# Who do conservative bloggers think are the worst figures in American history? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 14, 2010, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222 "2010-08-14T07:17:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/41 "2010-08-14T22:54:04Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > > > You’re absolutely correct, although it does seem relevant to add that these are 43 popular (whatever that means here) self-identifying conservative bloggers. One might properly draw the conclusion that it’s a semi-accurate barometer of “conservative” noisemakers, assuming the 43 are actually representative. > > :dubious: You say I’m absolutely correct and then say something that’s the complete opposite of what I said. This “poll” says nothing about any larger group than the respondents. That is the only conclusion one may properly draw. C’mon, I know you have some non-zero level of reading comprehension. I suggest you re-read my response. Note in particular the inclusion of the word “ **noisemakers** ” and the phrases “ **seem relevant to add** ” and “ **assuming the 43 are actually representative** ”. But if you want to throw down with semantic nitpicking, I’ll play along. At least for a short time… ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/42 "2010-08-14T22:57:10Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > > [@Merneith](#): > > > > Booth tied with [Margaret Sanger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) - because the world was so much better before birth control and sex education. > > Actually, the criticism against her focuses on her racist eugenics philosophy, but that was pretty much all the rage with the smart set of the early 1900s-30s. After the 1940’s, it kinda fell out of favor for some reason. > > However, I will defend her on one point- as far as I’ve been able to find out, she was anti-abortion. Like heatmiserfl, I don’t believe for a minute that the inclusion of Sanger is because of her interest in eugenics. Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes all supported eugenics, to name a very few. None of them made the list. The man most responsible for promoting eugenics in the US was Charles Davenport - he didn’t make the list, even though he worked directly with the pre-war Berlin eugenics institute (name of which escapes me atm.) Furthermore, Sanger’s interest in eugenics was not race-based, as you claim (and unlike Davenport.) Sanger was concerned about medical fitness and not skin color. Sanger promoted only sterilization for the profoundly retarded or diseased. Also, she did not agree with euthanasia for the unfit, unlike other eugeneticists of the time. Sanger’s repeatedly stated view was that the best way to ensure the healthiest children was to put birth control in the hands of women who could decided best when and with whom to conceive. I have no desire to whitewash eugenics but to pretend that Sanger deserves special criticism for it, while insisting that her crusade for birth control is just a coincidence, is, well, “disingenuous” is the politest word I can find. As for the abortion, which is kind of a side issue here - Sanger stated repeatedly that it was sometimes justified, when done by a doctor, even though she felt it was taking a life. She felt education and open access to birth control were the best means of eliminating abortion. She’s right about that, too, but it puts her at odds with all the major anti-abortion groups out there. And again, I don’t believe for a minute that’s just a coincidence in conservative’s hatred to her. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/43 "2010-08-14T22:57:27Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > **heatmiserfl** , I didn’t SAY she was racist. 😕 I know. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/44 "2010-08-14T23:03:19Z")
I tried to imagine. Names as I thought of them: John Brown FDR LBJ Jimmy Carter Margaret Sanger George McGovern? Rachel Carson … Andrew Jackson? 4/7 hits. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/45 "2010-08-14T23:08:03Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Because, the Carter economic policies were so good… :rolleyes: Carter is unfairly blamed for the collapse of an unsustainable domestic petroleum industry. Since that time, it’s been stupidly chic to blame him for an exaggerated description of the woes of the 1970’s while downplaying similar problems since. Rather than to deal with reality, actual economic policy on the right has come up short in dealing with chronic unemployment–preferring to just move the homeless into a different category. Such persons have no place to denounce Carter. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Presidente](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@El\_Presidente](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Presidente)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/46 "2010-08-14T23:26:42Z")
I’m a bit surprised George Soros isn’t higher on the list, since according to the righties all he does is go around crushing countries currencies, then using the billions in profits to fund evil liberal causes here in the United States. He’s the liberal version of Blofeld. Woody Wilson has been getting a ton of hate on conservative talk radio over the past year. Racist, creator of the UN, failed foreign policies, creator of the Fed etc etc. I think I remember Mike Savage or Glen Beck classifying him as a downright evil individual. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/47 "2010-08-14T23:55:36Z")
Oh, you’re right. I stand corrected in my above post - Woody’s #5. Although like Stanger, I suspect the racist charges are more incidental to the big issues (the Fed & the UN, birth control) in terms of conservative ire. eta - It was League of Nations, actually, wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/48 "2010-08-14T23:55:53Z")
> [@El\_Presidente](#): > > Woody Wilson has been getting a ton of hate on conservative talk radio over the past year. Racist, creator of the UN, failed foreign policies, creator of the Fed etc etc. I think I remember Mike Savage or Glen Beck classifying him as a downright evil individual. As the only President ever to have a PhD, Wilson is a predictable enough target for populist anti-intellectuals like Savage and Beck. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/49 "2010-08-15T00:01:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So who’d be on a liberal bloggers’ list? Reagan? Bush43? Hoover? Oliver North? Ken Starr? I guess Nixon, Booth, McVeigh and Arnold have a shot at appearing on both lists. I think Senator Joe McCarthy would rank pretty high as would J. Edgar Hoover. Also, any number of openly racist and race-baiting politicians (e.g., [Theodore G. Bilbo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_G._Bilbo) or Strom Thurmond) would fill a few slots. [QUOTE=Frank] I tend to compare Carter to Herbert Hoover, who I expect would show up on a similar poll of unknown liberal bloggers. Both were not very good presidents; both were (are) very good and decent men whose actions outside the presidency were a benefit to humanity. [/QUOTE] I’m a liberal but even I think Herbert Hoover got a bit of a bad rap with regards to the Depression. He had only been in office a few short months before it happened. His predecessor, Calvin Coolidge, probably deserves more blame and should be ranked higher on any “worst figures in American history” list put together by liberals. In any case, both Hoover and Coolidge were far better presidents than James Buchanan who could easily be on either a conservative or liberal list. [QUOTE=monstro] I guess if they put down any Civil War figures (except for John Wilkes Booth), they’d be acknowledging their sympathies. So they decided to stay out of that mess, even though that period of time was the most important one in this country’s history. [/QUOTE] Somebody could’ve included [William Quantrill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Quantrill). Regardless of whether you’re liberal or conservative, you’d have to consider him pretty odious. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/50 "2010-08-15T00:09:56Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … Carter also deserves blame for creating the … the Department of Education. … For certain limited definitions of the word “create”, > [@](#): > > The United States Department of Education … is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88), signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 16, 1980. > > The Department of Education Organization Act divided the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. …[RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education)[/RIGHT] That bastard, thinking that “health/welfare” and “education” are actually distinct enough to warrant being separate departments. How stupid. :rolleyes: I’m sure you’ll join in my burning hatred of William Howard “Yoko” Taft for breaking up the [Department of Commerce and Labor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce_and_Labor)? CMC fnord! Reading the excerpts of what Margaret Sanger wrote, this struck me “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence.” Sounds like it’d fit right into the Republican platform in any year in my lifetime. Can’t see how any Republican, conservative, right-winger, your preferred word here, would find anything to obje … oh wait, “We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother…” “No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.” The entire purpose of tarring Sanger with a grossly over simplified accusation of _eugenicist_ is to blow the [dog-whistle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics) and leave in the minds of the sharp-eared that Planned Parenthood has a hidden nefarious agenda. Mind you, I’ve heard and read folks who straight-up say that Planned Parenthood’s business is the elimination of minority races. :rolleyes: An “abortion should be safe and rare, because effective contraceptives should be cheap and common” Sanger (and PP) is infinitely harder to argue against than the caricature of Sanger (and by extension PP) as a pre-Nazi Nazi eugenicist is. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/51 "2010-08-15T01:47:16Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > > [@FriarTed](#): > > > > Actually, the criticism against her focuses on her racist eugenics philosophy, but that was pretty much all the rage with the smart set of the early 1900s-30s. > > I see this get thrown around a lot by anti-choice propaganda cites. The insinuation is usually the Hitler-type eugenics but I never see anything in legitimate sources about this. All I know is that she was for promoting birth control, especially for poor women who were basically chattel and their children who had a bad life ahead of them. As far as I know she wasn’t into killing undesirables. Also, sterilization was only for people with serious problems like schizophrenics, etc. Certainly not something we would do now but this was a common opinion among not just the “smart set” until very recently. > > I doubt any so-called conservatives give a shit about anything other than her promoting birth control and their association of Planned Parenthood only with abortion. No, Sanger really was a racist. She was a “nativist” who didn’t want foreigners coming into her America. Nowadays she’d be saying we should make English the official national language and complaining about the Ground Zero mosque. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/52 "2010-08-15T02:16:46Z")
As I said in comments at Right Wing News, while living in South Carolina in late 1991, I overheard some kids taunting one another. “You’re Pee-Wee Gaskins!” “Well, YOU’re Pee-Wee Herman!” At the time, I was amused by the childish lumping together of a serial killer and a guy who’d been caught masturbating in a movie theater. I hadn’t thought about that for many years, but this list called that vignette back to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/53 "2010-08-15T02:19:32Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I guess if they put down any Civil War figures (except for John Wilkes Booth), they’d be acknowledging their sympathies. So they decided to stay out of that mess, even though that period of time was the most important one in this country’s history. What, ya mean people like David Dixon Porter, my personal hero? How would that indicate my “sympathies”, and what would it indicate about them? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/54 "2010-08-15T03:10:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, Sanger really was a racist. She was a “nativist” who didn’t want foreigners coming into her America. Nowadays she’d be saying we should make English the official national language and complaining about the Ground Zero mosque. Nativist is not the same as racist (although there’s undoubtedly a large overlap.) And while I have made a life study of Sanger, I haven’t been able to find anything from that wasn’t aimed at curtailing poverty and disease, rather than race. Have you? Some of the most common quotes about her racism are either misattributions or completely unsourced. That line supposedly by her about black people being human weeds to exterminate - there’s no source for it. [Cite Wikiquotes](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) Sometimes people say it comes from Sanger’s work, “The Pivot of Civilization”. It doesn’t. You can read ["Pivot](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm) at Project Gutenberg. It ain’t there. That line about from the letter Sanger wrote to a Dr. Gamble in 1939 gets a lot of mileage in a truncated form: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Here’s a larger excerpt (copied from Wikileaks: > [@](#): > > [We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. Sanger’s point was that she wanted educated the black populace and counter her attackers who were accusing her of racial eugenics. Like crowmanyclouds points out - people today are still accusing birth control advocates of committing genocide against blacks. Here’s a better explanation of the Negro Project, Sanger’s role in its beginnings, and its evolution, from the [Sanger Papers newsletter at NYU](http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html) Sanger’s writing, in its entirety, makes it clear that her goal was to eradicate poverty and the perpetuation of the poverty cycle by education and access to birth control. The black population at the time was among the poorest and had among the least access to education or medical care. There is nothing in Sanger’s papers to support the idea that she was working for the extermination of poor blacks. There’s just that one partial quote, saying she doesn’t want people to get the wrong impression, and from that, anti-Planned Parenthood forces have blared it about that the “wrong impression” was really her super secret plan all along. And somehow she managed to talk all sorts of important people, including black leaders, into making it happen, without ever once letting on except for this one slip. Was Sanger a racist? Sure. It was the 20’s. Everyone was a racist. Everyone hated poor immigrants. No surprises there. Undoubtedly some individual doctors involved were racists. But there’s nothing in Sanger’s papers to support that her goal was anything other than to eliminate poverty by focusing on some of the people with the least resources: uneducated black women with no access to reproductive control. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/55 "2010-08-15T03:26:52Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > > [@FriarTed](#): > > > > Actually, the criticism against her focuses on her racist eugenics philosophy, but that was pretty much all the rage with the smart set of the early 1900s-30s. After the 1940’s, it kinda fell out of favor for some reason. > > > > However, I will defend her on one point- as far as I’ve been able to find out, she was anti-abortion. > > Like heatmiserfl, I don’t believe for a minute that the inclusion of Sanger is because of her interest in eugenics. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood which to them=abortion. It doesn’t matter that she herself only supported abortion in special cases. And what the hell was wrong with Alinsky? You might as well as put Martin Luther King on the list. Yeesh. ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/56 "2010-08-15T05:39:12Z")
Even if Sanger was pro-negative-eugenics (how’s that for a weird hyphenation?), her actions didn’t really lead to any major policies or practices that disenfranchised the feeble-minded or whomever she didn’t like. She’s known for starting the birth control movement because that actually happened. If Sanger’s eugenics position was somehow criteria to make it on your list of Worst Figures in American History, the rest of your list would probably be filled with run of the mill skinheads. My guess is that she was included because of the whole Planned Parenthood = Abortion link that Guinastasia mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/57 "2010-08-15T13:41:50Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > No, Sanger really was a racist. She was a “nativist” who didn’t want foreigners coming into her America. Nowadays she’d be saying we should make English the official national language and complaining about the Ground Zero mosque. > > Nativist is not the same as racist (although there’s undoubtedly a large overlap.) And while I have made a life study of Sanger, I haven’t been able to find anything from that wasn’t aimed at curtailing poverty and disease, rather than race. Have you? > > Some of the most common quotes about her racism are either misattributions or completely unsourced. That line supposedly by her about black people being human weeds to exterminate - there’s no source for it. [Cite Wikiquotes](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) Sometimes people say it comes from Sanger’s work, “The Pivot of Civilization”. It doesn’t. You can read ["Pivot](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm) at Project Gutenberg. It ain’t there. > > That line about from the letter Sanger wrote to a Dr. Gamble in 1939 gets a lot of mileage in a truncated form: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Here’s a larger excerpt (copied from Wikileaks: > > > [@](#): > > > > [We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. > > Sanger’s point was that she wanted educated the black populace and counter her attackers who were accusing her of racial eugenics. Like crowmanyclouds points out - people today are still accusing birth control advocates of committing genocide against blacks. > > Here’s a better explanation of the Negro Project, Sanger’s role in its beginnings, and its evolution, from the [Sanger Papers newsletter at NYU](http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html) > > Sanger’s writing, in its entirety, makes it clear that her goal was to eradicate poverty and the perpetuation of the poverty cycle by education and access to birth control. The black population at the time was among the poorest and had among the least access to education or medical care. There is nothing in Sanger’s papers to support the idea that she was working for the extermination of poor blacks. There’s just that one partial quote, saying she doesn’t want people to get the wrong impression, and from that, anti-Planned Parenthood forces have blared it about that the “wrong impression” was really her super secret plan all along. And somehow she managed to talk all sorts of important people, including black leaders, into making it happen, without ever once letting on except for this one slip. > > Was Sanger a racist? Sure. It was the 20’s. Everyone was a racist. Everyone hated poor immigrants. No surprises there. Undoubtedly some individual doctors involved were racists. But there’s nothing in Sanger’s papers to support that her goal was anything other than to eliminate poverty by focusing on some of the people with the least resources: uneducated black women with no access to reproductive control. Excellent post. Let’s just say that Sanger’s strain of racism was common at the time and much milder than, say, the average teabagger ( 😉 ). Most importantly, even if she looked down on African Americans, just like Lincoln BTW, she was empathetic of their plight and supported policies to help African Americans in the South get access to better education. That doesn’t sound like someone who thinks they are genetically inferior. Now, I think she was, by far, most harsh on the wide range of people who were considered to be mental deficients or “feeble minded” as **Guin** quoted (those who ended up in mental institutions like the mentally retarded, epileptic, mentally ill). These mental problems (with the exception of dementia caused by illness or old age) were considered to be heritable and effective treatment was rare or not available. So sterilization was considered to be a proper course of action and this approach on people in institutions lasted well into the 20th century. But let’s just say that I doubt most conservative bloggers are serious students of history and Sanger is bad 'cuz she’s one of the founders of FemNazism and the prime perpetrator of the egg, sperm and fetal holocaust. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/58 "2010-08-15T15:30:00Z")
Here’s some of Sanger’s own words on the subject of who should be allowed to have children. > [@](#): > > There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants. Feeble-mindedness as investigations and statistics from every country indicate, is invariably associated with an abnormally high rate of fertility. Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding-ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile. “We protect the members of a weak strain,” says Davenport, “up to the period of reproduction, and then let them free upon the community, and encourage them to leave a large progeny of ‘feeble-minded’: which in turn, protected from mortality and carefully nurtured up to the reproductive period, are again set free to reproduce, and so the stupid work goes on of preserving and increasing our socially unfit strains.” > > The philosophy of Birth Control points out that as long as civilized communities encourage unrestrained fecundity in the “normal” members of the population - always of course under the cloak of decency and morality - and penalize every attempt to introduce the principle of discrimination and responsibility in parenthood, they will be faced with the ever-increasing problem of feeble-mindedness, that fertile parent of degeneracy, crime, and pauperism. Small as the percentage of the imbecile and half-witted may seem in comparison with the normal members of the community, it should always be remembered that feeble-mindedness is not an unrelated expression of modern civilization. Its roots strike deep into the social fabric. Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations - unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities. > > The curious situation has come about that while our statesmen are busy upon their propaganda of “repopulation,” and are encouraging the production of large families, they are ignoring the exigent problem of the elimination of the feeble-minded. In this, however, the politicians are at one with the traditions of a civilization which, with its charities and philanthropies, has propped up the defective and degenerate and relieved them of the burdens borne by the healthy sections of the community, thus enabling them more easily and more numerously to propagate their kind. “With the very highest motives,” declares Dr. Walter E. Fernald, “modern philanthropic efforts often tend to foster and increase the growth of defect in the community… The only feeble-minded persons who now receive any official consideration are those who have already become dependent or delinquent, many of whom have already become parents. We lock the barn-door after the horse is stolen. We now have state commissions for controlling the gipsy-moth and the boll weevil, the foot-and-mouth disease, and for protecting the shell-fish and wild game, but we have no commission which even attempts to modify or to control the vast moral and economic forces represented by the feeble-minded persons at large in the community.” > > … > Thus we are brought face to face with another problem of infant mortality. Are we to check the infant mortality rate among the feeble-minded and aid the unfortunate offspring to grow up, a menace to the civilized community even when not actually certifiable as mentally defective or not obviously imbecile? > > Other figures and studies indicate the close relationship between feeble-mindedness and the spread of venereal scourges. We are informed that in Michigan, 75 per cent. of the prostitute class is infected with some form of venereal disease, and that 75 per cent. of the infected are mentally defective,–morons, imbeciles, or “border-line” cases most dangerous to the community at large. At least 25 per cent. of the inmates of our prisons, according to Dr. Fernald, are mentally defective and belong either to the feeble-minded or to the defective-delinquent class. Nearly 50 per cent. of the girls sent to reformatories are > mental defectives. Today, society treats feeble-minded or “defective delinquent” men or women as “criminals,” sentences them to prison or reformatory for a “term,” and then releases them at the expiration of their sentences. They are usually at liberty just long enough to reproduce their kind, and then they return again and again to prison. The truth of this statement is evident from the extremely large proportion in institutions of neglected and dependent children, who are the feeble-minded offspring of such feeble-minded parents. > > Confronted with these shocking truths about the menace of feeble-mindedness to the race, a menace acute because of the unceasing and unrestrained fertility of such defectives, we are apt to become the victims of a “wild panic for instant action.” There is no occasion for hysterical, ill-considered action, specialists tell us. They direct our attention to another phase of the problem, that of the so-called “good feeble-minded.” We are informed that imbecility, in itself, is not synonymous with badness. If it is fostered in a “suitable environment,” it may express itself in terms of good citizenship and useful occupation. It may thus be transmuted into a docile, tractable, and peaceable element of the community. The moron and the feeble-minded, thus protected, so we are assured, may even marry some brighter member of the community, and thus lessen the chances of procreating another generation of imbeciles. We read further that some of our doctors believe that “in our social scale, there is a place for the good feeble-minded.” > > In such a reckless and thoughtless differentiation between the “bad” and the “good” feeble-minded, we find new evidence of the conventional middle-class bias that also finds expression among some of the eugenists. We do not object to feeble-mindedness simply because it leads to immorality and criminality; nor can we approve of it when it expresses itself in docility, submissiveness and obedience. We object because both are burdens and dangers to the intelligence of the community. As a matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that the so-called “borderline cases” are a greater menace than the out-and-out “defective delinquents” who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind. The advent of the Binet-Simon and similar psychological tests indicates that the mental defective who is glib and plausible, bright looking and attractive, but with a mental vision of seven, eight or nine years, may not merely lower the whole level of intelligence in a school or in a society, but may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates and gives the prevailing “color” - culturally speaking - to an entire community. > > The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult, and is one of the chief reasons for lower educational standards. As one of the greatest living authorities on the subject, Dr. A. Tredgold, has pointed out, this has created a destructive conflict of purpose. “In the case of children with a low intellectual capacity, much of the education at present provided is for all practical purposes a complete waste of time, money and patience… On the other hand, for children of high intellectual capacity, our present system does not go far enough. I believe that much innate potentiality remains undeveloped, even amongst the working classes, owing to the absence of opportunity for higher education, to the disadvantage of the nation. In consequence of these fundamental differences, the catchword ‘equality of opportunity’ is meaningless and mere claptrap in the absence of any equality to respond to such opportunity. What is wanted is not equality of opportunity, but education adapted to individual potentiality; and if the time and money now spent in the fruitless attempt to make silk-purses out of sows’ ears, were devoted to the higher education of children of good natural capacity, it would contribute enormously to national efficiency.” > > In a much more complex manner than has been recognized even by students of this problem, the destiny and the progress of civilization and of human expression has been hindered and held back by this burden of the imbecile and the moron. While we may admire the patience and the deep human sympathy with which the great specialists in feeble-mindedness have expressed the hope of drying up the sources of this evil or of rendering it harmless, we should not permit sympathy or sentimentality to blind us to the fact that health and vitality and human growth likewise need cultivation. “A LAISSER FAIRE policy,” writes one investigator, “simply allows the social sore to spread. And a quasi LAISSER FAIRE policy wherein we allow the defective to commit crime and then interfere and imprison him, wherein we grant the defective the personal liberty to do as he pleases, until he pleases to descend to a plane of living below the animal level, and try to care for a few of his descendants who are so helpless that they can no longer exercise that personal liberty to do as they please,” - such a policy increases and multiplies the dangers of the over-fertile feeble-minded. > > … > > I have touched upon these various aspects of the complex problem of the feeble-minded, and the menace of the moron to human society, not merely for the purpose of reiterating that it is one of the greatest and most difficult social problems of modern times, demanding an immediate, stern and definite policy, but because it illustrates the actual harvest of reliance upon traditional morality, upon the biblical injunction to increase and multiply, a policy still taught by politician, priest and militarist. Motherhood has been held universally sacred; yet, as Bouchacourt pointed out, “today, the dregs of the human species, the blind, the deaf-mute, the degenerate, the nervous, the vicious, the idiotic, the imbecile, the cretins and the epileptics - are better protected than pregnant women.” The syphilitic, the irresponsible, the feeble-minded are encouraged to breed unhindered, while all the powerful forces of tradition, of custom, or prejudice, have bolstered up the desperate effort to block the inevitable influence of true civilization in spreading the principles of independence, self-reliance, discrimination and foresight upon which the great practice of intelligent parenthood is based. > > Today we are confronted by the results of this official policy. There is no escaping it; there is no explaining it away. Surely it is an amazing and discouraging phenomenon that the very governments that have seen fit to interfere in practically every phase of the normal citizen’s life, dare not attempt to restrain, either by force or persuasion, the moron and the imbecile from producing his large family of feeble-minded offspring. > > In my own experience, I recall vividly the case of a feeble-minded girl who every year, for a long period, received the expert attention of a great specialist in one of the best-known maternity hospitals of New York City. The great obstetrician, for the benefit of interns and medical students, performed each year a Caesarian operation upon this unfortunate creature to bring into the world her defective, and, in one case at least, her syphilitic, infant. “Nelly” was then sent to a special room and placed under the care of a day nurse and a night nurse, with extra and special nourishment provided. Each year she returned to the hospital. Such cases are not exceptions; any experienced doctor or nurse can recount similar stories. In the interest of medical science this practice may be justified. I am not criticising it from that point of view. I realize as well as the most conservative moralist that humanity requires that healthy members of the race should make certain sacrifices to preserve from death those unfortunates who are born with hereditary taints. But there is a point at which philanthropy may become positively dysgenic, when charity is converted into injustice to the self-supporting citizen, into positive injury to the future of the race. Such a point, it seems obvious, is reached when the incurably defective are permitted to procreate and thus increase their numbers. > > … > > But modern society, which has respected the personal liberty of the individual only in regard to the unrestricted and irresponsible bringing into the world of filth and poverty an overcrowding procession of infants foredoomed to death or hereditable disease, is now confronted with the problem of protecting itself and its future generations against the inevitable consequences of this long-practised policy of LAISSER-FAIRE. > > The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded. > > The Pivot of Civilization > CHAPTER IV: The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/59 "2010-08-16T02:33:32Z")
Yeah. She was a eugenicist. Like I said above, she was concerned with eradicating disease and unfit-ness in the species. She wanted to sterilize the most mentally-defective. She believed birth control and empowering women to decide their own reproductive choices was the best way to promote overall improvement in the human race. She was not trying to commit genocide against black people. That extended quote is ugly to modern ears but it’s not racist. NOTE: when I said above: “And while I have made a life study of Sanger, …” I really meant to say “And while I have not made a life study of Sanger, …” I also have not made a life study of typing, sadly. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222/60 "2010-08-16T03:37:24Z")
As I wrote, I think her prejudices were primarily against foreigners not blacks. While Sanger cloaked her arguments as being directed against the “feeble-minded” you have to remember that she used that as a broad term. She considered things like being arrested or being poor or having VD as evidence that somebody was mentally unfit and shouldn’t be allowed to have children and pass on their faults to another generation. And while Sanger never personally advocated genocide, she did argue strenously that the government needed to “do something” about these people. They were a threat to our society and we shouldn’t let sentimentality prevent us from protecting ourselves from them. So it’s not a big leap to genocide - if somebody had stepped forward in the 1930’s and started advocating a “final solution” they would have been using Sanger’s words to support their position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-do-conservative-bloggers-think-are-the-worst-figures-in-american-history/550222.md?page=4)