More Civil War Medicine

Assistant Surgeon’s archive, William King, 124th Indiana
Sunday January 07th 2007, 8:23 pm Filed under: Surgery, Indiana
A surgeon in the 124th Indiana, William King’s Civil War service was at its most intense during the Atlanta Campaign, when his regiment was almost continuously engaged. Five of the ten letters that survive document that campaign in serial fashion, beginning with a letter mentioning the rough field hospitals that dotted Tennessee in 1864 and 1865, a harbinger of things to come. The letters that follow document the mechanical, unstoppable force that was Sherman’s army.
May 21, 1864: “Two weeks ago the great fight commenced and we have been in line of battle or on the march guarding trains ever since… We have driven the rebels from their fortifications and have been all this week following them up and fighting them as we go. They will probably make a stand twenty miles from here and give us another battle. The boys have marched hard… We are encamped in the most beautiful country but is desolated by an immense army. The most of the people have gone and left their splendid homes to be ransacked by soldiers. The little village of Cassville near which we are encamped is a beautiful town but the houses are torn down, fences destroyed, and everything laid waste. I have seen enough of war to make me ardently hope for a final close to it.”
June 15, near Dallas, Ga.: “We are gradually passing down into the open country pushing the rebels before us. We are all anxious that they shall make a final stand and let us fight it through, but they do not seem disposed to do so. They get into their strong holds in the mountains and we have to flank them and then they fall back again and so it has been for weeks fighting more or less every day… There has been almost continual skirmishing amounting to considerable fights at times. Killed and wounded are brought in every day. We have field hospitals and hospitals back six miles on the rail road but these are miserable places and a sick man stands a poor chance here…”
June 23: “The rebel prisoners that I have seen are all large fine looking and healthy men. They don’t look much like being starved. I think what starving is done is on our side. Our boys are nearly all the time on short rations and they would give any thing almost for sow belly as they call it, as they draw none of it, but get fresh beef instead. I do not eat the beef as it is poor and badly butchered…”
July 25: “We are laying in front of Atlanta throwing shells into the city occasionally and expecting to attack it. We crossed the Chattahoochie River on the 8th of the month and have after the Rebs ever since. Our Regiment are now in fortifications immediately in front and in sight of the town. We are continually exchanging artillery shots and skirmishing, although neither party are loosing many men for several days… I was in our breastworks day before yesterday on Co. I of our Regiment when one of the boys was shot by a sharp shooter through the breast and killed immediately. I was standing near enough to touch him when he was killed…”
Oct. 17: “We have had a lively campaign so far, with short rations and no baggage. We started from Decatur on the 5th of this month and having been going ever since except two days… We were sent with our Brigade to reinforce the garrison at Altoona, but got there just after the fight was over. The fight there was one of the brightest pages in the history of this war. The garrison lost 33 per cent of their whole number. They killed and wounded more than their whole number. We had to take in the wounded and dead rebs for several days after the fight. The rebs have left the railroad here and it is supposed have gone south again… we have been chasing them for ten weeks. We caught up with them near Rome and our Corps was sent after them. We captured two cannon & a lot of butternuts. I dressed the wounds of four that were badly wounded. We had about thirty prisoners all together. These are all we have had the pleasure of seeing yet. They were only a brigade that had been left to match our army…”
The Civil War surgeon went to work immediately, hoping to finish before the drug wore off.
Sunday December 03rd 2006, 4:45 pm Filed under: Doctor, Surgery
Surgeons and amputations during the Civil War
“At the time of the Civil War, ether or chloroform or a mixture of the two was administered by an assistant, who placed a loose cloth over the patient’s face and dripped some anesthetic onto it while the patient breathed deeply. When given this way, the initial effects are a loss of consciousness accompanied by a stage of excitement . . . . The Civil War surgeon went to work immediately, hoping to finish before the drug wore off. Although the excited patient was unaware of what was happening and felt no pain, he would be agitated, moaning or crying out, and thrashing about during the operation. He had to be held still by assistants so the surgeon could continue.” Bollet, (p. 32).
It is commonly believed that most Civil War surgeons were simply butchers, amputating arms and legs unnecessarily oftentimes. This popular misconception is partially due to movies and film depicting gross scenes of amputations performed by rogue surgeons against the screaming wishes of his patient as the doctor amputates a bleeding leg. Though grotesque scenes such as these make for good cinema, it was hardly the typical experience during the Civil War.
Dr. Alfred Bollet dispels several myths about surgery during the Civil War in his fine article (The Truth about Civil War Surgery) in the October 2004 issue of Civil War Times. Bollet explains how surgeons had other procedures they could use besides amputation, how surgery was almost always done with anesthesia, that most wounds were not just to arms and legs, and that not every surgeon had the authority to amputate. To be sure, there were some isolated incidences of surgery done without anesthesia (for example at Iuka, Mississippi on September 17, 1862) and/or cases where an amputation was not necessary. But medical scholars and historians attest that the surgical care provided by doctors to soldiers during the Civil War was very good for its time. This is all the more remarkable when we realize that little was known about germs, and the spread of infection, and drugs were nearly non-existent in the 1860s. Perhaps a major reason why it was commonly believed, especially by soldiers, is because of how little soldiers knew about anesthesia back then. Bollet writes:
“At the time of the Civil War, ether or chloroform or a mixture of the two was administered by an assistant, who placed a loose cloth over the patient’s face and dripped some anesthetic onto it while the patient breathed deeply. When given this way, the initial effects are a loss of consciousness accompanied by a stage of excitement . . . . The Civil War surgeon went to work imediately, hoping to finish before the drug wore off. Although the excited patient was unaware of what was happening and felt no pain, he would be agitated, moaning or crying out, and thrashing about during the operation. He had to be held still by assistants so the surgeon could continue.” Bollet, (p. 32).
Most amputations performed during the Civil War were necessary to save the life of the soldier. Wounds caused by bullets and artillery normally shattered the bone. The only recourse for most soldiers, if they wanted to live, would be to have the shattered bone or limb removed. The closer the amputation occurred to the trunk of the soldier the more likely it was for a soldier to not survive the operation. The fatality rate for soldiers who received an amputation was around 25% overall. Those who did die after amputation often did so because of infection, complications or because the wound was too severe to be able to survive.