1930”. American Philosophical Society149 (2): 199–225.
    • Stern, Alexandra (2005). Eugenic nation: faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24444-3.

    Further Reading

    • Allen, Garland E. (1987). “The role of experts in scientific controversy”. In Engelhardt, Hugo Tristram & Caplan, Arthur L. Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 169–202. ISBN 978-0-521-27560-6.
    • Barkan, Elazar (1993). The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States Between the World Wars. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45875-7.
    • Bashford, Alison & Levine, Philippa, eds. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537314-1.
    • Bauman, Zygmunt (2000). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8719-4.
    • Black, Edwin (2004). War against the weak: eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race. Thunder’s Mouth Press. ISBN 978-1-56858-321-1.
    • Cuddy, Lois A. & Roche, Claire M., eds. (2003). Evolution and eugenics in American literature and culture, 1880–1940: essays on ideological conflict and complicity. Bucknell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8387-5555-6.
    • Currell, Susan (2006). Popular eugenics: national efficiency and American mass culture in the 1930s. Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0-8214-1692-1.
    • Dowbiggin, Ian Robert (1997). Keeping America sane: psychiatry and eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880–1940. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8398-1.
    • Gould, Stephen Jay (1996). The Mismeasure of Man (2nd, revised ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-31425-0.
    • Haller, Mark H. (1963). Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought. Rutgers University Press.
    • Hansen, Randall and King, Desmond (eds.), Sterilized by the State: Eugenics, Race, and the Population Scare in Twentieth-Century North America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Hasian, Marouf Arif (1996). The rhetoric of eugenics in Anglo-American thought. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-1771-7.
    • Kline, Wendy (2005). Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24674-4.
    • Kohn, Marek (1995). The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial Science. London: Jonathan Cape.
    • Larson, Edward J. (1996). Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-5511-5.
    • Lusane, Clarence (2002). Hitler’s black victims: the historical experiences of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans, and African Americans in the Nazi era. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-93295-0.
    • Maxwell, Anne (2010). Picture Imperfect: Photography and Eugenics, 1870–1940. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-415-4.
    • McCann, Carole Ruth (1999). Birth control politics in the United States, 1916–1945. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8612-8.
    • Mendelsohn, Everett (March–April 2000). “The Eugenic Temptation: When ethics lag behind technology”. Harvard Magazine.
    • Rafter, Nicole Hahn (1988). White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies, 1877–1919. Northeastern University Press. ISBN 978-1-55553-030-3.
    • Reilly, Philip R. (1991). The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-4096-8.
    • Rosen, Christine (2004). Preaching eugenics: religious leaders and the American eugenics movement. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515679-9.
    • Ross, Loretta (2000). “Eugenics: African-American Case Study–Eugenics and Family Planning”. Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Education: Health to Hypertension. Vol. 2. Psychology Press. p. 638. ISBN 978-0-415-92089-6.
    • Smith, J. David. (1993). The Eugenic Assault on America: Scenes in Red, White and Black. George Mason University Press. ISBN 978-0-913969-53-3.
    • Spiro, Jonathan P. (2009). Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant. University of Vermont Press. ISBN 978-1-58465-715-6.
    • Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. Lay summary.

    External Links

    • The Color of Democracy: A Japanese Public Health Official’s Reconnaissance Trip to the U.S. South Takeuchi-Demirci, Aiko. Southern Spaces 18 March 2011.
    • “Eugenics”, Scope Note 28, Bioethics Research Center, Georgetown University
    • Plotz, David. “The Better Baby Business”, Washington Post, 13 March 2001. Web. 25 April 2010. [5].
    • Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States, Kaelber, Lutz (ed.)
    • Eugenics: A Historical Analysis
    • Eugenics in the United States and Britain, 1890–1930: a comparative analysis
    • Eugenics in the United States
    • “Buck v. Bell (1927)” by N. Antonios and C. Raup at the Embryo Project Encyclopedia

    This page titled 6.6: Eugenics in the United States is shared under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lumen Learning via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.