Printer Friendly

"The American breed": Nazi eugenics and the origins of the Pioneer Fund.


A. The Bell Curve, The Pioneer Fund, and American Eugenics

When The Bell Curve was published in 1994 it was an immediate best seller; more than a million copies are currently in print. The thesis of The Bell Curve, that intelligence--the trait that IQ tests are designed to measure--is inherited, has become increasingly critical as a predictor of educational, occupational, and social success. (1) The Bell Curve asserts that those possessing a high IQ constitute a hereditary upper class while their more limited counterparts at the opposite end of the IQ spectrum make up an "underclass." The Bell Curve also analyzes social and economic stratification in America and concludes that the inequality which allegedly exists in this country is attributable to genetically transmitted "ethnic differences." (2) The social and political implications of The Bell Curve's message led to immediate controversy, and the book has generated a tremendous amount of commentary from both scholars and the popular media. At least some of the controversy has been fueled by the history of eugenics in America.

The argument advanced in The Bell Curve closely parallels assertions routinely made in the early years of the twentieth century by advocates of the eugenics movement. The book's conclusions, disparaging the government's role in ameliorative social programs and forecasting the demise of American civilization as the result of increasingly "dysgenic" birthrates among the "underclass," are themes found firmly rooted in the eugenic tradition.

The success of The Bell Curve has drawn attention to the Pioneer Fund, (3) a foundation that has provided a steady stream of funding for research and publicity on topics related to "heredity and eugenics" and "the problems of race betterment" since first being chartered in 1937. (4) Some sixteen researchers who have received Pioneer support are referenced in The Bell Curve and Pioneer proudly cites this record in its own promotional material. (5) Pioneer's founding president was Harry Laughlin, one of the most effective propagandists of early Twentieth Century America's organized eugenics movement. He is described in The Bell Curve sympathetically as "a biologist who was especially concerned about keeping up the American level of intelligence by suitable immigration policies." (6) Like The Bell Curve, Laughlin sounded the eugenicist's alarm, declaring that the "great mass of defectiveness" swelled by immigrants, the feebleminded, and children of racial intermixture would swamp America. (7) Laughlin's pronouncements about race echoed the hierarchical standards--white Nordics at the top, others below--set out by Francis Galton, the father of the eugenics movement. (8) Laughlin believed that the "pioneer families" of the United States, pruned of weaker members by frontier tests of survival, represented the pinnacle of Nordic purity. (9) He claimed that Germans and early American settlers shared a "common race descent" from ancient Nordic ancestors. (10)

Laughlin argued for a legal definition of "the American race" that would exclude all but "Anglo-Saxon" immigrants, and he dedicated extensive efforts to blocking the migration of Jews fleeing Hitler. (11) His collaborators in developing the new definition were Madison Grant, an elder statesman of American eugenics, and Wickliffe Draper, a textile magnate, whom Laughlin introduced to his German colleagues in 1935 as "one of the staunchest supporters of eugenical research and policy in the United States." (12) After attending a Nazi eugenics conference, Draper wrote to Laughlin encouraging him to "work out something of eugenic value;" (13) the Pioneer Fund was chartered less than a year later. The work of the Pioneer Fund subsequently began in the swirl of enthusiasm shared by Laughlin and Draper over the progress of Nazi eugenics. Draper's finances provided a base that supported Pioneer projects as well as other programs tailored to meet his goals of immigration restriction and racial separation. (14)

Draper's support has sustained Pioneer for over sixty years. During that time, Pioneer has continued to subsidize projects and propaganda that echo the goals of Pioneer founders. Pioneer represents a missing link in the history of eugenics that connects the racial radical branch of American eugenics in the first third of the century, to eugenics in 1930s Germany, and to hereditarian politics of recent years as exemplified in books like The Bell Curve. Yet, despite clear connections between Pioneer support and eugenic ideology, a survey of the historical literature on the eugenics movement demonstrates relative neglect of both the Pioneer Fund's genesis and its founders' emulation of Nazi eugenic policy.

Since the appearance of Mark H. Haller's Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought in 1963, every decade has seen at least one major book on the history of the American branch of the international eugenics movement. (15) The study of eugenics from a variety of disciplinary perspectives continues to produce new volumes every year. (16) The connections between prominent American eugenicists and their German colleagues during the rise of National Socialism were unearthed by scholars almost thirty years ago, (17) and have become a staple of the history of eugenics. But until recently, no major book on the history of eugenics mentioned the Pioneer Fund. Stefan Kuhl's The Nazi Connection addressed that omission, providing a full volume on transatlantic eugenic linkages, using both American and German archival material. (18) While echoing other scholars who assert that the Pioneer Fund was formed by eugenicists "who supported Hitler's racial ideology," and offering numerous examples of German/American collaboration, Kuhl did not explore the Fund's beginnings in detail. (19)

The goal of this article is to fill the existing gap in the history of eugenics by presenting a detailed analysis of the role played by American/Nazi connections in the origins of the Pioneer Fund, and by demonstrating the correspondences between eugenic activities undertaken by both Laughlin and Draper and similar initiatives supported by Pioneer. Issues of the Eugenical News, written and edited by Laughlin, as well as Laughlin's personal papers, supply primary source material for this inquiry. (20) Laughlin's correspondence contains a thirty-year record of the relationships he maintained with other eugenic enthusiasts at conferences in America and Europe. The pages of the Eugenical News--the official organ of the Eugenics Record Office, the Eugenics Research Association, the Galton Society, and the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations--provided Laughlin and his colleagues with a journal of record and forum of opinion. The Eugenical News and Laughlin's papers supply a roadmap to Laughlin's contacts with many of the Nazi scientists whose work provided the conceptual template for Hitler's aspirations toward "racial hygiene" in Germany. The map leads directly to the founding of the Pioneer Fund.

As the first Pioneer Fund President, Laughlin proposed goals for the Fund to pursue in later years. Wickliffe Draper, an ideological twin to Laughlin, bankrolled parts of this eugenic vision. The initiatives that Draper supported included lobbying for immigration restrictions, sponsoring eugenical essay contests, funding the printing and distribution of books advocating the repatriation of blacks to Africa, and endowing the Pioneer Fund. (21) Draper's plan to provide incentives for "eugenic" births mirrored Nazi "marriage loan" programs to increase the "Nordic" birthrate. It was launched as the Pioneer's first large-scale project.

Draper's relationship with Laughlin was matched by his twenty-five year partnership with Earnest Sevier Cox. (22) Where Laughlin (D.Sc., Princeton, 1917) provided a veneer of scientific respectability for several of Draper's projects, (23) Cox offered a veil of anonymity to cover Draper's role as secret godfather to the white supremacist branch of eugenics. His subsidies to reprint books like Cox's White America (24) supported distribution of racist propaganda to legislators, news editors, and other opinion leaders.

The Cox/Draper partnership found its most effective ally in Mississippi's U.S. Senator Theodore Bilbo. Described by his biographer as the "Archangel of White Supremacy," Bilbo introduced legislation that kept the movement to repatriate American blacks to Liberia on the U.S. Senate agenda for more than twenty years. (25) The post-World War II activities of Cox and Draper are connected not only to the "back to Africa" movement, but also to former Nazis in South America following the War, and to the American Nazi Party and other hate groups in the 1950s and the 1960s. (26)

All of these activities belie the protests of Pioneer apologists. Draper, their founder, was not merely a racist, but a racist on a personal quest in pursuit of "scientific" evidence of race differences and white superiority. (27) Pioneer's articles of incorporation, first corporate meeting minutes, and other early records refute the protestations of Pioneer Fund spokesmen, who have attempted to distance Pioneer both from its patently eugenic aspirations and from the Nazi sympathies of Laughlin and Draper, Pioneer's two most important founders. (28)

B. The Pioneer Fund in the News

A great deal has been written about the Pioneer Fund in recent years. Anniversaries of signal events in Holocaust history and developments in genetic research have rekindled interest in the history of eugenics, but publication of The Bell Curve has done the most to raise the profile of Pioneer. In each of several volumes of commentary on The Bell Curve, the Pioneer Fund is identified as the funding source for social scientists whose research figures prominently in the debate over the nature of intelligence as an inherited trait. (29) Pioneer grants to groups such as the Federation of American Immigration Reform led commentators to link Pioneer to contemporary initiatives in favor of immigration restriction and the English-language-only movement. (30)

Media reports typically characterize the Fund as "a secretive white supremacist group advocating `race betterment.'" (31) This recent attention to Pioneer revives media commentary on the Pioneer Fund that surfaced as early as 1960, when journalists revealed Wickliffe Draper's subsidies to members of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, and Draper grants to study "genetic and blood-type sciences." (32) Later references to the Pioneer Fund were included in accounts of a 1985 lawsuit by CBS, Inc. when Thomas Ellis, a former campaign chair for Senator Jesse Helms (R. N.C.), spearheaded an attempted takeover of that television network along with Pioneer President Harry Weyher. News reports then noted that Ellis, co-founder of the group Fairness in Media, was a former board member of the Pioneer Fund, and that he planned to purchase CBS as a way of attacking "liberal bias" in the media. (33) Ellis later took the post of National Co-chair of Jack Kemp's 1988 presidential campaign. Ellis's Pioneer background surfaced again when he was identified as campaign consultant to Presidential candidate Steve Forbes in 1996. (34)

In 1999, a Florida State University psychologist drew attention to the Fund. Glayde Whitney, who has received six-figure grants from Pioneer, wrote the foreword to the autobiography of David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan official and Louisiana political hopeful. (35) Soon thereafter, a Wall Street Journal article linked Wickliffe Draper to anonymous gifts made to the infamous Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, and to its efforts to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1963. (36)

Before The Bell Curve, it was the habit of the Pioneer Fund "to deny accusations of racism, and quietly slip back into the shadows." (37) Current Pioneer President and spokesman Harry F. Weyher has adopted a different strategy, publishing a lengthy apologia for Pioneer in Psychological Reports, (38) and maintaining a presence on the Internet where Pioneer addresses criticism. (39) Most media accounts highlight Pioneer's attention to research on race, intelligence, and immigration. (40) Responses to such commentary by Pioneer officers or recipients of Pioneer grants often downplay Pioneer's origins or deny any connection between the prewar eugenics movement, Pioneer founders, and Nazi eugenicists. For example, The Bell Curve author Charles Murray defended the Pioneer Fund as patron to "the most important scholars of intelligence." (41) Critics of the Fund, urged Murray, focus on "events 50 and 60 years ago," when the Fund "was allegedly associated with people of racist views." (42)

Pioneer Fund President Harry Weyher is similarly dismissive of Pioneer's early history. In response to an article linking Pioneer with recent anti-immigration initiatives in California, Weyher proclaimed "`[w]e have no Nazi connections, no Nazi history.'" (43) Following journalist Deborah Blum's article outlining Pioneer's past, (44) Weyher countered that Blum had "falsely accused" Harry Laughlin, Pioneer's first president, of being a Nazi supporter. (45)

Fund representatives regularly deny accounts that detail its true objectives or its clear pattern of support for projects and publications that seek to cover a white supremacist agenda with the patina of academic respectability. The Fund is particularly aggressive in leveling the accusation of "McCarthyism" at anyone who connects its founding to the American eugenicists who celebrated Hitler's ascendancy. Like Weyher, sociologist and Pioneer grantee Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins University wrote a lengthy defense of the Pioneer Fund. Professor Gordon chastised ABC News for charging Pioneer with "guilt by historical association with events in Nazi Germany," (46) and citation of "events of five, six, and even eight decades ago ... deployed in a McCarthyist manner." (47) Gorden's comments are consistent with the current Pioneer Fund public relations strategy.

This article describes the Pioneer Fund's origins, presenting both the people who were most critical to its foundation and the ideas embodied in its charter. Part I details the connections between the American and German eugenic movements. In addition to introducing important American and German eugenicists, it describes how Laughlin's writing in the Eugenical News provides a window to the relationships between German and American eugenics in the 1930s. It concludes with an analysis of how Laughlin's own work led to his receipt of an honorary degree from the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg in 1936.

Part II details the career of Wickliffe Draper as a philanthropist whose finances sustained one wing of the eugenics movement from the 1920s until his death in 1972, and through the endowment of the Pioneer Fund, to the present time; it also demonstrates Draper's interest in eugenics as a "racial science." His subsidy of eugenics essay contests and his travel to a Nazi eugenics conference in 1935 are explored as important preludes to the founding of the Pioneer Fund. Included herein is an account of Draper's attempt to establish an academic Institute of Eugenics and his nearly twenty-year collaboration with supporters of the "Back to Africa" black repatriation movement.

Part III provides an in-depth analysis of the early agenda of the Pioneer Fund. It shows how Harry Laughlin borrowed heavily from ideas developed in partnership with Madison Grant to generate language that was acceptable for inclusion in Wickliffe Draper's Pioneer Fund incorporation documents. Part III also introduces others involved on the initial Board of Directors for the Pioneer Fund, including eugenicist Frederick Osborn and future Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan.

The article concludes with an analysis of Pioneer funded publications in the last ten years, providing further evidence of the direct connection between the role of eugenics in racial politics early in the century and related efforts today.


Wickliffe Draper's funding and the Pioneer agenda have spanned the divide between eugenic ideology before World War II and the resurgence of eugenic thought in recent years. An analysis of the Pioneer Fund's foundational documents and the agenda proposed by Laughlin and endorsed by Draper clarifies the connections between these periods. Draper anchored the Pioneer Fund's goals in the myth of Nordic preeminence held in common by racial propagandists such as Madison Grant and the German eugenicists who endorsed Nazi policies of "racial hygiene." (48) But not all who identified themselves as "eugenicists" shared these sentiments. It is important to distinguish the policies that characterized the founders of the Pioneer Fund from other individuals in the eugenics movement.

It is clear that the term "eugenics" had different meanings to different people; that it encompassed a strain of popular thought as well as political, legal, and social movements; and that its proponents cannot neatly be categorized as conservative or liberal, innocuous or maleficent. (49) The people who identified themselves with the eugenics movement defy easy categorization because they represented an "enormous variety of ideas, researches, and viewpoints" (50) that eventually led to "competing and evolving varieties of eugenics." (51) These conclusions apply to the eugenics movement in the international context as well as the American.

It is equally clear that the membership of the eugenics movement changed dramatically from the time of its early, organized presence in America until the end of World War II. Some supporters abandoned the movement, and the mission of several groups was refocused to incorporate developing knowledge in the field of genetics more accurately. Yet, despite the heterogeneity of the eugenics movement, historians agree that one segment of its membership consistently purveyed a malevolent brand of biological determinism, coupled with a political and social program that accurately can be described as totalitarian. Eugenicists of this school asserted that all social ills--including disease, crime, and poverty--were the result of bad heredity. These eugenicists advocated the elimination of "suspect biology" using the legal methods of court-ordered eugenical sterilization, criminalization of interracial marriage, and prohibitions on immigration of groups with "inferior" genetic potentiality. Among these eugenicists, the coercive force of government was accepted as a valid and necessary means of achieving a genetically sanitized world.

This noxious version of eugenic theory was popularized in America by organizations like the Eugenics Record Office (ERO), established in 1910 in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The ERO was founded "to serve eugenical interests as a repository and clearinghouse [and] a data bank for information on human hereditary traits." (52) The ERO was the best funded and most consistently staffed among the several other eugenics organizations founded between 1900 and 1925. It functioned as a policy center for the activities of the organized eugenics movement. Its officers and programs provide a focal point for surveying the impact of eugenical propaganda in America. (53) The nativist, racist, and anti-democratic tone of the ERO and its sister organization, the Eugenics Research Association, formulated an agenda that would in large measure be incorporated into Wickliffe Draper's funding choices and the priorities of the Pioneer Fund.

A. Harry Hamilton Laughlin

Harry Hamilton Laughlin was among the most effective of all American eugenicists. As Superintendent of the ERO, he surveyed and analyzed the purported hereditary characteristics of people who lived in publicly supported institutions--almshouses, orphanages, mental hospitals, and prisons. Although he labored in the shadow of Charles Davenport, the internationally renowned Director of the Eugenics Record Office, Laughlin nevertheless played a significant role in shaping the public face of the eugenics movement.

From the time he moved to New York in 1910 until his death in 1943, Laughlin committed himself to a search for patterns of bad heredity or "dysgenesis." (54) Even more impressive than the abundance of statistical material collected during Laughlin's research was his success in translating the implications of eugenical theory into law. (55) The ruling passions of his career as a eugenicist were immigration restriction, eugenic sterilization, and prohibition of interracial marriage.

Laughlin's efforts at immigration restriction included an attempt to survey every public charitable institution or mental hospital in America. He combined those data with material on the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons, and reformatories to provide a basis for testimony to Congress as its appointed `"Expert Eugenics Agent.'" (56) Reflecting in large part Laughlin's testimony, Congress passed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, (57) which was consciously drawn to block the flow of Jews and Italians whose numbers as U.S. immigrants had risen considerably from 1900 to 1920. (58)

Hitler praised the racist features of American immigration legislation in Mein Kampf even before he came to power. (59) He condemned the automatic grant of citizenship, extended indiscriminately to "every Jewish or Polish, African or Asiatic child" born in Germany as "thoughtless" and "hare-brained." (60) America, "by simply excluding certain races from naturalization," was making "slow beginnings" toward a vision Hitler could support. (61) A preoccupation with controlling migration was just one of the habits that Laughlin and his fellow immigration restrictionists shared with Adolf Hitler.

Laughlin's most celebrated efforts were dedicated to the eradication of people generating the most social costs--those residing in public institutions or supported in community welfare programs. His attention to this group began with developing a law that would mandate their sexual sterilization. In 1914, Laughlin published the Model Eugenical Sterilization Law and proposed its adoption by all the states. (62) The law was designed "to prevent the procreation of ... degenerate persons ... with inferior hereditary potentialities." (63) In 1922, Laughlin published Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, a five hundred-page compendium on sterilization laws throughout the country. (64) Two years later he provided expert testimony in the case of Buck v. Bell, (65) which eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court and yielded explicit endorsement of the hereditarian assumptions that formed the basis for the model law. (66) Laughlin also championed the eugenic benefits of "racial integrity" laws that criminalized interracial marriage. He maintained constant contact with like-minded racial propagandists whose advocacy encompassed legal measures to enforce strict racial separation. (67)

Laughlin described eugenics as a "pure science" whose goal was the discovery of "fundamental truth about race and family-stock improvement." (68) Like science in general, eugenics was "international in character." This internationalist perspective is reflected in the records of major meetings of eugenicists such as the International Congress of Eugenics and its successor, the International Federations of Eugenic Organizations. (69) Those conferences supplied the occasion where eugenicists applauded each other's research and collaborated on papers subsequently published internationally. The meetings provided the setting for fostering collegial relationships and initiating career-long friendships. (70)

As second in rank to Charles Davenport, who in the decade between 1922 and 1932 presided over four international gatherings of eugenicists, Laughlin was in touch with the world's premier eugenicists. Laughlin regularly presented papers at such conferences or was otherwise involved in their planning. With the assistance of famous colleagues, Laughlin's work reached the European audience. (71)

B. Madison Grant

The ideology reflected in the activities of the Pioneer Fund was also derived from the writings of Madison Grant, another American eugenicist with whom Laughlin was extensively involved. Their collaboration is chronicled in almost twenty years of regular correspondence that details their association as members of many American eugenics organizations. (72) Grant was an active member of the International Eugenics Society, the Immigration Restriction League, and the American Eugenics Society. He helped found the Galton Society in 1918 as an alternative to the American Anthropological Association, then headed by Franz Boas, whom he scorned for being a Jew. The Galton Society, said Grant, would be "confined to native Americans." (73)

Grant was a well-known author, who defined what it meant to be a "true" American. His 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race (74) won praise from Hitler as "his Bible." (75) In 1933 he published The Conquest of a Continent, (76) which was celebrated as the first attempt to write "an authentic racial history" of America and a demonstration that "our country is fundamentally Nordic." (77) Grant's involvement with Laughlin and the inner circle of American eugenics reveals a pattern of thought and a policy agenda that would be replicated in large part through the later work of the Pioneer Fund.

C. German Eugenicists

An example of American attention to German political and scientific developments is captured in Harry Laughlin's contact with Erwin Baur from 1920. Baur was an early proponent of the racial hygiene movement in Germany and author of the phrase the `"Nordic Ideal.'" (78) He co-authored The Outline of Human Genetics and Racial Hygiene, (79) a leading German text on genetics and eugenics that was read by Adolf Hitler during his 1920s incarceration, (80) and later became a primary reference source for the authors of the Nazi racial laws. (81) Baur wrote to the Eugenics Record Office for information on American sterilization practices that he could distribute to "his committee of eugenic advisers [sic] for the German Government." (82) Laughlin's captivation with the German eugenics movement permeates an article on "National Eugenics in Germany" published in the London-based Eugenics Review. (83) Laughlin judged that the time was "ripe for the further development of a [German] national eugenical policy." (84) Regarding Baur's plans he wrote: "I shall be especially interested in the success that Dr. Bauer's [sic] committee has in developing eugenical interest in Germany." (85)

Laughlin's correspondents include a virtual Who's Who of German eugenics. In addition to Baur, he corresponded with Alfred Ploetz, who coined the term "Racial Hygiene" in 1895. (86) Laughlin also corresponded with Fritz Lenz, "a leading ideologue in the Nazi program of `racial hygiene.'" (87) Lenz held the first German University chair in race-hygiene at the University of Munich, and a similar position thereafter at Berlin. He applauded Hitler as the "first politician ... who has recognized that the central mission of all politics is race hygiene." (88) Lenz was also a co-author of the Baur eugenics text The Outline of Human Genetics and Racial Hygiene. (89) The third author of that volume was Eugen Fischer, whose 1913 study of the "problem of miscegenation [racially mixed marriages] among humans" provided ideological foundation for the Nuremberg racial laws forbidding marriage between Jews and "Aryans." (90) Fischer and Laughlin had each other's articles translated for publication in both Germany and the United States. (91) Psychiatric geneticist Ernst Rudin was also a Laughlin correspondent. Rudin's biographer describes him as a scientist who "through his activities in the service of racial hygiene contributed substantially to the legitimization and the popularization of the National Socialist government." (92)

The most complete record of Laughlin's attention to Germany can be found in the Eugenical News in the years immediately preceding the founding of the Pioneer Fund. That publication reflected the concerns Laughlin and his American colleagues shared with the eugenicists whose work informed Hitler's domestic policies. Fears of a falling "Nordic" birthrate, overt anti-Semitism, and a fervor for racial separation were common themes that resounded both in German journals of "race hygiene" as well as in Laughlin's Eugenical News. (93) During Hitler's rise to prominence, Laughlin's positive publicity for the Nazi eugenics program filled the pages of his journal.

Laughlin's preoccupation with the Nazi eugenics program can be seen in his response to the enactment of a German sterilization statute: the Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny, signed by Adolf Hitler in July of 1933. Even before the law took effect, Laughlin secured a copy from the German Consul General, had it translated, and rushed it into print. In his commentary on the law, Laughlin declared that Germany was in the vanguard of "the great nations of the world" which recognized the "biological foundations of national character." (94)

Another example of Laughlin's showcase of German activities as the Nazis came to power involves what was euphemistically termed the "population problem." William Gregory, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, asked Laughlin to arrange a conference on that topic for a meeting of the Galton Society in 1933. (95) In preparation for the meeting, Laughlin obtained a copy of Wilhelm Frick's speech to the First Meeting of the Expert Committee on Questions of Racial Policy. Frick was a member of Hitler's domestic cabinet and the speech located Hitler's regime in the vanguard of governments "putting Eugenics and Race-culture (Race-hygiene) in the service of the State." (96) A letter to Madison Grant reveals Laughlin's interest in the Frick address:
   We sent to Germany for Dr. Frick's paper.... We propose devoting an early
   number of the Eugenical News entirely to Germany, and to make Dr. Frick's
   paper the leading article. Dr. Frick's address sounds exactly as though
   spoken by a perfectly good American eugenicist in reference to what "ought
   to be done," with this difference, that Dr. Frick, instead of being a mere
   scientist, is a powerful Reichsminister in a dictatorial government which
   is getting things done in a nation of sixty million people. (97)

Laughlin applauded the Frick speech as "a milepost in statesmanship," and predicted that future leaders would be "compelled to look primarily to eugenics" for the solution to national problems. (98) Laughlin asked Grant for "moral support." (99) Grant responded "cordially in sympathy" about publication of Frick's remarks. But the elder eugenicist was careful to warn Laughlin that their sentiments towards the German situation were not universally held: "Remember that while most people of our type are in sympathy with the German eugenical measures, we will have to proceed cautiously in endorsing them." (100)

Frick's paper on German Population and Race Politics appeared in the Eugenical News in April 1934, an edition almost entirely dedicated to news of eugenics in Germany. (101) Laughlin included articles on German Sterilization Progress, Jewish Refugees from Germany, and Eugenical Propaganda in Germany. (102) Eugen Fischer supplied a catalogue of German eugenical institutions, societies, books, journals, and university faculty members, who were listed with their curricula in eugenics and a list of eugenical laws. A line under "general notes" on Eugenics in Germany announced that "[e]verywhere the press is treating the questions of Race-Hygiene and Eugenics with the greatest interest, particularly since the Minister for Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, has done his utmost to spread ideas on heredity and biology." (103)

Announcements of the professional successes of German eugenicists, such as the elevation of Fritz Lenz to the first chair of race hygiene at the University of Berlin, became a regular feature in the Eugenical News. In the years immediately following the Nazi takeover, hardly an issue of the Eugenical News was published that did not include some reference to the progress of eugenics under the Third Reich. (104)

Laughlin's attention to German eugenics was not unique. Other American eugenics journals tracked international developments before and after the Nazi ascendancy. (105) News of German eugenics was also standard fare in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (106) Laughlin's constant publicity for Nazi eugenic measures and open endorsement of Nazi policy was, however, unusual. That he identified with the eugenical turn taken by policymakers at Hitler's elbow is evident from his public approval of Wilhelm Frick's work. Laughlin quoted notoriously racist French Count de Lapouge in the Eugenical News, boasting that "Frick has been with us since the beginning." (107)

Table I demonstrates Laughlin's focus on German eugenics in the pages of the Eugenical News as the Nazis took control and provides a catalogue of issues that would later be pursued by Laughlin and his patron Wickliffe Draper. Most articles were written or edited by Laughlin, who once boasted that he had "averaged writing about 160 columns per year of unsigned articles for the `Eugenical News' ... [and had] never signed an article in it." (108)

D. Laughlin's Heidelberg Degree, 1936

More evidence that demonstrates Laughlin's affinity with his Nazi colleagues may be found in the honorary degree he received for his work in the "science of racial cleansing." Carl Schneider, Psychiatrist and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Heidelberg, contacted Laughlin in the Spring of 1936 with an invitation to the celebration commemorating the 550th anniversary of the University's founding. (109) Laughlin had been chosen to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of Medicine, and it would be conferred at the festivities. (110) Laughlin replied with "deep gratitude" for the honor, "because it will come from a nation which for many centuries nurtured the human seed-stock which later founded my own country." (111)

The New York Times had already pointed out that the June 30 date chosen for the University celebration was the anniversary of Hitler's 1934 purge of the Jews from the Heidelberg faculty. (112) "Nazi propagandists" would portray American visitors who traveled to Germany as "foreign endorsement," said the Times editorial writer. (113) Perhaps for lack of budget, perhaps out of discretion, Laughlin noted the limited time available to plan a transatlantic trip, and sent his regrets that he could not receive the diploma in person. (114) He did accept the degree in absentia, foregoing the opportunity to hear speeches by Nazi Minister for Propaganda Josef Goebbels and other officials. (115)

Although he was unable to travel to Germany, it is false to characterize Laughlin as a passive recipient of Nazi honors. (116) Laughlin was flattered by the recognition, and proudly announced it to all his colleagues. In the summer of 1936, he again wrote to officials at Heidelberg, in eager pursuit of an official diploma. The honorary degree was not only a personal honor, he said, "but also as evidence of a common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics." (117) Having yet to receive a formal diploma, Laughlin asked for official notification of the news that by now had been announced in the media. (118) When Laughlin's diploma arrived, a New York luncheon was arranged, where the German Consul General Botchers, "himself a Heidelberg man," honored the American eugenicist. In Laughlin's thanks to the diplomat he wrote: "All good Americans will value highly Dr. Borchers remarks on the common race descent of the basic German stock and the pioneer families of the United States." Laughlin shared the news of his honor with Wickliffe Draper, who responded with congratulations. (119) The two would collaborate in founding the Pioneer Fund less than a year later.


A. The Draper Prizes

Wickliffe Draper's alliance with Harry Laughlin was the key to Pioneer's incorporation. Draper was the heir to a textile fortune, (120) and sat on the Executive Committee of the Boston based Immigration Restriction League. (121) In the first quarter of the century he established a pattern as benefactor of eugenics projects that continued until his death some fifty years later.

Draper and Laughlin shared an ideological kinship that was reflected in the subjects Draper chose to subsidize. (122) In 1926, Draper gave $10,000 to fund a Prize contest carrying his name. Vying for awards from the Draper Fund, essayists wrote about blacks' adaptability to society, (123) "fecundity in Nordic and non-Nordic peoples," (124) and commitment of the mentally defective. (125)

Charles Davenport and Morris Steggerda of the Eugenics Record Office carried out a Draper financed study of "the adaptability of negroes and mulattoes for civilization" in Jamaica. (126) A report on its progress eventually appeared in the Eugenical News under the heading Negro-White Hybrids in Jamaica: Investigation Made Under the W.P. Draper Fund. (127) The report described data obtained from three hundred test subjects. Photographs were taken of each subject and body measurements were recorded, along with test data related to intellectual and musical ability, and temperament. The report purported to demonstrate that such traits were inherited along racial lines, and buttressed traditional racist stereotypes with supposedly scientific observations. (128)

Davenport and Steggerda concluded that high intelligence, stoicism, and emotional control were traits of whites, while blacks were thought to be less able intellectually, but more musically inclined and more emotionally volatile. (129) A more extensive report, entitled Nasal Breadth in Negro x White Crossing, promised further information on the "investigations of race crossing in Jamaica," and was also credited to the Col. W.P. Draper Fund. (130) Draper's patronage resulted in Charles Davenport's book Race Crossing in Jamaica. A review appearing in the Eugenical News noted that the book demonstrated how "[i]n many respects the native mental capacity of the Blacks and Whites differ." (131) It concluded with an assertion that would become a familiar refrain in the research Draper supported: racial difference "is quite certainly genetic." (132) These early studies of the ill effects of racial mixture set the pattern for the later work of those who benefited from Draper's largesse.

In 1928, the Eugenical News announced another contest to both American and European authors. A $5000 prize fund was available for comparisons of the birth and death rates of Nordic and non-Nordic peoples. Groups qualifying as "Nordic peoples" included Scandinavians, Dutch, English, Scottish, Northern Irish, and some Germans. (133) The First Prize paper, entitled Comparative Birth-Rate Movements Among European Nations, was published as the first volume in the Eugenical Research Association Monograph Series. (134) It demonstrated a forty-year birth rate drop among Nordics in some European countries. (135) Potential contestants were advised that their papers should concentrate on "peoples of Nordic, or chiefly Nordic, origin in all parts of the world." (136) Draper's contest, which focused on differential birth rates, simultaneously paralleled alarmist rhetoric in Germany concerning the decline of native births. Dismay over falling birth rates later led to marriage loan programs and other incentives to increase the German birthrate. During the Nazi period, the special designation Kinderreich was coined to describe families who "conformed to ... required racial and social criteria," and were awarded cash grants for having extra children. (137)

A final contest, announced in 1934, offered awards of up to $3000 for "Research in the Genetics of Mental Disorders." (138) A physician specializing in epilepsy took the prize, (139) with a paper exploring the links between heredity and mental disease in residents of a state hospital. (140) Five of the ten volumes of the Eugenics Research Association Monograph Series (1929-1935) resulted from studies funded by Draper. (141) The titles reflected Draper's fixation on race differences, "Nordic" survival, and hereditary "degeneracy" as reflected in mental disorders. These themes would reappear in other Draper projects and in the portfolio of "research" underwritten by the Pioneer Fund.

B. Draper Among the Nazis, 1935

Like Grant and Laughlin, Wickliffe Draper believed that the United States and Germany were the two countries that contained the purest residue of Nordic biological heritage. Thus, his attention to eugenic studies in the United States was also matched by his interest in eugenic activity in Germany. The International Congress for the Scientific Investigation of Population Problems was scheduled to occur in Berlin in the fall of 1935. It would bring Draper to the Nazi capital, where he would receive a personal tutorial in the Nazi version of eugenics and witness the marriage of "biological policy" and governmental will firsthand. The meeting would also cement what is perhaps the most dramatic connection between the founders of the Pioneer Fund and the Nazis.

Harry Laughlin could not attend the conference, but he contacted Eugen Fischer, whom he had known by then for almost fifteen years, to alert the German eugenicist that he was sending a paper to be read in absentia. Fischer was Rector at the University of Berlin and director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics.

Though his early pronouncements on the role of "racial hygiene" contrasted with Nazi views, Fischer eventually accommodated Nazi ideology and supported eugenical legislation only weeks after Hitler assumed power in 1933. (142) In a speech preceding his inauguration as Rector at the University of Berlin, Fischer heralded the Nazis for leading the way in addressing the problems of race hygiene among German peoples. (143) Soon thereafter, he published an essay praising the Nazi movement. (144) Fisher later presided as a judge on Berlin's Appellate Genetic Health Court to review cases determining who would be sterilized under the 1933 eugenical sterilization law. (145) He was instrumental in the secret Gestapo sterilization of the mixed-race children of French/Algerian troops, called the Rheinlandbastarde, (146) and oversaw the expulsion of Jewish academics from prominent German universities. (147) He headed a group including Erwin Baur and psychiatrist Ernst Rudin that pledged the efforts of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute to work "`systematically in the service of the Reich as regards race hygiene research.'" (148)

Laughlin told Fischer that he planned to have a "distinguished colleague," present a paper to the Berlin population congress on his behalf. (149) Laughlin's contribution, Further Studies on the Historical and Legal Development of Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (150) would update the conferees on developments since his 1922 book Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. (151) Laughlin named Dr. Clarence G. Campbell of New York as the man who would read the sterilization paper. (152)

Clarence Campbell left a thriving medical practice to pursue his interests in eugenics full-time. He was allied to Laughlin and Madison Grant through his offices in the Galton Society (153) and the Eugenics Research Association, where he served as President. (154) Campbell's Presidential Addresses included topics such as Race Improvement (1931), The American Racial Outlook (1933), The Biological Foundations of Our Social Philosophy (1934) and The General Postulates of Race Survival (1935). (155) Campbell also served on the editorial advisory board of the Eugenical News (156) and, like Laughlin, was specifically acknowledged by Madison Grant for his assistance in the preparation of The Conquest of a Continent. (157)

Laughlin also asked Fischer to extend a favorable reception to Wickliffe Draper, whom he described as "one of the staunchest supporters of eugenical research and policy in the United States." (158) Laughlin alerted Draper that a letter of introduction would identify him as an official Delegate of the Eugenics Research Association. (159)

A formal invitation to Draper was forthcoming and upon arriving in Berlin, his excitement was palpable. He wrote Laughlin immediately, sending his "renewed thanks" for interceding with German officials. (160)

The International Congress for the Scientific Investigation of Population Problems met in Berlin from August 26 to September 1, 1935. (161) Wilhelm Frick, whose position in Hitler's cabinet as Reichsminister of the Interior gave him jurisdiction over German domestic law, was Honorary President of the Congress. (162) Promulgating a compulsory sterilization law had been among Frick's first official acts after the Nazis assumed power in 1933. (163) Subsequently, he administered the infamous Nuremberg Laws to protect German "purity of `blood'" from Jewish degeneracy. (164) He was intimately involved in the euthanasia of institutionalized people where killing techniques were developed for eventual use in the death camps. (165) Frick was convicted during the Nuremberg trials and hanged in 1946 for his activities as a key Nazi administrator during the Holocaust. (166)

Frick's keynote address was reported among the highlights of the International Congress. He described the change in demographics that accompanied industrial and economic development, noting that migration from the farms to the cities often left a vacuum in rural areas that was "`filled by cheap imported labor--often belonging to another race.'" (167) In the absence of "`sound racial--and population-policy,'" large cities, with their low birthrates among native citizens, become "`graveyards for the best blood.'" (168)

Reviewing laws the Nazis designed to reinvigorate Germany, Frick reminded his audience that loans would be made to the recently married to encourage reproduction "depending upon medical examination for fitness." (169) Laws to reduce unemployment would focus on "`economic security for the hereditarily sound family,'" and "hereditary degenerates" would be eugenically sterilized. (170)

A full scientific program accompanied Frick's oration. Papers were organized within topical areas such as: Population Turn-over Within the Nordic Civilization, Neighbors of the Nordic Civilization, Race-hygiene as a Common Duty of all Civilized People, Contributions to Racial Anthropology, and Race-culture of the Nordic Civilization. (171)

As President of the Congress, Eugen Fischer read a scientific paper. Prominent eugenicists Ernst Rudin and Alfred Ploetz joined other presenters. (172) German attorney Falk Ruttke, who was instrumental in drafting the 1933 German sterilization law, and who was later named (with Rudin and Fischer) as a member of Laughlin's Advisory Board to the Eugenical News, (173) delivered an essay discussing the German and Scandinavian sterilization laws. (174) Dr. Arthur Gutt, the "architect of Nazi public health" (175) and likely co-author of the German sterilization law, (176) was also in attendance. During the scientific program he spoke on the "practical application of population science." (177) Time magazine quoted the Gutt speech:
   Our penal code will shortly make compulsory a health examination for all
   marrying persons. The purpose of this is first to dissuade bodily or mental
   inferiors from marrying and especially from procreation. Second, to prevent
   marriages between hereditarily tainted persons, the same as a marriage
   between an Aryan and a non-Aryan. Third, to influence the choice of life
   partners from a health as well as a racial viewpoint. (178)

Although many of Laughlin's colleagues were "bitterly disappointed" at his absence, (179) Clarence Campbell presented Laughlin's paper on sterilization law in the United States.

Campbell then spoke in his own right on the Biologic Postulates of Population Study. (180) His remarks drew the attention of The New York Times, which reported on the German meeting in detail: "Professor Clarence G. Campbell of New York, president of the Eugenics Research Association, appeared today before the World Population Congress here as a champion of Nazi racial principles. He declared that a consanguineous racial group possessed `a high survival value.'" (181) The report from Berlin continued, quoting Campbell at length: "`The leader of the German nation, Adolf Hitler, ably supported by Frick ... and guided by the nation's anthropologists, eugenists [sic] and social philosophers, has been able to construct a comprehensive racial policy of population development and improvement that promises to be epochal in racial history.'" (182)

Time magazine's coverage of Campbell's Berlin performance was printed with the caption--Praise for Nazis:
   Sore from the slings and arrows of foreign criticism, Germans heard
   gratefully last week a warm, approving speech from Dr. Clarence Gordon
   Campbell, president of the American Eugenics Research Association,
   delivered before the World Population Congress in Berlin. Dr. Campbell, a
   Manhattan Social Registrite, put a fashionable practice behind him to
   devote his full time to eugenics. Long before Adolf Hitler was anybody, Dr.
   Campbell, though too polite to wound racial sensibilities by calling names,
   was unobtrusively teaching that if "Americans," as that term is generally
   understood, do not speed up their birth rate, the result after a few more
   generations will be to leave control of their country in the hands of some
   more pushing race. (183)

The Time article cited "Dr. Campbell's boldest dicta: `The difference between the Jew and the Aryan is as unsurmountable [sic] as that between black and white.... Germany has set a pattern which other nations must follow.'" (184) Campbell's last word at the closing of the Congress was a toast: "`To that great leader, Adolf Hitler!'" (185) Campbell's laudatory references to Hitler were also noted in Germany, prompting one commentator to describe him as "the most frequently cited non-German scientist in the Nazi press." (186)

Laughlin shared Campbell's sentiments about eugenics and the Nazis. Their affinity was demonstrated clearly five years earlier, when Laughlin secured the appointment of Campbell as a delegate to the 1930 London meeting of the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations. (187) At the meeting's conclusion, Laughlin happily reported how effectively he and Campbell functioned as the American delegation. Laughlin described their joint perspective as a "perfect agreement as to plans and policies." (188) In Berlin, Campbell was the perfect proxy for Harry Laughlin and the ideal escort for Wickliffe Draper. All three men shared a rabid racism and thoroughgoing anti-Semitism founded on their interpretation of eugenic ideology. Laughlin must have known that applause for Hitler was music to the ears of Wickliffe Draper.

C. The Virginia Project

Shortly after Draper's return from Europe, Laughlin arranged another opportunity for him to contribute to American eugenics education. Laughlin was aware of the early frustration of German eugenicists who worked in the absence of a nationally coordinated educational effort. As early as 1917, Erwin Baur argued for a government-funded German national eugenics institute, contrasting his own country's meager support with the millions spent by American philanthropists to advance eugenics. (189) By the time the Nazis took power in 1933, the German network of university eugenics programs was thoroughly established, providing a legitimizing backdrop to national policy under Hitler. (190)

Laughlin believed that both education and legislation were necessary tools with which to realize his vision of a eugenically sanitized America. By the mid-1930s, Laughlin had met with astounding success in the legislative arena. He engineered a national immigration quota law to prevent the migration of Jews and southern Europeans. (191) He was the recognized expert on state sterilization laws and was often consulted when a new wave of anti-miscegenation statutes were adopted across America in the 1920s and 1930s. (192)

Despite these legislative accomplishments, Laughlin, who began his career as a teacher, never abandoned his interests in pedagogy. He managed a summer training program for visiting field workers at the Eugenics Record Office. His ambitions as an educator included a candidacy for university presidency. (193) Laughlin saw education and law as engines of social change that ran on parallel tracks. His long-term plans included creating a Eugenics Record Office endowment comparable to that of a "long established university or a cathedral." (194)

Laughlin wrote to Draper in early 1936, pursuing funds in an attempt to replicate the German model of a university-based national institute of eugenics. It would provide an academic home for the kind of work Draper had supported in his eugenics essay contests. Laughlin had a fertile location in mind as the center for education in eugenics. He identified the University of Virginia as a place with a history "based on the traditions most fundamental to the American people." (195) Those traditions "look upon the American people as a definite racial stock ... worth preserving through an active eugenical policy.... Founded by Thomas Jefferson at Charlottesburg [sic], Virginia, it has a tradition of American aristocracy which the nation treasures very highly and which the Virginian himself holds without peer among American colleges." (196)

Laughlin suggested that with the University's cooperation, Draper could continue to fund "studies and services in eugenics" at an "Institution of National Eugenics as a part of the University of Virginia." (197) "For a very few thousand dollars," Laughlin suggested, it would be possible to develop a plan to teach "the racial aspect of applied eugenics" from Grade one of the public school system through graduate training at the university level. (198) With little expense, plans could be made for "a real Institute of National Eugenics which would in its charter and sponsorship state its ideals in no uncertain terms." (199) Such an Institute would stand in contrast to Laughlin's own Eugenics Record Office, which regularly chafed under the limitations placed on its work by its funding source, the Carnegie Institution of Washington. (200)

Laughlin proposed a plan for the University of Virginia that would build on his many years of work with Virginia eugenicists. He had collaborated on the passage of Virginia's anti-miscegenation legislation in the early 1920s and played a key role in the successful defense of Virginia's eugenical sterilization law. (201) He knew that Virginia was a hotbed of eugenical study. Edwin Alderman, the University of Virginia's first president, encouraged research in eugenics. He was an admirer and correspondent of Lothrop Stoddard, one of the more successful racial propagandists. (202) Stoddard popularized the "eugenical racialist" perspective in books such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. (203)

Virginia's faculty was also well-versed in eugenics. Harvey Jordan, who would eventually become Dean of the Virginia medical faculty, contributed a paper entitled The Place of Eugenics in the Medical Curriculum to the First International Eugenics Congress in London in 1912. (204) Eugenics first appeared in the Virginia curriculum the next year. (205) Jordan was later chosen to contribute to a national eugenics text for college students. (206) Several other members of the Virginia faculty were active members of eugenics organizations. (207)

Laughlin contacted John Lloyd Newcomb, Alderman's successor as President at Virginia to schedule a meeting:
   You doubtless remember I called on you last October about [the]
   desirability and possibility of work in eugenics by [the] University of
   Virginia[.] The man whose name I then withheld is Colonel W[.P.] Draper ...
   If agreeable all around and so invited he would drive to Charlottesville
   for person[al] conference[.] Draper wants nothing for himself but is in a
   position to give substantial financial support of work which he believes
   would definitely revive American racial ideals. (208)

Newcomb confirmed the meeting about "a subject ... of mutual interest" (209) and promised to adjust his schedule to accommodate Draper's visit. (210)

After visiting Virginia, Draper reported that he had met both University of Virginia President John Lloyd Newcomb and University of Virginia Dean Ivey Lewis, a biologist and experienced teacher of eugenics. "The latter [Lewis], especially, seemed interested in my ideas and suggested that I meet ... Cox [and] Powell which I hope later to do," (211) Draper wrote. The men Draper referred to were two of Virginia's foremost public proponents of eugenics. Earnest Sevier Cox was instrumental in the passage of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. (212) John Powell founded the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America (A.S.C.O.A.), dedicating them to the goal of maintaining "`Anglo-Saxon ideals and civilization in America.'" (213) Because of their public positions on white supremacy and the need to maintain racial integrity in the name of eugenics, both Cox and Powell were important Southern recruits to be enlisted in support of the Draper plan.

When Laughlin made contact to orchestrate the Cox/Draper meeting, he acted as a confidential agent, maintaining Draper's anonymity. He wrote Cox: "A number of our friends have visited the South recently and have told the [Eugenics Research Association (ERA) program] committee of your work." (214) Laughlin emphasized the "close collaboration" of the ERA with Cox's friend Walter Plecker, an early advocate of Virginia's Racial Integrity law. (215) Laughlin invited Cox to speak at the annual meeting of the ERA in New York on the topic of "Repatriation." (216) Laughlin then alerted Draper to attend that meeting as well. (217)

In anticipation of the meeting, Laughlin told Cox that Draper was "particularly interested" in his work. (218) Laughlin was clearly motivated to bring the two men together in New York. That same week, University of Virginia Dean Ivey Lewis told Cox of his "very interesting conference" with Draper. (219) He described Draper as "a man of means" who could provide practical assistance in solving the "negro problem." (220) For reasons that remained unstated, the "University of Virginia," wrote Lewis, "was not able to accept his assistance" (221) Seeking an alternative avenue to achieve Draper's goals, Lewis referred Draper to Cox and Powell with hopes that they could "direct his enthusiasm" toward something practical. (222) According to Lewis, Draper considered repatriation of blacks to Africa "the only satisfactory solution" and one that he was likely to support. (223)

It is unclear why Draper's plans for the University of Virginia failed to bear fruit. Perhaps national publicity about racial tensions in 1935 on the Charlottesville campus made President Newcomb proceed with caution. Only months before Draper's visit, an article in The Literary Digest reported on the controversy that followed the application of "[a] negro girl" to the University. (224) The unflattering article was titled Race Equality: Raising the Jim Crow Issue. It included a photo with the caption: "Facing a race problem in education: Dr. John L. Newcomb, ... President of the University of Virginia, and Dr. Frederic W. Scott, Rector of the University." (225)

Although the "Virginia project" did not eventuate in the national institute Laughlin envisioned, Virginia was to continue as a center of eugenic study for years to come, and to provide an occasional forum for some of its more rabid proponents. Among them was Lothrop Stoddard, who traveled to the University of Virginia in 1940 to speak on "`Nazi Germany--The New Sparta.'" (226) The talk (227) was given the same year that Stoddard published Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today, a book that included an account of proceedings at a German Eugenics Court and a description of Stoddard's gushing interview with Hitler. (228)

Draper's interest in education eventually led to funding for a department of medical genetics at another university, (229) as well as an endowment for the Pioneer Fund, which subsequently supported numerous studies of race, intelligence, and Anglo-Saxon ideals. (230)

D. Draper, Cox, and the Back to Africa Movement

The New York meeting of the ERA where Cox and Draper met featured a presidential address by Californian C.M. Goethe on "Patriotism and Racial Standards." (231) Goethe praised the "stupendous forward movements" taking place as a result of Nazi Germany's eugenics laws. (232) Cox read his Repatriation of the American Negro, offering arguments in favor of congressional legislation to fund a mass migration of blacks back to Africa. (233) Cox would become a ready tool to be used for Draper's goals. Cox wrote White America, a book that reflected the same sentiments on the topics of white supremacy and the dangers of racial mixing as Madison Grant's Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard's Rising Tide of Color. (234)

The Eugenical News described White America as "a stirring volume" and declared that "America is still worth saving for the white race." (235) The book was a first-person analysis of the role of race in the rise and fall of civilizations. Cox described his own world travels as a self-taught ethnographer. (236) His strident Nordicism echoed many of the themes regularly sounded in the racial politics of Harry Laughlin and Madison Grant. His thesis was simple: whenever people of different races lived together, problems arose. The "superior" race--to Cox, the whites--was brought down by interbreeding with the "inferior" race--the blacks. (237) For America to avoid this result, a plan must be established for deporting blacks to Africa. In the short term, Cox believed that all states must pass anti-miscegenation laws such as the one passed in Virginia in 1924. (238) A copy of that law was printed as an appendix to Cox's text.

By the time Earnest Sevier Cox was welcomed into the inner circle of American eugenics, he had been in touch with eugenical leaders both in his home state of Virginia and nationally for more than twenty years. In 1921, Cox sought Madison Grant's advice in identifying a publisher for White America. Grant recommended Charles Scribner's Sons, his own publisher, (239) but was unsuccessful in convincing the New York firm to publish Cox's work. Cox eventually printed the book at his own expense under the auspices of the White America Society of Richmond, Virginia. (240) He was later to boast that "Madison Grant ... spent hours with Scribners in trying to get them to publish my book, White America.... He reviewed White America for the Richmond (Va.) press. I have been entertained in his home." (241) With the assistance of Francis Kinnicutt (242) of the Immigration Restriction League, Cox delivered a special edition of White America to every member of Congress.

White America also traveled to Europe. In 1930, Madison Grant asked that a copy be sent to Professor Hans Gunther, "one of the most distinguished anthropologists of Germany," recently appointed to a new professorate at Jena. (243) Gunther was recognized as being the father of the German Nordic movement and was famous for developing a visual typology for classifying "racial types." (244) Gunther won his post at the University at Jena with the assistance of Nazi Party leader Wilhelm Frick; Hitler attended Gunther's inaugural lecture. (245)

Cox's "back to Africa" movement attracted support from eugenic stalwarts. Harry Laughlin had earlier declared himself and all "students of eugenics and race integrity ... most anxious to maintain close contact" to monitor Cox's crusade for repatriation of blacks to Liberia. (246) Following the New York meeting of the ERA, at which Cox spoke on "Negro Repatriation," Cox and fellow Virginian Walter Plecker were entertained in the homes of Draper, Laughlin, and Grant. (247) Cox's trip to New York was followed by a stream of correspondence from the eugenicists, endorsing Cox's argument for black repatriation. (248)

By September 1936, New York financial agents wrote to determine the cost of reproducing Cox's book. They represented Wickliffe Draper, who eventually revealed himself as a patron whose anonymity must be insured. Draper offered to purchase one thousand copies of White America, 800 of which were to be distributed to whomever Cox suggested. (249) After much discussion, they agreed that since the first "Congressional Edition" of White America had been printed to aid the battle for immigration restriction, it was appropriate for the next "special edition" to provide ammunition to members of Congress who supported the cause of black repatriation. (250)

In acknowledgement of Draper's secret role, Cox's 1937 version proclaimed that it "was financed by a prominent citizen who wishes to promote the cause of "`[r]epatriation.'"(251) Its copyright page explained that the 1937 version was "limited to a free distribution of copies to members of Congress, and to members of the legislature in certain of the States." (252)

In 1937, Cox sent the book to every member of Congress. Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo was a thankful recipient, who praised Cox's work. "Your manuscript on the history of the cause of repatriation was a knock-out.... I have almost made up my mind to specialize on the repatriation of the negro." (253) Cox's report to Draper was effusive: "It gives me pleasure to inform you that it now seems that we will have representation in Congress as a result of the assistance you gave to the cause." (254) Buoyed by Bilbo's activities, Draper paid to have a Cox pamphlet entitled Lincoln's Negro Policy distributed to legislators (255) It traced the "back to Africa" argument to Lincoln's writings. (256) Cox took every occasion to extend his thanks to Draper for providing an opportunity to enlist Bilbo in their cause. (257) By summer, Bilbo had filled the Congressional Record with Cox's sentiments. With perverse irony, he read from White America during the filibuster over an anti-lynching bill. (258)

As always, Draper's involvement was kept secret. Cox inscribed a confidential message of appreciation to Draper in the first copy of the Lincoln pamphlet that came off the press. (259) The Cox/Draper repatriation strategy included regular consultations to determine how material could be most profitably distributed to opinion leaders. Cox sent Draper "important information in this matter," as well as suggestions for contact with news columnists who might report favorably on the movement. (260)

Throughout the period of his collaboration with Bilbo, Cox reached out to Europeans whose views on "racial purity" matched his own. In 1938, he sent German Reichsminister Wilhelm Frick copies of the publications printed with Draper's funding. Cox described himself to Frick as a southerner "of Saxon descent" and noted the "common Teutonic heritage" he shared with Frick and his "high admiration" for Germany.(261)

Bilbo remained the champion of Cox's hopes for legalizing "Negro repatriation" until his death in 1947. His own book, Take Your Choice, Separation or Mongrelization, was published that year, carrying an introduction by Cox. (262) To the end, Bilbo shared Cox's passion for repatriation and against racial mixing, which he predicted would result in a "`motley melee of miscegenated mongrels.'" (263)

With Bilbo gone, Cox looked to another champion to carry his standard in the legislature. Taking up where Bilbo left off, Senator William Langer of North Dakota introduced a Liberian repatriation bill in every session of Congress from 1949 to 1955. (264) In June of 1953, Cox traveled to Washington D.C. to testify before Langer's Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations concerning Senate Bill 138: "To Provide Aid to Persons in the United States Desirous of Migrating to the Republic of Liberia." (265) Responding to Langer's questions, Cox had the opportunity to celebrate Draper's anonymous gifts on behalf of white supremacy:
   [A] Northern man, a very rich man, wanted to do something for the movement,
   and wanted to put some colonization literature before the members of the
   Congress because the subject had not been discussed for seventy years. This
   wealthy Northern man selected my book, White America for distribution, and
   Senator Bilbo was reading White America on the Floor of the Senate, killing
   his time in the filibuster [on the anti-lynching bill], and in White
   America it is stated many times that the only way out of our situation was
   separation or amalgamation; that between two races who are in contact, that
   the only solutions that are possible of a race problem would be to mix
   their bloods or separate the races. (266)

After his appearance before Congress, Cox met with both Langer (267) and Draper (268) to discuss the subject. Draper agreed to contribute money to reprint the repatriation bill. (269) It was distributed using Langer's congressional mailing privilege with a statement printed on the envelope which said "that it was a Negro colonization bill and supported by a great number of Negroes." (270)

Among the final letters between Cox and Draper was a telling exchange concerning Draper's absolute demand to maintain the confidentiality of his role in racial politics. (271) Cox had asked Draper for a personal photo to include in a short history of the repatriation movement he was writing. (272) Rebuffed by Draper, he apologized, noting, "I respect your distaste for publicity and know that your gifts were anonymous. We had never discussed whether my final records could record your gifts." (273) As late as 1962, agents of the American Nazi Party wrote to Cox requesting several hundred copies of Cox's pamphlet, Lincoln's Negro Policy, which Draper had subsidized. (274)


A. Preliminary Steps

By 1937, Draper's involvement with the eugenics movement included holding a leadership position with the Immigration Restriction League, underwriting the Draper Essay contests for the Eugenics Research Association, meeting with Nazi eugenicists in Berlin, attempting to found a university based "Institute of Eugenics," and distributing White America to Congress to aid the "back to Africa" campaign. (275) During the same period, Draper's colleague Laughlin had so successfully advanced the cause of eugenics and "racial hygiene" that he won the admiration of the Nazis and an honorary German degree. (276) In late 1936, hopeful of a potential bequest from Draper, Laughlin offered to study Army Air Corps pilots--a group with demonstrated eugenical quality. He would investigate whether providing financial aid to support additional children would actually increase the birthrate among junior flying officers.(277) Draper expressed hope that Laughlin might "work out something of eugenic value." (278)

Laughlin had a long-standing interest in determining the influences on "mate selection" and parenting choices. As early as 1917, he suggested that licensing people for the privilege of parenthood might become necessary unless "young married couples of our precious Nordic stock" begin to raise larger families. (279) There was no philanthropic objective with more potential for return than "practical education in racial constitution" and "practical population-control," Laughlin exhorted. (280) Control could be achieved by influencing the forces that governed immigration, as well as factors that increased child bearing "in favor of American racial strains." (281) With Draper's encouragement, the Air Corps study moved up Laughlin's list of projects that Draper might fund. (282) Laughlin's proposal on childbirth incentives shared several features with laws adopted in Germany to effect population policy. His Eugenical News had highlighted the German program earlier that year. (283)

The new year brought a flurry of activity between Draper and Laughlin. By early February, Draper had committed $50,000 as seed money for a new foundation. (284) Four names were proposed for it: "The Eugenics Fund," "The Genetics Fund," "The Pioneer Fund," and "The Research Foundation." But Draper's lawyer, Malcolm Donald, was wary of using the word "eugenics" in the title of the new foundation. Several organizations already included the term "eugenics" in their titles, and some confusion might result if that term appeared again. He was also concerned that pilots and their families might find it amusing to learn they had been chosen for "eugenics purposes." To avoid potentially disruptive ridicule, Donald advised choosing "a more colorless name, such as `Pioneer Foundation.'" (285)

Laughlin conferred with the Eugenics Research Association director Frederick Osborn about the name. Although both agreed that the word "`eugenics' must be strengthened until it takes the high place in the public mind ... it might be a dangerous name for the Fund." (286) One worry was that such a name could attract "all sorts of people to make carelessly thought-out demands on the Fund." (287) Both Laughlin and Osborn conceded that the "`Pioneer Fund'" would make a proper name for the new venture. (288) In language reminiscent of his letters to Madison Grant, Laughlin reiterated that the Institute of American Eugenics would have the goal of "maintenance, improvement and increase of the superior foundation racial family-stock of America." (289)

Laughlin sent Draper a tentative agenda for the first Director's meeting and emphasized his commitment "to serve the purpose of race conservation and improvement to the fullest." (290) The agenda outlined a budget to finance five discrete projects. First, $5000 to study and $27,000 to make grants "to encourage high fertility by junior flying officers of especially superior heredity." (291) Second, $5000 to enhance eugenical education by developing American films on eugenics. (292) The third project earmarked $2000 for development and sampling of a census card to be used for "population registration." (293) The fourth project would require $5000 for a eugenical survey of human resources for the state of Connecticut, (294) and the final project, which encompassed an institute of applied eugenics which Laughlin designated "[t]he Virginia Project," would cost $1000. (295) The remainder of Draper's initial $50,000 contribution was assigned to administrative costs of staff, printing, and travel. Detailed plans on each project were attached. Laughlin continued: "I am sure that if the possibilities of practical eugenics, which your foundation makes possible, are realized that great and lasting good will be accomplished in the most patriotic development of racial ideals and in their maintenance by the American people." (296)

Each of the projects involved work Laughlin had already initiated or investigated. Several projects mimicked similar programs underway in Germany. The "positive eugenics" program of loans to military officers paralleled fertility-increasing schemes enacted by Germany and were highlighted in the Eugenical News. (297)

The filmmaking proposal was related to German films on eugenics that had already caught Draper's attention. One film secured from contacts Clarence Campbell made during travel in Germany (298) was titled Erbkrank (The Hereditarily Defective). (299) Laughlin proposed that the film be renamed "`Applied Eugenics in Present Day Germany'" and be made available for loan. (300) He showed the film to child welfare workers in Connecticut, and Eugenical News advertised it as "prepared in Germany by German eugenicists." (301) He also promoted the film at the Annual Meeting of the Eugenics Research Association and at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. (302) Laughlin was encouraged in this audiovisual approach to eugenics instruction by the comments of California eugenicist C.M. Goethe, who declared that he had rarely seen "propaganda ... more convincing than the Nazi pictures of the imbecile, the moron compared with the flower of German youth." (303) Laughlin also knew from the earlier eugenics essay contests that Draper was interested in hereditary mental illness.

Laughlin prepared a flyer describing the film and mailed it to over three thousand high school biology teachers. (304) He described how Germany was "attacking her problems in applied eugenics." (305) Laughlin included a description of the contents of the film as well.
   The present subject is confined to the problem of hereditary degeneracy in
   the fields of feeble-mindedness, insanity, crime, hereditary disease and
   inborn deformity. As an introduction the film contrasts the squalid living
   conditions of normal children in certain German city slums with the finer
   and costly modern custodial institutions built for the care of handicapped
   persons produced by the socially inadequate and degenerate family-stocks of
   that country. The picture then shows specific types of human degeneracy
   accompanied by captions explaining the family history and descriptions of
   the near-kin of the particular subject-individual. (306)

Laughlin apprised Draper that he was "making continued use of the German film." (307)

Laughlin's proposal for a "census card" that would facilitate population registration by ethnic background was an outgrowth of collaboration with Madison Grant. Years before the Pioneer Fund's incorporation, Laughlin drafted a statement for the Galton Society entitled "Making the Federal Census of Greater Use in the Racial and Family Stock Development of the American People." (308) The census could be an efficient method for tracking "racial composition" in white people, and fractional measurements of "racial descent from particular European races." (309) It could provide a "permanent registry" of all Americans, and could bring together the Bureau of the Census and state agencies for vital statistics. (310) Laughlin knew that similar card catalogues were already in use in some states not only to track ethnicity in whites, but also as a basis for monitoring attempts at inter-racial marriage or social integration of the races in violation of "racial integrity "laws." (311)

The Connecticut Survey of Human Resources was next on Laughlin's agenda--as a project that had failed to secure funding from either state government or the Carnegie Institution. He looked to Draper to favor this research as a base for public policy to conserve "foundational racial stocks and superior family strains." (312)

The next item, Laughlin's plan to initiate a national institute of eugenics, was linked to his efforts to endow a center at the University of Virginia. His proposal to the Pioneer Fund reflected a long-term desire to both secure a more stable position for himself and gain financial independence for the Eugenics Record Office, which by 1936 was becoming more tenuous by the day. (313)

Laughlin received a copy of the Pioneer Fund Certificate of Incorporation from Draper's lawyer. In order to understand the language of this document, it is necessary to review the work of Laughlin and Madison Grant in their attempt to develop a formal, legal definition of "The American Race." This effort was carried out over a number of years, but was clearly one of the objectives of Grant's book, The Conquest of a Continent. The discussions that surrounded that book's publication are the key to the language of Pioneer's original charter.

B. The Conquest of a Continent and the Pioneer Charter

"Racial integrity" was an abiding concern for Grant. (314) He celebrated the Nordic man of conquest who lived on the frontier and thrived on "[h]eavy, healthful work in the fields." (315) In contrast to the puny Mediterranean types, the "Nordic blond ... needs exercise, meat, and air, and cannot live under Ghetto conditions." (316) Grant's first book included a detailed map of the "Expansion of the Teutonic Nordics and Slavic Alpines," showing the predominance of "Nordic blood" in the Anglo-Saxons of Great Britain. (317) It echoed Francis Galton, who placed Anglo-Saxons at the pinnacle of civilizations that could claim Nordic ancestry. (318)

Throughout the 1920s, Laughlin and Grant collaborated on immigration restriction laws that would prevent the further mixing of American Nordics with "inferior" Europeans. By the time of Grant's second book, the two were regular correspondents. In 1932, Grant turned to Laughlin for assistance in editing sections of the new book detailing what Grant perceived to be the Nordic conquest of America. (319) Laughlin suggested changes to soften Grant's contemptuous reference to Indian Hindus and disparaging comments about democracy among nonwhite populations. (320) Laughlin also critiqued Grant's speculation that "`the remainder of the Jews could be prevented from coming to the United States.'" (321) "This has a tinge of `Damn Jew' about it," Laughlin cautioned. (322) Laughlin added his own personal feelings in a confidential aside:
   Not for publication: Whether we like it or not, a Jew must be assimilated
   or deported. The deportation of four million Jews would be many times more
   difficult than the repatriation of three times as many Negroes. The Jew is
   doubtless here to stay and the Nordics' job is to prevent more of them from
   coming. (323)

Laughlin urged that the book should nevertheless denounce toleration of "alien stock who [promote their] own racial interests." (324) Laughlin suggested that the remedy for such attempts should be deportation of anyone who opposes efforts by "Old American stocks to promote fundamental American interests." (325)

Grant invited Laughlin to suggest a title for the book. Laughlin's choice was "The American Breed: The Differential Expansion of Races in America." (326) "The American Breed" was a favorite phrase Laughlin used to describe America's embattled Nordics. (327) Anticipating a speech to the Daughters of the American Revolution, Laughlin once said: "I shall be anxious to see how the members of this organization respond when anyone happens to stand up for the American breed of man." (328)

The book was ultimately published as The Conquest of a Continent: The Expansion of Races in America. The publisher summarized Grant's thesis as an analysis of "the racial origins of the settlers of the original colonies" (329) that proved that when America was founded "the white population was ninety-nine per cent Nordic." (330)

Laughlin drafted a promotional letter for distribution to every high school history teacher in the nation. (331) A letter sent to other potential readers captured the tone of Grant's book, making explicit the Nazi/American parallels:

   We have just published a provocative book for a day when national
   consciousness is awakening throughout the world--THE CONQUEST OF A
   CONTINENT, by Madison Grant.

   National problems today are, at bottom, race problems. Herr Hitler has
   stated that problem for Germany--and is working out his own solution. We in
   America have our own problem--but we do not seem to recognize its

   In this new book Mr. Grant explodes the "Melting Pot" fallacy with cold
   figures. He calls our attention to the fact that because we have always
   considered America the refuge of the oppressed, we have let ourselves in
   for grave difficulties. (332)

The pages of Grant's book provide a glossary for the terminology that made its way into the corporate charter of the Pioneer Fund. The thesis of The Conquest of a Continent is that America is a "Nordic" nation and the Nordics are a race of conquerors. Beginning in northern Europe and Scandinavia, Nordics invaded the British Isles. (333) They remained in eastern England and Northern Ireland, known as the Anglo-Saxons. Eventually tiring of the urbanization of Britain and seeking other lands to conquer, many Anglo-Saxons migrated to America. (334) By Grant's analysis, the population of colonial America was white in color, English in culture, and Nordic in bloodline. (335) "Nordic character," or racial fitness, contributed to the survival of the New Englanders "in a region where nature took a heavy toll of weaklings." (336) As a result, American "population and ... institutions remained overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon down to the time of the Civil War." (337)

To Grant, as to many of his contemporaries, the Anglo-Saxon was "the archetype of the most desirable branch of the Teutonic race." (338) The Nordics had overtaken America, just as they had the British Isles a millennium earlier. They forged a new nation, living out their destiny to inhabit the continent. Other branches of Saxons, such as the Scots of tidewater Virginia, also demonstrated "the characteristics of the ideal pioneer."(339) As a result of the importation of African slaves, combined with the "tumultuous and frantic invasion" by "Polish Jews" and other inferior immigrant groups from the decaying cities of Europe and Mexico, America had been transformed. (340)

Grant, echoing Laughlin's research, (341) asserted that most leaders of American government were still of the "old American stock"; leaders of science, education and the military were "still overwhelmingly Nordic." (342) Discussing the remaining "white men," who were "determined to maintain a white ownership of the country," Grant noted that the country was "swamped by French-Canadians and Polaks [sic]" along with southern and eastern European aliens who settled in the industrial centers of the Northeast. (343) In contrast, settlers of the American West were "determined" in the face of "swarm[s] [of] the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mexican[s] [and] the Filipino[s]." (344)

The salvation of the country rested on enforcement of the National Origins restrictions written into the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act. (345) "No one should be allowed to enter the United States ... except white men of superior intellectual capacity." (346) We should also "sympathize with the firm resolve of the handful of white men in South Africa ... to control and regulate the Negro population there," (347) as we sympathize with "[t]he struggle for the maintenance of the supremacy of the white man over the native" in other parts of the world. (348)

"[T]he Nordic race," Grant concluded, "has built up, protected, and preserved Western civilization" and must be ready to take the torch from a weakened Europe. (349) "The fundamental question for this nation ... is for the community itself to regulate births by depriving the unfit of the opportunity of leaving behind posterity of their own debased type." (350) Americans must "take all eugenic means to encourage the multiplication of desirable types and abate drastically the increase of the unfit and miscegenation by widely diverse races." (351)

Laughlin's review of Grant's book was published in Eugenical News. He praised the volume as "an epic in race biology" filled with the "heroic narrative" story of "selecting human seed-stock" to settle America. "[T]he death struggle with rival races" and the forces of Nature insured that "only the fittest races and the strongest pioneer stocks survived to reproduce their kind." In Grant's story of the peopling of the American frontier, "the part played by the Nordic stock constitutes the dominant theme," Laughlin declared. "It is up to us, the American people, now to decide whether by sound eugenical policy we shall strengthen our own racial stock and inborn family qualities," Laughlin concluded. (352)

In the year after The Conquest of a Continent appeared, Laughlin assisted Grant in writing a legal "definition of the American Race" that could be used in future immigration restriction law. (353) "The racial stock of the American people," he said, "is fundamentally the stock of northwestern Europe with small percentages of blood from other white races." (354) He decried the rise of industrialism and flood of cheap immigrant labor that polluted the originally pristine colonial Nordics. (355) He wistfully recalled "old times when an immigrant in America had in mind not wages but the building of a family in a pioneer frontier." (356) The early American's work ethic, initiative, and physical and moral worth had been tested. His characteristics were "the pioneer qualities." (357) Laughlin's definition incorporated "the standards in race, in physical stamina, in intellectual capacity and in the force of character which stamped the early American pioneers." (358) It would emphatically exclude the nonwhite, particularly the Jew.
   Grant replied enthusiastically: I have your letter of the 22nd with its
   extremely interesting enclosure. [On the definition of the American Race] I
   entirely agree with you, of course, that the use of the word "Caucasian" is
   better than that of "White." The Jews can and do claim that they are White,
   but they can hardly claim that they are "Caucasian," although, perhaps,
   they do claim it.

   We should say that all ancestors of true Americans should be born in the
   thirteen colonies or the territory east of the Mississippi prior to
   Independence.... As to race, the population was overwhelmingly Nordic.

Laughlin shared his notes defining "the American Race" with Wickliffe Draper, who ratified the need to define what it meant to be of "white Anglo-Saxon" descent. (360) "If the term `American Race' is to become common in popular usage," Laughlin wrote, "we need more precise facts and figures about the specific race-fractions within the boundaries of the original United States." (361) Facts about the "distribution of the population of the original United States at the beginning of independence" (362) would equip the eugenicists "to fight before Congress and the legislators," (363) and would be available "for text books [sic] and general educational and publicity purposes in defense of the ethnic character of the American race." (364)

Laughlin's last work on Grant's behalf was an attempt to secure an honorary degree from Yale for the aging author to recognize his historical research on "pioneer racial stocks of America." (365) Laughlin's obsession with the mythical Nordic conquerors of North America, the white "pioneers" who settled the original thirteen colonies, is memorialized in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Pioneer Fund, which lists its purposes as follows:
   A. To provide or aid in providing for the education of children of parents
   deemed to have such qualities and traits of character as to make such
   parents of unusual value as citizens, and, in the case of children of such
   parents whose means are inadequate therefor, to provide financial aid for
   the support, training, and start in life of such children.

   The children selected for such aid shall be children of parents who are
   citizens of the United States, and in selecting such children, unless the
   directors deem it inadvisable, consideration shall be especially given to
   children who are deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons
   who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the
   Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes
   of children the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended.

   Subject to the requirement that the Corporation shall be administered for
   strictly charitable objects, and in so far as it may be found practicable
   so to do, the foregoing purposes shall be carried out in such a manner as
   to give assurance to parents of the character described that their children
   shall not lack an adequate education or start in life and thus to encourage
   an increase in the number of children of such parents, and in so far as the
   qualities and traits of such parents are inherited, to aid in improving the
   character of the people of the United States.

   B. To conduct or aid in conducting study and research into the problems of
   heredity and eugenics in the human race generally and such study and such
   research in respect to animals and plants as may throw light upon heredity
   in man, and to conduct or aid in conducting research and study into the
   problems of race betterment with special reference to the people of the
   United States, and for the advance of knowledge and the dissemination of
   information with respect to any studies so made or in general with respect
   to heredity and eugenics. (366)

The document includes typical legal provisions concerning its charitable objectives. Its substantive purposes, however, reflect the eugenic ideology that characterized discussions among Laughlin, Draper, and Grant in their search for a workable definition of the "American Race." Their interest in creating a legal definition of race mirrored the efforts of the Nazis during the same period, particularly in the Nuremberg Laws, "for the Protection of German Blood." (367)

The language of "race" could be elusive. Laughlin believed the German notion of "race hygiene" was not incompatible with eugenics, since Francis Galton himself, founder of the Eugenics movement, "never intended to bar discussions on racial differences from Eugenics." (368) Laughlin sometimes used the term "race" as a designation for the conventional classifications of "Caucasian," "Negro," "etc." (369) But "The American Race," "American stock," and "American Breed" are phrases that appear repeatedly in Laughlin's work as code names for ethnicity. Laughlin's writing about the "American Race" focused on the various "ethnic stocks" who settled in the United States. Limiting the definition of "true Americans" to people born in the original thirteen colonies prior to American independence would have the effect of including primarily "Nordic" peoples and excluding southern Europeans, Jews, Asians, and Africans. This "biological standard" would assist when laws were written to exclude those who were not part of the "American Race" or in any other public policy initiatives that aimed for "racial improvement." (370)

The incorporation papers focused on two activities. The first purpose was to subsidize the upbringing and education of children. (371) The potential beneficiaries of this aid were to be children of parents whose character traits reflected their "unusual value as citizens." (372) The candidates for Pioneer Fund support had to be chosen from people "descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks." (373) The object of this aid was "to encourage an increase in the number of children of such parents" (374) and, consequently, to improve the character of United States citizens by the proliferation of positive "qualities and traits" passed down from earlier generations. (375) Providing an incentive to increase births of white, "true Americans" was the first corporate project of the Pioneer Fund.

The second enumerated purpose included research and publicity to fortify the assumptions upon which the definition of the "American Race" was based. (376) "Study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics ... and ... problems of race betterment" (377) were to be focal points for Pioneer subsidies. "[D]issemination of information" concerning Pioneer funded studies was also sanctioned as a corporate objective. (378)

Laughlin's hand in writing the Pioneer Fund's mission statement is obvious and his contribution is inescapable. His goals for eugenic study are captured in language borrowed directly from the proposals he sent to Draper. They echo the major themes of Madison Grant's The Conquest of a Continent. The attempt to define the "American Race" also figures prominently in the incorporation document. An increase in "eugenic births," the funding of eugenic research and the dissemination of research findings were all long-term objectives of all of Laughlin's work. The Pioneer Fund began as a reflection of the long-term aspirations of Laughlin and Draper to formalize a white supremacist agenda as the goal of eugenical science.

C. Setting the Pioneer Agenda

The Board of Directors of the Pioneer Fund met for the first time on March 22, 1937. Draper's lawyer, Malcolm Donald, was named as Treasurer for the Fund. Laughlin joined Draper as a Board member and the Fund's first President. Frederick Osborn of the Eugenics Research Association was elected Secretary. (379)

Frederick Osborn was a nephew of Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History and a longtime ally of Charles Davenport and Madison Grant. (380) Laughlin had eulogized the elder Osborn as a eugenical "pioneer," and named him, with Davenport and Grant, as part of the "triumvirate of great leaders" responsible for establishing eugenics as "the science of breed-improvement" in America. (381)

Though he was an active participant in eugenical organizations, Frederick Osborn's views diverged dramatically from those of his uncle. The younger Osborn's aspirations for American eugenics also sharply contrasted with Laughlin's plans. Frederick Osborn characterized the racist and anti-Semitic sentiments of Laughlin, Charles Davenport, and Madison Grant, as "propagandist eugenics." (382) Despite his distance from Laughlin and his ilk, and like most of his colleagues in the American Eugenics Society in the 1930s, Osborn did not hesitate to endorse compulsory eugenic sterilization of the mentally ill or restrictions on immigration, (383) and to voice caution against miscegenation. (384)

The final Pioneer board member was John Marshall Harlan. Harlan began law practice as a member of the New York firm of Root, Clark, Buckner, and Howland. (385) The grandson of an earlier Supreme Court Justice, Harlan gained public notoriety in a trial where he successfully refuted private claims to a $40 million estate that had been left to a charity. (386) The Pioneer founders probably asked Harlan to work with them because of the expertise he had developed in practice representing non-profit organizations. (387) Harlan served as a Pioneer Fund board member from the inception of the Fund in 1937 until 1954, when he was nominated to be a federal appellate court judge. (388) He was named Justice of the United States Supreme Court the following year.

Several of Laughlin's long-term projects were discussed at the Board meeting as possible undertakings for the Fund to promote. Apparently, Draper was less interested in those projects than in exploring a program of grants to encourage high fertility by junior flying officers in the Army Air Corps who were possessed of "especially superior heredity." (389) Laughlin and Osborn were appointed to a committee to conduct a feasibility study and develop a financial aid plan for the Flying Corps officers. The proposed study provided that specific attention would be given to "the qualities and traits" of officers and their wives in an attempt to correlate the effect of financial subsidies with the tendency to have more children. (390)

Choosing pilots as the focal point of Pioneer's first eugenic experiment was consistent with both eugenical theory and popular culture. Between the World Wars, books and films in both the United States and Germany accorded special prestige to the Air Force fighter pilot as a master of conquest, regarded most highly among the military services. (391) The image of the aviator as a "lone eagle" possessed of the right stuff was also aided by the example of Charles Lindbergh, the most famous celebrity of the 1920s and another eugenics enthusiast. (392) Just five years after Lindbergh's triumphant solo flight across the Atlantic, Charles Davenport invoked the image of the aviator as the model of eugenic superiority. (393) In his Presidential address at the Third International Congress of Eugenics in 1932, Davenport contrasted the emotions one might feel at the death of the eugenically worthy aviator to the feelings triggered by the death of the eugenically unworthy. "One may even view with satisfaction the high death rate in an institution for low grade feeble-minded," Davenport commented, "while one regards as a national disaster the loss of a bold and successful aviator." (394)

Laughlin and Draper shared Davenport's interest in aviators as prime eugenical specimens. (395) They also shared Davenport's disgust at the "feeble-minded" and "socially inadequate" who crowded America's charitable institutions. A second project approved at the first Pioneer meeting confirms this consensus. After agreement was reached on the Air Corp study, Laughlin urged more "eugenical education by new American-made motion pictures." (396) Laughlin wished to follow the distribution of the Nazi eugenics film, with its dramatization of the social costs of institutions for the "mental deficient," with an American version. The board added the film as another item for a feasibility study, requesting a report on "the cost and advisability of preparing a film on the problems of social inadequacy." (397)

Following the meeting, Osborn quickly established himself as the point of contact for the Air Force study. The preliminary choice to direct it was psychologist John C. Flanagan. Osborn solicited the support of the other Pioneer directors to insure that Flanagan would be given "a free hand in the technical aspects of his work." (398)

Osborn, who later was commissioned as a general during World War II, used personal contacts to lobby senior military officials and the Secretary of War. He requested access to the would-be study subjects and their records. (399) In Washington, Osborn learned that the Air Force had "very considerable records" on its personnel, "including previous training, parentage, race, religion, age at marriage, [and] number of children from year to year." (400) Each officer also had "a personal and confidential efficiency record" that would be available to the researchers. Osborn directed Flanagan to develop a detailed plan for the Pioneer Fund Board. (401)

Flanagan's plan was ambitious. He began his proposal with a summary of the purpose of the Pioneer Fund: "My understanding is that the fundamental purpose for which the Pioneer Fund was created is the improvement of the human race. The general method chosen to further this end is to secure an increase in the birth rate among superior groups." (402) The study of Air Force families was to serve as a model for understanding "suitable methods" for increasing the birth rate among such groups. (403) But Flanagan thought that a simple correlation study that tracked the income of aviators and the size of their families would be worthless. "[I]t is essential," he wrote, "to know more about the factors which determine [the] size of [the] family." (404) Factors that might be pertinent could include "religion, contraceptive information, physical condition, environment, personality traits, temperament, attitudes, ambitions, and desires." (405) It would also be necessary, rather than just presuming that aviators represent a superior group, to actually evaluate them against the "general population." (406)

Flanagan drafted a budget that would require $24,400 to outfit a fully equipped office in Washington D.C. (407) Funds were also earmarked for an advisory committee composed of a psychologist, a physician, a sociologist, a statistician, an economist and a psychiatrist. (408) The proposal was distributed to the Pioneer directors for discussion at their next meeting.

Osborn was aware that Laughlin was interested in pursuing data collection and analysis himself, a point Laughlin made obvious by objecting to moving too quickly with Flanagan's plan. (409) Osborn, however, was uncomfortable allowing Laughlin too much discretion, and he was suspicious of Laughlin's competence to manage the technical details of the study. Osborn urged Laughlin to make the most of the "great opportunity to make [the] Fund a success, with a corresponding contribution to Eugenics." (410) Playing on Laughlin's ego, Osborn warned him of the danger, as the Fund's President, of abandoning his role as a "general" in favor of "wanting himself to drive one of the tanks in the attack." (411) Osborn argued that there were plenty of "specialized mechanics" such as Flanagan, "a psychologist, trained ... when the new psychological weapons were developed." (412)

Osborn emphasized other activities for organized eugenics and the role Laughlin might expect if fundraising for the Eugenics Record Office were successful. "It is the same thing in view of the activities of the [Eugenics] Record Office in which I am so much interested. If we can get you the backing so that you can have a real staff to direct, you can win some real battles." (413) But usurping the role of the specialists would subject "generals" like Laughlin to the mockery of others, both in the aviator's study and at the Eugenics Record Office, and lead to failure of the larger enterprise. "Few others understand the greatness of the cause in which we are enlisted," concluded Osborn. (414) "Do let us work together to do it well." (415) Osborn appended a postscript clearly designed to flatter Laughlin: "Personally I think you should be paid for your supervision [and] responsibility as President, [and] would like to talk to you about this." (416)

Laughlin was absent from the second Pioneer Fund Board meeting "owing to illness." (417) This period of Laughlin's life was marked by ill health, not the least part of which consisted of epileptic seizures of escalating frequency. At one point, Laughlin had a seizure as he drove down the main street of Cold Spring Harbor and avoided plunging into the ocean only by crashing into a retaining wall. (418) Osborn, Draper, and Donald wrote to Laughlin following the Board meeting, each somewhat laboriously repeating how much effort had been made to contact him and apologizing for not being able to include him in meeting. (419)

By the time of the meeting on April 28, 1938, a lengthy report on Flanagan's work was available for board consideration. The report explained that in addition to the staff that had been assembled earlier, the services of a flight surgeon on duty in the Army Air Corps were made available at no cost to assist with the study. (420) Staff members visited sixteen different military installations around the country in three months, interviewing approximately 425 officers and 320 of their wives. His tentative conclusions included relationships between religious values, attitudes toward family size and a host of other factors that influenced actual number of children born. (421) Each interviewee was quizzed on his "Race-descent" and asked to list "four principal racial stocks with portions or approximate portions of blood from each." (422) Among the reasons for limiting the number of their children, factors such as "Low fertility," "Ill health," and "Low quality of children already produced" were assessed. (423) The study population appeared not to be reproducing itself, with an average number of children running fewer than two per family. (424) But the report was equivocal concerning a close correlation between family size and income, finding the factors leading to small families "exceedingly varied and complex." (425)

Flanagan's final report summarized the data from the aviator's study, complete with tables and charts. He submitted a statement of expenses and a request for an additional appropriation to complete the study and have it published. He concluded his report with a suggestion for further activity in the form of a scholarship fund for additional children in the military families who had been studied. (426)

Osborn admitted that he "was considerably perplexed" about the Flanagan report's significance to the Pioneer Fund. The finding, that officers with larger incomes have larger families, ran "contrary to the usual idea that the larger the income the smaller the family." (427) Flanagan proposed a scholarship fund as a practical way of addressing anecdotal reports from the survey suggesting that concern over the cost of educating children was a major factor influencing army officers to limit family size. Osborn was in favor of proceeding with such an experiment, if a plan satisfactory to the Air Corps could be developed. The plan must "appear solely an effort to relieve a burden of expense ... of officers who already have three children, rather than a proposal to stimulate their birth rate." (428)

Attorney Donald was noncommittal as to whether the plan should be approved. He reminded Osborn that Draper had appeared willing to contribute as much as $130,000 for the project. (429) Harlan's response deferred to Osborn's expertise. He promised to study the scholarship proposal but conceded "that the `lay' members of the Board [would] necessarily have to be guided very largely" by advice from Osborn and Flanagan. (430) He viewed a "practical experiment" as the "logical next step" while admitting that it was difficult "to visualize the project in practical operation." (431)

Before the next meeting, Laughlin brought Draper up to date on the success of "Eugenics in Germany," the Nazi film that had been distributed for viewing by high-school students. In the future, declared Laughlin, "[w]hen education is expected to result in practical long-time race betterment, the moving picture in the school offers a profitable medium for presenting facts." (432) Draper replied that it was "gratifying" that the Nazi eugenics film was "proving so valuable." (433) The next Pioneer Board meeting approved Laughlin's proposal for the development and distribution of another eugenical film. Laughlin continued to distribute the German film until he left the Eugenics Record Office in 1940. (434)

The Board also approved a resolution to proceed with a project to increase the birth rate among Army Air Corps officers. The Fund would provide scholarships to all applicants who had already had three children and who would have one additional child during calendar year 1940. A fully paid-up annuity would be issued by the Pioneer Fund as an "outright gift." (435) Four thousand dollars would be paid toward "maintenance and educational expenses" in installments of five hundred dollars per year for eight years, from the child's fourteenth year until age twenty-one. (436)

By the program's end, eleven grants had been made to nine Air Force families that qualified for the program. The cost to the Pioneer Fund was almost $30,000, with an ultimate benefit to the recipients of $44,000. (437) Flanagan's final report of the Scholarship project compared the twelve children born in 1940 within aviator's families who already had three or more children, to the average of four or five children who were born in similar families in previous years. He estimated the statistical likelihood as "less than 1 in 100" that the higher birth rate for 1940 would have occurred in the absence of a factor such as the scholarship fund. (438) The number of births was nonetheless low, in light of earlier projections of approximately forty births. (439)

Flanagan cited two reasons for the lower number. First, the World War "introduced a larger factor of uncertainty" than was normal in the lives of officers. (440) In addition, a higher number of wives of officers had expressed an interest in having another child than were physiologically able to do so during the one-year experimental period. (441) Pioneer's first foray into "positive eugenics" raised serious questions about the feasibility of reproductive engineering.

D. Pioneer After Laughlin

Madison Grant died in 1937. Within only three years, Laughlin was publicly challenged for his bigotry, and forced to resign from a discredited Eugenics Record Office. (442) Laughlin died in 1943; Davenport followed him the next year. (443) But Draper's fixation on race as a key feature of heredity did not abate following the deaths of his colleagues Grant and Laughlin. In 1947, Draper wrote to Dr. Milislav Demerec, Director of the Carnegie Institution Department of Genetics at Cold Spring Harbor, and noted how during the 1920s he had assisted Charles Davenport, Demerec's predecessor, with the publication of Race Crossing in Jamaica. Draper suggested that he was "considering further contributions" in this vein. (444) Demerec eventually suggested that Draper fund a series of traveling scholarships to the 1948 International Congress of Genetics in Stockholm for deserving young scholars. (445) When Draper called to inquire whether his own "point of view [would] be adequately represented" (446) at the genetics meeting Demerec demurred, noting that "American geneticists actively participating in research on human heredity are not involved in race studies." (447)

The following year, Demerec heard from Sheldon Reed, Director of the Dight Institute for the Promotion of Human Genetics at the University of Minnesota. The Dight Institute had received the records of the Eugenics Records Office following Charles Davenport's death and the demise of the ERO. Reed enclosed his biennial report for Demerec, which included an account of a meeting with Draper in an attempt to raise funds for genetic research. Draper offered to give $100,000 to begin "a human genetics project" with the bulk of his approximately $6 million estate to be left to complete the work at his death. (448) But Reed concluded that the money would not likely become available to the Dight because "Colonel Draper has very definite ideas as to what the subject of human genetics encompasses." (449) To Draper, genetics meant the "improvement of the American people by shipping the Negro inhabitants back to Africa." (450) As a postscript to his letter to Demerec, Reed wrote: "This biennial report is not for general circulation. My remark about Colonel Draper is not flattering, but I think you will agree that it is generally correct." (451)

Most historians of eugenics have concluded that the racialist wing of the eugenics movement represented by Laughlin and Grant ended with World War II, when the specious science that led to Nazi atrocities made both the message and the vocabulary of eugenics unacceptable. But eugenics lived on in a variety of forms. Many scientists who had embraced the need to study genetics as a basis for eugenics continued their work without reference to earlier alliances. (452) When Frederick Osborn took over the Eugenical News in 1939, the magazine's subtitle (Current Record of Human Genetics and Race Hygiene) disappeared. It began for the first time to criticize the German program of "racial hygiene," (453) though it continued to publish reports on German eugenicists--some of them former Nazis--who had survived the War. (454)

Privately, Frederick Osborn was dismissive of the direction Laughlin's work at the ERO had taken, and described it as "thoroughly unscientific." (455) After Laughlin's retirement and the closing of the Eugenics Record Office, Osborn rejected back issues of the Eugenical News for the files of the Eugenics Research Association. He then criticized Laughlin and Madison Grant for the material on race and "social-class differences" that had appeared in the Eugenical News, complaining that such work had "injured the scientific standing" and "set back the scientific acceptance of eugenics" in America. (456) Osborn's private attitude concerning the Eugenical News contradicted the delight he expressed when Laughlin promised to print an Osborn article therein. (457) His disparagement of Laughlin also stands in marked contrast to his disingenuous flattery of Laughlin as one of the "generals" of eugenics, and his decades of deference to Draper, whose brand of eugenics closely matched Laughlin's.

Although Osborn's differences with Draper surfaced regularly, his desire to maintain Draper's financial support mitigated against a complete break with him. For example, writing to the business manager of the Eugenics Quarterly in 1954, Osborn voiced his unease at Draper's pressure to publish a tract entitled "The Eugenic Credo." (458) The Credo denied that "all men are equal and all races are the same;" (459) it opposed racial miscegenation, saying that a "single mixed race would endanger further evolution." (460) The Credo encouraged large families among the "above ... average" and discouraged children for the rest. (461) Though admitting he would like to publish the Credo to placate Draper, Osborn described his own fears that it would "raise[] the ghosts of the old racial and social class bias[] for which the eugenics society was damned in the past." (462) He also questioned whether it represented "good genetics." (463)

In 1951, Draper made a gift to the American Eugenics Society (AES) to subsidize the Eugenics Quarterly. (464) Osborn apologized to Draper for the disappointing results of Pioneer grants to the AES, but credited Draper's personal gift with increasing the magazine's circulation from two hundred to six hundred subscriptions. (465) In 1954, Osborn again found himself in the position of asking Draper for money to subsidize activities of the American Eugenics Society. Osborn's recollection of Draper's response showed how much the men differed in their aspirations for the eugenics movement.

Osborn indicated that Draper had made an ultimatum making continued funding of the organization contingent upon the Society taking a public position in favor of establishing racial homogeneity in America and other policy measures Draper favored. If the Society decided to take the position Draper favored, he would guarantee funds for five more years. Facing a dilemma because he felt Draper's views lacked scientific basis, (466) Osborn rejected Draper's conditions, saying the Society would look for funds elsewhere. (467) Several years later, Osborn's formal involvement with Draper ended when Osborn resigned from the Pioneer Fund board. His letter of resignation was cordial, assuring Draper that "[w]e both feel deeply the need for improving the genetic potential of our people. We differ only as to the means." (468) Contrasting himself to Draper, Osborn summarized his position as being based in "cautious and conservative development based on the gradual advance of science." (469)

Osborn's pandering to Draper for support was mirrored in his fawning attempts to develop Charles Lindbergh as a regular contributor to the cause of eugenics. Even as he was disputing Draper's methods, Osborn was promising to introduce him to Lindbergh, a man who had also voiced his concerns about the destruction of the "White race" through its "dilution by foreign races." (470) On one hand, Osborn clearly found the overt "Nordicism" and anti-Semitism of Laughlin, Grant, and Draper unacceptable, yet he maintained close contacts with each of them. (471) His shift of the movement away from the coercive strategies and racial obsession of the Eugenics Record Office distinguishes him from Laughlin, Grant, and Draper.

Osborn, however, did not abandon "negative eugenics." He was concerned that the "national intelligence" was declining, and urged attention to "changes in social attitudes and economic relationships" to raise "the national average in character and intelligence." (472) The provisions he outlined for "Restriction of Undesirable Births" included "mobilizing public opinion to demand" fewer children from families who could not provide "good conditions of health, education, and home environment." (473) The program also included exhortations to hospital boards, welfare organizations, and charity groups "to demand that the doctors, nurses, and case workers" be allowed to provide "contraceptive services" where they judged home conditions "unsuitable for the rearing of children." (474) This desire to sort the "eugenically fit" from those considered inherently "unfit" for reproduction would characterize Osborn's later efforts in family planning, world population problems, and birth control. (475)

Perhaps, as Daniel Kevles argues, Osborn was a "reform" eugenicist. (476) Such an assessment does not, however, explain sentiments such as the excitement Osborn expressed over the Nazi sterilization program. Osborn, in the same year the Pioneer Fund was initiated, praised it as "`the most important social experiment ... ever tried."' (477) Osborn's deliberate down-playing of the human tragedies arising from Nazi "population policies," and his positive judgment of Wilhelm Frick's role in them, (478) suggests a need for further scrutiny of his "reform" stance. While Osborn's brand of eugenics eschewed both totalitarian ideology (479) and overt racism, (480) his regular commerce with the most malignant of old-line eugenicists and his seeming embrace of government coercion as a legitimate means to effect eugenic goals leave him, at best, an ambiguous figure in the history of eugenics. (481) It is difficult to judge what Osborn's role may have been for the twenty years he sat on the Pioneer Board, absent further documentation.

John Marshall Harlan left Pioneer in 1954, when he was appointed to a federal judgeship. His role in the Pioneer story is still unclear. Perhaps he was merely acting as a legal functionary, sitting on the Pioneer Board without regard to the Nazi sympathies and the clearly racist agenda of some of its members. Although a full assessment of his involvement with Pioneer remains for future scholarship, a survey of Harlan's career as a Supreme Court Justice provides little or no support for the proposition that he concurred in their attitudes.

Wickliffe Draper lived until 1972, remaining on the Pioneer Fund's Board for thirty-five years, insuring continued support for his eugenic goals. He and other Pioneer Fund Board members supported the overturn of the integration case of Brown v. Board of Education (482) in the 1960s. As late as 1978, Pioneer funded "[b]lood [g]roup[]" studies that paralleled Nazi research to prove physiological differences among the races; (483) Pioneer underwrote programs concerning "Research in Heredity and Eugenics" (484) and studies of "American Anglo-Saxon school children" (485) at a number of universities and institutions throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Just as Laughlin's legacy survived in America's immigration, sterilization, and "racial integrity" laws, Draper's endowment of the Pioneer Fund insured that the aims of this most pernicious brand of eugenics would be advanced by sympathetic studies and an ongoing mechanism to disseminate eugenic propaganda.


Sixty-five years after its founding, the Pioneer Fund remains true to its mission. The language of its charter echoes in the research it has supported, (486) reflecting interests shared both by Laughlin, its conceptual father, and Draper, its founding patron. Grants for work in "heredity and eugenics" have been a constant feature of the Fund's agenda; so too a concentration on topics that would shed light on the concept of "race betterment" as that term was used by Laughlin, Draper, and the Nazis whose aspirations they shared. Regular Pioneer grants support studies on "race," not as a generic term to describe the "human race" but as a synonym for ethnicity and/or distinctions among the groups historically described as "races." Studies concerning "problems in immigration" also attract Pioneer funding, just as Draper had supported the Immigration Restriction League and Harry Laughlin had worked to exclude all but "true American stock" from migrating. Pioneer grants in the 1990s have provided lavish subsidies for political initiatives in favor of immigration restriction.

The material described in this article demonstrates that the Pioneer Fund began as the vehicle to carry forth a eugenic vision that had its roots in the dreams of Harry Laughlin and Wickliffe Draper for a legally regulated "American Race." Recent tax filings reveal what the Fund's press releases seek to deny.

The Pioneer Fund of Laughlin's era is tied to the Fund today both by the topics it supports and the methods it uses. Its topical focus reflects Draper's funding priorities from as far back as the 1920s, when the Draper prize essays highlighted race differences and were used to support policies to enforce racial separation. Today, the Fund still subsidizes studies that focus on racial differences, and it underwrites policy initiatives such as restricting immigration for non-whites. The Fund buys and distributes books and articles that support arguments for white genetic and intellectual superiority, just as Draper supported distribution of books like Cox's White America. This technique allows the Fund to pursue an "educational" mission in a cost-effective manner. It acts as a clearing house and publicity arm for chosen authors whose positions on Anglo-Saxon preeminence and black inferiority very often match the positions of its founders and the implicit language of its charter.

Dramatic examples of the Pioneer Fund's continuing support of publications that echo themes of white superiority and hereditary racial defect are found in books printed with Pioneer grant funding during the 1990s and on through the present. America's Bimodal Crisis: Black Intelligence in White Society by Stanley Burnham was originally published in 1985 and reprinted in 1993 by the Foundation for Human Understanding in Athens, Georgia. (487) That organization received more than $150,000 of Pioneer support between 1979 and 1992 to underwrite the printing and distribution of books such as Testing of Negro Intelligence. (488)

The thesis of Bimodal Crisis is that America's "racial crisis is intractable and cannot be `solved."' (489) Its roots are "ultimately genetic, not environmental," thus not subject to improvement by social programs or governmental spending. (490) Burnham repeats a taxonomy of "different races" of the United States that includes Jews, Orientals, Caucasians, Mexicans and Indians, and blacks as distinct genetic groups. (491) He cites studies of differential blood typing by "race," and smaller brain size for "Negroe[s]" in comparison to Europeans of "Mediterranean and Scandinavian stock." (492) Burnham applauds the colonizing of Africa as an occasion for a reduction in slavery and cannibalism, and a simultaneous increase in education and social order. (493) He asserts that decolonization and independence of African states has led to a "retrogressive trend" toward violent authoritarian regimes that are rooted in the natural "ignorance and irresponsibility of the African mind." (494) Social problems among blacks in other parts of the world are similarly located in "genetic deficiencies that they cannot remedy." (495)

Burnham's solutions are reminiscent of the eugenicists' rhetoric of the 1930s. Burnham argued that blacks with low test scores should be steered into jobs with few intellectual demands such as jobs that demanded more physical abilities than intellectual abilities. (496) The "dysgenic catastrophe" (497) of the falling white birthrate should be addressed by measures such as a providing a "generous cash award" for welfare mothers who agree to be sexually sterilized. (498) A "misplaced commitment to religious ideals" that stands in the way of abortion or sterilization, says Burnham, promotes the birth of "pimps and prostitutes, muggers, burglars, and welfare mothers" whose goal is to bring "our entire culture ... to its knees." (499)

Pioneer grants supported a second recent book in this genre, written by J. Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian psychologist. Rushton was an important source of the "data" upon which The Bell Curve's conclusions are founded. (500) Rushton is cited extensively by the authors of The Bell Curve, who describe him somewhat defensively as not "a crackpot or a bigot, as many of his critics are given to charging." (501) Rushton's book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, was published in 1995. In its early pages he thanks Harry Weyher, Pioneer President, for his "unwavering support." (502)

Rushton grounds his look at racial differences in a theory that locates Africa as the home of early man. The human population dispersed from there some 110,000 years ago, with those who left Africa creating a new line of humans. Seventy thousand years later, there was a split between those who settled in Europe and others, who moved to Asia. Rushton believes that animals that emerged later in history must be more evolved, as evidenced by larger brains and more developed cultures. The later a group became differentiated from its African ancestry, the more evolved the "race" it became. Thus, under-evolved "Negroids," according to Rushton, have smaller brains and lower IQ's than "Caucasoids" or "Mongoloids." (503)

Rushton proposes a second theory to explain what he asserts are other racial differences. Groups leaving Africa for the colder climates of Europe and Asia encountered harsh climates that thinned the ranks of the less hardy. People who settled in the cold north were selected by evolution to survive if they followed a strategy of having fewer children, and invested more time and effort in their care and nurture. Freed from any concern about protection from the elements, those from hotter climates could have large broods and be less involved in child rearing. (504) "[I]ntelligence, forward planning, sexual and personal restraint" characterize the non-Africans; (505) smaller brains, larger genitals, sexual license, lesser parenting skills, and lower IQ's are common, in Rushton's view, among Africans. (506) Rushton asserts that all these "racial" differences are genetic, transmitted down the generations as a function of heredity. (507) Rushton dredges up nineteenth century measures of cranial capacity and the size of black male genitals as concrete evidence of black inferiority. (508) His book is only the most recent example of old fashioned white supremacy masquerading in the guise of science. For those who believe that Rushton's--and The Pioneer Fund's--true motive is dispassionate inquiry, the best evidence to the contrary is one of Pioneer's most recent grants. Rushton printed approximately 90,000 copies of a fifty-page abridged version of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, omitting almost all the statistical data. (509) Left are the most virulent assertions of racial differences between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids," assertions no longer clothed in statistical trappings. Copies of the booklet were mailed to some 30,000 psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists in North America and Europe. According to Rushton, the Pioneer Fund paid for both the printing and distribution of his new mini-edition. (510)

Three books published by Pioneer grantee Richard Lynn convey the tone of recent Pioneer research projects, providing up-to-date reminders of the continuity within the Pioneer portfolio of an old-line eugenics agenda. Lynn is described in his 1996 volume, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, as a graduate in psychology from the University of Cambridge and Director of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, Coleraine, Northern Ireland. (511) In this 1996 volume, Lynn acknowledges the role of Pioneer President Harry Weyher for "his encouragement and financial support." (512) He repeats the well-worn refrain of 1920s eugenicists that the genetic legacy of world populations is deteriorating. The new twist on the argument is the claim that natural selection in the Darwinian scheme of evolution was not only interrupted by the charitable works of modern society, but in fact was arrested by events in the post-industrial world such as the control of infectious diseases and infant mortality. (513) Lynn's nostalgia for a world where the "unfit" were eliminated by the vicissitudes of nature is revealed in his analysis of the problem of illegitimate births. "Thus, in historical societies," he declares, "illegitimate children, born predominantly to parents with low intelligence and weak character, suffered high mortality." (514) This "cruel world" had the saving grace of insuring that the supposed "genes" for those traits were "expelled from the gene pool." (515) In contrast, until the mid-nineteenth century, the "operation of positive natural selection" ensured genes that guaranteed the "reproductive fitness of the leaders and of the upper and middle classes." (516) Lynn clings to the class-based elitism that characterized the eugenic vision of his hero Galton and his forebears Harry Laughlin and Wickliffe Draper.

Lynn also adheres to the old eugenics of crude IQ testing from the 1920s, quoting Lewis Terman: "`The children of successful and cultivated parents test higher than children from wretched and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their heredity is better."' (517) Lynn agrees, concluding his own comments on hereditary intelligence: "The eugenicists believed that the social classes have become to some degree genetically differentiated with regard to intelligence. In this chapter we have seen that they were right." (518) Continuing his applause of the prescience of early eugenicists, Lynn explicitly reasserts their claims linking high fertility and hereditary "poor character" to an increase of lawlessness perpetrated by the "criminal class." (519) Modern "research evidence" he says, has shown the accuracy of early eugenic prophecies. (520)

Lynn's two works published in 2001 resound with echoes of classic eugenic arguments. In Eugenics: A Reassessment, he links the new eugenics of The Bell Curve with the old eugenics of the Eugenics Record Office, concluding that "all of Herrnstein and Murray's conclusions [in The Bell Curve] are essentially correct." (521) To those who would dismiss the claims of the eugenicists as "pseudoscience" or "false science," Lynn says: "this assertion is incorrect." (522) In an attempt to disassociate eugenics from the Nazi Holocaust, Lynn notes that "eugenics does not require the extermination of undesirables. It is sufficient for eugenics that the mentally retarded and recidivist criminals should be sterilized." (523) And contrary to mountains of evidence linking the biological theories of the Third Reich with Hitler's plans for a final solution, Lynn asserts that "eugenic considerations did not play any significant role in the Nazi program for the extermination of the Jews." (524)

Lynn's most thoroughgoing apologia for his patrons is a lengthy set of bio-sketches of past directors of the Pioneer Fund and recipients of Pioneer grants in his most recent book, The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. (525) Despite its title, this volume reveals almost nothing about the inner workings of the Pioneer Fund or about the details of its origin. There is no mention of Clarence Campbell, who introduced Draper to Nazi Wilhelm Frick, nor a single reference to Madison Grant. This is a sanitized account, in which details that connect Draper, Laughlin, the Eugenics Record Office, and the Nazis--revealed in this paper or in earlier scholarship by Stefan Kuhl and others--do not penetrate the surface. (526) Despite Lynn's use of the Harry Laughlin collection at the Truman State University Archives, Laughlin's role in naming Pioneer and his ideas for starting the Fund are not presented, and Lynn makes no reference to the extensive material on Pioneer in Laughlin's collected papers. Nor does he refer to the records of the Eugenics Record Office and the Pioneer Fund at the American Philosophical Society or to related material at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory archives.

The book begins with a memoir by Harry Weyher, entitled My Years with the Pioneer Fund. (527) Throughout the memoir, Weyher details his own entry into the inner circle of American eugenics and his career as consigliere to Wickliffe Draper, the philanthropic godfather of the field. (528) He describes Draper's personal demeanor as "distinguished or aristocratic, tending toward the chivalrous." (529) Disputing media accounts of Draper's fixation with race and his sixty-year record of support for racial propaganda, Weyher claims that "[r]acial differences might not have been high among Draper's areas of interest except that the political and social developments of the 1950s and 1960s made the issue salient." (530) Contrary to the historical record detailed in this article concerning Draper's desire to fund only research that would advance his own eugenic agenda, Weyher portrays Draper as scrupulously uninvolved with individual investigators. Draper avoided contact with scientists, Weyher says, in order "to avoid the appearance of trying to influence the scientist." (531) In general, there is no history of the Fund here, but a fawning tribute to Draper and those who have been supported by his patronage.

Lynn follows the Weyher memento with descriptions of the Directors of the Pioneer Fund since its inception, (532) designed to highlight their public accomplishments. He omits all reference to disagreements among the directors, such as the break between Osborn and Draper detailed above. He goes out of his way to praise Harry Laughlin, generally considered among the most racist and anti-Semitic of early twentieth-century eugenicists. Perhaps the height of Lynn's boldness is an attempt to legitimize the commonly discredited case of Buck v. Bell, (533) in which Laughlin played such a critical role in winning Supreme Court endorsement for the practice of eugenical sterilization of the "feeble-minded." (534) Taking exception to Stephen Jay Gould's assessment of the Buck case, (535) Lynn comments that "[s]ome accounts question whether Carrie Buck was mentally retarded." (536) Lynn disregards the historical record of Buck v. Bell, (537) and points to it as a good example of the workings of the politics of eugenics, even going so far as to rely on the "IQ tests" performed by 1920s eugenic enthusiasts to prove Buck's "feeble-mindedness." (538)

In general, Lynn points to positive reviews of Pioneer-funded books, like Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior or works such as The Bell Curve, "which made extensive reference to Pioneer-funded research" as evidence "that the intellectual tide has started to turn" back in favor of eugenics. (539)

Burnham's, Rushton's, and Lynn's books are turn-of-the-millennium examples of the message the Pioneer Fund continues to subsidize. As noted earlier, the Pioneer Fund also provided financing for the work of many researchers favorably noted in The Bell Curve. It is small surprise, then, that The Bell Curve characterizes Harry Laughlin's work as the innocent thoughts of "a biologist who was especially concerned about keeping up the American level of intelligence by suitable immigration policies." (540) The Bell Curve's insistence on the futility of social welfare programs is consistent with passages from the Eugenical News decades ago. Then, Laughlin's journal dismissed the value of equal education, (541) as well as health service expenditures for non-whites, (542) and promulgated Wilhelm Frick's opinion that the impulse of public charity was at odds with hereditary fitness. (543) Thus, the most malignant brand of eugenics survives, hidden behind a disingenuous veil of statistics, masked as innocent science in the pages of The Bell Curve.

The Bell Curve argues that our biological legacy is deteriorating. It employs the language of genetic determinism that was popular during the heyday of eugenics. It attempts to overwhelm the reader with numbers, charts, and formulas, posing as a scientific analysis of our current social woes. But The Bell Curve's conclusions are drawn from the catechism of eugenics, an ideology and a political movement that provides America's most enduring link to the Holocaust. That ideology, complete with turn-of-the-millennium packaging, continues to inform the current policy debate about the nature and source of poverty, crime, and social problems.

While Harry Laughlin's vision of a eugenically purified America was never realized, and Wickliffe Draper's program for achieving strict racial separation failed, the Pioneer Fund they created remains. It was born of a racist vision of "the American Breed," and nurtured in hopes of duplicating Nazi legal and social policy. It is one of the few lasting remnants of the American eugenics movement, and a sobering monument to the darkest aspirations of its founders.


German Eugenics in The Eugenical News: 1932-1937

Jan.-    Archiv Fur Rassen-und Gesellschafts-Biologie
Feb.     (summarizing German journal articles concerning the
1932     reproduction of criminals, and discussing the
         correlation between "inferior intelligence" and "low
         social level[s]")

Mar.-    Hitler and Race Pride (describing media accounts in the
Apr.     U.S. of the "program of Hitlerism" and its nurture of
1932     "the purest Nordic stocks")

July-    German Emigration (discussing "the superior human
Aug.     breeding stocks" that have left Germany)

Sept.-   The Nordic Movement in Germany (speculating about
Oct.     the prospect of "new and valuable projects" and the
1932     "new racial hygiene laws" expected from the new
         German government)

Sept.-   Eugenical Sterilization in Germany (reprinting,
Oct.     summarizing, and praising the new German law as one
1933     that "reads almost like the `American model
         sterilization law'")

         Race-Culture in Germany (reviewing a book touting the
         need for the "preservation of the best racial elements,
         and [for the] elimination of inferior stocks")

Mar.-    German Population and Race Politics (translating an
Apr.     address by Dr. Wilhelm Frick at the first meeting of the
1934     Expert Council for Population and Race-Politics in
         Berlin on June 28, 1933, outlining the task of stopping
         the "national and cultural ruin" in Germany)

         German Sterilization Progress (discussing a New York
         Times article on how the "Hitler government in
         Germany is proceeding with its eugenics program," in
         which, according to the article, "`[a] spokesman for the
         [German] Government predicted that between 200,000
         and 300,000 persons would be sterilized in Germany
         within the next few years'")

         A French View (quoting a letter by Count de Lapouge to
         Madison Grant that hailed the Nazi ascendancy as the
         "birth of a new civilization" and warned of the
         increasing Asiatic, African, and Jewish influence and
         presence in France)

         Eugenics in Germany (displaying the catalogue of
         German eugenics prepared by Eugen Fisher)

         Eugenical Propaganda in Germany (translating the
         pamphlet entitled "[t]he Mother of Nations," which was
         distributed in Germany "in the interest of race

         Notes (noting the elevation of Fritz Lenz as the director
         for racial hygiene and eugenics at the Kaiser Wilhelm
         Institute for Anthropology and as the first chair of race
         hygiene at the University of Berlin)

May-     The New German Law Against Dangerous Habitual
June     Criminals (describing legislation that allows
1934     sterilization of criminals "`after the pattern of foreign
         model laws'").

Sept.-   New German Etymology for Eugenics (explaining the
Oct.     various definitions of "race-hygiene," "race-culture,"
1934     "race-betterment," and "race-biology")

         Jewish Physicians in Berlin (explaining the attempts by
         the city of Berlin to "quite logically" reduce the number
         of their Jewish doctors)

         A letter from Dr. Ploetz (asserting that the reports of the
         Jews who were "expelled" from Germany were part of a
         "Jewish propaganda of untruths")

         Race Hygiene (Eugenics) in Germany (reviewing Rudin's
         1934 Erblehre und Rassenhygiene im volkischen Staat
         and observing that "[i]t appears that under the
         dictatorship Germany is moving more rapidly toward
         race purification than any other nation")

Nov.-    The Sterilization Law in Germany (claiming that by
Dec.     enacting sterilization laws, "Germany learned from the
1934     United States")

         German Eugenics, 1934 (listing "Eminent Eugenicists
         in Germany")

Jan.-    Population and its Control: Are the White People Dying
Feb.     Out? (quoting the Chief German statistician on "the
1935     dangers to which the white races are exposed")

         Sterilization in Germany (reporting that the slightly
         feebleminded and foreigners are to be included in the
         "national `purge'" of sterilization)

Nov.-    Nuptial Health (reporting on the Nazi Cabinet decree
Dec.     for "compulsory marriage health certificate[s] to
1935     safeguard the German race")

Jan.-    Erratum (apologizing-tongue in cheek-to "der Fuhrer of
Feb.     das Reich" for understating the German population)

         Book Reviews: The Hereditary Aspect of Pathology
         (reviewing von Verschuer's book, which asserted that
         "nation" was no longer a geographical term but "a
         biological entity")

Mar.-    The German Racial Policy (summarizing the address by
Apr.     C.G. Campbell that decried "anti-Nazi propaganda" and
1936     obscured "the correct understanding and the great
         importance of the German racial policy")

May-     Seeking "Race Purity" in Germany (describing the
June     required review of marriages between a person with two
1936     Jewish grandparents and a person with one or no
         Jewish grandparents)

         Verschuer's Institute (describing, and showing photos of,
         the new Frankfort University Institute for Hereditary
         Biology and Racial Hygiene, which was directed by Dr.
         Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer)

July-    Patriotism and Racial Standards (discussing a speech
Aug.     by the American banker and American Eugenics Society
1936     President C.M. Goethe, which praised the "stupendous
         forward movements" that took place as a result of Nazi
         Germany's eugenics laws)

Nov.-    The German Program of Marriage Promotion through
Dec.     State Loan (discussing first-hand observations that
1936     were made by Marie Kopp, who analyzed the
         application of the Nazi "public health" laws since 1933)

         Germany Seeks Babies (describing the new criminal law
         in Germany which penalized the distribution of birth
         control information)

July-    Eugenics in Germany: Motion Picture Showing How
Aug.     Germany is Presenting and Attacking Her Problems in
1937     Applied Eugenics (promoting the film Erbkrank (The
         Hereditarily Defective), which discussed the "economic,
         moral and biological costs of human handicap and
         inadequacy" and the social policies of Nazi Germany)

Sept.-   A New German Eugenical Quarterly (promoting a new
Oct.     journal that was edited by Dr. Verschuer and Dr.
1937     Schottky)



Pioneer Fund grants have been given:

1. To provide books and to study the topic of heredity and eugenics [1973-1984].

2. To study American Anglo-Saxon school children [1976-1981].

3. To study the distribution of blood groups among southern Mississippi Anglo-Saxon school children [1978].

4. To research and publish Dr. Audrey M. Shuey's revised edition of The Testing of Negro Intelligence [1982].

5. To analyze publications concerning abilities of Orientals and to distribute The Abilities and Achievements of Orientals in North America [1980, 1982].

6. To conduct comparative studies of head, body, and pigmentation measures of British school children to Southern Mississippi schoolchildren [1980].

7. To fund the printing of Professor Carlton Coon's 1962 monograph entitled New Findings on the Origin of Races [1980].

8. To conduct research on positive eugenics, West German and Danish fertility rates, and to measure genetic distances between major races [1984].

9. To study the politicization of science, particularly the study of race [1991].

10. To study research and education on immigration problems [1991].

11. To print and distribute the 1993 second edition of Stanley Burnham's America's Bimodal Crisis: Black Intelligence in White Society [1992].

12. To print and distribute 30,000 copies of a condensed version of J. Philippe Rushton's book entitled Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective [1999-2000]. (545)

13. To support Richard Lynn's Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations [1996]; Eugenics: A Reassessment [2001]; and The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund [2001]. (546)


(2) Id. at 298-99.

(3) The Pioneer Fund, founded in 1937, should be distinguished from the Pioneer Funds offered by the Pioneer Group, Inc. of Boston. The latter is a financial services company started in the 1920s, and has no relationship to the topic of this paper.

(4) Certificate of Incorporation, The Pioneer Fund 3 (1937) (on file with the New York State Department of State) [hereinafter Certificate of Incorporation].

(5) See Criteria for Grants, Pioneer Fund Web Page, available at /grant.html (last modified June 3, 1997). "Pioneer scientists are cited many times in the recent Herrnstein-Murray book The Bell Curve." Id.

(6) HERRNSTEIN & MURRAY, supra note 1, at 5.

(7) H.H. Laughlin, Calculations on the Working Out of a Proposed Program of Sterilization, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RACE BETTERMENT 478 (1914).

(8) See Francis Galton, The Comparative Worth of Different Races, in HEREDITARY GENIUS 393, 394-404 (1972) (arguing that Darwinian principles of evolution and survival-of-the-fittest play integral roles in shaping the human races--the pinnacle of whom were the "ancient Greeks," while the African and native Australian races rank near the bottom of the hierarchy).

(9) Letter from Dr. Harry H. Laughlin to Dr. and Mrs. H. Botchers, German Consul (Dec. 18, 1936) (on file with Harry Hamilton Laughlin Papers, Pickler Memorial Library, Truman State University) [hereinafter Laughlin Papers]. Particular thanks are due to Judith May Sapko, curator and archivist of the Laughlin Papers, whose generous assistance made this study possible.

(10) Id.

(11) See Harry H. Laughlin, The Definition of an American (no date) (unpublished manuscript, on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9); see also Relaxing Quotas for Exiles Sought, N.Y. TIMES, May 4, 1934 (News Note).

(12) Letter from Harry H. Laughlin to Professor Dr. Eugen Fischer, President, International Congress for the Scientific Investigation of Population Problems (July 31, 1935) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(13) Letter from W.P. Draper to Dr. Laughlin 2 (Sept. 16, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(14) See infra Part II.

(15) The publication of DANIEL J. KEVLES, IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS: GENETICS AND THE USES OF HUMAN HEREDITY (1985) provided a timely reference text for a number of scholars who would explore eugenics in the following dozen years. During the years between publication of Haller's and Kevles's books, several histories of American eugenics appeared, including DONALD K. PICKENS, EUGENICS AND THE PROGRESSIVES (1968); KENNETH M. LUDMERER, GENETICS AND AMERICAN SOCIETY: A HISTORICAL APPRAISAL (1972); and ALLAN CHASE, THE LEGACY OF MALTHUS: THE SOCIAL COSTS OF THE NEW SCIENTIFIC RACISM (1977).


(17) See Frances Janet Hassencahl, Harry H. Laughlin, "Expert Eugenics Agent" for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 1921-1931, at 353-54 (1971) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University) (on file with author) (detailing Laughlin's honorary medical degree from the Nazis). See also Garland E. Allen, The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: An Essay in Institutional History, 2 OSIRIS 225-64 (2d Series, 1986) (providing a thorough catalogue of contact between German and American eugenic propagandists).

(18) See KUHL, supra note 16 at 5-10 (providing background and examples of the projects funded by the Pioneer Fund).

(19) Id. at 10-11.

(20) See Randall D. Bird & Garland Allen, The J.H.B. Archive Report: The Papers of Harry Hamilton Laughlin, Eugenicist, 14 J. HIST. OF BIOLOGY 339, 339-53 (1981) (summarizing the holdings of the Laughlin Papers).

(21) See infra Parts II.A-D, III.A-C.

(22) See infra Part II.D.

(23) The significance of Laughlin's having earned a doctorate in science from Princeton University in 1917 is that he could be considered a "scientist," lending legitimacy to his eugenical activities.


(25) A. WIGFALL GREEN, THE MAN BILBO 98 (1963); see also THEODORE G. BILBO, TAKE YOUR CHOICE: SEPARATION OR MONGRELIZATION 329 (1947) (noting that Senator Bilbo introduced a voluntary resettlement bill in 1939). See infra notes 262-70 and accompanying text (explaining that although Bilbo died in 1947, only eight years after he introduced the bill in 1939, the repatriation movement lived on through the efforts of Senator William Langer of North Dakota).

(26) See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Johann von Leers to Mr. Earnest Sevier Cox 1 (May 21, 1955) (on file with Earnest Sevier Cox Papers, Duke University Archives) [hereinafter, Cox Papers]; Letter from Karl R. Allen, Captain, American Nazi Party, to Mr. Earnest S. Cox (Sept. 22, 1962) (on file with Cox Papers). I am particularly indebted to Gregory Michael Dorr for his helpful research in the Cox archive.

(27) See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Johann von Leers to Mr. Earnest Sevier Cox 1 (May 21, 1955) (on file with Earnest Sevier Cox Papers, Duke University Archives) [hereinafter, Cox Papers]; Letter from Karl R. Allen, Captain, American Nazi Party, to Mr. Earnest S. Cox (Sept. 22, 1962) (on file with Cox Papers). I am particularly indebted to Gregory Michael Dorr for his helpful research in the Cox archive.

(28) See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Johann von Leers to Mr. Earnest Sevier Cox 1 (May 21, 1955) (on file with Earnest Sevier Cox Papers, Duke University Archives) [hereinafter, Cox Papers]; Letter from Karl R. Allen, Captain, American Nazi Party, to Mr. Earnest S. Cox (Sept. 22, 1962) (on file with Cox Papers). I am particularly indebted to Gregory Michael Dorr for his helpful research in the Cox archive.

(29) See MEASURED LIES: THE BELL CURVE EXAMINED 38 (Joe L. Kincheloe et al. eds., 1996); THE BELL CURVE DEBATE: HISTORY, DOCUMENTS, OPINIONS 127 (Russell Jacoby & Naomi Glauberman eds., 1995).

(30) See generally Alfredo J. Estrada, Divided over a Common Language, WASH. POST, Oct. 4, 1992, at X04 (reviewing JAMES CRAWFORD, HOLD YOUR TONGUE: BILINGUALISM AND THE POLITICS OF "ENGLISH ONLY" (1992)) (discussing efforts made to establish English as the "official language" in Monterey Park, California during a time of rapid demographic change).

(31) See id.

(32) See, e.g., Ronald W. May, Genetics and Subversion, 190 THE NATION 420, 420-22 (1960); Ronald W. May, Rich New Yorker Trying to Prove Negroes Inferior, CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, Wisconsin, Mar. 5, 1960, at 1. Pioneer was also highlighted in the 1970s in Grace Lichtenstein, Fund Backs Controversial Study of "Racial Betterment," N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 11, 1977, at 7b.

(33) David A. Vise & Thomas B. Edsall, Battle for CBS Takes on Air of Mudslinging Contest Network Cites Tie Between FIM, Controversial Group, WASH. POST, Mar. 31, 1985, at A16.

(34) See Albert R. Hunt, Steve Forbes: The Political Blank Slate, WALL ST. J., Feb. 1, 1996, at A19; Bob Herbert, Editorial, Affront to Black People, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 12, 1996, at A15. Compare Herbert, supra, with Harry F. Weyher, Letter to the Editor, Foundation Underwrites Intelligence Research, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 21, 1996, at A18 (defending the Pioneer Fund as subsidizing mainstream scientific research).

(35) Michael Fechter, Professor's Race Writings Raise Hackles, TAMPA TRIB., Mar. 21, 1999, at 1 (noting that Glayde Whitney, a professor at FSU, was presumably a proponent of David Duke and shared his views of white racial superiority); see also Alison Schneider, Florida State Professor Criticized for his Laudatory Foreword to David Duke's Book, CHRON. OF HIGHER EDUC., Apr. 23, 1999, at A24 (pointing out that Whitney praised Duke for his scholarly work and "factual information").

(36) Douglas A. Blackmon, Silent Partner: How the South's Fight to Uphold Segregation Was Funded Up North, WALL ST. J., June 11, 1999, at A1. Harry Weyher characterized Blackmon's article as "a misleading story." Harry F. Weyher, Letter to the Editor: The Pioneer Fund and Mississippi, WALL ST. J., June 22, 1999, at A23.


(38) See Weyher, supra note 28.

(39) See False Charges Against Pioneer, Pioneer Fund Web Page, supra note 5 (denying accusations that the founders of Pioneer supported Nazi policies and were racists).

(40) For an exploration of the Pioneer Fund's recent history, see John Sedgwick, Inside the Pioneer Fund, in THE BELL CURVE DEBATE, supra note 29, at 144. J. Philippe Rushton, a Pioneer Fund grant recipient, concluded that blacks can be characterized by "low intelligence, high criminality, and extreme sexuality." Id. See also Adam Miller, Professors of Hate, in THE BELL CURVE DEBATE, supra note 29, at 162-68. Miller profiles Michael Levin, City College of New York professor and Pioneer grant recipient, who concludes that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. Id.

(41) Charles Murray, The Real "Bell Curve," WALL ST. J., Dec. 2, 1994, at A14.

(42) Id.

(43) Pamela Burdman, White Supremacist Link Trips Prop. 187, S.F. CHRON., Oct. 13, 1994, at A4.

(44) Deborah Blum, Pioneer Fund Spends Big on Research with Racial-Inferiority Slant, SACRAMENTO BEE, Oct. 17, 1995, at A8.

(45) Letter to the Editor: The Pioneer Fund, SACRAMENTO BEE, Mar. 9, 1996, at ED2.

(46) Robert A. Gordon, How Smart We Are About What We Broadcast: an Open Letter to ABC News (June 17, 1997), available at Pioneer Fund Web Page, supra note 5.

(47) Id; see also Murray, supra note 41, at A14 (leveling the charge of "McCarthyism" against the New York Review of Books).

(48) See Sedgwick, supra note 40, at 153 (stating that Laughlin supported the Nazi eugenic sterilization plan, and that he and Draper formed the Pioneer Fund to aid parents whose ancestors could be traced to the colonial era); Allen, supra note 17, at 248 (explaining that Laughlin, like Grant, "called for a `purification' of the good Nordic stock of the United States").

(49) See KEVLES, supra note 15, at ix-x (discussing the origins of the term "eugenics").


(51) Paul Weindling, The Survival of Eugenics in 20th-Century Germany, 52 AM. J. HUM. GENETICS 643 (1993).

(52) Allen, supra note 17, at 238.

(53) See id. at 226-27 (detailing the activities and personalities involved with the Eugenics Record Office).

(54) See id. at 237-38, 254.

(55) See id. at 247.

(56) See CHASE, supra note 15, at 291-95 (detailing Laughlin's appearance before the U.S. Congress in 1920); Hassencahl, supra note 17, at 171, 179 (revealing that Laughlin's findings were printed by the federal government, and mailed under the cover of the Congressional Committee on Immigration and Naturalization).

(57) Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 68 Stat. 153 (1925).

(58) See Paul A. Lombardo, Miscegenation, Eugenics, and Racism: Historical Footnotes to Loving v. Virginia, 21 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 421, 423 n.11 (1988) [hereinafter Lombardo, Miscegenation].

(59) See ADOLF HITLER, MEIN KAMPF 439-40 (Ralph Manheim trans., Houghton Mifflin Co. 1971) (1925).

(60) Id. at 438-39.

(61) Id. at 440.


(63) Id.


(65) 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

(66) See Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: New Light on Buck v. Bell, 60 N.Y.U.L. REV. 30, 31 & n.6 (1985) [hereinafter Lombardo, Three Generations] (noting similarities between Laughlin's model law and Hitler's sterilization law).

(67) See Philip Reilly, The Virginia Racial Integrity Act Revisited: The Plecker. Laughlin Correspondence: 1928-1930, 16 AM. J. MED. GENETICS 483, 483 (1983). See generally Lombardo, Miscegenation, supra note 58 (discussing the correspondence of like-minded men who were instrumental in Virginia's anti-miscegenation law).

(68) Harry H. Laughlin, Historical Background of the Third International Congress of Eugenics, in A DECADE OF PROGRESS IN EUGENICS: SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EUGENICS 1 (1934).

(69) See id.

(70) See id. at 1-11.

(71) See Letter from Harry H. Laughlin to Prof. Dr. Fritz Lenz, Archiv ruer Rassen-und Gesellschaftsbiologie (Oct. 25, 1928) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9) (expressing Laughlin's sentiment that "I should feel highly honored to have this paper [Eugenical Sterilization in the United States] appear in the Archiv fuer Rassen-und Gesellschaftsbiologie [Archive of Racial and Social Biology] as you suggest"). Lenz later cited Laughlin's calculations on eugenical sterilization in the 1931 edition of his book entitled Human Selection. See ROBERT N. PROCTOR, RACIAL HYGIENE: MEDICINE UNDER THE NAZIS 99 (1988) (noting that Lenz found Laughlin's sterilization figures modest and aspired to sterilize an even larger portion of the population).

(72) See generally Peter Spiro, Madison Grant, Patrician Racist (2001) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley) (on file with author). 73 CHASE, supra note 15, at 164-65.


(75) Leon Whitney, Autobiography of Leon Whitney 205 (1971) (unpublished manuscript, on file with American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) [hereinafter Am. Phil. Soc'y].


(77) Henry Fairfield Osborn, Introduction to GRANT, THE CONQUEST, supra note 76, at vii, x.

(78) PROCTOR, supra note 71, at 25. Erwin Baur, Fritz Lenz, and Eugen Fischer co-authored the book in which this popular phrase debuted. Id.


(80) See HENRY FRIEDLANDER, THE ORIGINS OF NAZI GENOCIDE: FROM EUTHANASIA TO THE FINAL SOLUTION 13 (1995); see also PROCTOR, supra note 71, at 60 (explaining that Lenz, Baur's co-author, claimed that "racial hygiene" was the path to "true socialism"). The text was first printed in 1921. The third edition was translated into English as Human Heredity in 1931. See S. J. Holmes, A German Eugenics Text Translated, 22 J. HEREDITY 355, 355 (1931).

(81) See FRIEDLANDER, supra note 80, at 13.

(82) Letter from Dr. Charles B. Davenport to Dr. H.H. Laughlin (Dec. 21, 1920) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(83) Harry H. Laughlin, D.Sc., National Eugenics in Germany: A Consideration of the Eugenical Aspects of the Constitution of the German Republic, in EUGENICS IN GERMANY (reprinted from the January 1921 volume of Eugenics Review).

(84) Letter from Harry H. Laughlin to Dr. Charles B. Davenport 2 (Apr. 13, 1921) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(85) Id.

(86) Paul Weindling, Understanding Nazi Racism: Precursors and Perpetrators, in CONFRONTING THE NAZI PAST: NEW DEBATES ON MODERN GERMAN HISTORY 66, 69 (Michael Burleigh ed., 1996) (remarking that Ploetz had once been sent to study utopian settlements in the United States, and when he returned "he drew up a scheme for a racial colony based on sound health as a means of recovering primitive racial vigour that had been sapped by urban life").


(88) FRIEDLANDER, supra note 80, at 12.

(89) BAUR, FISCHER & LENZ, supra note 79.

(90) FRIEDLANDER, supra note 80, at 11.

(91) See Letter from H.H. Laughlin to Madison Grant, Esq. (Jan. 13, 1934) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9); Letter from H.H. Laughlin to Internationaler Kongress for Revolkerungswissenschaft (Mar. 18, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(92) See Matthias M. Weber, Ernst Rudin, 1874-1952: A German Psychiatrist and Geneticist, 67 AM. J. OF MED. GENETICS 323, 330 (1996).

(93) See infra Table I in Appendix.

(94) See Eugenical Sterilization in Germany, 18 EUGENICAL NEWS, Sept.-Oct. 1933, at 89-93 (stating the "new law is clean-cut, direct and `model,'" and "nothing more could be desired").

(95) Letter from William K. Gregory, Curator, Dep't of Comparative and Human Anatomy, The American Museum of Natural History, to Dr. H.H. Laughlin (Jan. 6, 1933) and attached Outline for Proposed Roundtable on "Population Control" (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(96) PUBLICATION SERIES OF THE REICHS COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE (1933) (including an introduction to Frick by Dr. Falk Ruttke and a letter from Madison Grant to Dr. H.H. Laughlin dated February 25, 1933); see also PROCTOR, supra note 71, at 95-96 (discussing Frick's speech "calling for a new German population policy, one that would reverse a host of threats to the health of the German people").

(97) Letter from H.H. Laughlin to Madison Grant, Esq., supra note 91.

(98) Id.

(99) Id.

(100) Letter from Madison Grant to Dr. H.H. Laughlin (Jan. 16, 1934) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(101) Dr. Wilhelm Frick, German Population and Race Politics, 19 EUGENICAL NEWS, Mar.-Apr. 1934, at 33.

(102) Id. at 38, 44, 45.

(103) Dr. Eugen Fischer, Eugenics in Germany, 19 EUGENICAL NEWS, Mar.-Apr. 1934, at 43.

(104) See infra Table I in Appendix.

(105) See Paul Popenoe, Anthropology and Eugenics: A Review of Some Recent German Publications, 22 J. HEREDITY 277, 277 (1931) (noting that although the tie between anthropology and eugenics was worldwide, more research was performed in Germany than anywhere else).

(106) See William E. Seidelman, The Path to Nuremberg in the Pages of JAMA, 1933-1939, 276 JAMA 1693, 1693-96 (1996) (describing a narrative account by JAMA of the transformation of the medical profession during Nazi rule in Germany).

(107) Letter from G. de Lapouge to Madison Grant 2 (Sept. 27, 1933) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9), reprinted in A French View: A Study of National Policies Which Propose to Influence Eugenical Trends Along Definitely Pre-determined Lines, 19 EUGENICAL NEWS, Mar.-Apr. 1934, at 39.

(108) Letter from Harry H. Laughlin to Madison Grant, Esq. I (Nov. 14, 1931) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(109) Letter from Dr. Carl Schneider, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, to Harry H. Laughlin (May 16, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9). Schneider was intimately involved in the training of physicians who euthanized institutionalized, mentally retarded children in the infamous T-4 program, and his institute at the Clinic for Psychiatry and Neurology of the University of Heidelberg conducted research on brains of the dead victims. Public Mental Health Practices in Germany: Sterilization and Execution of Patients Suffering from Nervous or Mental Disease, RECORDS OF ALLIED OPERATIONAL & OCCUPATION HEADQUARTERS, RECORD GROUP 331 (on file with U.S. National Archives), Sept. 22, 1945, at 36; see also FRIEDLANDER, supra note 80, at 127-131 (1995). Schneider committed suicide in 1945. See Pablo V. Gejman, M.D., Ernst Rudin and Nazi Euthanasia: Another Stain on His Career, 74 AM. J. MED. GENETICS (NEUROPSYCHIATRIC GENETICS) 455, 456 (1997).

(110) Letter from Dr. Carl Schneider, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, to Harry H. Laughlin (May 16, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(111) Letter from Harry Hamilton Laughlin to Dr. Carl Schneider, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg (May 28, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(112) The German Universities, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 12, 1936 4 (Editorial), at 8 (discussing the fate of German university teachers and the impact of foreign attendance at Nazi-sponsored events).

(113) Id.

(114) See Letter from Harry Hamilton Laughlin to Dr. Carl Schneider, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg (Aug. 11, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(115) 550 Jahre Universitat Heidelberg, 1386-1936 (Program of the University of Heidelberg Anniversary) (1936).

(116) Laughlin's supposed passivity is the stock answer of the Pioneer Fund. See False Charge #3: Dr. Laughlin ... supported Nazi racial policies as evidenced by an honorary degree awarded him by the University of Heidelberg, The Pioneer Fund Speaks Out Against False Charges, Pioneer Fund Web Page, supra note 5.

(117) Letter from Harry Hamilton Laughlin to Dr. Carl Schneider, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg (Aug. 11, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(118) Id.

(119) A sequence of correspondence chronicles these events. See Letter from Dr. H. Borchers to Professor H. Hamilton Laughlin, (Nov. 25, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9); Letter from Dr. H. Borchers to Professor H. Hamilton Laughlin (Nov. 28, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9); Letter from Harry Hamilton Laughlin to Dr. H. Borchers (Nov. 30, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9); Letter from Harry H. Laughlin to Dr. and Mrs. H. Borchers (Dec. 18, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9); Letter from Col. W.P. Draper to Dr. Laughlin 2 (Dec. 24, 1936) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9).

(120) See THE BELL CURVE DEBATE, supra note 29, at 172 (adding that Draper's fortune continued to subsidize the Pioneer Fund as of the date publication of this source, in 1995); see also TUCKER, supra note 16, at 173 (noting that "race betterment" was Draper's primary motive in endowing the Pioneer Fund).

(121) IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION LEAGUE (BOSTON, MASS.), Annual Report of the Executive Committee for the Year 1933 (1933) (indicating that Wickliffe P. Draper served as Vice-President and as a member of the Executive Committee); see also Letter from Theodore G. Holcombe, Executive Secretary, Immigration Restriction League (Boston, Mass.), to The Friends of Immigration Restriction (June 5, 1934) (on file with Laughlin Papers, supra note 9) (urging "Friends of Immigration Restriction" to write to their Congressman to stop proposals dismantling immigration restriction).

(122) Laughlin regularly reported on the use of that money, how it was invested, and the research it supported, in Eugenical News. See Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Eugenics Research Association, 12 EUGENICAL NEWS, Mar. 1927, at 32-33.

(123) Preparations for Negro-White Studies in Jamaica, 11 EUGENICAL NEWS, Dec. 1926, at 188.

(124) Award of Prize on Racial Fecundity, 14 EUGENICAL NEWS, May 1929, at 70.

(125) Probability of Institutional Commitment on Family History, 21 EUGENICAL NEWS, Jan. Feb. 1936, at 9.

(126) Preparations for Negro-White Studies in Jamaica, supra note 123; see also Studies in Jamaica, 11 EUGENICAL NEWS, Oct. 1926, at 154.

(127) Negro-White Hybrids in Jamaica, B.W.I: Investigation made under the W.P. Draper Fund, 13 EUGENICAL NEWS, Feb. 1928, at 21. 128 Id. at 23.

(129) See Race Crossing in Jamaica, 14 EUGENICAL NEWS, Aug. 1929, at 119-20 (describing differences between blacks and whites concluded from the investigation).

(130) Nasal Breadth in Negro X White Crossing, 13 EUGENICAL NEWS, Mar. 1928, at 36-37.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Albany Law School
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lombardo, Paul A.
Publication:Albany Law Review
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2002
Previous Article:Ethical issues in stem cell research.
Next Article:A comparative look at the U.S and British approaches to stem cell research.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters