Number of victims
Approximately
3,284 people had been sterilized in Georgia by the end of 1963, of whom about
55% were female. 77% of all those sterilized were deemed mentally ill, of which
46% were men and 54% were women. The other 33% of total victims were classified
as mentally deficient, out of which 40% were men and 60% were women. Overall,
Georgia was responsible for the fifth highest number of sterilizations in the
United States (Paul, p. 325).
Period during which sterilizations occurred
Sterilizations
occurred in Georgia during a time period spanning from its legalization in 1937
to approximately 1963.
Temporal pattern of sterilizations and rate of sterilization

After
the passage of the sterilization law in 1937 the rate of sterilizations in
Georgia climbed slowly until it increased significantly after the end of World
War II. Between 1940 and 1950 sterilizations were performed at an approximate
rate of 80 per year and about 23 per 100,000 residents. Between 1950 and 1960
these numbers increased further to approximately 220 sterilizations per year, at
a rate of about 9 sterilizations per 100,000 residents per year. The rate of
sterilizations decreased substantially after the year 1960 until it finally
stopped around 1963.
Passage of law(s)
Georgia was the 32nd and last state to
implement a sterilization law. The first sterilization bill in Georgia was
passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 1935. However, the bill was later
vetoed by Eugene Talmadge, who was governor at the time. Talmadge was adamantly
against all Progressive measures and in the year 1935 had vetoed all New Deal
legislations that crossed his desk, including the sterilization bill (Larson,
“Belated Progress”, p. 58). An amended version of the bill was
reintroduced in 1937 and signed into law by newly appointed governor E.D.
Rivers. The sterilization law made compulsory sterilization legal (Larson,
Sex, Race, and Science, pp. 133-136).
Groups identified in the law
The
sterilization law was aimed at “patients” of custodial institutions who “would
be likely, if released without sterilization, to procreate a child, or children,
who would have a tendency to serious physical, mental, or nervous disease or
deficiency” (Larson, Sex, Race, and
Science, p. 134).
Process of the law
Georgia’s
sterilization law was modeled after California’s law. The law stated that “it
shall be lawful to perform such an operation [sterilizations] for the
prevention of procreation as shall be decided safest and most effective.” In
order for a patient to be sterilized they had to have the recommendation of the
superintendent of their institution. This recommendation was then approved by
the three member State Board of Eugenics. Decisions made by the board could be
appealed in the form of a jury trial. The method of sterilization would be
vasectomies for males and tubal ligation for women (Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, p. 134).
Precipitating factors and processes
Eugenics
was not easily accepted in Georgia at first. Like many southern states, Georgia
adhered to a culture that put high emphasis on familial relationships. For this
reason many people did not want the state to interfere with what they
considered to be private family matters, such as reproduction. Louisiana State
University political scientist Charles W. Pipkin noted that, “the public has an
aversion to legislative interference with parental rights except in cases of
extreme neglect” (Larson, Sex, Race, and
Science, p. 8). Large extended families also provided more support and care
for the disabled and others who would have otherwise fallen prey to state
institutions. Also like other states in the Deep South, Georgia had few foreign
immigrants who were often the focus of eugenics programs in the north and west
of the country (Larson, Sex, Race, and
Science, p. 9). Religion also played a large role in the delayed acceptance
of eugenics in Georgia. A largely religious culture created extended families
beyond blood relatives which gave further support to the disadvantaged (Larson,
Sex, Race, and Science, pp. 13-14).
Progressivism also did not hold as much sway in the south as it did in other
parts of the country. This was due to a relatively smaller number of urban
middle-class as well as a smaller number of educated citizens. The Deep South
also did not have the scientific or educational resources that were present in
other parts of the country to make the idea of eugenics go over more smoothly
(Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, p.
17). When eugenics in the south did get underway it occurred in a two-step
process. Those deemed inferior or feeble-minded were first recommended for
segregation rather than sterilization (Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, pp. 60-65). A lack of funding for
facilities towards this purpose and over-crowding would eventually lead to
outright sterilization (Larson, Sex,
Race, and Science, p. 91). Organizations such as the Medical Association of
Georgia and the Georgia Federation of Women Voters also encouraged the practice
of eugenics in Georgia (Larson, Sex,
Race, and Science, pp. 51-52, pp. 71-73).
Groups targeted and victimized
The
main groups targeted by eugenicists in Georgia were the mentally or physically
disabled. Criminals and those considered to be deviant or immoral such as
prostitutes were also victimized (Larson, Sex,
Race, and Science, p. 70). Surprisingly, race was not as big of a factor in
Georgia as it was in other states in the south. Proponents of eugenics in
Georgia never specified race as a motivation for eugenics. Instead they said
they were focused on the “younger generation” in general. Ellis Arnall, who was
a major proponent in Georgia, was also an open supporter of voting rights for
African Americans. Also, the main targets for eugenics in Georgia were patients
of state institutions who were mainly white (Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, p. 138).
Other restrictions placed on those identified in the law or with disabilities in general
Georgia
had a preexisting marriage restriction that invalidated marriage contracts
entered into by “an idiot or lunatic”. This restriction was based on the
grounds that the aforementioned groups lacked the mental capacity to enter into
such a legal contract (Larson, Sex, Race,
and Science, p. 98).
Major Proponents
(Photo
origin: University of Georgia Libraries, Special Collections,
available at
http://www.libs.uga.edu/russell/collections/arnalloralhistory/index.shtml)
A major proponent of eugenics in Georgia was Ellis Arnall. Arnall was a
progressive politician in Georgia who was very much in favor of the practice of
eugenics. He sponsored a sterilization bill in 1935 that called for “one
surgeon and one alienist of recognized ability” to judge the condition of
hospital patients for sterilization. Although this bill was vetoed by the
governor of the time Arnall would still have a hand in eugenics legislation in
the future. He would eventually go on to become governor of Georgia in 1942
(Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, pp.
133-138).
“Feeder institutions” and institutions where sterilizations were performed
The
two most prominent feeder institutions in Georgia were Milledgeville State
Hospital and the Georgia Training School for Mental
Defectives. There were great disparities between the two main
institutions: Before World War II, the Georgia Training School received
significantly less funding than the Milledgeville State Hospital and came under
the control of five different governmental agencies between 1921 and 1940.
These hard times are reflected in the institution’s admissions rates: In 1932
Gracewood had only 249 residents while Milledgeville had almost 6,000 (Noll, Feeble-Minded,
p. 128).
(Photo origin: The New Georgia Encyclopedia, available at http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-1444)
Milledgeville
State Hospital is located in Milledgeville, Georgia, and during the 1960s was
the largest mental hospital in the country, housing over 3,200 patients
(Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, p.
45). Milledgeville was a major location for sterilizations in Georgia during
the 1950s and 1960s. It was renamed Central State Hospital in 1967 and
continues to function as a mental institution today.
The
Georgia Training School for Mental Defectives in Gracewood opened in 1921. The
hospital’s initial main function was to be a place of residence for eugenically
segregated individuals, mostly the mentally retarded. The hospital has since
changed its name to Gracewood State School and Hospital (and now Gracewood
Center) and still functions as a mental hospital (Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, p. 54; Noll, “Public Face,” p. 29).
Neither
hospital’s current websites reference their history as an institution for
eugenics.
Opposition
The
greatest opposition to eugenics in Georgia came from the Catholic Church. When
Governor Talmadge vetoed the first sterilization bill in 1935 the publicity
director of the Catholic Layman’s Association of Georgia wrote a letter to a
Georgia newspaper praising his decision (Larson, Sex, Race, and Science, p. 136). Savannah’s black newspaper also opposed the
1935 Sterilization Act stating that they were afraid their race would be
singled out for sterilization (Larson, Sex,
Race, and Science, p. 156). Also,
one of the most influential opponents of eugenics was Eugene Talmadge, the
governor who vetoed the original 1935 sterilization bill because he was against
all progressive and New Deal measures which included the sterilization bill. (Larson, “Belated Progress,” p. 58).
Bibliography
Larson, Edward J. 1991. “Belated
Progress: The Enactment of Eugenic Legislation in Georgia.” Journal of the History of Medicine and
Allied Sciences 46: 44-64.
Larson, Edward J. 1995. Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Noll, Steven. 2005. “The Public Face of
Southern Institutions for the ‘Feeble-Minded.’” The Public Historian 27, 2: 25-42.
Noll, Steven. 1995. Feeble-Minded
in Our Midst: Institutions for the Mentally Retarded in the South, 1900-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Paul, Julius. 1965. "'Three Generations of Imbeciles Are
Enough: State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and
Practice." Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.