Three Generations, No Imbeciles

Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v Bell by Paul A Lombardo, 279 pages

In 1924, Dr Albert Priddy declared Carrie Buck to be "socially inadequate", which by Virginia law allowed for her involuntary sterilization in order to protect society from her potential offspring and their undesirable genetics.  He premised his conclusion on a study of Carrie's mother and infant daughter, finding both to be feeble-minded.  A legal challenge to the Virginia law, considered a model by eugenicists across the nation, was launched on Buck's behalf, and her case eventually reached the Supreme Court.  Famed jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion that summarized progressive thinking on the matter - "It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...  Three generations of imbeciles are enough."  Carrie Buck was duly sterilized as a threat to public health, along with tens of thousands of other women across America over the decades that followed.

Paul Lombardo's research into the case of Buck v Bell turns up a number of surprises.  Carrie Buck was carefully selected by Priddy and his associates as a test case for the law he helped write, and her lawyer was also a eugenics enthusiast.  The evidence presented concerning Buck's family history and mental faculties were riddled with errors, errors her lawyer had neither the information nor the inclination to correct.  The author succeeds admirably at his double task of telling the story of Carrie Buck and placing that story within the broader context of the push for eugenic sterilization, although he does oddly downplay the wide acceptance of eugenics among social scientists and social engineers.  Lombardo is a legal scholar by profession, but this is not a dry account of motions and counter-motions - he possesses a considerable talent for conveying the personalities of the individuals involved, making even the villains of the narrative understandable and even likable.  His readable, relatable tale of institutional abuse and technocratic arrogance sheds a light on a key part of a dark - and ongoing - chapter in American history.