“We are confronted by what we consider a eugenical problem of large import and far-reaching implications. How much of the fine spirit of the pioneers, their pride of race, trust in religion, regard for knowledge, is to be found in the present generation?”
— Dr. Henry F. Perkins, director,
Eugenics Survey of Vermont (1930)
Eugenics and race
Eugenics is based on subjective assessments of human worth around the goal of the “betterment of the race”—not the human race overall, but that of the “superior” race. Today, we often think of race in terms of skin color or religion. But eugenicists envisioned race much more broadly, spanning a complex social web that included ability, race, ethnicity, and religion as well as subjective judgements on behavior, morals, and values.
Factors that might be overlooked in certain groups—such as lack of religious conformity, alcohol use, or academic difficulty—would be counted as a black mark against others. Across the world, eugenicists targeted individuals, families, and communities who they saw as going against localized ideals of the “superior race.”
The goal of eugenics was not to entirely eliminate “inferior” groups—who were seen as ideal servile classes—but rather separate and strengthen the “superior.” Eugenicists in particular feared the “infection” of the superior race by those who could pass as normal and intermarry, passing on their bad heredity. This fear further informed who they targeted for measures such as segregation and sterilization.
Eugenics in Vermont
Celebration of culture, history, and tradition is not the issue at the heart of eugenics: Eugenicists took that celebration much further in an attempt to eliminate certain bloodlines they deemed unworthy of living. In Vermont, eugenicists co-opted the local mythology of the “Vermonter” to advance the exclusion of certain people and the elimination of their bloodlines. Idealizing the Protestant British colonizers and rural life, eugenicists targeted those they saw as “outsiders”—Native Americans such as the Abenaki, immigrants, African Americans, and Catholics—as well as the “old stock” themselves who did not live up to this ideal.
The Eugenics Survey of Vermont in particular homed in on a mixed-race community to make the case for eugenical measures. Many of these people had mixed-race ancestry that included Native American, French Canadian, Black, and White backgrounds. The Survey twisted its findings to create fear-mongering stories about these communities while ignoring major problems with its research. That members of the community were able to pass as White was of particular alarm to eugenicists, who feared “infection” of normal bloodlines. Today, a number of descendants have come forward to state that this Native American ancestry was Abenaki.
The legality of victimhood
Who qualifies as a victim of eugenics? Legally, most people subjected to American eugenics are not considered victims. The first qualification for legal victimhood is how the eugenical solution was enacted. Educational programs and marriage restrictions were often carried out by communities, and there is no recourse for historical discrimination.
State programs of institutionalization and sterilization separately fall under medical and criminal proceedings. While modern governments often now recognize these practices as eugenics, American states typically treat them as historically legitimate—for example, sealing records away under medical confidentiality statutes. This practice stands at odds with how victims of other eugenics movements, most notably Nazi Germany, are treated and typically relies on the argument that eugenics was a product of its time. This argument ignores widespread evidence that eugenicists knew about errors in their scientific studies and ignored them, instead presenting their conclusions as absolute and data-based.
However, opening records exposes personal information that otherwise would not have been in the public domain. In many cases—particularly in a state as small as Vermont—there are living descendents of family branches. The reasons eugenicists went after their victims remain highly stigmatized, and broadcasting these family connections can lead to further discrimination. Historians and researchers must reckon with how to tell history without inflicting further harm on families.
Identifying victims
Tracing victims is a highly complex issue due to how eugenicists entangled their programs in legitimate medical and criminal systems. Institutionalization is a key example of this issue: “Eugenics” was not the legal term used in commitment. Instead, eugenicists considered people institutionalized for mental health or illness, or sent to the Reform School for juvenile delinquency, as candidates for further eugenical measures under specific criteria. However, without informal case notes documenting eugenical thinking, we cannot make the determination of whether the case was eugenical institutionalization or institutionalization carried out for the stated purpose.
While eugenical sterilization is easier to identify as part of eugenics due to the history of the law, there remain major issues with identification. Known state records document over 250 sterilizations carried out between 1931 and 1952. However, these records must be treated as incomplete:
Recordkeeping: Vermont’s law legalized an opt-in system that required the performing medical staff to send in a paper certificate. There was no penalty for not doing so, and a 1945 case that was not reported to the state supports the possibility that cases went unreported.
Timeline: The certificates go until 1952, despite the law remaining in place until 1980. There is no evidence for sterilizations stopping entirely in 1952.
Illegal sterilizations: A documented 1927 sterilization raises the possibility that pre-1931 sterilizations were carried out, as the case involved several high-ranking state officials, including future Governor John E. Weeks, as well as Dr. John Gifford. Dr. Gifford is listed as a participant in sterilizations under the 1931 law.
“Mississippi appendectomies”: American cases of victims not being informed of the procedure (typically under the guise of appendicitis or following childbirth) are numerous and continue today. This documented issue means that American documentation of sterilization cannot be treated as complete.
Resources
Allen, Holly, and Erin Fuller. “Beyond the Feeble Mind: Foregrounding the Personhood of Inmates with Significant Intellectual Disabilities in the Era of Institutionalization.” Disability Studies Quarterly 36:2 (Spring 2016). 10.18061/dsq.v36i2.5227.
Gallagher, Nancy L. Breeding Better Vermonters: The Eugenics Project in the Green Mountain State. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1999.
de Guardiola, Mercedes. “Vermont for the Vermonters”: The History of Eugenics in the Green Mountain State. Barre: Vermont Historical Society, 2023.
Paul A. Lombardo, ed. A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011.