Dyed-In-The-Wool History
Eugenics – “Managing Demographics for the Greater Good”
Jim Pederson Dyed-in-the-Wool History January 28, 2025
Deeply connected to other Progressive Initiatives​
Of all the Progressive initiatives this one is still closely related to modern politics in regards to both abortion and racial identity politics and for the political left it provides a contradictory and embarrassing history. Puritan pietists and, in a larger sense, Anglo-American elite society on both sides of the Atlantic believed strongly in the superiority of their own race and culture and in many cases truly did feel a moral obligation to elevate others by making them like themselves. The following quote from Professor Carroll Quigley expressed it this way from his book Anglo-American Establishment:
​
“Among the ideas Toynbee (Arnold J Toynbee – British economic historian, very prominent family) which influenced the Milner Group (Alfred Milner – roundtable movement) we should mention three: (a) a conviction that the history of the British empire represents the unfolding of a great moral idea – the idea of freedom – and that idea of unity could best be preserved by the cement of this idea; (b) a conviction that the first call on the attention of any man should be a sense of duty and obligation to serve the state and; (c) a feeling of necessity to do social service work (especially educational work) among the working classes of society” Carroll Quigley(1 p. 11)
​
(Note the concept of freedom is far different from how most would use the word and is constrained by duty to the state which is a tool or representative of God. This is consistent with puritan writings throughout American history to this point.)
​
Demographics, however, along with their own concepts of democracy were working against them and the Anglo-centric, and in America the progressive pietist, world view wasn’t spreading significantly beyond their own demographic. To counter this, measures had to be devised to convert and elevate the outsiders and, if that didn’t work then, their numbers must be managed and means must be developed to ensure they are compliant. Many progressive initiatives and policy goals to a large extent did this:
​
-
Immigration reform specifically limited or sought to limit the Catholic and Liturgical Population
-
Women’s Suffrage was in part based on the belief and demonstrated pattern that Yankee pietist women were far more likely to vote than their liturgical counterparts
-
Public education sought to transform immigrant and liturgical youth
-
Welfare initiatives also sought to reshape non-pietist populations
_(14587462548).jpg)
Here are two products from the early eugenics movement. On shows levels of incompetency and what someone at each level could be expected to accomplish. The chart on the right makes a case for the statistical challenges associated with breading of "incompetents". Note the extremely direct association here of genetics and capability. The linkage between eugenics and scientific naturalism and rejection of the concept of a soul and spirituality is hard to overlook.
Limiting the Birth Rate of the "Unfit"
Birth rate posed a risk that was beyond the reach of these measures. In the case of the Irish and British, this had a history that predated America and can be related to the Malthusian theory of catastrophic over population as documented in “An Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798. The eugenics movements addressed this issue head on and was an increasingly popular doctrine of the progressive movement that leveraged perceived scientific justification. Eugenics in general can be defined as measures that are intended to encourage the breeding of the “fit” and discourage the breeding of the “unfit”. This specifically included unions between white Protestants and Catholics / immigrants as well as black – white.
​
The founder of American eugenics was biologist Charles Benedict Davenport who was from New York with a New England background. The growing feminist movement supported eugenics so long as the biological superior population was sustained and the unfit diminished. Biologist and aid to Davenport Harry Laughlin, who was an expert witness to the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, stressed the importance of cutting the numbers of the “biologically inferior” Southern Europeans to protect the biological superiority of Anglo-Saxon women (2 p. 314). This was partially implemented but economic realities of the times limited the extent. Laughlin emphasized that American women must keep the nation’s blood lines pure by not marrying “colored races” which included Southern Europeans as well as Blacks. If “Men with a small fraction of colored blood could readily find mates among the white women, the gates would be thrown open to a final radical race mixture of the whole population”. “The perpetuity of the American race and consequently of American institutions depends upon the virtue and fecundity (ability to produce an abundance of offspring) of American women” (3 p. 314)
​
Even without immigration though the birth rates of the different American populations or subcultures remained different and specifically the Catholic birthrate was well higher than the pietist birth rate. Birth control and later legalized abortion could correct this but it was outside of religious doctrine for the Liturgicals. University of California eugenicist Samuel J Holmes noted “the trouble with birth control is that it is practiced least where it should be practiced most”. In Birth Control Review, which was a leading publication for the Eugenics movement, Annie Porritt said more explicitly “the folly of closing our gates to aliens from abroad, while having them wide open to the overwhelmingly progeny of the least desirable elements of our city and slum population”(2 p. 314)
​
Immigration reform did limit the influx of Catholic immigrants from Ireland and southern Europe and birthrates did over time stabilize but it also had the effect of elevating working wages and building wealth in the generations of these former immigrant populations in what could be considered an ironic twist of fate. Even more so, if the 2nd Klan can claim any significant political accomplishments, this would have to be it. Mass immigration has never in the course of American history been popular with the electorate but it is popular with business interests and this was the only time it was legislatively constrained extending to the mid-60’s (4 pp. 10-12)
​
The image to the left is of a Eugenics publication from the time period describing the dangers of mixing races and the need to eliminate undesirable people. The exhibit above is from a Eugenics Society convention in the 1930's
Liberating Women and Removing "Ungovernables"
The American name most associated with Eugenics remains progressive activist Margaret Sanger who was a prolific author and founder and editor of Birth Control Review. She saw the emancipation of women through birth control as the key scientific accomplishment in liberating women from the burden of unwanted or unplanned motherhood stating, “In an age which has developed science and industry and economic efficiency to their highest points, so little thought has been given to the development of a science of parenthood, a science of maternity which could prevent this appalling and unestimated waste of womankind and maternal effort.” While a follower of CB Davenport she criticized the movement for not addressing the multiplication of the unfit aggressively enough, “The ecumenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back to that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared to most important and greatest step toward race betterment.”(2 p. 314)
​
Eugenics saw its darkest expression on the far left where the concepts were expanded to address living populations. Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw represented these views before they were broadly acted upon. Some of his more famous quotes are as follows:
​
“If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight ... then clearly, we cannot use the organizations of society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to you.” (5)
​
“[T]he ungovernables, the ferocious, the conscienceless, the idiots, the self-centered myops and morons, what of them?” he asked rhetorically. “Do not punish them. Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill them.”(5)
​
“[I]f we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.”(5)
​
This played itself out many time in the 20th century and Shaw, along with many on the political left defended it describing Stalin’s Russia in 1931 as a “land of hope” and the gulags as a popular vacation destination, “From what I can gather, they can stay as long as they like”.(5)
​​​
The scene to the left is from the Scopes Trial. The defense expert witnesses in the trial were a "who's who" of eugenicists making the trial not just an issue of a scientific theory but of the nature of people and of how closely that is predetermined by biology
Continuing Relevance
In comparing demographic issues in the 1800’s and early 1900’s to those of the early 2000’s there are similarities and differences. Most obviously, political parties and groups will try to maximize the demographics that benefit them and minimize those that don’t. This will always be explained using philosophic platitudes and religious references but it simply comes down to an awareness of math. Mass immigration tends to suppress working wages, especially for unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, and workers tend to realize that despite being repeatedly assured otherwise. This again is nothing more than simple math. Businesses realize that also and will tend to favor immigration for the same reasons. Immigration depending on the rate or arrival and rate of assimilation can also change societies and cultures. This can be either good or bad but if someone leaves one society for another the assumption would tend to be that the society or culture he or she is leaving is, at least in terms of economic results, less good than the receiving society making the effect on the receiving society negative all other things being equal. Immigrants can and will over time, which could take several generations, adopt many of the characteristics of the receiving society but the process has to be slow enough that the receiving culture isn’t overwhelmed. Religious groups can win converts amongst immigrant populations through evangelization but there is no indication from American history or world history that this process will be rapid.
​
The first key difference between the two periods is that during the progressive era the progressives were limited or constrained by immigration as the immigrants were somewhat more conservative, especially religiously and socially, than the dominant element of the receiving population. Progressives in that time period therefore opposed immigration but today they favor it as they see it as providing them with a demographic advantage. Then as now birth control and abortion target the poor and minority populations which for the modern left is a bit of a contradiction in both philosophical and practical terms. Throughout American history prior to the modern period, business would support immigration to control wages but there was a consistent need for people in an expanding manufacturing economy. Wage suppression wasn’t an open national policy goal as it became from 1970’s to the Trump era. The greatest difference though is that the social welfare system of the early 1900’s was in its infancy and didn’t factor into immigration decisions. By 2000 it factored into immigration decisions very heavily which also allows for employers to pass the social cost of low wages onto society. As monetarist economist Milton Freidman stated, “You can’t have open borders and a welfare state”.
​
Bibliography
​
1. Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment. San Pedro, California : GSG & Associates, 1981.
2. Rothbard, Murray. The Progressive Era. Auburn Alabama : Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2017.
3. Rothbard, Murray N. The Betrayal of the American Right. Auburn, Alabama : Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007.
4. Beck, Roy. Back of the Hiring Line. Arlington Virginia : Numbers USA, 2021.
5. Curtis, Tyler. Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). [Online] January 9, 2019. https://fee.org/articles/george-bernard-shaw-was-so-enamored-with-socialism-he-advocated-genocide-to-advance-it/.