Applied Eugenics Part 24

The idea, therefore, that race suicide and general limitation of births to the irreducible minimum, can be effectively justified by any conceivable appeal to economic or sociological factors, is a mistake which will eventually bring about the extinction of the people making it.

This statement must not be interpreted wrongly. Certainly we would not argue that a high birth-rate in itself is necessarily a desirable thing.

It is not the object of eugenics to achieve as big a population as possible, regardless of quality. But in the last a.n.a.lysis, the only wealth of a nation is its people; moreover some people, are as national a.s.sets, worth more than others. The goal, then, might be said to be: a population adjusted in respect to its numbers to the resources of the country, and that number of the very best quality possible. Great diversity of people is required in modern society, but of each desirable kind the best obtainable representatives are to be desired.

It is at once evident that a decline, rather than an increase, in the birth-rate of some sections of the population, is wanted. There are some strata at the bottom that are a source of weakness rather than of strength to the race, and a source of unhappiness rather than of happiness to themselves and those around them. These should be reduced in number, as we have shown at some length earlier in this book.

The other parts of the population should be perpetuated by the best, rather than the worst. In no other way can the necessary leaders be secured, without whom, in commerce, industry, politics, science, the nation is at a great disadvantage. The task of eugenics is by no means what it is sometimes supposed to be: to breed a superior caste. But a very important part of its task is certainly to increase the number of leaders in the race. And it is this part of its task, in particular, which is menaced by the declining birth-rate in the United States.

As every one knows, race suicide is proceeding more rapidly among the native whites than among any other large section of the population; and it is exactly this part of the population which has in the past furnished most of the eminent men of the country.

It has been shown in previous chapters that eminent men do not appear wholly by chance in the population. The production of eminence is largely a family affair; and in America, "the land of opportunity" as well as in older countries, people of eminence are much more interrelated than chance would allow. It has been shown, indeed, that in America it is at least a 500 to 1 bet that an eminent person will be rather closely related to some other eminent person, and will not be a sporadic appearance in the population.[118]

Taken with other considerations advanced in earlier chapters, this means that a falling off in the reproduction of the old American best strains means a falling off in the number of eminent men which the United States will produce. No improvement in education can prevent a serious loss, for the strong minds get more from education.

The old American stock has produced a vastly greater proportion of eminence, has accomplished a great deal more proportionately, in modern times, than has other any stock whose representatives have been coming in large numbers as immigrants to these sh.o.r.es during the last generation. It is, therefore, likely to continue to surpa.s.s them, unless it declines too greatly in numbers. For this reason, we feel justified in concluding that the decline of the birth-rate in the old American stock represents a decline in the birth-rate of a superior element.

There is another way of looking at this point. The stock under discussion has been, on the whole, economically ahead of such stocks as are now immigrating. In compet.i.tion with them under equal conditions, it appears to remain pretty consistently ahead, economically. Now, although we would not insist on this point too strongly, it can hardly be questioned that eugenic value is to some extent correlated with economic success in life, as all desirable qualities tend to be correlated together. Within reasonable limits, it is justifiable to treat the economically superior sections of the nation as the eugenically superior. And it is among these economically superior sections of the nation that the birth-rate has most rapidly and dangerously fallen.

The constant influx of highly fecund immigrant women tends to obscure the fact that the birth-rate of the older residents is falling below par, and a.n.a.lysis of the birth-rate in various sections of the community is necessary to give an understanding of what is actually taking place.

In Rhode Island, F. L. Hoffmann found the average number of children for each foreign-born woman to be 3.35, and for each native-born woman to be 2.06. There were wide racial differences among the foreign born; the various elements were represented by the following average number of children per wife:

French-Canadians 4.42 Russians 3.51 Italians 3.49 Irish 3.45 Scotch and Welsh 3.09 English 2.89 Germans 2.84 Swedes 2.58 English-Canadians 2.56 Poles 2.31

In short, the native-born whites in this investigation fell below every one of the foreign nationalities.

The Ma.s.sachusetts censuses for 1875 and 1884 showed similar results: the foreign-born women had 4.5 children each, and the native-born women 2.7 each.

Frederick S. Crum's careful investigation[119] of New England genealogies, including 12,722 wives, has thrown a great deal of light on the steady decline in their birth-rate. He found the average number of children to be:

1750-1799 6.43 1800-1849 4.94 1850-1869 3.47 1870-1879 2.77

There, in four lines, is the story of the decline of the old American stock. At present, it is barely reproducing itself, probably not even that, for there is reason to believe that 1879 does not mark the lowest point reached. Before 1700, less than 2% of the wives in this investigation had only one child, now 20% of them have only one. With the emigration of old New England families to the west, and the constant immigration of foreign-born people to take their places, it is no cause for surprise that New England no longer exercises the intellectual leaders.h.i.+p that she once held.

For Ma.s.sachusetts as a whole, the birth-rate among the native-born population was 12.7 per 1,000 in 1890, 14.9 in 1910, while in the foreign-born population it was 38.6 in 1890 and 49.1 in 1910. After excluding all old women and young women, the birth-rate of the foreign-born women in Ma.s.sachusetts is still found to be 3/4 greater than that of the native-born.[120]

In short, the birth-rate of the old American stock is now so low that that stock is dying out and being supplanted by immigrants. In order that the stock might even hold its own, we have shown that each married woman should bear three to four children. At present the married women of the old white American race in New England appear to be bringing two or less to maturity.

It will be profitable to digress for a moment to consider farther what this disappearance of the ancient population of Ma.s.sachusetts means to the country. When all the distinguished men of the United States are graded, in accordance with their distinction, it is regularly found, as Frederick Adams Woods says, that "Some states in the union, some sections of the country, have produced more eminence than others, far beyond the expectation from their respective white populations. In this regard Ma.s.sachusetts always leads, and Connecticut is always second, and certain southern states are always behind and fail to render their expected quota." The accurate methods used by Dr. Woods in this investigation leave no room for doubt that in almost every way Ma.s.sachusetts has regularly produced twice as many eminent men as its population would lead one to expect, and has for some ranks and types of achievement produced about four times the expectation.

Scott Nearing's studies[121] confirm those of Dr. Woods. Taking the most distinguished men and women America has produced, he found that the number produced in New England, per 100,000 population, was much larger than that produced by any other part of the country. Rhode Island, the poorest New England state in this respect, was yet 30% above New York, the best state outside New England.

The advantage of New England, however, he found to be rapidly decreasing. Of the eminent persons born before 1850, 30% were New Englanders although the population of New England in 1850 was only 11.8% of that of the whole country. But of the eminent younger men,--those born between 1880 and 1889, New England, with 7.5% of the country's population, could claim only 12% of the genius. Cambridge, Ma.s.s., has produced more eminent younger men of the present time than any other city, he discovered, but the cities which come next in order are Nashville, Tenn., Columbus, Ohio, Lynn, Ma.s.s., Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C., Portland, Ore., Hartford, Conn., Boston, Ma.s.s., New Haven, Conn., Kansas City, Mo., and Chicago, Ill.

There is reason to believe that some of the old New England stock, which emigrated to the West, retains a higher fecundity than does that part of the stock which remains on the Atlantic seaboard. This fact, while a gratifying one, of course does not compensate for the low fertility of the families which still live in New England.

Within this section of the population, the decline is undoubtedly taking place faster in some parts than in others. Statistical evidence is not available, to tell a great deal about this, but the birth-rate for the graduates of some of the leading women's colleges is known, and their student bodies are made up largely of girls of superior stork. At Wellesley, the graph in Fig. 36 shows at a glance just what is happening. Briefly, the graduates of that college contribute less than one child apiece to the race. The cla.s.ses do not even reproduce their own numbers. Instead of the 3.7 children which, according to Sprague's calculation, they ought to bear, they are bearing .86 of a child.

The foregoing study is one of the few to carefully distinguish between families which were complete at the time of study and those families where additional children may yet be born. In the studies to follow this distinction may in some cases be made by the reader in interpreting the data while in other cases families having some years of possible productiveness ahead are included with others and the relative proportion of the types is not indicated. The error in these cases is therefore important and the reader is warned to accept them only with a mental allowance for this factor.

The best students make an even worse showing in this respect. The Wellesley alumnae who are members of Phi Beta Kappa,--that is, the superior scholars--have not .86 of a child each, but only .65 of a child; while the holders of the Durant and Wellesley scholars.h.i.+ps, awarded for intellectual superiority,[122] make the following pathetic showing in comparison with the whole cla.s.s.

WELLESLEY COLLEGE

Graduates of '01, '02, '03, '04, Status of Fall of 1912

_All_ _Durant or Wellesley_ _scholars_ Per cent married 44 35

Number of children: Per graduate .37 .20 Per wife .87 .57

It must not be thought that Wellesley's record is an exception, for most of the large women's colleges furnish deplorable figures. Mount Holyoke's record is:

_Children per_ _Children per_ _Decade of graduation_ _married_ _graduate_ _graduate_

1842-1849 2.77 2.37 1850-1859 3.38 2.55 1860-1869 2.64 1.60 1870-1879 2.75 1.63 1880-1889 2.54 1.46 1890-1892 1.91 0.95

Nor can graduation from Bryn Mawr College be said to favor motherhood.

By the 376 alumnae graduated there between 1888 and 1900, only 138 children had been produced up to Jan. 1, 1913. This makes .84 of a child per married alumna, or .37 of a child per graduate, since less than half of the graduates marry. These are the figures published by the college administration.

Professor Sprague's tabulation of the careers of Va.s.sar college graduates, made from official records of the college, is worth quoting in full, for the light it throws on the histories of college girls, after they leave college:

CLa.s.sES FROM 1867 TO 1892

Number of graduates 959 Number that taught 431 (45%) Number that married 509 (53%) Number that did not marry 450 (47%) Number that taught and afterward married 166 (39% of all who taught) Number that taught, married and had children 112 (67% of all who taught and married) Number that taught, married and were childless 54 (33%) Number of children of those who taught and had children 287 (1.73 children per family) Number of children of those who married but did not teach 686 (2 per married graduate that did not teach) Total number of children of all graduates 973 (1 child per graduate) Average number of children per married graduate 1.91 Average number of children per graduate 1.00

CLa.s.sES FROM 1867 TO 1900

Number of graduates 1739 Number that taught 800 (46%) Number that married 854 (49%) Number that did not marry 885 (51%) Number that taught and afterward married 294 (31%) Number that taught, married and had children 203 (69% of all who taught and married) Number that taught, married and were childless 91 (31%) Number of children of those who taught and had children 463 (1.57 children per family) Number of children of those who married but did not teach 1025 (2 each) Total number of children of all graduates 1488 (.8 child per graduate) Average number of children per married graduate 1.74 (per married graduate) Average number of children per graduate 0.8

If the women's colleges were fulfilling what the writers consider to be their duty toward their students, their graduates would have a higher marriage and birth-rate than that of their sisters, cousins and friends who do not go to college. But the reverse is the case. M. R. Smith's investigation showed the comparison between college girls and girls of equivalent social position and of the same or similar families, as follows:

_Number of_ _Per cent childless_ _children_ _at time_

College 1.65 25.36 Equivalent Non-College 1.874 17.89

Now if education is tending toward race suicide, then the writers believe there is something wrong with modern educational methods. And certainly all statistics available point to the fact that girls who have been in such an atmosphere as that of some colleges for four years, are, from a eugenic point of view, of diminished value to the race. This is not an argument against higher education for women, but it is a potent argument for a different kind of higher education than many of the colleges of America are now giving them.

This is one of the causes for the decline of the birth-rate in the old American stock. But of course it is only one. A very large number of causes are unquestionably at work to the same end, and the result can be adequately changed only if it is a.n.a.lyzed into as many of its component parts as possible, and each one of these dealt with separately. The writers have emphasized the shortcoming of women's colleges, because it is easily demonstrated and, they believe, relatively easily mitigated.

But the record of men's colleges is not beyond criticism.

Miss Smith found that among the college graduates of the 18th century in New England, only 2% remained unmarried, while in the Yale cla.s.ses of 1861-1879, 21% never married, and of the Harvard graduates from 1870-1879 26% remained single. The average number of children per Harvard graduate of the earlier period was found to be 3.44, for the latest period studied 1.92. Among the Yale graduates it was found that the number of children per father had declined from 5.16 to 2.55.

[Ill.u.s.tration: BIRTH RATE OF HARVARD AND YALE GRADUATES

FIG. 37.--During the period under consideration it declined steadily, although marriage was about as frequent and as early at the end as at the beginning of the period. It is necessary to suppose that the decline in the birth rate is due princ.i.p.ally to voluntary limitation of families. J. C. Phillips, who made the above graph, thinks that since 1890 the birth rate among these college graduates may be tending slightly to rise again.]